Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid/Analysis by Leifern

WP:SYNTH == WP:OR. Also WP:OR and WP:NPOV are both core policies, and if an article inherrantly fails the core policies and a large part of the !voters agree that they do (not not necessarily a majority) then there article should be deleted. Full stop. Viridae Talk 05:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a big IF there -- IF the article "inherrantly" fails a core policy. It is a matter of opinion whether this particular article was OR.  That being the case, it should have required a consensus of those opinions to delete the article.  Instead it was deleted based on a majority.  That is not what the deletion policy allows.  Oh and by the way, do you think adding "Full stop" to your opinion changes it from an opinion into a fact?  6SJ7 06:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oooh, still equating consensus with !vote counting, are we? — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  06:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a pointless analysis because it's faced on a totally false premise: "Both these admins - who acted independently of each other - must base their determination on the preponderance of views expressed in the discussion." No they don't. As Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "Some arguments can override all others", even if they are minority views. Policy trumps consensus. Now, let's offer my own meta-analysis of this mess:

ChrisO's meta-analysis

 * Most of the "allegations of apartheid" articles, including this one, were created by Urthogie and expanded by Jayjg in two waves following two separate failed AfDs for Allegations of Israeli apartheid (and in obvious reaction to the AfDs). Urthogie, Jayjg and many of the most vocal editors who have supported this article - including Leifern, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Humus sapiens, 6SJ7 and IronDuke, who have all !voted to overturn its deletion - are political activists who make aggressive use of Wikipedia to promote a pro-Israeli POV. Not surprisingly, they've consistently opposed Allegations of Israeli apartheid but have so far failed to persuade the community to agree with their position. Consequently they embarked on a strategy of creating multiple "allegations of apartheid" articles. In all, 11 such articles were created.


 * This was intended to serve two purposes. Sefringle, one of the activists involved in these articles, explicitly spelled out one purpose: "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."


 * A second purpose was clearly to mobilise editors into deleting the entire "allegations of apartheid" series of articles in one go. Many of the activists have couched their "keep" !votes in terms such as "Keep (2nd choice - as long as we keep other Allegations of apartheid in X articles)" (quoting Humus sapiens in Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid). There is, of course, nothing in policy to support such an approach and the WP:ALLORNOTHING argument is a classic argument to avoid.


 * In the course of this campaign, multiple Wikipedia policies were systematically violated: most obviously WP:POINT, WP:OR (as WP:SYNTH) and WP:NPOV, but also WP:WAX, WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLE and so on.


 * Not surprisingly, many of the articles were nominated for deletion by editors who objected to the policy violations. The activist editors systematically voted as a bloc to keep them, even though many of them had equally systematically voted to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The rationales in each case were diametrically opposed to those used for the Israel AfDs - Israel was not notable, every other article was; Israel was an attack article, every other article wasn't; Israel was badly sourced, every other article was fine.


 * By the start of this month, more than 300 editors had participated in around a dozen AfDs and DRVs regarding these articles (excluding the Israel one) and a great deal of conflict, drama and bad feeling had been generated in the process. However, the activists' campaign backfired badly. Instead of mobilising neutral editors to take down all the articles including the one that they had failed to delete through AfD, they exposed their own serial violations of policy and failed to convince anyone that an "all or nothing" solution was valid. The individual "allegations of apartheid" articles have been killed off one by one over the past few weeks. Five have been deleted, two renamed and one more is likely to be renamed. I don't know what will happen to the original Israel article; personally I don't care, since I'm not involved or interested in it. But considering it's already survived six AfDs (!) with two speedy keeps, I suspect it will probably stay around.


 * The failure of this campaign and the public exposure of their tactics has led to the activists becoming increasingly vitriolic, as exemplified by 6SJ7's hysterical (and rather funny) claims of cabalism in this DRV.


 * The lesson I draw from this is that systemic policy violations may work for a time, but eventually the Wikipedia community will push back. The curtain is coming down on this sad and unnecessary chapter; its outcome is a credit to Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 08:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

ChrisO, I take great offense of your characterization of me as a POV warrior. It has, of course, no basis in fact. I'm not sure why you feel a need to violate WP:NPA every chance you get, but that's between you and the person you see in the mirror every morning.

My analysis very carefully lays out the arguments that were made.

WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH are related but not identical policies, for the simple reason that you can have one without the other. Editors can synthesize their home-baked conclusions based on any number of reliable sources, and you can certainly have lots of original sources without any synthesis.

I find your meta-analysis interesting, because its main thrust is your interpretation of people's motivations for their editing. In other words, it seems to matter less what the outcome is (by one closing admin's view, a well-sourced, well-written article) than the supposed state of mind of those who wrote, edited, or supported it. I have not seen a single tit-for-tat proposal by which some articles can be deleted in exchange for deletion of the one. Clearly, the editors you complain about are seasoned editors who seen many disputes in WP, and it seems a stretch to assume that they'd go with such a naïve strategy.

I don't think this issue is resolved yet, so it remains to be seen whether the right thing happens. I'm not even sure precisely what that is at this point, but I do know that it doesn't include the ritual punishment of those who disagree with you. Leifern 12:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In the course of this campaign, multiple Wikipedia policies were systematically violated: most obviously WP:POINT, WP:OR (as WP:SYNTH) and WP:NPOV, but also WP:WAX, WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLE and so on.

Way to be assertive. Listing a large motley of policies as blatantly unreasoned accusations makes others less compelled to contest them, but it really doesn't improve the merits of your arguments. Anyway, can I ask that in the future we focus more on Wikipedia's deletion policy and not on policies are not reasons for deletion (unless the article can't possibly or reasonably be made to meet those policies, which is rarely the case)? — xDanielx Talk 18:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ChrisO has yet to substantiate this tirade of ehm, allegations. --Leifern 00:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It'll all come out in the arbitration, now that a majority of arbitrators have accepted the case. -- ChrisO 03:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)