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

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

Case clerks: Ks0stm (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: AGK (Talk)

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.

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. AGK
2. Carcharoth
3. Courcelles
4. David Fuchs
5. Kirill Lokshin
6. Roger Davies
7. Salvio giuliano
8. Timotheus Canens
9. Worm That Turned

Inactive:

1. Risker
2. SilkTork

Recused:

1. Newyorkbrad
2. NuclearWarfare

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(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 notified him. [2] I'll present my evidence soon. Akuri (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

MathSci's summary is correct. I have no objection to being named. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

AGK, can I present my evidence anytime now, or first do I have to wait for ArtifexMayhem to be added as a party? Also, my evidence is just under 1000 words. Is that allowed, or am I restricted to 500 words because I'm not named as a party myself? Akuri (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You can submit the evidence now. I will ask a clerk to add ArtifexMayhem as a party to the case (which should take a day or two), but you do not need to wait for that to happen. Thank you, AGK [•] 12:44, 15 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

nature of evidence section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

Generally, you should include it in your evidence. Arbitrators tend not to refer back to the original statements very often, so anything you want us to consider now needs to be said on the Evidence page. Thank you, AGK [•] 12:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit histories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that Akuri intends to present evidence against ArtifexMayhem. I wonder how, then, Akuri's contributions and edit history should be treated given that he or she might have used a substantial number of different ips before creating an account? (Indeed, in looking at some of the edits it appears to me that Akuri has cited policy to justify explicitly not creating an account.) Would it be acceptable to use contribs listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Akuri, for instance, if there is some reason to provide counterexamples? That seems like it could be a thorny proposition.

I didn't have any substantial interaction with either of these parties before this filing, but it does seem like the lack of a substantial, cohesive edit history might theoretically allow someone to evade scrutiny for their own edits while criticizing those of another editor.

Is there some relevant precedent or existing guidance for this? I can't claim to be aware of much precedent at all to begin with, and certainly none relevant to this situation. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The only precedent is for evidence submitted by an account that was later discovered to be operated by a banned editor. For example, in MickMacNee a sock of John254 was discovered to have been submitting evidence and making edits to the workshop; in that case, the sock's evidence was deleted and workshop comments stricken. Best might be to ask Akuri to clarify which of the IPs in the category you linked are his and which are not, so that his past contributions can be presented in evidence if necessary. If he refuses to do so, you should contact the functionaries to ask for an investigation. However, if the anonymous edits you think might need to be scrutinised do not have anything to do with race and politics or this case, then Akuri's past edits are an irrelevancy—so what you should do depends quite heavily on whether the committee really does need to consider Akuri's edits as an anonymous editor. Many editors choose not to create an account at the beginning of their wiki-career, and this is perfectly permitted by policy; we would only look at Akuri's past anonymous edits if (and only if) they relate directly to Race and politics. (Also, as a courtesy to him, please draw Akuri's attention to this thread.) Thank you, AGK [•] 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Akuri's evidence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ArtifexMayhem has been editing wikipedia since May 2011. Akuri's first statement only analyses ArtifexMayhem's edits in 2013. The diffs for the second statement, however, go back to 2012 or before and many of them are related to Race and intelligence, e.g. for the article Race (human classification), which has a section on that topic. The rough categorization of ArtifexMayhem's content edits is as follows:

• Race and intelligence: 55 + 18 + 14 + 7 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 134
• American constitution and civil rights: 61 + 11 + 8 + 8 + 7 = 95
• Abortion: 18 + 7 = 25
• September 11 terrorist attacks: 29 + 16 + 8 + 7 + 4 = 64
• Fringe science: 12 + 12 + 10 + 8 + 7 + 5 + 5 = 60
• Climate change: 5
• Religion and moral issues: 8 + 7 + 6 = 21
• Same sex marriage: 5 + 4 = 9

plus other miscellaneous topics. Less than a third of ArtifexMayhem's content edits fall within the category Race and intelligence. The same would be true for many editors (e.g. Professor marginalia, aprock, etc). Akuri's evidence is misleading and inaccurate. It appears to be an attempt to push this case towards Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence 3. At this stage, after almost 3 years, one of the main issues and headaches with WP:ARBR&I has become sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and accounts created under suspicious circumstances (e.g. Zeromus1 and Mors Martell). After the IP range used by Akui was blocked twice, Akuri's account has fallen under suspicion, according to Timotheus Canens, who made the second block in consultation with another checkuser: Akuri is now apparently editing using open proxies. The main parties in this quite different case are Apostle12 and UseTheCommandLine. The issues are completely separate and complicated enough; ultimately it will be a question of user conduct. Other editors are better placed than me to comment on the special problems here. But that is easier to do without an unwarranted and irrelevant side-show staged by a recently created account with less than 40 content edits. Mathsci (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand the background correctly. Akuri (talk · contribs) is a recently registered single-purpose account, has an extensive pre-existing knowledge of Wikipedia's arcane processes, focuses on an area infested with sockpuppets of banned editors, seamlessly promotes the same agenda and pursues the same feuds as those sockpuppets, and has taken steps to camouflage his IP address via proxies and anonymizers? Is there some way that this doesn't meet our standard criteria for identifying sockpuppets? MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

AGK, can you tell me if what Mathsci is saying has any bearing on how Arbcom will receive my evidence? I know this case isn't meant to focus on the race and intelligence topic, but I see no reason why certain articles would not be within the scope of more than one arbitration case. For example I would assume edits to the Race (human classification) article could be relevant in any arbitration case that has "race" in the title. In addition, Apostle12's edits pertaining to race and crime were one of the central topics in the ANI thread that led to arbitration. When a discussion at ANI leads to arbitration, as happened with the discussion about Apostle12's edits related to race and crime, I would assume the same topic discussed at ANI would be within the scope of the case. If that's wrong, I'd like to know so I can change my evidence before the evidence deadline.

I'd also like you to tell me if the things Mathsci has brought up about my editing history will have any impact on what Arbcom does. The Devil's Advocate suggested to me that whenever Mathsci follows me to new discussions and posts off-topic things about me, it's best for me to ignore him, because his posts like that probably won't have any meaningful impact if I ignore them. Letting him say whatever he wants about me to Arbcom seems risky, so if I'm to do that I would like some confirmation that it's safe to do. Akuri (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

MastCell brought up the very serious problems with Akuri's editing history. Timotheus Canens has equally well expressed his opinions. I would imagine that all arbitrators would find that a tenth edit like this on User talk:Courcelles, the first of many such edits, was a bit of a problem.[3]: "Now that FPAS again did what he was told not to do, I think that "next step" mentioned by Sir Fozzie should happen now. But I don't know how to make that happen. Could you please explain what I need to do to get the arbitrators to address Future Perfect at Sunrise's irresponsibility with his admin powers? I also ask that you please explain what you meant by "a wider-ranging case", e.g. who it must include for you to accept it."' Akuri has been straining at the leash for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence 3. It doesn't matter who: Aprock, Professor Marginalia, ArtifexMayhem, Future Perfect at Sunrise, MastCell, KillerChihuahua, Dougweller, etc. It's just a repetition of the Chester Markel/Alessandra Napolitano phenomeneon. Mathsci (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Akuri now blocked

NuclearWarfare has now indefinitely blocked Akuri. It was pretty inevitable that was going to happen. I have removed my evidence. Please could ArtifexMayhem now be removed as a party and Akuri's evidence be removed. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We will deal with that later in the case. Thank you, AGK [•] 10:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Am I correct in assuming that any concerns regarding my behavior raised by Akuri's evidence will be brought up on the workshop page? — 01:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Blah, sig fail. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Proper focus

I am confused as to what the proper focus should be now that the title of the case has been changed to "Race and Politics." Specifically, is the focus to be on my "Talk" contributions and my editing, or is the focus to become the general subject of race and politics?

Even though I agreed to many changes during the recent ANI discussion and fully heeded Administrator Sandstein's discretionary sanctions warning, Usethecommandline reiterates every accusation against me, including those made by other editiors during preliminary discussion. While it doesn't take much time for her to make general statements and list diffs, it is much more time-consuming to defend against such accusations. Also many of the diffs do not seem relevant (quite a number provided by UTCL, and especially those copied from Artifax Mayhem's statement), and many of the diffs require expanded context to understand the nature of the surrounding discussions. I certainly cannot reply to every accusation within the 1,000 word limit, yet not responding would seem to indicate acceptance.

So, should I spend my 1000 words defending myself as best I can, or should I instead discuss the topic of editing WP articles whose general subject is "Race and politics," broadly construed.

Also Usethecommandline indicates that she is "not done yet," even though her statement already exceeds the 1,000 word limit. Should I wait until she is done to make sure I give proper consideration to all the issues she raises? Apostle12 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The scope is the same as it always was: the content dispute at White privilege and related pages, and the conduct of you and all the other parties to that content dispute. You should simply submit your evidence, and try to keep your rebuttal of other parties' evidence to a minimum; we arbitrators will evaluate the merit of submissions, and will not require other parties to do that for us. Therefore, there will be no need for you to wait for CommandLine to finish their submission—and I would encourage you to submit your evidence now, because the evidence submission deadline is in four days. Thank you, AGK [•] 10:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My edits

I don't know whether this is appropriate here, but I have compiled what I believe is the entirety of my Talk page and User talk page edits relevant to this case, as diff links.

• This does not include the past several days, from when I compiled this list originally, but those should be relatively easy to find in my contribs list.

I do this as a courtesy to other editors, especially Apostle12, who may be having difficulty using diffs. Currently I am not welcome on his talk page.

This can be found at User:UseTheCommandLine/sandbox/Apostle12

It is rough, and does not include edits from the last few days, but I believe it to include all of my edits from the pages at issue:

Talk:White privilege

Talk:Huey P. Newton

Talk:Black Panther Party

as well as edits from Apostle12's own talk page and Marie Paradox's talk page (where there has been some back-and-forth with Apostle12). For the most part it does not include noticeboards or the like, but I would be happy to add those if it were necessary. As it stands it is still a few hundred, but that is much better in my mind than sifting through more than a thousand edits.

I have not limited this to my interactions with Apostle12 in this list, because that would be much more time consuming for me.

I do want this to be fair. I know my own edits may be at issue too, and I need to feel absolutely sure that I am not soft-pedaling things based on my sometimes unreliable memory. I feel the only way to do that is to hold myself up to additional scrutiny, and make it easy for people to tell me exactly what i have done wrong, and when. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• this may not be absolutely complete, but I have not attempted to massage this list in any way. I did some text processing voodoo stuff, and did remove a couple of diffs that seemed out of place, without actually looking at them. This is my best effort, and it may be imperfect. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I should include the main pages as well. I will work on that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Added, and put in time sequence order, at User:UseTheCommandLine/sandbox/Apostle12/chronology

Petition for relaxation of length requirements

There are three incidents I would like to highlight longitudinally -- the already complete (though needing paring down) "Lumsden incident", as well as the "Schneider incident" and the "Frey incident", referring in the first case to the author of a reference, and in the second and third cases to people associated with Huey Newton.

I think it will be instructive to ArbCom to see how these specific incidents progressed. I have the Schneider portion mostly ready to go, and threaded for both the main page, talk page, and the, for lack of a better term, hooks for noticeboard discussion.

I would be happy to collapse them individually, offloading them from the main page. I do feel like these incidents are central to my issues with Apostle12's sourcing, and they include a significant number of my responses and the input of other editors in addition to Apostle12's edits.

I will endeavor also to cut down the existing Evidence section, but I expect that my word length may need to be increased to ~1500, and perhaps diffs as well to 150. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If the current form is acceptable I will leave it at that. The "Lumsden" section could be threaded in the same way as the other two longitudinal sections, potentially removing enough words to bring it in under the limit, but I'm not sure where else to remove the diffs from. I intended the longitudinal sections as mostly-complete chronologies, so I have included everything I perceived as germane to those disputes. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed Lumsden, as I have not heard anything. Waiting on the bot to say how many words/diffs it is. Hopefully this is close enough to be ok. I think it's under 1000 words, but it may be slightly more than 100 diffs. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to use more words given the use of fewer diffs

I haven't used many diffs (22 of the 100 allowed) because my objections are not easily demonstrated by diffs. My current word count is above 1,500 and I will trim that as much as possible.

I would point out that I am attempting to respond to allegations made by several parties. I would appreciate some flexibility in the length of my submission, essentiually a trade of diffs for words.

Thanks! Apostle12 (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Knocked a couple hundred words off. Sorry I couldn't do more. Need to scramble my password and be done with this. Apostle12 (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)