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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

(Moved from User talk:AGK) Race and politics parties

(Moved from my talk page. AGK [•] 06:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC))  In my statement in the race and politics case, I said if the case is accepted I would present some evidence about ArtifexMayhem's editing of the articles covered by the case. But the case doesn't include him as a party, even though he is one of the people in the dispute. Does that mean I can't present evidence about him, or if I do Arbcom will not be allowed to act on it? Akuri (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The committee prefers that whether or not somebody is a "party" to the dispute not become a source of contention, so I will proceed to allow evidence on ArtifexMayhem to be submitted. However, before you submit your evidence, please: (1) clearly notify him at his talk page that you intend to submit evidence, giving a link to the case page; (2) in the same notification, draw his attention to this thread; and (3) leave a note here once you have done so. If he objects to being named as a party (I expect he will not do so, if he has edited the articles involved in this case), he should say so here, at which point I will direct my colleagues to make a ruling as to whether to exclude him. If he does not do so, he should also say so here (at which stage his name would be added to the list of parties). The committee can generally act on any evidence given at any stage of the case, and the list of involved parties is merely for informational purposes, but we do expect as a matter of best practice that editors be made aware when their conduct is being scrutinised in an arbitration case—simply so they have the opportunity to respond to evidence submitted about their conduct. I hope this is all clear enough. Thank you, AGK [•] 06:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

AGK, looking at ArtifexMayhem's own submission and editing record, he has never been blocked, and there is no evidence whatsoever of the following statement, "ArtifexMayhem's edits have been near-exclusively on the topic of human race and ethnicity. That's not a problem in itself, it's also somewhat true of me, but more than half of his content edits also are made up of section blanking and reverts, and it's always to advocate the same perspective that whites are to blame for other ethnic groups' troubles." Here are his last five hundred content edits.[1] Discounting edits related to R&I (i.e. where the talk page of an article like Race and crime in the United States carries the WP:ARBR&I banner), he has made edits concerning climate change, the 911 terrorist attacks, the US constitution, LGBT parenting, cold fusion, fringe science and vampires, amongst other things. He has never been reported on any noticeboard nor involved in any arbcom case concerning R&I. R&I clearly is not the same as race and politics. It is true that an R&I-related editor created New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, but that's as far as it goes. ArtifexMayhem has no history of contributing to topics in Race and politics. He has made five edits in the last three weeks to White privilege. It would be easier to make a case for listing either Newyorkbrad or NuclearWarfare as parties. Mathsci (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite: we must be very clear now that this case was not opened to examine 'race and intelligence' (commonly shortened to "R&I") but rather 'race and politics'. For the purpose of simplicity, White privilege as a whole is taken to fall within the scope of this case, even thought the "privilege" discussed by that article is economic and social as well as political. If ArtifexMayhem has made substantive edits to White privilege then he may be added as a party, but if he has only made five edits then it is unlikely he would require scrutiny by the committee unless he has also made edits to other articles involved in this case.

Mathsci and Akuri's evaluation of ArtifexMayhem's involvement in this dispute are markedly at odds, and I am disinclined to undertake my own investigation (I would prefer to stay at arm's length from these types of questions), so I will simply reiterate my previous directions and remind everyone that, if Artifex objects to being named as a party, we will wait for Akuri's evidence to be submitted and then make a ruling as to whether the evidence is out of scope and Artifex should be omitted from the list of parties. AGK [•] 11:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have concerns about Rgambord remaining a party on this case. My reading of the situation was that he named himself as a party to this case without knowing exactly what he was getting into. I mentioned as much to him on his talk page. He appears not to have edited for the last week, and indeed never substantially edited at the articles mentioned in the original filing, to my knowledge anyway. And based on the discussion at his talk page and an ANI case here, which was an outgrowth of a case I filed, he does not intend to come back anytime soon. I could be wrong about that, but I don't see that his input would have a lot to do with the ostensible topic of the case. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 08:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• If evidence about his conduct is not submitted, then his name may be deleted once the committee start voting on a proposed decision for this case. Up until that stage, if he added himself unnecessarily as a party then it is exceedingly unlikely anyone will submit evidence about his conduct (if there was evidence to submit, someone would already have added him as a party). Removing him now might be easiest, but we can usually only add people to the list of parties (not delete them) while the evidence phase is open; conversely, people cannot be added as parties once we start voting, but they can very easily be deleted because it will have became clear at that stage that they have nothing to do with the dispute. AGK [•] 11:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

nature of evidence section

would it be useful to repeat material from preliminary statements for purposes of organizing/highlighting, or can it be sort of "incorporated by reference"? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)