This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ubikwit (talk | contribs) at 05:49, 14 May 2014 (→Analysis of evidence submitted by User:Ubikwit: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. 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 unnecessarily 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. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Robert McClenon

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Making allegations against other editors

2) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

3) All Misplaced Pages articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Misplaced Pages article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

4) Misplaced Pages is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seeking community input

5) Should a content discussion reach an impasse, wider input from previously uninvolved editors should be sought. Requests for such input should be made with neutral wording and through the processes designed to solicit community feedback on content issues, which may include a request for a third opinion, request for comment, or posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Input provided through one of these processes should be received appreciatively and given due consideration in the consensus-seeking process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Advocacy

6) Misplaced Pages articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Misplaced Pages article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biographies of living people

7) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Misplaced Pages. As the English Misplaced Pages remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Misplaced Pages article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Misplaced Pages articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living people adheres to these standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Interpersonal conflict

8) Misplaced Pages is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than use of legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Same as battleground conduct above I think.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Patterns of behavior

9) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more severely if they thereafter repeat the same or similar behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Would say that if someone already has two topic bans and is named yet again in a new case, they should be indefinitely site banned.--MONGO 15:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

10) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Behavior during arbitration cases

11) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At wit's end

12) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The committee has previously topic and site banned numerous editors at the conclusion of individual cases.--MONGO 19:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a good principle. Arbcom knows what tools they have in their pocket. On the other hand they have a responsibility not to do more harm than good when trying to solve a problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of Case

1) The locus of this case is American politics. There have been previous cases in this general area. The locus of this case is more specifically particular contentious articles and particular problematical editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think the locus of case is more than simply American politics. I think that one has grouping of editors. These groupings see the conduct of other within their group differently than those outside their group. I think one can see this in the RFC/U, which was the original rational on bring this dispute.Casprings (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Casprings that the locus of case is not only American Politics. It includes any topic with politically contentious aspects, including topic areas such as media, the environment, energy production/policy, gun control/rights, women's rights, abortion, climate change, capitalism, LGBT rights, in addition of course to politics.- MrX 16:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If Casprings is saying that the issue is conflict between "right-wing" editors (Tea Party supporters, gun rights advocates) and "left-wing" (Tea Party critics, gun control advocates) editors, then I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel

2) Arzel has:

• Edit-warred, in particular by blanking material with which he disagrees.
• Resorted to uncivil edit summaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please provide evidence that my edit summaries are frequently uncivil to make this statement. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Collect

2) Collect:

• Engaged in uncivil and tendentious editing in connection with this arbitration case.
• Has treated Misplaced Pages as a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In a very high percentage of instances Collect is "Battle"ing against people who are dead wrong about how WP:BLP should be applied. This counts heavily in my book.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What evidence presented in the present case is related to BLP issues?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Forest and trees. The evidence so far are trees, I can't ignore the forest that is institutional knowledge when giving my opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary Sanctions

1) The imposition of discretionary sanctions for all of American politics would be an extreme measure. As a result, the Arbitration Committee may, by motion, subject any topic in American politics to standard discretionary sanctions without the need for a full case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not convinced by the evidence that this is necessary or desirable. Given the broad nature of the topic area, it could establish a bad precedent.- MrX 11:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is needed to check the spread of battleground editing from one area of American politics to another. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

First sentence is 100% true. Unconvinced 2nd sentence is the way to deal with the first.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Casprings has proposed a slightly stronger form of the remedy, in which any uninvolved admin could propose discretionary sanctions and take it to the noticeboards. I disagree, as discussions at the noticeboards inflame existing passions. The alternative, which would be only to caution editors, would require that when the battleground editors move from the Tea Party movement and Gun control, new areas be fully re-litigated. Do you have a different suggestion, Cube lurker? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Deal with significant violation of policy on an as needed basis at ANI using existing tools. Acknowledge that a certain level of disagreement is unavoidable. The world doesn't agree on these matters. We are no better than the world we live in. These articles will always be a little bit wild west unless we want to declare a winner.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel

2) Arzel is:

• a) strongly cautioned that the use of uncivil edit summaries will result in escalating blocks, without the need for a warning (because this finding is the warning).
• b) subject to the one-revert restriction on all edits in the area of American politics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, please provide evidence that my edit summaries are uniquely uncivil, or more so that those like this from the supposedly good faith attempt at a resolution by one of the two editors that brought forth the original RfU. Arzel (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert, you have yet to provide evidence that I "often" make uncivil edit summaries, and I have not had, to my knoweledge, any edit summaries redacted. What is your evidence that I make more uncivil edit summaries than do anything that you consider to be "occasionaly" useful? Arzel (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The remedy seems more or less appropriate, but the incivility and accusations are not only in edit summaries, but also on talk pages, and possibly in WP space as well. That portion of the remedy is too narrow in my view. A topic ban should also be considered.- MrX 11:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is to check blanking wars. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't propose a topic ban on Arzel in American politics because he occasionally performs the useful service of removing NPOV characterizations (such as "right-wing", stated in the encyclopedia's language). Uncivil edit summaries are worse than incivility on talk pages. First, uncivil comments on talk pages can be deleted. (It isn't the usual rule but can be done if they are personal attacks.) However, uncivil edit summaries can only be redacted, and then only if they are grossly inappropriate. Second, uncivil edit summaries are in article space rather than talk space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect

3) Collect is banned from the English Misplaced Pages for three months for battleground behavior and for tendentious editing in this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I can't endorse this at all. Collect has a unique style of communication that is pervasive, and he frequently involves himself in contentious affairs adopting the role of devil's advocate, but a site ban of any sort is excessive in my opinion. Perhaps consideration should be given to a topic ban from AN, AN/I, SPI, BLPN, ARBCOM, etc., but if too broad, that could unjustly impede his ability to contribute constructively elsewhere.- MrX 11:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I won't condone his behavior. But I think this would be going too far. Thenub314 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Three months is not a long time, and maybe a brief site ban would help him gain some perspective in light of the somewhat hysteric disruption he has exhibited during this case.

For the benefit of the encyclopedia, indefinitely topic banning Collect from the topic area of American Politics, broadly construed would appear to be necessary.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose.--MONGO 10:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Seen Collect on the correct side of BLP too many times to support.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per Cube. Arzel (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel and Casprings

4) An interaction ban is imposed between Arzel and Casprings. This ban may be appealed every six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not needed as I have not initiated nor had any contact with Casprings in I believe over a year, prior to them bringing this Arbitration. Arzel (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Casprings

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of Case

1) American Politics, especially pages and areas that are currently debated in the United States, is an extremely polarized subject area. In many cases, an editor’s political view will influence how they see content and disputes over behavior. This can result in a group dynamic over content and behavior. In such a polarized environment, it is difficult for the community to evaluate both content disputes and the behavior of editors. This dysfuntional group dynamic also transfers to other subject areas dealing with American soceity at various times and under certain condictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Robert McClenon: Not sure. Maybe requirements to identify oneself as uninvolved or involved in subjects or pages that are under sanction? Casprings (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Sorry. Just formulating thoughts. But, I was thinking something along these lines. For content, if a user put up an RFC for content, editors that are involved in the page or subject area would not be allowed to !vote and must identify themselves as being involved beforehand. For conduct, if an issue is taken to WP:AN, no editors with a pervious history should have to identify themselves. These are not very well formed thoughts. Any thoughts yourself?Casprings (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. Question to Casprings: What remedies do you propose? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What is meant by uninvolved or involved in subjects or pages under sanctions? The concept of being involved or uninvolved applies to administrators enforcing discretionary sanctions. An administrator may not enforce discretionary sanctions if she or he has been editing prior to the misconduct. Mediators and arbitrators must likewise be uninvolved. What does Casprings mean? I don't understand the distinction, except as to official roles (admin, med, arb, maybe CU or OS). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:MrX

Proposed principles

Purpose

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. This is facilitated by assuming positive intent and engaging in honest, open dialog.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is a collaboration project

2) Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project build by people united by their love of learning, their intellectual curiosity, and their awareness that they know much more together than any of us does alone. Editors are expected to calmly discuss and justify their actions when challenged. Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks erode the mutual respect essential for building a high-quality encyclopedia. Discussion is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editors are expected to work toward resolving disputes

3) Neutral point of view is a foundational policy, not a license to delete large volumes of content that editors personally regard as biased. Editors are expected to improve content if they can; not simply delete salvageable text. If a user has a editorial dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is articles broadly related to American politics including subjects that have politically contentious aspects, but are not political on their face. The topic areas are diverse. In addition to politics itself, the dispute extends to articles about media, the environment, energy production and policy, gun control and rights, women's rights, immigration policy, abortion, rape, climate change, capitalism, and social issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arzel

2) Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in:

• Edit warring
• Incivility and Personal attacks
• Battleground conduct characterized by persistent reverting across a large number of articles, over a large amount of his editing history
• Failure to listen
• Soapboxing by politicizing content disputes

He has previously received warnings for personal attacks and edit warring, and has been blocked for edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Collect

3) Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in:

• Battleground conduct including

1. Impeding consensus by demanding higher-than-standard content sourcing, claiming WP:BLP violations where none exist, and by positing non-neutrally worded RfCs
2. Failure to follow the dispute resolution process by constructively responding to questions from other editors
3. Soapboxing by using his talk page and other fora as platform for discrediting the project, its governance, and some of its users

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence submitted by User:Ubikwit

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Ubikwit: I quite agree with Srich32977. Although the scope does not formally exclude edits to Tea Party movement, and I do not wish it to, the committee is unlikely to place much weight on the edits you have entered into evidence. They have already been ruled on in a previous case, and therefore do not help us decide the current one. Please submit different material as evidence (and kindly also acknowledge this message). AGK 12:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Not quite, but perhaps I have not made myself clear. When I said TPM diffs could be "flagged", I envisaged it being entered as a footnote to non-TPM evidence – not making up the entirety or majority of your submission. TPM diffs can be very briefly referred to, or older evidence and findings of fact from the original case linked to; for example,

User X has did XYZ on <non-TPM articles>. See diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This continues a pattern from the TPM case; see diff 6 and TPM Findings of Fact 12 and 13.

We aren't interested in edits to the TPM article, except if we need to be aware that, together with current evidence, they reflect a wider pattern in an editor's Misplaced Pages contributions. Remember also that I wrote much of the Tea Party movement decision (replacing an earlier pair of drafters), so I am likely to spot these patterns anyway. Have I made my position clear? AGK 13:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Most of the evidence submitted by Ubikwit pertains to Tea Party Movement edits. That topic, and the edits surrounding it, was "litigated" at Tea Party Movement. I do not see diffs which post-date the TPM arbitration closing. Even so, if there are post-arbitration problems with TPM-related editing, then such problems should be brought up for enforcement as TPM problems. With this in mind, I cannot see how Ubikwit's diffs help the committee in the present case. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: I don't necessarily have a problem with removing the evidence, but I should point out that I posted it as background to a pattern of behavior exhibited across articles on American politics. Moreover, I did so after seeking clarification on the scope, to which you responded as follows

Previous conduct problems with articles about the Tea Party movement could certainly be flagged, as context and background, in these proceedings.

It now seems that you are contradicting your above-quoted response. Please clarify. As Mr. X demonstrates in some of his evidence, Arzel would appear to fly under the radar, eliding sanction by staying within 3RR, refraining from editing during Arbcom cases, etc. If the evidence I posted is not deemed as context but "an already litigated matter", then I would not have posted it in the first place had that been clear from the initial response I received. Thanks.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@AGK: OK, I see. I'll remove the material.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As Ubikwit has removed the submitted TPM evidence, I suggest archiving this portion of the Workshop. – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit has recently submitted a series of diffs related to current discussions on two articles. IMO the diffs simply point to rambunctious commentary by Collect, but nothing disruptive. If Collect would tone it down, and stop shouting on the talk pages, we would enjoy editing these articles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the RfC, as it seems to be calling for a simple iVote based "consensus", which isn't exactly what WP:CONSENSUS is defined as. In that sense, it is disruptive of the discussion of the edits as it renders them mute in favor of a somewhat contrived iVote. Striclty speaking, calling for an iVote as a means to assert consensus could be seen as an attempt to circumvent the policy-based consensus building process, thereby subverting the integrity of the editing environment.

I've just added a not to the relevant diffs that it was me that raised the possibility of WP:SYNTH concern, which has been the basis of basically all subsequent substantial discussion and editing--aside from the "labor unions" related statement.

To characterize the act of starting the RfC as "rambunctious commentary" doesn't make sense to me. And when Collect is not shouting on the talk pages, his comments that I've referenced can be seen to be both dismissive, on the one hand, and evasive on the other. There is no discussion going on there. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I dislike the shouting and I wish Collect's comments were more focused. But: 1. These diffs are basically content discussions, and 2. Other avenues of dispute resolution have not been tried. (Arbitration is for behaviors "where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed".) I don't see that other dispute resolution routes have been taken with Collect. (I'm looking at the diffs you supplied and nowhere else.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already responded to the above assertion when it was raised in a query on my Talk page, but I'll expand on that a bit.

Collect's editing on topics concerning American politics has struck me as highly problematic since I first encountered him on the Tea Party case. In that case I provided ample evidence of his obstruction by similar means. Now I understand policy a little better to more succinctly address his editing conduct. I fully agree with Mr. X's statement, "The evidence provided by Collect below is indicative of the argumentative, condescending obfuscation that typically makes politically-related article talk page discussions so fruitless where Collect is involved.", and my evidence provides direct proof of that in an ongoing discussion falling under the scope of this case. Thenub314 has also provided evidence against Collect with respect to current editing on an article for which an Arbcom case just finished a month ago.

I note that the above related exchange pertains to evidence I had earlier posted concerning Arzel, with respect to which S. Rich lobbied that it should be inadmissible because it pertained to an already litigated case. Here, he is claiming that because the edits are recent and other means of DS haven't been pursued that the evidence is inadmissible. I find that to be an extraordinary attempt to narrow the scope of a case that was named in a manner such as to open up the field as opposed to limiting it to the conduct of a specific editor (Arzel), thereby facilitating and examination of the editing environment and dynamics in the topic area overall.

Not meaning to not WP:AGF, but is S. Rich lobbying to have my evidence dismissed on false grounds? I note that he hasn't raised the issue with respect to the evidence presented by Thenub314, so maybe this is just targeting me? Due to our interaction on the Plutocracy and articles? I should note that S. Rich and I are basically on the opposite side of the issues in those discussions, though I thought we were editing in a basically collaborative manner. That seems to me to be in stark contrast with his efforts here concerning the editing conduct of Collect. It would seem to me to be a matter for the Committee to determine whether Collect's editing amounts to policy compliant "content discussion" or not.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:50, 05:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence presented by User:Two kinds of pork

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The evidence presented by Two kinds of pork is not really evidence, but more of a statement of opinion, and mere conjecture. For example, the assertion "... they didn't meet the REQUIRED elements of a RFCU, in this case documenting that they (MRX/Brangifer) have made a serious attempt to resolve their differences with Arzel." is erroneous in three ways:

1. I have no (personal) difference with Arzel. I believe the project does.
2. Brangifer and I have not operated in unison (as implied by the slash). My efforts to reach out to Arzel were made independent of Brangifer.
3. These diffs: are evidence of my serious and sincere efforts to address Arzel's conduct.- MrX 17:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If you think Bradinfgers "attempt" was made in good faith, then that speaks volumesTwo kinds of pork (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that an RFCU is supposed to be a form of DR. One of the required elements is that users have "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". The example provided by Brangifer, a co-certified of the RFCU is the antithesis of a good faith attempt at a resolving an issue. As the primary drafter of the RFCU, I assumed MrX endorsed Brangifer's statement. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence presented by User:70.36.142.114

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No evidence has been presented by 70.36.142.114, unless you count the external link to a webcomic.- MrX 17:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence in RFC/U about Arzel

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Robert McClenon The statement that I "often uses extremely uncivil edit summaries." is simply false, and to my knowledge I have never had one redacted, so that insinuation is un-called for. I would ask that this statement be struck. I do often remove NPOV violations and UNDUE weight issues, especially within BLP articles, but your review seems limited to only cherry picked edits. Arzel (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arzel frequently blanks properly sourced information because he considers the sources biased (although they are considered reliable under Misplaced Pages standards). This violates Misplaced Pages policy, and shows a refusal to accept a community interpretation of policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel sometimes performs the useful service of removing unsourced characterizations, such as labeling a commentator as "right-wing" (which should not be done in encyclopedic language, but only when quoted). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Arzel often uses extremely uncivil edit summaries. Uncivil edit summaries are possibly even worse than incivility on talk pages, because uncivil edit summaries cannot be reverted, unless they are so inflammatory as to justify redaction. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Because Arzel sometimes performs a useful service, but is often disruptive, some sanction less extreme than a site-ban or a topic-ban from American politics is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence in Casprings

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have initiated zero contact with Casprings in a very long time. There is no evidence of a current conflict between us. Arzel (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arzel and Casprings are two editors who do not like each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

An interaction ban between Arzel and Casprings is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

To quote the interaction ban policy, "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others." I am not sure of what interaction between me and Arzel is a problem or disrupting for others. What problem does this solve?. Casprings (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: