Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the |talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

ArtifexMayhem has narrowly focused on articles about race/ethnicity
As of today, since January 1st ArtifexMayhem has made 122 edits to articles and 97 edits to article talk pages. Of his article edits, 76 (62%) were to articles related to human race and ethnicity and 46 (38%) were not. Of his talk page edits, 72 (74%) were on the topic of human race and ethnicity and 24 (26%) were not.

ArtifexMayhem's editing of these articles is mostly made up of blanking and reverts
I'm going to analyse ArtifexMayhem's editing on the six race and ethnicity related articles he has edited most, excluding articles about race and intelligence.


 * Race (human classification) · stats On this article ArtifexMayhem has made 18 edits. Of those 18, nine are marked as reverts in the edit summaries, and another seven were blanking content.       Of his two edits that weren't blanking or reverts, one was a minor copyedit,  and the other was to a paragraph that he blanked on his next edit.


 * Race and genetics · stats On this article he has made 14 edits. Of those 14, five were marked as reverts in the edit summaries, and another six were blanking content.


 * Natural-born-citizen clause · stats On this article he has made 11 edits. Nine of the eleven are marked as reverts in the edit summaries. According to talk page stats, he only has posted on the talk page twice, around the time of his first and second revert. His next seven reverts in June 2012 through April 2013 were without any participation in the talk page.


 * Race and crime in the United States · stats On this article he has made seven edits. Six of the seven were blanking of content.      None of these removals were discussed: ArtifexMayhem has not posted on this article's talk page ever.


 * White privilege · stats On this article he has made five edits. The first was a revert, the third  blanked a paragraph, and the fifth  restored the same wording that he reverted to in his first edit. Note that the first time ArtifexMayhem restored this wording, Apostle12 commented that it was non neutral because it omitted the word "argued to". ArtifexMayhem did not respond to this point, he just restored the wording a second time.


 * Caucasian race · stats On this article he has made 4 edits. One was marked as a revert in the edit summary and the other three were blanking content.

Overall breakdown:

59 total content edits

25 edits (42%) marked as reverts

23 edits (39%) not marked as reverts were blanking content

11 edits (19%) were not blanking or reverts

The 19% number overestimates how much content he has added, because that number includes edits that still effectively were reverts, and edits to paragraphs or sections that he later blanked. The pattern is the same if one includes his edits to R&I articles. For example on these two articles  he made a combined total of 12 edits, and all 12 were marked as reverts.

Evidence presented by UseTheCommandLine
this shorthand is used for diffs:
 * Apostle12
 * UseTheCommandLine
 * someone else

Apostle12 violates NOTFORUM/SOAP, frequently but not exclusively on race-related topics.

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * see also: Frey incident

This is not limited to race-related topics.
 * 
 * 
 * 

Apostle12 has consistently refused to acknowledge this NOTFORUM/SOAP is inappropriate

 * "My history lends some passion ... there is nothing wrong with that."
 * "...I seldom reference personal history on Wikipedia talk pages...it seems to me that talk pages are the appropriate place to express such opinions. ...entirely necessary and entirely appropriate..."

He characterized this as "storytelling" in the ANI case referenced by Newyorkbrad:
 * 
 * "...this is the first time anyone has objected. Except for UseTheCommandLine, other editor comments have been positive. I do believe occasional storytelling is a positive endeavor, as long as it is not heavily laden with agenda."

This statement ("this is the first time anyone has objected") is false.
 * 
 * 
 * 

Chronological views of notable disputes

 * this edit jumped out at me via watchlist
 * revert
 * init talk page discussion
 * REDFLAG suggestion


 * insistence, denial of REDFLAG
 * replace
 * continuing discussion
 * re-revert


 * who, me?
 * why now?


 * "highly probable claim", "(delaying, or preventing, Newton's being held accountable for his crimes I might add)"
 * accusation of WP:DE
 * re-replace
 * began DRN case
 * notification of DRN posting
 * revert

aside from an initial statement, Apostle12 did not take part in the DRN discussion.
 * notification of resolution


 * protest
 * cmt re:source/claims
 * explanation by DRN volunteer of sourcing issues


 * Apostle12's response (which I would consider a bit petulant/POINTy) includes "I cannot, however, agree that Salon.com, or Kate Coleman, have been discredited as sources."
 * relevance?


 * "was probably crucual"
 * I overreacted


 * assertion that this was willfull
 * confirming as accusation


 * confirmed, more assertions re:Coleman


 * removal of claim


 * rv
 * remove
 * Talk page init


 * "in the article for years"
 * response. corroboration?


 * "all other sources are, to the best of my knowledge, derivative"
 * clarify concern


 * "I would ask that you return the favor."
 * suggest clarification at WP:BLPN
 * more reference to policy and essays


 * "wikilawyering"
 * BLPN post to clarify BLP/"recently dead" (which I contributed to). Consensus that Newton not "recently dead" (contradicting previous DRN volunteer assertion).
 * "surprised by ... claim"
 * posted separate RSN case (which Apostle12 did not participate in) to clarify sourcing issue. Consensus OK to include allegations, but not reportable as fact.
 * new revision, after no new comments @RSN

There have been no significant edits to that portion of the article since, but Talk page discussion continued
 * "survived intense scrutiny" @publication time
 * characterization of Pearson as a source


 * book quote: "tended to be vague"
 * vague and unsubstantiated, but asking for clarification


 * "believe it is appropriate to include"
 * gratuitous addition
 * further insistence from a citation later in the book
 * calling out offensive statement. Different sections of book but source to the same two interviews, so not two independent references. Taking a break from this particular page


 * "Unlike you, I don't just wipe out other people's edits; try to build on them."

At the time of writing, no further edits have been made to that section of Huey P. Newton (though see "edits since topic-ban proposal" below).

post-ban-discussion edits
Subsequent to the discussion of NOTFORUM and topic ban discussion, at Black Panther Party:

Re: Frey
 * removal of the strong claim was made by an IP editor and the edit comment suggests it might have been based on the new version of the Newton article


 * revert, "has withstood criticism"
 * remove, assert POVPUSH

Apostle12 appears to be the original source for this wording:
 * 

continuation of slow edit warring and misrepresentation of sources


 * 
 * remove least supportable part


 * replace, add (questionable) source

This makes changes to a cited section in a manner inconsistent with the reference, and recalls the following at Huey P. Newton:


 * "Despite involvement in social programs, the Black Panthers in Oakland, California, as well as other U.S. cities, never transcended their reputation for violence and criminality." (this appears to be the origin of this statement)
 * remove, need cite


 * replace
 * remove


 * replace
 * remove (there is a reference to Talk page discussion but I am uncertain about which one specifically this editor refers to)


 * replace
 * clarify as allegation (no source to refer to at this time)


 * add'l source, but remove "claim" wording, present as fact
 * ref does not support assertion
 * clarify cited source, remove claim

Apostle12 has edit warred and failed to respect consensus
This section is not intended to be a chronological view of this dispute in the same way the above narratives are; there are too many other editors involved to easily thread things

see also: edits since topic-ban proposal

''initial edit war is referenced in Marie Paradox's evidence section. removed for brevity.''
 * warned for 3RR


 * effectively the same language


 * attempts were made to discuss, clarify policy, and eventual DRN
 * This led to a wide-ranging discussion and eventual positive changes to the article.


 * continued insistence on mitigating language
 * confusion at this insistence, suggestion of alternatives


 * NOTFORUM
 * NOTFORUM, AGF
 * NOTFORUM
 * offers of assistance
 * offers of assistance

After heated discussion at User talk pages (which Marie Paradox references below), I asked on IRC (where I was active at the time) for someone willing to look into the situation. I was having trouble figuring out what part of my approach was wrong, as I had never previously encountered this sort of behavior on WP. volunteered to look into it.
 * warning left


 * removal
 * I reverted before I had reviewed the relevant policies
 * self-corrected

Continued insistence on mitigating language (omitted, please see ArtifexMayhem's evidence, below) By this time, several editors had left the article entirely. I acknowledge that my reverts of this material did constitute edit warring.

Additional points

 * In both the RfC/U and Schneider incident (above), Apostle12 has made initial statements and then avoided subsequent participation in conflict resolution
 * Even when pointing out Apostle12's mischaracterizations of my positions or of sourcing, I never suggested it was intentional (e.g. ) until the POVPUSH comment and ANI case, after what I considered a preponderance of evidence led me to that conclusion.

Apostle12 has a long history of engaging in personal attacks and failure to assume good faith
On user and article talk pages Apostle12 resorts to personal attacks and fails to assume good faith. Others point out that this behavior violates Wikipedia policy or can get him blocked, and he returns to it.

Here as in my preliminary statement I have included diffs that were made in 2012 in relation to the White privilege article and in 2007–2008 in relation to Hippie; I do this to make the case that if Apostle12 were one to learn lessons, we would have seen an end to behaviors of this sort a long time ago. According to Apostle12 I should have noted that the "rocky start" he and Viriditas got off to were followed by "mutually respectful, collaborative editing effort that greatly benefitted" Hippie. If we assume Apostle12's characterization is accurate, what does this amount to? Why is it that when Apostle12 got off to a "rocky start" with other editors of White privilege he did not draw from past experiences and try to contribute to a "mutually respectful, collaborative effort"? Why have we instead had to endure personal attacks and the like?

Apostle12 has a history of flouting the verifiability criterion
Apostle12 also adds material that is not verifiable and removes material that is verifiable despite having had it explained that verifiability is part of Wikipedia's standards.

Apostle12's actions have the potential to create environments where civility and assumption of good faith are the exception
On at least one occasion Apostle12 has been hostile towards an editor who assumed good faith and tried to steer Apostle12 in the direction of making constructive contributions after he made an edit which in my opinion requires an editor to dig pretty deep into the bag of charity before assumption of good faith is possible. Also in a series of invitations that seem to meet at least two of the criteria of canvassing (bias and partisanship) Apostle12 invited three editors to return White privilege; at least one had previously been banned from editing White privilege by someone outside the situation for violating WP:3RR, and contributions of the other two at that point had consisted of little more than drive-by criticism.

Background
In April, based on a review of the white privilege article and talk page histories (prompted by this exchange), I supported an ANI proposal that Apostle12 be topic-banned from the area of human race and ethnicity. Prior to this I had few, if any, edits in the specific topic area of "Race and politics" and virtually no interaction with Apostle12. I have since made a total of seven edits to White privilege (five article edits and two talk page edits ).

Improper use of sources by Apostle12

 * Accuracy of sourcing
 * Apostle12's use of sources does not support this claim...


 * Without supporting sources, the editor as repeatedly questioned the existence of White privilege by inserting weasel words into the lede of the article (e.g.,"alleged", "might", "argued").
 * In this series of edits to the White privilege article the editor misrepresents sources, including several that do not satisfy WP:RS, adding the following sections...
 * Low impact of white privilege
 * The source does not state that white privilege is of "low impact".
 * The source does not indicate that Steele is an "opponent of affirmative action programs".
 * Steele does not state or indicate that he "believes that the effects of white privilege are exaggerated." He says what whites owe blacks is fairness: "You owe us a fair society," he says. "There's not much you can do beyond that. ...There isn't anything you can do to ...[to] lift my life up. I have to do that."
 * Steele does not say, state, argue, infer, indicate, or intimate that blacks "may incorrectly blame their personal failures on white oppression."
 * Steele does not argue that there are "many minority privileges." He states that there is "minority privilege" and that today's black high school student is offered many opportunities. He also states—in the full quote—that opportunities come his way unbeckoned: "There is a hunger in this society to do right racially, to not be racist. ...And I feel rather privileged by it. I don't have to even look for opportunities in many cases. They come right to me."
 * Education
 * The Seattle Times opinion piece by Matt Rosenberg does not satisfy WP:RS.
 * The opinions of Mr. Rosenberg, Director of Public Affairs for Dick's Drive-In Restaurants, carry no weight on the topic.
 * Privileges extended to people of color
 * Misrepresents this source as supporting: "The current University of Michigan Duluth 'unfair campaign' has come under fire for implying that all whites enjoy unfair privileges, when it fact it is qualified minority applicants who are often shown preference in education and corporate hiring." What the source actually says is: "The campaign has attracted its fair share of criticism" from anonymous comments posted "to the university webpage".
 * Hugh Murray's article, White Male Privilege? A Social Construct for Political Oppression, in the Journal of Libertarian Studies (published by Ludwig von Mises Institute) is not a reliable source on this topic.
 * The article is cited once, by another Mises publication, on Google Scholar.
 * Mr. Murray does not appear to have any credentials or training related to the topic (in fact his very existence is questionable).
 * Maintaining stereotypes
 * The article entitled "White Privilege" Re-education, published in The Michigan Review, is not a reliable source.
 * "The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the U-M. Contributions to the Michigan Review are tax-deductible under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Review is not affiliated with any political party or university political group." – pg. 2
 * Group Guilt
 * Misrepresents "Jacob Oslick, Brian Cook, & David Guipe" of the Michigan Review as authors of note (same source as above).
 * Narrow focus of white privilege analysis
 * Misrepresents the source; Blum fully supports the reality of white privilege and is suggesting new ways to teach it, "Those of us who teach US American White students think it morally and politically important for them to learn to acknowledge their White privilege, and to do something morally constructive with that acknowledgment."


 * Bias and prejudice
 * These edits......"can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes..."
 * Making an unsourced statement that compares the ninety some odd years of Jim Crow laws to modern Affirmative action programs is completely unreasonable.


 * Making that statement twice is beyond the pale.

Evidence presented by Apostle12
Preliminary statement is here. UseTheCommandLine has daily generated so much new material that it’s been a major task just to keep up with her assertions, many of which are faulty; drafting a comprehensive response is beyond my capability. What concerns me is that UTCL so obviously relishes contention; I lack her enthusiasm, and possess neither the time nor the inclination to respond in kind. UTCL brandishes WP policies and dispute procedures more than any editor I have ever encountered, while simultaneously being unwilling to engage in the give and take of collaborative editing.

I am not a “Rules” person. I don’t flout the rules, however if I can briefly make my point with a terse comment when I believe other editors have said something outrageous or inhibited progress, I would rather do that than resort to WP administrative procedures – even the abbreviations make me a little nauseous. I do respect those who do the essential work of keeping order at Wikipedia, and I have made it through a full seven years of editing (½ year with my original name, 6 ½ years as Apostle 12) without falling under threat of being blocked or otherwise disciplined. So, even though I might occasionally violate the letter of some policies and guidelines, practical feedback indicates that my editing has been in keeping with Wiki spirit. My primary question for the arbitrators is: What about UseTheCommandLine? Is her brandishing of rules and procedures consistent with Wiki spirit, WP:IAR?

The problems began with the White privilege article after UTCL suggested I draft a Criticism section. UTCL honored my first attempt, however she soon joined Marie Paradox in deleting many of my edits.   Frustrating – a full day wasted.

I thought it might be good to go back through Talk and contact a few inactive editors interested in creating a Criticism section. I alerted three former editors that a new Criticism section was in the works; I did not know what particular criticisms they favored, nor was I soliciting their help in an ongoing content dispute. I disclosed having contacted them on Talk. That’s when I happened on Marie Paradox’s comment to an editor she once had a disagreement with, "But if you want to come to my personal talk page and flaunt your white people head-up-the-ass syndrome, don't think for a moment that I'm going to mince words while calling you out on it."   I considered MP’s comment outrageous anti-white racism, so  I called her a “jerk” (my  polite way of confronting racists) and lamented her involvement in editing a race-sensitive article.   She issued a partial apology, so I erased my insult. For me that was the end of it. UTCL and MP objected that alerting the editors to the drafting of a new Criticism section violated WP:CAN; they traded off hounding me, which confirmed my impression that UTCL and MP were engaging in WP:OWN behavior. I explained that UTCL had invited me to draft a Criticism section, I thought the interested editors might resume editing to help create it, and I had been transparent about contacting them. Contrary to MP's allegation in this proceeding, none of the editors I contacted caused problems; in fact Thucydides411 resumed editing and became one of White privilege's most productive contributors. Eventually a de facto Criticism section emerged, the WP:OWN pattern was broken, and the article became more balanced as editors with different viewpoints arrived to discuss article content.

Another conflict occurred after Groupuscule submitted a full re-write of the lede, which for a time began with “White privilege (or white skin privilege) refers to advantages that white people enjoy in all societies." I admit I reacted badly to this outrageous claim.

So I do admit to sometimes violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Yet even when I am on the receiving end, I find occasional direct expressions of angst preferable to UTCL's covertly hostile Wikilawyering. Much easier to provide diffs for my stuff than hers, though occasionally UTCL does let her guard down, especially when she doesn’t get her way. At such times she voices her contempt for WP processes, as during her repetitive ANI submissions where she wrote “Fuck that,” when she was encouraged by another editor to engage in discussion with me, and where she promised to make a nuisance of herself through continual resubmissions, even if it led to her being banned from participation.

UTCL refers to various “incidents” (Schneider, Lumsden), and this is where her worst distortions occur. Distorting the facts seems to be a longstanding pattern; after being rejected following an ARE submission, UTCL opened a series of ANI cases against me, none of which were found meritorious. In a previous ANI case, I spent a day sorting out UTCL's distortions, however she announced she was going on an extended (perhaps it will be permanent) Wikibreak, which closed the case prematurely. Don’t have the heart to try and sort out all of the current distortions, as I'm just not willing to spend days immersed in this stuff. Regarding WP:FORUM, following the recent ANI discussion I agreed to refrain from telling personal stories on Talk, even though I believe learning the life experiences of other editors aids understanding - it humanizes them, and it is an aspect of transparency. Some ANI participants (Dennis Brown comes to mind) felt that judicious storytelling is not such a bad thing, as long as it doesn’t become full-blown WP:SOAP. Given my previous concession, I don’t understand the emphasis on WP:FORUM in the current discussion.

There are some things I categorically deny: -In what UTCL calls the “Schneider Incident,” she falsely claims I ignored consensus. I agreed that Director Burt Schneider’s recent death, along with the immaturity of the story, meant that the article should not discuss the Newton/Schneider affair at this particular time, and I voiced my intention to write a new section on Hollywood luminary support for Panther political activities (based on long-established sources), so that when the Schneider letters receive due consideration from Panther scholars the sourced information can be included in proper context.

-I also deny that UTCL’s allegations in what she calls the “Lumsden incident,” where she claims I intentionally misrepresented a source. I made a simple mistake, conflating Panther writings and Panther practices, which Lumsden clearly describes as undermining the central message of gender equality in Panther Womanism. This error/omission was my sole mistake in a series of extensive edits beginning here,, and it was quickly corrected. This is yet another example of UTCL going for the jugular over a minor issue that persisted for a very short time; in fact it was I who located an online source for the Lumsden article and provided UTCL with the link. UTCL understands neither give-and-take nor honor, and in my estimation her incessant rule-bound dogging is a far greater threat to WP civility than an occasional jibe that violates WP:NPA or WP:AGF.

-Re: Artifax Mayhem, I deny that ANY of his diffs   "can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes," or that his sourcing examples (Steele especially) have merit.

There is a great deal more, however my time is up. I do have a couple of suggestions:

- Wikipedia needs protocols for curbing editors who repeatedly drag those they disagree with into Wiki bureaucracy. Few editors have the resources adequately to defend against such attacks, and this behavior drives away those who joyfully give of their time to make Wikipedia an excellent resource. No one wants to work with editors who yap at their heels.

-Wikipedia needs to post "Third Rail” warnings on articles that touch on race or ethnicity. Editors should be aware of the relevant arbitration case, and they need to be informed that, despite assurances to the contrary, political correctness still holds sway on Wikipedia.

This will be my last submission. I have decided to place a “Retired” notice on my user page and scramble my password, thus tendering my resignation. When WP strife exceeds real life strife by a factor of 100 to 1, and when editors like UTCL destroy all joy, it is time to walk away. In real life I have a very good time and I do not tolerate such people for even a second. I’ve edited WP for the satisfaction of improving some articles, and for fun; I no longer wish to participate.

Apostle12 (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)