Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence

Scope?
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 ( talk ) 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 ( talk ) 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 Let's talk about it! 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, 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)
 * That editor appears only semi-active on Wikipedia at all, and problems with their conduct would probably not pass the test for inclusion of "prolifically active" or "not [an] 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?
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
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  連絡見学/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  連絡見学/迷惑 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Drafters' statement on case parties and scope
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.

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

Accusations of synthesis
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: ". 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)


 * 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
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:

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)


 * 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.) 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)
 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Let's talk about it! 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 Let's talk about it! 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
– You are participating in this arbitration case as an anonymous editor. Is this because you do not have, and have never had, a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * I'm happy with that response. Thank you for answering. AGK  [•] 11:40, 15 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)


 * 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Are current parties permitted to continue adding evidence while we wait to see if other parties participate?- MrX 17:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 wikipedia 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)


 * We only invited into this case the original RFC's participants, so I don't think this is the sweeping case you view it as. AGK  [•] 11:40, 15 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  talk 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)
 * 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  talk 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Hi, I guess that someone who repeatedly comparestheir restriction on a tiny number of articles on an immense website withthe massacre of thousands and thousands of men, women and children in 13th-century Béziersis unlikely to have much sense of proportion or appreciate when they're getting a little too pointy. (Or should that be Tu quoque?)  Roger Davies  talk 17:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What an interesting post. As I did not assert, and have never asserted,  that  my elapsed "restrictions" were a massacre in any way shape manner or form, and that use of "allusion" is what is involved,  I fear I find your post not actually on point here.    The others who agreed with the allusion in the past made no such accusations as to my position, and I rather think you are the very  first person every to misapprehend the common allusion. I fully apologize if the allusion was unclear.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:18, 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)
 * It is the "later" bit which is at issue -- clearly you do not think calling an editor a liar is an "interaction" and you do not think your disingenuous posts on my user talk page are "interactions" so clearly your definitions vary from mine.  That you asserted that WP:POLEMIC is a "policy" and that I posted "polemics" about you has nothing to do with "personal interactions", again which is something I fear is not something reasonable editors concur with.  Nor, by the way, have I ever made any statements about your "character".
 * I have never in any post whatsoever accused you of being corrupt, and I find you assertion that I made such a charge to be unconscionable.
 * and is fully indicative of a real and substantial issue.  It is such claims which are truly toxic in any workplace, and I suggest you have a cup of tea.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)  (teach me to edit while half-asleep )


 * The pattern here gives cause for concern. Not only does AGK's accusation of dishonesty against Collect here—made not in his capacity as an arbitrator conducting arbitration business (which might arguably qualify for exemption from WP:INVOLVED) but simply as a candidate for reëlection—appear to indicate involvement. The accusation also looks hypocritical in light of AGK's comments here, in which, in his capacity as an arbitrator hearing another editor's procedural request, he countered that editor's specific, accurate, truthful and factual observation—of a procedural impropriety that had disadvantaged the editor and given advantage to his opponents—with a blatantly untrue contradictory assertion; an assertion which AGK let stand, totally unsupported by evidence, even though he was prompted to either strike it or supply evidence of its veracity; and which thereby provided an apparently specious element of justification for rejecting the editor's request.


 * Similarly on this page there are prejudicial comments that appear inaccurate:


 * AGK accuses Collect of accusing him of being corrupt. A false assertion AFAICT, unsupported by any evidence.


 * AGK asserts that "[Collect's] criticism demands [AGK's] recusal." False AFAICT, and unsupported by scrutiny of Collect's comments.


 * AGK accuses Collect of posting polemics about his character. Partially but significantly false AFAICT. Polemics: arguably. About AGK's character: absolutely not.


 * If it is an arbitrator's practice, be it witting or unwitting, to direct untruthful comments at an editor with whom he is at odds, and also to misrepresent the editor's comments, thereby falsely undermining the editor's positions to the advantage of the arbitrator's, is it desirable for the arbitrator to participate in judging that same editor's actions? Writegeist (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that a request has already been made for recusal and denied by AGK. The next step, according to WP:AP, is to refer the request to the Committee for a ruling. It seems like the appropriate place to do that would be Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Workshop, since Collect is a party in this case.- MrX 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Collect may wish to do that. Writegeist (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I avoid drama boards as much as possible, and I laid out the problem quite clearly for all to see (well -- almost all -- it was excised from this page entirely).  Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. If I understand the process correctly, the people who adjudicate requests for recusals of committee members are the committee members. What could possibly go wrong? Writegeist (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Outside of scope
Some of the evidence presented by MrX against me has nothing to do with American Politics. I feel he has made this more about me than trying to solve problems related to American politics in general. A reading of the acceptance of the Arbitration is that this was an expanded approach to the topic in general and not specific to me. Also, much of what he has presented, he has presented in the RfU, I would like to know how he feels things have become worse since that time, as it appears that he has purely focused on everything prior to the RfU. I feel like I am being re-tried because the RfU did not result in his desired result. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . We drafters will disregard evidence not within the scope of the case. You are also free to provide us with a list of diffs in evidence that are out of scope. We will also do our best to take into account whether your conduct has improved since the RFC. Our responsibility is to break up a dispute and allow the associated articles to return to stability; but we always intend to be as fair and reasonable as possible. AGK  [•] 11:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , as a new parent I simply don't have personal time for lengthy responses to detailed collection of information. You can probaby pretty easily see that my editing has dropped off dramaticaly over the past year, and this is a primary reason.  Arzel (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. AGK  [•] 09:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Arzel, if you want to refute evidence that I've presented, it should probably be done on the evidence page or in the Analysis of evidence section of the workshop page. The RfC/U, which failed to reach consensus or rectify the user conduct concerns, doesn't have a limiting effect on this case as far as I understand. Whether or not your conduct has become worse since the RfC/U is not a valid reason for excluding evidence about your conduct prior to and during the RfC/U. However, I have presented some evidence here (in response to Newyorkbrad) that it continues to be an issue.- MrX 13:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed you included some stuff about Scarlett Johannson and the continual attempt to insert a rumor into her BLP as evidence of incivility after a whole lot of not hearing by the that particular editor.  I think most people get tired of trying to rationally respond to contined attempts to violate BLP.  What annoys me about some of the stuff, is that my actions were clearly are in the best interest of upholding WP core policies regarding BLP's and you still use it to try and paint me as a bad editor.  It is clear I simply cannot win with you.  Arzel (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Question.
Would it be acceptable to add this diff from a Workshop page exchange to my evidence section, since it's clearly extremely pertinent to the issue? I'm not sure how closely the Workshop page is read, and I'd hate for it to go unnoticed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I was notified via the Arzel 2 RFC I went ahead and added that diff and three others from the exchange. Hopefully that's alright. VictorD7 (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine. If you plan to add any more, please wait for confirmation beforehand. AGK  [•] 09:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Question as to whether I should add evidence at this stage
The deeper I look into the material in relation to which I've commented in Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Workshop section, the more I wonder whether VictorD7's conduct needs to be scrutinzed on that article, perhaps along with Mattand. The concern is this"Progressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables. For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum, the United States has the most progressive federal tax system among its peer nations.[50][51] However, the progressiveness of the US tax system is reduced by state and local taxes, which tends on the whole to be regressive.[52][53][54][55]"from which the article currently reads"Progressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables. For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum, the United States has the most progressive income tax code among its peer nations.[52][53]"There may be another attempt to WP:RGW at work by not making the US tax system look unfair and biased toward the wealthy. A use that I gather is an economics professor left this comment "To trumpet that the US has the most progressive tax system is misleading, as it includes the EITC, but leaves out cash transfers in other countries that don't structure it as part of their tax system. I suggest noting in the article that the US tax system is more progressive than most, as long as we also leave in the caveats about state taxes, and noting that including transfers, the US system is actually slightly below average in progressiveness. I think that best reflects the totality of sources on the issue.". VictorD7 and Mattnad may have engaged in OR/SYNTH on the article Talk page with the aim of excluding reliably published statements and narrowing the scope of the article to "tax code" instead of the "tax system as a whole". Considering that the economics professor stated that it would be " misleading " to represent the overall tax system in the USA as being the most progressive, it seems that there is some violation of content policies that are undermining the integrity of the editing environment and leaving the article with less than WP policy compliant text in terms of WP:NPOV and evoke the essays WP:SCOPE and WP:POVFUNNEL. According to the lead of the Progressive tax article "The term can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole". That would seem to leave no reason for excluding the information on the system as a whole, along with the statement focusing exclusively on the "tax code". Do these fall under the scope of conduct issues to be examines in the case? Mattnad has responded and I have attempted to address his concerns along with offering an apology. I'm not sure that all of the issues are resolved with respect to the Talk page editing environment, sourcing and content disputes. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 02:08, 08:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You owe me an apology too for multiple inaccuracies in your description. I don't see how this Talk Page content dispute relates to this case, especially considering you demonstrably haven't read it carefully. VictorD7 (talk)

Writing solely as a clerk (which means is an arb disagrees, it isn't "tied" you should follow their advice), I would say no (re any more evidence). I say this for two main reasons:
 * 1) Evidence related to VictorD7 has been cited, primarily in the Workshop. The arbs are not constrained to look at only diffs provided. Diff in evidence are a starting point, not an ending point for material to review.
 * 2) The main areas of disagreement appears to center on how best to measure the progressivity of US taxes. The economics profession has not (AFAIK) reached  a consensus on this issue, so it is unlikely that Wikipedia editors can (or even should) reach such a consensus, and it is even more certain that Arbcom is not interested in determining the best may to do the measure. (there is broad agreement on the general measure, but the devil is in the details.) The articles ought to be reflecting the disparity of opinion about the alternatives, the curious and frustrating fact that differences in approach lead to markedly different conclusions. Attempting to solve the underlying economic issue via Arbcom is doomed to failure. Arbcom can help ensure that adherents to various views are acting according to Wikipedia conduct policies.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I've restored the failure to strike though an incorrect User wikilink. As to whether Talk page conduct relates to the case, I think it does, whether your specific conduct does seems open to question, as described below. My recourse to WP policy jargon is partially and expedient means for intelligibly describing conduct, and I've indicated that I understand that it is something of a gray area to refer to OR and SYNTH with respect to Talk page discussions. I would prefer to wait for an Arbitrator to weigh in before admitting that I was wrong to bring the matter up at all. Of course I'd apologize for doing so if that were deemed to be the case.
 * I've just posted this link on the workshop in response to VictorD7. It is the same link posted above with an excerpt of the answer provided by LK. After briefly perusing the sources, I did two quick searches, one for "state taxes" and the other for "total taxation" (as per VictorD7's question to LK, but got not hits on either. I don't have time to go through those sources or analyze whether they say what VictorD7 claims they say or not, but in light of the exchange between talk and LK on the Talk page and this revert, it seems like a viable question.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 19:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

WHY are these topics being raised here? The diffs deal with on-going article talk page discussions. The evidence phase of the arbitration is closed. I urge you two to look at the last sentence of the introductory paragraph at the top of this page. "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." In my opinion, adding new diffs to the Workshop discussion is not helpful. Adding diffs and asking for apologies here is disruptive. – S. Rich (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, because I started looking into a single thread which led to a single revert which opened a can of worms, basically. I wasn't expecting this to mushroom, but once I found what seemed to be a graph that might have been compiled from various sources along with other suggestions on the Talk page that were being combined to justify excluding four RS and delete a sentence that seems to more accurately reflect RS than what is in the article now, I decided to ask whether I should post the material as evidence, precisely because the official evidence phase of the case has closed.
 * I've since discussed the graph with Mattnad and cleared that up for the most part, as it is apparent that he wasn't doing OR, just combining a couple of graphs from what I gather is RS.
 * I suppose that it is in fact the case that I got involved in the content dispute (an unintended consequence involving time consuming examination of sources, etc.) aspect due to the discussion o the Workshop page, so I came here asking for advice.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My statement about an apology was rhetorical and referenced his mention of apology in the preceding post, S. Rich, and if you're referring to my addition of diffs to the Workshop page (from my Evidence section; not new), that was after reading Newyorkbrad's suggestion  that participants do so. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have closed this thread, because it appears to have descended into inter-party discussion, which I would like to avoid. If there is a question that remains unanswered, please put it to us again (concisely) and we will assist. AGK [•] 21:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Separate question related to ongoing conduct of the sort presented in the evidence phase
With some trepidation, I am compelled to ask whether ongoing behavior similar to that which has already been presented in the form of diffs and analysis pertaining to separate articles would be of interest to the Committee at this stage. This is unrelated to the previous question. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * More evidence is always helpful, so you may submit further evidence to this page. However, the evidence may not be fully taken into account due to the constraints of time. You also must notify editors who you mention in supplementary submissions, so that they can rebut if they so wish. AGK  [•] 14:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you. For the moment, I'll just post links to two discussions related to sourcing in which I find to be engaging in conduct similar to that which I submitted in the evidence phase, some of which relates to misrepresentation of this source, which he diminutively characterizes as a mere book review after an apparent consensus had been reached that it was RS for the text concerned, and after this edit had already been carried out. It would be necessary to read that source in full in order to appreciate its scope, which certainly exceeds that of a book review however, offering some fairly in depth analysis of political schools of thought, geopolitics, etc.

There is also tendentiousness in the discussions.
 * 1) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
 * 2) Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What this is "evidence" of is the fact that you have a serious problem with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Collect's comments there are right on target. Can evidence be "boomeranged"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As with all other proceedings of this nature, the behavior of all involved is under scrutiny. In other words (without commenting on whether that is the case here) yes. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My participation on the noticeboards was absolutely proper and in line with the policies applicable to such noticeboards, and Ubikwit is verging on WP:HARASS at this point. He was long since disinvited from posting on my UT page, and his comments on the noticeboards are rife with ad hominem arguments, alas.    As noted before, I shall not participate in trying to disprove his claims, as they fail of their own weight IMO. Collect (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's rather late in the process here, but as Volunteer Marek has joined the party, I submit that his editing and talk page conduct on articles falling under the scope of this case should be subject to scrutiny a well. The final link is to an ongoing An/I thread, which I'm not sure is something that falls under the remit of the Committee at this point in time, but it will surely be resolved before this case is. The other links are two pages relating to the discussions already linked to above regarding the conduct of Collect. Note that it may be the case that User:Iryna Harpy is in need of a little guidance regarding her conduct on the repsective RS/N and BLP/N threads. I will notify her, but since the nature of the issues from my perspective will be clear from out interaction in those discussions, the only other reference necessary is to her User Talk page.
 * 1) problematic edit summaries, section blanking, etc.
 * 2) [Talk:Victoria_Nuland#BLP_restart failure to engage in discussion on Talk page after page blanking revert, disrupting the WP:BRD cycle]
 * 3) Same as above
 * 4) removal of more than two-year consensus version text, repeatedly reverting attempts to restore without engaging on Talk page, again disrupting BRD cycle
 * 5) [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.E2.80.8EUser:Volunteer_Marek_deleting_well-sourced_material_from_Robert_Kagan_article_w.2Ffalse_recourse_to_BLP]
 * 6) Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * O jeez freakin' christ. This is, what, sixth? Seventh? venue that you bring this up in? And that's AFTER you've ALREADY been told to quit it with the WP:FORUMSHOPPING! When other people, and I'm not referring here to myself, tell you to drop the stick and walk away, it's a really BAD idea to double down. If these people tell you, you shouldn't double down when you don't get the answer you want, you don't make matters even worse by starting to spamm your request to any barely relevant page or request.
 * I've joined the party by making a short comment. I haven't even been aware of this ArbCom case until like two hours ago. You've gone full on WP:BATTLEGROUND mode. With regard to me. And User:Iryna Harpy whose only crime appears to be that she didn't agree with you at WP:BLP and WP:RSN. You're starting to really annoy people and are not exactly earning marks for collaborative behavior. Before I thought you just needed a topic ban to get you away from a topic area you are not suitable to edit. Now it looks like you need some serious mentorship and if that doesn't work, a site ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * VM, though I don't find your colorful language interesting, other's might.
 * Regarding User:Iryna Harpy, her first comment to me ever was made with an edit comment accusing me of WP:GAME. Considering that we had never interacted before on this site, that represents an egregious violation of WP:AGF. She will have to answer for that herself, however, as you are not her proxy.
 * `Arbitrators, I would like to suggest that User:Collect is something of a WP:DIVA at BLP/N with supports lurking lying in wait for a chance to support his pronouncements there, and I refer to the comments in the Workshop by User:Cube lurker, etc., as partial testimony to that. And when I queried Cube lurker regarding evidence or a proposed finding pertaining to BLP issues, his reply was that it didn't matter that there was none. He seems to basically have intended to vouch for the character of Collect, insinuating that I was missing the "forest for the trees".
 * With regard to Iryna, I don't know the history of her activity on BLP/N or with Collect and don't have time to look into that, but her immediate accusation of forum shopping without first maybe asking me a question or trying to engage me with regard to the possible perception of forum shopping is suspect. her comment here, in response to this comment by Collect makes me wonder, because the comments are fully attributed to the Russian Prime Minister, not "stated as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia".
 * Though this is the very first BLP issue in which I've engaged at the BLP/N, the comment by User:FormerIP at ES/N coincides with my understanding of WP:RS in general. FormerIP's comment was completely ignored by Collect, who apparently didn't hear it-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:56, 17:06 23 May 2014 (UTC)--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am an individual wikipedian in good standing. I am part of no cabal.  Also I rarely contribute to articles at the locus of this case.  That I supported Collect on the workshop means that in my opinion he is correct.  I stand by my opinions as mine and mine alone.  It is not against wiki policy to disagree with you.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Did I ever say it was against Wikipedia policy to disagree with me? I simply asked for the rationale that was the basis of you statements, as they appeared to relate to matters not addressed in the case, but rather to be a sort of character reference, as described above in the amended text.
 * The crux of the matter is that although you assert that Collect was correct in your opinion, there is no substantial matter in this case with respect to which your opinion has a counterpart. That is to say, and I repeat myself, basically, there was not a single BLP issue raised in the case, though you supported Collect in terms of his being right in BLP battles, as you yourself opined.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We have differences of opinion. That is fine.  My objection is on this page you characterizing me as one "lurking in wait for a chance to support his pronouncements".  I am no ones "support"  I am no "meatpuppet".  I am a man with an opinion who gave it in the appropriate workshop section.  Feel free to disagree.  Do not feel free to turn me in to some sort of linked ally of anyone.--Cube lurker (talk)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, I should have been wary of the fact that "lurker" is part of your use name. I'll strike that phrasing (though I can only replace it with "lying"). The gist of my statement was made with reference to the following passage from the WP:DIVA essay. Please have look. Thanks."A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally 'the best' editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Accepted. With regards to that DIVA essay it touches on a difficult area.  People who question an editors work may be attacked by supporters due to some cult of personality   True.  People who question an editors work may be attacked by supporters because the editor is correct.  Also True.  It's possible that there will be a mix of both groups in the same discussion.  It would be wrong to assume that because someone has people agreeing with them, they must be wrong and only supported due to a "loyal following".  I can only speak for myself in that I try to only support people when I believe they're correct.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

break
I'll try to keep this as brief as possible, and echo Cube lurker's sentiments regarding being an individual who has worked with numerous editors collaboratively over the years. If there is some sort of cabal involved here, I plead ignorance to its existence.

My only interest in Ubikwit's involvement in editing Wikipedia was triggered by noting that he/she was pushing for tendentious BLP content in two forums simultaneously. In fact, I'd tried to make a discrete observation on both pages about WP:ADMINSHOP first on the RS/N as a "comment", then on the BLP/N noting that it could be potentially construed as WP:GAME in the edit summary.

I didn't get the chance to make any comments regarding the content being promoted for a BLP as WP:Coatrack, hence better left for appropriate articles dealing with the subject matter, due to Ubikwit's predisposition for posting walls of text at a remarkably rapid rate. Perhaps his/her treating all content matters as a race might explain the misunderstanding of VM's removal of inappropriate content for a BLP by an SPA IP user as being removal of content from a 'consensus' version which had stood for 2 years. I most certainly couldn't establish any consensus for this content on the talk page (unless 2 editors working on it in 2012 constitutes consensus); neither was it the content which had stood for 2 years.

As to assertions by Ubikwit that I could do with mentoring, I invite admins to track all of my contributions and the copious WP:BRD discussions I have initiated in order to establish due and undue content, working seriously and collaboratively on creating NPOV content right across the board. As has been suggested above, it is Ubikwit who is in need of mentoring (at the least). According to him/her, It is appropriate practice to ask a user on their user page if they may have a COI, hence posting COI? as a section heading on an unknown-quantity user's talk page (that is, me) is obviously AGF. I've yet to encounter such practices as standard communication unless identified editing practice patterns have suggested it to be warranted. In any other circumstances, such inferences are downright uncivil.

I'm concerned with Ubikwit's general attitude to actually checking the history of articles, editors' history, and simply paying attention to anyone other than those s/he wants to listen to. Approaching Wikipedia as a race, a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and other WP:NOTHERE issues is detrimental to the project. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, Iryna's very first interaction with me on this site involved an accusation in her edit summary that I was WP:GAME, which was not only unsubstantiated and a violation of WP:AF, but disruptive. Firstly, it was an allegation of misconduct, which, if she thought could be substantiated should have been raised at AN/I instead of used to disrupt the content discussion. Secondly, it spanned a scope encompassing two articles, and two separate--though not entirely unrelated--sourcing discussions.
 * Iryna's appearance at the BLP/N discussion occurred after material had been restored to the Kagan article and Collect had tried to dismiss the FA piece as a mere book review, while VM concurrently was attempted to misrepresent the FA article by asserting that the author actually considers Kagan to be a realist instead of a neoconservative on the pretext of a cherry-picked quote taken out of context and. I responded to both Collect and VM's dubious mischaracterizations of the source in a single comment. at that stage, the issue on the Nuland article related to the phone conversation had been stabilized, and the ES/N post related to comments attributed to the Russian prime minister and to a page where the comments of three other prominent public officials were presented, on the one hand, and to the allegations regarding Nuland's interference in the internal affairs of Russia as well as Ukraine, in relation to which there are numerous other sources, such as this Western Diplomats Are Going to Disappoint Ukraine’s Protesters, Time Magazine, December 13, 2013 mainstream media RS, which I was compelled to quote a paragraph from toward the end of the RS/N discussion as content unrelated to the initial question had been introduced. I expressed my willingness to adress her concerns relating to the content dispute, and referenced WP:BATTLE.
 * Iryna's language was somewhat bizarre to me, so I decided to check her User page and noticed that she had a box declaring"This user is a proud descendant of the Zaporozhian Cossacks."Since %90 of my knowledge about the Cossacs is derived from reading about events surrounding the recent crisis regarding the Crimean peninsula and Ukraine, and considering that Ukraine comprises areas seeing episodes of armed conflict, I decided to leave a query regarding any potential COI at her User page, which I believe is appropriate practice, and I have once before had occasion to do same.
 * After asking her to use plain English and for clarification as to what she meant, she responded in colored/bolded text that"I don't really get the allusions to an 'end game' here, but this is of course related to the Ukraine crisis, just from another angle..."That quote, in turn, she had lifted from my post at RS/N here..
 * She also hurled a tit-for-tat accusation of COI at me in the comment as per the preceding diff from the BLP/N page.
 * Note that regarding the SPA to which she refers, I agree that the content in question doesn't belong in the article and have myself reverted that. However, the scope of the content being removed was far broader, encompassing a 2+-year consensus text pertaining to the "neoconservative" characterization and accompanying sourcing. Had VM simply removed that material and not tried to misrepresent the FA article and dismiss the Guardian piece, as shown in this exchange between him and User:Nomoskedasticity, none of these issues would have been brought about.
 * One last point I'd like to have considered relates to something I mentioned in the above-diffed joint response to Collect/VM, and that pertains to sourcing and BLPs. I understand the need for more stringent standards for BLP sourcing, but with respect to syndicated columnists like Krugman (use in Robert P. Murphy BLP vis-avia Austrian Economics arbitration) and William Pfaff (exclusion of refcite from Kagan article), the attempts to exclude their statements (or even simply refcites) from BLPs seems to be a significant and continual source of friction on the project. The attempt to arbitrarily dismiss Voice of Russia seems to me a related issue, thought the BLP issue is peripheral to the blanket dismissal thereof as RS. Clarification on those points with respect to policy is desirable.
 * In closing, I would like to draw attention to the fact that I raised the policy WP:PUBLICFIGURE directly on numerous occasion, eliciting not a single response from the other editors on the relevant discussion pages. I consider that to further demonstrate that there was an I didn't heat that form of obstruction aimed at manipulating the outcome of the respective content discussions one example.-- and the bandying of COI "questions" is insulting to many editors. Just as being an Arab or Jew is not a "COI" with regard to the IP issues. WP:COI does not remotely come close to calling such tenuous connections a "conflict of interest" and I fear trying to use it as a bungee cord to attack other editors is a significant issue here.   Second, the repeated erroneous assertion that I would exclude VoR as a source is getting tiresome - the issue is whether Wikipedia's voice should be used to make an opinion of a person being quoted into a fact about a living person.   This has been stated several times now, and should be noted as in accord with WP:BLP as policy.  Collect (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Submission received. Thank you, AGK  [•] 12:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)