After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.
Case closed: This case is now closed, as of October 26, 2007, as indicated on the main page, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid.
Place those on
/Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) As the Committee has been unable to determine which actions in this matter, if any, were undertaken in bad faith, and as the community appears to be satisfactorily dealing with the underlying content dispute, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken.
2) {text of proposed motion}
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
2) {text of proposed orders}
3) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedians are expected to state their point clearly and discuss it. False advocacy on behalf of content intended to illustrate inconsistencies in opponent's views, or intended to illustrate the outcome of those views if taken to their logical conclusion, is disruptive.
2) Editors who ignore advice to refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point are, at a minimum, expected to stop once their point has been made, rather than continue a pattern of disruption indefinitely.
3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and set a standard of engagement for others to follow.
4) Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy provides that all significant points of view must be presented fairly and without bias. Content forking, where two or more articles are written from differing points of view on a single topic, is a violation of the NPOV policy.
5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith differences among editors regarding content disputes. However, the Committee's jurisdiction does extend to Wikiquette and policy violations even when they manifest themselves in the article space.
5.1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
6) Wikipedia's dispute resolution process exists for the benefit of editors acting in good faith to resolve a disagreement. Bad-faith attempts to game the process are prohibited, and will result in sanctions against those engaging in them.
7) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and the community as a whole to change its mind.
8) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.
9) {text of proposed principle}
1) The original locus of the dispute is the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. There are good-faith differences of opinion among editors over the contents of the article and over the appropriateness of having an article with this title. The Arbitration Committee finds that this matter is outside the Committee's remit, and encourages interested editors to work together amongst themselves and with the larger Wikipedia community to resolve these differences.
1.1) The original locus of the dispute is the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. There are good-faith differences of opinion among editors over the contents of the article and over the appropriateness of having an article with this title. The Arbitration Committee finds that this matter is outside the Committee's remit.
2) Urthogie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, created several other Allegations of... apartheid articles, and other editors also opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article created more and added content to the articles created by Urthogie.
2.1) Urthogie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, created several other Allegations of... apartheid articles, and other editors also opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article created more and added content to the articles created by Urthogie. This group maintains that since an article exists for Israel, then corresponding articles must exist for other countries in order to maintain NPOV.
2.2) Urthogie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created several other Allegations of... apartheid articles "so that Wikipedia could be more NPOV" [7], and other editors opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article created more and added content to the articles created by Urthogie. This group maintains that since an article exists for Israel, then corresponding articles must exist for other countries in order to maintain NPOV.
3) Comments by those involved in the creation and expansion of the allegations of ... apartheid articles indicate that they were created to prove a point. [8] The Committee also finds the puzzling votes of those users who endorse deletion of the allegations of Israeli apartheid articles while opposing deletion of the other, clearly less meritorious allegations of ... apartheid articles to be evidence of an attempt to prove a point.
3.1) Comments by those involved in the creation and expansion of the allegations of ... apartheid articles indicate that they were created to prove a point ( [9]).
4) A number of editors voted to keep various of the allegations of ... apartheid articles after having voted to delete the ''allegations of Israeli apartheid article. While some of these votes may have been intended to prove a point, it is reasonable to believe that others were caused by a good-faith belief that the results of the earlier AFDs represented community consensus, and were to be followed for the other articles.
5) Sm8900 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to disrupt the arbitration process by posting an inflammatory and highly partisan "call to arms" ( [10], [11], [12]).
6) Seven editors ( Gzuckier ( talk · contribs), Humus sapiens ( talk · contribs), IronDuke ( talk · contribs), Jayjg ( talk · contribs), JoshuaZ ( talk · contribs), Leifern ( talk · contribs), and Tickle me ( talk · contribs)) voted to delete the allegations of Israeli apartheid article, largely on principle, after having earlier voted to keep the allegations of Brazilian apartheid article. Given the circumstances, the only reasonable explanation for this voting pattern is that the editors in question were attempting to prove a point regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article.
7) Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid#Negotiation, "Editors of articles concerning apartheid are directed to negotiate in good faith appropriate article names using relevant policies and guidelines. If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter."
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) No editor who has both voted "Delete" in a deletion discussion regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article and also voted "Keep" in a deletion discussion regarding any other allegations of ... apartheid article may participate in any further deletion/ undeletion discussion regarding any allegations of ... apartheid articles other than allegations of Israeli apartheid. The clerks are asked to compile a list of affected editors and add it to the final decision. This prohibition is to remain in force for a period of one year.
2) For a period of one year, no editor listed in remedy #1 above may create or expand any new allegations of ... apartheid article.
3) Urthogie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing any allegations of ... apartheid article or participating in any deletion/ undeletion discussion regarding it, for a period of one year.
4) Sm8900 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one month.
5) A general amnesty is granted to all editors not specifically sanctioned by this decision for any actions they may have taken in the course of this dispute. This amnesty is coupled with an understanding that further attempts to treat Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the imposition of summary sactions against the offending editors.
6) The seven editors listed in Finding #6 as having voted to prove a point are prohibited from editing any allegations of ... apartheid article, or participating in any deletion/ undeletion discussion regarding it, for a period of one year.
7) {text of proposed remedy}
1) Users who violate remedies imposed in this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.
Case closed: This case is now closed, as of October 26, 2007, as indicated on the main page, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid.
Place those on
/Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) As the Committee has been unable to determine which actions in this matter, if any, were undertaken in bad faith, and as the community appears to be satisfactorily dealing with the underlying content dispute, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken.
2) {text of proposed motion}
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
2) {text of proposed orders}
3) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedians are expected to state their point clearly and discuss it. False advocacy on behalf of content intended to illustrate inconsistencies in opponent's views, or intended to illustrate the outcome of those views if taken to their logical conclusion, is disruptive.
2) Editors who ignore advice to refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point are, at a minimum, expected to stop once their point has been made, rather than continue a pattern of disruption indefinitely.
3) Administrators are expected to lead by example and set a standard of engagement for others to follow.
4) Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy provides that all significant points of view must be presented fairly and without bias. Content forking, where two or more articles are written from differing points of view on a single topic, is a violation of the NPOV policy.
5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith differences among editors regarding content disputes. However, the Committee's jurisdiction does extend to Wikiquette and policy violations even when they manifest themselves in the article space.
5.1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
6) Wikipedia's dispute resolution process exists for the benefit of editors acting in good faith to resolve a disagreement. Bad-faith attempts to game the process are prohibited, and will result in sanctions against those engaging in them.
7) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and the community as a whole to change its mind.
8) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.
9) {text of proposed principle}
1) The original locus of the dispute is the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. There are good-faith differences of opinion among editors over the contents of the article and over the appropriateness of having an article with this title. The Arbitration Committee finds that this matter is outside the Committee's remit, and encourages interested editors to work together amongst themselves and with the larger Wikipedia community to resolve these differences.
1.1) The original locus of the dispute is the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. There are good-faith differences of opinion among editors over the contents of the article and over the appropriateness of having an article with this title. The Arbitration Committee finds that this matter is outside the Committee's remit.
2) Urthogie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, created several other Allegations of... apartheid articles, and other editors also opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article created more and added content to the articles created by Urthogie.
2.1) Urthogie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article, created several other Allegations of... apartheid articles, and other editors also opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article created more and added content to the articles created by Urthogie. This group maintains that since an article exists for Israel, then corresponding articles must exist for other countries in order to maintain NPOV.
2.2) Urthogie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created several other Allegations of... apartheid articles "so that Wikipedia could be more NPOV" [7], and other editors opposed to the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article created more and added content to the articles created by Urthogie. This group maintains that since an article exists for Israel, then corresponding articles must exist for other countries in order to maintain NPOV.
3) Comments by those involved in the creation and expansion of the allegations of ... apartheid articles indicate that they were created to prove a point. [8] The Committee also finds the puzzling votes of those users who endorse deletion of the allegations of Israeli apartheid articles while opposing deletion of the other, clearly less meritorious allegations of ... apartheid articles to be evidence of an attempt to prove a point.
3.1) Comments by those involved in the creation and expansion of the allegations of ... apartheid articles indicate that they were created to prove a point ( [9]).
4) A number of editors voted to keep various of the allegations of ... apartheid articles after having voted to delete the ''allegations of Israeli apartheid article. While some of these votes may have been intended to prove a point, it is reasonable to believe that others were caused by a good-faith belief that the results of the earlier AFDs represented community consensus, and were to be followed for the other articles.
5) Sm8900 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to disrupt the arbitration process by posting an inflammatory and highly partisan "call to arms" ( [10], [11], [12]).
6) Seven editors ( Gzuckier ( talk · contribs), Humus sapiens ( talk · contribs), IronDuke ( talk · contribs), Jayjg ( talk · contribs), JoshuaZ ( talk · contribs), Leifern ( talk · contribs), and Tickle me ( talk · contribs)) voted to delete the allegations of Israeli apartheid article, largely on principle, after having earlier voted to keep the allegations of Brazilian apartheid article. Given the circumstances, the only reasonable explanation for this voting pattern is that the editors in question were attempting to prove a point regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article.
7) Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid#Negotiation, "Editors of articles concerning apartheid are directed to negotiate in good faith appropriate article names using relevant policies and guidelines. If negotiation is unsuccessful, interested parties are required to enter into good faith mediation regarding the matter."
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) No editor who has both voted "Delete" in a deletion discussion regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article and also voted "Keep" in a deletion discussion regarding any other allegations of ... apartheid article may participate in any further deletion/ undeletion discussion regarding any allegations of ... apartheid articles other than allegations of Israeli apartheid. The clerks are asked to compile a list of affected editors and add it to the final decision. This prohibition is to remain in force for a period of one year.
2) For a period of one year, no editor listed in remedy #1 above may create or expand any new allegations of ... apartheid article.
3) Urthogie ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing any allegations of ... apartheid article or participating in any deletion/ undeletion discussion regarding it, for a period of one year.
4) Sm8900 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one month.
5) A general amnesty is granted to all editors not specifically sanctioned by this decision for any actions they may have taken in the course of this dispute. This amnesty is coupled with an understanding that further attempts to treat Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the imposition of summary sactions against the offending editors.
6) The seven editors listed in Finding #6 as having voted to prove a point are prohibited from editing any allegations of ... apartheid article, or participating in any deletion/ undeletion discussion regarding it, for a period of one year.
7) {text of proposed remedy}
1) Users who violate remedies imposed in this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.