Misplaced Pages

• About arbitrationTalk
• Arbitration policy (CU/OS)
• Guide to arbitration
• Noticeboard + Talk
• Search archived proceedings
• Ban appealsReport

• All open requests
• Case requests
• Clarification and Amendment requests
• Arbitrator motion requests
• Enforcement requests

• Contentious topics (Log)
• General sanctions
• Editor sanctions

• Discuss+
• Contact
• Members
• Procedures
• ElectionsTalk
• History
• Clerks+ Talk
• Clerk procedures
• Conflict of interest reports

• Talk
• StatisticsTalk
• Reports (pre-2016)

• v
• t
• e

What does the committee want evidence of? NE Ent 15:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What it always wants, diffs of perceived misbehavior by any of the parties in the area of conflict. This could also include any particularly problematic statements or comments from the previous attempts at dispute resolution. The case name was changed because we do not intend to limit the scope to any one editor, instead intending to address the behavior of anyone who has been disruptive in these areas.

The focus seems to be around the Koch brothers, so material from those articles is what I am expecting to see the most of, but there is not a strictly defined scope so far as which pages are involved. We are looking to root out disruptive behavior rather than identify specific pages, although all options are on the table at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If the scope is to be considered the Koch brothers, it should be handled by a motion under the TPM arbitration, as the Kochs are considered related to the TPM. No further comment, and I don't think this is in violation of my TPM topic-ban. If it is, I'll shut up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That idea was brought up during the request. The committee opted instead for a full case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess the (perceived by the Arbs) scope is not just the Koch brothers, then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This is currently under discussion on our mailing list, I hope to have a more complete answer soon. I don't personally think the tea party case applies here. While the Kochs are certainly connected to the rise of that organization they are not one in the same thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Beeble that it would be inappropriate to sum up the Koch brothers activities as solely falling under TPM. I think while American politics is a bit broad, it's better than trying to nail down a precise category. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone object to discussing the scope here? I would also agree the focus is on the Koch brothers such a narrow scoping would ignore several problem articles. NativeForeigner 05:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I don't see any reason this discussion needs to happen on the mailing list. My personal take is that we are looking for behaviors from the parties to the case as opposed to any rigidly defined topical area. I would not be inclined to ignore problematic behavior just because it happened at a article not related to the Koch brothers. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In attempting to frame this, I came up with several alternatives although all hold some sorrt of POV issue. Broadly it involves the impact of money in american politics. Yet this ultimately bleeds into other facets. I'm not particularly satisfied with anything I've come up with so far. NativeForeigner 09:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the dispute more over how an editor's conduct was evaluated by the community. In other words, one group of "liberal" editors were alleged of going after him, while another group of "conservative" editors were alleged to protect him. As far as the content, Arzel is active in a wide range of pages that relate to American Politics. Why not just name it the VERY orginal name of the request, "RFC/U on Arzel". Or you could use "conduct dispute on Arzel" I am not saying its only about one editor. However, unless one focuses on the behavior around the editor, the scope is unlimited. Casprings (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

In the past they have been great complaints that naming a case on a single party effectively prejudges the case and the outcome; there's a lot of statistical nonsense related to that sentiment, but it seems fair to try and avoid labeling a case solely on an editor if there are other issues raised. The suggestion elsewhere to limit it to participants of the RfC might be a tenable option; I'll have to go back and reread the RfC to see if that will cast enough of a net. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It just seems easier. American Politics is a very big and polerized subject. Casprings (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're focusing too much on the title. It's only a title. You'll probably be closer to the mark if you give evidence based on what you think the title should be, than if you somehow try to broaden your evidence, just because the official name (not scope) is "American Politics".--Cube lurker (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name match the scope? That said, name it whatever, but I still need a defined scope. When I asked for this, it was because one group of editors said A and the other group said B in an RFC. I was thinking this would look into Arzel, group A and group B. I am not sure that is the case. Casprings (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for myself, when I voted to open this case, I thought that the conduct of, as you say, "Arzel, group A and group B" would have to be reviewed and so, as far as I'm concerned, it would be reasonable to take that as the scope of the case. Then again, I'm not the drafter... Salvio 11:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So just to clarify, an editor like Anonymous209.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is active in American Politics and involved in disputes but did not take part in the RFC/U, could have evidence presented agaist him or her. NOTE: I am not saying I will present evidence or that there is a problem with his or her behavior. I was just trying to come up with an example.Casprings (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Casprings: That editor appears only semi-active on Misplaced Pages at all, and problems with their conduct would probably not pass the test for inclusion of "prolifically active" or "not occasional editor". AGK 21:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

With it currently defined as American Politics (a very troubled area), I would think more editors should be involved in this case. Can we have a longer evidence phrase to better define who should be involved? Casprings (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the reasoning for Arbcom taking this as a case as opposed to widening discressionary sanctions was that this way it could focused on the small number of parties involved in the incidents/RFCU that led to the request, and not turn into some attempt to regulate every disagreement on the pedia that results from disagreements over Left V. Right US politics.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That's is exactly right. I don't think any of us are crazy enough to believe a single ArbCom case could possibly resolve every issue relating to any political issue in the entire history of the United States. What we are looking to do is to identify and eliminate problematic behaviors from specific users, as in those who are named parties to this case. See the above section where the scope is under discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So if I am presenting evidence, it should be on one of the three named parties in the case? Casprings (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The scope of this case really needs to be specified so that we know what evidence to present. Originally, this started as a case involving Arzel, but some arbitrators decided that other editors' conduct should be scrutinized as well, but no names were mentioned.

Is the case limited to the behavior of the named parties, everyone who commented on the RFC/U, or everyone who made a statement in the RFAR? Is it limited to those users' behaviors, only in the topic area of American Politics, or for all topics? Can users be added to the case and if so, by whom? - MrX 21:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would once again mention that we are trying to sort out this exact issue in the thread directly above this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it permissible for editors that were topic banned in the Tea Party case to discuss evidence related to editor conduct from that case in relation to the dispute that is the subject of this case? I seem to recall reading that it is permissible to discuss such a topic for dispute resolution purposes, but clarification would appear to be necessary.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Previous conduct problems with articles about the Tea Party movement could certainly be flagged, as context and background, in these proceedings. The committee is not interested in re-litigating that case, but we would clearly wish to know if an editor active in the disputes of this case has previously misconducted themselves in the TPM dispute. AGK 14:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I object to accusations of synthesis when the clear majority of secondary peer reviewed sources support the statement in question. EllenCT (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thank you, AGK 00:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many actors in this dispute, and I have been slightly confused by the overlap between this case and previous ones (e.g. Gun control, Tea Party movement). Therefore, it would be exceedingly helpful if someone could provide an overview of the relevant participants in the Arzel 2 RFC (and in related article disputes). Ideally, such an overview would be grouped by 'faction'; for example:

Republican:

• Editor A
• Editor B

Democrat:

• Editor F
• Editor G

Unidentified:

• Editor X
• Editor Y

I would be happy to provide you with an extension to your word count if you supply such an overview in addition to submitting other evidence. Thank you, AGK 12:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That is productive. I can work on that. Could there be an exception to the policy that no one can edit other's evidence on this? This could/should be easier with collaboration. Casprings (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Using the two major US political parties is likely to be problematic. For the example, in the above list, I would belong on the Unidentified category, although if you define the categories as (American) liberal, (American) conservative, and Unidentified, then I would mostly land in the (American) liberal category. - MrX 13:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Casprings: Feel free to collaboratively write the summary on the Workshop, then submit the finished copy as evidence. (However, please don't collaborate in an actual evidence submission, on the evidence page proper; that is likely to cause problems.)

@MrX: If there are better ways to distinguish between the factions within these disputes, then feel free to use it. I am not an American, nor active in this topic area, so you will be better able to distinguish between the factions than I can. I just need a rough idea of what side of this dispute each actor sits on.

Thank you both, AGK 14:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: I think that works better. I copy and pasted it to the evidence page. However, we could just start going through and sorting editors. The enemy of good, is prefect... as they say.Casprings (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe this kind of political profiling of various Misplaced Pages editors is way out of line. It’s a general disruptive problem that people are «pseudo-profiling» each other on political and other leanings, and to have this kind of profiling legitimized by ArbCom would set a terrible precedent. Of course, if editors have a true bias in their editing which violates the NPOV policiy this can be called out and lead to restrictions. But this appeal by AGK seems to be a call to get a general overview over perceived political leanings of editors, before it’s concluded that they have any qualified bias in their editing. In the Gun Control Case for instance, only one side was found to have a bias in their editing; there would be no reason and in fact be highly inappropriate to conclude anything about the political leanings about those editors who supported the unbiased version. Iselilja (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to spot patterns in behaviour when you do not know who are working together and who are in opposition. Therefore, my request for this overview of the actors will stand. AGK 14:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I agree with Iselilja. I find it problematic to start sorting editors on the basis of their perceived leanings. If there is evidence of tag-teaming or POV-pushing or other disruptive behaviour, then, by all means, do provide evidence of that. However, speaking personally, I don't find sorting editors useful or even desirable. Salvio 14:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I do find it useful. However, given your objections, I will do this in my own time and without the parties' assistance. AGK 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! However, I may be the odd man out (which is why I clarified I was speaking personally), and other arbs may disagree... Salvio 15:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)