Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop

Question on content disputes
how can this group claim not to decide content disputes? does that mean they only decide behavior disputes. But what if one editor never discusses anything, but continually adds false information, but is careful to never do so in a disruptive way? would that mean they never get censured here? And isn't disruptive editing a form of content disute? this whole thing makes no sense.

By the way, below is the original notice which I am referring to. --Steve, Sm8900 20:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A note to everyone participating here (but some editors in particular—you know who you are):

The Committee does not decide content disputes. The Committee will not decide the content dispute here for you. Not even if you ask nicely. Not even if you insist that we have to. Please, don't clutter up the already convoluted workshop page with pointless requests that we do so.

Kirill 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Arb com decides the rules that content will be included by following the communities policies. See Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education for a case where the first remedy was content based (rules about sources to to be used)  when that only helped partly the case was reopened and some user remedies were discussed and handed out.  --Rocksanddirt 21:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess when they get down to it in this case the remedies will be to remind some editors to play nice, warn ChrisO sternly, and hightlight that each of the articles needs to have 1) a neutral title and content, and 2) be treated on it's own merits, not as a group. --Rocksanddirt 21:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Continually adding demonstrably false information is disruptive, even if it is done in a nice way. Adding disputed information is a content issue.  Normally, Arbitration cases end up with one or more editors placed on probation or banned from certain topics, or in extreme cases banned from the encyclopedia.  In theory, that allows other editors a chance to work through content disputes.  This case is likely to focus ont he behavior of editors in creating these articles and contesting their content, especially personal attacks levied in AfD and DRV. Thatcher131 22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and in the ArbCom proceedings themselves. MastCell Talk 23:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Idea on whole issue
I have an idea for all of you. What if someone opened a whole category on criticisms targeting Israel. After all apartheid is not the only analogy used. Others have compared Israel to the Nazis, to Pol Pot, to vampire bats, to Britain in india, etc, etc. What if we then gave each of those an article? In other words, at what point do you step in and say, enough insulting analogies, let's just produce articles on simple facts? Otherwise, allowing the apartheid article takes us into exactly that kind of negative territory. --Steve, Sm8900 14:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A short answer: No. Why? Because no well-known or respected political commentator (such as a former American president) has ever seriously compared Israel to any of the other things. Number   5  7  14:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, when the issue under consideration is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, it's best not to use this platform to propose other novel ways of disrupting Wikipedia to make your point. MastCell Talk 18:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued accusations of antisemitism
In here, in the latest disruptive AfD of the article, User:Skaraoke launched blatant violation of civility, accusing editors of being antisemitic, pushing POV in an AfD, and in general commenting in a highly inflammatory way.

Sefringle (who should now better) followed by accusing figures like Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter of being antisemites

I am quite tired of this continued WP:BATTLE stuff, and ArbCom must move swiftly to prohibit these types of unfounded, blanket accusations.

There is, of course, an off-chance there might be an antisemite editor or two. Hell, when provided evidence, I have called (former) editors antisemitic. But this type of blanket accusations are way beyond the pale, and asking to include language like "Allegations of Israeli apartheid are made by antisemites who despise israel..." is simply POV pushing WP:BATTLE violations.

Please advise why we should tolerate this?--Cerejota 04:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I've seen people get community banned for far, far less than these constant violations of WP:BATTLE. Are we going to wait for Sefringle to once again misuse the amnesty that is likely to be the only real result from this case or are we going to start enforcing our policies? MartinDK 05:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Case closed? don't understand
Sorry, I don't understand. Where is it shown that this case is closed? Appreciate a reply. I see that the worskhop page is blanked. however I see no other message anywhere indicating that the case is closed. Appreciate it if you could please helpo with this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * looks like it was a mistake.-- Sef rin gle Talk 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)