Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Additional statements before the case was accepted 1.1 Statement by User:Briangotts 1.2 Statement by marginally involved User:MastCell 1.3 Statement by User:Nagle 1.4 Statement by ChrisO 1.5 Statement by marginally involved User:Jossi 1.6 Statement by User:Targeman 1.7 Statement by marginally involved Poppypetty 1.8 Statement by Leifern 1.9 Statement by greg park avenue 1.10 Statement by 6SJ7 1.11 Statement by Zocky 1.12 Statement by Lothar of the Hill People 1.13 Statement by Humus sapiens 1.14 Statement by User:Mackan79 1.15 Statement by uninvolved user:Vitalmove 1.16 Statement by uninvolved user Abe.Froman 1.17 Statement by Clayoquot 1.18 Statement by only marginally involved User:Carlossuarez46 1.19 Statement by marginally involved User:MartinDK 1.20 Statement by semi-involved User:G-Dett 1.21 Statement by Teofilo 1.22 Reconsideration Statement by User:Cerejota 1.22.1 Seconding Cerejota's plea 1.22.2 Only one diff 1.22.3 Fourthing (?) Cerejota's plea 1.22.4 Agreement with Cerejota's plea 1.23 Puzzlement: What is this case about? 1.24 Request for case acceptance by GRBerry 1.25 Statement by mostly uninvolved KWSN 1.26 Proposal to the ArbCom by alithien 1.27 Belated statement by CJCurrie 2 Statements after the case was opened 2.1 Statement by Sefringle 2.2 Statement by User:BrandonYusufToropov 2.3 Statement by Amarkov 2.4 Statement by Malik Shabazz 2.5 Statement by Ashley Y 2.6 Statement by an uninvolved Quadell 2.7 Statement by Targeman 2.8 Statement by Sm8900 2.9 Statement by greg park avenue 2.10 Statement by Seabhcan 2.11 Statement by Leifern 2.12 Technical question from CJCurrie 2.13 Statement by thw1309 3 Regarding Ideogram 4 Revising opening statements long after the fact?

[edit] Additional statements before the case was accepted

[edit] Statement by User:Briangotts

Clerk note: This appears to be a response to this user's having originally named as a party to the case. This user was subsequently dropped as a party by Ideogram, who filed the case.

I don't know how I got lumped into this baseless and frivolous attack. I never said that Allegations of Israeli Apartheid should be deleted, to my recollection; in fact, I was the one who moved it to that name. None of the diffs provided appear to be edits of mine. I can only assume that I have been included because I generally oppose efforts to insert anti-Israeli POV and OR into articles; this should shed a very disturbing light on this particular request for arbitration. I also never said that all of the various Allegations of X Apartheid articles should be deleted or kept. I judge these articles on an individual basis. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC) As a side note, while I've had cordial relations with Jay on-wiki, I have never heard of or communicated with any of the others. It looks like Ideogram lumped together a bunch of editors he doesn't like in an outrageous display of bad faith. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram compounds his abuse, while ostensibly in the process of apologizing for adding me to this arbitration, by accusing me of a "meaningless vote" which "disturbed him." I reiterate that I find his conduct in this matter offensive and contrary to the principles of WP. Disagreement with a user's vote is not a proper motive for dragging them into an ArbCom proceeding; nor is being "disturbed" by them (as I am disturbed by Ideogram's conduct). His accusations that I fail to assume good faith ring hollow when it was he who haled me before ArbCom; he is now apparently also "disturbed" my my defense of myself and my conduct. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to get a little silly but since Ideogram keeps addressing me in his section I feel I should respond here (thought it would probably be easier to follow if I responded directly in his section; not sure what etiquette is on that). The reason I don't respond substantively to his charges is because I don't appear to be involved in any meaningful way with them, therefore I will leave it to others to respond as their consciences dictate (and they appear to be holding their own). The only charge Ideogram appears to have leveled against me is that I voted on an AFD in a manner that disagreed with him, and I don't intend to apologize to that. What he chooses to view as my attempts to "discredit" him are my reasoned responses to his bringing me into this RfAR, which I view as an entirely baseless personal attack. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by marginally involved User:MastCell

There is a problem here, and I think ArbCom is the best venue to handle it. The issue is not one of content, nor of which articles should be kept or deleted, but one of behavior and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

Allegations of Israeli apartheid has been nominated for deletion 6 times, but has not been deleted. A number of other "Allegations of apartheid in..." articles have since been created and expanded, in many cases by editors who had argued for the deletion of the Israeli article as a POV fork. User:Sefringle, who has repeatedly argued for deletion of the Israeli article as a POV fork (and even nominated it once himself), has said that: "You clearly don't understand why we created other apartheid articles... 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." Jayjg is correct in his earlier response: I don't know who Sefringle is, or what he means by "we". Maybe he's using the royal "we". But regardless, at least one editor is creating articles in protest because he disagrees with an AfD outcome.

Those articles, in turn nominated for deletion, have provoked intensely bitter discussion, accusations, and disruption. A full-blown edit-war is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, for example.Perhaps a bit over-dramatic. Well-meaning AfD commenters who object to "Allegations of apartheid in XXX" are generally admonished that, instead of commenting on the article at hand, they should be advocating "systemic solutions". In context, I take this to mean that the articles and AfD's for "Allegations of apartheid in XXX" are being used to try to drum up support to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid. That's kind of the definition of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, valid though that point may be; worse, these other articles and AfD's are being turned into a battleground over which editors with strong POV's on both sides are waging a scorched-earth campaign.

Wikipedia is not a battleground. On an issue as contentious as Israeli-Palestinian relations, we may never escape some level of combativeness. Still, what is going here needs to stop: articles and deletion debates are being used to fight an unrelated battle. Note that I think ArbCom would need to examine a much wider range of parties than those listed by Ideogram above; any solution, to be useful, would need to be applied universally and not to "one side", and there's poor conduct enough to go around. I urge ArbCom to look again at this situation and the behavior of the involved parties, because it's intensely disruptive and divisive and, given the complexity and size of the dispute and the stature of involved editors and admins, I think ArbCom is the only authority with a reasonable chance to effect a meaningful solution. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Nagle

I haven't been involved in the new articles mentioned above, but I've had editing conflicts in recent months with Jayjg (talk · contribs) regarding Hasbara, Separation program (Israel), the old Israeli Apartheid article, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and a few others.

We are now in the midst of several edit wars which are disrupting multiple articles. Some form of action is required to solve the problem.

Jayjg has a history of arbitrations in this area:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg (January 2005) Remedies: For the period of editing restrictions neither HistoryBuffEr nor Jayjg may remove any adequately referenced information from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Doing so may result in a 24-hour block imposed by any administrator. In the case of Jayjg, unblocking himself will be severely dealt with. ... For the period of editing restrictions edits by either HistoryBuffEr or Jayjg which are not referenced may be removed by any user. In the event the reference given does not support an edit made by either of them it may be removed after notification to them and an explanation made on the talk page of the article. ... For the period of editing restrictions, edits by HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg which violate them may be removed by any user. Repeat violations may be sanctioned by an adminstrator by a short ban (up to one day for intial violations, up to a week for repeat violations).
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid (September 2006) Remedies: All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.

It seems to be necessary to take corrective action about once a year to keep this editor on track. --John Nagle 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by ChrisO

I'm not surprised to see that this matter has resulted in a request for arbitration. Although it involves content issues, the present conflict fundamentally centres on user conduct. I'll try to offer a reasonably neutral summary of events for the benefit of the ArbCom. Apologies in advance for the length, but I hope this summary will avert repetition by other contributors and provide enough detail to help the arbitrators to decide whether they want to take on this case.

This is a sequel to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid, which took place a year ago concerning the article now called Allegations of Israeli apartheid (AoIa for short). The conflict has its roots in a disagreement between the current editors of that article (I am not one of them, for the record) over the notability of AoIa. Despite the Commitee's earlier ruling, the editors of AoIa have failed to resolve their dispute. Instead, they have been responsible for starting a multi-article flame war involving hundreds of editors, dozens of articles and deletion reviews and a great deal of bitterness on all sides.

In concluding that earlier arbitration, the Committee directed that "Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles". The global issues were discussed intensively on that page between June 2006 and November 2006 without a resolution being found. From mid-November 2006 to March 2007, discussions became sporadic, with no discussion at all between March and July 2007. Intensive discussions resumed in mid-July 2007 but still seem to be deadlocked.

During this period, AoIa was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion on five separate occasions (25 July 2006 - speedy keep, 8 August 2006 - no consensus, 30 March 2007 - keep, 19 April 2007 - no consensus, 26 June 2007 - speedy keep).

In March/April 2007, while AoIa was going through its fourth AfD, Urthogie and Jayjg, two Middle East-focused editors who have been heavily involved in editing and discussing AoIa and oppose its existence, began creating and developing a series of "Allegations of [country] apartheid" articles. A second tranche of similar articles was created by Urthogie and three other users following the failure of the sixth AfD of AoIa. The articles created by Urthogie were as follows:

• Allegations of Brazilian apartheid (27 March 2007)
• Allegations of Australian apartheid (now deleted) (27 March 2007)
• Allegations of Islamic apartheid (now merged) (27 March 2007)
• Allegations of American apartheid (now deleted) (4 June 2007)
• Allegations of Chinese apartheid (13 July 2007)
• Allegations of French apartheid (14 July 2007 - Bastille Day, no less!)

The following articles were created by three Middle East-focused editors with a history of prior involvement in the AoIa dispute:

• Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid (6 April 2007) - Jayjg
• Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba (was Allegations of Cuban apartheid) (12 July 2006) - Briangotts
• Allegations of Jordanian apartheid (now deleted) (17 July 2007) - Chesdovi

Two further articles were created by Theo F, a France-focused editor, and Bleh999, who seems to focus mainly on generic military-related articles:

• Allegations of Northern Ireland apartheid (now Segregation in Northern Ireland) (22 July 2007) - Theo F
• Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid (now deleted) (22 July 2007) - Bleh999

The creation of these articles has sparked a wide-ranging controversy that has lasted for several months. It has resulted in numerous highly contentious deletion debates involving (at the last count) more than 250 individual editors. A notable feature of these debates has been the involvement of a bloc of around 15 Middle East-focused editors who have consistently voted to delete AoIA but keep or merge all the other "Allegations of apartheid" articles. This has significantly affected the dynamics of AfD discussions on these articles, as there seems to be no equivalent or consistent anti-"Allegations of apartheid" voting bloc. Opposition to the apartheid articles has come mainly from a disparate group of editors who are involved in articles related to the country discussed in each individual article, but who are not focused on Middle Eastern articles.

The motives of the editors involved in creating and voting en bloc to keep "Allegations of apartheid" articles (other than AoIa, which they almost all want to delete) have been highly controversial. Sefringle, who is one of the editors in this bloc and the initiator of the 26 June AfD on AoIa, has stated that "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." [1]

Opponents of the apartheid articles have asserted that they have been deliberately created as part of a systematic effort to either force the deletion of AoIa through a bulk deletion of all "allegations of apartheid" articles, regardless of individual merit (per comments left by anti-AoIa editors in many AfDs, e.g. [2], [3]), or to provide "balance" by creating multiple POV forks to "neutralise" AoIa (per Sefringle's statement quoted above).

I strongly recommend that the Committee should take this case to determine whether, as many editors have alleged, there have been wilful and systemic policy violations in the creation and development of these "allegations of apartheid" articles and the subsequent deletion debates. I also recommend that, if the Committee takes this case, there should be an immediate injunction on the creation or deletion of any further "allegations of apartheid" articles (except for those currently at AfD) in order to prevent the dispute spreading any further. Finally, I recommend that the Committee should consider whether Israel-related articles should be put under article probation (similar to the measure taken in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo) in order to prevent disputes like this getting out of hand in future. -- ChrisO 18:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by marginally involved User:Jossi

I would argue that many articles named "Allegations of XXX apartheid" are POV magnets, and it is not surprising that when these are brought the AfDs process, the POV magnet intensifies. Bringing this issue in front of the ArbCom is not a solution. Rather, editors should look at the content of these articles, titles of these articles (that in my opinion are not neutral), and assess if it would not be better to incorporate any useful content of these obvious WP:POVFORKS, into other articles in which it can remain stable alongside competing viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note that there are many possibilities that have not been explored by editors, such as summarizing these articles into Allegations of apartheid and redirecting the "Allegations of XXX apartheid" for specific countries, which may be violating system-wide NPOV. Unfortunately, in the current atmosphere, I doubt that these issues can be explored as there is not much good-will around to do that. Nevertheless, I still believe that ArbCom involvement is unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to User:Poppypetty comment below, and me being one that commented "keep all or delete all", I would like to clarify that the comment is valid: there is no reason whatsoever to single-out one specific country in these allegations, when there are allegations about other countries as well. For example, I did not know that there are so many countries in the world against which these type of allegations are leveled. The subject is encyclopedic, but needs to be reflected correctly in Wikipedia. My proposal remains to re-direct to Allegations of apartheid and summarize all article about specific countries there. In that manner, we have proper NPOV rather than WP:POVFORKs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Targeman

I was heavily involved in only one of the listed Afds, the one about "allegations of apartheid in France". As a newcomer at the time, and not knowing any of the users involved and totally unaware of the underlying conflict, I judged the article on its merits. Being familiar with France, I was astounded at how how misleading the title was and how the article put words into the mouth of its sources. At first, I dismissed it as another college essay written at 3 a.m. by a student desperately short of solid sources. My dissection of every single one of those sources at the AfD was met by deafening silence. However, once I realized the article was written by editors who had no knowledge whatsoever about France, I began to wonder. A quick research showed beyond doubt that the same editors penned several similar articles on countries they did not know, and yet insisted upon dealing with complex social issues in those countries. That plus the unwillingness of the said editors to address specific problems with their article made it impossible for me to continue assuming good faith. --Targeman 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum. The fate of all the AfDd articles in this series relies solely on the willingness of voting editors to read the sources. Many of them don't, as the articles are carefully engineered to give a very favorable appearance at first glance. However, anyone who has taken the time to read the sources will have to conclude that their meaning is invariably distorted beyond recognition. The authors of the series are far too intelligent people not to realize this. Deleting several of these articles will only encourage the creation of others to replace them, all under the flamebait title of "Allegations of apartheid in _". And it's anybody's guess which county will receive this unwanted attention next time. Google will decide. And as always, editors familiar with the targeted country will be left rolling their eyes at the apparent naïveté of the authors.

This huge wast of time and resources has been going on for so long and the process is so transparent that the ArbCom must intervene. We are facing a systemic problem of hopelessly skewed articles lashing out at random countries with the excuse that since the title is about "allegations", it can insinuate whatever it pleases. As others have pointed out, this phenomenon will not go away, ever, if left alone. How many mastodontic AfDs and how many pissed off editors does it take to start taking the problem seriously? Abuses such as this (as I said before, the authors of this series have completely worn out my AGF) are the reason why serious and honest editors leave Wikipedia. --Targeman 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by marginally involved Poppypetty

I am very marginally involved but as a French wikipedia contributor and sysop, I have a strong opinion on it. I just have a few remarks on these users. It is clear in my opinion that a group of pro-Israel users have created a whole bunch of "articles" following failed RfDs for Allegations of Israeli apartheid. This is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Then, if you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid, you have a good number of votes "keep or delete them all". This shows that there are many users whose only goal with these articles is to obtain the Israeli articles deletion. These behaviors are clearly unbearable on wikipedia. I am also wondering why all articles related to anglo-saxon topic (American, Australian and Northern Ireland apartheid) have been deleted when the other ones are kept, but I guess this isn't the matter of the ArbCom. I can really see this debate heating up on this wikipedia as well as other wikipedias. I think it would be a good decision by the ArbCom to judge them right now. Poppypetty 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand why the first two arbitrators to express their opinions refuse to see that there is a very clear WP:POINT violation by creating the whole serie of articles just to get the Israeli article deleted. This is a behavioral problem and the ArbCom is relevant for that kind of issues. Poppypetty 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Leifern

Since I will undoubtedly eventually be named as one of this alleged cabal bloc of editors with some hidden agenda, let me weigh in with the following points:

• The discussions on the various "allegations of apartheid" articles are indeed getting tedious and repetitive, but they have some relevance to how Wikipedia deals with a number of issues. I think they need to run their course
• In the meantime the biggest damage is that editors who could be productive in other areas are sidetracked by this. (As an editorial aside, it is a bit curious that some editors are hell-bent on deleting articles entirely on the basis of how they perceive the motivation of those who have written them).
• Accusations against one party or another are sure to be met by counteraccusations, and I'd venture that the Arbcom could spend any amount of time working it all out and still not find any strong evidence of bad behavior beyond what you'd see in dozens of content disputes throughout Wikipedia
• In short, I would encourage the Arbcom to simply dismiss this petition, admonish the parties to behave, and let it all run its course. I think we're close to fatigue, anyway, and this will lead to a cooling-off period. --Leifern 23:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that i read that last comment of yours above, your prognosis actually agrees with my last comment to you below, when I htought you were no aware of that. so ironically, we seem to think the same on this. --Steve, Sm8900 17:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by greg park avenue

Kończ Waść, wstydu oszczędź - a very known line in Polish from the Deluge - a Henryk Sienkiewicz' novel, and it means literally this: Get this job done, Mister, don't make me suffer my shame no more - said by someone named Kmicic (one time Polish noble and adventurer), after he lost the duel in the sun (sabres) to someone named Pan Wołodyjowski - another novel by the same author. I think this line applies here. In Wikijive it means - "speedy delete" or get another POV. greg park avenue 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all or rename "allegations" to "analogy". Most arguments for deletion is, for example: the Allegations that Bush is Hitler are notable because there are many hits on Google, etc. It doesn't make sense, right? We cannot allow to introduce such allegations into Wikipedia, because of an evident insult. Now, if we switch to analogy, the author of the "analogy" article must prove that such an analogy of apartheid South African style is valid. It means: 1. there is a valid analogy to race or etnic segregation ONLY, 2. it's a government's policy ONLY. I think it applies to three countries currently on the list of "allegations" - Israel, France and Saudi Arabia, but the latter one isn't documented yet. greg park avenue 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by 6SJ7

As has been noted, the facts referred to by Ideogram represent a content dispute. It is a somewhat complex content dispute, and it is certainly a "mess", but it is still a content dispute. If Wikipedia had a process for "content arbitration", this would would probably be a prime candidate, as the preferred methods of consensus, discussion, mediation etc. have not done the job to date -- but that process does not exist.

What does exist are numerous AfD's filed by several editors, despite attempts by myself and others to discuss this whole subject as a unified whole, on the centralized discussion page, without the distraction of nominations flying every-which-way. (I notice that the article regarding Saudi Arabia, having survived its AfD, now has a merge tag, so I guess the nominations never end.) I suppose that if the nominations had all resulted in "delete", this arb request would never have been filed, but instead we have some keeps, some deletes, and at least one merge, and now a DRV for one of the deletes, because the AfD was closed in a really improper manner. So the usual Wikipedia process is doing what it is supposed to do when some people want an article deleted.

As I just hinted, there have been some "conduct issues" associated with the recent part of this whole mess, but they are not part of this case at present. If this case is accepted, it can all come out then. The same is true for the inaccurate and misleading statements in some of the comments above, and I have to single out ChrisO's statement here, because what is introduced as a "reasonably neutral" summary turns out to be anything but. Again, it's not necessary to go point by point now -- if the case is accepted, it will all come out in the evidence. 6SJ7 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Zocky

On one hand, we have allegations in books and opinion pieces by Nobel peace laureates, a former American president, etc., comparing institutionalized treatment of Palestinians (defined by ethnicity, or as some would say, race) by Israel to the practices of South Africa before 1992. On the other, we have (probably correct) allegations of religious discrimination in Saudi Arabia, and more or less random usage of the word "apartheid" as a generic word for "racial discrimination" for non-institutionalized racism in places like Brazil, USA and China. We should probably have articles about all of those things, but the case for treating them all as the same kind of thing is extremely thin. Insisting on giving them all the same kind of title clearly has more to do with wikilawyering than any encyclopedic concerns.

I believe that most of the participants are well informed about theses issues, and therefore I find it hard to believe that all of them are doing their best to give priority to the interests of the encyclopedia. Especially worrying is the statement quoted above, where Sefringle bluntly informs us that the purpose 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.

If this is a correct description of the wishes of the whole "group", it's worrying for two reasons: One is the preparedness to engage in disruption over several pages and waste large amounts of everybody's time to counter perceived damage made by an article. While this is enough to raise many an eyebrow, I find myself astonished by the fact that this user(s?) believes that reporting well known, highly publicized opinions of globally known politicians constitutes an attack page.

I'm not sure what ArbCom can do about this, other than slap some wrists. But I do wish that these editors would stop pushing this, for the sake of not damaging the standing of their political cause, if not for the sake of reducing the overall quantity of drama. Zocky | picture popups 04:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Any articles that are kept need to drop the "allegations" part from the title. Calling an article Israeli apartheid or Brazilian apartheid makes the existence of apartheid in those two countries no more automatically true than calling an article aromatherapy or radiesthesia makes those valid scientific disciplines.

[edit] Statement by Lothar of the Hill People

Simon, the user misbehavior is violating WP:POINT. CJCurrie uncovered a clear example of this which he's posted on the "Centralized Apartheid" discussion page:

Readers might be interested to view the page as it was originally created by User:Jayjg, on 6 April 2007: [4]. It was quite obviously a quote-farm, and unsuitable for the project.

Now, please consider the status of Sex segregation on 22 March 2007, with particular reference to the heading "Saudi Arabia": [5]. Consider also the current status of Sex segregation in Islam (a title that may be somewhat problematic, though I'll leave that aside for the moment). A stunning coincidence, as I think you'll agree.

Given that "Saudi apartheid" was created with material cut-and-pasted from other Wikipedia entries, perhaps it won't be too unreasonable to suggest that the content should be re-merged into the relevant entries.

The creation of a series of articles, some of which are so poor they have been quickly deleted by Wikipedia, and all given the dubious title "Allegations of..." is a clear WP:POINT violation and it's being used to give various individuals an "all or nothing" argument ie either delete all the "allegations of" articles (including the Allegations of Israeli apartheid bugaboo) or they all stay. Urthogie, Jayjg and others creating articles in the hopes that they will be DELETED (ie deleted simultaneously with all other Allegations of... articles) is acting in bad faith and a violation of WP:POINT. In debates on deleting the apartheid articles he repeatedly bring up Allegations of Israeli apartheid. For instance:

Targeman, there seems no good reason to "take off line" only one "Allegations of apartheid..." article; perhaps all of them should be taken "off line" at the same time. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC) "[6]

By the way, why don't you bring up Allegations of Israeli apartheid in this regard?[7]

Either the accusation of "apartheid" is meaningful, in which case they're related, or the accusation is a mere rhetorical device, in which case the articles should all be deleted,?[8]

From what I can see the ongoing creation of these articles is disruptive to Wikipeida and editors have been unable to resolve the conflict at the "Centralized discussion" which seems to stretch back several years. With the level of disruption, and the systematic patter of WP:POINT violations, someone in authority needs to step in and sort it out and at the very least put an end to the disruption and POINT violations. If editors don't like the Israeli apartheid article they should deal with it directly rather than disrupt Wikipedia with a series of clones in hopes of rallying opposition against all of the articles including (of course) the one they don't like.

[edit] Statement by Humus sapiens

• The ALLORNOTHING accusation fails because weak articles (such as Allegations of Jordanian apartheid) were deleted - and rightly so.
• The POINT accusation fails because WP has series all over the place. Was it a POINT to follow Anglophobia with Francophobia, Indophobia, Sinophobia, Russophobia, etc? I don't think so.
• Conspiracy theories and personal attacks theoretically should fail, but unfortunately in practice we don't see much enforcement of that.

Of my colleagues I am asking for consistency: if an argument works in one case, it should work in others as well. I'd love to see the problems raised in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid and related pages comprehensively resolved, but I don't think it is realistic to ask ArbCom do it for us. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Mackan79

I believe the issues are largely behavioral, and that ArbCom should take the case. Essentially, a pattern of clear WP:POINT violations by primarily two users, followed by an insistence that these violations be ignored in the name of civility, has escalated into serious stress and disruption across diverse areas of Wikipedia. Despite numerous efforts to resolve this, these discussions have been stunted by the same WP:POINT violations, and their use in negotiating over the original. Extensive discussion shows little promise of resolution, and probably a need for intervention, if only to acknowledge the serious policy violations, deal with them, and put things back on track. Some evidence on behavioral issues include:

Clear WP:POINT violations and related disruption by User:Urthogie

Although much of the evidence has now been deleted, the fact that the articles created by Urthogie are a WP:POINT violation is beyond dispute. Exhibit A would have to be Allegations of Australian Apartheid, created by Urthogie on the same day as the Allegations of Apartheid template, and literally beginning, "Some go so far as to allege that there is racial apartheid in Australia." I only recall this because I mentioned it to him at the time.[9] Unfortunately, the deletion of some of the worst articles also deletes much of the related evidence, but remaining comments include those throughout these discussions such as here and here. I'll note: Urthogie states that the articles have been created not to get AoIa deleted, but rather to show the absurdity of political rhetoric.[10][11] While perhaps slightly more understandable, the aim is equally pointish and ultimately disruptive in terms of Wikipedia policy.

Clear WP:POINT violations and related disruption by User:Jayjg

Jayjg's defense throughout has been that he only created one of the articles, but his editing and commentary have been central. In regard to WP:POINT, first see his vote in the last AfD for AoIa,[12] compared to his vote now on Allegations of French Apartheid.[13] Specific actions then include repeatedly trying to enlist outside editors for deleting AoIa,[14][15][16] demanding "systemic" solutions from editors not familiar with Israel/Palestine articles [17] [18][19], and arguing for the deletion of all related articles despite his votes and arguments to keep. [20][21][22]. This was followed by a continuing refusal to discuss with anyone who mentioned WP:POINT,[23][24] while still accusing other editors of WP:POINT violations himself.[25] Substantive editing issues included edits obscuring original synthesis by combining entirely unrelated claims as if they are responding to each other [26] [27], a pattern seen throughout the articles.

In sum, we have a number of highly problematic actions which have contributed to a large disruption across Wikipedia, and which continued efforts have not been able to resolve. I might note particularly Jay's edit here, in which he combines the incivility, attempt to enlist editors, acknowledgment that he opposes the entire set of articles, and states that editors "seem to be coming around to a more reasonable approach." ArbCom can't decide content, but I think this goes well beyond that; it's really no different from an editor vehemently opposed to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States going and creating an poorly sourced "series" on that. However we feel about this type of article, I'd think we should establish that this is not the right approach. Mackan79 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved user:Vitalmove

So if I understand, jayjg and his friends tried to delete the Israeli apartheid article. I disgree with their attempt but the article survived so that dispute is moot. Now they have created other "apartheid" articles. This is what is being challenged. I don't see a problem with creating additional "apartheid" articles. First of all they don't take away from the Israeli apartheid article. It's not as if reading the Jordanian apartheid article is going to cut into the credibility of the Israeli apartheid article. Second, if there is a Jordanian apartheid (I have no idea if there is), I think wikipedia should have an article on it. The more articles the better in my opinion. I'm definitely not pro-Israeli in any way and really didn't like jayjg's behavior in another matter, but I have to side with him and his friends on this one. --Vitalmove 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved user Abe.Froman

I am new to this discussion. I think that if notable, verifiable citations can be found to justify articles on segregation within different nations, articles can be made about it. This discussion has veered into a debate over suitability of the word "Apartheid." Personally, I think segregation is a better word, and 'Apartheid' used outside its South African frame of reference is contextually meaningless. But "segregation" does not turn heads quite like "Apartheid" does. That said, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If notable sources are claiming a country engages in Apartheid, editors can make an Apartheid article for that nation. Abe Froman 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Clayoquot

The arbitrators' decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid case included, "If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter." Essjay had stated that, "voluntary mediation is simply not going to work for this one." If ArbCom chooses to reject the case, I ask that they give the parties a strong push towards mediation.

[edit] Statement by only marginally involved User:Carlossuarez46

Allegations of American apartheid is currently at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30. Therein I made the following comment in endorsing the deletion:

• As a further note, only slightly off topic, it is also about time that we consider "apartheid" in the same vein as "cult" as a WP:WTA, even if a notable someone or lots of notable someones uses the term to describe the event, we don't need to adopt the alleger's words as a title in the article, unless we want to have articles such as this or Allegations that you-know-who is the worst president, Allegations that guess-who is the most overrated celebrity, etc., for which several notable people could be found to have made such accusations.

I urge the arbcom to accept the case to make the point that WP is not a battleground nor a forum to parrot the accusations of others nor must WP adopt the accuser's words to create POV article titles. The word "apartheid" outside of its South African context is just a lightning rod word (like "cult"), it is beneath an encyclopedia to adopt such a word in article titles. We do and should have articles Race relations in Fooland and therein certainly put "Famous person X accused the Fooland government's treatment of non-Foos as apartheid"(citation), that would be the neutral way of doing it rather than making the accusation the article's title. Aparently, no amount of cajolling the authors of these articles and those who seek to delete them will result in anything but edit wars, harsh words, and repeated visits to Afd, DRV, and then back here.

The arbcom should use its bully pulpit to focus these efforts toward building the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 19:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by marginally involved User:MartinDK

As noted by the arbitrators below this case is a mess. It is also, however, largely a content and deletion dispute. What complicates it is the fact that most of these articles were created in response to the Israeli article which, as noted above, has survived at least 6 attempts at getting it deleted. My personal view on this was noted on the AfD related to Allegations of French apartheid. The situation has been escalated for no reason because the keep side, in particular it's strongest proponents, chose to create a series of equally inherently POV articles rather than enter into a civil discussion or seek mediation/dispute resolution and accept the outcome of such a process. This situation has now been going on for a while and continues to resurface. It is not going to go away and any attempts to reason with those involved solely to prove a point has so far failed. Specifically, nothing useful has come from WP:APARTHEID. ArbCom should accept this case, not to settle the content dispute but to determine to what extend WP:POINT has been violated and put an end to the disruption and abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground. Such a case would very much be within ArbCom's jurisdiction. MartinDK 12:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum I second the plea below to reconsider your decision to reject this case. WP:POINT violations are not content disputes. We can argue over the title and even the existence of the article without ArbCom getting involved but to effectively stop the entire process by making blatant all or nothing demands is what WP:POINT is all about. ArbCom has previously accepted cases involving disruption disguised as content disputes and I do not see why this case would be any different, on the contrary given the history of the dispute and the determination by the keep side to continuously halt the entire process this is an even bigger ArbCom case waiting to happen. This will not go away by it self. Too many editors have now realized what is going on. MartinDK 13:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by semi-involved User:G-Dett

Actually I'm quite heavily involved, having successfully nominated two of these articles for deletion. But I'm not officially listed as an involved party, hence the subheader.

As has been pointed out, the “allegations of apartheid” series is a serial WP:POINT-violation conceived and deployed in bad faith. That is, the chief creators, contributors and defenders of the series are all on the record saying they believe “allegations of apartheid” to be a wholly inappropriate subject for Wikipedia. Having failed to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid in a total of six AfDs, they have created this series in the hopes of harnessing the ensuing disruption to leverage the deletion of the Israel article. This leveraging is carried out in two ways. Firstly, when editors in each of the target areas (Brazil, France, China, and so on) express their disgruntlement and bewilderment at the appearance of highly tendentious quote-farm articles in their area of interest – articles, moreover, apparently written by Wikipedians with no knowledge or interest in the area who are merely data-mining sources for instances where the word “apartheid” is used – it is coyly suggested that they redirect their ire to the Israel article. Examples of this “recruitment” are here and here. Secondly, to editors who support the Israel article and object to the creation of a series of sister articles (as well as the ostentatious original-research navbox template connecting them) on original-research and notability grounds, it is broadly insinuated that the authors of the sister articles will be happy to abandon and delete them in exchange for the deletion of the Israel article.

In addition to such broad hints and insinuations, the campaign of deletion-by-other-means requires no small amount of double-talk: on the one hand, the fundamental illegitimacy of articles on “allegations of apartheid” must be maintained in order to justify the demand for a “comprehensive” deletion; on the other hand, the encyclopedic merits of the individual “sister” articles must be extolled and marveled at during AfD debates, in order to justify the keep votes needed to retain them as bargaining chips. User:Jayjg has been particularly audacious in such double talk: in the AfD for the Israel article he described it as “inherently POV and unencylopedic," and went on: "Like a cancer, it grows without structure or value, harming the body around it, and sapping it of strength better used in meaningful articles. It needs to be excised." When the France article (written in large part by him) came up for AfD, by contrast, he voted "speedy keep," describing it as "well-written and encyclopedic." He voted "strong keep" for the Saudi article (created by himself) describing it as a "well-sourced, notable issue." On the very same day that Jay lamented the existence of "allegations of apartheid" articles and expressed his hopes that Wikipedia will "mature" to the point of having a "higher standard," he voted "strong keep" on Allegations of Chinese apartheid – again largely his creation – and describes it as "approaching some of Wikipedia's best work." Thus citing the need for "consistency," Jay is offering to exchange the deletion of Wikipedia's "best work" for the removal of a "cancer." This is either an exceedingly opaque notion of "consistency" or a rather transparent WP:POINT violation; Occam's razor leads me to conclude it's the latter.

Lastly but perhaps most importantly, it should be stressed that most of the “sister” articles (a dozen or so have been created, of which some six remain) are in gross violation of WP:NOR and WP:N. They have been researched by monkeys typing “apartheid” into search bars, and written by robots assembling the search results into quote farms. One thing all sides agreed upon with regards to the Israel article was that the article had to be about the apartheid allegation itself – not the issues animating it, which it made no sense to examine through the lens of a loaded metaphor. The Israel article is chock-a-block with secondary sources telling us about the analogy – its history, who makes it, who refutes it, why it’s so controversial, etc. The sister articles have by contrast no secondary sources, no evidence or indication of the analogy’s notability. They consist entirely of primary sources where someone uses the word “apartheid” or “apartheid-like” in passing while discussing this or that policy. The articles simply quote the sources at length talking about different issues, and present the quotations as if the issue were apartheid. (In most cases, the one quoted rhetorical use of “apartheid” will be the only appearance of that word in a several-hundred-page book). Each primary sources is distorted in this way (magnifying a rhetorical figure into a thesis), and then these distortions are joined together and presented as if they’re discussing a common topic, “apartheid” or “the apartheid.” So in the “criticism” section of the “French apartheid” article, for example, we are told that “Some have argued that the claims of apartheid in France are a consequence of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism among some French Muslims, and not just government policy...Some French Muslim women also see the "apartheid" as being internally imposed by the French Muslim community." If you read the sources cited, however, they do not refer to "claims of apartheid" and then rebut them in the way clearly suggested here. They simply talk about self-segregation among Muslim immigrants, and they use the metaphor of apartheid for this. In other words, the two sides here are not debating apartheid, or claims of apartheid, or anything of the sort; they're just debating the failure of immigrant assimilation, and in doing so each side happens of its own accord to reach for the "apartheid" metaphor (a fairly common metaphor, as these articles unwittingly demonstrate). Wikipedians have set up this phony back-and-forth over "the apartheid" in order to foster the illusion that there's actually a topic here, a set of "allegations of apartheid" recognized as an issue and criticized by some, rather than just a bunch of disparate voices that have had occasion to use the metaphor of apartheid at some point or another in discussing various things (Algeria, immigration, multiculturalism and secularism, the headscarf controversy, etc.) For another example of this mirage of continuity being created around the illusory topic of "the apartheid" (examples are literally everywhere), turn to the China article: after hearing that source A compares the occupation of Tibet to "apartheid," we are told that "these tensions have spilled over into the tourist industry," and then we're given source B's observation that hotels in Tibet "practice a form of apartheid," with Chinese hotels overcharging foreigners and Tibetan hotels catering to tourists but not Chinese settlers. No reliable source connects source A's observations about oppression and tyranny to source B's about commercial balkanization: the "spilling tensions" are pure original research, of course, but more importantly, the very idea that there is some continuity of topic here, some stable notion of "apartheid" being pursued from source to source is more than OR – it's a calculated illusion. What we actually have here are unrelated passages with chance metaphorical similarities merely being juxtaposed to create the illusion of a subject moving between them.

This is what I mean when I call the articles "hoax articles." I have been unsparing in my language, but the passages I've given you are not anomalous; they are the basic building blocks of the articles in question, and frankly it is a form of trickery. Passage after passage does exactly this: sets up a relay between a series of unrelated block quotes, between which is passed the baton of an incidental metaphor. Go to any sequence of two block quotes in any of the articles and you will find this pattern, this technique of the phantom baton. If you object to it, you're offered the "comprehensive solution" (you excise your cancer, I'll throw out my best work). If you point out that the Israel article actually has a recognized topic – there are hundreds of reliable secondary sources describing the controversy surrounding the "apartheid" meme as it's used in debate about Israel – the distinction is waived aside – ignored, not rebutted – and you are darkly accused of wishing to "single out Israel."

This is the pass we find ourselves in. It may have begun as a content issue, but it's metastasized into a behavioral issue, with enormously disruptive consequences. It is time for Arbcom to act.--G-Dett 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

this is crazy. the reason those other articles were opened is that ethnic discrimination and segregation is a huge isue crossing all national and cultural lines. once the israel article broke open this category, of course editors would seek to commnet on apartheid in other countries. these are real, genuine, and meaningful articles. the idea that the israel-related article is only on the issue debate itself, and does not entail any kind of allegation or accusation, is just silly. --Steve, Sm8900 19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Teofilo

As the creator of Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid, I feel concerned by the present arbitration. I created Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid on 22 July 2007. The article's title has been later renamed into "Segregation in Northern Ireland" and I agree with the renaming. See why on that article's talk page. While French/France related articles are one of my focuses, please do not see me as French-focused "only". When I write about Northern Ireland, I try to be as much Northern Irish-focused as can be. Teofilo talk 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reconsideration Statement by User:Cerejota

Having read the reasons for rejection given by the majority of ArbCom members and the sheer number of statements, from involved, semi-involved, and completely uninvolved editors, I kindly urge the ArbCom to reconsider.

I and many others feel it cannot continue to be ignored by ArbCom:

1. This is not a content dispute - There are content disputes around these articles, however, ArbCom should not rule over them. The key issue here is a behavioral one. The ArbCom should not allow the existence of editing disputes to distract them from ongoing behavioral issues.
2. Community resolution of content disputes is being disrupted - Almost all attempts to focus on editing content, on raising article quality, are met with personal digressions, circular arguments, and the worse kind of WP:SOAPBOX stuff imaginable.
3. ArbCom will have to deal with this sooner or later - its relatively mild actions in the previous arbitration only seemed to make matters worse, not better. It is too late to nip in the bud, but there is still time to draw this under control. While I do not subscribe to conspiracy theory, having been in the receiving end of some wanton incivility, and seeing the circular, unproductive environment.
4. The unresolved behavior issues themselves become WP:POINT - With so much back and forth, edit warring, circular arguments, and accusations that never reach formal WP:DR but taint the editing process, the environment becomes so tainted by mistrust, self-reference, and outright gang-like behavior, emboldened by the lack of any serious consequences, that WP:POINT is the talk pages and centralized discussion itself.
5. Serious accusations of WP:POINT must be dealt with - in all of the related pages, AfDs, and history of centralized discussions, there has been a common theme of accusations of meatpuppetry, vandalism, and willful violations of WP:5P policy, along with almost every other accusation imaginable. Furthermore, a number of editors use as an argument all or nothing argumentation that fits the bill of the WP:POINT accusations. This taints the serious, measured discussion that should inform debate. In fact, an involved administrator User:ChrisO was accused in an AfD and DRV of misusing his tools: however, he was not accused formally, just tainted. These types of attacks with a lack of any attempts at WP:DR are precisely why ArbCom should reconsider its running tally, and accept.

I created essay WP:UCEPE because I feel incivility is dealt with too lightly here. How are we supposed to dig sources and perform the task needed to make good content, if one is working in an environment full of incivility?

I do reserve my views on the facts for the future, but for me it is clear we need ArbCom like we need water.

ArbCom: do your job and promote civility. The community obviously begs you.

Listen to User:UninvitedCompany. He seems to get it.

Thanks!--Cerejota 06:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seconding Cerejota's plea

I would point to the evidence outlined above (particularly by Mackan79 and G-Dett). This problem will continue to rage on and draw in more and more of the Wikipedia community as more and more articles of this type get created as WP:POINT. I'm rather surprised by the number of "decline" votes below. If you do not want to take the case, I can fully understand, (it's a mess) but to record your decline positions (in nearly identical terms) pre-empts the possibility for others with the stomach to, to take up the case. It's only going to get worse. Clear messages must be sent that such behavior is unacceptable.Tiamat 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only one diff

Is this a content dispute ?

“

There is a merge tag on Allegations of French apartheid with the "discuss" pointing here. I oppose this proposal in the absence of a global solution on "Allegations of X apartheid" articles. This article survived an AfD just as other articles did, and if it is going to be merged anywhere, similar action should take place for all articles in the series.

”

All or nothing, all or nothing, all or nothing, all or nothing, all or nothing, all or nothing, all or nothing. That's the only answer i get. I can't stand this anymore... I did not take part to the others allegation of apartheid articles debate. It seems that without any help from the outside, no consensus is ever going to be found for ALL the appartheid articles ; That sort of arguments keeps hijacking my work. If not asking for help from the ArbCom, what else can I do ? NicDumZ ~ 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should feel proud to be regarded as the most quotable proponent of fairness and consistency. It's still a content dispute, though. (Since this was not a formal "statement" I hope it is ok to respond in the same section.) 6SJ7 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourthing (?) Cerejota's plea

This isn't about content, as Cerejota mentions. It's not about what happens to the allegations of apartheid articles. There are very clear and very serious user conduct issues here in terms of how users have dealt with the existence of these articles. It goes to the heart of Wikipedia is not a battleground and don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I would urge the ArbCom members who have voted to decline the case to reconsider. MastCell ^Talk 15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreement with Cerejota's plea

Most of the arbitrators that declined arbitration agreed that there is a serious problem, but don't want to deal with it. This is the dispute resolution system we have, and it's ArbComm's job to run it. If ArbComm declines the arbitration, the problem will get much worse. Hasbara Fellowships, sponsored by the Foreign Ministry of Israel, is actively recruiting people for this edit war. [28]. ("You have the opportunity to stop this dangerous trend! If you are interested in joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is presented fairly and accurately, please contact director@israelactivism.com for details!") This may hit the mainstream press. This has to be dealt with. It can't be ducked. --John Nagle 07:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not in agreement with my plea, as you are one of the particularly disruptive and WP:POINT editors. When this hits the fan, even I might get a little crap on me. But you, my friend, are way up there with Uthorgie and Crew (who basically singlehandedly restarted the shitstorm by starting "Allegations of apartheid in x"). Conspiracy mongering (you do it here!) and doing POV forking (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline relating to allegations of Israeli Apartheid), man you name it. Don't throw stones from glass houses... Thanks!--Cerejota 05:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, if the arbitration goes forward, we'll take a closer look at the history of that article in the evidence phase. --John Nagle 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzlement: What is this case about?

There are an awful lot of statements being made, but what is this case about? The initiator's statement "How committed are you to your principles?" is not very detailed. I got railroaded through another poorly-defined case, so can someone state what this mess is about? (SEWilco 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Mackan79's description above is the most detailed and relevant. Ideogram seems to have removed his more detailed outline of the case. Tiamat 10:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for case acceptance by GRBerry

WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND is the user-conduct based policy that is in question here. It says in relevant part "do not create or modify articles just to prove a point." I believe that the articles were created to make a point, and the creation and continued defense of these articles is being disruptive. This question is clearly within ArbComm's responsibility. Centralized discussion, if anything, has made the problem worse, not better. User conduct RFCs are just going to be another forum for the ongoing factional fighting. Mediation is impossible with factions this large. There is no reason to believe that any other form of dispute resolution will make things better. Unfortunately, diffs of clear admission of disruption are extremely unlikely to be found, as many of those involved are experienced Wikipedians who should know better than to do this, and do know enough not to admit on Wikipedia to intentionally violating policy. While I don't expect to find such diffs, as an admin that never saw this issue before it made it to DRV, I think the duck test is adequate evidence that there is problematic user conduct. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid has gathered some personal attacks on ^demon, who closed one of the recently closed AFDs. The battle is not getting smaller, it is getting worse. GRBerry 14:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by mostly uninvolved KWSN

I looked at the DRV linked by GRBerry, and quite frankly, I agree with him. My "involvement" in the case is participating in one DRV discussion, and only commenting once in it (it was endorsing the deletion, I have nothing to hide). If the case is accepted, I ask that all users that created threaded comments in response to other user's !votes be included, whether the comment was for keep, overturn, endorse, delete, or just a general comment. On a side comment, Ideogram's statement could have been better, which caused a lot of puzzlement among users. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to the ArbCom by alithien

I think I agree with Arbitrators comments stating it is not their role to set-up this matter but it is the community to resolve this.
Nevertheless arbitrators recognize the mess and ArbCom has been installed to solve disputes and is requested by many editors to accept the case.
Why not accept the case and speedily enforce a well-thought list of users involved and uninvolved to make this case ruled by wikipedia community as a whole, with eg a debate followed by proposals sanctionned by a vote ? Alithien 10:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belated statement by CJCurrie

The ArbComm should certainly investigate this matter. This is more than simply a content dispute; serious allegations (pardon the phrase) have been raised about experienced Wikipedians engaging in serial WP:POINT violations in order to delete a page they disagree with. My own view is that these allegations have a strong basis in fact, and that the matter properly falls under the ArbComm's scrutiny. CJCurrie 02:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements after the case was opened

[edit] Statement by Sefringle

WP:POINT accusations have gone far enough There are clearly many editors on wikipedia who hate Israel, as obvious by the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. It is also clear that they are unwilling to compromise, and will only agree to what is forced upon them. The main problem with wikipedia is that any article enough wikipedia editors like for one reason or another will not be deleted no matter how bad it is. This 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. Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, as a result no longer apply, and although it may not say so on the WP:NPOV article, it has been reduced from a policy to a guideline.

I find the Israeli apartheid article insulting. It is an attack page against Israel, and it was created by anti-zionists to inflame Israel; it is a POV fork designed for that purpose, and to say that we are scum, and to convince readers of that article of that. Thus others are trying to NPOV the article by creating similar articles about other countries, and the more countries, the more neutral each article becomes.

This conflict is largely (if not completely) a content dispute, and had I known the purpose of arbcom at the beginning of this case, I never would have participated. Many users on both sides have done been uncivil and disruptive, and not just us so-called point voters. Many of the nominations are very WP:POINTy, saying the article should be deleted because of who created it. Other users, like Cerejota have outright refused discussion, attempting to take every comment I make out of context, even in civil ones, interpriting them as acts of disruption or uncivilry. He/she has also refused discussion on many times, just assuming everything I do on the AoIA article is disruption or trolling. This uncivilry is annoying and disruptive to the project.--Sefringle^Talk 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:BrandonYusufToropov

The creation of various fanciful "allegations of apartheid" articles is, from where I sit, a fairly obvious attempt to undermine, and eventually delete, AoIA. Re: AoIA (whatever it ends up being called) -- it reflects a controversy over a manifestly notable term that has, unlike, say, Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, inspired an irresponsible-to-ignore global controversy. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] BYT 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Amarkov

This is silly. "OMG anti-semites! They want to make people think we are racist!" "OMG Zionists! They want to make people think they're flawless!" Has it occured to anyone involved here to try not assuming that everyone who disagrees with you has some ulterior motive? -Amarkov moo! 22:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Malik Shabazz

I am only marginally involved with this; I've voted in a few of the AfDs — I've voted to keep the Israel article and to delete or merge others — and I voted to delete with the "Israel bloc" to delete the Israel timeline article. To the best of my recollection, I've never contributed to any of the Apartheid articles, although I have edited other Israel-related articles.

I agree with practically everything that G-Dett wrote. The principal problem is bad-faith disruption by editors who have synthesized OR articles that are little more than quote-farms.

Finally, I strongly object to Sefringle's presumption that people who vote to keep the Israel article "hate Israel" and that supporters of Israel "find the Israeli apartheid article insulting". I have voted precisely in precisely the manner attributes to Israel-haters, and I don't hate Israel; I support Israel, and I don't think the Israel article is insulting. Based on their comments at the AfDs, it seems like many editors are unable to distinguish between an encyclopedia article about allegations and the allegations themselves. I am disturbed by the allegations and the facts on the ground that have led to those allegations, but not by the article about those allegations. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ashley Y

It's pretty clear that all the other articles were created in an effort to "contexualise" Allegations of Israeli apartheid. One of the unfortunate aspects of this is the damage it does to the rest of the encyclopaedia. People have created these articles without (I assume) any particular interest or knowledge in these other countries, and regardless of the existing set of articles about their social issues. It's bad enough that Is/Pal articles are a battleground, and now it's spilling out elsewhere.

Nevertheless, there is encyclopaedic content in many of the articles in question, but with the exception of the Israeli one merely poorly characterised as "allegations of apartheid". The correct solution would be to move and rename them on an individual basis, but their creators have generally resisted any move away from the magic "allegations of" titles. For instance, "social apartheid" is a common term to describe the situation in Brazil, and given the sources in Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, apparently uncontested. So a sensible title would be "Social apartheid in Brazil". But this, of course, would mean the article would have to be removed from the template...

For other countries, "apartheid" is often a less common characterisation of some social situation. The Northern Ireland article, for instance, was moved to a more sensible name, perhaps because a lot more editors pay attention to NI issues on the English-speaking WP than to many of the others. —Ashley Y 05:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

After the fifth AfD of Allegations of Israeli apartheid failed, Jayjg suggested renaming the article to "Illegitimate Zionist entity apartheid"[35], apparently in all seriousness[36]. —Ashley Y 03:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by an uninvolved Quadell

I regard the following as uncontroversial statements of fact:

• Some people strongly want the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid kept (and promoted) for partisan reasons, and some people strongly want the article deleted (or diluted) for partisan reasons. Strong political opinions regarding Israel/Palestine have frequently made the maintenance of a neutral encyclopedia difficult, and they have made the AFD process more inflammatory.
• Other people, in good faith and for non-partisan reasons, have differing opinions on the "Allegations of X apartheid" (AoXa) articles. One does not have to be a partisan in the Israel/Palestine conflict to promote or oppose these articles (or to create them, or to nominate them for deletion).
• There is no evidence that a secretive confederation of pro-Israel editors exists with the goal of creating multiple AoXa articles in order to dilute the effect of the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article and lessen criticism against Israel. But it is reasonable to expect that pro-Israel editors would desire this outcome. There is no evidence of a secret confederation of anti-Israel editors who wish to delete all AoXa articles except for the Israeli one in order to maximize the impact of criticism against Israel. But it is reasonable to expect that anti-Israel editors would desire this outcome. The existence or non-existence of such cabals is unprovable and irrelevant.
• An editor could create or improve an AoXa article for good-faith reasons, without trying to make a POINT. There is no evidence (just plenty of allegations) that any of the editors of AoXa are violating POINT. The same could be said about those who nominate various AoXa articles for deletion or vote for their deletion. AGF requires that we assume these articles have been created and improved in good faith, and then nominated for deletion in good faith, unless evidence to the contrary exists for a specific user in a specific case. Of course it's likely that some editors who created and improved these articles were acting in bad faith, and that some who have nominated these articles for deletion were acting in bad faith, and we may each have our own private suspicions, but it's in the interest of Wikipedia for us to assume good faith anyway (absent evidence of bad faith in a given instance).
• These pages are powerful and effective magnets for partisans on both sides, who are using these articles and the AFD process for aims unrelated to the goals of Wikipedia. This hurts Wikipedia.

And now my opinions.

• I believe the ArbCom will be unable to show that any particular user has acted in bad faith or violated POINT in any specific article creation, nomination for deletion, or vote on AFD. I don't believe any sanctions will be (or should be) sustained against any specific user.
• It may be that the standard Wikipedia processes is incapable of handling the situation -- that the level of partisanship is so high that, for instance, a reasonable assessment of the merits of a given AoXa article on AFD is impossible. But I don't believe that's the case. If it were, then it would be best for the ArbCom to step in and decide the issue, decreeing how AoXa articles should be handled in the future. Certainly the standard Wikipedia processes for these articles are messy, slow, and inflammatory, but I believe they will ultimately be effective on their own. So long as we don't tolerate clear violations of POINT (with specific evidence in specific cases, not just alleged in general), and so long as we don't tolerate gross incivility or personal attacks, then this issue will work itself out eventually.

[edit] Statement by Targeman

Regarding Sefringle's statement above, that the dozen or so AoXa articles were created solely to prove a point is (once again) openly admitted. Sefringle's and the other involved editors' paranoid siege mentality ("we're surrounded by Israel haters") and inability to solve what they claim are PoV problems with the AoIa article (whose renaming to something less inflammatory I have proposed and still support BTW) using the usual tools led them to the incredibly childish idea of pointing fingers at other countries ("My house sucks? Your house sucks too, nyah nyah"). This ridiculous game has to stop. It is high time Wikipedia graduated to a higher level of maturity. If the ArbCom proves unable untie this Gordian knot, I'll have to find myself a different, less distasteful pastime. Please stop this project from going to the dogs.

On a personal note, I presume I've been included in Sefringle's shitlist of "Israel-hating editors". My Jewish ancestors must be turning in their graves. (What those who exited through Nazi chimneys are doing is anybody's guess). Sefringle and friends, please don't let your paranoia get the better of you - this is an online encyclopedia, not downtown Gaza. It's a shame to see otherwise valuable and respected editors wasting their talent and energy on defending a country from imaginary threats while it defends itself pretty well from the real ones. --Targeman 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Sm8900

I feel this article on so-called Israeli aparthied or any other such article on any nation is by its very nature unverifiable, biased, slanted and carries an underlying distortion. this should be strictly informative as befits an encylopedia. How about creating new articles like "allegations of tyranny" or "allegations of anti-creationism"? how aboutr allegations of sexism for Saudi Arabia instead of a reasoned objective look at other cultures? how far will this go?

I completely disagree with any comments which criticize the creation of articles on apartheid in other countries, yet support the article on so-called apartheid in Israel. This approach is motivated purely by malicious distrust against Israel. it is absolutely outrageous to support the article which focuses on Israel, but then to criticize similar articles which focus on other countries. This is an offense against decency and fairness, and a yielding to the most base, hateful and lowest sentiments at Wikipedia. this is an outrage and a disgrace. --Steve, Sm8900 19:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by greg park avenue

Strong rename "allegations" to "analogy", or "similarities and differences between South Africa apartheid-era and Israel", but this term smells of OR (scienticic paper, there is not even an article on apartheid, just a part of history of S Africa), or even to "controversy", but the latter term does smell of fish (POV). The "analogy" ist the best term; it'll make invalid all those baseless accusations of Israel practicing apartheid inside Israel, only the territories (Gaza and WB) will be subject to valid analogy. For example, there is a government policy concerning ethnic segregation in granting political asylum. Jews got that almost automatically, Arabs almost never. But this is an immigration policy, which any country does like it pleases. It's "human right's" department, not apartheid.

To display how weak those allegations inside Israel are, one may introduce inverse apartheid allegations based on another government policy concerning the Israel Defence Forces, I quote: "Israeli Arabs were not required to perform mandatory military service and, in practice, only a small percentage of Israeli Arabs served in the military". My kind of apartheid, I'd say. Just concentrate on real apartheid analogy, and it requires changing of approach (title).

Summary: Without "allegations" word, this article can be cleaned from many propaganda, which even many Jews themselves despise, as per Targeman, two floors up. greg park avenue 21:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Seabhcan

I'm uninvolved here but I have been involved in similar disputes over on the "Allegations of State Terrorism..." articles. My views there is the same as here: If there are multiple notable sources stating such an opinion, then there is no reason why they can't compiled into an article.

"State Terrorism" is a good comparison because it is such an ill-defined term. Every time it is used it is an "allegation" rather than a statement of fact because there is no central authority which can officially judge an act as terrorism or not. Same with apartheid. In the strict sense it means only the policies of old South Africa, but it has evolved into a more general, and ill-defined term. Notable sources do exist which label selected government policies in many countries as apartheid (usually for the shock value of the word). This includes otherwise controversial states such as Israel and Saudi, but also fairly uncontroversial countries like Ireland, Holland and Japan.

If editors are willing to compile these sources into articles, what reason is there to stop them? Such an article will prove much more useful to scholars than the thousands of Pokemon articles we have on the books. ... Seabhcan 08:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Leifern

(This replaces a much harder missive earlier. I decided to tone down my rhetoric and be more specific).

One of the things I enjoy about editing in Wikipedia is that it gives me opportunities to learn new things and also benefit from diverse points of view. Some topics (e.g., the Arab-Israeli conflict) I know to be controversial; others (Architecture of Norway I don't expect problems; and others still (e.g., Kven) become unexpectedly contentious. I haven't seen an article yet that hasn't benefited from merciless editing and the occasional conflict.

All my contributions are written to make a point. Some time ago, I started an article about Solveig Fiske, the newly appointed bishop in the Norwegian town of Hamar, because she had broken new ground by saying the Church of Norway should recognize same-sex unions. Imagine my surprise when it was put up for speedy deletion. After this was resolved, I made further points by writing more articles about Norwegian bishops, and even an article that was featured in DYK about the Trondheim prelature.

None of these articles, or any article I've ever written or edited, has been evaluated on the basis of my supposed intent in writing them. They were all edited and largely improved upon on whether they were well-written and didn't violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc. This is as it should be.

When arbitrators, admins, and other editors assert that "the only reasonable explanation" is that I opined differently on two separate AFDS for invalid reasons, I am offended for several reasons:

• It is simply not true. I will admit that I find allegations of Israeli apartheid (the allegations, that is, not the article) offensive, but we all write about things we find offensive. But if we are honest editors, we try to keep our sentiment out of the editing.
• There are many more reasonable explanations. I can't speak for the other editors some arbitrators want to sanction, but I will speak for myself. I continue to have concerns about Allegations of Israeli apartheid because it struggles with issues of NPOV and structure even after hundreds of edits and many many honest attempts at compromise. I also have problems with articles based on political rhetoric, but I seem to have been overruled on this issue. On the other hand, I think that it is interesting and instructive to see how articles on allegations of apartheid in other countries evolve, with different participants, different underlying issues, etc. And yes, I think that if "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" can't be deleted on the basis of the title alone, then neither can other articles. Once we get past the title issue, the articles must be evaluated and edited based on notability, NPOV, OR, SYNTH, etc.
• It is based on some strange notion of thought crimes. To leap to the conclusion that "if editor A did B and C, then his/her intention must have been D" is highly problematic. We all have different reasons for taking part in this effort, and it's no accident why we never ask each other why we do. To be sure, we bring our biases, emotional baggage, and hotbuttons to it as well, and I doubt that anyone can truly say they've always behaved in an exemplary fashion, but we always focus on behaviors rather than any inference we can make about motivation.
• It is a post ex facto ruling. I could never have dreamed that my opining on this topic could possibly be construed as a violation of any kind. I was simply expressing my opinion, and that - as far as I know - is not only permissible but encouraged here. For anyone to want to punish me for expressing honestly what I think, because they are inclined to believe I was driven by a goal I never had, is simply ludicrous.

I would implore all arbcom members, and indeed all those who read this, to carefully consider the implications and precedent of this issue. If we open for editors to bring cases against each other for what we think the motivation is, and bring as evidence discrepancies we don't understand, we are opening the floodgates to endless issues like this on every controversial issue in Wikipedia. Every single AFD on an alleged POV fork, or related topic, or sub- or supertopic, can be viewed, one way or another, as an attempt to make a point.

And most of them are made to make a point. There is nothing wrong with making a point on Wikipedia. What is not allowed is to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make the point. The examples in WP:POINT are very illustrative, and it's novel that creating new content - even controversial content - is an illegitimate course of action.--Leifern 22:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(The following was made in response to an earlier version of this statement, but I don't want to delete it). --Leifern 22:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree generally with your concerns. this is why we need to let this focus on content disputes. the unrelenting focus on user conduct is getting us deeper and deeper into needless territory. Unfortunately, I feel this is only going to get worse. --Steve, Sm8900 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks for retaining my comment. Now I agree with you even double the amount that I did before. :-) thanks.

by the way, the likelihood that any issues which you mention will actually be resolved is extremely small. At this point, ArbCom has had to reiterate repeatedly just how little they wish to rule on matters of content. And the amount of accusation and counter-accusation in this case makes it more likely that the final resolution will not be very specific at all, more like a general statement that everyone should try harder to discuss this more positively. --Steve, Sm8900 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical question from CJCurrie

May I ask if User:Jayjg is still on the ArbComm mailing list? If so, I believe it may be appropriate to remove him for the duration of the present case -- he is an involved party in these matters, and should not be given access to the confidential discussions of Arbitrators. CJCurrie 04:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has been absent, and isn't participating in anything related to this case at this time, nor has he commented. I think right now, it would be a waste of time to do so.--Sefringle^Talk 05:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jay has indeed been absent from Wikipedia proper, but it's my understanding that he may still have access to the ArbComm mailing list. The fact that he's chosen not to participate in the present case is entirely irrelevant to my concerns. CJCurrie 05:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg continues to have access to the ArbCom mailing list. Paul August ☎ 02:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think he should have continued access, while the ArbComm considers a case in which he is intimately involved? CJCurrie 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We discuss things privately when necessary. Paul August ☎ 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the need for an ArbComm mailing list, but I wonder if it's appropriate for an ex-member (Jayjg) to have continued access during this particular period. CJCurrie 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that, when necessary, we discsuss things privately, off the mailing list. Paul August ☎ 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by thw1309

I was part of the discussion about the deletion of allegations of Chinese apartheid. I have to confess, that I am not interrested about apartheid in Israel and I am not interrested about apartheid in Israel. I only voted for the deletion, because I think, that allegations of what ever should onlybe part of this encecloedia, if the statement itself is notable, because it caused significant reactions or consequences. The pure fact of a statement, whoever made it, should not be mentioned in this enceclopedia. For me there was and is no difference between all these allegation articles. An idiot is calling something apartheid to gain publicity and the next idiot is writing this, to fill his newspaper. Wikipedia does not have to be the next idiot, to repeat such nonsense

I was astonished, that a central argument of the discussion about allegations of Chinese apartheid was the article about allegations of Israeli apartheid. I was even more astonished to discover, that the same editors, fighting with me for the deletion of the Chinese allegations article, were those, who support the Israeli allegations article and those, who wanted to keep the Chinese allegations article fight against the Israeli allegations article, although there is exactely the same situation in both of these articles.

There is an elementary mistake about this request for arbitation. Both groups misuse wikipedia. Both groups especially misuse the allegations articles. As far as I was told, the arabian side wrote an article about apartheid in Israel. The Israel side wanted to see proof. Now the arabian side found the way to avoid the use of proof. Instead of quotes for the existance of a fact, you change the name and only need quotes for the statement. Then the other side, which is not able to delete the article, creates a lot of similar articles to disanger enough Wikipedians to get rid of the Israel article too.

One of these groups creates articles not to inform about the subject but only to gain pubicity and support for their fight against the Israel allegations article. The other group fights those articles, not because they are positive about their own arguments (the same, they fight in relation to the Israel article), but only because of political reasons concerning the Israel related article. It looks like this request for arbitration is part of this misuse too. One of the groups tries to weaken the other. Not only one side of this war but both should be part of this arbitration process.

I hope there will be a general solution about all these allegation articles but even more I hope that all those on both sides, who misused Wikipedia, will be stopped, because such tactics destroy Wikipedia more than even the worst article about any senseless allegation. --Thw1309 14:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Ideogram

I checked the talk pages, and was surprised this wasn't linked here yet, but he has been sitebanned. The period is at least one year, when it would expire is up in the air. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC) I'm an idiot, was posted in evidence. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revising opening statements long after the fact?

Is this sort of revisionism normal? I figured that attention should be called to this since Urthogie's "I created several allegations articles so that Wikipedia could be more NPOV" admission is the basis of several sections in the Workshop and Evidence areas, and it has now been deleted. Tarc 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)