Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Race and politics, Apostle12		3 May 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Race and politics, Apostle12

Initiated by [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ at 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• UseTheCommandLine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Apostle12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rgambord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• Rgambord (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC) This is a signature by Rgambord. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• many others are listed in the linked ANI discussions and RfC/U
• (this list is not intended to be exhaustive; in the past I have been urged to embrace brevity. if the case is taken by arbcom then I will be more than happy to provide abundant additional sourcing and diffs)

Statement by UseTheCommandLine

Much of this may be TL;DR or more appropriate as evidence if a case is opened. See Summary in response to Carcharoth, below.

My initial interactions with Apostle12 were regarding an edit war at White privilege concerning the use of mitigation language in the lead paragraph.

Since then I have interacted with him on a number of articles pertaining to race politics -- mostly Huey P. Newton and sometimes Black Panther Party. My main concerns were initially content-based but it became clear to me that they were largely behavioral.

From my perspective, the carelessness of Apostle12's sourcing decisions and POVPUSH behavior (which I made a nuisance of myself over at a repeated ANI filing), combined with his repeated, incredibly offensive comments about people of color on multiple talk pages (with extensive ANI discussion) suggest to me that Apostle12 is not an editor that can be reasoned with or negotiated with.

Through multiple conversations on talk pages and multiple RSN discussions it has been established that sources he frequently uses (Kate Coleman, and in some respects Hugh Pearson) for information in Huey P. Newton and Black Panther Party are at best sketchy, yet Apostle12 repeatedly claims without reservation that, e.g. Kate Coleman is a "respected journalist." Apostle12's apparent unwillingness to respect other editors' concerns on these points, and indeed his use of these sources at Black Panther Party after they were established at Huey P. Newton and RSN to be non-RS would be troubling enough, but if that were the only issue this would be more clearly a content dispute. When combined with his pattern of WP:NOTFORUM, spewing offensive and racist assertions on talk pages under the guise of "personal experiences" it seems abundantly clear to me that this is all of a piece.

Previous attempts, the aforementioned RSN discussions as well as DRN and an RfC/U, have been unsuccessful in dealing with these or other problems, either from a content or behavior perspective. The RfC/U, despite making what I think are reasonable suggestions for addressing the behavior issues with Apostle12, was immediately characterized as political, and no action was taken. Apostle12's unwillingness to respond to the suggestions made there is characteristic of his editing style. Initially he stated that he would respond to the RfC in "a few days"; after a number of other editors had painted the RfC as illegitimate, he felt it was not worth his time. Stonewalling and WP:IDHT, whether by ignoring something, or by simply repeatedly asserting something, is a pattern I have seen time and time again in his edits and discussions.

I have certainly made mistakes, though I have repeatedly asked for help and guidance, and been willing to adhere to it when it was provided. I would welcome the guidance of arbcom in addressing these deficiencies. But as a new editor, I have only tried to do my best with the information and mechanisms available to me.

I actually did not include Rgambord on this filing. It hadn't ever even occurred to me to do so, actually, because the filing was, in my view, about Apostle12's edits to race-and-politics-related articles. Rgambord added him or herself to the list of involved parties, and I'm not entirely sure why. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to Mathsci's point below, I did file a notice regarding the incidents I consider POVPUSH, at WP:AE, and it was considered non-actionable. My reading of the statement there was that these incidents fell outside the scope of "race and intelligence (broadly construed)"

If indeed they are actionable under existing WP:ARBR&I principles already, then perhaps some clarification of that is in order, and this does not need to go to full arbitration. I certainly do not want to waste anyone's time if there are other ways to get this sorted out. After raising these points repeatedly at ANI someone suggested i go to RFARB, so here I am. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 08:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Further, I think I would disagree that Apostle12 is a Single-purpose account. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 08:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I can provide a more detailed response to MONGO's concerns below, complete with diffs if that would be useful, on or shortly after May 8.

Briefly, though, the way I have chosen to view this broader issue is as the unfortunate confluence of:

• racial attitudes on the part of Apostle12 whose expression is offensive to myself and others
• poor sourcing practices and IDHT, which can to edit warring and POVPUSH even on less controversial topics.

In regards to the sourcing, this can be seen in Apostle12's edits not just at the aforementioned articles on racial or political topics, but also in his edit history at the Franklin prostitution allegation article, pont-saint-esprit (which was spun off into 1951 pont-saint-esprit mass poisoning or some such), and to a lesser extent the various MKULTRA related articles. The IDHT is on display, as far as I can tell, at most of those articles to various degrees; when there is a friendly editing atmosphere as was apparent at pont-saint-esprit for some time, this behavior is not in evidence. but even in the last few days at Black Panther Party there has been the repeated insistence that Kate Coleman's work is respected, cited, etc without any discussion of what that actually means, nor even the acknowledgement that the sources I removed were opinion pieces. The LA Times article, for instance, has "opinion" right there in the URL.

As in NYB's reference, the standards for referencing on contentious or sensitive topics should be more strictly adhered to rather than less.

The juxtaposition of this poor sourcing and IDHT with the commentary and NOTFORUM on racial matters gives the reasonable impression that Apostle12 is a POVPUSHer on racial topics, irrespective of if that is his conscious intent or what his personal beliefs are. And this is further highlighted by the sensitive and contentious nature of the subject matter.

The final straw for me really was the placement of some of these poor sources on Black Panther Party. The best AGFish explanation of placing the same assertions (that were at minimum highly contentious, and which there seemed to be at least a tentative consensus that they were not usable for statements of fact) that were removed from Huey P. Newton into Black Panther Party some weeks or months later is that he simply forgot about the extensive conversations that were had about these sources. That seems possible but unlikely to me, and I took it as evidence that, rather than merely having complex problems with sourcing, there was an intent to disrupt or POVPUSH. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to additional ArbCom questions

Questions by T.Canens:

Is Apostle12's editing problematic? If so, please provide a list of diffs illustrating the problematic behavior along with short explanations of what is problematic about each diff, if required.

Does the broader topic area require an arbitration case, or is the only issue Apostle12's editing?

If the only issue is Apostle12's editing, is the matter suitable for summary disposition by motion, or is a full case required?

Questions from AGK:

(1) say whether Apostle12 is or isn't a problematic editor

(2) if he is then provide brief evidence demonstrating that he is, and

(3) say whether this wider topic area is one that we need to examine in arbitration.

The issue of whether or not Apostle12 is a problematic editor, I can provide what I believe is the most salient evidence here that establishes a pattern of not just recent problematic edits, but also a pattern of problematic editing that has persisted throughout my encounters with him.

As also detailed in the recent ANI posting about a longstanding pattern of NOTFORUM relating to race:

NOTFORUM on racial topics

"what every white man in America knows" also from White privilege. NOTFORUM from Black Panther Party. This is part of a discussion (Lumsden "some party leaders") also notable for its sourcing issues, below. This seems like a fairly egregious example of NOTFORUM, from a discussion I was not a part of. the most recent example, from a discussion at White privilege. Below, Apostle12 says "my point was only to spotlight differential outcomes that relate more to personal responsibility than to the existence of white privilege" but this is in fact a judgement call on Apostle12's part; it speculates about the relative merits of "personal responsibility" and embedded or structural barriers to achievement. And regardless, I believe this to still be NOTFORUM, which states "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article..." And in light of these other discussions, this edit seems more significant. I responded in no uncertain terms that this was unacceptable. This conversation is also relevant for the issue of poor sourcing.

In retrospect, I may have been complicit in allowing this editing pattern to continue, by not speaking out more forcefully about it, or perhaps in my selection of venues in which to speak out about it. I also have to say that I was even more ignorant then than I am now about what an appropriate response is.

The issue of poor sourcing practices I also feel is significant. I will focus on the most recent examples here, from Huey P. Newton and Black Panther Party mainly for brevity's sake.

RS issues and POVPUSH

Lumsden "some party leaders": as referenced above, a discussion thread was sparked by this addition and Apostle12's response to it. Much of that response was positive copyediting. However, this edit changed "Certain thinkers of the party thought that gender fight was a threat to men and race struggle" to "Some Party leaders, including Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver, thought the fight for gender equality was a threat to men and the struggle for racial equality" in a referenced paragraph. I asked on the talk page if anyone knew whether or not Newton and Cleaver were specifically mentioned in the Lumsden article, and he claimed he was "working from memory". these edits about a purported romantic relationship between Newton and a movie producer touched off a long discussion (and a bit of an edit war, perhaps, though it's possible BLP applies) about the reliability of the source. (I and other editors had also questioned the reliability of other of Coleman's works.) This prompted a DRN discussion whose consensus was that this material was not permissible. That prompted additional discussion, including a statement that i interpreted as an intention to disregard consensus, and which I posted to ANI about. This earned me additional scorn from Apostle12. Another example, also from Huey P. Newton concerns a purported deathbed confession about the murder of a police officer. A passage was removed by an ip editor, which Apostle12 reverted. Because I had recently purchased the book that is the source for this allegation, I started a talk page discussion and eventually an RSN discussion. the consensus there appeared to be that language should be included to make clear that these are allegations made by Pearson, and remain uncorroborated. I attempted to change the wording to reflect this, and it set off another round of discussion. That all is perhaps a bit WP:TLDR. However, the fact that there was extensive discussion about the nature of the allegation, to what extent it was permissible in the article, all of which Apostle12 took part in at Huey P. Newton, makes this edit two months later to Black Panther Party seem all the more like POVPUSH. At Black Panther Party he also made a subsequent edit with the summary "restore sourced content". One of the sources he was restoring was an article which was the subject of a great deal of discussion which, again, Apostle12 took part in, and which a RSN discussion suggested was not a permissible source in this case. Perhaps the most important thing about these particular edits to Black Panther Party is that they occurred over a week after the ANI discussion which Newyorkbrad references. I will also note that Apostle12 has a particular fondness for the work of Kate Coleman. He frequently repeats that she is a respected journalist, though I myself see no evidence of that; I have looked. (The overwhelming majority of her journalistic output in the last few decades has been opinion pieces critical of Huey Newton, the Black Panthers, or the history of same.) In his most recent response to my removal of that source, he states "her opinion matters." I like to think that a reasonable editor might think that since there have been substantial issues with using her writings as source material in the past, one should be careful with their use in the future, particularly when dealing with what is more or less the same topic. Simply re-inserting them into another article which deals with much the same subject, and characterizing that as "restore sourced content" seems rather problematic to me, particularly when there seems to be such a consistently anti-Newton and anti-Panther agenda in her writings. And just to be clear, I in no way oppose the inclusion of material that reflects poorly on the character of these historical actors. I have made a number of comments to that effect. I am concerned about the use of poorly sourced material, and over time Apostle12's use of this kind of poorly sourced material has followed a distinct pattern.

So, to sum up, yes, I think that Apostle12's editing is problematic. I think a case could be made that the poor sourcing practices extend beyond the articles listed here (cf. Talk:1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning), and that there are other examples of disruptive editing that he displays over and above NOTFORUM and a certain predilection for making what can charitably be described as racially insensitive remarks. But this is already TLDR. I would be happy to provide additional evidence if that is needed, however.

As for whether this is a wider topic area that requires arbitration, I don't know that I am competent to enter a comment on that, as it seems like something ArbCom would decide for themselves. I will say that I think part of the reason I have found working in this article area so difficult is that not many people work on it to begin with. A single disruptive editor can thereby have an outsized effect on progress in that subject area. I have no idea whether that is a reason to consider additional ArbCom action or not. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to comment by Carcharoth

In the guide to arbitration, under "Motion" it says "(Arbitrators only)". I honestly have no idea whether a workable result, however the committee defines that, is possible via a motion.

no longer relevant
My collapsed boxes were intended to make the provided diffs a bit easier on the eyes. I can endeavor to try and reduce the overall size of my statement further over the next few days. If there are particular areas I should focus on I would appreciate such guidance. (I tend to be a bit wordy, my apologies).

Summary of noticeboard/DR history:

Disruptive editing at White privilege (oldest first):

• DRN
• there were additional ANI discussions and an SPI case regarding White privilege and suspicions of sockpuppetry by Apostle12 that were not substantiated, and so are omitted here
• RfC/U
• DRN

• pre-empted by an ANI discussion (here) and my taking of a wikibreak

Sourcing issues and POVPUSH at Huey P. Newton and/or Black Panther Party (oldest first):

• RSN
• DRN
• RSN
• ANI (and again)

Proposed topic ban:

• ANI

Since the topic ban discussion, there have been no egregious examples of the sort of NOTFORUM behavior that sparked it. However, it should be noted that these displays were episodic to begin with, and it has been less than a month since the topic ban discussion.

It is also my contention that these edits to Black Panther Party, occuring after the topic ban discussion, are an indication that Apostle12 will remain a problematic editor. I believe this because:

• these sources have been discussed in detail in DRN and RSN cases about Huey P. Newton, above, with the apparent consensus that they are not to be used the way Apostle12 does here
• Apostle12 took part in the discussions when they occurred
• Apostle12 added these sources and this language to Black Panther Party rather than Huey P. Newton (where they had been originally discussed) which to me indicates tendentiousness.

-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I can also volunteer the following, in case it makes a difference to the committee:

I will be adhering to 1RR for at minimum the next 3 months, and perhaps indefinitely as other editors have done. My intent is also largely to avoid these articles for at least the near future (several months), and limit whatever editing I may wind up doing to medical-related articles. I would also be amenable to more individual analysis and discussion about how my own editing patterns have contributed to this situation. I do not pretend that my actions have been entirely non-contributory here, and indeed my postings to ANI recently were deliberately WP:POINTy. Mea culpa. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 10:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Apostle12

I trust I will be forgiven if my reply to the many accusations presented must be longer than I would wish; spending an entire Sunday afternoon defending myself is not my idea of a good time, and I doubt anyone reviewing these statements will enjoy it either.

This Request for Arbitration follows on the heels of many months of similar filings, all initiated by UTCL. I have replied to each of these filings, with the exception of those that have been dismissed as having no merit, those that UTCL abandoned saying that she intended to go on an extended (maybe forever) Wikibreak, and one more recent (4-24) request for arbitration enforcement that administrator Sandstein dismissed and suggested I not reply to because it was not actionable.

Following Sandstein’s dismissal, UTCL immediately (4-25) filed an ANI, repeating exactly the same accusations. When this ANI discussion expired, she filed the identical complaint twice more, voicing her intent to keep filing, even if it meant that she herself might be sanctioned. Finally, the last filing was closed with a an administrator note “Complaint has been re-posted twice and there appears to be nothing actionable. Editor advised to either drop it (preferable) or take it to a more appropriate venue. Sædontalk 05:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I must say that this series of unremitting attacks on the part of UTCL, often sparked by the most minor editing disagreements, seems like a form of perpetual harassment.

That said, the UTCL-inspired discussion that took place at ANI during early April (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=549490803#WP:NOTFORUM_at_White_privilege) is one I took to heart. This discussion became quite tendentious and led to a proposal by Newyorkbrad that I be topic-banned, which led to more intense discussion and no conclusion. (Question: Will this threat of topic-banning, like the interminable filings by UTCL, hang over my head forever?)

Based on the discussion at ANI, I agreed that it would have been better on “White Privilege:Talk” to have mentioned only those differential outcomes that were congratulatory of positive black outcomes (high self-esteem among black girls), supportive of positive black outcomes (majority black presence among NBA and NFL players), or more or less neutral with respect to black outcomes (whites, blacks and other asian groups all come up short when compared to the educational accomplishments of east asians) — my point was only to spotlight differential outcomes that relate more to personal responsibility than to the existence of white privilege, and I never disparaged blacks or any other racial group. I also agreed to present sources for any controversial discussion on Talk as per TParis’s request and to refrain from relating personal stories that I considered relevant to Talk discussions.

Most helpful during the extended ANI discussions was a comment from one editor to the effect that on Wikipedia “we are all dogs.” I realized that on Wikipedia, as with e-mail and other online communication, the tendency is for readers to assume the worst, and one must not rely on assumptions of good faith. Prior to the April ANI discussion, my usual rule when editing racially sensitive articles was to imagine I was in a room filled with people from varying racial backgrounds. The problem is that when I imagined that room, the people I pictured were immediate family, extended family and close friends—all of whom know that I am a multi-racial and multi-ethnic person (Northern European, Black, Native American, Ashkenazi Jew) whose multi-racial and multi-ethnic spouse (Chinese, Portuguese, Filipino) and multi-racial and multi-ethnic children and grandchildren are all “people of color.” They know that my white maternal ancestors were Quakers who fully condemned American chattel slavery, that my paternal family ended up in California at the beginning of the Civil War because they sheltered runaway slaves on their Missouri farm in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (for which their farm was confiscated), and that I have been active in the American Civil Rights movement since my middle-teens (1963) as a champion of racial equality. In other words, when I picture myself among family and friends, they are mostly “people of color,” and I have standing; they know I am not a racist and that I harbor no animosity towards any racial group. So when I wrote on “Criminal Black Man Stereotype: Talk” that I have found it a regrettable necessity, because of repeated experiences with black-on-black, black-on-white, and black-on-asian crime, to be wary of unknown black men in public (street) settings, I was saying no more than Jesse Jackson when he lamented, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” But I am not as recognizable as Jesse Jackson; I would not venture into this territory today, following the ANI discussion, because I now realize that my comments would likely be perceived as racist. On Wikipedia, as in politics, I now know that perception is reality, and even incorrect perceptions can lead to hurt feelings.

Now UTCL is, once again, accusing me of “making incredibly insensitive comments about people of color” and “spewing offensive and racist assertions.” She brings this up, over and over, while at the same time insisting that she is “not calling me a racist” and that she does not know my “conscious intent” or my “personal beliefs.”

Following the ANI discussion, I took very seriously the discretionary sanctions warning I received from Sandstein that I need to be more careful about conducting myself in accord with the principles enunciated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias and prejudice, which Newyorkbrad reiterates below.

So, what happened? Have I somehow backslid? Why are we here? No, I have not backslid, and I remain committed to editing articles having to do with race and ethnicity with much-enhanced sensitivity. What has happened is that UTCL has once again resurrected her claims of malfeasance, indeed racism, despite administrator Sandstein’s finding that the edits UTCL objects to are not actionable.

Here are those edits

For many months, during which time UTCL was actively editing, the article contained a paragraph that read: “What became standard Black Panther discourse emerged from a long history of urban activism, social criticism and political struggle by African Americans. There is considerable debate about the impact that the Black Panther Party had on the greater society, or even their local environment. Author Jama Lazerow writes “As inheritors of the discipline, pride, and calm self-assurance preached by Malcolm X, the Panthers became national heroes in African American communities by infusing abstract nationalism with street toughness—by joining the rhythms of black working-class youth culture to the interracial élan and effervescence of Bay Area New Left politics...In 1966, the Panthers defined Oakland’s ghetto as a territory, the police as interlopers, and the Panther mission as the defense of community. The Panthers' famous “policing the police” drew attention to the spatial remove that White Americans enjoyed from the state violence that had come to characterize life in black urban communities.” In his book Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America journalist Hugh Pearson takes a more jaundiced view, linking Panther criminality and violence to worsening conditions in America's black ghettos as their influence spread nationwide. Similarly, journalist Kate Coleman writes regarding a 2003 Panther conference at Boston's Wheelock College, "If the Wheelock conference wanted to examine the real legacy of the Panthers, its participants should have pored over the cold statistics showing a spike in drive-by shooting deaths and gang warfare that took place in Oakland in the decade following the Panthers' demise. The Black Panther Party had so fetishized the gun as part of its mystique that young men in the ghetto felt incomplete without one....The Panther fetish of the gun, worshiped by impressionable young black males, maimed hundreds of black citizens in Oakland more surely than any bully cops.” Then, on 4 April 2013, editor Abegaza deleted the section beginning “Similarly, journalist Kate Coleman…” When I finally noticed the deletion on 20 April 2013, I restored it because I think Kate Coleman’s opinion piece nicely balances the opinion offered by Jama Lazerow, which is effusive in its praise of the Black Panthers. I believe both opinions should appear in this paragraph because it deals with the “considerable debate” (i.e. opinions) “about the impact that the Black Panther Party had on the greater society, or even their local environment.” Kate Coleman’s opinion is well sourced as being her opinion by the Bay Area’s newspaper of record, The San Francisco Chronicle, and by The Los Angeles times, and her opinion is at least as notable as Jama Lazerow's. My discussion on Talk appears here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_Panther_Party#Coleman_is_not_a_reliable_source_for_statements_of_fact.2C_etc.) It should be noted that UTCL’s wholesale rejection of Kate Coleman as a reliable source is not established policy, and her work is used as a source in various articles. Other editors, especially Pokey5945, have been in conflict with UTCL for a long time regarding this issue, and Pokey withdrew from editing the “Huey P. Newton” article because UTCL refused even to consider Coleman’s status as a respected contributor to the literature surrounding Huey P. Newton, Eldridge Cleaver and the Black Panthers. UTCL has consistently proven herself intractable and unwilling to compromise. I made another edit that UTCL objected to, reinstating the words “and their criminality” referring to Panther activities that are acknowledged as having been illegal. UTCL deleted this reinstatement, objecting to the sourcing. I have since reinstated this wording, after providing overwhelming source material from both anti-Panther (Pearson) and pro-Panther (Austin) sources. The final edit that UTCL objected to was my 18 April 2013 reinstatement of material that was deleted by an unnamed editor on 17 April 2013. This had to do with Newton’s admission that he intentionally killed Oakland Police officer John Frey, which was reported by Newton friends Willie Payne and Robert Trivors during interviews journalist/writer Hugh Pearson conducted with both men after Newton’s death. Although the legitimacy of these interview has never been questioned, and both men say that Newton admitted killing Frey and was proud of having done so (Trivors says that Newton bragged to him on multiple occasions, “’The baddest ni-----r that ever walked’ was the phrase he would use with me, because he had killed a white police officer and gotten away with it,” remembers Trivors [Shadow, p. 291].) UTCL wishes to dismiss these interviews, even though she once used Pearson as a source, referencing the fact that Newton was proud of having killed Frey because it put the police on notice in Oakland’s black neighborhoods. I believe the information Pearson gained from these interviews should be included, because Newton’s original claim of innocence was a seminal event that led to the “Free Huey” campaign and threats by Oakland Panthers that they would precipitate a race war, initially in Oakland’s ghettos and then nationwide, if Huey P. Newton were not freed. This is not the place to debate the legitimacy of Pearson’s account, however I consider UTCL’s attempt to portray Newton’s confession as merely the result of inebriate ramblings during the evening prior to his death, as highly disingenuous. The reason I have not returned to the Newton article to reinstate the information is because I have not been able to find two articles UTCL added as sources, and I know that any rewrite of this section must withstand extreme scrutiny.

UTCL has pursued this issue, claiming that I somehow did not get the point during the ANI discussion during early April. That is not true.

I need to close this very long statement (again, my apologies; don’t know how I could adequately answer these charges with more brevity) by explaining how I came to focus on this series of race-related articles. It began with the publishing by Michelle Alexander, an author known to me, of a book called The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. I found Alexander's treatment of the subject matter disturbing, and this led to a perusal of much of the Panther literature (Austin, Pearson, Brown, Seale, Cleaver, and others) and a revisiting of the time I knew so well when I witnessed the beginnings of Black Panther militantism in Oakland and Berkeley during the period between 1966-1971. I identified this period as a time when black crime (especially violent crime), and levels of black incarceration, began to increase.

What is of concern to me is that, despite the best efforts of many like myself who are committed to the cause of civil rights and racial justice, things have gotten progressively worse in America’s black ghettos, with violence an ever-present threat. I am in agreement with Hoover Institution research fellow Shelby Steele (White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era) that something has gone radically wrong, and I am committed to making sure that the story of the period from the 1960s to the present is fully told.

So I started to peruse the relevant articles on Wikipedia, and I realized that they tended to tell only part of the story. Regarding Huey P. Newton and the Black Panther Party in particular, it is very true that Newton was brilliant, courageous, insightful, and bold and it is also true that the political organization he and Bobby Seale founded reflected similar qualities. Please note that I have been the first to edit these articles to defend against vandalism, racist attacks or other distortions that discredit those involved, and the recent section on “Womanism” that I helped edit in the Black Panther article is a good example of my positive contributions. Yet when I began editing these articles, it quickly became clear that they did not reflect a neutral point of view. Many of the negative aspects of Huey P. Newton’s character (Pearson explores these character attributes in detail and Elaine Brown, Bobby Seale, David Hilliard and many others augment his observations) were nowhere to be found in the Wikipedia article, nor did the Black Panther article present a balanced portrayal of Party activities.

I think this imbalance runs counter to Wikipedia’s purpose, and I think it is dangerous to tell only one side of the story. This is especially true with regard to Newton and the Black Panthers, since younger black readers in particular may be encouraged to repeat past mistakes. I believe a similar danger exists with regard to other race-related articles – “White privilege” and “Criminal black man stereotype” are among them. I decided to take the risk and begin editing articles having to do with race, and if there is a common thread to my editing it is my commitment to a neutral point of view. I agree with Newyorkbrad when he writes “No one can deny that the subject-matters of race, of crime, and of their intersection are of transcendent social importance and are worthy of full encyclopedic coverage on Wikipedia, during the course of which some very disheartening facts and statistics must be addressed.”

One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it is a laboratory where one is brought face-to-face with one’s own deficiencies. I am learning to address these issues in a fashion that will better allow me to avoid inflaming the sensitivities of others. I was naïve with respect to how difficult this would be, or how intense the criticism might become, with inaccurate perceptions leading to charges of racism. Such charges have a chilling effect when it comes to encouraging full encyclopedic coverage of topics associated with race on Wikipedia. Apostle12 (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix & Winslow and Mongo were both editors at "Franklin child prostitution ring allegations" and I have had no contact with them during the past two years. The question must be asked: How did they happen to arrive just in time to participate in this discussion? Were they contacted, as editors with whom I once had a dispute, just so they could pile on? Nevertheless, what Phoenix & Winslow has written constitutes an addendum to this complaint and demands a separate response.

Phoenix & Winslow insinuates that my previous editing at “Franklin child prostitution ring allegations” might somehow have been racially motivated because Franklin figure Lawrence King was African American. P. & W. also accuses me of having mentored other editors (one of whom is now stalking him) in the fine art of poisoning Wikipedia articles. I must say that P. & W.'s comments are surprising and quite misleading. In particular, even if the Franklin allegations are true, Lawrence King was one of the few African Americans involved and the overwhelming majority of the alleged perpetrators were white – race played no part in my decision to edit the article. I was in substantial agreement with one other editor, yet I hardly "mentored" him, we were never "partners," and I have had no contact with him after editing Franklin. I don’t intend to reargue the Franklin case here, however those who may be wondering why I chose to edit Franklin in the first place should know the following: the Franklin allegations did include complaints of child abuse and child prostitution, based on considerable evidence presented before a Nebraska legislative committee, however I always considered the more sensational allegations (Satan worship or "snuff films") spurious; the allegations were championed by State Senator John DeCamp who is also an attorney in good standing in Lincoln, Nebraska; DeCamp and many others (including the legislative committee that brought the Franklin allegations before a grand jury) did not consider these allegations to have been "a hoax" and they formally objected to the grand jury's ruling; P. & W. successfully challenged the sourcing of the article based on the fact that the 700-odd Omaha World-Herald articles used for sourcing were available mostly on mirrored sites; there was no doubt as to their authenticity, which we were able to spot check, however despite their initial validation as reliable sources, the mirroring was eventually deemed inappropriate; I abandoned the article because I could not afford to directly access the Omaha World-Herald articles using the paywall protocols they established, and not because the Omaha World-Herald articles constituted unreliable sourcing; I have no intention of returning to edit the Franklin article, because there is evidence the net of involvement extends into very high political circles at the national level, and I do not have the requisite resources to fight an extended battle for inclusion of the story on Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia cannot do justice to every story. Apostle12 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rgambord

I've never used ARBCOM before, so I hope I'm doing this correctly.

I think it is relevant to mention that User:UseTheCommandLine is currently involved in a dispute with myself on [8], as well as [9], both of which she started without any discussion on the relevant pages. This is not the first time she has brought the same trivial matter to AN/I and so far has been unsuccessful in garnering support. When consensus in arbitration was against her, she resorted to immature behavior, insults, etc, and threatened to permanently leave wikipedia. In my opinion, she has shown a clear pattern of taking minor disputes directly to arbitration/Dispute resolution/noticeboard, and is never hesitant to escalate a situation. She only just returned to wikipedia after an extended break, and has taken at least 3 different matters that I am now involved in to some sort of resolution center. She is very stubborn and has a very strong POV stance. I can't necessarily comment on Apostle12's behavior, as I don't have much history editing along side him, but he seems to be a good faith, if somewhat misguided and unpopular editor. Certainly, wikipedia is not a popularity contest. A mentor for both UTCL and Apostle12 would do the community well, considering both have somewhat contentious histories. Hell, even I could go for a mentor.

UTCL has a long history of edit warring: [10][11][12][13][14] and pestering admins [15] etc... I really don't have time to look up all the diffs, but they are there, though somewhat old and buried in contribs pages. She's basically been told in quite a number of instances to stop edit warring, stop creating a hostile editing environment, to stop insulting other editors, stop abusing dispute resolution and yet continues to do so.

• Note: Due to extremely recent events I would like to strike my previous paragraphs because I believe in second chances. I will leave the statements up, but I am no longer convinced they are relevant to the issue at hand. I know of at least one admin who will probably be interested in weighing in on Apostle12, (User:TParis), since he's been moderating that talk page for some time, and has been involved in many of Apostle12's noticeboards. I've left a note on his talk page. Thanks.

Statement by Mathsci

It is not clear that arbitration is required here. The issues seem to be related to articles like Race and crime in the United States, covered by WP:ARBR&I. Problematic edits on that article have led to topic bans being imposed at WP:AE. Those restrictions were not imposed because editors made outspoken statements about crime and certain population groups on article talk pages, but because of unbalanced editing to the article. Nevertheless, repeated expression of a non-neutral point of view on a talk page seems to be covered by these two principles from that case—Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Advocacy and Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Single purpose accounts—and discretionary sanctions are already available there, if required or applicable. Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Thrydulff that WP:ARBR&I probably does not cover this particular aspect (race and politics). It is also true that quite different sets of editors are involved. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of the complaint, I would disagree with Mathsci above (and agree with Sandstein at the linked AE request) that this topic area is covered by the WP:ARBR&I case or the discretionary sanctions that resulted from it. That case related to "articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed)", and to include these articles in that category would be stretching the apparently intended meaning of "human behaviour" too far. This dispute and the R&I dispute also seem to involve non-overlapping sets of editors, Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Phoenix and Winslow

I have no experience with Apostle12 or UTCL at articles involving race politics, such as Huey P. Newton. My experience with Apostle12 goes back two years to another article called Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. At that article, unreliable sources were being used to smear innocent people with hideous accusations. In light of Apostle12's recent insensitive remarks about race, it may be significant that the main suspect in the Franklin case was a prominent African-American businessman, and several of the other suspects were also African-American. A grand jury investigated these allegations and determined they were a "carefully crafted hoax." The only two accusers who did not recant their accusations were indicted for perjury. One of them went to prison for several years. The other accuser was already in prison on unrelated charges, but was declared mentally unfit to stand trial for perjury.

One would think that would be the end of it, but a conspiracy theory cottage industry has grown around the case, claiming that the grand jury was rigged; and Apostle12 was one of its advocates here at Wikipedia. He partnered up with another like-minded editor, I tried to challenge the unreliable sources, and for much of the article's lifespan, it was two of them against me. It was supremely frustrating, as people at WP:ANI and other noticeboards didn't take it seriously and the two of them developed a mean-spirited, passive-aggressive editing style. It's disruptive and tendentious.

It really brings out the worst in people because it's so frustrating to deal with, and I must admit that it brought out the worst in me. They know exactly where the lines are that they cannot cross, such as WP:NPA, and they actually make their opponents (like me) appear tendentious. I have no doubt that the same thing happened to UTCL. The particular editing style exhibited by Apostle12 and his partner is really very poisonous to the Wikipedia project. They erect a "wall of words," that any neutral party asked to investigate would find very daunting. They constantly distort and spin-doctor everything. Wikilawyering is brought to an entirely new level of weaseling. It becomes a monumental chore to unravel all of their distortions, and they refuse mediation.

It was clear that Apostle12's partner was learning this poisonous editing style from him. Eventually I got their principal source declared unreliable at WP:RSN. All the previously uninvolved editors unanimously agreed that it was unreliable. After that, their enormous pile of WP:BLP violations finally collapsed because it wasn't sourced. Admins stepped in and stubbed the whole article.

At that point, Apostle12 moved on and hasn't appeared again on my radar until now. His partner at the Franklin BLP mess has been Wikistalking me however, continues to push fringe theory (and minority theories with too much WP:WEIGHT) at that article and others, and may appear at ArbCom in a separate case. I want to stress that Apostle12's editing style is poisonous to the whole project. Like-minded editors, like his partner, are corrupted by him. They learn effective tendentious techniques from him, and it drives away good editors. Editors who are trying to remain true to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy, such as UTCL and myself, are driven to extreme frustration and may violate policy (which leads to blocks) or walk away from Wikipedia.

I walked away from Wikipedia for a year. Clearly, Apostle12 moved on to find other articles to poison, and other good editors to drive crazy. Perhaps he found a new partner or two along the way, and corrupted them like my Wikistalker. I respectfully suggest that UTCL should be allowed to present her case here, and that ArbCom should investigate these allegations. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to AGK's "question of whether we should topic-ban Apostle12[,]" I think that would be a bare minimum. We first need to consider whether Apostle12 should continue to be a part of the Wikipedia project.

NYB says that Apostle12 edits "in an inflammatory and insensitive fashion that unnecessarily offends many of our fellow editors" and this has led to "extensive criticism of Apostle12's editing[.]" UTCL mentions "Apostle12's unwillingness to respond" and his "Stonewalling and WP:IDHT" behavior. UTCL also mentions "the carelessness of Apostle12's sourcing decisions and POVPUSH behavior" (which I have also mentioned), and "his repeated, incredibly offensive comments about people of color ... spewing offensive and racist assertions on talk pages[.]"

I confirm all these observations without any reservation except the last. The racial overtones of this misconduct are something I never really noticed before — but like I said, the principal suspect and several others in the Franklin case were African-American; and his theme was that they really were guilty of running a nationwide child prostitution ring, complete with Satan worship, making snuff films, and other murders. He was pushing this POV on the Talk page and in the mainspace with an unreliable source, in defiance of WP:BLP, and despite a grand jury finding that it was a "carefully crafted hoax."

Clearly, over the years Apostle12 has not improved his behavior. If anything, it's getting worse. He actually mentored at least one other editor in this disruptive and tendentious skill set, who has moved on to other articles, and is teaching this editing style to even more editors; and both Apostle12 and his protege have brought out the worst in other editors as well, when we oppose their POVPUSHing. I see this misconduct spreading exponentially.

If committee members believe he is somehow redeemable, and he is capable of someday making positive and cooperative contributions without offending anyone, consider how labor intensive it would be to rehabilitate him. Consider that the pool of available admins and senior editors is shrinking because people are cutting back their volunteer hours or leaving the project (in many cases because of editors like this one), and you'd be asking that shrinking pool of volunteers to supervise him.

At the very least, a lengthy block followed by mentoring and the topic ban proposed by NYB. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by WLRoss

The fact that the main suspect in the Franklin case was a prominent African-American businessman is irrelevant as I don't think that article even mentioned that he was African-American and it certainly didn't come up in any edits or discussions. The statement from Phoenix and Winslow can be dismissed in toto for the following reasons. I met Apostle12 at the Franklin article and rather than being mentored as claimed, I reverted his edits almost as often as I supported him. To my knowledge I have had no contact with him since the article was stubbed. The article was relatively stable for several years until Phoenix and Winslow arrived and started an edit war to remove all mention that the main suspect was a prominent Republican. When he failed he began to aggressively edit the article.
Quote:"I tried to challenge the unreliable sources, and for much of the article's lifespan, it was two of them against me...Eventually I got their principal source declared unreliable at WP:RSN." In fact it was Phoenix and Winslow who first introduced this "principal" source to the article to support an edit that he had made. When Apostle12 and myself used that same source for edits he did not like he began a campaign to have it declared unreliable that involved canvassing and forum-shopping etc. He failed to have the author found to be unreliable but was later successful in having the author's publisher declared unreliable. Once this source was removed it naturally left the article full of BLP violations, so much so that it was stubbed. The only other reliable source able to replace it was behind a paywall that would have cost $1700 to access. Now Phoenix and Winslow claims I am Wikistalking him and "may appear at ArbCom" in order to support his claims regarding Apostle12's bad hehaviour and it's "affect" on others. He only presented the articles we both edited at the same time as evidence. When I looked at the dates of first edits, he in fact has followed me to three articles and the two where I did follow him was for a legitimate reason, Phoenix and Winslow had added content to both articles to support a contested edit he had made in the Franklin article and then cited both articles in Franklin Talk as references for the edit. I had a look, tagged both edits as unreferenced and other editors later reverted his edits at both those pages as BLP violations. I can only assume that Phoenix and Winslow making a statement here is part of the ongoing dispute he has with me as he continually brings up the same spurious Franklin claims, along with Apostle12's name, in every single disagreement we have. I have no comment to make on Apostle12's behavior as I don't follow him and am unfamiliar with the article in question here but I believe that editors should not allow Phoenix and Winslow's statement to influence any decision made. Thanks. Wayne (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I'm recused as an arbitrator in this matter because in an ANI discussion last month, I proposed that Apostle12 be topic-banned from editing in the area of human race and ethnicity. The context for the ANI discussion begins here, the discussion becomes more directly focused on Apostle12 here, and the subthread discussing the proposed topic-ban is found here. Input on my proposal was roughly evenly divided between support and opposition, and ultimately the thread aged off ANI and into the archive without the discussion having been closed by anyone, although Sandstein did issue Apostle12 a discretionary-sanctions warning under the Race and intelligence case. I did not pursue the matter further at that time, in the hopes that the extensive criticism of Apostle12's editing would lead him to improve his behavior.

Apostle12's edits, especially in recent months, have focused directly and indirectly on issues of race. This includes the article White privilege and its talkpage as well as articles relating directly and indirectly to criminal acts committed or allegedly committed by African-American people. No one can deny that the subject-matters of race, of crime, and of their intersection are of transcendent social importance and are worthy of full encyclopedic coverage on Wikipedia, during the course of which some very disheartening facts and statistics must be addressed. However, it was my impression last month and it remains my impression today that Apostle12 consistently edits articles on these subjects, and especially their talkpages, in an inflammatory and insensitive fashion that unnecessarily offends many of our fellow editors and distracts from productive discussion and editing.

A prism through which Apostle12's editing might be evaluated is the set of principles that the Arbitration Committee passed unanimously in 2011 in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander. (By way of disclosure, I drafted that decision.) In those principles, the Committee reaffirmed Wikipedia's policies regarding NPOV, accuracy of sourcing, and other basic precepts, and then went on to adopt three newly stated principles that may be of relevance here:

Sensitivities of subject matter: Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding article content apply to all pages of the encyclopedia. No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims.

Bias and prejudice: An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group.

Remedies for biased editing: Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived by many users to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or restrictions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor is actually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately.

The Committee may find these principles relevant here in addressing Apostle12's editing and what, if anything, should be done about it. I have no comments at this stage on any other issues that may or may not be involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

As a resident of Nebraska, I was asked to assist in the situation at the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article, which is the only article where I have encountered Apostle 12. My impression was that he was advocating a fringe view on the situation. Apostle 12 has not been active on that article since 2011. Both he and User:WLRoss were advocating fringe material and edit warring over the inclusion of the material, all from self published or speculative sources. I can't see the deleted edits, but a cursory glance at the edit summaries gives some indication as to the gist of the arguments...here. As far as to whether or not Apostle 12 is currently doing a similar POV push on issues of race and intelligence or articles within that scope, I couldn't say, but I suggest the above plantiffs provide better and more diffs to substanitate their opinions.--MONGO 19:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Akuri

I'm one of the editors who voted against topic banning Apostle12 at ANI. I can't be sure there is no problem with his editing, but the evidence presented at ANI was not very strong. Most of the diffs presented there were over five months old, and the people advocating a topic ban struggled to find any that were newer.

If Arbcom decides Apostle12 should be sanctioned, I ask that they open a case instead of topic banning him by motion, for two reasons. The first reason is that before topic banning him, they should carefully examine the evidence to ensure a topic ban is needed. And the second reason is that it's very likely there are other people editing the same articles as Apostle12 whose conduct also is a problem. The statement by Rgambord suggests UseTheCommandLine might be one example.

If Arbcom decides they need to take some action, one other editor whose conduct I think they need to examine is user:ArtifexMayhem. On the White privilege article, the first edit he ever made to either the article or its talk page was a revert. [16] On the talk page, Apostle12 commented that ArtifexMayhem's preferred version omitted the phrase "are argued to" and described white privilege as something definitely real, which was non neutral. ArtifexMayhem did not respond to Apostle12's concerns. But then yesterday he restored the exact same wording again, although he had not participated in the talk page the past week. [17]

His conduct also has been an issue in articles in the race and intelligence topic area, such as this sequence of edits [18] [19] [20] [21] where he blanked the same section of the article four times, reverting edits by four different editors (me, Eric Kvaalen, The Devil's Advocate, and BlackHades). I considered making an AE report about that under the R&I case, but last month another AE report about somewhat similar conduct from a different editor was closed with no action because admins decided it required Arbcom. Since the beginning of the year, 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. If Arbcom accepts the case and includes him as a party, I can present more evidence about these issues. Akuri (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Saedon

Just as a couple points of order in response to Apostle's statement: 1.I am not an administrator, I simply closed the thread on AN/I, and 2. My close should not be understood to imply support or to otherwise condone the behavior that will be investigated here. "Nothing actionable" referred only to the complaint and the manner in which it was presented at AN/I, i.e. no diffs of obviously blockable offenses and the fact that it followed a very recent complaint in which the community declined to sanction Apostle. I have no particular opinion on the merits of the overall case. Sædon^talk 09:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ArtifexMayhem

Back in April I had a look at Apostle12's edits to our White privilege article and found many of them problematic [22]. Accusations that my edits in the topic area "always to advocate the same perspective that whites are to blame for other ethnic groups' troubles" are simply ludicrous. Sorry to be so brief. I will be free for more in depth discussion, as required or requested, by the weekend. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Apostle12 is a problematic editor

Accuracy of sourcing

Apostle12's use of sources does not support this claim...

...I assure you that any section I write will be based entirely on RS. Many of these sources, some of which already appear in the article, caution against over-reliance on the white privilege conceptual framework and point out the limitations of this framework....
— User:Apostle12 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Without supporting sources, the editor as repeatedly questioned the existence of White privilege by inserting weasel words into the lede of the article (e.g.,"alleged"[23][24][25], "might"[26], "argued"[27][28][29][30]).
• In this series of edits[31][32][33][34] to the White privilege article the editor misrepresents sources, including several that do not satisfy WP:RS, adding the following sections...

Low impact of white privilege

• The source does not state that white privilege is of "low impact".
• The source does not indicate that Steele is an "opponent of affirmative action programs".
• Steele does not state or indicate that he "believes that the effects of white privilege are exaggerated." He says what whites owe blacks is fairness: "You owe us a fair society," he says. "There's not much you can do beyond that. ...There isn't anything you can do to ...[to] lift my life up. I have to do that."
• Steele does not say, state, argue, infer, indicate, or intimate that blacks "may incorrectly blame their personal failures on white oppression."
• Steele does not argue that there are "many minority privileges." He states that there is "minority privilege" and that today's black high school student is offered many opportunities. He also states—in the full quote—that opportunities come his way unbeckoned: "There is a hunger in this society to do right racially, to not be racist. ...And I feel rather privileged by it. I don't have to even look for opportunities in many cases. They come right to me."

Education

• The Seattle Times opinion piece by Matt Rosenberg does not satisfy WP:RS.
• The opinions of Mr. Rosenberg, Director of Public Affairs for Dick's Drive-In Restaurants, carry no weight on the topic.

Privileges extended to people of color

• Misrepresents this source as supporting: "The current University of Michigan Duluth 'unfair campaign' has come under fire for implying that all whites enjoy unfair privileges, when it fact it is qualified minority applicants who are often shown preference in education and corporate hiring." What the source actually says is: "The campaign has attracted its fair share of criticism" from anonymous comments posted "to the university webpage".
• Hugh Murray's article, White Male Privilege? A Social Construct for Political Oppression, in the Journal of Libertarian Studies (published by Ludwig von Mises Institute) is not a reliable source on this topic.
• The article is cited once, by another Mises publication, on Google Scholar.
• Mr. Murray does not appear to have any credentials or training related to the topic (in fact his very existence is questionable).

Maintaining stereotypes

• The article entitled "White Privilege" Re-education, published in The Michigan Review, is not a reliable source.

"The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the U-M. Contributions to the Michigan Review are tax-deductible under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Review is not affiliated with any political party or university political group." – pg. 2

Group Guilt

• Misrepresents "Jacob Oslick, Brian Cook, & David Guipe" of the Michigan Review as authors of note (same source as above).

Narrow focus of white privilege analysis

• Misrepresents the source; Blum fully supports the reality of white privilege and is suggesting new ways to teach it, "Those of us who teach US American White students think it morally and politically important for them to learn to acknowledge their White privilege, and to do something morally constructive with that acknowledgment."

Bias and prejudice

• These edits...[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]..."can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes..."
• Making an unsourced statement that compares the ninety some odd years of Jim Crow laws to modern Affirmative action programs is completely unreasonable.

Also, it may be instructive to realize that many Jim Crow laws in the American South were instituted as a kind of "affirmative action" for whites, who found it difficult to compete in the labor market with skilled slaves freed at the end of the Civil War.
— User:Apostle12 19:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Making that statement twice is beyond the pale.

It should be noted that one purpose of the Jim Crow laws that took hold in the American South after the Civil War was to provide "affirmative action" for white workers who were having a difficult time competing with newly freed, and highly skilled, blacks.
— User:Apostle12 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

On the need for a full case I deffer to the judgement of editors with more experience and a deeper knowledge topic area's history. I can support either option. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Marie Paradox

Apostle12 has a long history of being a problematic editor.

On user and article talk pages Apostle12 resorts to personal attacks and failed to assume good faith.[43][44] Others point out that this behavior violates Wikipedia policy or can get him blocked[45][46][47], and he returns to it.[48][49][50]

Apostle12 also adds material that is not verifiable[51] and removes material that is verifiable[52] despite having had it explained that verifiability is part of Wikipedia's standards.[53]

If you do not have the time to look at the diffs, some were made in 2007–2008 in relation to the Hippie article, and others were made in 2012 in relation to White privilege. The point I am trying to make is that if the four years or more that Apostle12 has had to contemplate his behavior has not been enough time for him to change, I can only conclude that intervention is necessary.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Answer from NE Ent

@TC #3: Case, or case not, there is no "motion" -Yoda-Ent

Summary proceedings Where the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed, the Committee may resolve the dispute by motion.

If the facts were undisputed the ANI thread would have come to consensus.NE Ent 09:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

I just want to note that there is some tension between the requests by T. Canens and AGK for evidence of Apostle12's problematic editing, and the one from Carcharoth asking for less evidence and more about whether a motion or a full case is warranted. Surely the nature of the evidence, and the amount of it, should determine how the case should be disposed, and that determination should be made by the Committee itself based on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I understand your point, of course, but was simply saying that your colleagues were asking for evidence, so it is to be expected that people would start posting evidence. As for the question of whether a full case is warranted or not, I think that rather depends on what outcome one is looking for, and which of the options would be more likely to bring about that result. It is for this reason that I think that the impartial Committee itself should make that determination, without asking for opinions from the commenters, who are more likely to fall on one side or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Race and politics, Apostle12: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/0/2/3>

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

• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements. Courcelles 21:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Accept I think there is just too much here to handle by summary motion. Courcelles 07:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Recuse; I was involved in the Franklin child prostitution allegations article P&W above refers to. NW (Talk) 22:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements, which should (among other things) address the question of whether we should topic-ban Apostle12. AGK [•] 08:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• This case request has not been framed in enough detail nor with enough evidence. Everybody must please clearly (1) say whether Apostle12 is or isn't a problematic editor, (2) if he is then provide brief evidence demonstrating that he is, and (3) say whether this wider topic area is one that we need to examine in arbitration. I also notice that Apostle12 claims that a recent AE thread vindicated him, when in fact it was merely closed with the result that Apostle12's edits were outwith the scope of R&I discretionary sanctions (which is an altogether different result and not one that proves or disproves disruptive editing); he should probably fix that. Withholding vote, but I'm minded to decline this request as unnecessary (after topic-banning Apostle12 by motion if appropriate). AGK [•] 10:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Accept. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• I would welcome statements addressing the following questions:
  1. Is Apostle12's editing problematic? If so, please provide a list of diffs illustrating the problematic behavior along with short explanations of what is problematic about each diff, if required.
  2. Does the broader topic area require an arbitration case, or is the only issue Apostle12's editing?
  3. If the only issue is Apostle12's editing, is the matter suitable for summary disposition by motion, or is a full case required?

T. Canens (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• @NE Ent: ANI threads can fail to achieve consensus for many reasons, only one of which is a substantial dispute over material fact that would prevent us from disposing of this case request summarily. T. Canens (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Contra Carcharoth, I don't see substantial evidence that this topic area needs an arbitration case, and I'm fairly convinced that the issue with Apostle12's editing is suitable for summary disposition. My first choice is to deal with this by motion and then decline the case request as unnecessary; second choice is to accept as a case. T. Canens (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Am inclining towards accepting a case, as I'm not convinced the full range of issues being touched on here can be addressed by motion. It would help if those commenting would focus on why they think a case is needed or not, and to say so in less words. Only brief evidence is needed here at the request stage. Fuller evidence can be presented at the case stage. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The idea of having a request stage is so that people can say whether previous dispute resolution has been followed and whether a case is needed if such prior dispute resolution and community discussions have failed to resolve the matter. A request stage is not designed for presentation of detailed evidence pertaining to motions. A case takes longer, but there is more scope to lay out and present evidence. It also provides scope for harsher and/or more nuanced sanctions than would be applied by motion, and could examine the conduct of more than a single editor. The main reason request stages get bogged down is that people start presenting detailed evidence too early. There is a reason it is called a request, rather than a case at this stage. Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Accept. Still not convinced a motion would suffice here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)