Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence

Evidence references

Can someone please let me know how we can access the history of deleted articles so we can review the evidence being presented? Thanks. --Leifern 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Only administrators can see deleted revisions. Sean William @ 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If one needs deleted revisions for ArbCom evidence purposes, a temporary restore (with blanking and protection) is appropriate, and has been done many times before. Do you need the article restored for this purpose? Xoloz 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate - and I hope have all parties with me - that it would be unfair to present evidence that not all involved parties have access to. I'm not sure how to do it technically, but I have to imagine there must be ways. --Leifern 01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ask for specific articles at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review, noting that it is for the ArbComm and the full history is needed. GRBerry 12:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The clerks can do it without DRV, I think. I'll work from ChrisO's list; add any additional requests here. Thatcher131 14:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think restoring the talk pages may also be useful, if possible. Thanks, Mackan79 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Thatcher131 14:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a temporary restore of Template:Allegations of apartheid apartheid also. That has now been deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 21#Template:Allegations of apartheid. I haven't seen people using it significantly in the evidence while it was available, so it may or may not be needed. GRBerry 04:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid

If we are going to examine edit histories, the history of this article is relevant. A lot of the material was collected here before being spun out into the individual articles. --Ideogram 23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments made during Arbitration

In response to a dialog I just removed from Picaroon's evidence suggestion, I would like to point out that editors' behavior during Arbitration may indeed be taken into account by the Arbitrators. Those who do not regularly follow arbitration cases might be surprised at the behavior that occurs here, when you would expect editors to know that every comment will be read by the Arbitrators. Far from being on their best behavior, some editors have received harsher sanctions than were originally considered partly because their poor behavior during the case gave the Arbitrators little confidence that moderate remedies would have the desired effect. Thatcher131 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I suspected that would be the case but it's helpful to have it spelled out. (Is this stated anywhere in the arbitration policy?) -- ChrisO 15:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'll look into it. I would hope that Don't moon the jury or When on trial for assault, don't punch the witnesses would be common sense, but experience has shown otherwise. Thatcher131 15:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration policy is full of generalities and there doesn't look like a good place for this (which is different than the long-standing prohibition on MEDCOM being used as evidence). But I did add a note to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case. Thatcher131 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

responses to evidence

Am I supposed to respond under the comment, or am I supposed to respond somewhere else, or not respond at all?--Sefringle^Talk 02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Workshop page, under the comment. On the Evidence page on you own section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On the evidence page, you are supposed to provide evidence, including evidence that you bring up because of other evidence. If you want to discuss what the evidence means, that would belong on the Workshop page. GRBerry 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You have 4 options. You can make an evidence section of your own that contains a rebuttal subsection. You can offer an explanation on the talk page. You can comment on any relevant workshop proposals tied to the evidence (such as "# Sefringle has disrupted wikipedia to make a point" if it exists). Or you can use the analysis of evidence section on the workshop page to explain your case. Thatcher131 12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How far back to go with evidence?

Can the Arbitrators give me a hint on how far back the ArbComm is likely to find more evidence helpful? I've got a huge list of pages to work through, and it could easily take me a few weeks (or more) to work through the list. I'd rather not waste my time researching and everyone else's time reviewing evidence that we can know in advance will be useless. GRBerry 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably reasonable to go back as far as the end of last year's arbitration on this subject, but no further. --John Nagle 04:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Open question

Some people have already gone through the voting records here, so I'm hoping someone will be able to provide a quick answer to this:

What editors, if any, voted to delete the Israeli article after having voted to keep one of the other articles?

Kirill 04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer right away, but I can narrow the search. The last AfD for the Israeli article was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination), speedy closed on June 26. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination) ran 19-24 April. Before that we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid 5-11 April, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination) 29 March - 4 April, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Australian apartheid 29 March - 3 April. The French, Chinese, American, and Saudi Arabian AFDs are after the most recent AoIa AFD. If you consider TFDs relevant, the TFDs for {{Allegations of apartheid}} occurred on April 6, July 10, and July 21. GRBerry 04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That could be easy to spot as the non-Israel articles AfDs happened between early April 2007 and early August 2007. The Israeli articles had many AfDs, but constrained to the criteria in your question only the Israeli AfDs of April and June would apply. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The sixth nomination was closed as speedy keep after less than a day of discussion; not many editors participated in it. The one to look at is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination), which ran from 19-24 April. Editors who !voted delete here and keep in the preceding AfDs were: Jayjg, JoshuaZ, Tickle me, Humus sapiens, Leifern, IronDuke. The keep arguments were generally in the form of "Keep if other Allegations of apartheid in X series are kept" (to quote Humus sapiens in the Brazilian AfD). Needless to say, these arguments were not used for the Israeli article. Following the Israeli AfD, the same editors (minus JoshuaZ) voted pretty much consistently to keep in the French, Chinese, American and Saudi Arabian AfDs (per evidence here). They were joined by many of the other editors who had voted to delete the Israeli article, who voted in a consistent bloc using the same all or nothing arguments and on occasion explicitly referencing the Israeli article. I believe this was a direct reaction to the result of the Israeli AfD. Note that the "all or nothing" proposition was put forward by a limited number of editors before the fifth Israeli AfD, and was then adopted by a much larger number of editors after it. -- ChrisO 07:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my analysis done. (I ignored any username changes and/or dual accounts.) Nobody who opined keep or merge in the Australian AFD opined delete for a later or simultaneous Israeli AFD. Nobody who opined Delete in the 6th Israeli AFD opined in the Brazilian AFD. So the only relevant ordered pair of AFDs is the Brazilian AFD followed by the 5th Israeli AFD. Seven users opined keep in Brazil and delete in Israel5: Gzuckier, Humus sapiens, IronDuke, Jayjg, JoshuaZ, Leifern, and Tickle me. Of these, Gzuckier, Humus sapiens, IronDuke and Leifern made "all or none" type arguments in the Brazilian. (Chris missed Gzuckier.) GRBerry 14:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all; this is very useful to know. Kirill 14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not make "all or nothing arguments." Please stop inferring my state of mind or intent. --Leifern 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Keep - if one set of allegations is notable, so should this. --Leifern 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)" Looks like an all or nothing argument by the duck test. GRBerry 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not a call for all or nothing, unless you assume bad faith. But hey, this is what this whole process has turned into by now. --Leifern 15:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Assume in this respect means to take something for granted as truth. i.e. one should believe, absence of evidence to the contrary, that the other is acting in good faith. A plainly-stated opinion of "if the rest are notable, then this is too" is evidence to the contrary, and can only be interpreted as an all-or-nothing sentiment. Tarc 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How? My point all along has been the following: If we allow one article to be created with a title such as "allegations of apartheid" about one country, then equivalent articles about other countries can not be deleted on the basis of the title alone (any article can be deleted if it never reaches NPOV, relies solely on OR, or isn't a notable subject, of course). I have never proposed anything along the lines of "let's delete all of them" or "let's keep all of them." I have merely demanded that we apply the same standards on these articles. It can only be interpreted the way you just did if you blatantly assume bad faith. --Leifern 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your argument, except that it bears no relation to the reasons given for deleting the article (which is about primary and secondary sources. Allegedly, the AoIA was properly written using the latter, whereas none of the subsequent AoA articles were written in this encyclopedic fashion).

And you need to address the other issue, since it concerns whether your analysis has validity. It's not alleged that people were sloppy or inconsistent in their voting pattern, since that isn't making a point/being disruptive. It's that some voting (judged by comments made at the same time) risks appearing to be partisan/POV. PalestineRemembered 11:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on evidence page

I just realized that I commented in an evidence section rather than the workshop page. What do I do now? Should I remove the comment? It now part of a thread under evidence presented by PalestineRemembered. My apologies for the oversight. Tiamat 19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. This was a section I opened with my name at the top in order that I could present my contribution/s. Everyone apparently needed reminding that if "Evidence" is found to be defective or misleadingly incomplete, it should be taken down and brought up to a high degree of accuracy/ consistency/ logical argument before it's replaced. (This is only the same thing we do all the time with edits to the encyclopedia, now isn't it?).

Some of what I said originally seems to have had some effect and I gather that some improvements have been made. I might even be almost ready to delete what I've said. But a) I'm still not really convinced that Leifern's tabulation has been brought up to an acceptable standard and b) I can't delete what I wrote without doing the same to all the other valuable and much appreciated additions that have appeared. PalestineRemembered 11:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think if someone comments in your own evidence section, you can and probably should just delete it. —Ashley Y 01:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that odd advice. I can imagine such an action would trigger a whole bevy of angry responses, up to and including a campaign of targetting my evidence (and my TalkPage, which happens a lot). The people posting in this fashion are definitely wrong, but a clerk should tidy up, not me. I have a CSN hanging over me for asking someone if they had a conflict of interest. When questions have this effect, then it's definitely more than my life is worth to try and delete someone else's golden words! PalestineRemembered 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You do what you want. If anyone comments in my evidence section, I'll delete it. —Ashley Y 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle's "evidence"

His evidence section is full of misrepresentation, bad faith, and continued personal attacks.

Perhaps he doesn't understand what "shitlist" means, so we could forgive that, but the rest is prima facie fabrications.

I do not call him a troll for participating in an AfD, which has indeed speedily closed, but for his general behavior taken as a whole, a fact that should be obvious to anyone following this arbcom (my mentions of this clearly predate the 7th AfD).

However, his repeated accusation of antisemitism and "israel hating" in the AfD was clearly trolling, as was his opposition to the speedy close that was an obvious response to a POV-driven jumping of process.

I call him a troll because that is how his behavior is like. He uses terms like "Israel hater" but then says it doesn't apply to any of the editors; he says "we" are creating articles to "balance" things, and then denies he is guilty of WP:POINT; he is disruptive and unhelpful, yet calls others uncivil for pointing this out.

Insult -> excuse. Insult -> excuse. Insult -> excuse. No discussion or consensus seeking, but disruptive boldness.

A classic example of a troll.

I am willing to hear legitimate arguments to the contrary, but this is a good faith opinion. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

People, please...

... what part of "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" is unclear? Please stop commenting and edit-warring in other peoples' evidence sections. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be an interesting exercise to look at the people behaving like this on ArbCom pages and wonder just how they would behave in regular editing when the spotlight is not on them! PalestineRemembered 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to evidence

My response to evidence presented by Palestine Remembered:

I find the repeated allegations by Palestine Remembered to be excessive, unfounded, and uncalled-for, as well as unhelpful. They are completely off-topic, and do not pertain in any way to this proceeding. --Steve, Sm8900 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the Sm8900 canvassing a 3rd time allegation, since I understand User:HG thinks you may have seen his contributions elsewhere and that's what made you ask him to go to that page. PalestineRemembered 21:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I appreciate this constructive move on your part, as well as your helpful willingness to contact me directly to let me know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)