Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:08, 17 August 2007

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses as short as possible; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by ChrisO

Narrow responsibility for articles

1) The development of the "allegations" articles has been dominated by a small number of editors, a significant number of whom are actively involved in editing Allegations of Israeli apartheid or its talk page. (The names of the article creators are bolded.)

• Allegations of American apartheid - 22% of edits by Mackan79, 19.5% by Urthogie.
• Allegations of Australian apartheid - 47% of edits by Urthogie, 26% by Ashley Y
• Allegations of Brazilian apartheid - 48% of edits by Jayjg, 8% by Lothar of the Hill People, 6% by Urthogie
• Allegations of Chinese apartheid - 31.5% of edits by Jossi, 20% by Jayjg, 12.5% by Urthogie, 6% by Ideogram
• Allegations of French apartheid - 39.5% by Jayjg, 16.5% by Cerejota, 12% by NicDumZ, 7% by Lothar of the Hill People, 4% by Urthogie
• Allegations of Islamic apartheid - 55% of edits by Urthogie, 7% by Sefringle, 9% by Mackan79
• Allegations of Jordanian apartheid - 30% of edits by Cerejota, 25% by Chesdovi, 15% by Bleh999
• Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid - 39% of edits by ChrisO, 19% by Urthogie, 8% by Cordless Larry, 8% by Victor falk, 6.5% by Cerejota, 3% by Theo F
• Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid - 42% of edits by Cerejota, 35% of edits by Bleh999, 15% by Urthogie, 7% by Victor falk
• Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid - 22.5% of edits by Jayjg, 19% by Bless sins, 10% by Lothar of the Hill People, 9% by Victor falk, 8% by Bigglove, 4.5% by Urthogie

Urthogie is the editor most heavily involved (in 7 of 10 of these articles), reflecting his role as the principal creator of the series. Jayjg has the largest number of edits, reflecting his leading role in developing these articles (though he only created one of them). Individual articles have had substantial involvement from editors native to the countries under discussion (Ideogram - China, NicDumZ - France, ChrisO (myself) - Northern Ireland/UK, Cerejota - Puerto Rico). Some of these editors (notably Cerejota) have gone on to play significant roles in the development of the other articles after becoming aware of the wider controversy.

Sefringle's statements

2) Sefringle nominated Allegations of Israeli apartheid for its sixth and most recent AfD and has participated in the AfDs on the French and Jordanian apartheid articles, voting to keep both. In discussing why the other "allegations of apartheid" articles had been created, he stated:

"You clearly don't understand why we created other apartheid articles. All allegations of apartheid articles are meant to antagonize people of that culture; the Israel one included. They are all POV forks. Their existance on wikipedia is proof that WP:NPOV does not apply to article titles or afd's. Since these articles cannot be balanced on their own, the only way to balance them is to create similar articles about other countries, thus making the attack page have less effect since country X isn't the only one being alleged of being an apartheid state. There is nothing encyclopediac about accusing somebody or some culture/country/religion of apartheid. It is all an attempt to push a POV."

Similarly, in voting to keep Allegations of French apartheid he stated:

"either keep this one or delete them all per Humus Sapians. These is an obvious POV fork. It is very POV to have articles accusing some countries of apartheid while not allowing a similar attacks against others. Allegations of apartheid is an attack against that country, and cannot be written in a neutral manner. The closest thing we can do to make it neutral is allow the allegations against every country. This is the only way to balance it out."

Sefringle's statement in this RFAr should also be read in its entirety, as it specifically places this dispute in the context of "the zionists and supporters of Israel" battling "the anti-zionists". -- ChrisO 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Diametrically-opposed positions and non-policy-based block voting

3) A number of Israel-focused editors have been involved in many of the AfDs on "allegations of apartheid" articles. Notably, they have systematically voted to keep them while voting to delete the older article Allegations of Israeli apartheid (AoIa). They have often based their opposition to AoIa on general principles which they have then set aside for the other articles. The rationales have invariably been non-policy-based, usually citing the "all or nothing" principle invoked by Sefringle - which has no basis in policy - to tie the other articles' fate to that of AoIa. The following examples illustrate this pattern of behaviour and the block voting dynamic that has been apparent in these AfDs:

• 6SJ7

• Armon

• Humus sapiens

• IronDuke

• Jayjg

• Jossi

• Leifern

• Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

• Sefringle

• Shamir1

• Tewfik

• Tickle me

TShilo12 has been incivil and assumed bad faith

4) TShilo12 (talk · contribs) has made incivil comments in relation to the allegations of apartheid articles and the users involved with them and has assumed bad faith, accusing editors with whom he is in disagreement of being motivated by anti-semitism and deletionism. On the administrators' noticeboard, he posted the following:

This is a dispute between ChrisO and his opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins in opposition to a bunch of other admins, a number of whom happen to be Jews. This is something that becomes obvious when the relevant discussion is read in full. It is not without cause that there are numerous charges of thinly-veiled antisemitism that have been made in the various relevant discussions, not only against ChrisO, but against a significant number of other editors, including a merry gang of uncharacteristically deletionist admins.

Humus sapiens has been incivil

5) Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) has made incivil comments in relation to the allegations of apartheid articles and the users involved with them. As with IronDuke (see #IronDuke has been incivil below), he has made comments suggesting suggesting overt antisemitism and racism (via "Dirty Jew"/"Dirty Gypsy" reference) on the part of people with whom he is in disagreement.

Evidence presented by NicDumZ

All or nothing arguments to avoid any treatment on the French article

Some editors tried to move the article without any consensus, the article got protected. From that time, every proposal I would do got "all or nothing" answers ("if you act on the French article, you should act the same on the other articles; If you don't want to act on others, then I will oppose your edits") from Israeli-focused editors, as ChrisO named them :

• Discussing about moving the article :
  • Jayjg] :
  • 6SJ7 :
  • Humus sapiens :
• When trying to merge it into Social situation in the French suburbs :
  • 6SJ7 :
  • Urthogie : Please notice that this vote on the French article is copied from the one on the Saudi Arabian article :
  • Jossi : &

"I created several allegations articles so that Misplaced Pages could be more NPOV"

Urthogie : (He logged in and signed his comment 20 minutes later : )

User:Sm8900 and WP:CANVAS

Asking users to come to support his views here.

WikiProject Jewish history, WikiProject Israel and Notice board for Israel-related topics (exactly the same diffs):

Your help is vitally needed. Please go to this proceeding and insert your comments indicating support for those who seek to preserve balance at Misplaced Pages by applying this method of inquiry equally, by applying the "aparetheid" analigy to a variety of countries equally, instead of only to Israel.

If you wish, you may also demand that ArbCom or some other body address content disputes, so that this cycle of accusation and counter-accusation will not remaion the only real means of addressing disputes.

Evidence presented by Picaroon

IronDuke has been incivil

IronDuke (talk · contribs) has made incivil comments in relation to the allegations of apartheid articles and the users involved with them. Examples: suggesting antisemitism (via "filthy Jew" reference) on the part of people he is in disagreement with, accusing keep voters of being anti-Israel, accusing CJCurrie of assuming bad faith

Picaroon (t) 05:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Threaded dialog removed, response may be made in your own evidence section, the talk page, or the workshop page. Thatcher131 12:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle has been incivil and assumed bad faith

Sefringle made an incivil statement, in which he assumed bad faith, at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid (diff). Select excerpts include "here are clearly many editors on wikipedia who hate Israel", "will only agree to what is forced upon them", "his article is liked because many wikipedians (the ones who voted keep the Israel one, delete the others in the allegations of apartheid afds) hate Israel", "t is an attack page against Israel, and it was created by anti-zionists to inflame us", and "Israel haters saw that, and want to keep the article bias".

Picaroon (t) 05:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jossi

Edit-warring by Ideogram on Allegations of Chinese apartheid despite 1RR parole

RE: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Ideogram_placed_on_revert_parole

• August 4 11:23, 1st revert by Ideogram, here
• August 4 14:01, second revert by Ideogram here
• August 4 14:16, third revert by Ideogram here

In addition:

• August 4 17:19 - My edit diff
  • reverted by deletion of lead by Ideogram on Aug 5, 9:22 with edit summary Remove lead not supported by any sources diff
• I added sources to the lead as requested on Aug 5, 12:36 here
  • ...which was reverted a few minutes later by Ideogram here

After being reminded of his 1RR parole, Ideogram desisted from reverting.

Ideogram has been uncivil and assumed bad faith

• Ideogram used abusive language, diff (which he later refactored diff after being asked to do so by Nandesuka diff)
• Ideogram assumed bad faith throughout my research and editing of that article. See Talk:Allegations_of_Chinese_apartheid#Lead.

Ideogram offered an apology for his abusive language, which I accepted in good faith. But this behavior only shows what a problem these type of "allegation of XXX" articles are and how heated discussions can get. 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO closes a related AfD while actively engaged in the dispute

• ChrisO closes Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_American_apartheid while being actively engaged in other "Allegations of XXX apartheid" articles.

ChrisO possible WP:CANVASS during AfD proceedings

Posting more than sixty messages in user's talk pages about related AfDs and

ChrisO protects a page while actively engaged in an edit war

On July 22 User:ChrisO protects Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid while involved in a move/edit war with Urthogie on that article. He unprotects "for now" when challenged.

See log

ChrisO deletes an article without AfD process

On July 29 User:ChrisO deletes Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid which was redirected Allegations of apartheid#Puerto Rico, without going through AfD and while he was actively involved in the dispute about apartheid articles. With that deletion he also deleted the article history. He later restored the article on August 12 after a short DRV.

See logs

Evidence presented by CJCurrie

Jayjg has violated WP:POINT

Background: On 00:34, 15 November 2004, an anonymous editor added a new section to the Apartheid page entitled "Apartheid in other nations". On 01:32 of the same day, User:Jayjg changed the title of the section to "Allegations of Apartheid in other nations". On 18:19, 10 July 2005, this section was transfered to a new article page entitled Apartheid outside of South Africa (subsequently renamed as Allegations of Apartheid). Note that I am not alleging any misconduct in these actions.

On 18:53, 24 November 2005, Jayjg proposed that Apartheid outside of South Africa "be merged (in highly pruned form) back into List of political epithets#Apartheid", on the argument that "that is all the term really means in this context". His proposed course of action was not taken, although the "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article was subsequently redirected to Segregation on 20:32, 8 February 2006. Some material was incorporated into Racial segregation (here), and the material on Saudi Arabia added to Human rights in Saudi Arabia) (here). (The material on Israel, which had recently been the subject of a bitter content dispute, appears to have disappeared entirely.)

On 16:23, 5 June 2006, User:Jayjg recreated the Apartheid outside of South Africa page, with a request that the newly-created article Israeli apartheid (phrase) be merged into it. Shortly thereafter, he added copious amounts of information the former article, and sought to merge "Israeli apartheid".

It is difficult for me to reconcile these actions with Jayjg's previous request that Apartheid outside of South Africa by merged in highly pruned form with a list page. I believe the only reasonable conclusion is that Jayjg was engaged in a WP:POINT violation, resulting from gamesmanship over the Israeli apartheid article, and that Jayjg's repeated "keep" votes on other "Allegations ..." articles can only be interpreted in the same light. CJCurrie 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Add: On 16:50, 30 May 2006, Jayjg endorsed the following comments from User:Viriditas: , . His subsequent support for other "Allegations ..." articles is, again, difficult for me to interpret except as a WP:POINT violation. CJCurrie 05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to IronDuke

IronDuke has written: The third diff is also, if I say so myself, entirely polite. I did point out that CJCurrie had supported an antisemitic sock puppeteer Kiyosaki, but made it clear that 1) he more than likely wasn't aware that he'd thanked an antisemite for giving him a barnstar and 2) his arguments should be given a fair hearing.

My reading of this situation was somewhat different. I don't recall that you made point (1) clear at any point in our discussion. (And, for the record, I was unaware of Kiyosaki's prejudical views when I accepted his barnstar. Once he made his views known, I removed it.) CJCurrie 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by GRBerry

Accusations have floated around the apartheid articles and their deletion discussions for a while

• In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global apartheid, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sexual apartheid (all June 2006) the nominated article was described by the nominator and others as part of a POV series to make a WP:POINT, and the deltion nomination was described as a WP:POINT attack.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (the 3rd AFD on the article; first at the new title), was closed early in part due to a finding of an out of process nomination. Similar accusations were made in the 3rd AFD about the second and in the 4th AFD for AoIa about the 4th. GRBerry (early on 14 August 2007)

Offline canvassing is known to have occurred for some of the related AFDs

• Here Dlohcierekim says that he was email canvassed to vote keep in the 3rd AFD for AoIa. GRBerry (early on 14 August 2007) (Revised on review per IP editor suggestion. GRBerry 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Pro-Israel editors have said that the other articles were created because of AoIa

• On 24 April 2007 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg says "Those articles are only necessary because of the existence of this one . It was important to maintain some semblance of balance."
• On 20 July 2007 Sefringle says "You clearly don't understand why we created other apartheid articles. All allegations of apartheid articles are meant to antagonize people of that culture; the Israel one included. They are all POV forks."
• On 12 August 2007 Urthogie admits to creating the articles to balance AoIa. (later signed and revised) GRBerry (early on 14 August 2007)

ChrisO learned from the American Apartheid Allegations DRV to not close AFDs for articles in this series

• Deletion review close noted "a bipartisan consensus that the AfD closer was not the best-positioned person to have taken this decision."
• Chris asks an involved admin who had closed the Chinese AFD despite being involved in the topic to reverse themselves so an uninvolved admin could
• Chris asks at WP:AN for an admin not involved in the relevant wiki-projects to close the Chinese allegations AFD. GRBerry (early on 14 August 2007)

Relevant language has long standing in WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND

• WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND says in part "Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point." (link in original).
• No recognizable form of this sentence was in the first draft to discuss battlegrounds, nor when WP:NOT became policy in October 2004 GRBerry (early on 14 August 2007)
• An early version of the wording appears in the major rewrite of 7 January 2005. The current wording, minus the initial "Also, " was there when "not a theatre of war" became "not a battleground" on 9 March 2005, and remained essentially unchanged for the past 2+ years.

Personal attacks have occurred in the DRVs and AFDs for these articles

(I selected diffs that either I considered inappropriate user conduct or that another user did and I thought they had a case. I think this whole pile needs further consideration. Numbering is chronological within bullet points. More recent discussions on top.)

• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. The DRV closer noted that one factor caused "insults to be cast against the closing administrator". The first commentator on the DRV noted "many assumptions of bad faith" in the nomination by Leifern. Other diffs that may contain personal attacks or incivility: IronDuke 1, Moshe 1, Moshe 2, Moshe 3, Humus Sapiens1, Tarc 1, IronDuke 3, 6SJ7 1, 6SJ7 2, ChrisO 1, and Cerejota 1 (edit summary). Other diffs that may explain the thinking behind some of the prior line, show that they were not intended as attacks, or be exculpatory: Moshe 4, Moshe 5, Leifern 2, Leifern 3, IronDuke 2, IronDuke 4, Cerejota 2, and Leifern 4.
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. Diffs that may contain personal attacks of incivility G-Dett 1. GRBerry 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid and Talk, to which some comments were moved (and others appeared there only). Diffs: Nomination by G-Dett, Cerejota1, G-Dett 2, Tickle me 1, G-Dett 3. (Diffs by Ideogram omitted, given community ban.) GRBerry 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• American DRV, with diffs: Jayjg 1, Cerejota 1, Leifern 1, Moshe 1 GRBerry 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• American AFD Diff: 6SJ7 1 (who considered some posts by G-Dett to be inappropriate, but I'm not sure which). GRBerry 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid. Diffs: G-Dett 1, ChrisO. GRBerry 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Some editors may not be here to create an encyclopedia

• Ideogram, which was not explained further. GRBerry 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR violations and other problems from Social apartheid

• Jayjg redirects and merges "Social" into the main allegations article, kicking off a war in which 3 editors violate WP:3RR: G-Dett reverts, Jayjg redirects, T L Miles reverts, Beit Or redirects, T L Miles reverts, Beit Or redirects, G-Dett reverts, Beit Or redirects (3rd time), G-Dett reverts (3rd time), Jayjg redirects, Lothar of the Hill People reverts, Jayjg redirects (4th time, 3rd reversion), Lothar reverts, and then the article is protected by Y. All actions/diffs are less than 4 hours from Jayjg's original redirection.

• At the time Social apartheid was created, Allegations of apartheid looked like this, with the only mention of "social apartheid" in a quote about New Zealand. Also at this time, Allegations of Brazilian apartheid looked like this.
• Social apartheid was created by Lothar of the Hill People and tweaked by T L Miles on 28 to 30 July 2007. (diff)
• By this time, the Brazil article has been renamed Social apartheid in Brazil, and the main allegations article looks like this, with Social apartheid as a "See also"
• Jayjg made claims about the origin of the Social apartheid article in explaining his actions that are contradicted by the above evidence. First, he claimed to have "restored to the parent article, Allegations of apartheid". Then he claimed Lothar had "copied most of the material from Allegations of Brazilian apartheid". (1 of the 8 sources in Social was in use in Brazilian, none were in use in the main allegations article, and I don't see any significant text matches.) GRBerry 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A move war occurred with the Northern Ireland article

• Created by Theo F on 22 July 2007, it was then tweaked by Cerejota, and expanded by Urthogie.
• ChrisO then moves to Segregation in Northern Ireland and rewrote. A minor change is made by another user.
• Urthrogie then moves to a misspelling with a summary of "Please stop moves without consensus", and reverts (#1) to the last version by himself. (Question: how can something be "without consensus" in a problematic way prior to the creation of a talk page? BRD anyone? This undid two user's changes.]
• Jayjg then corrects the spelling mistake and fixes the typo in the redirect at Segregation, which also locks against a further move to Segregation.
• ChisO deletes the locked redirect at Segregation and reverts and moves (#1) the combined effect of Urthrogie and Jayjg.
• Urthrogie reverts (#2) again.
• ChrisO reverts and moves (#2) again.
• The move/revert war stops at this point. Discussion occurs on the talk page; Urthrogie and Jayjg get no support, ChrisO gets support. Urhtrogie also declines to discuss the content changes with an uninvolved editor who describes Urthrogie as "removing sourced material and references from this article" while the moving is occurring. Urthrogie never discusses the content changes. GRBerry 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by IronDuke

IronDuke has not been uncivil

I'm not sure what's more flabbergasting: that I have been accused of incivility where a brief glance would reveal that not to be the case, or that it's been done by an editor I have never, to my knowledge, encountered before, who has never made any attempt to warn me of my allegedly uncivil behavior, and who has actual uncivil remarks of his own to answer for.

I feel that a reply ought to be unnecessary, since one only has to click on the diffs provided by Picaroon to see that they do not match his interpretation of them. Also, this was not a proceeding I wished to be a party to, and would have happily ignored it but as it appears there's no opt-out clause, I will reply.

The first of Picaroon's diffs refers to a point I have made many times, which is that AoIa is similar to "filthy Jew" in that is an epithet meant to smear a specific ethnicity. Nowhere do I suggest or imply, as Picaroon erroneously claims, that any editors (other than the banned ones) who support AoIa are antisemites. It is perfectly possible to agree with me that AoIa smacks of antisemitism, but disagree with me and say WP needs an article on it anyway. My reasoning may be off (though I don't think it is), but to claim that a general comment like that is somehow "uncivil" is just odd.

The second diff is even more of a reach: . I suggested that while it was possible that some supporters of the article had an axe to grind with regards to Israel, that did not nullify their concerns. There isn't even a whisper of incivility there.

The third diff is also, if I say so myself, entirely polite. I did point out that CJCurrie had supported an antisemitic sock puppeteer Kiyosaki, but made it clear that 1) he more than likely wasn't aware that he'd thanked an antisemite for giving him a barnstar and 2) his arguments should be given a fair hearing. See here:

I actually pride myself on remaining civil to editors with whom I disagree on this issue. I'd point, as evidence of this, to the remarks of Xoloz who closed the Chinese apartheid DRV. He had this to say regarding my conduct. . "A few editors below -- IronDuke, Avi, JoshuaZ -- make calm and reasonable arguments for reconsideration." These allegations are so manifestly false, I cannot begin to fathom what caused this editor to make them. IronDuke 22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO has made personal attacks and been uncivil

ChrisO has been interested most recently in taunting 6SJ7, who he characterizes as stupid, a fool and “hysterical” and “funny”, asserts that 6S7J should be ashamed of himself (see edit summary),

He refers to Sefringle’s statement as a rant in his edit summary in this arbitration, and calls him reprehensible.

He calls greg park avenue’s comments incomprehensible, trollish, and clutter, and also implies that greg has nothing useful to contribute (see second comment).

I should also point out that his tone is in general often combative and sneering on these issues, and there are many, many more instances of unpleasant comments (both general and specific) directed at those who disagree with him, which I can list upon request. IronDuke 13:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jehochman

I present evidence that Ideogram is a long term disruptive editor. This evidence was compiled for a WP:CSN case.

Ideogram has operated sock puppets

Ideogram has engaged in a long term pattern of disruption involving multiple, abusive sockpuppets. He has admitted operating a number of socks, and several more are suspected.

See also Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram

Puppetmaster

• Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IdeoBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - bot account, properly identified

Sockpuppets

• Wang C-H (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - confirmed by Ideogram.
• Ilovetaiwan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:DUCK - see
• Galindo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:DUCK - see
• R1es (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Medcabemail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - may be properly identified, probably not abusive.

All above have been confirmed by Ideogram.

Ideogram has engaged in block evasion

Admitted sockpuppet R1es (talk · contribs) was used for block evasion numerous times on April 19-20, 2007. The block was placed for disruption of Arbcom. See and Note: 02:36, 19 April 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ideogram (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting arbcom)

Ideogram has engaged in edit warring

Admitted sockpuppet Galindo (talk · contribs) was edit warring along side Ideogram up to 4RR . In the middle of this edit war Galindo left a 3RR warning for the opposing editor .

Ideogram continues to operate other, unidentified socks

Ideogram admits operating other socks that have not yet been identified. - Jehochman 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram is sitebanned for at least one year

Ideogram has been banned from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than one year by the community. - Jehochman 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Sefringle

Bad faith accusations by User:ChrisO

Above in the evidence, he accused numerous editors of making WP:POINT allegations. Mainly against the people who wanted the Israel apartheid article deleted, specifically bolding the participation of us, and claiming attempts to improve the articles are WP:POINT. He also accuses me of WP:POINT because of my views. Apparently, he believes I am acting inappropriately for expressing my views in a clear content dispute, and apparently, he feels actions should be taken against me for having a different opinion than his over this content dispute. He further accuses our voting as being based on WP:ALLORNOTHING (which is neither a policy or guideline, but rather an essay), despite the fact that our view is based on WP:NPOV, which is technically a policy. In some cases, like ones to maintain NPOV, all or nothing arguments may actually be legitimate. These assumptions by User:ChrisO show bad faith. --Sefringle 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks made by User:Targeman

In his statement on the talk page, he said I presume I've been included in Sefringle's shitlist of "Israel-hating editors". My Jewish ancestors must be turning in their graves. The full statement can be viewed here First of all, I never accused him personally of being an israel hater; I used it more or less in a general context. But he assumes I have a list of Israel-hating editors, making another bad faith allegation, and basically calling me (or my beliefs) "shit"; also asserting that I apparently am a bad person with the "turning in their graves" comment. --Sefringle 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Clayoquot

Contributors apply a double standard regarding AfD closures by involved administrators

On April 25, 2007, Jayjg reversed another administrator's closure of the United States military aid to Israel AfD. The closure went to DRV, where Jayjg was criticized by some for what was, as Cyde put it, "taking controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in."

On July 30, 2007, ChrisO closed the Allegations of American apartheid AfD. The closure went to DRV, where ChrisO was criticized. As Mantanmoreland put it, "Given that these "apartheid" articles are involved in interrelated debates, it was very wrong of ChrisO, an active participant, to close this deletion debate. This was an abuse of tools and should not be permitted."

Several editors defended Jayjg's decision to use his tools while criticizing ChrisO's decision as inappropriate:

• Jayjg on Jayjg's deletion: "Regarding the various people who are hinting or stating outright that I have some sort of conflict of interest, or shouldn't be able to make administrative decisions on wide areas of article topics, or, most bizarrely, that I have in the past "illegally" deleted articles, I note the obvious bias that many (though certainly not all) of them have expressed in these areas themselves, and point out that an interest in a topical area is not a conflict of interest in that area. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)"

• Jayjg on ChrisO's deletion: "This was a terrible abuse of process on a couple of levels. First, User:ChrisO has been a highly involved editor in these articles..."

• 6SJ7 on Jayjg's deletion: "I endorse Jayjg's action. I will resist the temptation to respond to claims of "bias", but I do not think it is helpful to throw those allegations around. I do think that Misplaced Pages is "broken" when it comes to articles about Israel and Israeli-Arab relations, and it is not going to be fixed on an article-by-article basis. 6SJ7 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)"

• 6SJ7 on ChrisO's deletion: "This was a clear abuse of administrative powers. Overturning the deletion should be only the first of the repercussions."

• Humus Sapiens on Jayjg's deletion: "Changing my vote to Delete. Since WP is turning into a battleground, I'd rather be counted as a "usual suspect". ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)"

• Humus Sapiens on ChrisO's deletion: "Overturn - I question the qualification of ChrisO (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) to take an admin action because of his clearly one-sided activism on the page in question and in related discussions. Also, I don't see how the discussion and the vote at the AFD page warrant the deletion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)"

• Tewfik on Jayjg's deletion: "This is deletion review, whose sole aim is assessing whether the AfD warrants a deletion or undeletion. It isn't the place for reviewing anyone's actions, and much less for leveling accusations of 'censorship' or 'abuse of powers' (or even for being "completely out of line", even if we think he was). TewfikTalk 05:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

• Tewfik on ChrisO's deletion: "Overturn - while I sympathise with some of the rationales for dealing with the Apartheid entries re: WTA, ChrisO should clearly not have taken administrative action in this case. Even if someone else had done it, there is still no way that 50% delete should be closed as a consensus for deletion. While I respect ChrisO, I would have hoped that he would be more careful with his tools after the last two occurrences of using them in similar, questionable circumstances. TewfikTalk 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)"

• IronDuke on Jayjg's deletion: "Delete The article is a POV fork, and the majority of !voters favor being rid of it in some fashion or other. I will also note that the loudest cries against Jay as a biased editor seem to be coming from editors with a pronounced (and in some cases acknowledged) bias of their own. "Usual suspects" indeed. IronDuke 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

• IronDuke on ChrisO's deletion: "Overturn I did not !vote in the original AfD, but this is waaaayyyy out of process, both in terms of numbers, opinions offered, and, most importantly, because it was done by an admin who is deeply involved--indeed, who is a POV warrior on these subjects. I know this isn't necessarily the place for it, but a desysopping and/or topic ban for ChrisO is well past due. Enough is enough. IronDuke 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)"

I cannot understand how anyone can apply the same code of conduct to both administrators and arrive at this set of conclusions. That this has happened is an indication of the unhealthy level of partisanship that we have.

If ChrisO is sanctioned for his actions, Jayjg's should come under the same scrutiny. FWIW, my personal opinion is that both actions were inappropriate and that the simplest way for Arbcom to take some heat out of the overall dispute would be to forbid future use of admin tools by all involved administrators. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie has created at least one article which violates his own interpretation of WP:NPOV

Urthogie has expressed the opinion that WP:NPOV requires due weight to be given to criticisms of Israeli apartheid allegations.

On March 29, around the same time that Urthogie expressed the above opinion about how NPOV should be interpreted for AoIA, he created the Allegations of Australian apartheid article without including criticisms of the allegations. Never has this article given a single sentence to the point of view that Australia does not practice apartheid. Urthogie removed a POV tag which had been placed on it by another editor:

Tactics used in the dispute have been disruptive to editors and articles which have nothing to do with the Middle East

User:Zleitzen, whose evident focus is Latin American topics, has expressed the opinion that tactics used by Middle East-focused editors has been disruptive to the development of quality articles about Latin America. Zleitzen subsequently left the project.

Evidence presented by Number 57

Canvassing by Sm8900

The following was posted on both the Israel and the board for Israel-related topics:

At this moment, a massive conflict is breaking out at the following page, in an arbitration proceeding, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop, a subpage of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid.

A group of editors has been developing an article entitled Alegations of Israeli apartheid."

In response, a group of more even-handed editors attempted to build a set of article detailing and highlighting alleged "apartheid" in other countries.

In response the editors of the Israel-apartheid article are now accusing the editors who worked on articles about all the other countries of POV, when it is the editors of the Israel article who are most guilty of a warped unfair POV focus on one country to the exclusion of others.

Currently, the ArbCom case has degenenerated to accusation and counter-accusation. This was inevitable, sicne ArbCom refuses to address cointent dispute, and only addresses user conduct, forcing even well-meaning, goodfaith editors to level accusations at each other.

Your help is vitally needed. Please go to this proceeding and insert your comments indicating support for those who seek to preserve balance at Misplaced Pages by applying this method of inquiry equally, by applying the "aparetheid" analigy to a variety of countries equally, instead of only to Israel.

If you wish, you may also demand that ArbCom or some other body address content disputes, so that this cycle of accusation and counter-accusation will not remaion the only real means of addressing disputes.

Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ideogram

IronDuke has made thinly veiled insinuations against opposing editors

insinuates that G-Dett believes Israel practices apartheid. --Ideogram 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jakew

Allegations of Saudi Apartheid was at first part of Allegations of apartheid

The page "Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid" was created at 19:52, April 6, 2007. Six subsequent edits were performed, upto and including the edit of 00:08, April 10, 2007 (the link is diff for all 6 edits). On 21:48, April 11, 2007, the section "Saudi Arabia" was replaced with a link to Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid.

Evidence presented by Nagle (talk · contribs)

Jayjg (talk · contribs) is no longer editing Misplaced Pages.

The last edit by Jayjg (talk · contribs) was on August 4, 2007, as this arbitration was getting underway. That editor has not participated in the arbitration. There is no indication on the user's user or talk pages of why they are absent. This is highly unusual for that very active editor. --John Nagle 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Leifern (talk · contribs)

Accusations are unreasonable and unfounded

Those bringing the accusations here wish to somehow punish editors who have created fully sourced articles with similar titles to an article they previously had wanted deleted.

This is a spurious and transparent charge, for the following reasons:

• The accusations are based on a supposition of state of mind
  • At no point has any editor expressed any wish to disrupt Misplaced Pages
  • At no point has any editor expressed any wish to make a point by creating these articles
  • There is no evidence that the acts of a few editors have disrupted Misplaced Pages. This debate has surely disrupted Misplaced Pages (and the lives of those involved), but it would be unreasonable and practically impossible to allocate blame
• If Misplaced Pages chose to discipline editors based on supposed state of mind, we would be entering dangerous territory
• The expressed reasons by those accused are construed in ways that inherently violate AGF
  • There has never been any offer of a quid pro quo along the lines of "if you agree to delete article A, I'll agree to delete articles B, C, and D"
  • Even if such an offer were made, it would never be sustained
  • Insisting on consistency across articles is not unreasonable. This is why we have policies and guidelines: to ensure consistency
• The positions are not equivalent
  • Those who wanted AoIa deleted but subsequent "allegations of" articles kept, are on solid ground in accepting the decision from one case and applying it to the other
  • Conversely, those who wanted AoIa kept but subsequent "allegations of" articles deleted, must morally and intellectually answer what separates one case from another
  • There are intellectually honest answers to this question, and these have been debated endlessly
  • But it is those who insist on consistency who are being accused of acting in bad faith, and of conspiracies, and of applying double standards. --Leifern 02:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bloc and unprincipled voting by group of editors

I present evidence for this with some misgivings, as I think the evidence will always be circumstantial. But since others have opened the door to this kind of reasoning, there is a much stronger case that one group has voted as a block in order to protect Allegations of Israeli apartheid from deletion.

(This analysis is based on extracts that I've made from available AFD discussions. I've parsed the data the best I could, but there may be residual errors. If so, these should be a result of technical problems, not any systematic bias. Anyone who wants to review the raw data is welcome to; feel free to email me).

Voting patterns

The previous analysis was incomplete and selective. Among the most active voters (and I included myself for purposes of full disclosure)

The most consistent voting pattern here is G-Dett's. She has voted on every single issue except allegations of American apartheid and consistently rejected all efforts to create an article about allegations of apartheid in non-Israeli countries. Urthogie is the second busiest voter, but it appears he never weighed in with a vote on Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and he abstained from voting on Saudi Arabia and the US. CJCurrie voted several times to keep Allegations of Israeli apartheid but wanted to delete allegations of French, American, and Chinese apartheid and proposed to merge Saudi Arabian apartheid.

And so on. There isn't a single editor who voted to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid who has voted to keep all the others.

If anything those who want to keep allegations of Israeli apartheid are more principled in wanting to delete everything else.

Activity dominated by accusers

At least 353 distinct editors have voted or commented on the apartheid articles. I count in excess of 1280 different edits in these pages.The 20 most active editors are responsible for 39% of the edits.

Here is an overview of users with more than 10 edits, by type of activity.

As it turns out, the editors who are accused of single-minded pro-Israeli activism have shown remarkable restraint in their participation in AFDs, while relative newcomers to the debate who are doing the accusing are those who have the highest editing intensity:

No evidence that new "allegations of X apartheid were made to make a point

It is worth showing a timeline of the AFDs related to this issue:

By the time the first article was written about allegations against another country than Israel was written, the AFDs about AoIA had run their course. AoIa 3 had closed in August of 2006, and a fourth attempt in April of 2007 gathered much less interest.

As a matter of fact, it wasn't until the AFD on China was created that the interest even approached the first AFD on an article titled Israeli apartheid.

--Leifern 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Leifern did not violate AGF in the DRV for Allegations of Chinese Apartheid

The exact text of my initial submission can be found here.

I will stipulate that I erred in thinking the AFD was closed early. I have made apologies to the closing admin(s) and hope that the DRV can be reopened when this issue has been resolved.

I also could have saved myself the editorial comment about ^demon's curious pride in deleting things, but anyone who takes a look at his user page will see that it's an accurate assessment. I stand by my assertion that it was decided incorrectly, and I provided a complete analysis of it here: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid/Analysis by Leifern.

I think honest people can have disagreements on these issues, but there is nothing that I wrote that would constitute an assumption of bad faith. --Leifern 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The above statement includes at least one fairly serious and categorical misrepresentation; see below.--G-Dett 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by user:G-Dett

Correction to Leifern's statement above

I will be posting a longer statement in the near future, but I'm acting quickly at the moment to clear up a couple of errors in Leifern's statement above, in order of least to most serious. First and most trivially, he leaves out of his table my "delete" vote for Allegations of American apartheid. Perhaps he didn't notice because I was the nom. I have in fact nominated three "Allegations of apartheid" articles for deletion, all successfully: Allegations of American apartheid, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, and Allegations of Jordanian apartheid.

Missing altogether from his table, moreover, was the mothership article Allegations of apartheid. I am a sworn enemy of this article, on the grounds that it is a grotesque synthesis of local rhetorical squabbles (about how good or bad this or that country is), masquerading as an article about a general debate over whether the word "apartheid" can be applied outside of the South African context. There is no such general debate, not a single source, and yet this article is built upon – and conveys to the reader – the make-believe notion that there is. So chalk up two more delete votes for me on Leifern's table.

These two errors are doubtless mere oversights. The next two are a little more unsettling. Leifern leaves Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba out of his table. This omission is striking because I (and at least one other supporter of the Israel article) voted "keep" on it. And here we arrive at the most serious error in Leifern's statement, one which rises to the level of misrepresentation. Leifern writes, " has voted on every single issue except allegations of American apartheid and consistently rejected all efforts to create an article about allegations of apartheid in non-Israeli countries," and yet Leifern knows very well that this isn't true. I hasten to add, I'm not saying he should know this, because of my vote in the Cuba article. I'm saying he does know this, because he's asked me directly about this very matter (which he rather provocatively presents as my supposed wish to "single out Israel"), and I have explained in a very detailed and direct way on multiple occasions that a) my sole criteria for any "allegations" article is that there have to be secondary sources discussing the allegations themselves and attesting to their notability, not merely primary-source instances where the word "apartheid" is used gathered and arranged into quote farms; and b) I do not believe the Israel article is the only article that meets this criterion. The Cuba article meets this criterion (though just barely), hence my vote for "Weak keep." And the Brazil article may meet this criterion – and will almost certainly do so if the title specifies "social apartheid."

I've explained this countless times, and several times in direct dialogue with Leifern. The need to play whack-a-mole with petty deceptions of this kind has done far more than any mere content dispute ever could to deplete the collective energies of the community, and compromise its spirit of good faith. I trust that Leifern will be so good as strike the misleading comments above, and rewrite his findings accordingly. --G-Dett 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote, there were sure to be mistakes in the analysis. The problem is that it is not easy to find records of deleted discussions, related AFDs, etc. As it is, this took quite a few hours to compile, and I won't have another few hours to redo them for a few days. Nevertheless, their absence doesn't change my point, as by your own admission you have voted consistently to keep the aoia article and delete everything else. For what it's worth, I've read through your arguments, and while you're consistently abusive to those who disagree with you, you are also consistent in your arguments. I don't agree with them, but I think that we can have honest disagreements without accusing each other of doing bad things. --Leifern 12:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But you are doing a bad thing, Leifern, you're categorically misrepresenting my position, again and again and again and again. Please stop it. It will not take you "hours" to strike out your false statements above; it will take one minute at the most. For the last time, I have not "voted consistently to keep the aoia article and delete everything else." I have voted to keep the Cuba article, I have supported the existence of the Brazil article a number of times, and I have made very clear that I will support any other "allegations" article that has secondary sources attesting to the notability of the allegations. Please do not persist in this deception, and please take a minute to strike out your misrepresentations, including those in your latest post.--G-Dett 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ashley Y

Cerejota has been incivil and has assumed bad faith

User:Cerejota referred to User:Lothar of the Hill People, User:Cuchullain and me as an "almost-meatpuppets guided by concerns that have nothing to do with Brazil" apparently for suggesting that Allegations of Brazilian apartheid be renamed "Social apartheid in Brazil". This after I made an effort to involve editors from Wikiproject Brazil.

I don't remember having any particular dispute with this editor before. —Ashley Y 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by PalestineRemembered

Leifern's evidence threatens to mislead

Leifern has done an analysis of voting patterns on this issue and has received what sound like valid objections to both his tabulated results and to his conclusions. He admits (comments on another part of this page) that it's difficult to do such an analysis, these very results are incomplete and prone to errors, and pressure of time means he will not be changing his contribution "for a few days". I feel that ArbCom members (and regular editors) should have confidence in what we write, and it seems to me unjustifiable - even disrespectful - to leave something faulty out on display. And such behavior risks degrading the work of other contributors, who can apparently produce tabulated results without objection or error. PalestineRemembered 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.