418:, which ran from 19-24 April. Editors who !voted delete here and keep in the preceding AfDs were: Jayjg, JoshuaZ, Tickle me, Humus sapiens, Leifern, IronDuke. The keep arguments were generally in the form of "Keep if other Allegations of apartheid in X series are kept" (to quote Humus sapiens in the Brazilian AfD). Needless to say, these arguments were not used for the Israeli article. Following the Israeli AfD, the same editors (minus JoshuaZ) voted pretty much consistently to keep in the French, Chinese, American and Saudi Arabian AfDs (per evidence
422:). They were joined by many of the other editors who had voted to delete the Israeli article, who voted in a consistent bloc using the same all or nothing arguments and on occasion explicitly referencing the Israeli article. I believe this was a direct reaction to the result of the Israeli AfD. Note that the "all or nothing" proposition was put forward by a limited number of editors
603:(any article can be deleted if it never reaches NPOV, relies solely on OR, or isn't a notable subject, of course). I have never proposed anything along the lines of "let's delete all of them" or "let's keep all of them." I have merely demanded that we apply the same standards on these articles. It can only be interpreted the way you just did if you blatantly assume bad faith. --
169:
here, when you would expect editors to know that every comment will be read by the
Arbitrators. Far from being on their best behavior, some editors have received harsher sanctions than were originally considered partly because their poor behavior during the case gave the Arbitrators little confidence that moderate remedies would have the desired effect.
283:
You have 4 options. You can make an evidence section of your own that contains a rebuttal subsection. You can offer an explanation on the talk page. You can comment on any relevant workshop proposals tied to the evidence (such as "# Sefringle has disrupted wikipedia to make a point" if it exists).
565:
Assume in this respect means to take something for granted as truth. i.e. one should believe, absence of evidence to the contrary, that the other is acting in good faith. A plainly-stated opinion of "if the rest are notable, then this is too" is evidence to the contrary, and can only be interpreted
443:
Ok, my analysis done. (I ignored any username changes and/or dual accounts.) Nobody who opined keep or merge in the
Australian AFD opined delete for a later or simultaneous Israeli AFD. Nobody who opined Delete in the 6th Israeli AFD opined in the Brazilian AFD. So the only relevant ordered pair
719:
I find that odd advice. I can imagine such an action would trigger a whole bevy of angry responses, up to and including a campaign of targetting my evidence (and my TalkPage, which happens a lot). The people posting in this fashion are definitely wrong, but a clerk should tidy up, not me. I have a
168:
In response to a dialog I just removed from
Picaroon's evidence suggestion, I would like to point out that editors' behavior during Arbitration may indeed be taken into account by the Arbitrators. Those who do not regularly follow arbitration cases might be surprised at the behavior that occurs
683:
I wouldn't worry about it. This was a section I opened with my name at the top in order that I could present my contribution/s. Everyone apparently needed reminding that if "Evidence" is found to be defective or misleadingly incomplete, it should be taken down and brought up to a high degree of
614:
There's nothing wrong with your argument, except that it bears no relation to the reasons given for deleting the article (which is about primary and secondary sources. Allegedly, the AoIA was properly written using the latter, whereas none of the subsequent AoA articles were written in this
367:
395:
That could be easy to spot as the non-Israel articles AfDs happened between early April 2007 and early August 2007. The
Israeli articles had many AfDs, but constrained to the criteria in your question only the Israeli AfDs of April and June would apply.
415:
359:
355:
765:
I do not call him a troll for participating in an AfD, which has indeed speedily closed, but for his general behavior taken as a whole, a fact that should be obvious to anyone following this arbcom (my mentions of this clearly predate the 7th AfD).
67:
I think it would be appropriate - and I hope have all parties with me - that it would be unfair to present evidence that not all involved parties have access to. I'm not sure how to do it technically, but I have to imagine there must be ways.
653:
I just realized that I commented in an evidence section rather than the workshop page. What do I do now? Should I remove the comment? It now part of a thread under evidence presented by
PalestineRemembered. My apologies for the oversight.
773:
I call him a troll because that is how his behavior is like. He uses terms like "Israel hater" but then says it doesn't apply to any of the editors; he says "we" are creating articles to "balance" things, and then denies he is guilty of
309:
of pages to work through, and it could easily take me a few weeks (or more) to work through the list. I'd rather not waste my time researching and everyone else's time reviewing evidence that we can know in advance will be useless.
419:
371:
57:
If one needs deleted revisions for ArbCom evidence purposes, a temporary restore (with blanking and protection) is appropriate, and has been done many times before. Do you need the article restored for this purpose?
363:
269:
On the evidence page, you are supposed to provide evidence, including evidence that you bring up because of other evidence. If you want to discuss what the evidence means, that would belong on the
Workshop page.
215:
The arbitration policy is full of generalities and there doesn't look like a good place for this (which is different than the long-standing prohibition on MEDCOM being used as evidence). But I did add a note to
21:
769:
However, his repeated accusation of antisemitism and "israel hating" in the AfD was clearly trolling, as was his opposition to the speedy close that was an obvious response to a POV-driven jumping of process.
838:
I find the repeated allegations by
Palestine Remembered to be excessive, unfounded, and uncalled-for, as well as unhelpful. They are completely off-topic, and do not pertain in any way to this proceeding.
618:
And you need to address the other issue, since it concerns whether your analysis has validity. It's not alleged that people were sloppy or inconsistent in their voting pattern, since that isn't
217:
820:
It might be an interesting exercise to look at the people behaving like this on ArbCom pages and wonder just how they would behave in regular editing when the spotlight is not on them!
154:
If we are going to examine edit histories, the history of this article is relevant. A lot of the material was collected here before being spun out into the individual articles. --
135:
687:
Some of what I said originally seems to have had some effect and I gather that some improvements have been made. I might even be almost ready to delete what I've said. But
794:
179:
Thanks for the clarification. I suspected that would be the case but it's helpful to have it spelled out. (Is this stated anywhere in the arbitration policy?) --
684:
accuracy/ consistency/ logical argument before it's replaced. (This is only the same thing we do all the time with edits to the encyclopedia, now isn't it?).
511:"Keep - if one set of allegations is notable, so should this. --Leifern 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)" Looks like an all or nothing argument by the duck test.
374:
29 March - 3 April. The French, Chinese, American, and Saudi
Arabian AFDs are after the most recent AoIa AFD. If you consider TFDs relevant, the TFDs for
78:
599:
How? My point all along has been the following: If we allow one article to be created with a title such as "allegations of apartheid" about one country,
804:... what part of "If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections
17:
870:
861:
843:
824:
814:
741:
728:
714:
703:
677:
626:
607:
570:
540:
515:
506:
489:
476:
434:
414:
The sixth nomination was closed as speedy keep after less than a day of discussion; not many editors participated in it. The one to look at is
405:
388:
348:
324:
314:
292:
274:
264:
249:
224:
204:
183:
173:
158:
142:
112:
103:
94:
85:
72:
62:
52:
39:
866:
Ok. I appreciate this constructive move on your part, as well as your helpful willingness to contact me directly to let me know. thanks. --
472:. Of these, Gzuckier, Humus sapiens, IronDuke and Leifern made "all or none" type arguments in the Brazilian. (Chris missed Gzuckier.)
35:
Can someone please let me know how we can access the history of deleted articles so we can review the evidence being presented? Thanks. --
850:
756:
536:
That is not a call for all or nothing, unless you assume bad faith. But hey, this is what this whole process has turned into by now. --
335:
Some people have already gone through the voting records here, so I'm hoping someone will be able to provide a quick answer to this:
724:. When questions have this effect, then it's definitely more than my life is worth to try and delete someone else's golden words!
699:
I can't delete what I wrote without doing the same to all the other valuable and much appreciated additions that have appeared.
762:
Perhaps he doesn't understand what "shitlist" means, so we could forgive that, but the rest is prima facie fabrications.
444:
of AFDs is the
Brazilian AFD followed by the 5th Israeli AFD. Seven users opined keep in Brazil and delete in Israel5:
138:. I haven't seen people using it significantly in the evidence while it was available, so it may or may not be needed.
622:/being disruptive. It's that some voting (judged by comments made at the same time) risks appearing to be partisan/POV.
378:
131:
306:
320:
It's probably reasonable to go back as far as the end of last year's arbitration on this subject, but no further. --
305:
Can the
Arbitrators give me a hint on how far back the ArbComm is likely to find more evidence helpful? I've got a
237:
Am I supposed to respond under the comment, or am I supposed to respond somewhere else, or not respond at all?--
858:
821:
725:
700:
623:
148:
90:
The clerks can do it without DRV, I think. I'll work from ChrisO's list; add any additional requests here.
857:
thinks you may have seen his contributions elsewhere and that's what made you ask him to go to that page.
49:
289:
221:
201:
170:
109:
91:
710:
I think if someone comments in your own evidence section, you can and probably should just delete it. —
790:
I am willing to hear legitimate arguments to the contrary, but this is a good faith opinion. Thanks!--
238:
486:
345:
354:
I can't answer right away, but I can narrow the search. The last AfD for the Israeli article was
601:
then equivalent articles about other countries can not be deleted on the basis of the title alone
449:
431:
180:
775:
619:
502:
I did not make "all or nothing arguments." Please stop inferring my state of mind or intent. --
46:
808:" is unclear? Please stop commenting and edit-warring in other peoples' evidence sections.
721:
136:
Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 21#Template:Allegations of apartheid
401:
368:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination)
260:
416:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination)
360:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination)
469:
356:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination)
810:
791:
738:
711:
453:
445:
155:
100:
692:
604:
537:
512:
503:
473:
465:
461:
385:
311:
271:
139:
82:
69:
36:
778:; he is disruptive and unhelpful, yet calls others uncivil for pointing this out.
255:
In the Workshop page, under the comment. On the Evidence page on you own section.
867:
840:
655:
426:
the fifth Israeli AfD, and was then adopted by a much larger number of editors
457:
397:
321:
256:
59:
567:
99:
I think restoring the talk pages may also be useful, if possible. Thanks,
759:
is full of misrepresentation, bad faith, and continued personal attacks.
372:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Allegations of Australian apartheid
364:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid
854:
784:
excuse. No discussion or consensus seeking, but disruptive boldness.
81:, noting that it is for the ArbComm and the full history is needed.
218:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/How to present a case
695:
tabulation has been brought up to an acceptable standard and
835:
My response to evidence presented by Palestine Remembered:
200:
would be common sense, but experience has shown otherwise.
338:
What editors, if any, voted to delete the Israeli article
720:
CSN hanging over me for asking someone if they had a
192:
I'm not sure. I'll look into it. I would hope that
198:
When on trial for assault, don't punch the witnesses
288:section on the workshop page to explain your case.
342:having voted to keep one of the other articles?
134:apartheid also. That has now been deleted per
45:Only administrators can see deleted revisions.
79:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Content review
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for arbitration
8:
733:You do what you want. If anyone comments in
485:Thank you all; this is very useful to know.
384:occurred on April 6, July 10, and July 21.
362:ran 19-24 April. Before that we have
7:
751:
691:I'm still not really convinced that
806:within your own section of the page
737:evidence section, I'll delete it. —
130:Do we need a temporary restore of
28:
301:How far back to go with evidence?
132:Template:Allegations of apartheid
566:as an all-or-nothing sentiment.
164:Comments made during Arbitration
853:allegation, since I understand
871:13:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
862:21:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
844:20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
825:16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
815:19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
787:A classic example of a troll.
1:
795:07:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
358:, speedy closed on June 26.
143:04:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
77:Ask for specific articles at
851:Sm8900 canvassing a 3rd time
742:02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
729:19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
715:01:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
704:11:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
678:19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
627:11:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
608:16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
571:16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
541:15:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
516:15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
507:15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
490:14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
477:14:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
435:07:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
406:04:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
389:04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
349:04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
325:04:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
315:21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
293:12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
275:02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
265:02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
250:02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
225:15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
205:15:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
184:15:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
174:14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
159:23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
113:14:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
104:14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
95:14:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
86:12:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
73:01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
63:00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
53:23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
40:18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
889:
649:Comments on evidence page
379:Allegations of apartheid
370:29 March - 4 April, and
149:Allegations of apartheid
22:Allegations of apartheid
783:excuse. Insult -: -->
752:Sefringle's "evidence"
615:encyclopedic fashion).
849:I have withdrawn the
782:excuse. Insult -: -->
233:responses to evidence
831:Response to evidence
757:His evidence section
722:conflict of interest
286:analysis of evidence
859:PalestineRemembered
822:PalestineRemembered
726:PalestineRemembered
701:PalestineRemembered
624:PalestineRemembered
284:Or you can use the
194:Don't moon the jury
31:Evidence references
800:People, please...
404:
263:
880:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
659:
400:
383:
377:
259:
247:
244:
241:
888:
887:
883:
882:
881:
879:
878:
877:
833:
802:
754:
672:
669:
666:
663:
660:
657:
651:
381:
375:
333:
303:
245:
242:
239:
235:
166:
152:
33:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
886:
884:
876:
875:
874:
873:
832:
829:
828:
827:
801:
798:
753:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
707:
706:
685:
650:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
620:making a point
616:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
495:
494:
493:
492:
480:
479:
440:
439:
438:
437:
409:
408:
392:
391:
332:
329:
328:
327:
302:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
278:
277:
267:
234:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
210:
209:
208:
207:
187:
186:
165:
162:
151:
146:
128:
127:
126:
125:
124:
123:
122:
121:
120:
119:
118:
117:
116:
115:
32:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
885:
872:
869:
868:Steve, Sm8900
865:
864:
863:
860:
856:
852:
848:
847:
846:
845:
842:
841:Steve, Sm8900
836:
830:
826:
823:
819:
818:
817:
816:
813:
812:
807:
799:
797:
796:
793:
788:
785:
781:Insult -: -->
779:
777:
771:
767:
763:
760:
758:
743:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
727:
723:
718:
717:
716:
713:
709:
708:
705:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
676:
675:
648:
628:
625:
621:
617:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
572:
569:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
542:
539:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
517:
514:
510:
509:
508:
505:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
491:
488:
484:
483:
482:
481:
478:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:Humus sapiens
447:
442:
441:
436:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
403:
399:
394:
393:
390:
387:
380:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
350:
347:
343:
341:
336:
331:Open question
330:
326:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
313:
308:
300:
294:
291:
287:
282:
281:
280:
279:
276:
273:
268:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
232:
226:
223:
219:
214:
213:
212:
211:
206:
203:
199:
195:
191:
190:
189:
188:
185:
182:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
163:
161:
160:
157:
150:
147:
145:
144:
141:
137:
133:
114:
111:
107:
106:
105:
102:
98:
97:
96:
93:
89:
88:
87:
84:
80:
76:
75:
74:
71:
66:
65:
64:
61:
56:
55:
54:
51:
48:
44:
43:
42:
41:
38:
30:
23:
19:
837:
834:
809:
805:
803:
789:
786:
780:
772:
768:
764:
761:
755:
734:
696:
688:
656:
652:
600:
427:
423:
366:5-11 April,
344:
339:
337:
334:
304:
285:
236:
197:
193:
167:
153:
129:
47:Sean William
34:
290:Thatcher131
222:Thatcher131
202:Thatcher131
171:Thatcher131
110:Thatcher131
92:Thatcher131
322:John Nagle
693:Leifern's
470:Tickle me
398:≈ jossi ≈
307:huge list
257:≈ jossi ≈
811:MastCell
792:Cerejota
776:WP:POINT
739:Ashley Y
712:Ashley Y
454:IronDuke
446:Gzuckier
156:Ideogram
101:Mackan79
20: |
855:User:HG
605:Leifern
538:Leifern
513:GRBerry
504:Leifern
474:GRBerry
466:Leifern
462:JoshuaZ
430:it. --
386:GRBerry
312:GRBerry
272:GRBerry
140:GRBerry
83:GRBerry
70:Leifern
37:Leifern
487:Kirill
468:, and
432:ChrisO
424:before
402:(talk)
346:Kirill
261:(talk)
181:ChrisO
108:D'oh!
458:Jayjg
428:after
340:after
60:Xoloz
16:<
568:Tarc
420:here
246:gle
243:rin
240:Sef
196:or
839:--
735:my
697:b)
689:a)
464:,
460:,
456:,
452:,
448:,
382:}}
376:{{
220:.
68:--
673:t
670:a
667:m
664:a
661:i
658:T
50:@
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.