Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 26 April 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

→Important information for participants in this case There is not currently a formal list of parties to this case. Evidence may be brought against contributors who are within the scope of the case. Special arrangements are in place to ensure that contributors against whom evidence is brought receive appropriate notice and opportunity to respond. Please read the relevant guidance before participating. Thank you, AGK 10:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already created one). Do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the prescribed limits. If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page. Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Misplaced Pages in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by EllenCT

Arzel has not yet attained the competence required to edit successfully

My first and only interaction with Arzel that I can recall was a few days ago: diff. That shows inability to understand source material (or refusal to read it) and blatant original research of the hypothetical off-the-cuff manufactured anecdote variety. After a cursory review, that edit appears to be a sufficient and accurate summary of Arzel's contributions. I will be happy to provide additional examples should any evidence to the contrary be forthcoming. EllenCT (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Arthur Rubin

The exchange between EllenCT and Arzel in EllenCT's evidence doesn't support his assertion

(This might be in the section "interpretation of evidence". I'll decide later.) EllenCT synthesized the facts that the rich have more of their income from capital gains, and that the capital gain tax was reduced, to conclude that the tax on the rich was reduced. (Even if synthesized, it would require the claim that the percentage of income the rich took from capital gains did not decrease.) Arzel synthesized an example which refuted (but probably incorrectly) EllenCT's conclusion. Which is in violation of the pillars? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ubikwit

Arzel might fall under the "Edit Ninjas" category

Generally speaking, there are problems related to the BRD cycle that bear on AGF. If editors refuse to discuss reverts on the Talk page, refuse to reason and dismiss RS statements in an offhand manner, it is not possible to AGF.

When Talk page queries concerning reverts and assertions made in edit summaries go unanswered, it may demonstrate an intentional failure to engage in the Discussion phase of the BRD cycle, which may represent a form of obstruction in certain cases. During the course of the TPm arbitration, the term “tag-teaming” had been adopted, but later dropped.

Note that I wasn't even a party to the Tea Party Movement case when it started, but was added over the course of participation in the Moderated Discussion.

The problematic interaction I had with Arzel related to a blanket revert following on the heels of a restoration of a previous revert of the same text by another editor. Accordingly, it is necessary to examine the overall context in order to assess whether there are underlying conduct issues that are problematic to the editing environment. Hopefully this will help improve the editing environment on related articles, and my intent is not to rehash the TPm dispute, but the conduct in that editing environment pertains to this case on American Politics.

I find the following passages from Misplaced Pages:BRD_misuse to be pertinent. Edit Ninjas

You are editing an article quietly to yourself, sipping a cup of tea. Suddenly, WHOOSH, out of nowhere, you're reverted. You made sure to put in an edit summary, you make a note on the talkpage as to why you made the edit and ask the person to discuss the edit. You revert the person who reverted you, with an edit summary that includes a link to the talkpage discussion. WHOOSH, out of nowhere, another person or possibly the same person reverts you again. You send notes on both their talkpages, asking them to discuss their reverts, but they are nowhere to be found. You make a third revert, and again, the same thing happens!

Edit ninjas are users who move from article-to-article, making edits, often in violation of WP:NPOV and they are often successful by working together in clans. They are silent, but deadly. …Recognizing and respecting each other, they act like a cabal. If you edit-war with them, you are more than likely going to be blocked, in accord with a misuse and misinterpretation of WP:3RR.

After editing the lead in relation to a misleading statement on the TPm and the Constitution not reflecting the content of the cited source, there were some objections, and a reference made by North8000 to a “huge mediation project”, which he seems to have concocted on the spot, as he refused to provide a link to it upon request. There was further material in the source cited in the lead that wasn't in the article, so I added a subsection on the Constitution to the Agenda section (@00:24, 10 April 2013‎)

Malke reverts with summary (rmv WP:OR. No tea parties mentioned. This is the agenda section. That means their agenda.)

I restore material deleted by Malke's revert with summary (nonsense, well-source to secondary sources, etc. your agenda is what is suspect)

Arzel reverts with summary (Unbelievable POV pushing.)

I substantially revise text and reintroduce {+2,352 bytes} with summary (Agenda: try another version)

Malke revert and edit {-3,946 bytes} with summary (reduced content for relevance per WP:UNDUE added w/cite)

The following section from the Talk page should be read in its entirety, but I will list some diffs.https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_21#The_Constitution Archive_21#The_Constitution]

North violates WP:NOR in attempting to refute a quote from RS.

Question directed to Malke about specific assertion in her edit summary. Received no reply. with summary (→‎The Constitution: @Malke)

Question directed to Arzel about specific assertion in his edit summary. Received no reply. with summary (→‎The Constitution: @Arzel)

North8000 attempts to defend prior wording of lead and cast the term “originalism” as negative. (→‎The Constitution) 22:59, 10 April 2013

Various related comments and replies in dialog with North8000

Subsequently banned user Phoenix and Winslow joined the editors opposed to details about the Constitutional positions of the TPm, suggesting that wikilinks would fulfill the role of the “unclear” RS statements. (→‎Agenda: reply)

A followup question addressed to Malke concerning her reverts, after receiving no response to the first. (→‎The Constitution: your policy-based rationale, please?)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{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.

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.