Moved from main page

Statement by Avillia

Short summarization:

• At the time of the move, there were 16 for a move to "Allegations", and 12 against. Not a supermajority, not consensus.
• Numerous administrators have acted, regardless of intentions or supporting policies, in a wheel-war over the location of this article without seeking mediation.
• From viewing the limited discussion at WP:ANI, taking the case to the MedCom was suggested by both uninvolved and (I think) involved parties. For the purposes of evaluation, it should be assumed that mediation was declined.
• This entire situation has caused considerable friction in the community and has resulted in over five pages of controversial discussion at WP:ANI.
• A member of the ArbCom has been active in the discussion and the wheel-warring of this article.
• Almost all parties involved have made what could be seen as incivil commentary to other parties. Some of this commentary could be seen as a personal attack.

Unless a request for mediation is quickly filed and all parties consent, the case should be accepted. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Szvest

This is not the first time this article goes through this [1]. I had contacted User:IZAK regarding that move and received this answer which was explicative but not conveincing. Now we are facing the same issue (though titles are different) and witnessing unilateral moves w/o any kind of consensus. I've commented to contributors in Islamofascism about a similar move but it went in vain! I am asking about any guideline or policy to be established to sprt put this dilemma. Cheers -- Szvest 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

Statement by Su-Laine Yeo

Caveat: I haven't read all the statements involved in this RfA. However, I'd like to point out a few things to keep things in perspective.

The previous move of the page, from Israeli apartheid (epithet) to Israeli apartheid, was done with less consensus and while the page was protected. The ensuing protest is recorded here: Admin protecting, then editing article. I continue to assume that the administrator who did this meant no harm, however I think it is unfair and ridiculous to punish people who have moved unprotected pages, when moving a protected page goes unpunished.

Secondly, I have to agree that this discussion has been very trying. The most frustrating parts of it, however, are hard to pin down to specific policy violations. What has made this discussion so exhausting has been the intensive foot-dragging over proposed compromises. Personally, I find it much easier to deal with outright incivility than with refusal to negotiate. Binding mediation sounds like a great idea, the best reward for people who want to see this resolved and the worst punishment for people who don't. Su-Laine Yeo 06:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]