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

In the dispute, some editors believe that Arzel acts on the belief that Wikipedia reflects a "liberal bias". He thinks that mainstream media and academic writing reflect this bias and tries to correct that, by balancing "liberal" views with "conservative" ones. However, that is contrary to the policy of neutrality, which requires views to be presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Many editors believe that he has shown WP:Battleground behavior in correcting these perceived biases.

On the other hand, some editors feel that the RFC itself is an example of battleground behavior. They believe the RFC is supported by numerous left-leaning editors due to their objections to the right-leaning editor disagreeing with edits they make that largely favor their left-leaning views. They argue that there is a group of partisan editors objecting to another editor impeding their efforts to make Wikipedia articles more partisan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Goethean

AGK's statement is puzzling, as Arzel was an involved party to the Tea Party Movement case, but avoided sanctions. Arzel undoubtedly sees that outcome as vindicating his behavior.

Outside View by Robert McClenon

I don't have a clue what Casprings is asking the ArbCom to do. The ArbCom has the power to ban Arzel. I don't think that is in order. I disagree with Arzel and think that he is a biased right-wing editor, but he is no more biased than some other right-wing editors. The ArbCom has the power to impose topic bans or interaction bans on Arzel. In the RFC, I didn't see any identification of any particular editing restrictions that would be appropriate. I agree with AGK and disagree with Goethean as to the Tea Party Movement. Arzel was not sanctioned, but the area was put under discretionary sanctions, so that if Arzel blanks any sources that he dislikes (possibly because they criticize the TPM), he can be sanctioned. It is true that Arzel's controversial edits have gone beyond the TPM to American politics in general, but Casprings doesn't propose a remedy. I would ask the ArbCom to delay a decision on whether to accept or decline for two or three days and give Casprings a chance to explain exactly what he or she is asking the ArbCom to do about or to Arzel. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Based on the most recent statement by Casprings, it appears that the real problem is the Casprings and Arzel do not like each other. If any action is to be taken, it should be an interaction ban. I disagree with Arzel's view that biased sources should not be used at all. They can be used as to reliable content by filtering out their bias. Because he has a habit of deleting such information, the purpose of the user conduct RFC, Arzel is a biased right-wing editor, but he is no more biased than other biased editors who are allowed to edit. Wikipedia can deal with editors like Arzel by discussing and reverting their deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a more effective ArbCom, I would recommend that this case be taken for the purpose of an interaction ban. I do not think that the "community" at the noticeboards does well at dealing with such conflicts. However, it appears that the current ArbCom does not do well at dealing with contentious areas (which is its purpose) either. I do not want to see this case further delay the adjudication of real issues such as gun control or Austrian economics, or any such real future areas. Due to the inability of the ArbCom to deal with cases in a timely manner, declining this case is the least undesirable action. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further Update

I still don't understand what Casprings wants. He or she is clearly more optimistic about the ability of the current ArbCom to deal with a poorly stated case, in which the filing party gives very little clue as to why a case is required, than I do. I concur with User:Collect that an interaction ban would be in order. If the ArbCom had a record of timely action in 2014, I would suggest that the ArbCom do this by motion. As it is, I still recommend a decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arzel

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

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

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

IBAN

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

Statement by Collect

If one uses an analogy of fruit ripening to the concept of a case for arbitration ripening, this case is barely at the pollination stage. It appears far more likely to benefit the community and to reduce drama board usage to IBAN Arzel and Casprings at this point, and the TPM bit has naught to do with their apparent grating on each other. An IBAN should be worded in a neutral manner, making no assignment of blame, but simply to facilitate more orderly discussions either editor. Collect (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio: The issue has absolutely naught to do with "American Politics," it has to do with two specific editors who should know better. If one suspects the issue is political, the exact same types of editors are found on all political, sexual, religious, philosophical and economic articles, with parallels in each and every category.

I have suggested in the past at UT:Jimbo that "silly season" edits are a major problem on Wikipedia, with such "major scandals" as traveling with a dog in a protected dog carrier on the roof of a car getting major play on Wikipedia with multiple articles, or having a major Baptist minister being labeled a "homophobe" because he supports the official teachings of that church.

If I recall correctly, the aim of Wikipedia is to produce an actual encyclopedia, not a collection of political, economic, sexual and religious tracts taking aim at anyone who is "wrong" whether they be Palestinians or Israelis, Ukrainians or Russians, Libertarians or Authoritarians, Argentines or British, Labour or Tory, and so on.

If the ArbCom ever decides to do something of real substance they should officially state that any editor who appears to be promoting any specific point of view about a topic in a manner designed to denigrate the topic should be subject to sanctions, for, in practice, it is the "show the world how evil this person or group is, or this topic is" mentality which has caused many problems on the project (looking back at most ArbCom cases, this is what I suggest should be one of the core principles and would have been applicable in many). If this means we do not actually "show how evil that man or group or topic is" then so be it. Collect (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WTT: As I noted, the issue is unrelated to the TPM case completely -- it is an interaction problem between two editors, and thus should be dealt with as such. If the area is "broadened" then it would end up being "all contentious articles, broadly construed" in the long run. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

I think blameless disengagement between the two would be in order. Beyond an iban because it appears that other normally exempted venues have also been the arenas. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

I don't see there being a case here. The fact that some editors on Wikipedia don't like other editors is neither new nor exceptional, nor is it required for folks to collaborate. The filer tried to make the case at the RFC/U and failed to get a clear consensus.

I am disappointed the phrasing of the first two committee declines seem to assume misconduct on the part of Arzel in stating they should be dealt with by enforcement of existing discretionary sanctions. NE Ent 11:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A case would preferable to expanding DS's scope. NE Ent 11:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the RFC has now been closed. NE Ent 02:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

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

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

@Newyorkbrad:

Edit Warring

Revert 1, Revert 2

Personal attacks/incivility/assumptions of bad faith

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

- Mr X 16:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cube Lurker

Placing the entire spectrum of US politics on discretionary sanctions may sound good, but I fear it could turn into a nightmare. Politics seeps into nearly all areas of life, and the number of articles that broadly construed touch on politics is incredibly large. To throw 50% of the encyclolpedia into WP:AE over this disagreement is killing a fly with a cluster bomb.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arzel: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/1/0/5>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

The complaints made at the RFC relate to Arzel's conduct on pages the committee have already arbitrated. Remedies from our earlier decision can therefore be used if Arzel's conduct is continually and significantly disruptive: the complainant should simply request at WP:AE that Arzel be topic-banned under the discretionary sanctions of Tea Party movement. In my judgement, we do not require an arbitration case to recover old ground. Decline. AGK [•] 22:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the conduct on pages not under the scope of Tea Party movement, I do not agree it requires an arbitration case. There simply isn't anything there that the community can't resolve and that requires a full committee hearing. AGK [•] 21:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent, I made no such assumption, nor should my vote be read as though I did. AGK [•] 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see statements as to why this requires a full arbitration case rather than requests for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions already put in place from the Tea Party Movement case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for those who clarified. It does look like this goes farther. Accept. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A note that I have seen and am actively reviewing presented evidence regarding this matter. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks messy. Still thinking about it, but in this case taking the case may actually minimize disruption. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that I have not been ignoring this request, I just don't have much to say about it yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-=== Arzel: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/1/0/6> ===
+=== Arzel: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/1/0/5> ===
 {{anchor|1=Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arzel.2: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 ::* NE Ent, I made no such assumption, nor should my vote be read as though I did. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 *I would like to see statements as to why this requires a full arbitration case rather than requests for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions already put in place from the Tea Party Movement case. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 07:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
+**Thanks for those who clarified. It does look like this goes farther. '''Accept'''. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 *A note that I have seen and am actively reviewing presented evidence regarding this matter. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup> 09:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 :*This looks messy. Still thinking about it, but in this case taking the case may actually minimize disruption. ''[[User:NativeForeigner|NativeForeigner]]'' <sup>[[User talk:NativeForeigner|Talk]]</sup> 06:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:55, 16 April 2014

Requests for arbitration

Arzel

Involved parties

Statement by Casprings