Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
adding in my opinion
Antelan (talk | contribs)
4,688 edits
Line 760: Line 760:


: Nice prose, but I'm still not buying it. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
: Nice prose, but I'm still not buying it. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for giving it your consideration. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Antelan|lan]]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Antelan|talk]]</font></sup> 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


::Who are you talking to? Me or Antelan or Nealparr??
::Who are you talking to? Me or Antelan or Nealparr??

Revision as of 00:00, 8 August 2007

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Shreshth91

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by ElC

This user refuses to explain why, or apologize for, blocking me indefinitely without comment and does not appear to be emotionally stable. All s/he has said, after I sought an explanation, was: please leave this page alone. that block was intentional, this account is not compromised. please leave me alone, and added a section with my qeurry which s/he titled as Some weird ass guy who won't leave me alone's message. I'm more than willing to move on, but should we alow this individual to remain a sysop, considering such an unstable, and unaccountable, use of sysop tools, as well as ensuing incivility, zero remorse, and so on? It's true, I did not offer a comment when blocking User:Pfagerburg (now blocked for one year per arbitration request), but that was because I prefered JzG to comment for me, which he did, satisfactorily I found (his talk page is currently deleted but I can dig up the diff, if needed). But blocking me indefinitely looks extermely pointy, and again, begs the question of what this "uncompromised" sysop account will do next time it's upset about something. Some corrective action seems fitting. Thx. El_C 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Thatcher131's suggestion, I have no objection. Perhaps members of the Committee can, indeed, persuade the user to comment. Note that, if a full case is to be launched, I do not have much to add beyond what I've written thus far. El_C 20:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Mackensen, the case can now be withdrawn. El_C 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Recuse. Picaroon (t) 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shreshth91 announced his retirement on 24 May [1] and then blocked El C on June 12 without explanation. The Committee may wish to consider holding a vote to desysop (perhaps pending a satisfactory explanation) rather than opening a full case, as it did with Robdurbar. Thatcher131 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/2)

  • Accept, although a summary desysopping pending an explanation of some sort would probably work just as well here. Kirill 20:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, but agree with Kirill. FloNight 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken the precaution of having a steward de-sysop Shreshth91. Is there anything to arbitrate? Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not if Shreshth91 is not editing. Upon return, maybe, depending on the user explanation. FloNight 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Chrisjnelson: [2]
  • Jmfangio: [3]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Seraphimblade

While I believe that both Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson do have a wish to improve the encyclopedia, at this time, their behavior regarding one another has been wholly unacceptable. Problems include revert warring [5], [6], hostility, incivility, and personal attacks in any discussion in which the two engage, ([7], [8] as examples but by no means an exhaustive list, see the above-listed talk pages as well), and a general lack of respect and assumption of good faith. It appears that at this time is nowhere near resolution [9], and attempts at intervention and discussion from other editors have failed to solve the problem, as have the above listed attempts at dispute resolution. ArbCom cannot, of course, decide the content issues on which the two disagree, but at this point, I believe that arbitration is the only step which will stop the creation of a poisonous atmosphere at several pages from the bickering and edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmfangio

It essentially boils down to this: weeks of discussion have been futile. Said user is convinced that his way is not only right, but that it is the only right. Several others have presented a valid/viable alternative. The fact that both sides are valid results in edit conflicts (as confirmed by a person not named in this case). An impartial solution has been proposed, and despite no other suggestion, it has been rejected by Chrisjnelson simply because he feels he has the only correct "answer". The neutral solution seems acceptable to most "commentators", and they have agreed that the best way to satisfy Chris and "the other side" is to find a neutral solution. The arbcom would have been asked to address the behavior issues revolving around this, not the content. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chrisjnelson

First, I will explain the debate as I see it. I believe in listing out Pro Bowl years in a players’ infobox. Further, I believe that the link should look something like this [[2006 Pro Bowl|2005]], or in other words, the link should ‘’show’’ one year and link to the Pro Bowl the following calendar year. Jmfangio feels that this is confusing to some, and that there is an equally valid argument to keep the years the same, as in [[2006 Pro Bowl|2006]]. As a compromise, he feels all infoboxes should only list the number of total Pro Bowl selections, as in 8x Pro Bowl selection or something to that effect. It is my belief that the two sides Jmfangio feels to be valid are not in fact equal. It is my intent to show that my style of edit, the kind in my first example, is much more valid and accurate than the alternative, and thereby showing a “compromise” to be unnecessary. Keep in mind that linking Pro Bowl years as I do has been a fairly common practice here at Wikipedia, and that this dispute only arose with this new template on which I collaborated with Jmfangio. To get a visual idea of each side, see these:

-Junior Seau – This is my style of edit in use. Each Pro Bowl selection uses the regular season year, but links to the correct Pro Bowl.

-[10] – this is the side Jmfangio feels has equal validity to my own. You can see that years shown are identical to the ones in each Pro Bowl linked.

-Brett Favre – this is Jmfangio’s compromise in use. Only the number of Pro Bowl selections is shown, with no individual years.

Now, a basic explanation as to why I link the Pro Bowls the way I do. As you may or may not know, the NFL’s regular season begins in September and runs through the end of the year. The Pro Bowl occurs in early February, after the Super Bowl. Therefore, the years of the regular season and corresponding Pro Bowl are not identical, but rather the Pro Bowl is in the calendar year after any given season.

Please note that I am not arguing against the naming of Pro Bowl articles or to how they are referred. The 2007 Pro Bowl was in fact the one played this past February, and I think we can all agree on that fact. But what I am saying is that, when listing Pro Bowl years in a player’s infobox, one is not referring to the game itself. Rather, the years are there to list the SELECTIONS of that individual player. I personally feel that a list of Pro Bowl years in an infobox is basically a sentence saying “Player X was select to the Pro Bowl in this season, this season, this season, etc.” In that case, the year should correspond with the regular season in which the player earned the Pro Bowl selection.

For example: In the 2006 regular season, Peyton Manning was rewarded with a selection to the Pro Bowl (which took place in February 2007). However, the regular season in which he earned he selection, and the selection itself, occurred in 2006. As evidence, here is a link, dated December 18, stating that “The teams will be announced at 4 p.m. ET Tuesday, Dec. 19 on NFL Network.” This proves that the selection for the 2007 Pro Bowl began, and was completed, during the 2006 season.

This is why it is factually inaccurate to list 2007 in Peyton Manning infobox under Pro Bowl selections. He has not played in the 2007 regular season, and no voting or selecting has taken place in 2007. Peyton Manning was in fact a Pro Bowl selection in 2006, and played in the 2007 Pro Bowl. His selection was a REWARD for the 2006 season, and without that season he could not have played in the 2007 Pro Bowl. Essentially, it was the 2006 regular season that earned him the reward of a Pro Bowl selection – a selection which occurred in 2006.

I must say I am astounded this has even become such a giant issue, because those that follow or cover the sport nearly always refer to it this way. Here are some examples of player bios on their official teams’ websites, and how they convey the Pro Bowl information:

  • Peyton Manning – Colts.com bio – The very first sentence states: “Started 16 games for ninth consecutive season in 2006 and earned seventh career Pro Bowl selection (1999-2000, 2002-06).” A look at the season-by-season highlights shows that these years mentioned in the first sentence correspond with regular seasons, NOT years of Pro Bowls.
  • Michael Vick - AtlantaFalcons.com bio – The first section has a paragraph which states “Earned his second consecutive and third overall Pro Bowl nod in 2005” and the 2002, 2004 and 2005 seasons sections all indicate that the Pro Bowl selections occurred during these regular seasons.
  • Jason Taylor – MiamiDolphins.com bio – Not far down this page, there is a section that states “CAREER PRO BOWL SELECTIONS: 5 (2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006).” As you can see by looking at the year-by-year highlights, these years correspond to regular seasons, not Pro Bowl years.
  • Brian Urlacher – ChicagoBears.com bio – in the first paragraph there is a sentence that states: “Fifth player in franchise history to receive Pro Bowl selections in each of his first 4 NFL seasons.” This sentence’s wording clearly goes along with my style of edit, and there is further support of this on that page for you to see but I feel this is sufficient.
  • Ray Lewis – BaltimoreRavens.com bio – Various evidence to support my kind of edit, for example: “Ray earned his 5th consecutive Pro Bowl in 2001 when he led the NFL in tackles (196).” Again, using the regular season year when referring to the selection.

I could go on and on, and if you are still unsure I urge you to look up any former Pro Bowler on any official team website and I’ll wager you’ll find more of the same. Google something like “earned Pro Bowl selection” and see what you find. I did, and what I found were various news articles from all kinds of sources referring to selections by the season. From ESPN to Yahoo to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. This is common practice. The Pro Bowl may be the year after the regular season, but Pro Bowl selections refer to regular seasons themselves.

I believe Jmfangio’s objection to my method is that that it is confusing to the common reader. On this, I disagree. The common reader will see the years of selection and will probably naturally assume it was those regular seasons that he was selected in. But if he clicks on the links, he will also be taken to the correct Pro Bowl for those selections. I will admit that occasionally, someone will see this kind of edit in place and will change the years to match each Pro Bowl. But I do not believe it occurs enough to warrant tossing out years all together. I for one am willing to watch these pages, revert them if someone unknowingly changes the years to be incorrect and post on their talk pages explaining why the original edit was correct. I do not believe that we should avoid putting in accurate information on the chance an uninformed person might come along every once in a while and change it. If we did that, there would be no Wikipedia.

I’m not saying Jmfangio’s compromise of “Pro Bowl selection (x8)” is wrong. It’s not, and there’s nothing wrong with it. But it is my belief that having the years in the infoboxes enhances the articles, and as I have shown they are factually accurate and can be sourced as well. My proposal is to basically continue what we’ve been doing. This has been pretty standard practice for years and I see no reason to discontinue it based on what I feel is one person’s misunderstanding of the situation. No offense to you, Jmfangio, but I do feel you are incorrect in saying both my way and the way with matching years are equal. Research pretty much shows this to be true. If there were differing and equally valid views on how to list years, then Jmfangio’s compromise would definitely be satisfactory. But has been my goal to show that one view is much more accurate and valid than any other, and I feel I’ve done that sufficiently here.►Chris Nelson 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that I'm going to lose this thing, possibly in large part to my behavior of late. But it's unfortunate, because I know I'm right on this and this is what is best for these football articles.►Chris Nelson 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Navou

I encourage the committee to look at the user conduct of all involved. Prior dispute resolution attempt ended at WP:CEM ended with one participant stating he would not budge on the issue, after asked to look at compromises. The mediation closed unsuccessfully at that point and quickly degenerated [read: after it was closed] into an uncivil atmosphere on that mediation page. I believe the arbitration committee can successfully diffuse the abrasive editing atmosphere. I encourage the committee to open this case.

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

  • Accept to consider behavior of all involved. Kirill 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realms

Initiated by Jonathan David Makepeace at 00:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Jonathan David Makepeace

This dispute centers on the capitalization of the word "realm" in "Commonwealth realm." (However, see the last paragraph of this statement for an editor conduct issue.) Wikipedia's article naming conventions state: "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer And Video Games)."

The British monarch is the head of state of the Commonwealth realms, and her Web site does not capitalize "Commonwealth realms"[11][12][13][14][15] [16]. (They are quite consistent.) Neither does the overwhelming majority of authors of academic articles cited in Google Scholar[17]. (One has to search the plural "Commonwealth realms" to find academic articles.) The expression "Commonwealth realm" appears nowhere on the Canadian government's[18] or Commonwealth Secretariat's[19] Web sites, seeming to lack official recognition from either body.

Indeed, there is no evidence that "Commonwealth realm" is an official title or a proper noun. "Commonwealth realm" is a common noun referring to a class of entities, like "Australian cities," "persons with disabilities" or "Commonwealth members." It is unclear why Wikipedia should capitalize "Commonwealth Realms" but not "Commonwealth Members" or "Commonwealth Republics" or "Other Monarchies in the Commonwealth."

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office does capitalize the term in at least some of their documents, but they use a peculiar, arcane style not widely used outside of British government or legal circles.

A couple of my opponents (primarily G2bambino) have tried to claim that "Commonwealth Realm" (big R) means something different from "Commonwealth realm" (little r). However, they have been unable to attribute that assertion, and most editors on both sides of the issue seem to reject it. A Commonwealth realm is, as the article states, "any one of the sixteen sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations with Elizabeth II as their respective monarch."

However, even if you find that "Commonwealth Realm" is properly capitalized, I would ask you to permit me to briefly inform readers at the very beginning of the article that most academics and the British monarch do not capitalize the expression. Otherwise, people will think that the peculiar style used by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office applies everywhere.

Chris Bennett won't even allow me to point out the different usages, exclaiming on the article's history page "When topics are in dispute you DO NOT EDIT THE GODDAM TEXT TO YOUR POV. GODDAM TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!."

Thank you for your consideration.

Statement by Gazzster

'Commonwealth Realm' cannot be used as a proper noun. The term does not describe what we are discussing, ie, nations sharing the same monarch, ie, Elizabeth II. These realms only happen to be in the Commonwealth. The term Commonwealth Realm also excludes nations which are members of the Commonwealth but has native monarchs.

Commonwealth realm is an acceptable phrase, but it is a description, not a proper noun.

I and other editors have been subject to accusations of trolling on account of presenting our arguments against the use of Commonwealth Realm as a proper noun.

I have suggested we continue the present usage and review at a specified time.

Thank you for your consideration.--Gazzster 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by hux

I find this request for arbitration both unnecessary and disingenuous. Contrary to the explanation given by Jonathan David Makepeace (hereafter JDM) above, nobody has refused to seek mediation on this. (EDIT: My mistake; I see that one editor did refuse.) Additionally, this matter has been put to a vote twice in recent days: the first time no consensus was reached, as he notes. However, the second time, after extensive discussion, the vote was 6-2 in favor of leaving the page as-is. It seems obvious that the only reason this request has taken place is that one editor is not getting his way, which seems rather unreasonable as the basis for an arbitration request.

Further, the reason given for the request - that "Commonwealth Realm" is not correct because it is not a proper noun - is a red herring. As JDM is well aware from having been an extensive participator in the discussion, the reason that "Commonwealth Realm" is asserted as being correct is because "Realm" on its own is generally capitalized to mean, specifically, "country of the Commonwealth whose sovereign is Elizabeth II" (as opposed to Commonwealth countries that have monarchs other than Elizabeth II). Therefore, if "Commonwealth" and "Realm" should both be capitalized when used separately, they should stay capitalized when brought together. It's the same reason we capitalize both words in Commonwealth English.

Finally, his noting of Chris Bennett's outburst at the end of his explanation, as if it is an indicator of serious conflict, is also unreasonable. That outburst, while regrettable, was a single incidence of frustration after having reverted multiple edits by JDM, who has been changing the article to reflect his POV on this issue even though he is well aware that it is the contentious point under discussion. JDM, having reached 3RR on Aug 5 on this matter, has now done the same on Aug 6, even after having submitted this arbitration request. These are not, in my opinion, the actions of a person who respects Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, but rather the actions of someone who is simply trying by whatever means to get his POV into an article.

Statement by GoodDay

We should abide by the July 27 to August 2 (2007) Rfc. At the venue, there was no consensus to move the article to 'Commonwealth realms'. GoodDay 13:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chris Bennett

I concur completely with Hux's statement.

I only want to add that the reason I rejected the proposal for mediation is that I saw no point to it. All that was necessary was for JDM to abide by the result of the poll he had himself called. It is a clear indication of his ulterior agenda -- getting his way at all costs -- that he did not try to further justify a need for mediation but immediately threatened to escalate the dispute. Since I had already (and correctly) concluded that the request was disingenuous, I felt that mediation would have been a waste of everybody's time.

I disagree with arbitrator FloNight that there is no user conduct issue here. There clearly is one -- JDM is trying to impose his will at all costs. However, this request for arbitration is premature. It is an attempt, one of several, to game the system. It is better that the other editors recognise what is happening for what it is, and make it clear that such attempts to dictate will not be accepted. That will take time, but I think is slowly happening. --Chris Bennett 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/1/1)

  • Reject. Seems mostly a content dispute and not an user conduct issue. Any case it is premature. Involve more editors and you can find consensus. FloNight 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's something worth arbitrating, particularly given the refusal of at least one editor to agree to mediation. I'll wander over to the talk page and see what's what. Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. - SimonP 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaftesbury

Initiated by Curuxz at 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Curuxz

The Shaftesbury page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaftesbury) should link to the town website (www.shaftesburytown.co.uk) yet for some reason this user has consistantly tried to removed the link, faulsly acused it of being spam (he claims due to the activities of other users promoting the site, I fail to see how this changes the validity of the information) and now has made threats (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curuxz&diff=149125016&oldid=149118610) because he believes he can control what is on the page of this town. The site remains the only completely non-commerical website about the town of Shaftesbury, it is highly relevent to the article and the website it self is written by the likes of the Chamber of commerece of shaftesbury and ironicaly the history section by staff of the abbey mesuem and link that this user has no problem including.

I tried arb request and he ignored it, could someone please stop him taking away the link to the town website and punish him for his libel (calling it spam) and threats (saying he has the power to ban me).

Thank you for your time. --Curuxz 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding my statement in light of the absurd claims by user Steinsky(Joe D):

  • Adding the links to off topic pages is nothing to do with me, so completely irrelevant and should be disregarded.
  • Putting it at the top, well its the main link the other two are minor information sources
  • Other websites removed were because they are commercial, if you bother to read them you will notice that both CHARGE money for certain types of information to be listed, making them against wikipedia rules. Shaftesburytown charges for nothing, and never has. Hence why it is kept there. Additionally one of the sites mentioned, the shaftesburyindorset.com one is dead and has been for most the year, it started then quickly stopped. Again do research and bother to check your facts and you will clearly see no change since feb in their content.
  • "Acusing others of spam/vandalism" well yes each time those links to COMMERCIAL sites were added the noncommercial site link was removed. This is spam and against wikipedia rules. pretty simple it would seem.
  • "Mischaracterisation of previous dispute" not my fault you did not resolve this sooner due to your lack of intrest
  • "checkuser Curuxz against user:Shaftesbury " feel free I would be amazed if my home ip address, the one im using now, had anything to do with this user. again accusations unfounded and unrelated to this SINGLE page and this SINGLE link.
  • Wessex inst page is again nothing to do with this.

PLEASE stay on point, I am complaining about one page, one link to the only non-commercial site, I care not one jot what other people have done in the past in my view this is 100% relevent to the page and you keep flaunting the rules and trying to cause an edit war, again as you have done in the past (see your talk page).

(Response to John254 17:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC), moved by Daniel) Thank you for your statement John it nice to see a reasoned point of view on this matter and while I think it would be better done without arbitration the page remains locked and this user remains in possession of admin rights while engaging in edit wars. Its one small link the towns website I really can not understand why he cant just leave this matter it surly cant be of consequence to him and I have acted in good faith with the rules of this site. If it gets rejected by arbitration I fear he will continue to abuse the page for whatever is his personal bias against the Shaftesbury community website project (shaftesburytown.co.uk) --Curuxz 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the recent comments made by Joe D let me deal with each matter in turn, perhaps if I had divoludge this information sooner it would have made things easier and if thats the case I am truly sorry but I acted in good faith and did not read anything in wikipedia's rules about having to give out personal information in order to make edits.
  • The ongoing issue of this user accusing me of having multiple accounts, I still maintain I have nothing to do with the edits made by this user, it IS NOT my account. I do not need to tell you this but in light of seeing they have also edited the WIT page (which until pointed out I did not know about my self!) and how this does make things look rather odd I should probably say that while I have no control over the Shaftesbury user I do know WHO the shaftesbury user is in real life and they are a close relation to me who WAS involved in the ShaftesburyTown website at its very very beginning. To the best of my knowledge they have left wikipedia for good as they got into arguments with another user. At this stage I was nothing to do with ShaftesburyTown but sooner after hearing about the waste of public money going to a private company to fund one site and hearing that the other site was paid for by the council but they wer'nt not given ownership after it turned out there was no contract and some very questionable dealings there I decided to get involved. To cut a long story short, these are totally separate accounts and different people, they used to be involved on this site when I was not and I 'took over' their role after they became highly apathetic to the continued strange dealings with the websites.
  • ShaftesburyTown was started as a community site just over 2 years ago, the allegation by Joe D that it was some kind of business directory (implying it was commercial) is simply not true, the directory was added, which is free and remains free, about a year into the project with the help of the chamber of commerce in shaftesbury. Its worth noting that while the ST directory is free and NONCOMMERCIAL the other 2 websites people have tried to list are both commercially owned and charge.
  • "...particularly the removal of the Town Council site in favor of their own..." what town council website....there is not one and never has been. I don't understand your comment unless its based on the mistaken belief that the title 'official' on one of them means council owned/run, which it does not. Anyone can write official it does not mean anything in this kind of situation.
  • it seems a fact that this user edited a page in his favor and locked it AFTER this request of arbitration was filed, as other admins have pointed out this is an abuse of editing rights and further damages his argument in this case.

The simple irrevocable truth is there are 3 shaftesbury websites, 2 are commercial, 1 is pretty much dead and 1 is noncommercial. On articles such as this wikipeida forbids the link to commercial sites, it also asks for the most relevant and in my mind a website that anyone can get involved easily (i know its easy because I did myself!) and has information from orginisations such as the council, the chamber of commerce, the tourism asc, art centre, museums etc and is free and open is the only choice for this page. I can see why joe d was annoyed and on behalf of me and the other volunteers that contribute to make shaftesburytown (since there is no single 'webmaster' or 'owner') I applogise for the actions of one of our founders but you have to understand wikipedia is an important resource and there is a massive amount of bad feeling in the community of shaftesbury that two websties were paid a lot of money when both independent evaluations showed the got next to nothing in return and a free community project existed and this may have led to some people getting a little too keen. It should be also noted that the user shaftesbury did not say just they had written the pages but that most of the content was added by MEMBERS of shaftesburytown, of which they are over 30 regular editors of the site I am surprised you can prove instantly this claim is false as you state one way or another. Im not saying your wrong because I honestly don't know since I was not involved back then but you seem to be assuming bad faith at every possible turn and continuing to do so. Why cant you just accept that as someone who knows the town this is ONE link is the most relevant. Id ask you calm down, think about the page and the benefit of the information before continuing this pointless edit war over one link.

I would also like to point out I have access to the log files for the site and it clearly lists referral traffic from wikipedia as having a current average view time of over 10 minutes, if this site was spam why would users sent there from this link (when it IS on the page) bother to stay so long. --Curuxz 15:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steinsky

Why do I consider this site spam? The site, I see, has grown a little from its origins when it was largely a business directory (I looked at the wayback machine for an example, but unfortunately it has nothing from 2004/5). The business directory aspect alone would not have made be consider it spam. This is just a little bit of the spam-like behaviour that I could be bothered looking up in the page histories which are what convinced me that this is a case of spamming:

  • Adding the link to off topic pages:
    • Dorset: [20] [21] [22]
    • Gold Hill: [23] [24] (while this page is not neccesarily off topic, being in the town, the link being added was not specifically about Gold Hill, and was being added in an inappropriate way)
    • Alfred the great: [25] [26] [27] - the user claimed to have written both the article and the website, the claim regarding the article is demonstratively untrue, and consulting other editors found no defenders for the site.
  • Editing merely to move the link to the top of the external links section - a common spam problem: [28]
  • Blatant adverts in the link blurb: [29]
  • Removal of rival websites: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
  • Acusing others of spam/vandalism, especially those who happen to link to rival websites: Grahamcjones ShaftesburyDorset me me again (describing the removal of links as the worst kind of vandalism - interesting)
  • Mischaracterisation of previous dispute resolution which was filed when I was on a Wikibreak, and closed due to lack of interest: [35] [36]

Not all of these were done by Curuxz, but they were all spamming the website in question. Also, if this case were actually to be opened, I'd be inclined to checkuser Curuxz against user:Shaftesbury -- it's interesting that both of these users have no major Wikipedia history, but have both spent considerable effort on two topics - adding this link to articles, and the obscure Wessex Institute of Technology -- an article that itself reads a little like a brochure.

I have protected the Shaftesbury page as a short term solution to this problem, and was planning to report the URL, and above evidence to the Spam blacklist on commons, but I'll leave the latter for now on the off chance that anybody here is at all interested in looking into the matter.

[Edited to sign] Joe D (t) 14:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to John254 17:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC), moved by Daniel) Really? Then I hope you'll be nominating this template for deletion immediately. While I have not been able to keep up with policy changes lately, it always used to be the case that these administrator tools may be used to tackle spam. Even if you are more favourable to this user's case, or the website's status than I am, the behaviour demonstrably invokes the guidelines at WP:SPAM and WP:EL which advocate the use of these tools in such a case. Joe D (t) 17:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice been accused of acting in bad faith by disinterested parties, even after making it clear that I was not (see for example, the unhelpful comments Melsaran felt the need to leave on my talk page). This is, I see, because the issue is being framed as a content dispute, something else I have made clear I reject, and given some of the reasons for doing so. Perhaps there is an official definition of content dispute somewhere which I am not acquainted with, in which case I beg your forgiveness, but as previously mentioned, I have not had the time to devote to Wikipedia that I would wish. But anyway, I suppose if people are still making unhelpfull comments, it is because I have not made the situation clear enough, and must give a little more background. My Wikipedia activities are largely concentrated in the area of British geography, and I discovered very early that these are a particular target for spam -- business directories, individual companies, and other inapropriate activity of the type previously documented above in relation to this case. Having to cope with this has honed my skills at spotting these links, but has also made me vulnerable to asuming that the users adding them are acting in bad faith, rather than that they are simply unfamiliar with the project (though I don't think I do so without reason, and am sure many others do the same). It has also perhaps made me deal a little harshly with spammers (but not beyond the guidelines). If I have handled this case badly then, I do not believe it is for any of the reasons, or in any of the ways I have been acused of. It is because the combination of time restrictions, and a predisposition from the beginning to asume that the user(s) adding the link were not doing so in good faith, and were most likely one and the same person and the webmaster of the site in question, led me to following the normal procedure of merely reverting the link whenever it was added (as I, and hundreds of others have done and do for persistant spam). It would have been simpler, I see now, to finish the issue off earlier by explaining why it was considered spam and requesting a checkuser to confirm whether or not my suspicions of sockpuppetry were warrented. I did not, because with final exams I did not have time to waste on such a trivial issue, and because my hundreds of previous dealings with spam told me that these issues go away anyway when the spammers realise their efforts are in vain.

So, I originally believed these user(s) to be acting in bad faith. Perhaps it's confirmation bias but I have seen nothing but evidence in favour of my original conclusion, from this dishonest message on my talk page in which the person I presume to be the webmaster claimed to have written half the Wikipedia pages the link was on (easily disproved) to Curuxz's first message on Talk:Shaftesbury suggesting that she had never before seen the website and was an impartial outsider, something I have great difficulty reconciling with Curuxz's great interest in and knowledge of the site, the many failings of its rival sites, and other activity at that time (I find the first of their edit summaries on Shaftesbury rather curious, for example, and this in particular set my sockpuppet alarm ringing; incidently, Curuxz claims my reference to WIT was irrelevant -- this is why I mentioned it: another of the many coincidences that add up). Of course, the other activity listed above did not help much either, particularly the removal of the Town Council site in favour of their own (complete with accusation of spamming on behalf of the town council). Joe D (t) 13:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved kaypoh

This is not filed properly. For example, "statement by (party 1)" and "statement by (party 2)". I am not a clerk. Can a clerk please fix it. Take this to ANI. They can solve this problem faster. --Kaypoh 13:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John254

The question of whether the link should be included in Shaftesbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is indeed a content dispute, as conceded by the arbitrator who voted to reject this case. [37]. The fact, then, that Steinsky has improperly used administrative rollback in a content dispute [38] [39] [40], threatened to block Curuxz, with whom he was engaged in a content dispute [41], and has protected Shaftesbury to favor his position in a content dispute [42], should raise issues of administrative misconduct which are amenable to resolution by the Arbitration Committee. John254 17:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Response to Steinsky 17:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)] If the disputed website, as used in Shaftesbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), really did constitute obvious spam, then its insertion could indeed be treated as vandalism, and reverted with administrative rollback; editors persisting in inserting it could be warned and blocked. The problem here, however, is that the disputed link isn't obvious spam, at least as it is used in Shaftesbury. Steinsky appears to be arguing that since users other than Curuxz have been attempting to insert the disputed link into a number of articles, all instances of the link in any context whatsoever can be treated as spam. This claim is untenable. Even assuming, in arguendo, that the disputed link was obvious spam in the context of many articles into which it was inserted by other users, Curuxz's insertion of a link to a noncommercial town website into an article concerning that town does not constitute obvious spam, and may not be treated as vandalism. Whether the link is proper per WP:EL, or otherwise, is therefore a content dispute, to be settled without the aid of administrative force exerted by the disputants. John254 17:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

To Kaypoh: done the former. If someone wants to raise this at ANI concurrently as you suggested, they're free to do so. Daniel→♦ 13:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved threaded discussions back to author's own section with notes about responding context. Please do not have threaded discussions on this page, nor edit anyone elses' section. Cheers, Daniel→♦ 22:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

  • Decline. (a) Content dispute; (b) Premature even if not a content dispute -- get more people involved via other means of dispute resolution before coming here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. This is a premature request. Please use other means to resolve this dispute first. FloNight 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid

Initiated by Ideogram at 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[43] [44] [45]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Ideogram

Statement by User:Jayjg

This case appears to be a poorly thought out attempt to get the ArbCom to decide content disputes (and AfDs) in Ideogram's (and others) favor. To begin the list of "Involved parties" seems to be modified almost at random.[46] [47] [48] In addition, an AfD is not an "attempt at dispute resolution". Moreover, commenting on AfDs (and even voting Keep) is not WP:POINT, nor is editing articles, and none of those things are policy violations.

It baffles me that Ideogram would claim I created "one dozen articles"; yes, 13 "Allegations of apartheid" articles have been created, but by seven different people independently, over a period of over a year. Of these 13 articles (most of which have gone to AfD), 3 were deleted, 2 were merged, 1 was moved, 5 have been kept, and 2 are currently under AfD review. One of the existing articles was restored after DRV, and one of the deleted ones is currently before DRV. Personally, I did create one of those articles, 4 months ago, and it didn't seem to cause any "disruption" until a couple of days ago, when someone put it up for AfD (it was subsequently speedy kept). I also voted/commented on some AfDs, but not others (e.g. Islamic or the Jordanian). What this wide variety of outcomes actually shows is that no "group decisions" have been made and the process is working.

Regarding comments made by several editors about Sefringle (who appears to have gone on Wikibreak almost 2 weeks ago), it's rather telling that their best evidence of the "smoking gun" regarding the "motivations" of the "bloc" is not actually part of any "group" or "bloc", nor did he create or edit any of the articles in question, so bringing up his statements is, at best, a red herring. Finally, as is typical, there has been a lot of "piling-on" going on here, as other people opposed to the article(s) try to see if they can get their way via this AfD, and people with grudges in general try to piggy-back onto this, using it to even up old scores; disappointing, but unsurprising, and in my view not something that should be encouraged or rewarded. Jayjg (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Cerejota

I think treating all of these articles as a collective entity for purposes of editing and AfD is incorrect and unproductive.

I do agree with Ideogram that editors are voting keep/merge in AfDs but in the discussions frequently raise that if X article is invalid for Y reasons, then the Israeli article is invalid for the same reason Y, and that they are voting keep/merge until the same standard is applied to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. A number of these editors are editors who had never edited or shown interest in the given country being edited, but certainly are active on WikiProject Israel and/or articles on Judaism/Israel. This can be seen in the AfDs.

Whatever the motivations of the editors involved in creating these articles, I take the view that they should be evaluated by their content, and not as a collective entity. Some are of rather high quality, others are not. Some have been deleted or merged, others have not. This shows the community is developing a consensus around this topic that is consonant with my POV that each article should be evaluated on its merits, and that while there is a topical connection, each article is a world upon itself. I think ArbCom should clarify this matter for the community, and encourage admins and crats to ignore comments that allude to other pages in AfDs. It sounds like a quid pro quo attempt to gather support to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid, not based on its merit, but on the offended national sensitivities of a group of editors.

This is not the first time involved and uninvolved editors have raised the possibility of a WP:POINT meatpuppet effort, and ArbCom should look into this allegation seriously, and rule on this. If there is evidence and there indeed is an effort to WP:POINT, ArbCom should defend wikipedia and wikipedians. If there isn't evidence and these are empty accusations, then it must defend the accused editors from the smear.

Thanks!--Cerejota 13:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:NicDumZ

I came here today to denounce the fact that considering all the Allegations of X articles together hijack the editing process on the other articles. Understand me, I may say I have no interests in the future of AoIA, I'm only working on the AoFA article ; when trying to reach a consensus, (about renaming it/moving it into an other article/expanding its content to treat a wider suburban French problem, well... trying to work on this locked article), all I get, when not bad faith, are answers like this one : [49]. A comparison involving the AoIA.

The centralized discussion about the Allegations of X articles is striking to me : From the outside, it seems that all the discussions are eventually about the fate of the AoIA article. Some may say more about this strange phenomenon, for example drawing conclusions on why all these articles were created. I'm not going to step into these hazardous allegations.

There is indeed a widespread problem involving the Israeli article. What ought to be done overthere, I don't know. But allowing the deadlocked debates on this particular article to expand to other content-independant articles, especially through Allegations of apartheid, this should not happen.

NicDumZ ~ 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Briangotts

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

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

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." [50]

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. [51], [52]), 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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: [53]. 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": [54]. 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) "[55]
By the way, why don't you bring up Allegations of Israeli apartheid in this regard?[56]
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,?[57]

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.

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)[reply]

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.[58] 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.[59][60] 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,[61] compared to his vote now on Allegations of French Apartheid.[62] Specific actions then include repeatedly trying to enlist outside editors for deleting AoIa,[63][64][65] demanding "systemic" solutions from editors not familiar with Israel/Palestine articles [66] [67][68], and arguing for the deletion of all related articles despite his votes and arguments to keep. [69][70][71]. This was followed by a continuing refusal to discuss with anyone who mentioned WP:POINT,[72][73] while still accusing other editors of WP:POINT violations himself.[74] Substantive editing issues included edits obscuring original synthesis by combining entirely unrelated claims as if they are responding to each other [75] [76], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Israel 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Only one diff

Is this a content dispute ?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. [77]. ("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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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 no enough not to admin 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/4/0/0)

  • Decline. Things are unquestionably a mess here, but I don't see how the ArbCom could help. There are no specific instances of user misbehaviour to deal with. We could put everything in this area under probation, but that would have no effect on the creation/deletion of the pages, which seems to be the core issue. - SimonP 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Decline. I agree with SimonP that it's a mess, but it's a mess that ArbCom can't untangle. For my part, I would think that any article entitled "Allegation of X" has forfeited its claim to neutrality from the outset, and that any content therein could be discussed more usefully in an article which has a wider contextual foundation. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I'm persuaded by GRBerry's rationale--the comments on that DRV are extremely unfortunate. Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. This does not foreclose any future cases based on WP:POINT arising from this fracas. Anyone who doesn't understand the policy should read it now rather than later. Charles Matthews 02:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. The allegation that bogus articles were created by respected Wikipedians to prove a point is troubling and is not strictly a matter of content. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. All "allegations of" articles are crap, but that's not for ArbCom to determine. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Do not see how ArbCom can help here. The community needs to settle this specific content dispute. The complaints do not rise to the level of an arbitration case. FloNight 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food Irradiation

Initiated by RayosMcQueen at 01:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

all parties have been made aware through the [articles main talk page], [mediation page that was created in preparation of the failed mediation attempt], and the involved users individual talk pages.

RayosMcQueen (filer); MonstretM; MrArt; Dieter E; GermanPina; Arved Deecke; Jonathan Stray. Daniel→♦ 07:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The article went into edit protection, was discussed heavily as a result and mediation was attempted through the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal

Statement by RayosMcQueen

Introduction

Many prominent health and scientific organizations have agreed that food irradiation is an effective tool for enhancing food safety. Trade groups, such as the American Meat Institute, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, and the National Food Processors Association, also support irradiation. In addition, nearly 40 countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Russia, have approved food irradiation for certain types of food. Following are some of the major scientific and health-related organizations that consider food irradiation to be safe:

• U.S. government agencies
• Food and Drug Administration
• Department of Agriculture
• Public Health Service
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
U.S. scientific and health-related organizations
• American Dietetic Association
• American Medical Association
• American Veterinary Medical Association
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
• Institute of Food Technologists
• National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
International scientific and health-related organizations
• Food and Agriculture Organization
• International Atomic Energy Agency
• World Health Organization
• Codex Alimentarius Commission
• Scientific Committee of the European Union
A number of national competent institutions
see JF Diehl, Safety of Irradiated Food, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1995 (2nd ed.) Dieter E 17:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, several consumer groups, such as Food and Water Watch and Public Citizen, strongly oppose food irradiation. Among other things, they believe that FDA has not sufficiently proven that irradiation can safely be used on food and that more long-term research on the effects of consuming irradiated food is needed.[(0)]

Need for arbitration

MonstretM started editing the article on the 21st of June this year. His edits were perceived to be disruptive by a group of people:

  • In his initial edit he/she edited a large portion of the article tendentiously [(1)]
  • This initial edit was followed by several tendentious edits[(2)][(3)] [(4)][(5)] [(6)]that I perceived to be in violation of WP:Undue weight and Neutrality and Verifiability
  • Misrepresented content of studies in order to claim health issues associated with food irradiation. [(7)][(8)][(9)][(10)]
  • Revert warred against the consensus of multiple other editors, undid and reverted 5 times within 2 hours and 10 minutes on 7/11. [(11)] [(12)][(13)] [(14)] [(15)]
  • Requested edit protection on 7/11 19:52 [(16)] and asked for edit protection to be lifted on 7/16 4:52 without having reached consensus on any of the disputed items. [(17)]
  • Maintains that international and national organizations like the IAEA, FDA, WHO and others maintain "agendas" or are otherwise corrupt and should not be considered reliable sources. [(18)] [(19)] [(20)]
  • While accusing several other users of conflict of interest editing [(21)] did not disclose that he/she was editing from a server of foodandwaterwatch.org [(22)] one of the most outspoken advocacy groups opposing of food irradiation [(23)]
  • Maintained an unfriendly tone with continued WP:NPA [(24)] and WP:Skills[(25)] related issues.
  • Asked for mediation through the Mediation Cabal on 7/17 [(26)] and then unilaterally abandoned mediation citing uncooperative behavior of all other parties [(27)] He/she later went on to accuse the moderator Jonathan Stray of lack of experience, bias and procedural weakness. [(28)]

I ask that the arbitration committee hear this case, determine necessary courses of action and place the article on probation to prevent future disruptive editing. RayosMcQueen 01:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dieter E

The dispute raised is on issues of science; however opponents for food irradiation do not follow the rules of science: A few scientific studies, mostly decades back, are referenced and interpreted without giving the full picture of sound science, that is the wealth of publications that became available since this first publication appeared. In many cases later-on the contrary to what was stated in the first publication had been proven; however opponents often ignore sound science. This is the method obviously used by MonstretM. Hence, the case cannot be resolved without deciding whether such unfounded statements are acceptable for wikipedia. Allowing for such false statements would mislead the visitors of wikipedia and spread false information, half-truth and insinuations, including the allegation that non-opponents to food irradiation have a vested interest or are even paid by the nuclear industry. Dieter E 12:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(response to arbitrator UninvitedCompany, moved from arbitrators-only section to Dieter E's section by Daniel) May I humbly ask how increasing the number of editors might contribute to find out facts in science? The present dispute results from a small number, but active opponents to food irradiation, while pro-ponents rely on a vast majority of publications and research over more then 60 years, condensed in a great number of reviews by national and international expert bodies. Dieter E 13:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to stress my statement above '... including the allegation that non-opponents to food irradiation have a vested interest or are even paid by the nuclear industry.' This is an severe offense including the other insults against my person MonstretM has introduced. Dieter E 17:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arved Deecke

I feel we clearly have an issue with WP:Undue Weight here with MonstretM trying to pass the minority view as established science. While I understand that the arbitration committee will not deal with issues of content I agree with the previous assessments that behavioural issues are making it impossible to offer the Wikipedia user a balanced view on the topic. Post-arbitration probation would be my suggested course of action as well. Arved Deecke 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that I am indeed the founder and director of a Mexico based food irradiation company and would certainly refrain from commenting on this case or from future edits to the article if the arbitration committee perceives my profession to present a conflict of interest detrimental to the quality of either the article or its arbitration. Arved Deecke 04:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by former mediator JonathanStray

Hello. I volunteered to be the Mediation Cabal mediator for Food Irradiation on 17 July. From reading the talk page before I became involved, and from what happened during the course of the mediation attempt, I believe RayosMcQueen's chronology of the dispute given in his statement to be generally correct.

I have expanded upon the aborted mediation attempt in detail in this section of my talk page, and included what I hope to be considerable documentation and evidence. Here, I will state only my conclusion.

Fundamentally, I believe the mediation attempt failed because MonstretM did not have respect for the mediation process itself. Indeed, he never deeply entered the central discussion over evidence proper during mediation, preferring instead to repeatedly imply or assert that the other editors were biased, to protest over the language used in discussion (the language used in discussion, not the article itself), and to claim that the mediation process itself was unfair. Now of course I am not a perfect mediator, but I did make several attempts to specifically address his concerns, and I believe that overall I acted very caferfully to make sure that the article would be properly NPOV. Similarly there is no such thing as a perfect editor. However, the other editors showed a willingness to work with me to understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy and refine the mediation process generally.

In short, I do not believe that MonstretM was truly working with us to craft a solid article -- an article which would have in all likelihood included his viewpoint as a minority POV. Rather, I feel that I have reason to assume a lack of good faith on his part. In one respect, he and I do agree: I do not believe that even formal mediation will be successful in this environment. Therefore I ask the arbitration committee to review this case. --Jonathan Stray 22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GermanPina

I agree with the proposed arbitration and want to express my interest in participating in it, in order to clarify this contribution and provide concrete and true statements on this topic that has been gaining more interest for the public. Such statements should be based in conclusions of recent published and arbitrated scientific papers using approved doses by national and international standards for food irradiation. GermanPina 05:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by minimally-involved SchuminWeb

I've mostly been observing, and only minimally become involved myself. I believe that MonstretM has acted in good faith, and I've found that many of the allegations come from inexperience on the part of the editor (WP:BITE). I don't see any wrongdoing, and it seems as if a number of the editors are trying to throw the book at MonstretM. I was also very concerned that the mediator in the Mediation Cabal case was a new user, who had only made eight edits prior to joining the case, and of those, only two were in the article namespace, with the balance in the talk namespace. That made me uneasy due to the mediator's relative inexperience with the workings of Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved rocksanddirt

I've only come across this controversy today, and after reading the statements above and looking at the "person in the wrong"'s contribution list, this is a meaningless arbitration request. MonstretM has not edited anything since July 25 with this edit [78]. It would appear that the person advocating the minority opinion has left the project. I would recommend that each and every other regular editor of this article edit with the intent of including MonstreM's concerns. A strong pro-irradiation article does no one any good, include and fully discuss the problems and limitations of the science, don't be afraid of other points of view. --Rocksanddirt 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrArt

I am disappointed that this came to Arbitration. What started as a straightforward content dispute has degenerated into personal attacks. I'm not going to equivocate here, most of the attacks were by MonstretM:

  • again you are attempting to mislead the discussion [79]
  • might be symptomatic of your fundamental lack of research skill same edit
  • unless the other parties agree to stop their repeated false accusations and misrepresentations of the facts [80]

MonstretM's initial contributions focused on the article text [81] and were helpful, but by the time the issue came to informal mediation, all of his/her contributions [82] [83] [84] [85] consisted of lecturing the rest of the editors on NPOV, with no attempt to discuss the article itself.

If rocksanddirt is correct and MonstretM has ceased editing, then I suggest we drop the RfA and get an administrator to unlock the article post-haste. However MonstretM has left things dangling for up to six days in the past (Special:Contributions/MonstretM) so his/her reappearance would not surprise me. - MrArt 08:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0)

  • Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. This is fundamentally a content matter. While I am sympathetic to your concerns, I believe they would be better addressed by the involvement of more editors. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Mostly content and seems premature. - SimonP 12:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject as premature as the editors do not seem to fully understand how to gain consensus about disputed content. Please try longer to reach consensus by involving more editors. FloNight 00:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Content; premature. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Paranormal Clarification on the use of qualifiers as discussed in various holdings

Five arbitrators voted to take on the Paranormal case; the two who stated their reason for taking the case indicated it was for "conduct issues". Of the 29 principles, findings of fact, and remedies that passed, most did deal with conduct issues; however, an important minority dealt with some of the content that has been at the core of the protracted disputes about paranormal-related articles. I apologize for the length of the following explanation of what I see as the core content paradox within the ArbCom holdings, but I have used examples in order to, I hope, make the situation as clear as possible:

The Wikipedia article on psychic raises issues with the recently closed Paranormal ArbCom. Finding of Fact #5, "Cultural artifacts", states: ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." Principle #6.2 states, in part, "Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include ... "paranormal", "psychic" ... or "parapsychological researcher". ... "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

Lemma 1 the Arbitration Committee sees the label "psychic" as a cultural artifact. Saying that Jeane Dixon is a psychic does not imply that she has psychic abilities or powers, or even that such abilities or powers exist. This is true to such an extent that clarification, such as "Jeane Dixon is a self-described psychic", is disallowed.

In reading the article on psychic, however, I became confused and concerned. The psychic article's lede itself states that psychic denotes paranormal extra-sensory abilities that are inexplicable by "known natural laws". This doesn't seem like a typical cultural artifact, in that this statement implies that there may exist some unknown natural law to explain it (i.e., the description invokes science, not culture). However, several sentences later we learn that the existence of this ability is highly contested. Does this resolve the situation?

No. While this skepticism helps a reader understand that psychic abilities may or may not be real, it still leaves the reader with the impression that "psychic" means "someone with scientifically inexplicable powers" - it's just that now we recognize that such people may not exist. That is, thus far, the word "psychic" has always been used to mean "someone with paranormal powers". The infobox on the right side of the page is even more explicit: "Definition: An ability or phenomona said to originate from the brain, but to transcend its confines. Primarily in relation to Psi" (see the box on the righthand side of the article).

Lemma 2: So what is a psychic? The article repeatedly indicates that a defining feature of a psychic is "an ability". There is no ambiguity. It does not say that psychics have an apparent ability. It does not say that psychics may or may not have abilities. It says that a psychic has these abilities.

Imagine that instead of psychic we were talking about a rare device, the PerpetualMotionMachine (psychic). An article states that the PerpetualMotionMachine is an infinite (paranormal) power-output device (ability). The article also has an infobox that defines PerpetualMotionMachine as "A device or product that originates from the Midwest and is capable of infinite power-output." At this point, it's pretty clear that a crucial quality of any PerpetualMotionMachine is that it is an infinite power-output device. Then, I get to the sentence, "the possibility of infinite power-output is highly contested." Now, I still believe that PerpetualMotionMachines are infinite power-output devices, but now I recognize that the term "PerpetualMotionMachine" may have no real-world referent. I now understand that there may not be even one single PerpetualMotionMachine, but if there were one, a defining quality of it would be that it could output infinite power.

Likewise with the paranormal article. It asserts that psychic powers are paranormal abilities, inexplicable by known natural laws. It also tells me that there may not actually be any psychic abilities in the real world. However, from the definitions, I still gather that if there are psychic abilities in the real world, then they cannot be explained by known natural laws. The phrasing here does not strike me as a simple cultural artifact. Just reading the sentence, I am inclined to think that scientists of various disciplines must have looked into this and decided that known natural laws cannot explain the results.

This is in contrast to the holdings of the Arbitration Committee, which found that the term psychic is just a cultural artifact. The Committee held that "psychic" may not imply that the "a psychic" actually has scientifically inexplicable abilities. Therefore, even if a psychic does exist in the real world, they may not have psychic powers. ArbCom: "Psychic means someone who has, or claims to have, these powers. These powers may not exist, but the term still refers to real people." Article: "Psychic means someone who has these powers. These powers may not exist, and in that case the term has no real-world referent."

Lemma 3: The ArbCom's operative understanding of psychic differs in a subtle but crucial way from the psychic article. Actual paranormal powers are an intrinsic quality of a psychic according to the psychic article (although the existence these powers is contested), whereas paranormal powers are not intrinsic to the ArbCom's understanding of psychic (so even if these powers don't actually exist, there still may exist psychics).

A comment was made on the psychic talk page that I think exemplifies the potential for confusion: "When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate."[86] Such a multifarious term could reasonably, from time to time, be misunderstood.

For consideration: Due to subtly different interpretations, there exist diverse understandings of the word psychic which persist, even within Wikipedia. Judicious, appropriate, and infrequent qualification of "psychic", "paranormal", and similar terms should be allowed when such qualifications are contributory to the clarity and meaning of the epistemological status of a subject. This is especially true given the content of the psychic article. This is suggestion is closely in line with Principle #6.1, and Findings of Fact #6, #8, #9, but somewhat at odds with Principle #6.2 and Finding of Fact #12.

Thank you, Antelan talk 08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven, Soul, and a whole host of other terms that refer to something that may or may not exist do not bother saying that it is "claimed" to exist. Only terms that show up on a skeptical watchlists do. It's an issue on Energy (spirituality) but not on obscure terms that don't make it to the list like Prana. Psychic is a cultural artifact because everyone in the world already has an opinion on whether or not psychics are real, or totally bogus. Wikipedia does not have to inform them that psychics may not exist. They are quite aware of it already. No one will realistically read a technical definition at Wikipedia of psychic that says it refers to "supernatural forces, events, or powers" and walk away thinking "Holy cow, Wikipedia says psychics are real!" It's not even plausible. They have already formed their own opinion. All the other encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. that don't bother saying that it may not exist don't waste the reader's time, or insults their intelligence, by pointing it out. If nothing else, it fails to meet the notability standard. --Nealparr (talk to me) 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate.
So to state it the way I have at other times that the meaning of the word "psychic" is "A psychic is someone who has psychic powers, but those powers may not really exist," is not quite accurate. Rather, the word psychic conveys many meanings. The two most important to skeptics and believers, however, are the two I stated- powers and doubt about thier reality. Both of those meanings are contained in the word psychic, and both are reflected in the current Psychic lead, which is well-framed per the ArbCom. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice prose, but I'm still not buying it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving it your consideration. Antelan talk 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you talking to? Me or Antelan or Nealparr??

The psychic article says "People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics". " Thus, if we call someone a psychic, is is saying just what Antelan says it should say: "psychic" = "thought to have these abilities," and of course the full understanding would be that the person might or might not. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antelan's was the nicest. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that's true -it was very well done- and UninvitedCompany said "still," which must have been referring to his having not bought it before either. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on ED

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not an ED troll, but an interesting question was raised at a recent DRV (see bottom) for it. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, it was ruled that ED links and material is banned from Wikipedia. However, it was questioned in the DRV that even if reliable sources that established notability were found, would it come in conflict with the ArbCom ruling in that case? Kwsn(Ni!) 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ED article itself has clearly posed internal problems for us. I think the turning point for me would be this: Are there sufficient reliable sources about ED which demonstrate that ED so clearly inside our inclusion guidelines that our project would be incomplete without it? If that were the case, I myself would support an amendment to the MONGO decision to permit an article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal, Principle 6.2: Adequate Framing

The arbitration committee has closed the above case. It includes many principles, including Principle 6.2: Adequate Framing. This principle states, in part, that "It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

Psychic is a particularly troublesome word in that its meaning is not well agreed upon. The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of psychic is that "having a psychical rather than a physical or physiological origin". The OED definition does not equivocate; in its definition, someone termed a psychic must actually possess such abilities. It is straightforward in saying that a psychic's abilities do not have a physical or physiological origin. In contrast, Wikipedia's definition of "psychic" equivocates, suggesting that a psychic is simply "thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena" (emphasis mine).

I believe that this principle, as it regards the term 'psychic', is very sensitive to the meaning of "psychic" that one is familiar with. For example, if the phrase "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" is read with the Wikipedia definition ("thought to have these abilities"), then it seems reasonable that no further framing may be needed. However, given that there are other definitions, including those from authoritative sources like the OED, this phrasing could prove problematic. Read with the OED definition in mind, "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" implies that Jeane Dixon actually, as opposed to "is thought to", possesses abilities that are, in fact, not of a "physical or physiological origin". In this case, it strikes me that additional framing would be acceptable - otherwise, we are claiming that she actually has such powers, and that such powers do not come from the physical world - a tall statement for an introductory paragraph.

With the tension between alternate definitions from reputable sources in mind, is there any clarification that can be offered, either for the principle in general, or for the principle as it pertains specifically to the ter"m "psychic"?

Thanks, Antelan talk 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Merriam-Webster 3rd New International Dictionary (1993), which I consider to be highly authoritative and perhaps more attuned to current usage than the OED, offers this relevant definition: "2 psychic n -s : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces." I believe that this concurs with the Wikipedia usage. The OED definition you cite appears to correspond to the "1 psychic" definition in M-W, which is a usage more philosophical than paranormal. I do not have an OED at hand to review any other definitions it may offer, though I am confident that the OED has many others beyond the one you identify. I would conclude that the Wikipedia usage is not unique or unsupported. Finally, since the Wikipedia article clarifies our intended usage, I believe that readers both casual and astute will understand that the use of the term does not imply the presence of actual psychic abilities confirmed by the scientific method. In conclusion, the decision is sound as it stands. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that your finding in M-W is germane to, and indeed buttresses, my point, which is that reputable (even authoritative) sources offer different interpretations of psychic. In some instances, "psychic" is held to mean someone who has said powers; in others, it is held to mean someone who is said to have said powers. Consequently, it is entirely reasonable to believe that an educated, intelligent reader of Wikipedia could come in with either prior definition in mind. Such a literate, conversant person would not think that they would have to click on "psychic" to learn which definition Wikipedia is using, since they would, reasonably, already believe that "psychic" denotes (depending on previous exposure to the word) either people who (1) do have, or (2) are simply said to have, powers.
I'm not simply offering hypotheticals; other important publications such as the New York Times and the United States Department of Justice qualify the term "psychic":
  • "Jeane Dixon, the astrologer and self-described psychic who gained fame by apparently predicting President John F. Kennedy's death, died on Saturday in Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington." [87]
  • " According to previous in-court statements, Marks, a self-proclaimed psychic and fortune teller, agreed that she was responsible for bilking over two (2) million dollars from numerous elderly and otherwise vulnerable victims from 1994 through 2002." [88]
Nevertheless, as you and I have both noted, the term is not always used in this way; it is also used in the "is said to have" way. So, in contrast to your conclusion, it strikes me that both casual and astute readers will interpret all articles invoking the term "psychic" differently, based on their prior experience with this term. Antelan talk 08:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the ambiguity of the term "Psychic" and the conflicting definitions of the word, we are left with only a few solutions to the problem. 1. We require articles about people who claim to have psychic powers state that the individuals are "purported psychics". 2. We change the Psychic article to reflect Wikipedia's accepted definition of the term "Psychic". 3. We avoid using the term "psychic" in such articles and only state that the individuals "claim paranormal abilities" and then elaborate on which abilities they claim to have. If we stick with the definition of "psychic" as someone who claims paranormal powers opposed to someone who indeed has the powers then the Psychic article must reflect that. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic that we are limited to the three choices you outline. I believe that the decision is clear as it stands regarding the use of the term. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter. I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all we needed to know. All that remains is to update Wikipedia's psychic article to ensure compliance with your operative definition. Thanks for the clarification. Antelan talk 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a review. I hope it's not too late to comment. One of the most notable debunkers out there, James Randi, defines psychic as "an adjective, describ[ing] a variety of supernatural forces, events, or powers." Psychics (noun), he defines as "designat[ing] a person said to be able to call upon any of many psychic forces."[89] Randi is about as skeptical as it gets, so there's really no reason to add unnecessary qualifiers at Wikipedia either. Notice there's no "alleged", "purported", "claimed" or other WP:WTA in these definitions, only "said to" in relation to psychics (n), which is of course compatible with WP:WTA. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters. We could define "psychic" as "having powers," and as long as we make very clear in the article that there is significant controversy about whether these powers are real, then we're OK. That is because a definition "a psychic has powers" coupled with "these powers may not exist," gives the reader this definition:

"a psychic is someone with powers, but those powers may not exist."

In other words, real psychics may not exist. So as long as we include skepticism in the articles, the issue of the first definition of psychic is not relevant. In the end what the reader comes out with is the necessary nuance, an understanding of the controversy.

We aren't a dictionary here. We don't have to have everything in one sentence. That need seems to be why dictionaries sometimes stoop to either 1) no controversy or 2) definitions which are technically inaccurate, something like "a psychic is someone with supposed paranormal powers," which would rule out psychics who didn't know they were psychic, and begs the question of what a "supposed paranormal power" is.

Anyway, Wikipedia can support a full understanding of such terms which includes skepticism without resorting to one-sentence definitions, or things like "purported," "supposed," and "self-described." This isn't an argument for defining "psychic" in a particular way, but rather for explaining the controversy rather than focusing on a single sentence like a dictionary- and giving the reader some credit for being able to fully understand the usage of a controversial term. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These terms clearly exist, from where I stand this simple fact overrides any and all questions about whether or not the phenomona/ability/whatever actually exists in reality. The arbcom ruling correctly reflects this and therefore should be kept. For example, a psychic is a cultural label applied to somebody, it is not a judgment of science or law on their possession of actual psychic powers, or a judgment on the existence of said powers in the real world. - perfectblue 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These edits [90] [91] read as an appeal to authority as one says "Per Arbitrator UninvitedCompany" and the other says "This is literally per the ArbCom". Are these edits actually per UninvitedCompany and meant to be "the" definition we are supposed to use? --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked for another opinion--a psychic is someone who has paranormal powers, and this would extend to somebody who think he has such powers. A person who knows perfectly well that he does not have such powers but pretends to have them is a pretended psychic--most stage magicians would come under such a heading. As the actual existence of such powers is hard to demonstrate, I would accept anyone who claims to actually have them as a psychic. I do not think this the least confusing. To those who do not believe in the existence of such powers, it would be follow that such a person is either self-deluded or being deliberately deceptive--since is it almost impossible to tell the difference, most skeptics would I think regard the two classes as essentially equivalent--especially given that someone who honestly believes himself to to have such powers--or who might even have them in reality-- might nonetheless deceive to make them appear more impressive. To a skeptic, calling someone a psychic is a negative criticism. To a believer, it's a compliment. Thus I would think it a neutral term, and it is satisfying to have at least one neutral term in this subject. DGG (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His version: ""2 psychic n -s : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces."" My version: "A psychic is a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces." The ArbCom made content-related findings; it is reasonable that our viewers should be exposed to their operative definition of psychic upon visiting the article. To me, it was unclear what definition of "psychic" Wikipedia was operating under. TheUninvitedCo clarified. Given this introduction to the article, I concur that "psychic" is a sufficiently descriptive term, not requiring any framing such as "alleged", "purported", "self-described", etc. Antelan talk 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the ArbCom decision (not necessarily what an arbitrator says), but the ArbCom did not rule on the definition of "psychic." What Antelan has edit warred to insert in the Psychic article is not accurate, and merely uses other weasely words. In place of things like "supposed" and "self-described," he has put in "Apparently." He asked DGG for another opinion, and DGG did not agree with him. All Antelan is doing is POV pushing and going against consensus. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself asking you to refrain from personal attacks with an alarming frequency, and I will do so again now. TheUninvitedCo used the term "apparently". DGG's opinion is well-reasoned and invaluable. In the request for clarification, I presented two reasonable interpretations of "psychic", and now I know which one is to be used on Wikipedia. Given the clarification and the updated "psychic" definition, it is perfectly reasonable that qualifiers are unnecessary before "psychic", but before this clarification it was unclear. Antelan talk 22:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reading the above, it appears that TheUninvitedCo said that using "apparently" is fine, but that using no qualifier is fine as well, and that there wasn't anything necessarily wrong with the wording before-hand. I'm only posting this here so that TheUninvitedCo can clarify for him/herself, but shouldn't this be a consensus thing reached on the talk page? If both are fine, then editors can choose which they prefer, and it's not really "per TheUninvitedCo". Let's leave the arbitrators out of it and work it out on the talk page. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nealparr, this was one of the major content-related decisions of the ArbCom, which is why I asked for clarification here. If I correctly understood TheUninvitedCo, the conclusion was that "apparently" is fine in fleshing out the meaning of psychic in the psychic article, and then we don't need to qualify the term "psychic" with apparently/purportedly/etc. elsewhere since the full meaning will then already be contained within Wikipedia's understanding of the term. (If this is not correct, I would very much appreciate correction and clarification from an Arbitrator.) Antelan talk 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to Antelan: gather the diffs all my "personal attacks" and take them to an admin.

The Uninvited Co said specifically he saw nothing wrong with the current article.

However, an Arbitrator's power is in his writing of and votes on decisions, not a dictatorial power. So however right or wrong UnivitedCo is, we can't just say "thus saith The Uninvited Co" and have that be that.

The ArbCom decision ruled against the need for qualifiers, as long as an article is framed- and framing includes that skepticism is included in articles used to frame. That was already the case with Psychic.

Antelan's edits were POV pushing of the kind which occurred on a regular basis before the ArbCom decision. They were also non consensual controversial edits, and he edit warred to keep them in- again, behavior just like what we had to deal with before the ArbCom. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state it a bit simpler. If we're going to remove words such as "Purported" or "alleged" then we need to replace them with "claims to have" or "says he/she has" etc. If we don't use words such as "claims to have" then if we refer to any individual as "psychic" we need to make the Psychic article reflect the definition being used, I.E. "A person who claims powers" opposed to "A person who has powers". Very simple. The latter might be a bit confusing for most people who recgonize the term "psychic" as someone who HAS powers, but if that's how it must be.. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Stop with the "personal attacks". Just don't use that word anymore. If someone attacks you, ignore it. Discussing "purported" (no pun intended) personal attacks only distracts us from this current discussion about clarification on the RFA. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, in one case. If we say "So-and-so has psychic powers" then that's POV. So we say, "So-and-so claims to/is purported to have psychic powers."

But if we say "So-and-so is a psychic" then that is NPOV, because in the psychic article it makes quite clear that there is controversy. Thus, the word "psychic" already contains the controversy. That is to say, "psychic" has the same meaning as "purported psychic-" it contains skepticism within it.

However, the proper way to define "psychic" is as someone who HAS powers. That is the definition, and added to that is the controversy. It is subtle, but it is important. A psychic has powers, AND those powers may not truly exist in the real world. This is what "psychic" means.

BUT, a "psychic" is NOT someone who merely "claims to have powers."

The current Psychic article does contain controversy, in the body and in the lead. Thus, it is NPOV and we can call a person "psychic" without implying that the powers necessarily exist. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to go with the definition of Psychic as someone who "purportedly has psychic powers" and refer to people like Sylvia Browne as "Psychics" opposed to "Purported psychics" then we need to make VERY clear in the Psychic article that not only is there controversy about the existence of psychic powers, but that the very definition of "psychic" itself is someone who purports to have such powers and not someone who does indeed have such powers.
Defining psychic as someone who has powers would mean that anyone who is described as psychic has those powers, logically. If "Psychic" is defined as an individual who HAS powers and if we describe Sylvia Browne as a psychic then she must have powers. The fact that controversy exists disputing the existence of such powers doesn't negate the fact that we're claiming a "Psychic" is someone with those paranormal powers and Sylvia Browne is a Psychic, thus Sylvia Browne has those paranormal powers. Let me put it this way; If Psychic=Someone with said powers" then describing someone as a psychic would logically mean affirming they have said powers. Regardless of any criticism or controversy about the existence of such powers.
We can't define "Psychic" as "someone who HAS said powers" if we're going to refer to various individuals as psychics because whether they are psychic or not is disputed. If we're going to refer to them as actual psychics then we need to define the word "Psychic" as someone who claims to have such powers but doesn't necessarily have them. Which of course must be made very clear in the Psychic article. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The words "said to" and "say" are greenlighted by WP:WTA, purported is redlighted. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I admit it's a subtle point. But here's an example. A little green man from Mars is............... a little green man from Mars. As it happens, there is controversy over whether such exist.

If I say I'm a little green man from Mars, then Wikipedia calls me a "green Martian." In the "Green martian" article, it explains that while a little green man from Mars is just that, in reality they may not exist.

We call people "psychics," and a psychic is someone with powers, but a full understanding of the word contains the controversy.

It's subtle, but it is the ArbCom decision. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you claimed to be a "Green Martian" and gained substantial notoriety and a Wikipedia article developed about you then it would be an article whos name was your name. Let's say "Martin Phi", for an example. The article would be called "Martin Phi" and would say that "Martin Phi CLAIMS to be a green Martian" not "Martian Phi IS a green Martian". There's nothing subtle about it, it's simply stating something as a fact which isn't necessarily a fact. If "Psychic" is defined as someone who HAS said powers and we call someone a "Psychic" then we are affirming they have said powers. That's basic logic. A=Psychic powers, B =Psychic. If B is defined as having A then someone who is referred to as B is affirmed to have A by the one doing the referring. Your logic seems to be "B=A, If B then not necessarily A". Wikidudeman (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't understand what I wrote, but I don't think I can make it much clearer.
A = B and B = (C + D).

A = name B = psychic C = powers D = controversy

Get it? –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's very unclear. What you wrote would say, if translated, "Psychic equals Psychic and Psychic equals powers plus controversy". That doesn't really make any sense at all. "A" is defined as "name", but name of what? The term? The term is "Psychic" so "A=B" is redundant. "B=C+D" would mean that a Psychic is someone who HAS powers but controversy exists about such powers. Still, This is affirming that the individual in question (B) necessarily has the powers. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A = B

B = (C + D).

A = Sylvia Browne (example) B = psychic C = powers D = controversy

"B=C+D" would mean that a Psychic is someone who HAS powers but controversy exists about such powers." Correct.

Still, This is affirming that the individual in question (B) necessarily has the powers. Incorrect.

We qualify if we say someone has psychic powers. We don't qualify if we say someone is a psychic, because we're linking to the "psychic" article, and that includes the controversy over whether there are any real psychics.

Thus as I said before,

If I say I'm a little green man from Mars, then Wikipedia calls me a "green Martian." In the "Green Martian" article, it explains that while a little green man from Mars is just that, in reality they may not exist.

We call people "psychics," and a psychic is someone with powers, but a full understanding of the word contains the controversy.

Whether my interpretation is correct or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that we don't have to use qualifiers as long as the articles which define our terms include the controversy. That's what the ArbCom said.

Here's what the Arbs said, and there really isn't any getting around it:

"It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

and

""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist."

Which I interpret to mean that a cultural artifact such as "psychic" contains within it the controversy and thus does not need to be qualified. This works so long as the Psychic article contains a description of the controversy. It does not require, however, that we define the meaning of the word "psychic" equivocally- it only means we should inform the reader about the controversy. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say A = Sylvia Browne and B = psychic and then say "A = B" and then you say we're not affirming that the individual in question has psychic powers, when you clearly state that "A=B" and "B=psychic" and Psychic=someone with powers? You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that both "Psychic" is someone with powers and isn't someone with powers. The Arbitrators have said ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." This would mean that the Psychic article should NOT say that a psychic is someone who has definite psychic abilities but someone who claims to have such abilities. If that's the definition we're going with. We wouldn't call a crazy guy who claimed he was from mars a "Green Martian" anymore than we would claim some crazy guy who thinks he is Jesus "God" or "Messiah". We would refer to them as their names, whatever they may be. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Psychic article is framed with words like paranormal and ESP, such that people know that the existence of psychic powers is controversial. If you don't accept anything else I've said, then that should be enough. No one is going to get the impression that everyone believes that the powers really exist. Calling a person a "psychic" will never tell anyone that the powers indicated by the word are necessarily real. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't making it clear that controversy exists, it's obvious that controversy exists. The point is that wikipedia should make it clear that Psychic powers themselves might not exist. The only way to do this was outlined by me above. Stating that "Psychic=Psychic powers" and simply stating that controversy exists and people doubt psychics doesn't take away the problem of calling someone a psychic when we're using that definition. You seem to be saying that defining a Psychic as someone who definitely has psychic powers and labeling various people psychic is acceptable as long as we state that controversy exists about psychics. This doesn't solve the problem. Simply stating that a controversy exists doesn't take away from the problem that you're claiming so and so is a psychic and that a psychic is someone with powers. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A unicorn is a "legendary creature" (i.e. mythological). Bigfoot is a figure in "North American folklore". A ufo is "any real of apparently flying object which cannot be identified by the observer". These have straightforward introductions which frame their articles. Martinphi, you have said, both, "a psychic is someone with powers" but that this is controversial, and "we can call a person "psychic" without implying that the powers necessarily exist". How do you expect us to understand what you are thinking when you don't even offer us a coherent view of the topic in question? I and others have offered opinions, which you have struck down without offering a straightforward alternative. In your view, and in simple, encyclopedic, affirmative terms (i.e., "a psychic is X" instead of "a psychic is not Y") what is a psychic? Antelan talk 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask is that someone please inform me if a request for review is granted so I can comment. I think the Randi reference says it all, but I can provide other references as well. Otherwise this is talk page stuff to be worked out sans- arbitration. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood3

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

The above is the shorthand restrictions placed on Huaiwei after an ArbCom case more than a year ago. Several months ago, it was found that Instantnood was not only being generally disruptive but also running farms of sockpuppets to disrupt votes/discussions and Instantnood is now permanently banned. Huaiwei hasn't been in any other kind of dispute resolution before or since the Instantnood issues.

It's clear to me that while Huaiwei was wrapped up in Instantnood's belligerence (as were a half dozen others on the periphery) it was Instantnood's wiki-stalking of Huaiwei (which continues with sockpuppets even now) that caused the problem, and not a general problem with Huaiwei as an editor. Without the instigation of a bad actor, Huaiwei is an excellent and dedicated Wikipedian who has been with the project for several years. These restrictions and potential punishments hang on him like an albatross.

I'd like ArbCom to review Huaiwei's contributions since the permanent banning of Instantnood and remove the previous restrictions.

SchmuckyTheCat
  • You mean, like, the six blocks for edit warring he's received since then, most recently a month ago? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instantnood was banned on 16 April. Huaiwei was blocked only one time after Instantnood was banned. --Kaypoh 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Huaiwei has one 3rr with one user that is not Instantnood. I think the sequence of that one was, slow revert, Huaiwei realized he went over and reported it, both got blocked. He was also using the talk page to try and work out what was going on with someone belligerent.
One instance does not justify such harsh restrictions. SchmuckyTheCat
Well, that one instance is not the justification, the entire history is. I'd like to see three clean months before I support lifting the restrictions, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that in a similar situation recently, the committee voted that someone's probation from a prior case would be ended if he remained out of trouble for a specific period of time. That might work here. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See motion in arbitrator voting section, below. Newyorkbrad 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: See also the discussion in Section 2 above.

I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted. While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point.

As there are presently 12 active arbitrators, of whom one is abstaining, a majority is 6.
Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. First, I would like to see a clean block record for at least 3 months and no evidence of edit warring. FloNight 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. As I suggested above, I'd like to see a bit more time. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=149867250"