Honestly, all of those articles should be under heavy lock and probation key with all the regular partisans, admins or not, kept not just on a short leash but under threat of imminent tasering by everyone else. I'm amazed they aren't.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Katz wrote:
The "apartheid wars" continue with an AFD at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_...
Of course, this isn't about apartheid all but actually yet another POV pushing battle over Israel with proponents of the article wanting to keep
it
because deleting it would mean Israel is isolated in the apartheid allegation wars whilst opponents of the article want it deleted for precisely that reason.
This is yet another example of how ArbComm's perpetual stalemate on
issues
of any consequence only makes wiki more of a battleground since they
dropped
the ball last year in the Allegations of Apartheid RFA.
The only way for the community to deal with this mess is if uninvolved editors and admins - those who have nothing to do with Israeli/Mideast/Palestinian articles - keep their eye on these articles
and
intervene.
That's all fine in theory, but those of us who are uninvolved with those articles are sane enough to keep away from them. Walking onto a battlefield carrying a white flag does not protect anyone from getting shot. Both sides are too intent upon winning to allow interference by a peacemaker.
Deletion is a strong tool that leads to an absolute win if it can be applied, but such a strong tool is thereby anti-neutral. Sometimes these situations just need for someone with enough credibility to say, "Guys, you have to find a way to live together."
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l