Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Narrow responsibility for articles
1) The development of the "allegations" articles has been dominated by a small number of editors, a significant number of whom are actively involved in editing Allegations of Israeli apartheid or its talk page. (The names of the article creators are bolded.)


 * Allegations of American apartheid - 22% of edits by Mackan79, 19.5% by Urthogie.
 * Allegations of Australian apartheid - 47% of edits by Urthogie, 26% by Ashley Y
 * Allegations of Brazilian apartheid - 48% of edits by Jayjg, 8% by Lothar of the Hill People, 6% by Urthogie
 * Allegations of Chinese apartheid - 31.5% of edits by Jossi, 20% by Jayjg, 12.5% by Urthogie, 6% by Ideogram
 * Allegations of French apartheid - 39.5% by Jayjg, 16.5% by Cerejota, 12% by NicDumZ, 7% by Lothar of the Hill People, 4% by Urthogie
 * Allegations of Islamic apartheid - 55% of edits by Urthogie, 7% by Sefringle, 9% by Mackan79
 * Allegations of Jordanian apartheid - 30% of edits by Cerejota, 25% by Chesdovi, 15% by Bleh999
 * Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid - 39% of edits by ChrisO, 19% by Urthogie, 8% by Cordless Larry, 8% by Victor falk, 6.5% by Cerejota, 3% by Theo F
 * Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid - 42% of edits by Cerejota, 35% of edits by Bleh999, 15% by Urthogie, 7% by Victor falk
 * Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid - 22.5% of edits by Jayjg, 19% by Bless sins, 10% by Lothar of the Hill People, 9% by Victor falk, 8% by Bigglove, 4.5% by Urthogie

Urthogie is the editor most heavily involved (in 7 of 10 of these articles), reflecting his role as the principal creator of the series. Jayjg has the largest number of edits, reflecting his leading role in developing these articles (though he only created one of them). Individual articles have had substantial involvement from editors native to the countries under discussion (Ideogram - China, NicDumZ - France, ChrisO (myself) - Northern Ireland/UK, Cerejota - Puerto Rico). Some of these editors (notably Cerejota) have gone on to play significant roles in the development of the other articles after becoming aware of the wider controversy.

Sefringle's statements
2) Sefringle nominated Allegations of Israeli apartheid for its sixth and most recent AfD and has participated in the AfDs on the French and Jordanian apartheid articles, voting to keep both. In discussing why the other "allegations of apartheid" articles had been created, he stated:

''"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." 

Similarly, in voting to keep Allegations of French apartheid he stated:

"either keep this one or delete them all per Humus Sapians. These is an obvious POV fork. It is very POV to have articles accusing some countries of apartheid while not allowing a similar attacks against others. Allegations of apartheid is an attack against that country, and cannot be written in a neutral manner. The closest thing we can do to make it neutral is allow the allegations against every country. This is the only way to balance it out."

Sefringle's statement in this RFAr should also be read in its entirety, as it specifically places this dispute in the context of "the zionists and supporters of Israel" battling "the anti-zionists". -- ChrisO 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Diametrically-opposed positions and non-policy-based block voting
3) A number of Israel-focused editors have been involved in many of the AfDs on "allegations of apartheid" articles. Notably, they have systematically voted to keep them while voting to delete the older article Allegations of Israeli apartheid (AoIa). They have often based their opposition to AoIa on general principles which they have then set aside for the other articles. The rationales have invariably been non-policy-based, usually citing the "all or nothing" principle invoked by Sefringle - which has no basis in policy - to tie the other articles' fate to that of AoIa. The following examples illustrate this pattern of behaviour and the block voting dynamic that has been apparent in these AfDs:


 * 6SJ7


 * Armon


 * Humus sapiens


 * IronDuke


 * Jayjg


 * Jossi


 * Leifern


 * Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg


 * Sefringle


 * Shamir1


 * Tewfik


 * Tickle me


 * This evidence has several problems:

where one can find such quotes as:
 * 1) It seeks to poison the well by asserting at the outset that all subsequent editors are "Israel-focused" editors. If ChrisO thinks this is a relevant fact, he should be prepared to document and prove it. If he can't prove it, he should omit the assertion.
 * 2) In one of ChrisO's earliest contributions to this discussion, he conceded that it will be difficult to relate articles to each other without clear definitions, yet here he is making an explicit connection among articles on the basis of selective evidence.
 * 3) After having worked constructively on various aoia articles, ChrisO's tone abruptly changed when an article was created about allegations of French apartheid ,
 * "the creators of this article plainly know little and understand less about French social issues. I can't think of anyone in French politics or the media who uses the comparison." (in stark contradiction to his opposition to OR and other POV views).
 * "On a personal note, I wish people here would stop misusing the term "apartheid" for POV reasons - it cheapens and degrades the memory of that inquitous system." (which sounds to me like a call for using "apartheid" only in reference to the specific system in South Africa.


 * 1) Then, later that day ChrisO writes, under the heading "Nobody is being fooled here," that:
 * "Quite honestly, Jay, neither you nor Urthogie are doing yourselves any favours when you pretend that you've suddenly acquired an interest in French social policy; the arrival of the usual clique of (pro-)Israeli partisans all voting in lockstep with you shows rather clearly what's going on here." (running headlong into a violation of AGF that he's persisted with since then).


 * Now, looking at ChrisO's record in opining and writing about all AFDs since the one about alleged French apartheid, an uncharitable editor might assert that the "only reasonable explanation" for his views is that he was so offended by the allegations against France that he went on a vendetta against this imagined clique of Israeli partisans. And given the volume and vociferous tone of his participation (and dubious admin practices) one could argue that he as much as anyone has disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. Yet, nobody is doing this, for the simple reason that AGF dictates that we don't leap to such conclusions but rather focus on content. --Leifern 19:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

TShilo12 has been incivil and assumed bad faith
4) has made incivil comments in relation to the allegations of apartheid articles and the users involved with them and has assumed bad faith, accusing editors with whom he is in disagreement of being motivated by anti-semitism and deletionism. On the administrators' noticeboard, he posted the following:


 * This is a dispute between ChrisO and his opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins in opposition to a bunch of other admins, a number of whom happen to be Jews. This is something that becomes obvious when the relevant discussion is read in full. It is not without cause that there are numerous charges of thinly-veiled antisemitism that have been made in the various relevant discussions, not only against ChrisO, but against a significant number of other editors, including a merry gang of uncharacteristically deletionist admins.

Humus sapiens has been incivil
5) has made incivil comments in relation to the allegations of apartheid articles and the users involved with them. As with IronDuke (see  below), he has made comments suggesting suggesting overt antisemitism and racism (via "Dirty Jew"/"Dirty Gypsy" reference) on the part of people with whom he is in disagreement.

All or nothing arguments to avoid any treatment on the French article
Some editors tried to move the article without any consensus, the article got protected. From that time, every proposal I would do got "all or nothing" answers ("if you act on the French article, you should act the same on the other articles; If you don't want to act on others, then I will oppose your edits") from Israeli-focused editors, as ChrisO named them :
 * Discussing about moving the article :
 * Jayjg] :
 * 6SJ7 :
 * Humus sapiens :
 * When trying to merge it into Social situation in the French suburbs :
 * 6SJ7 :
 * Urthogie : Please notice that this vote on the French article is copied from the one on the Saudi Arabian article :
 * Jossi : &

"I created several allegations articles so that Wikipedia could be more NPOV"
Urthogie : (He logged in and signed his comment 20 minutes later :  )

User:Sm8900 and WP:CANVAS
Asking users to come to support his views here.

WikiProject Jewish history,  WikiProject Israel and Notice board for Israel-related topics (exactly the same diffs): "Your help is vitally needed. Please go to this proceeding and insert your comments indicating support for those who seek to preserve balance at Wikipedia by applying this method of inquiry equally, by applying the 'aparetheid' analigy to a variety of countries equally, instead of only to Israel. If you wish, you may also demand that ArbCom or some other body address content disputes, so that this cycle of accusation and counter-accusation will not remaion the only real means of addressing disputes."

IronDuke has been incivil
has made incivil comments in relation to the allegations of apartheid articles and the users involved with them. Examples: suggesting antisemitism (via "filthy Jew" reference) on the part of people he is in disagreement with, accusing keep voters of being anti-Israel, accusing CJCurrie of assuming bad faith

Picaroon (t) 05:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Threaded dialog removed, response may be made in your own evidence section, the talk page, or the workshop page. Thatcher131 12:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle has been incivil and assumed bad faith
Sefringle made an incivil statement, in which he assumed bad faith, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid (diff). Select excerpts include "[t]here are clearly many editors on wikipedia who hate Israel", "will only agree to what is forced upon them", "[t]his article is liked because many wikipedians (the ones who voted keep the Israel one, delete the others in the allegations of apartheid afds) hate Israel", "[i]t is an attack page against Israel, and it was created by anti-zionists to inflame us", and "Israel haters saw that, and want to keep the article bias".

Picaroon (t) 05:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring by Ideogram on Allegations of Chinese apartheid despite 1RR parole
RE: Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram


 * August 4 11:23, 1st revert by Ideogram, here
 * August 4 14:01, second revert by Ideogram here
 * August 4 14:16, third revert by Ideogram here

In addition:
 * August 4 17:19 - My edit diff
 * reverted by deletion of lead by Ideogram on Aug 5, 9:22 with edit summary Remove lead not supported by any sources diff
 * I added sources to the lead as requested on Aug 5, 12:36 here
 * ...which was reverted a few minutes later by Ideogram here

After being reminded of his 1RR parole, Ideogram desisted from reverting.

Ideogram has been uncivil and assumed bad faith

 * Ideogram used abusive language, diff (which he later refactored diff after being asked to do so by Nandesuka diff)
 * Ideogram assumed bad faith throughout my research and editing of that article. See Talk:Allegations_of_Chinese_apartheid.

Ideogram offered an apology for his abusive language, which I accepted in good faith. But this behavior only shows what a problem these type of "allegation of XXX" articles are and how heated discussions can get. 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO closes a related AfD while actively engaged in the dispute

 * ChrisO closes Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_American_apartheid while being actively engaged in other "Allegations of XXX apartheid" articles.

ChrisO possible WP:CANVASS during AfD proceedings
Posting more than sixty messages in user's talk pages about related AfDs and

ChrisO protects a page while actively engaged in an edit war
On July 22nd User:ChrisO protects Allegations of Northern Irish apartheid while involved in a move/edit war with Urthogie on that article. He unprotects "for now" when challenged.

See log

ChrisO deletes an article without AfD process
On July 29 User:ChrisO deletes Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid which was redirected Allegations of apartheid, without going through AfD and while he was actively involved in the dispute about apartheid articles. With that deletion he also deleted the article history. He later restored the article on August 12 after a short DRV.

See logs

Jayjg has violated WP:POINT
''Background: On 00:34, 15 November 2004, an anonymous editor added a new section to the Apartheid page entitled "Apartheid in other nations". On 01:32 of the same day, User:Jayjg changed the title of this section to "Allegations of Apartheid in other nations". On 18:19, 10 July 2005, the section was transfered to a new article page entitled Apartheid outside of South Africa (subsequently renamed as Allegations of Apartheid). Note that I am not alleging misconduct in any of these actions.''

On 18:53, 24 November 2005, Jayjg proposed that Apartheid outside of South Africa "be merged (in highly pruned form) back into List of political epithets", arguing "that is all the term really means in this context". His proposed course of action was not taken, although the "Apartheid outside of South Africa" article was subsequently redirected to Segregation on 20:32, 8 February 2006. Some material was incorporated into Racial segregation (here), and the material on Saudi Arabia added to Human rights in Saudi Arabia) (here). The material on Israel, which had recently been the subject of a bitter content dispute, appears to have disappeared entirely.

On 16:23, 5 June 2006, User:Jayjg re-established the Apartheid outside of South Africa page, with a request that the newly-created article Israeli apartheid (phrase) be merged into it. Shortly thereafter, he added copious amounts of information to "Apartheid outside of South Africa", and sought to merge "Israeli apartheid" on his own.

It is difficult for me to reconcile these actions with Jayjg's prior request that Apartheid outside of South Africa by merged in highly pruned form with a list page. I believe the only reasonable explanation is that Jayjg was engaged in a WP:POINT violation resulting from gamesmanship over the Israeli apartheid article. I also believe Jayjg's repeated "keep" votes on other "Allegations ..." articles can only be interpreted in the same light. CJCurrie 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Modified 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Add: On 16:50, 30 May 2006, Jayjg endorsed the following comments from User:Viriditas: , . His subsequent votes for the retention of other "Allegations ..." articles are, again, difficult for me to interpret except as WP:POINT violations. CJCurrie 05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Modified 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has been admonished by the Arbitration Committee
User:Jayjg has been admonished by the Arbitration Committee on three occasions for his behaviour on articles relating to the Israel/Palestinian conflict.


 * In an Arbcomm case involving User:Jayjg and User:HistoryBuffEr, Jayjg was admonished for 3RR violations, and prohibited from "remov[ing] any adequately referenced information from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". (refer: )
 * In an ArbComm case involving User:Yuber, Jayjg was "reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission" and "advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts.". (refer: )
 * In a prior ArbComm case on the Israeli apartheid article, Jayjg was "admonished not use [his] administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute" and "reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur". (It may be worth noting that the ArbComm also delivered the following ruling in this case: "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.")  (refer: )

Response to IronDuke

 * IronDuke has written: The third diff is also, if I say so myself, entirely polite. I did point out that CJCurrie had supported an antisemitic sock puppeteer Kiyosaki, but made it clear that 1) he more than likely wasn't aware that he'd thanked an antisemite for giving him a barnstar and 2) his arguments should be given a fair hearing.


 * My reading of this situation was somewhat different. I don't recall that you made point (1) clear at any point in our discussion.  (And, for the record, I was unaware of Kiyosaki's prejudical views when I accepted his barnstar.  Once he made his views known, I removed it.)  CJCurrie 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations have floated around the apartheid articles and their deletion discussions for a while

 * In Articles for deletion/Global apartheid, Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid, Articles for deletion/Sexual apartheid (all June 2006) the nominated article was described by the nominator and others as part of a POV series to make a WP:POINT, and the deltion nomination was described as a WP:POINT attack.
 * Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (the 3rd AFD on the article; first at the new title), was closed early in part due to a finding of an out of process nomination. Similar accusations were made in the 3rd AFD about the second and in the  4th AFD for AoIa about the 4th. GRBerry (early on 14 August 2007)

Offline canvassing is known to have occurred for some of the related AFDs

 * Here Dlohcierekim says that he was email canvassed to vote keep in the 3rd AFD for AoIa. GRBerry (early on 14 August 2007) (Revised on review per IP editor suggestion. GRBerry 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Pro-Israel editors have said that the other articles were created because of AoIa

 * On 24 April 2007 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg says "Those articles are only necessary because of the existence of this one [AoIA] . It was important to maintain some semblance of balance."
 * On 20 July 2007 Sefringle says "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."
 * On 12 August 2007 Urthogie admits to creating the articles to balance AoIa. (later signed and revised) GRBerry (early on 14 August 2007)

ChrisO learned from the American Apartheid Allegations DRV to not close AFDs for articles in this series

 * Deletion review close noted "a bipartisan consensus that the AfD closer [ChrisO] was not the best-positioned person to have taken this decision."
 * Chris asks an involved admin who had closed the Chinese AFD despite being involved in the topic to reverse themselves so an uninvolved admin could
 * Chris asks at WP:AN for an admin not involved in the relevant wiki-projects to close the Chinese allegations AFD. GRBerry (early on 14 August 2007)

Relevant language has long standing in WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND

 * WP:NOT says in part "Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point." (link in original).
 * No recognizable form of this sentence was in the first draft to discuss battlegrounds, nor when WP:NOT became policy in October 2004 GRBerry (early on 14 August 2007)
 * An early version of the wording appears in the major rewrite of 7 January 2005. The current wording, minus the initial "Also, " was there when "not a theatre of war" became "not a battleground" on 9 March 2005, and remained essentially unchanged for the past 2+ years.

Personal attacks have occurred in the DRVs and AFDs for these articles
Removed on 1 September, I don't think there are smoking guns here and it isn't the focus of the case. GRBerry 03:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram may not be here to create an encyclopedia

 * Ideogram, which was not explained further. GRBerry 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Social apartheid

 * Jayjg redirects and merges "Social" into the main allegations article, kicking off a war in which 3 editors came one edit from violating WP:3RR: G-Dett reverts, Jayjg redirects, T L Miles reverts, Beit Or redirects, T L Miles reverts, Beit Or redirects, G-Dett reverts, Beit Or redirects (3rd time), G-Dett reverts (3rd time), Jayjg redirects, Lothar of the Hill People reverts, Jayjg redirects (4th time, 3rd reversion), Lothar reverts, and then the article is protected by Y. All actions/diffs are less than 4 hours from Jayjg's original redirection.  GRBerry 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

France article

 * Starts at Allegations of French apartheid. Moved to Urban apartheid in France by Lothar of the Hill People.  Revert by Jayjg. Moved to Exclusion sociale by Lothar.  Revert by Beit Or.  Moved to Social exclusion in France by Lothar. Revert by Jayjg.  Protected by Y.  Elapsed time, 4 hours on 30 July, commencing roughly 1 hour before the N. Ireland move war and ending roughly 0.5 hours later. GRBerry 15:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Brazil, ongoing

 * On 30 July, Lothar moved to Social apartheid in Brazil. Jayjg reverted.  A 12 day break occurred, with discussion at Talk:Social apartheid in Brazil (several sections).
 * On 12-20 August, Lothar repeated. Cerejota reverted. Cuchullain repeated.  Cerejota reverted.  Cuchullain repeated.  Cerejota reverted.  Ashley Y repeated.  Cerejota reverted.  Ashley Y repeated. Cerejota reverted.  Lothar repeated.  GDonato protected.  Discussion continued throughout. GRBerry 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

 * Created by Theo F on 22 July 2007, it was then tweaked by Cerejota, and expanded by Urthogie.
 * ChrisO then moves to Segregation in Northern Ireland and rewrote. A minor change is made by another user.
 * Urthrogie then moves to a misspelling with a summary of "Please stop moves without consensus", and reverts (#1) to the last version by himself. (Question: how can something be "without consensus" in a problematic way prior to the creation of a talk page?  BRD anyone?  This undid two user's changes.]
 * Jayjg then corrects the spelling mistake and fixes the typo in the redirect at Segregation, which also locks against a further move to Segregation.
 * ChisO deletes the locked redirect at Segregation and reverts and moves (#1) the combined effect of Urthrogie and Jayjg.
 * Urthrogie reverts (#2) again.
 * ChrisO reverts and moves (#2) again.
 * The move/revert war stops at this point. Discussion occurs on the talk page; Urthrogie and Jayjg get no support, ChrisO gets support.  Urhtrogie also declines to discuss the content changes with an uninvolved editor who describes Urthrogie as "removing sourced material and references from this article" while the moving is occurring.  Urthrogie never discusses the content changes.  GRBerry 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke has not been uncivil

 * I'm not sure what's more flabbergasting: that I have been accused of incivility where a brief glance would reveal that not to be the case, or that it's been done by an editor I have never, to my knowledge, encountered before, who has never made any attempt to warn me of my allegedly uncivil behavior, and who has actual uncivil remarks of his own to answer for.


 * I feel that a reply ought to be unnecessary, since one only has to click on the diffs provided by Picaroon to see that they do not match his interpretation of them. Also, this was not a proceeding I wished to be a party to, and would have happily ignored it but as it appears there's no opt-out clause, I will reply.


 * The first of Picaroon's diffs refers to a point I have made many times, which is that AoIa is similar to "filthy Jew" in that is an epithet meant to smear a specific ethnicity. Nowhere do I suggest or imply, as Picaroon erroneously claims, that any editors (other than the banned ones) who support AoIa are antisemites. It is perfectly possible to agree with me that AoIa smacks of antisemitism, but disagree with me and say WP needs an article on it anyway. My reasoning may be off (though I don't think it is), but to claim that a general comment like that is somehow "uncivil" is just odd.


 * The second diff is even more of a reach: . I suggested that while it was possible that some supporters of the article had an axe to grind with regards to Israel, that did not nullify their concerns. There isn't even a whisper of incivility there.


 * The third diff is also, if I say so myself, entirely polite. I did point out that CJCurrie had supported an antisemitic sock puppeteer Kiyosaki, but made it clear that 1) he more than likely wasn't aware that he'd thanked an antisemite for giving him a barnstar and 2) his arguments should be given a fair hearing. See here:


 * I actually pride myself on remaining civil to editors with whom I disagree on this issue. I'd point, as evidence of this, to the remarks of Xoloz who closed the Chinese apartheid DRV. He had this to say regarding my conduct. . "A few editors below -- IronDuke, Avi, JoshuaZ -- make calm and reasonable arguments for reconsideration." These allegations are so manifestly false, I cannot begin to fathom what caused this editor to make them. IronDuke  22:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO has made personal attacks and been uncivil
ChrisO has been interested most recently in taunting 6SJ7, who he characterizes as stupid, a fool and “hysterical” and “funny”, asserts that 6S7J should be ashamed of himself (see edit summary),

He refers to Sefringle’s statement as a rant in his edit summary in this arbitration, and calls him reprehensible.

He calls greg park avenue’s comments incomprehensible, trollish, and clutter, and also implies that greg has nothing useful to contribute (see second comment).

I should also point out that his tone is in general often combative and sneering on these issues, and there are many, many more instances of unpleasant comments (both general and specific) directed at those who disagree with him, which I can list upon request. IronDuke 13:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to MastCell’s assertion, I have used no “bargaining chips” of any kind
MastCell has distorted my involvement in these articles, and my reasoning. I didn’t think, when I was !voting, that my stance was so subtle that I needed to re-explain it, though I now see it is clear that I should.

My first choice was to have all the articles deleted. I believed they all suffered from the same flaw, which basically boiled down to OR. If the community felt that the Allegations articles were somehow not OR, I would disagree, but would then advocate keeping all the ones that had decent sources and were well-written. The only outcome I flat-out opposed was having some, but not all, of the relevant countries named in these articles. The example I used was whether I would !vote to delete one non-notable middle school but not another. If it were up to me, they’d all go. But if some have support of the community, than all of them should stay. If I were asked to vote on a random middle school AfD today, I would vote just as I have on the apartheid articles; my first instinct is to delete them all, but if the community feels that they are notable, then keep them all. There is no contradiction here, and no hypocrisy. Indeed, I feel my position has been quite consistent as new articles have been folded in. There was no sense for me of a “bargaining” chip—my feeling was that the Allegations of Apartheid articles were a fait accompli (and that other articles seemed to have wide community support), and that AoIa having survived so many AfD’s, there would be no way to delete it in any case. I would have liked to see an up or down vote on all articles at once, but didn’t think people would go for it, so I did not propose it myself, feeling that all it would do is raise the temperature.

MastCell also alleges that I have violated a previous arbcom ruling, though he provides no evidence that I have not negotiated in good faith. I can only say that I have done nothing but, and was willing to accept an outcome which I thought fairly odious, as a compromise position. MastCell also takes me to task (as part of his group) for “creating” and “developing” the later Allegations of Apartheid articles. I have created none of the articles in question, nor have I “developed” them (or edited them in any way, to the best of my recollection). I have expressed my opinion, and some have doubted the sincerity of my opinions. I am sorry that is so, but not sorry to have expressed those opinions, which I continue to hold. These articles (beginning with the first one that was created by a now-banned sock farmer to disrupt Wikipedia), have been a huge waste of time, I think, and no reputable encyclopedia would even need a discussion as to whether to include them. IronDuke 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jehochman
I present evidence that Ideogram is a long term disruptive editor. This evidence was compiled for a WP:CSN case. 

Ideogram has operated sock puppets
Ideogram has engaged in a long term pattern of disruption involving multiple, abusive sockpuppets. He has admitted operating a number of socks, and several more are suspected.
 * See also Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram

''All above have been confirmed by Ideogram. ''
 * Puppetmaster
 * - bot account, properly identified
 * Sockpuppets
 * - confirmed by Ideogram.
 * - WP:DUCK - see
 * - WP:DUCK - see
 * - may be properly identified, probably not abusive.
 * - may be properly identified, probably not abusive.
 * - may be properly identified, probably not abusive.

Ideogram has engaged in block evasion
Admitted sockpuppet was used for block evasion numerous times on April 19-20, 2007. The block was placed for disruption of Arbcom. See and   Note: 02:36, 19 April 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ideogram (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting arbcom)

Ideogram has engaged in edit warring
Admitted sockpuppet was edit warring      along side Ideogram up to 4RR. In the middle of this edit war Galindo left a 3RR warning for the opposing editor.

Ideogram continues to operate other, unidentified socks
Ideogram admits operating other socks that have not yet been identified. - Jehochman Talk 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram is sitebanned for at least one year
Ideogram has been banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year by the community. - Jehochman Talk 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations by User:ChrisO
Above in the evidence, he accused numerous editors of making WP:POINT allegations. Mainly against the people who wanted the Israel apartheid article deleted, specifically bolding the participation of us, and claiming attempts to improve the articles are WP:POINT. He also accuses me of WP:POINT because of my views. Apparently, he believes I am acting inappropriately for expressing my views in a clear content dispute, and apparently, he feels actions should be taken against me for having a different opinion than his over this content dispute. He further accuses our voting as being based on WP:ALLORNOTHING (which is neither a policy or guideline, but rather an essay), despite the fact that our view is based on WP:NPOV, which is technically a policy. In some cases, like ones to maintain NPOV, all or nothing arguments may actually be legitimate. These assumptions by User:ChrisO show bad faith. -- Sef rin gle Talk 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks made by User:Targeman
In his statement on the talk page, he said ''I presume I've been included in Sefringle's shitlist of "Israel-hating editors". My Jewish ancestors must be turning in their graves.'' The full statement can be viewed here First of all, I never accused him personally of being an israel hater; I used it more or less in a general context. But he assumes I have a list of Israel-hating editors, making another bad faith allegation, and basically calling me (or my beliefs) "shit"; also asserting that I apparently am a bad person with the "turning in their graves" comment. -- Sef rin gle Talk 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL violations by User:Cerejota
Numerous times Cerejota has falsely accused me of may things including 3rr violations by miscounting, disruption by misinterpritations of my comments, etc. Participation in an afd for an article one thinks should be deleted is not disruption. Besides that, Cerejota has been uncivil. First, he/she said editors who reverted me should be "congradulated Second, he/she has called me a troll in the afd discussion for expressing the opinion that the afd will unlikely be speedily closed  And later he/she indirectly called me an enemy editor, saying I shouldn't edit wikipedia, and that none of my contributions to wikipedia have been helpful.  -- Sef rin gle Talk 04:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Contributors apply a double standard regarding AfD closures by involved administrators
On April 25, 2007, Jayjg reversed another administrator's closure of the United States military aid to Israel AfD. The closure went to DRV, where Jayjg was criticized by some for what was, as Cyde put it, "taking controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in."

On July 30, 2007, ChrisO closed the Allegations of American apartheid AfD. The closure went to DRV, where ChrisO was criticized. As Mantanmoreland put it, "Given that these "apartheid" articles are involved in interrelated debates, it was very wrong of ChrisO, an active participant, to close this deletion debate. This was an abuse of tools and should not be permitted."

Several editors defended Jayjg's decision to use his tools while criticizing ChrisO's decision as inappropriate:


 * Jayjg on Jayjg's deletion: "Regarding the various people who are hinting or stating outright that I have some sort of conflict of interest, or shouldn't be able to make administrative decisions on wide areas of article topics, or, most bizarrely, that I have in the past "illegally" deleted articles, I note the obvious bias that many (though certainly not all) of them have expressed in these areas themselves, and point out that an interest in a topical area is not a conflict of interest in that area. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)"


 * Jayjg on ChrisO's deletion: "This was a terrible abuse of process on a couple of levels. First, User:ChrisO has been a highly involved editor in these articles..."


 * 6SJ7 on Jayjg's deletion: "I endorse Jayjg's action. I will resist the temptation to respond to claims of "bias", but I do not think it is helpful to throw those allegations around. I do think that Wikipedia is "broken" when it comes to articles about Israel and Israeli-Arab relations, and it is not going to be fixed on an article-by-article basis. 6SJ7 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)"


 * 6SJ7 on ChrisO's deletion: "This was a clear abuse of administrative powers. Overturning the deletion should be only the first of the repercussions."


 * Humus Sapiens on Jayjg's deletion: "Changing my vote to Delete. Since WP is turning into a battleground, I'd rather be counted as a "usual suspect". ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)"


 * Humus Sapiens on ChrisO's deletion: "Overturn - I question the qualification of ChrisO (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) to take an admin action because of his clearly one-sided activism on the page in question and in related discussions. Also, I don't see how the discussion and the vote at the AFD page warrant the deletion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)"


 * Tewfik on Jayjg's deletion: "This is deletion review, whose sole aim is assessing whether the AfD warrants a deletion or undeletion. It isn't the place for reviewing anyone's actions, and much less for leveling accusations of 'censorship' or 'abuse of powers' (or even for being "completely out of line", even if we think he was). TewfikTalk 05:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"


 * Tewfik on ChrisO's deletion: "Overturn - while I sympathise with some of the rationales for dealing with the Apartheid entries re: WTA, ChrisO should clearly not have taken administrative action in this case. Even if someone else had done it, there is still no way that 50% delete should be closed as a consensus for deletion. While I respect ChrisO, I would have hoped that he would be more careful with his tools after the last two occurrences of using them in similar, questionable circumstances. TewfikTalk 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)"


 * IronDuke on Jayjg's deletion: "Delete The article is a POV fork, and the majority of !voters favor being rid of it in some fashion or other. I will also note that the loudest cries against Jay as a biased editor seem to be coming from editors with a pronounced (and in some cases acknowledged) bias of their own. "Usual suspects" indeed. IronDuke 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"


 * IronDuke on ChrisO's deletion: "Overturn I did not !vote in the original AfD, but this is waaaayyyy out of process, both in terms of numbers, opinions offered, and, most importantly, because it was done by an admin who is deeply involved--indeed, who is a POV warrior on these subjects. I know this isn't necessarily the place for it, but a desysopping and/or topic ban for ChrisO is well past due. Enough is enough. IronDuke 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)"

I cannot understand how anyone can apply the same code of conduct to both administrators and arrive at this set of conclusions. That this has happened is an indication of the unhealthy level of partisanship that we have.

If ChrisO is sanctioned for his actions, Jayjg's should come under the same scrutiny. FWIW, my personal opinion is that both actions were inappropriate and that the simplest way for Arbcom to take some heat out of the overall dispute would be to forbid future use of admin tools by all involved administrators. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: In response to Mackensen's question on the Workshop page, I could find any editor who clearly applied a double standard in the opposite direction. The closest I could find was Tarc, however it is not clear what aspect of Jayjg's actions he was referring to:


 * Tarc on Jajyg's deletion: Endorse Keep, as it was a notable subject matter with sources to verify it. I also sincerely hope that there is an investigation into Jayjg's actions regarding this AfD. Tarc 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tarc on ChrisO's deletion: Endorse Closure - Unless someone can point out where the policy is that precludes an admin who is involved in a topic from taking administrative actions in said topic, this sounds like a bunch of sour grapes from those that support the article. Tarc 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie has created at least one article which violates his own interpretation of WP:NPOV
Urthogie has expressed the opinion that WP:NPOV requires due weight to be given to criticisms of Israeli apartheid allegations.

On March 29, around the same time that Urthogie expressed the above opinion about how NPOV should be interpreted for AoIA, he created the Allegations of Australian apartheid article without including criticisms of the allegations. Never has this article given a single sentence to the point of view that Australia does not practice apartheid. Urthogie removed a POV tag which had been placed on it by another editor:

Tactics used in the dispute have been disruptive to editors and articles which have nothing to do with the Middle East
User:Zleitzen, whose evident focus is Latin American topics, has expressed the opinion that tactics used by Middle East-focused editors has been disruptive to the development of quality articles about Latin America.  Zleitzen subsequently left the project.

Canvassing by Sm8900
The following was posted on both the |WikiProject Israel and the |Notice board for Israel-related topics:

At this moment, a massive conflict is breaking out at the following page, in an arbitration proceeding, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop, a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid.

A group of editors has been developing an article entitled Alegations of Israeli apartheid."

In response, a group of more even-handed editors attempted to build a set of article detailing and highlighting alleged "apartheid" in other countries.

In response the editors of the Israel-apartheid article are now accusing the editors who worked on articles about all the other countries of POV, when it is the editors of the Israel article who are most guilty of a warped unfair POV focus on one country to the exclusion of others.

Currently, the ArbCom case has degenenerated to accusation and counter-accusation. This was inevitable, sicne ArbCom refuses to address cointent dispute, and only addresses user conduct, forcing even well-meaning, goodfaith editors to level accusations at each other.

Your help is vitally needed. Please go to this proceeding and insert your comments indicating support for those who seek to preserve balance at Wikipedia by applying this method of inquiry equally, by applying the "aparetheid" analigy to a variety of countries equally, instead of only to Israel.

If you wish, you may also demand that ArbCom or some other body address content disputes, so that this cycle of accusation and counter-accusation will not remaion the only real means of addressing disputes.

Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke has made thinly veiled insinuations against opposing editors
insinuates that G-Dett believes Israel practices apartheid. --Ideogram 13:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Saudi Apartheid was at first part of Allegations of apartheid
The page "Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid" was created at 19:52, April 6, 2007. Six subsequent edits were performed, upto and including the edit of 00:08, April 10, 2007 (the link is diff for all 6 edits). On 21:48, April 11, 2007, the section "Saudi Arabia" was replaced with a link to Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid.

is no longer editing Wikipedia.
The last edit by was on August 4, 2007, as this arbitration was getting underway. That editor has not participated in the arbitration. There is no indication on the user's user or talk pages of why they are absent. This is highly unusual for that very active editor. --John Nagle 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations are unreasonable and unfounded
Those bringing the accusations here wish to somehow punish editors who have created fully sourced articles with similar titles to an article they previously had wanted deleted.

This is a spurious and transparent charge, for the following reasons:


 * The accusations are based on a supposition of state of mind
 * At no point has any editor expressed any wish to disrupt Wikipedia
 * At no point has any editor expressed any wish to make a point by creating these articles
 * There is no evidence that the acts of a few editors have disrupted Wikipedia. This debate has surely disrupted Wikipedia (and the lives of those involved), but it would be unreasonable and practically impossible to allocate blame
 * If Wikipedia chose to discipline editors based on supposed state of mind, we would be entering dangerous territory
 * The expressed reasons by those accused are construed in ways that inherently violate AGF
 * There has never been any offer of a quid pro quo along the lines of "if you agree to delete article A, I'll agree to delete articles B, C, and D"
 * Even if such an offer were made, it would never be sustained
 * Insisting on consistency across articles is not unreasonable. This is why we have policies and guidelines: to ensure consistency
 * The positions are not equivalent
 * Those who wanted AoIa deleted but subsequent "allegations of" articles kept, are on solid ground in accepting the decision from one case and applying it to the other
 * Conversely, those who wanted AoIa kept but subsequent "allegations of" articles deleted, must morally and intellectually answer what separates one case from another
 * There are intellectually honest answers to this question, and these have been debated endlessly
 * But it is those who insist on consistency who are being accused of acting in bad faith, and of conspiracies, and of applying double standards. --Leifern 02:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bloc and unprincipled voting by group of editors
I present evidence for this with some misgivings, as I think the evidence will always be circumstantial. But since others have opened the door to this kind of reasoning, there is a much stronger case that one group has voted as a block in order to protect Allegations of Israeli apartheid from deletion.

(This analysis is based on extracts that I've made from available AFD discussions. I've parsed the data the best I could, but there may be residual errors. If so, these should be a result of technical problems, not any systematic bias. Anyone who wants to review the raw data is welcome to; feel free to email me).

Voting patterns
The previous analysis was incomplete and selective. Among the most active voters (and I included myself for purposes of full disclosure)

The editor who has voted most often here is G-Dett's. She has voted on every single issue except allegations of American apartheid and rejected efforts to create articles about allegations of apartheid in a number of non-Israeli countries, while voting to keep articles about alleged apartheid in Brazil, Cuba, and Israel.

Urthogie is the second busiest voter, but it appears he never weighed in with a vote on Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and he abstained from voting on Saudi Arabia and the US. CJCurrie voted several times to keep Allegations of Israeli apartheid but wanted to delete allegations of French, American, and Chinese apartheid and proposed to merge Saudi Arabian apartheid.

In other words, every single editor and every single article has different patterns.

If anything those who want to keep allegations of Israeli apartheid are more principled in wanting to delete everything else.

Activity dominated by accusers
At least 353 distinct editors have voted or commented on the apartheid articles. I count in excess of 1280 different edits in these pages.The 20 most active editors are responsible for 39% of the edits.

Here is an overview of users with more than 10 edits, by type of activity.

As it turns out, the editors who are accused of single-minded pro-Israeli activism have shown remarkable restraint in their participation in AFDs, while relative newcomers to the debate who are doing the accusing are those who have the highest editing intensity:



No evidence that new "allegations of X apartheid were made to make a point
It is worth showing a timeline of the AFDs related to this issue:



By the time the first article was written about allegations against another country than Israel was written, the AFDs about AoIA had run their course. AoIa 3 had closed in August of 2006, and a fourth attempt in April of 2007 gathered much less interest.

As a matter of fact, it wasn't until the AFD on China was created that the interest even approached the first AFD on an article titled Israeli apartheid.

--Leifern 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the table shows that following the speedy keep in AfD 6 of AoIA, a string of articles and accompanying deletions happened within less than two months. They are all bunched up visually.


 * Your heading is completely misleading: all it proves is that these things happened in quick succession. However, statistics, when measuring behaviors and their consequences, have to be more rigorous than this: I can prove to you pretty much anything if underlying assumptions are wrong.


 * For example, it is a known fact that in the USA today, most fatalities in traffic accidents are wearing seat belts. You could argue then, that seat belts are unsafe. However, this will ignore the fact that in proportion and absolut numbers, much more people people wear seat belts than before laws forcing their use appeared. And it also ignores the fact that in proportion, fatalities in traffic accidents have dropped dramatically from the time before laws forcing their use appeared.


 * To better illustrate how this fallacy works, in a humorous fashion:



'''Correlation does not equal causation. Never forget that.'''


 * This, of course, applies to the statistics provided by ChrisO. However, these statistics are accompanied by open admissions of the intent or intentional support for actions. That is much more solid evidence.--Cerejota 03:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I am not trying to prove any causality at all; I'm merely pointing out that voting, or rather "opining" patterns on this issue prove nothing at all, yet this is what ChrisO is submitting as evidence in his very selective table above. --Leifern 19:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:POINT
Now that ChrisO dismisses AFD "vote" patterns as evidence for his accusations against me and others, he says that the deciding factor should be the motivations for the votes and other participation. This is presumably why he has included selected quotes, in the evidence he presents above.

Nothing to all-or-nothing
In the relevant section on arguments, we can find this illuminating introduction:


 * "The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed."

The examples raised in the section oppose the view that articles that bear a resemblance to other deleted articles should be deleted. In this case, it is the editors that wanted articles kept who are being accused of all-or-nothing. And yet, there is not a single proposal in any of the articles that looks like a quid pro quo. The closest we get is a hope that the centralized discussion will resolve the broader issue.

The question of principle
Much has been written about the meaning of the titles, and indeed the title "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" is a result of much contention and many changes. The article started its life as Israeli apartheid and many have continued to argue for this title, because to them it is a fact beyond dispute that Israel practices apartheid.

The accused editors have all offered different but sometimes related rationale for their views. But what we've all insisted (as far as I can tell) is that if the title is not inherently biased for one country, then it can not be inherently biased for another.

Beyond that, it's been my contention that all articles' existence should be based on the merit of each of them in terms of notability, NPOV, OR, etc. And since we, as a community, have put the title issue to rest, then articles also need time to evolve to a somewhat stable state. I think AoIa is the only article that has sufficient content that it can be evaluated fully, and I also think it's trash; the others were so quickly bogged down with AFDs and other noise that the editors have made limited progress.

No evidence of deliberate disruption
Like it or not, most if not all articles about Israel specifically and the Arab-Israeli conflict generally attracts some level of edit controversy. As much as we don't want, and shouldn't encourage, these articles to be battlegrounds for the real-life conflicts, we also rely on the dialectic to eventually result in more NPOV articles.

WP:POINT explicitly prohibits editors from disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
 * 1) The closest we get to an admission is that some editors believe that WP's NPOV is strengthened if allegations of apartheid aren't limited to Israel. This is of course a valid point and I dare say a main driver for many new articles
 * 2) I would contend that it is difficult to apportion blame for the ruckus about these series of articles. My view is that it is far more questionable to want articles deleted because you are suspicious of the motives of the editors for creating them.
 * 3) It is indeed a novel idea that the act of creating well-sourced articled about a specific phenomenon (that countries are accused in the media and by pundits of allegations of certain crimes) should be considered an act of disruption.

Leifern did not violate AGF in the DRV for Allegations of Chinese Apartheid
The exact text of my initial submission can be found here.

I will stipulate that I erred in thinking the AFD was closed early. I have made apologies to the closing admin(s) and hope that the DRV can be reopened when this issue has been resolved.

I also could have saved myself the editorial comment about ^demon's curious pride in deleting things, but anyone who takes a look at his user page will see that it's an accurate assessment. I stand by my assertion that it was decided incorrectly, and I provided a complete analysis of it here: Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid/Analysis by Leifern.

I think honest people can have disagreements on these issues, but there is nothing that I wrote that would constitute an assumption of bad faith. --Leifern 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction to Leifern's statement above
Exchange leading to correction; deleted here.--G-Dett 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cerejota has been incivil and has assumed bad faith
User:Cerejota referred to User:Lothar of the Hill People, User:Cuchullain and me as an "almost-meatpuppets guided by concerns that have nothing to do with Brazil" apparently for suggesting that Allegations of Brazilian apartheid be renamed "Social apartheid in Brazil". This after I made an effort to involve editors from Wikiproject Brazil.

I don't remember having any particular dispute with this editor before. &mdash;Ashley Y 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Leifern's evidence threatens to mislead
Leifern has done an analysis of voting patterns on this issue and has received what sound like valid objections to both his tabulated results and to his conclusions. He admits (comments on another part of this page) that it's difficult to do such an analysis, these very results are incomplete and prone to errors, and pressure of time means he will not be changing his contribution "for a few days". I feel that ArbCom members (and regular editors) should have confidence in what we write, and it seems to me unjustifiable - even disrespectful - to leave something faulty out on display. And such behavior risks degrading the work of other contributors, who can apparently produce tabulated results without objection or error. PalestineRemembered 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900 has campaigned again
is named and threatened with a block in the Arbcom for attempting "to disrupt the arbitration process by posting an inflammatory and highly partisan 'call to arms'",,. He has just  campaigned again, this time messaging Nadav‎, Humus sapiens‎, Amoruso‎, Jayjg‎ and GHcool‎ to join him in editing Battle of Jenin. PalestineRemembered 20:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900 re-factoring Talk
appears to have a history of disruptive attacks on TalkPages. (eg meaninglessly edited into the middle of what I'm saying twice and then broken the threading indentation with a third nonsense comment). I've been reluctant to complain when he was doing it to me for fear of ruining what I hoped would be a constructive engagement with others.

He has today barged into another person's Talk and quite deliberately, high-handedly and unnecessarily attacked the threading. Compare this (easily readable and quite interesting) with the jumble he has left. This kind of thing makes serious work on articles much, much harder. PalestineRemembered 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO erred by closing Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid
closed Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid as delete. While he had not been involved in editing the article, his previous involvement in other "Allegations of apartheid" articles and the centralized apartheid discussion made it very unlikely that his closure would be perceived as neutral. While the basic rationale for the closure was soundly upheld at deletion review, several editors (including myself) expressed the opinion that ChrisO was not suitably uninvolved to close this debate. ChrisO should reasonably have known that his close would be seen as inappropriate by a significant number of the AfD participants, resulting in drama.

Mitigating in ChrisO's favor, he requested an outside admin to close the next Allegations AfD. A truly neutral and uninvolved admin, ^demon, subsequently closed Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. Despite being uninvolved, ^demon was subjected to a good deal of ad hominem abuse. This suggests that those who argued for these articles to be kept would have gone after any admin who closed the AfD in a manner not to their liking. This does not absolve ChrisO of closing the AfD improperly, but does provide useful context.

It should also be noted that those screaming the loudest for ChrisO to be desysopped for using his tools in an area where his neutrality is suspect are, coincidentally, largely the same editors who sprang to Jayjg's defense when he unilaterally reversed a neutral admin's close of United States military aid to Israel, calling the closing admin's decision "nonsense".

The previous Apartheid Arbitration case mandated that editors negotiate in good faith
Per Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid, "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."

Multiple editors (not just Sefringle) indicated that the Allegations series was created to "balance" the Israeli article

 * Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg: "Those articles are only necessary because of this one..."
 * Urthogie: "I created several allegations articles so that Wikipedia could be more NPOV."

Multiple editors have explicitly used the Allegations series as a "bargaining chip" to push for deletion of the Israeli article

 * 6SJ7: "Once Wikipedia is ablaze, putting out an individual flame here and there won't work. The whole fire needs to be put out." (Arguing to keep Allegations of Chinese apartheid.)
 * 6SJ7 again: "Keep... pending a "global" resolution of the issue of "apartheid" articles." (Re: Allegations of French apartheid.)
 * Urthogie: "You might find that the whole series would be deleted if they whole series was nominated in a group nomination." (Arguing to keep Allegations of French apartheid.)
 * Urthogie again: Keep - there is a precedent for keeping "allegations of apartheid" articles. If someone created an AFD for all of these articles, that would have a strong chance of succeeding. (Arguing to keep Allegations of French apartheid.)
 * Jayjg: "There is a systemic issue here; there are a series of "Allegations of apartheid in country X" articles... The oldest, and by far the largest, is Allegations of Israeli apartheid. It would make sense to crack that nut first. (Arguing to keep Allegations of French apartheid.)
 * Humus sapiens: "Either Keep all Allegations of X apartheid or Delete them all."
 * IronDuke: "Keep... if someone wanted to put all of these articles up for an AfD, I'd be willing to vote yes." (Arguing to keep Allegations of French apartheid unless all apartheid articles are deleted.)

These editors have violated WP:POINT as well as the previous Arbitration ruling that they negotatiate in good faith
The evidence presented here and by others clearly shows that a group of editors, unhappy with the outcome of AfD's on Allegations of Israeli apartheid, has developed a series of other "Allegations of apartheid" articles and defended them with the express purpose of using them as a "bargaining chip" to compel deletion of the Israeli article. This is a canonical violation of WP:POINT: the resulting disruption is obvious in the contentious deletion discussions, the fact that editors of French and Chinese articles have been drawn into this steel cage match, the attacks on neutral admins in deletion discussions, and the fact that we're here at ArbCom.

Furthermore, the prior Israeli Apartheid Arbitration case explicitly enjoined editors to negotiate their differences in good faith. The behavior detailed above - creating a series of inflammatory content forks to use as bargaining chips to press for the deletion of an offending article - is the very antithesis of good faith. Given that amnesty was offered in the last Arbitration case and things have reached this juncture, and that a group of editors has blatantly ignored ArbCom's prior injunction to negotiate in good faith, it would seem that stronger sanctions are warranted this time around.

WP:POINT violation by User:Jayjg
In regard to WP:POINT, first see Jayjg's vote in the last AfD for AoIa, compared to his vote now on Allegations of French Apartheid. Specific actions then include repeatedly trying to enlist outside editors for deleting AoIa, demanding "systemic" solutions from editors not familiar with Israel/Palestine articles , and arguing for the deletion of all related articles  despite his votes and arguments to keep. This was followed by a continuing refusal to discuss with anyone who mentioned WP:POINT, while still accusing other editors of WP:POINT violations himself. Substantive editing issues included edits obscuring original synthesis by combining entirely unrelated claims as if they are responding to each other , a pattern seen throughout the articles.

See 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."


 * All I can say, Mackan79,is that you might want to hope that most people (unlike me) don't actually click on the references you provide, as they bear only passing resemblance to the charges. And to those who read this, I would encourage you to please do click them. --Leifern 03:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not sure one is intended to comment in others' evidence sections, particularly when I have a finding of fact on this in the Workshop which is open to response. Otherwise, I fully encourage editors to read the diffs, as I believe they are the central issue here (please do explain "[e]ven some of the worst of the POV-pushers who defended the inflammatory titles and articles in the past seem to be coming around to a more reasonable approach....")  If you can dispute any of the points, I would encourage you to do so on the workshop. Mackan79 13:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FayssalF
This is a notice concerning User:Isarig who may have participated in some of the AfDs mentioned above. Isarig, and after a consensus at the CSN, is now under my and User:Avraham mentorship for a period of 6 months counting from August 29, 2007. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  04:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Sefringle continues to exhort disruption
Sefringle once again, promises to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point via misuse of the deletion process.

He later "explains" he isn't doing it because it would be "disruption". So he is clearly acknowledging that he knows that multiple AfDs are disruptive.

Yet he also says that instead of asking these disruptive AfDs be speedy closed, as any good-faith editor would do when faced with disruption, he expresses he will participate in them, even if they are disruptive. This is further evidence in support of him being a specially disturbing case of WP:POINT. Thanks!--Cerejota 03:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cerejota. He writes that "there likely will be an 8th [AfD]". He doesn't say he will start this. Cheers. Alithien 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has used admin tools while engaged in the dispute
This relates to the case made above by CJCurrie under: Jayjg has violated WP:POINT.

At 16:20 5 June 2006  Jayjg restored Apartheid outside South Africa.

Then at 16:23 he starts editing it; as is described above under CJCurrie.

Evidence presented by HG
I am mentioned in an evidence subsection, above ("Sm8900 canvassing a 3rd time"), regarding Sm8900's conduct with Battle of Jenin.

It seems to me that Sm8900 contacted me after recently encountering my effort to play a facilitating role in another Israeli-Palestinian topic. I see little basis on which Sm8900 would presuppose my support for his position in the Jenin dispute, given my sparse and rather neutral contributions on such topics. For these reasons, I would advise against interpreting Sm8900's contact of me, if not others, as an instance of canvassing. HG | Talk 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the aforementioned subsection has been withdrawn, the previous paragraph is now moot. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Humus sapiens has used AoIA as a bargaining chip in unrelated content disputes
Around 9 July 2007 I became involved in a content dispute with Humus at Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After extensive and fruitless discussion, Humus told User:Hornplease on 29 August that "I promise to concede, only on one condition: if you apply your own logic to Allegations of Israeli apartheid". AoIA had up to then played absolutely no role in the discussion, and its mention by Humus can only be taken as gaming the system and tacitly acknowledging the disruptive point-making nature of his actions. ( Diff: ). &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 16:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.