Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | American politics Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:48, 14 May 2014 editArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,424 edits →Requesting permission to exceed 500 word/50 diff evidence limit imposed on all parties: r← Previous edit Revision as of 10:55, 14 May 2014 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,424 edits →One arb should recuse: cNext edit →
Line 234: Line 234:
::Oh....., I didn't realize that. I only thought Arbitrators could make proposals. Thanks for the info! ] (]) 13:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) ::Oh....., I didn't realize that. I only thought Arbitrators could make proposals. Thanks for the info! ] (]) 13:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
:::No Problem. The Workshop page is open to all. At least in theory it's an area where Ideas can be put out there and then discussed. Only arbitrators can then make an official proposal on the proposed decision page where the actual arbitrator voting occurs.--] (]) 14:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) :::No Problem. The Workshop page is open to all. At least in theory it's an area where Ideas can be put out there and then discussed. Only arbitrators can then make an official proposal on the proposed decision page where the actual arbitrator voting occurs.--] (]) 14:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

:* Collect and I have interacted only as arbitrator and party, predominately in the ''Tea Party movement'' case and later in the elections. I do not think a reasonable basis for recusal is created by his efforts, here and in the earlier case, to portray me as corrupt. Actual corrupt actions or an undisclosed interest would be required for his portrayal to constitute a legitimate request for recusal: the proper formula is "my actions + his criticism = recusal". Collect is instead proposing "his criticism demands my recusal", a formula which if indulged would undermine the entire system of arbitration by allowing any one user to eliminate a perceivably-unsympathetic arbitrator through systematic and unfair campaigns.<p>I would therefore disagree with his request that I not perform my duties as an arbitrator in this case, and also request that he follow the proper process for requesting recusal and not devote – as he currently is – a large amount of time to posting polemics about my character. It is not conducive to a healthy working atmosphere, as I think any reasonable editor will conclude. Thank you, ] ]] 10:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:55, 14 May 2014

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Scope?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)
I understood the scope to be "Misconduct in the area of American Politics by Arzel and other, recently-active editors". We are looking at people who are prolifically active on many pages in this topic area. We are not looking at occasional editors, nor at resolved or very old disputes. Shall we assume this as our scope? AGK 14:03, 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)
The scope is set out below. AGK 00:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a longer Evidence phase?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)
The evidence phase now runs until 10 May 2014. AGK 00:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification sought

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

Drafters' statement on case parties and scope

Shortcut
  • ]

We intend to draft a decision within the following parameters.

Any editor who wishes to participate in this case, particularly by presenting evidence, must read the following directions.

Parties to the case

Preparation of a formal list of parties will not be required for this case. In similar previous cases, discussion about who are the parties has distracted the committee from resolving the dispute. As long as all editors whose conduct is being reviewed are notified of the case, and made aware in later stages of the case that sanctions may be proposed against them, it does not ultimately matter whether a given editor was formally named as a "party" or not.

Shortcut
  • ]
Case scope

The scope is "Misconduct in the area of American Politics by recently-active editors". We are looking at people who are prolifically active on many pages in this topic area. We are not looking at occasional editors, nor at resolved and old disputes

Deadlines

Evidence must be submitted by 10 May 2014. Evidence will no longer be accepted has started. (refresh).

During the fortnight following 10 May 2014, you may workshop proposals at the Workshop page. We will also evaluate the evidence during this time; this may take place off-wiki. We will notify editors who will be named in the proposed decision during, or immediately after, this fortnight.

We aim to publish our proposed decision by 24 May 2014. The committee should complete voting on the decision in the next week, by the end of May 2014.

Submitting evidence

You may bring evidence only about edits that fall within the scope of this case. After submitting evidence, a clerk or arbitrator will notify the editor that they have been named in the case. They will then have the opportunity to rebut the evidence about them, on the Evidence talk page, and to submit their own evidence.

Proper notification of editors

To reiterate the above, editors will be notified by the committee, on their talk page, if they:

  • are mentioned in any evidence submission; and/or
  • are or will be mentioned in the drafters' proposed decision.

Notified editors will have ample time to respond before the case proceeds to the next phase.

Thank you, AGK 23:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of synthesis

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

Evidence presented in opening statements

Is there any need to put the RFC/U (or any of the dif in the RFC/U) or any of the dif. presented in the opening statements on the evidence page? I basically started this to get that evaluated so it would stop dragging on. I will add if needed, but I wouldn't think it would be needed.Casprings (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you do not need to repeat evidence submitted during the arbitration request. You may remind us of your evidence with a single, short sentence, at the end of your submission, like "See also the evidence I submitted when this case was at RFAR: <link>". That sentence would be excluded from your word count. AGK 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I doubt I will add evidence. The linked RFC and the links within should be enough for the committee to review the evidence. However, before I didn't, I wanted to ask if anything else would be useful for the committee. If so, I will add it tomorrow.Casprings (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@Casprings: Evidence of actual misconduct on articles or talk pages would be most useful. If you have no such evidence, feel free to use your quota to instead evaluate the RFC/U for us. However, you can safely assume that Beeblebrox and I will be examining the entire RFC/U ourselves, in any event. AGK 10:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
And they have links to all the talk pages, I think. I added two differences because I thought they were unique. I feel like I should add something, since I did request this. However, all I wanted was a determination based on the WP:RFC/U.Casprings (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I added a little bit. It is something I think would not have been seen.Casprings (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for evidence: overview of disputants

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

Miles Money

Currently-banned editor Miles Money purported to have evidence of a "conservative cloud" ( etc). I'd be interested to know if he sent anything persuasive to arbcom about this. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney has been totally blocked (not just banned) since January 29, 2014. MM has not sent anything anywhere. – S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I know that MM was in communication with arbcom (they declined his ban appeal on January 27). I don't know what he sent them and I don't think you do either. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I don't know what s/he sent them. I was thinking you meant has s/he posted any evidence re this arbitration. – S. Rich (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Banned editors may submit evidence by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, at which point we would decide whether to admit his material into evidence. In my view, material submitted would have to be of sufficient quality to justify making an exception to WP:BMB. If we decided to admit it, an arbitrator or clerk would then publish the material on the case evidence page, where it could be rebutted and discussed by the participants in the ordinary way. I believe we have not received any evidence from any banned user for this case, as of today. AGK 10:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

ATTN: 70.36.142.114

70.36.142.114 (talk · contribs) – You are participating in this arbitration case as an anonymous editor. Is this because you do not have, and have never had, a Misplaced Pages account? If so, have you contributed to the topic area of American politics? If not, please contact the committee to disclose your previous and current registered accounts. Anonymous editors are not usually permitted to contribute extensively to arbitration cases unless they genuinely are contributors with no registered account. If you have concerns or questions, feel free to e-mail me directly. Thanks, and sorry to inconvenience you. AGK 10:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider myself to be a regular contributor to US politics articles, although (e.g.) I made a double edit here about a long-deceased politician. In the case of living politicians and current events, I generally don't even read the articles, both for privacy reasons (the WMF's invasive disclosure of Misplaced Pages viewership statistics) and because I'm generally unimpressed with their content. That plus the hostile editing environment around them is enough to keep me from contributing to them.

I don't think I contributed "extensively" to this case, or anyway I didn't intend to. I made a post saying I had thought about contributing to an RFC but didn't do so, and I made a comment saying I wondered whether another editor had sent arbcom anything, since he made some allegations relevant to the topic the arbitration case is supposedly investigating, and said he had evidence to contribute.

I don't think I agree with your claim about arbcom processes historically, but either way I don't have any interest in participating further in this case. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

pro forma request for added time

has me added to the case at the eleventh hour - I request until 17 May to add, revise and extend evidence as a normal procedural request. I consider three days to be insufficient, as such things as Mother's Day trips are scheduled and I will not cancel them. Without an extension, I will be unable to do anything much at all. Collect (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: No problem. You may edit the Evidence page until 17 May 2014, and material added through to this time in seven days will be taken into account when we write the draft decision. Thank you for checking with us. AGK 13:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic: In my country, we celebrated Mother's Day last month, so at first your message confused me. I didn't know until I checked the Misplaced Pages article that the celebration date differs depending continent and country. The more you know… AGK 13:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Longer Evidence Phase?

I noticed that AGK just notified a large number of editors about this case. With such a large notification, should the time for the evidence phrase be extended?Casprings (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

We'll see what comes of the notices, first. Most of those editors won't offer evidence. AGK 09:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
@AGK: Are current parties permitted to continue adding evidence while we wait to see if other parties participate?- MrX 17:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
@MrX: Yes, evidence will stay open until at least tonight. AGK 17:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hail and Farewell

(lots and lots of text removed)

It's always hard to know how to find a balance between:

  1. Protecting people from unreasonable criticism
  2. Allowing people to object if they believe they're being treated unfairly.

Concern #2 is important, not because of the red herring of "zOMG Constitutional Right to Free Speech", but because it is generally good to not silence opposing views, to prevent Groupthink and personality politics and majoritarianism and "ArbCom Right or Wrong". In the past, there have been several Arbs that I have criticized, and I would not have wanted criticism about them silenced, nor should we live in a criticism-free bubble. I suppose AGK and I work together alright, but he and I aren't each others' greatest fans, and I don't want to prevent anyone from making legitimate criticism of AGK (or of me). Arbs should have thicker skin than admins who should have thicker skin than editors ... but it can't be absolute. You can't be allowed to post anything just because it is critical of an Arb.

The talk page of a case's evidence page is not the place for a 15kb swansong about how you aren't going to participate if one Arb doesn't recuse. If you don't want to post evidence, then you shouldn't post evidence. If you believe AGK should recuse, then you should make a concise, civil statement to that affect. If you're not going to participate in a system you think is broken, then don't participate. But it's just too much to post a very long personalized diatribe about an Arb in the case, complete with accusations of lying and outing. The atmosphere around pretty much every ArbCom case (and WP in general) is poisonous these days and posts like this contribute to that. Of course, what some will consider censorship and wagon-circling are also going to poison the atmosphere, but ultimately I'm not going to be paralyzed into inaction just because the target of the screed is an Arb.

I have removed the bulk of this section from this page (along with the comment of an innocent bystander whose comments no longer make sense without the context). This is not to say that I will be removing any criticism about any Arb from now on, but people need to work harder at making this place function better, and part of that is to be more responsible in how they post. I'll leave it to others to decide whether to do anything about the copy on Collect's user talk page; frankly I don't care as much about it, and in my own mind removing it only from this page is a reasonable compromise.

I'm doing this as an Arb, but I'm not marketing this as an action by ArbCom as a whole. It's my decision.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


The material contained specific and germane evidence here. This sort of "redacting" of what one does not wish to read is a tad unimpressive. Calling a list of diffs related directly to evidence of involvement by an arbitrator a "swansong", by the way, is precisely the ort of "dismissive attitude" which seems to prevail here far too often. I ask that arbs and others please read my evidence presented here. Collect (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting permission to exceed 500 word/50 diff evidence limit imposed on all parties

I request permission to exceed the 500 word/50 diff evidence limit imposed on all parties. I am currently over by two diffs, and will trim appropriately if this request is declined. Thank you.- MrX 15:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: Fine by me. You may have 1000 words and 100 diffs. AGK 18:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. - MrX 19:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
May I have that same limit, AGK? My completed draft is around 800 words/16 links. Also, my evidence mostly focuses on inappropriate behavior by EllenCT relating to political disputes, but I'm not sure if that's within the scope of this case. I've read all the TP material but it's still pretty vague, so I figured I'd ask for a specific clarification before posting an evidence section. VictorD7 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@VictorD7: Yes, you're free to use up to 1000 words and 100 diffs. AGK 10:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Lost opportunity

What we had here was a nice little contained disagreement where arbcom could decide was there any sanctionable misbehavior that occured. Apparently that wasn't enough so the net had to be cast to guarantee that this case became an impossible task of rooting out all disagreements that have occured on[REDACTED] over politics. If you want to solve the disagreements 1) Screw NPOV, pick 1 side and ban the other, or 2) Delete all political articles. Giant meandering unsolvable cases are not the way.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

One arb should recuse

I am concerned by AGK's clear involvement with Collect, and also by the antagonism between them. Numerous diffs demonstrating involvement and antagonism were already provided by Collect on this page and then removed by another arb. (Noting also: the arb commented he/she had removed "the bulk" of Collect's section there, that is to say most of it, whereas in fact he/she removed all of it.)

I think that in all fairness to Collect, and also to avoid even a scintilla of possible doubt about impartiality, AGK should recuse. Writegeist (talk)

Arbitrator actions (ie writing a FOF/remedy which Collect is unhappy about) do not make for involvement. In any event, any personal biases are ironed out by final decisions being collective not individual. If a FOF appears biased, it doesn't pass,  Roger Davies 08:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Pray tell exactly which editor found the evidence that I was generally unduly dismissive? I would like you to post the name of that editor. Pray tell whether you found my questions of arb candidates to be worthy of AGK's comments thereon, or that I lied in the posing of such questions (noting that I endorsed your re-election). And pray tell whether the "requests" made in my user space were wise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I have done a quick search, but I can't seem to find the policy page that states arbs are restricted to what is posted on the evidence page when determining their proposed decision. Are you seriously suggesting that in the course of reviewing a case if an arb finds evidence of misconduct not posted on the evidence page they are required to ignore it? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Procedural impropriety doesn't come much more shabby than making an unsupported allegation and then treating the allegation as evidence to support a prejudicial finding, i.e. without the "evidence" ever having been examined or tested. Writegeist (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Which would be relevant if the allegation was unsupported (it wasn't) or if the allegation itself was used as evidence (still wasn't). Show me the procedure that was supposedly broken. The Arbs do makes efforts to ensure parties get a chance to respond to allegations, but the policy does not enshrine that as a right nor invalidate findings that fail to do so. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
@Roger Davies: AGK writing a FOF/remedy concerning Collect may not constitute "involvement" within the strict letter of WP:involved, but I think arguments could be made against that position in this instance. More clear-cut is the fact that AGK unquestionably made himself "involved" by, for example, attacking Collect for alleged dishonesty (diff already supplied by Collect and removed by Floquenbeam)—an attack he made outside of any protective shield of arbitration duty, and in response (IIRC) to Collect opposing his reëlection. That alone should disqualify him from officiating here. Writegeist (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Writegeist I don't agree with your premise at all. I also replied to those questions and did so to comply with a policy requirement that arbitrators explain/defend their actions. As Collect clearly had strong feelings about this, it would probably have been fairer had he not put those questions to the arbitrators who had participated in the case and subsequently scored them on their responses about it. I remember scratching my head about the scoring system at the time and wondering how various people - who has said essentially the same thing - could end up with such radically different scores.  Roger Davies 07:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I have looked and looked -- but I do not find any sign I wrote AGK's intemperate and accusatory responses. I probably should look again as it was my fault according to you? And I note you seem to have missed my open invitation for others to score the answers?
I understand a desire to defend an arb who came up with a "Kill them all, for the Lord will know his own solution to complex cases. I have somewhat less understanding for the desire to defend clearly ill-chosen words by such a person.
A very large percentage of my efforts on Misplaced Pages are simply chosen to defend WP:BLP, mainly finding articles from WP:BLP/N and seek to make articles readable by the actual audience for them. If you actually look at my edits, they are not political in nature, but are there to abide by policy, and for some odd reason, editors who seek to promote edits of the like of "that person is an evil masturbator" seem quite eager to provide "evidence" which is frankly less convincing than a month old loaf of bread.
Compare my "dismissiveness" with that of a person who can write: I don't know how even to reply to a comment that plumbs such depths of absurdity. So again, I find the (paraphrasing) "It is Collect's fault for asking a question which a person answers in an attacking way" to be a tad unconvincing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Arb Robert McClenon also should be recused because of their strong involvement in my RfC They clearly had a predisposition against me prior to the arbitration. This Arb is not weighing evidence, they simply are repeating their previous issue with me in the RfC. Arzel (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

He's not an arbitrator. He's just suggesting proposals. You may also suggest proposals if you like.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh....., I didn't realize that. I only thought Arbitrators could make proposals. Thanks for the info! Arzel (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
No Problem. The Workshop page is open to all. At least in theory it's an area where Ideas can be put out there and then discussed. Only arbitrators can then make an official proposal on the proposed decision page where the actual arbitrator voting occurs.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Collect and I have interacted only as arbitrator and party, predominately in the Tea Party movement case and later in the elections. I do not think a reasonable basis for recusal is created by his efforts, here and in the earlier case, to portray me as corrupt. Actual corrupt actions or an undisclosed interest would be required for his portrayal to constitute a legitimate request for recusal: the proper formula is "my actions + his criticism = recusal". Collect is instead proposing "his criticism demands my recusal", a formula which if indulged would undermine the entire system of arbitration by allowing any one user to eliminate a perceivably-unsympathetic arbitrator through systematic and unfair campaigns.

    I would therefore disagree with his request that I not perform my duties as an arbitrator in this case, and also request that he follow the proper process for requesting recusal and not devote – as he currently is – a large amount of time to posting polemics about my character. It is not conducive to a healthy working atmosphere, as I think any reasonable editor will conclude. Thank you, AGK 10:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence: Difference between revisions Add topic