Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics

Case opened on 14:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Case closed on 13:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 23:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch Front], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch Ev.], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch Wshp.], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch PD.]

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Involved parties
There is currently not a formal list of parties. See the statement from the case drafters for more information.

Statement by Casprings
During an WP:RFC/U, there was significant disagreement regarding the behavior of Arzel and other editors who took part in the WP:RFC/U. The pages in the WP:RFC/U largely relate to American Politics in general and not the Tea Party Movement, which there has been an Arbitration case on.

In the dispute, some editors believe that Arzel acts on the belief that Wikipedia reflects a "liberal bias". He thinks that mainstream media and academic writing reflect this bias and tries to correct that, by balancing "liberal" views with "conservative" ones. However, that is contrary to the policy of neutrality, which requires views to be presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Many editors believe that he has shown WP:Battleground behavior in correcting these perceived biases. On the other hand, some editors feel that the RFC itself is an example of battleground behavior. They believe the RFC is supported by numerous left-leaning editors due to their objections to the right-leaning editor disagreeing with edits they make that largely favor their left-leaning views. They argue that there is a group of partisan editors objecting to another editor impeding their efforts to make Wikipedia articles more partisan.

I request the Committee look at this dispute and help to resolve it. This could include sanctions on either side of the dispute, interaction bans or other remedies.

@Seraphimblade I would give two reasons why this requires a full Arbitration. The first is the topics of the pages covered in the RFC relate to American Politics, not a sub-category. While it was a quick look at the pages linked in the RFC, I did not see any pages that directly involved The Tea Party Movement. Second, this is a dispute that is persistent and will not be solved by the parties involved. If one looks at the discussion involving a suggested close, this has been the state of the dispute for years now. This seems to be the type of dispute that the arbitration committee was designed to look at.

@Robert McClenon : The dispute is more complicated than between two editors. The original title of this was WP:RFC/U on Arzel not the user himself. If, there is use of battleground behavior by editors to go after Arzel, that should be looked at. Likewise, if there is battleground behavior to protect Arzel, that should be looked at. If one looks at the WP:RFC/U, it is clearly divided into two camps. This is more complicated than you imply.

@Robert McClenon I am trying to be neutral in describing the dispute. I am also trying not to suggest solutions. I would assume one would want to look at the dispute first and then find solutions.

@SalvioI don't grasp that this is not "ripe". The basic framework of the dispute has a long history. Arzel's conduct has been questioned in the past and one group of editors has an issue and the other group defends him. For example,1, 2,3, 4,5. Many of the same editors (including myself), have took part in these previous disputes. This is long-term and is more than simply the editors conduct. If it was the editors conduct, one could just suggest a topic ban. However, if the community is divided into two groups over the conduct, that becomes difficult.

@Salvio I don't really care. You guys are the experts on this. That said, a question and one point. First, how effective has it been for the tea party movement? Next, doing it to all of American politics seems a little broad to me. It is really, Articles that are currently politically controversial in the United States. These articles draw alot of editors, many of which push a POV. I would admit that is why I first came to Wikipedia. I think I have tried to improve, but that is what got me here.

@User:Worm That Turned as I said above, you are the experts. However, if I were to think of two reasons, they would be as follows. Aren't the vast majority of American Politics article reasonable safe from edit warring? Free Soil Party will be free from edit warring, for the most part. Plus, Arzel wasn't really a part of the Tea Party Movement case, that I can find. He got grouped in, but not not sanctioned.

@ AGK If one wants to use an actual topic, it should simply be American Politics. However, when I made the request, I was thinking it would be something more confined. In other words, one group of editors defend Arzel and the other group thinks there is a problem. That said, American Politics (or at least some of the subject), is an area with a lot of conflict that relates to this request.

Statement by Arzel
Since this has been repeated a number of times now by Casprings, perhaps they can provide some links showing me trying to balance out liberal sources with conservative sources. I have stated several times that I don't think clearly biased sources should be used at all. I have tried to keep the articles I have been involved with largely free of partisan sniping. Hell, I have recently been trying to keep rumors out of Scarlett Johansson's bio and she is hardly a conservative. As for the TPM, I am really not seeing the connection there as I have not made an edit to that article for several months. I am getting a little tired of this.

@Salvio, I am not sure why this discussion of discretionary sanctions of Tea Party is even a part of this. For one I was not sanctioned and two I have not even edited the page since the sanctions went into effect. I effectively sanctioned myself from that page. Maybe you should just ask Casprings exactly what they are hoping to achieve. Arzel (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Admins voting for a case. Exactly what are you planning on arbitrating? What is your objective? Arzel (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * IBAN

I don't think this is what Casprings is after, and I am not even sure it is necessary. I haven't initiated any contact with Casprings in several months. I think my only interaction with them has been via the drama boards where they initiated contact with me. However, I will voluntarily pledge to continue to not initiate any contact with them, I can't promise that they won't continue to initiate contact with me though. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
I am listed as a party to this case, presumably because I created the RFC/U. At the heart of this case is a user's editing conduct and interactions with other editors which are well documented in his editing history, with specific examples listed at the RFC/U. I reject any theory that this case is about some people not liking other people; people simply taking sides in a political dispute; or personal biases.

As far as I understand, this is exactly the type of case that should be arbitrated. This is a user conduct issue at its core. All other avenues of resolution have failed and the community is deadlocked, leading us to this venue of last resort. The case is broader than TPM because it encompasses American politics, biographies, Fox News, global warming, civil rights, football, reality TV, etc. I don't see how AE can address these long term issues that fall outside of the scope of the TPM case.- MrX 18:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit Warring
 * 1) Revert 1, Revert 2

- MrX 16:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks/incivility/assumptions of bad faith
 * 1) March 5, 2014: "Give me a break. You add a WP:RECENT blurb using Rachel Maddow as a source. It is quite clear what you both are trying to do. Please stop using WP to push your political view."
 * 2) March 5, 2014: "Nothing like another chance to push your anti-Ryan POV."
 * 3) March 26, 2014: "You are clearly incapable of looking at this from an objective point of view."
 * 4) March 27, 2014: "So go live your own life, stop worrying about hers."
 * 5) March 30, 2014: "I would have thought that an Admin would be more objective, but I know that not to be the case."
 * 6) April 2, 2014: " I don't have time to deal with your POV pushing right now and apparently a certain Admin lets his bias show rather than follow WP policies."

Clerk notes
The votes on this case request reached net four with this edit on 16 April. 24 hours has elapsed, and the case will be opened shortly. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

American Politics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <6/0/0/3>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)


 * The complaints made at the RFC relate to Arzel's conduct on pages the committee have already arbitrated. Remedies from our earlier decision can therefore be used if Arzel's conduct is continually and significantly disruptive: the complainant should simply request at WP:AE that Arzel be topic-banned under the discretionary sanctions of Tea Party movement. In my judgement, we do not require an arbitration case to recover old ground. Decline. AGK  [•] 22:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the conduct on pages not under the scope of Tea Party movement, I do not agree it requires an arbitration case. There simply isn't anything there that the community can't resolve and that requires a full committee hearing. AGK  [•] 21:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NE Ent, I made no such assumption, nor should my vote be read as though I did. AGK  [•] 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This request seems to have morphed into one about the wider subject area, and my colleagues have now voted to accept this request. I am not necessarily opposed to that, as the project has significant trouble with the US politics topic area (cf. Tea Party movement and the ongoing Gun control). However, I am keen that we delineate the scope of the a case before proceeding. Deciding what the case name shall be would be a good place to start; it will clearly be broader than just Arzel's conduct. AGK  [•] 15:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to see statements as to why this requires a full arbitration case rather than requests for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions already put in place from the Tea Party Movement case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those who clarified. It does look like this goes farther. Accept. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A note that I have seen and am actively reviewing presented evidence regarding this matter. NativeForeigner Talk 09:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This looks messy. Still thinking about it, but in this case taking the case may actually minimize disruption. NativeForeigner Talk 06:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also note that I have not been ignoring this request, I just don't have much to say about it yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just spent some time reviewing this, in particular the last RFC/U, which clearly failed to resolve anything. There seems to be broad agreement that there is a problem, but there is significant disagreement regarding whose behavior is more problematic. That strongly suggests that, despite the name of this case request, there is more than one editor behaving in a manner that is not desirable, and that the community has tried and failed to resolve the situation. I am not at all convinced that all areas where disruption is occurring are under the area defined in the Tea Party case. I am therefore minded to Accept this request, though I am still open to the possibility of motions explicitly expanding the Tea Party discretionary sanctions into these other topic areas. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still on the fence, although I'm currently leaning towards voting decline as not ripe for arbitration; I'll wait for more statements, however, before making up my mind. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Question for everyone: would the extension of discretionary sanctions to the topic of American politics be considered enough or would you prefer a case? Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I agree with Cube lurker. Accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see that the Tea Party discretionary sanctions are not sufficient here, but since the topic is so similar and there are a number of familiar faces, I would prefer to just extend the discretionary sanctions. Could any of the parties explain to me why that would be a poor idea? Worm TT( talk ) 09:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a key question is, what would we extend them to? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Collect and Cube Lurker have put it rather well. Worm TT( talk ) 07:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm persuaded that we should accept a case. Worm TT( talk ) 07:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Could the editors supporting a case identify specific problematic edits made by Arzel in recent weeks? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept There appears to be issues with Arzel's conduct outside of the tea party case, where it would be covered under DS, and the RfC suggests that behavior of other parties should be appraised as well. DS over such a broad area would be more likely to do harm than good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept, largely per David. This clearly extends beyond the Tea Party movement, and Arzel does not appear to be the only editor whose behavior is being questioned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

=Final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at  13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus
2) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at  13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Behavioural standards
3) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at  13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Fresh eyes
4) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at  13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
5) Edit warring is not desirable as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at  13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ownership and stewardship
6) Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus.
 * Passed 10 to at  13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) This case relates to behavioural issues from many articles spanning multiple topics. All the involved articles and instances of misconduct relate to political or social issues in the United States. This is at least the fourth arbitration case in the past year related to American political and social issues. Every time a case is concluded a new dispute seems to pop up elsewhere. Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of  content as the problems move from one area to another.


 * Passed 10 to 0 at 13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Arzel (edit warring)
2) Although there was no evidence that he had breached the three-revert rule (3RR), Arzel has a long record of edit warring in order to force an article to reflect his preferred view.           This has had a disruptive effect on the topic area, and has increased tensions.
 * Passed 6 to 0 at 13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Arzel (personalising disputes)
3) Arzel has personalized and/or politicized disputes with other editors, often accusing them of being "activists",  which increased tension and hindered the community's ability to apply the dispute resolution policy to the affected  topic areas.             (Note that these diffs are only a selected portion and that there are many more diffs in the submitted evidence showing the same types of behavior)
 * Passed 7 to 0 at 13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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 (general directive)
1) In addition to any sanctions stemming directly from this decision, any new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues may be placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the Committee without the need for a full case. Requests for new sanctions may be made at WP:ARCA. In evaluating such a request, the Committee will consider factors such as the length and severity of editor-behavior issues in the topic area, whether other remedies have proved inadequate to address the issues, and relevant community input
 * Passed 8 to 0 at  13:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Superseded by ARBAP2 remedy at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Arzel: 1RR
2) Arzel is limited to one revert of any specific edit every seven days, excepting unambiguous vandalism. If he should violate this sanction he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. This restriction may not be appealed for one year, and appeals will be limited to one every six months thereafter.
 * Passed 6 to 0, with 2 abstentions at 13:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Arzel warned
3) Arzel is warned that continuing to personalize or politicize content disputes is disruptive to the project, and continuing behavior of this nature may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
 * Passed 8 to 0 at 13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Arzel topic banned (February 2015)

 * Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstentions by motion at 23:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)