Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:13, 7 September 2007

Arbitrators active on this case

• Blnguyen
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Mackensen
• Matthew Brown (Morven)
• Paul August
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

• Charles Matthews
• Flcelloguy
• Neutrality
• Raul654

Very confused

I've just seen some initial remedies, which are directly related to content, eg, no more "Allegations of..." articles. And yet, were we not all warned not to make sugegsitons about content, as arbcom would not hear them? I think I can say, without overstating the case, that this is one of the most bewildering proposals I have ever seen. AfD isn't even, properly speaking, a vote, as we have seen from the Chinese apartheid AfD... I'm sorry, I'm just sort of speechless right now. Editors in good standing are to be enjoined from expressing an opinion? Because it is now thought that certain articles, which have been soundly ratified by the community, are not as good as certain other articles? I must be reading this wrong. IronDuke 02:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Confused as well

Form WP:AFD (my highlights):

• Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted.
• Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote.
• Don't reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count.

I think that it is a serious mistake to ban a user from participating in AfDs for making a comment in an AfD. If the remedy is to ban a user from !voting, it will still allow the user to comment. Or is it that the idea is to chill participation?

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I also find it unfair that the editors of one side get blocked while the other half get to continue their POV pushing without the opposition allowed to express their view (at least in apartheid-related afd's).--Sefringle 02:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it works that way, Sefringle. If the ArbCom decides that there was intentional disruption, they can decide to apply a remedy to those they consider to be disruptive. My concern is that if an editor has commented in a few AfDs, that in itself cannot be considered disruptive.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no intent to discourage or limit comments or participation, just !votes. As much as we might like it to be otherwise, AfD is still widely regarded as a vote. Comments on this very page (below) refer to the "majority" at AfD, and there is invariably acrimony whenever an admin closes an AfD discussion in a fashion contrary to the numerical votes. The intent of the remedy is to address the disruption without a) having to ban people or put them under some sort of supervision and b) without the Arbcom trying to decide the merits of each article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, UC. See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Chinese_apartheid. Closed delete, and against !votecount. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the ArbCom has to do something. But do not think that the something needs to be related to comments made in AfDs, unless there was a breach of civility or other such aspect during these AfDs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with Sefringle, iron Duke, etc. this process is really starting to veer wildly into all kinds of areas. steering control decreasing fast, captain. --Steve, Sm8900 19:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, so these users will still be able to make any argument in an XfD, as long as it doesn't include the bolded words Support or Oppose? I can't see how that is much of a rebuke. -- 146.115.58.152 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Oh wait, never mind. It seems like the proposals would ban participation as well. OK good. -- 146.115.58.152 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

When Uninvited Co. writes of "other, clearly less meritorious allegations of ... apartheid" can he say which articles those are? Is it Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, which passed AfD with flying colors? Or Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, which was also nearly unanimous in being kept? Perhaps Allegations of Chinese apartheid, which had a clear majority in favor of it? Or Allegations of French apartheid, which also survived AfD? (I'm not including the ostensibly obviously meritorious Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, which a majority of editors voted to delete in its last complete AfD.) And, given that arbcom has been militant about not ruling on content, how is it the conclusion has been arrived at that the... content... of these articles is less meritorious than the parent article? IronDuke 03:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Initial Proposed Remedies

UC's first run at them seems clever - purpose-made for this arbitration without repercussions beyond. We'll see the discussion. I'm wondering if Proposed Principle 3 (Admin's should lead by example) will be reflected somehow in the final version of the remedies. Jd2718 07:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from project page

(comment by refernced user) yikes. that seems a bit unfair. please see my response at the worskhop page. also, please see my contribs history, to see if I have any pattern of incivility or disruptive editing, or whether I have generally been free of such behaviors. i think that is a reasonable request. thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Please note: as someone who presented much of the evidence against Urthogie, I don't believe the sanction for him is justified. Along with Cerejota, he may be one of two editors who actually do believe in these articles. You'll note he voted keep on the Israel article, and thus that he is not on the list of inconsistent voters. Ultimately it appears his position was coopted by others for the purpose of getting rid of the Israel article, but not that this was his aim. In any case, I think he is guilty of some soap boxing, and thus that a warning may be appropriate, but a sharp sanction would I think be mistaken.

As it turns out, Jayjg's involvement here has been by far the most problematic, despite his only having created the one article. I haven't transfered the relevant evidence, because I see that he hasn't been active in over two weeks, and I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Nevertheless, his comments such as here have pretty much been the heart of the problem. I'm willing to think he slipped in making some of these, but whether he's here or not, I think ArbCom needs to be aware of this. Mackan79 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Mackan79, that if we lined up and compared strident commentary from various contributors, there would be some pretty questionable stuff from User:G-Dett and User:ChrisO as well. As it is, I think that such a comparison would never lead to any resolution. As others have pointed out, this is a nasty content dispute, and none of us - not you, me, nor anyone else, is blameless for sometimes stoking the fire. --Leifern 00:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Some might be more to blame than others. I don't think that your point is sufficient for ArbCom to abandon responsibility. Hornplease 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom's responsibility is get editors back into contributing constructively as soon as possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom should not make the assumption that all editors are equally capable of constructive constribution if the same remedy is applied. Graver misbehavior implies a smaller likelihood of immediate, constructive contribution. Obviously. Ignoring that is an abdication of responsibility. Hornplease 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence of "grave misbehavior", sorry. A lot of smoke but very little fire. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your claim earlier was that nobody was 'blameless', and now is about the degree of misbehavior. The two are unrelated. About how grave the misbehavior was, our opinions are not really worth it. However, the fact that all are to some degree guilty means that ArbCom is justified in announcing blanket amnesties (see Piotrus) that ignore degrees of guilt or misbehaviour - your first claim - is something that I feel must be disagreed with. ArbCom has taken on several cases of complexity in the past few months, and avoided sanctions in many of them because of this sort of reasoning. That is an abdication of responsibility, and leads to this sort of thing.Hornplease 06:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not abdication of responsibility, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly as responsible as that was a response. :) Hornplease 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are creative ways to deal with this. All the most active editors can be required to respond a few simple questions about what principles (consistent with WP guidelines and policies) they apply in editing articles and then be held to those through administrative actions. This can be a condition for being allowed to continue to participation, and if you opt out you are voluntarily withdrawing from the issue for a year. --Leifern 19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mackan. User:Urthogie seems to be a true believer, and simply split out the content originally created at Allegations of apartheid largely by User:Jayjg as a content fork of AoIA. Look at that edit (full text) where quote mined allegations of apartheid against many countries are taken with all seriousness, while allegations against Israel are glibly dismissed as the creation of neo-Nazis. -- 146.115.58.152 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question regarding proposed findings of fact #3.1 ("Comments by those involved in the creation and expansion of the allegations of ... apartheid articles indicate that they were created to prove a point ()").

May I ask: has the author of this comment actually created or expanded any of these articles? Jakew 17:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the writer of that comment (Sefringle) did not create any of the articles listed on the evidence page. And although you did not ask, he also is not one of the editors facing proposed remedy #6, that is, a one-year ban on editing any of the articles in question or engaging in deletion/undeletion discussions regarding them. I do not think anyone should receive that penalty, which I will write about separately, but I just find it interesting that this comment by Sefringle is being seized on by some people as some kind of "smoking gun", but it is kind of disconnected from the rest of the case. 6SJ7 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about expansion, but I believe Sefringle didn't make the first edit to any of the articles (although some are split out from a bigger article, and I have no idea who made the first edit to the sections split out). However, there are other citations in evidence that could be used instead, and at least one of those is by the individual that created the most articles in the series. Maybe the Arbcomm should use more diffs here. GRBerry 19:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

One year for WP:POINT?

One year topic ban for an AfD comment, which may or may not be WP:POINT as per the evidence provided? I am missing something? I may understand a need to restrict AfD participation, but a topic ban? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems grossly out of proportion. And in the case of proposal number 6, it really boils down to one AfD, the so-called "fifth" AfD for the Israeli article. And yes, it is highly questionable that this was a WP:POINT violation. I don't think it was. These comments caused no disruption. 6SJ7 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Of all the AfDs on various article, Kirill Lokshin specifically requested information on editors who voted to delete AOIA after voting to keep another AOXA article. It so happens that the only AfD that fit that pattern were AOBrazilA and AOIA(5th). See the evidence talk page. Thatcher131 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. That supports my point that the proposed remedy is way out of proportion. In fact, there is no justification for any remedy at all against these particular editors. 6SJ7 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If implemented, this proposed decision would be a shocking abuse of power. For a case initially brought by a now-sitebanned user, who lumped together various users he didn't like and called them a cabal (later being forced to abandon charges against some of them), ArbCom would essentially cripple several of the most productive editors on Israel-related topics. Very smart. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that a banned user was first in the pot, but plenty of others called and raised behind him. -- 146.115.58.152 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we discussing proposed remedy 1, 2, 3, or 6 here? Whichever we are, all the restrictions proposed thus far are limited to the allegations of apartheid series. Frankly, that won't "cripple" any editors that are here to work on Israeli topics, as there are only two articles in that series that are Israeli topics. The view that the entire series is an Israeli topic would validate the WP:POINT/WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND violation. GRBerry 19:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is routine for ArbCom to determine that editors have been disruptive in certain areas and then ban them from editing within that area. In fact, this is the narrowest topical ban I have ever seen. Thatcher131 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A topic-focused remedy seems appropriate in the circumstances. Wilful misconduct can't be overlooked, particularly when it's caused the chaos we've seen in this instance. The editors responsible for the POINT violations could, should and did know better than to act as they did, and in the case of the admins Humus sapiens and Jayjg they had a specific obligation to prevent disruption. They not only didn't prevent it, they participated in it. And with regard to GRBerry's comments, yes, the entire series is an Israeli topic - that's the only reason why it was created in the first place (as Urthogie has said explicitly). -- ChrisO 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT is a behavioral guideline, and this would be the first instance that it is used for a 1-year topic ban. A significant precedent if it reaches majority in this case, which I hope it will not. If there is any WP:POINT evidence, it is related to comments made at AfDs, and as such, extending this to a topic ban is an overreaching and unnecessary penalty. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT is a guideline; but a FoF that WP:POINT is applicable here implies disruption. A one year topic ban for disruptive editing is not excessive.Hornplease 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of disruptive editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A finding that an editor has violated WP:POINT implies disruption by definition. Hornplease 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If we have to apply your interpretation, we will be soon banning hundreds of contributors. Just check what links there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If a single contributor is disrupting the encyclopaedia to make points, we should be restrict his editing till he adjusts his attitude. If hundreds are, we should be restricting their editing till they adjust theirs. I fancy, however, that most people accused of WP:POINT are not indeed violating it. The number of those 'hundreds' accused of something so egregious as the creation, continuation, and defense of an entire series of articles is, I fancy, not so large. Hornplease 06:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of "these articles" are still there. Most of the material on the deleted articles are now merged into other articles. There was no bad faith involved, but a massive escalation to which many people contributed to, including those that have stated this arbcom proceedings (a now banned user), and most, if not all, users that have been involved in this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT implies disruption. Disruption can be carried out in the best of faith, but is still disruptive, and requires a response. And if most users involved have disrupted the encyclopaedia, let all those who have be sanctioned. Anything else is a cop-out. Hornplease 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We then agree to disagree. 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me high time that all admins acted as if they had a wider duty to the community. Instead of barking off "OR" or "RS" allegations and making partisan reversions, they should be/should have been spending some reasonable proportion of their time paraphrasing arguments as a learning exercise in order to bring less experienced editors up to speed. What we've had since the beginning of the project is people with tremendous power but no requirement to behave in an NPOV fashion with it. I don't wish to see people discouraged from acting as administrators, but they do have responsibility here. Let's hope the new generation will behave many times better than some of the ones we seem to have lost. PalestineRemembered 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy 1: Limitation on AFD/DRV participation

If this remedy is going to get serious consideration, I think that everybody whose votes seem inconsistent should be subject to scrutiny, not just the editors who have "both voted 'Delete' in a deletion discussion regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article and also voted 'Keep' in a deletion discussion regarding any other allegations of ... apartheid article".

I also think that the comments made by the editors, and not simply their keep/delete votes, should be considered. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the reasons given in each AfD are relevant. If an editor writes in one AfD: "This article is POV just by existing" and in another "well-referenced and well-written", then it is disruptive. Hornplease 01:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Finding of Fact 6: Votes to prove a point / Proposed Remedy 6: Point-making voters restricted

Please review the comments made by all editors whose vote to delete/keep the allegations of Israeli apartheid article was inconsistent with her/his earlier vote to keep/delete the allegations of Brazilian apartheid article. I suspect that you will find that voting "largely on principle" is not limited to one side in this matter.

And again, I think it is more important to consider the comments made by the editors, and not simply their keep/delete votes. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with this proposed finding/remedy, even as one of two people who did the requested research. Gzuckier hadn't been named in evidence (except quoting someone who said per him) or on the workshop page, prior to the research request. I've now notified him of the case.

I think there is a relevant and problematic behaviour pattern, and most of those named in the list belong there (as well as some not named). But that pattern would better be analyzed from the arguments used than from simplistic "keep"/"delete" dichotomies. The right type of analysis has been done in /Evidence#Diametrically-opposed positions and non-policy-based block voting. The wrong type of analysis was done in /Evidence#Voting patterns. And in Talk/Evidence#Open question, where I did it because it was requested more than because I thought it was a good idea. (I'm here to try to help the ArbComm, and doing what they ask for is helping them, and I'm quite used to seeing cases go very differently than I would have taken them.) GRBerry 21:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that voting patterns don't prove intent, yet that is exactly the formula that some have wanted to apply to identify "point-makers." The analysis I provided wasn't wrong; it provided - at best - no conclusions, which was exactly the point.

As for the one you thought was right, it proves even less and provides only data points that are convenient for one side of the argument. If the former is inconclusive (and arguably incomplete), the latter is deliberately misleading and biased. If the first Arbcom decision on this matter was to try to work in good faith toward a solution to the broader problem, it would make little sense to penalize those who seek such a systemic problem. --Leifern 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading all the text in the evidence and workshop pages, my feeling is one of disappointment. That well meaning and long-time editors of Misplaced Pages found themselves in an escalating conflict, in which all of us contributed in one way or another to the messy situation we are in now. This arbcom case was started by a now banned user (Ideogram), who was as inflamed for having an article that criticized China for apartheid-like practices against rural workers and Tibetans, as other editors were regarding articles on the same subject related to France, Israel, Cuba, Brazil, Ireland and a few others, in their specific contexts. I do not see malice, bad faith, abuses, or "cabals" as some have argued. I see only an unfortunate escalation, that no remedies will stop, unless the remedies are made to bridge gaps, dress wounds, and encourage all involved in finding ways forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

FoF#6 does not present a good formula for identifying the editors who should be sanctioned. It amounts to sanctioning people for making one or two regrettable edits, which we've all done at some time or other. I think there are individuals and/or groups which have been engaging in sustained, aggressive, biased editing for months. These are the people we should be identifying (we may need to cite more evidence, but it is there), and I very much doubt that JoshuaZ is one of them. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that such a formula amounts to an ex post facto principle. Individuals are proposed penalized for acts (two votes that some might find inconsistent). We haven't even been asked to explain our reasoning. --Leifern 19:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are now realizing that keep/delete isn't a basis, and you need to examine the reasoning, please remove Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence#Voting patterns, where you present solely a list of keep/deletes, and totally ignore the reasonings. GRBerry 19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one bringing this case to the Arbcom; I am not the one accusing other editors of acting in bad faith or creating articles to disrupt Misplaced Pages. I am only pointing out that the vote/delete pattern doesn't prove anything. And you seem to be agreeing with me. --Leifern 22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather uncomfortable with the wording FoF#6, which seems to be modelled on this suggestion from the workshop page — a suggestion, to which, interestingly, the person who suggested it found a more AGF-ish suggestion far preferable. See here, where he says that they cannot both be true, and that his second suggestion "would be far preferable, because it assumed good faith, refraining from condemning people for the way they voted", and where I point out that his second suggestion "assumes good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and far less dogmatic, with 'not necessarily' (which allows for a possible alternative explanation) instead of 'the only reasonable explanation' (which doesn't)." I also point out that an apparently inconsistent voting pattern could indicate specific concerns with specific articles that are unique to those articles, and that it's perfectly possible to be inconsistent and yet sincere. ElinorD (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Allegations of ... apartheid articles created to prove a point

I noticed jpgordon's comments on this item. I suggest that the arbitrators might like to have a look at Urthogie's explanation for the creation of these articles. Since he's the individual who actually created most of them, this seems to me to be more directly relevant to the proposed finding. -- ChrisO 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I created several allegations articles so that Misplaced Pages could be more NPOV that is his/her statement. An editor attempting to make the project more NPOV .... Granted, maybe not the best way, but we cannot assume malice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an explicit violation of , but it could be that he was unaware of the problem with that conduct (though he's been around a few years he's had problems with not understanding appropriate conduct before). I agree with Jossi that an assumption of malice is unwarranted. He should have known that what he did was wrong, but he may not have known. On the other hand, the involved admins knew well that Urthogie's conduct was problematic. They encouraged him, participated in the violations. This is far more serious. Jd2718 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly an example of an editor trying to implement a system of "two wrongs make a right". Urthogie's statement is a tacit admission that he feels the the existence of the Israeli Apartheid article (in his opinion an NPOV violation) justifies the creation of counter-NPOV articles in order to create a "balance". Tarc 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle stated this argument explicitly. Urthogie's statement is merely an implicit version of the same reasoning. -- ChrisO 19:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement to arbcom members on Proposed remedy 6

First off, I’ll just say I don’t support sanctions against any of the folks listed in Proposed remedy 6 : what accepting that would seem to boil down to saying is “We want to chastise certain editors for expressing opinions favorable to articles whose content we feel lacks merit, and for expressing negative opinions on an article whose content we feel either does or does not have merit.” I hope you can understand why this is a little frustrating.

Speaking now only for myself, my reasoning has, I believe, been entirely consistent. All along I have argued that whatever is done with one article should be done with all. I think ChrisO’s evidence demonstrates this quite clearly. If we are to keep the “Allegations of” articles, keep all the well-written, well-sourced ones, if we are to delete them, let’s delete them all. I see nothing POINTy about this, I only argued for consistency. I may be wrong, it may be that accusations against Israel truly are notable where others are not but if so, does that really mean I’m to be sanctioned for expressing an opinion (in the form of a !vote) shared by many who are not a part of this proceeding?

I will also note my puzzlement, in passing, with the proposal to ban me from editing any of the apartheid articles. I believe the total number of edits I have across all articles on the subject is 8 (only in Allegations of Israeli apartheid), and the last edit was made nine months ago before I gave up on it. While such a ban would sure be an upsetting thing for me to endure on a personal level, it would be unlikely to affect my participation in the articles in question. IronDuke 23:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposed remedy would also bar you from deletion discussions on those articles, an area where you've been more active. MastCell 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have indeed been more active in discussions--it in fact comprises virtually all of my contributions to this area. And, as I indicate above, my reasoning has been consistent across all articles, unlike many who have !voted "delete" on all articles on this topic save one. IronDuke 00:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It would bar him from !voting (read deletion discussion), but not from the discussions. If it seems contradictory, well... it is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I understand the distinction you are making, jossi. The editors in question would not be able to edit the article, or to participate in deletion/undeletion discussions, which I understand to mean making any edit at all to a page on AfD or DRV if one of these articles is being discussed. When you say "not from the discussions", do you mean the talk page of the article itself? As I've said above, whatever the details are, this is way, way too much. 6SJ7 00:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the comment by UC above at #Very_confused ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that, but if that's also the case for proposal 6 (which did not exist at the time Uninvited Co. wrote that comment), then the wording needs to be changed. It says "participating", so if that's not what it means, it should be changed. In any event, as I said, there is little point in debating the details of a remedy that should not be imposed at all. 6SJ7 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Point-making voters restricted

There is something contrary to wikipedia interest and also to wikipedia principles in this proposal.

• opposed to principles

It has been said several times (and underlined) that the AfDs are not votes but only presentation of arguments by editors : a discussion.
In preventing some editors to edit these pages, it is prevented some arguments are introduced.
It is therefore a decision relative to a content issue, even if the reasons why they are banned from editing these pages is due to their attitude on others.

• opposed to wikipedia interests

If only the "arguments" are taken into account on these pages, why should it be disrputive some people (even pov-pushers) give their mind ? If what they say is "dishonnest", it will simply not be listened.
Preventing anybody to give his mind is preventing an information to be given. And nothing else, given it is a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alithien (talk • contribs) 05:03, August 17, 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ

I think it's a bit unfair to include JoshuaZ in this given that his first notice of this case was yesterday. Surely he should at least have been invited to present his evidence before being included in any remedies? Or is there something I have missed about how these things work? I'm asking in good faith - it just strikes me as odd. MartinDK 12:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be a second case of the problem discussed in a more general discussion above. A simplistic identification rule was proposed, and it appears to have not caught only those with troubling behavior, while omitting others with troubling behavior. GRBerry 12:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The involvement of JoshuaZ and Gzuckier is an oddity. Both appears to have had some limited involvement in the early AfDs but none after the fifth Israeli apartheid AfD. However, the other parties cited - Humus sapiens, IronDuke, Jayjg, Leifern, and Tickle me - have consistently acted as a block throughout this affair, as the evidence shows. They appear to have been the core group around which the wider block of editors listed in the evidence coalesced during the various AfDs held after the fifth Israeli apartheid AfD. -- ChrisO 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go, inventing things and attacking people again. You have placed these five people in the "core group" because they are the ones who are "nominated" for this draconian sanction. I am sure I would be in your invented "core group" too, if it were not for the happenstance that I did not participate in the AfD on the Brazilian article, and therefore am not on the list for this sanction. 6SJ7 20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, not speaking for others, but since you took the time to compile all that evidence, ChrisO, would you please take another look at it? Where is my "block" vote on Cuba? On American apartheid? My feeling here is that you would just like to see folks who disagree with you punished or sanctioned in some way which is not surprising, but I wish you'd reconsider your approach. IronDuke 02:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, I am always of the notion that given enough rope, some people tend to harm themselves, unaided. ChrisO has taken the stance that he is above reproach in this saga, profusely defending himself of any wrongdoing, while pushing extraordinarily high for the acceptance of his point of view that theres was "cabalism", "core groups", "block voting" and what not. If anything, I find that attitude to be most unbecoming. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just perusing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth_nomination) it's worth noting he originally voted keep, then changed his vote to delete. That's not the sort of knee-jerk reactionism this case is about, and he shouldn't be included. -- 146.115.58.152 04:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

First I need to repeat that I don't think remedy number 6 should be approved against JoshuaZ or anyone else. However, 146.etc (or whoever you really are, in the context of the controversy over this/these article(s)), how do you justify distinctions like that? If you voted keep in one AfD and delete in the second AfD, you get banned from a topic for a whole year, but if you vote in the second AfD started as a keep but changed to a delete 9 hours later, you don't get sanctioned? Likewise, if you happened to miss the first AfD so you never made any decision at all, you don't get sanctioned? (For anyone who has misplaced their scorecard, that situation is me.) I am not asking to be sanctioned of course. I am saying that this all shows why the whole remedy is arbitrary, just one of several reasons why it should not be imposed against anyone. 6SJ7 05:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The five phases of any WP:RfArb are: "Enthusiasm, troublemaking, a search for a scapegoat, the punishment of the innocent, and praise and reward for all non-participants." -- 146.115.58.152 08:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. To start off with, there's an amnesty in there somewhere, as well as a recognition that "some areas of the encyclopaedia are sites of conflict" and "everyone has erred." *grin* Hornplease 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My more serious answer is some should be content that ArbCom has limited the scope to just two AfDs, rather than making a judgment call on the bigger picture. Give people an inch, and they want a mile. If the alleged plot had been allowed to continue to a seventh AfD for AoIA, before the now banned editor had filed this case with ArbCom, I have little doubt there's be a much longer list.

Of course, that same set of editors will have mysteriously changed their minds again about fundamental interpretations of policy by the time that seventh AfD occurs, only now they'll have amnesty to do so. -- 146.115.58.152 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And who would have nominated a seventh AfD for the Israeli article, I wonder? It's noteworthy that none of the editors listed in Finding of Fact # 6 have ever nominated the article for deletion, nor have I. Maybe it would have been nominated by another sockpuppet of someone who was trying to game the system. That's one of the reasons I am always suspicious of people who have pretty obviously been involved in a dispute under another name, and later hide behind a sock or IP. 6SJ7 05:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is wise to be wary, and I cannot in good faith dissuade you from such a mindset. Just look at this new user's contribs. Within 3 minutes of his first (whitespace?) edit he had discovered Template:Allegations of apartheid and made it linkless, and suggested it should be deleted on its talk page. And then retired for the day. Or perhaps forever? Still, the learning curve boggles the mind. But it could happen, right? I prefer Regan's policy, trust, but verify. -- 146.115.58.152 07:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That does indeed look quite disturbing. MartinDK 09:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

146etc., I can think of several possibilities based on that edit history, and on the fact that you pointed it out. In any event, obviously the template in question does not belong on any articles in its current form, so whoever this person has made three constructive edits to articles out of his/her four total edits. (The first edit was not whitespace.) On the template talk page, you suggested deleting it, he/she just agreed with you. If he/she starts showing up on arbitration pages, commenting on everything and everyone and acting like he/she is above the fray, I might feel differently. 6SJ7 16:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Though not as disturbing as this edit from within the Israeli Government Network. Notice how the official reinserted it again after it was reverted as vandalism. There is more going here than meets the eye people. MartinDK 09:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Even assuming you are correct about the source, this is an edit from more than 3 years ago that was reverted in 7 minutes. Vandalism is reverted hundreds (thousands?) of times every day on Misplaced Pages. Why pick out one from so long ago? 6SJ7 16:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"...must exist..."

One proposed finding of fact is "This group maintains that since an article exists for Israel, then corresponding articles must exist for other countries in order to maintain NPOV.

I can't pretent to talk for others in this "group," but this is overstating the point. Here's how I would put it: if allegations of apartheid are made about several countries in the world, then there is no inherent reason why allegations about one country are more noteable than allegations about others. Now, it may very well be that there should be a threshold for what allegations are notable in terms of RS, NPOV, or even prevalence (which is to say that each article should be assessed on its own by these criteria), but it would be a violation of NPOV to assert that only allegations about Israel (or for that matter France, China, etc.) are inherently notable.

These are articles about speech, about what people say, or perhaps more accurately, political rhetoric. The articles neither can nor should settle whether the allegations are apt, accurate, relevant, or fair. And the prevalence argument is also hard to fully work out. I did a search on two terms in books.google.com: "israel" and "war" and came up with 38,518 hits. I did the same with sudan+war and came up with 9480 . This is indicative of the proportionally high level of interest for Israel, but I don't think anyone could say that the topic of Israel and wars is inherently more notable than the topic of Sudan and wars, and rather the opposite if you consider the human cost. --Leifern 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is a reason that allegations against one are more notable than another; more prominent and notable people have made the allegations against Israel than those that have made the allegations against France, China, etc... It isn't "inherently notable", it is made notable by those who make it and the significant coverage from reliable sources. A former American president using the term against Israel is a bit more notable than a casual mention in some source Urothgie dug up to try to justify a Brazilian apartheid article, for example. If more prominent people start to call the actions of France/Brazil/Jordan, etc... apartheid, then there will be enough notability there to warrant an article. Also, I don't believe I've seen anyone assert that only allegations about Israel are inherently notable. Can you show us where this claim was made? Finally, google hit arguments are never terribly convincing of much of anything. Tarc 23:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What, then, is the threshold that makes one topic more notable than the other? Surely, we can disagree on that without hauling each other in to arbitration? --Leifern 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, WP:N ? Tarc 01:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do me and everyone else a favor, read my initial entry again. --Leifern 01:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to, as your entire premise is flawed; no one here is arguing that any article or topic is "inherently notable". Tarc 03:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're constructing a strawman. I am merely arguing with the assertion that I or anyone else claim that if there is an article about allegations of Israeli apartheid, then there must be an article about other allegations. I have never argued against notability as a criterion, but I am claiming that people can have honest disagreements about what constitutes a threshold for notability without it becoming an arbcom matter. --Leifern 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As I and many others have pointed out several times over now, the words of several pro-Israeli editors here have expressed the belief that the existence of the Israeli article justifies the existence of the others. Tarc 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, Tarc, this is projecting a meaning to our words that is neither intended nor expressed. What I have said is that a) I have problems with any article about political rhetoric, for reasons that have become all too apparent; but b) if there is an article about allegations made about one country, then there can be articles about similar allegations about other countries; yet c) each article must meet WP requirements for notability, OR, NPOV, etc., on its own. It is my view that AOIA has not, after many attempts, met these requirements. You disagree. Fine. --Leifern 19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And therefore we need the article Allegations of Chinese apartheid? I think you've presented the argument for allornothing from systemic bias; I'm not sure it's one that is going to overturn the guideline. (If the argument is true, wouldn't it make more sense to consider this with the outlier article than all of the rest?) The problem is that while one can certainly blur the lines about where an article on an allegation should exist, you still have a fundamental editorial decision in any given article that I think several editors were pointedly avoiding. Mackan79 23:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Leifern's statement basically goes for me as well, although I might have phrased part of it differently. I, too, did not say that anything "must exist." My AfD comments were based on my understanding of Misplaced Pages policy, including the principle of fairness, which if it is not an explicit policy, has to be implicit somewhere. 6SJ7 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're allusion to fairness puts too much faith in WP:COMMON sense. Somewhere right now, a some pro-Janjaweed editor is quote mining sources to label every time someone gets a mild case of heartburn a genocide. After all, no one really can say what the word even means. And with that little bit of razzle dazzle he's gotten a short list of 244 countries together, which will show that there's a genocide going on in every country on Earth even as we type. Maybe not all of them deserve articles, but many will, and it'll be such a long article a few editors will come along in time and split them off, and then any number of tireless pro-Janjaweed editors will staunchly defend those articles against attempted deletion. Unless, of course, some of them will suggest, unless wikipedia is purged of any mention that anyone has ever suggested there's some sort of "Darfur genocide" (gotta make sure there are scare quotes! We don't want to give anyone the wrong idea!). After all, it's such a lack of fairness to pick on the Sudan, right? And maybe, just maybe, that all makes WP:COMMON sense to them, but the whole community won't go along, because on Misplaced Pages:There is no common sense. -- 146.115.58.152 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's count this up: You cite two essays that contradict each other, so that adds up to nothing helpful, and you cite two hypothetical examples that seem to take some argument that you think I am making to an illogical conclusion. None of it really has anything to do with what I am saying. I am not trying to construct policy here, nor am I participating in this discussion to engage in a thought exercise or to comment from the sidelines. I am simply trying to explain what I did and why it isn't something that I should be penalized for. But if I were to engage in a philosophical discussion, I would say that while things like common sense, fairness and consistency are sometimes hard to come by in a community editing process, and can't always win out, they should still be among our goals. 6SJ7 04:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The titles of those essays do appear contradictory, but perhaps the title of the second would better be WP:There's not as much common sense as you think there is. Life isn't fair because reality isn't fair; an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA is supposed to be a report on that reality, not some wikiality we make up as we go along in order to create fairness and consistency where none exists. -- 67.98.206.2 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not grokking

I'm not grokking Fred Bauer's comment with his vote on the Content Forking principle. Anybody? GRBerry 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

He probably means the topic is being brought up "for good reason" as Allegations of apartheid in its early phases would fall under the spirit of the content forking rule, as a reverse fork certain editors wished Israeli apartheid to be merged up into. That effort failed, but the split offs from the resulting article ultimately led to the current case. OTOH, some have said that period falls under the general amnesty from the last case. -- 146.115.58.152 03:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty applies to people, not articles. >Radiant< 11:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, but since the arbitrators do not rule on content disputes or any other issue related to articles themselves, an amnesty for all editors adds up to exactly an amnesty for all articles, and in fact a general amnesty for any issues or items related to the editors who are covered by the amnesty, it would seem. --Steve, Sm8900 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Case status

I'm a little unclear as to the current status. Almost all current parties appear to have completely stopped posting or making comments, it would seem. But there appear to have been little further actions or current rulings. just curious about current point which we are at. Just wondering, is this case currently open? Will there be a formal closure? Or is it simply a process of time, to wait for some further final rulings? Just wanted to ask. I appreciate your help with this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Things tend to move slowly or go into a lull at times. The Arbitrators, like all of us, are busy volunteers. As for myself, I think I've said everything I have to say about this issue (and probably repeated it endlessly) - I would guess many others feel the same, hence the decline in the previously breakneck pace of posting. MastCell 22:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that I think most of us have reliazed that the arbitrators seem split on what course to choose to end this mess. It is not unlikely that they are trying to work it out on the mailing list and will return to voting once they have debated it further. MartinDK 10:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

FOF 2.1 has 5 supports and 1 oppose at time of writing. Given the research done by Paul August, it seems possible that the supporters are going beyond the evidence and trying to discern hidden motivations. I think it would be better to work from unambiguous evidence and hope this case does not set a precedent. We can wait (normally) for someone to clearly step over the line before taking action against him.

Remedy 5 is opposed by The Uninvited, probably looking for firmer action. Having reviewed the evidence, it does not seem to me that firmer action is warranted. "Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process" - I note that any individual case is not the last. Further cases can be raised. Arbitrators should not feel obliged to sanction people when there is a mess. Articles can be created, modified or deleted according to the standard process. If the standard process has been shown to have failed (and so far this does not appear to be the case), then ArbCom can step in. Eiler7 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle

I see arbitrators are ignoring "Sefringle". I think this is wrong, in my opinion he is one of the most damaging editors, and is obviously someone using wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, regardless of what value other contributions might have. His initial statement in ArbCom is great example of this point.

In my opinion, if arbcom ignores him, the disruption will continue unabated. His is different from previously banned editor Zeq only in that he mantains, for the most part, an apparent civility, however he is as disruptive as Zeq has been. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

completely disagree. Cerejota, I'm surprised at you. Is Sefringle disruptive? Is he malicious? Is he bad-faith? Then why are you seeking a ruling against him? I have mainly observed reasonable conduct from you up to this point. (In case you're wondering, I do remember your posts a while back about me, but I did not find them bothersome, and was willing to accept your feedback.) --Steve, Sm8900 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree. Sefringle makes valuable contributions to a wide range of Misplaced Pages articles. In my opinion, his otherwise sound judgment fails him when it comes to these particular articles and he makes harsh and broad criticisms of those who think differently than he does.

As I wrote two weeks ago, I think Sefringle is out of line when he accuses people who vote to keep the Israel article of "hat Israel" and states categorically that supporters of Israel "find the Israeli apartheid article insulting". But that's incivility, not disruption. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If he's a generally valuable editor but cannot manage to comport himself appropriately on these particular topics, then don't you think it makes sense to employ a limited topic ban as proposed on the workshop page? MastCell 20:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah... I do not think the level of incivility is such to warrant a topic ban. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I think such a ban would be out of proportion to the offense. Also, Sefringle is hardly the only editor who becomes uncivil when these articles are discussed, and I think that singling him out for such harsh punishment is unfair. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I will say this: what these articles need is a set of editors willing to not put their politics on the topic on the forefront of their editing, and to be able to write for the enemy. Sefringle is notorious for not having this capacity as the ample evidence indicates. This is a prima facie case: they guy is honest, which is laudable, but also a key part of the WP:BATTLE issues. He doesn't say, "yeah, I have a POV, but lets not discuss that, lets get together to find compromise", he goes out-and-out denying a voice to those who oppose his POV. I do not think he should be banned from wikipedia, as I do see positive things coming from him.

However, I have yet to see one source come from him, or an edit that is not a revert or controversial rewording. His contributions tot he talk pages amount to soapboxing. Say what you will about me, but I support all good faith efforts to move stuff forward, talk to everyone, and in general try to create a cordial attitude even among sworn enemies.

I also try to bring sources and better wikipedia in general: Yosef Paritzky was a result of me finding about him via an article he wrote alleging apartheid in Israel (I read ynet and haaretz with some regularity), and then created his bio stub, which had been red-linked in some other WikiProject Israel pages, and the article has been greatly expanded. I also disclosed that he is a controversial figure (having learned that by looking for information about him) and that he was notable (having been a highly visible minority cabinet member, and a highly controversial figure in Israeli politics).

I support (and started) WP:POOR for a reason, and incivility happens for a reason: if you throw gasoline into the fire, even if this is done in a civil fashion, it will not be a productive environment.

The guy is generally civil, but a punch in a velvet glove is still a punch: he stills exhibits the same unproductive attitude as before, is unrepentant, and has not apologized by basically calling anyone who disagrees with him an enemy of Israel. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You yourself have not been the most civil person either, saying people who revert me should be "congratulated." Your blatant signaling me out shows you clearly have some animosity toward me. Not to mention your accusations that I done things I didn't do, including a false accusation of a 3rr violation, claims that I made Misplaced Pages into a battleground with this article, when it was one long before I arrived, claiming I have no intention to compromise, etc. I have no choice but to compromise on this issue or drop it altogether. I never denied a voice to those whose POV I oppose; I have no authority to do so. It is clear the article is full of POV pushers; not all of whom are on my side of this issue. That doesn't mean I should be signaled out, as you seem to demand of arbcom.--Sefringle 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a personal animosity towards you. I do have a personal animosity towards your behavior in this corner of wikipedia. For all I know you might be a great contributor to other areas of wikipedia, and a generally straight up person when it comes to real life. I have no idea and have not bothered to check.

I do think your behavior, attitude, and comments on these range of pages is disruptive, not conducent to seeking consensus, and are total violations of WP:BATTLE. The reason I single you out is because you continue to insist on your provocative, disruptive commentary, and do nothing but propose deletion. Many editors who have expressed to share your point of view, even including deletion, do not behave like you do, and are actually productive at times.

I will single out editors who behave like you do and continue to do so even after pointing them out how what they are doing it is disrruptive. To give you an example, John Nagle, whose real life contributions to computer science are quite interesting and important, but whose contributions to this article have also in the past been disruptive, seems to have toned down his WP:BATTLE inflammations, and has not engaged in unhelpful editing. And I do congratulate editors who struggle to move forward in seeking consensus instead of disrupting and POV-pushing, like much of your edits. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New workshop proposals

In a year of following arbitration pages fairly closely, I have rarely, if ever, seen the committee as badly splintered on some of the proposed findings and remedies as in this case. Arbitrator voting has clearly slowed and perhaps the injection of some new suggestions would be helpful.

In an attempt to find a potential consensus among the various views that the arbitrators have expressed, I have just offered a set of new workshop proposals. They are currently the last proposal in each section (proposed principle 21; proposed finding 38; proposed remedy 10). No pride of authorship is involved and if compromise is just around the corner on the mailing list, then these suggestions may be needless, but like any workshop proposal they are offered for what they are worth.

Normally, submitting a workshop proposal is not considered inconsistent with clerking a case, but I recognize that this case had been unusually contentious (fortunately, the level of tension seems to have quieted more recently). In view of my having offered these proposals, albeit in an attempt to achieve consensus, I will have this case reassigned to another clerk if any party so requests. Newyorkbrad 04:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts. I see no reason for you to be removed from the case, although I applaud your obvious candor for suggesting that. the one thing this case needs is one neutral party willing to serve as some kind of a facilitator in a constructive sense. You have added a badly needed active approach to case resolution, by indicating some middle ground, and a centrist approach and action for this case. I'm not even sure I will agree with everything you propose, but it is good to have one person willing to serve as some sort of mid-ground facilitator. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to echo what Steve says. I've been following arbitrations for three years now, and I can't recall ever having seen the committee as split as this. Although there seems to be unanimous agreement that there's been serious misconduct, it's obviously proved very difficult to craft solutions. Thanks for your efforts to find some workable proposals. -- ChrisO 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If there was unanimous agreement about serious misconduct, the ArbCom will not find itself where it is now, Chris.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you can pretty much take it as read that the committee's proposed principles, almost all of which have been agreed unanimously by the arbs, are listed for a reason. The difficulty lies in determining exactly who was involved in violating those principles, why they did so and what should be done about it. -- ChrisO 21:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not the way I am reading these. If there was clarity about "serious misconduct" this case would have been a walk in the park. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no proposed finding of fact that have majority besides what is outside of the remit of ArbCom. There must be a reason for that, Chris. don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris is just trying to put his own spin on the situation. However, I think the arbitrators are capable of knowing and expressing what they think without his "assistance". 6SJ7 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but maybe an "unable to agree upon clarity of evidence" proposal is needed? Jakew 21:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad: thanks for the effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that we are talking about Apartheid, do proposals that restrict the !voting and participation rights of people of a particular viewpoint - but not those of the diametric opposite viewpoint - strike anyone else as ironic? Carlossuarez46 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, it is a difficult situation and the results of the arbComn discussions as reflected in the split votes is a reflection of that. Give them some more time... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about remedies

Here's a few thoughts about proposed remedies, though sorry that these may be out of the ballpark. Assume I've good intentions, thanks. I'd be interested in comments.

For user misconduct in "bad faith" (e.g., WP:POINT) article creation, AfD voting, and article editing, a user could be placed for a probationary period under some type of oversight, comparable to mandatory mentoring. To ease the work of the mentor or probation supervisor, the user could be limited in creations/votes/edits per day and could have all such contributions logged (automatically?) on a review page.

It would be helpful if ArbCom remedies were tailored to the underlying problem. The underlying problem of alleged POINT violations seems to be the frustration of users in pursuing their "point" through existing channels. If so, two types of response measures suggest themselves.

First, to improve user conduct and user ability to pursue the existing channels, instead of disruption, perhaps ArbCom could required involved parties to undergo training or testing on how to best pursue one's content or process "points" within Misplaced Pages channels. Perhaps such training could be extended to uninvolved parties who may have improperly frustrated the efforts of those who violated POINT etc.

Second, it would seem that user ability to work through proper procedures may well be exacerbated by the implementation or design of existing procedures. Since POINT violations may require an equity deliberation, ArbCom at least should consider whether POINT violations may reflect weaknesses elsewhere. For instance, were AfDs/DRVs properly handled by admins? If not, perhaps closing admins should be required to more fully express their reasoning and such reasoning could be subject to more thorough appeals (perhaps limited to the topic scope here). While ArbCom may decline to arbitrate content, it would be appropriate to express (obiter dicta) the weaknesses it may see in grievance and appeals procedures for content disputes.

Sure, these remedies may stretch existing WP policies, but sometimes innovations emerge from particular cases. Thank you for your consideration. Please note that my remarks do not address the validity of any allegations. HG | Talk 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal rewords, outside view

A few proposals haven't achieved consensus. Perhaps the following proposed rewords might be useful?

PRINCIPLES

Limits of Ignore All Rules

• Ignore All Rules is intended to ratify exceptions where for the benefit of the project, policy wording must be overriden. However, it is not intended by the community that IAR is used to ratify knowingly disruptive behavior, especially after the point has been made such that a reasonable editor would understand and appreciate it, or in lieu of other dispute resolution processes.

Articles for deletion

• The Articles for deletion process (AFD) exists to allow editors in good faith to state views and opinions whether a given article meets various policy criteria governing inclusion/exclusion decisions. As with all policies, using deletion processes in a manner inconsistent with communal intent for that policy, or to further an agenda, is inappropriate.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Other Allegations of ... apartheid articles created

• Following dispute over the neutrality of the title "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid", Urthogie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and several other editors variously created, or added further content to, a number of other "Allegations of... apartheid" articles. The articles were stated to have been created to ensure neutrality on a larger scale , and also in some cases to prove a point about the use of the term in the original article title.

Voting stances at AFD

• endorsed deletion of the allegations of Israeli apartheid article while opposing deletion of other, clearly less meritorious. Allegations of ... apartheid articles. The Committee takes the view that at least knew the correct usage of the articles for deletion process, and interprets this puzzling voting pattern as evidence of an attempt to prove a point, whilst acknowledging that less experienced editors may have mistakenly and in good faith believed that the results of earlier AFDs represented community consensus and should be followed.

Drafts offered since present wording seems to be not entirely satisfactory to all. FT2 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)