Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 18 May 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Scope?

The scope is set out below. AGK 00:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a longer Evidence phase?

The evidence phase now runs until 10 May 2014. AGK 00:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification sought

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.

Parties to the case

Preparation of a formal list of parties will not be required for this case. In similar previous cases, discussion about who are the parties has distracted the committee from resolving the dispute. As long as all editors whose conduct is being reviewed are notified of the case, and made aware in later stages of the case that sanctions may be proposed against them, it does not ultimately matter whether a given editor was formally named as a "party" or not.

• ]

The scope is "Misconduct in the area of American Politics by 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 and old disputes

Deadlines

Evidence must be submitted by 10 May 2014. Evidence will no longer be accepted has started. (refresh).

During the fortnight following 10 May 2014, you may workshop proposals at the Workshop page. We will also evaluate the evidence during this time; this may take place off-wiki. We will notify editors who will be named in the proposed decision during, or immediately after, this fortnight.

We aim to publish our proposed decision by 24 May 2014. The committee should complete voting on the decision in the next week, by the end of May 2014.

Submitting evidence

You may bring evidence only about edits that fall within the scope of this case. After submitting evidence, a clerk or arbitrator will notify the editor that they have been named in the case. They will then have the opportunity to rebut the evidence about them, on the Evidence talk page, and to submit their own evidence.

Proper notification of editors

To reiterate the above, editors will be notified by the committee, on their talk page, if they:

• are mentioned in any evidence submission; and/or
• are or will be mentioned in the drafters' proposed decision.

Notified editors will have ample time to respond before the case proceeds to the next phase.

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

Accusations of synthesis

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: <link>". 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)

@Casprings: 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

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

70.36.142.114 (talk · contribs) – You are participating in this arbitration case as an anonymous editor. Is this because you do not have, and have never had, a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

@Collect: 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

@MrX: 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)

@VictorD7: 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 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)

Writegeist 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Collect I guess that someone who repeatedly compares

1. their restriction on a tiny number of articles on an immense website with
2. the massacre of thousands and thousands of men, women and children in 13th-century Béziers

is 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 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 <g>)

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 " criticism demands 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#Recusal of arbitrators, is to refer the request to the Committee for a ruling. It seems like the appropriate place to do that would be Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Workshop#Motions and requests by the parties, 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 Arzel. 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)

AGK, 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Workshop#Analysis_of_VictorD7.27s_evidence 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. However, the progressiveness of the US tax system is reduced by state and local taxes, which tends on the whole to be regressive.

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.

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_{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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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_{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_{見学/迷惑} 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)