Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

Scope?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What does the committee want evidence of? NE Ent 15:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC) What it always wants, diffs of perceived misbehavior by any of the parties in the area of conflict. This could also include any particularly problematic statements or comments from the previous attempts at dispute resolution. The case name was changed because we do not intend to limit the scope to any one editor, instead intending to address the behavior of anyone who has been disruptive in these areas. The focus seems to be around the Koch brothers, so material from those articles is what I am expecting to see the most of, but there is not a strictly defined scope so far as which pages are involved. We are looking to root out disruptive behavior rather than identify specific pages, although all options are on the table at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC) If the scope is to be considered the Koch brothers, it should be handled by a motion under the TPM arbitration, as the Kochs are considered related to the TPM. No further comment, and I don't think this is in violation of my TPM topic-ban. If it is, I'll shut up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC) That idea was brought up during the request. The committee opted instead for a full case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC) I guess the (perceived by the Arbs) scope is not just the Koch brothers, then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC) This is currently under discussion on our mailing list, I hope to have a more complete answer soon. I don't personally think the tea party case applies here. While the Kochs are certainly connected to the rise of that organization they are not one in the same thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Agreed with Beeble that it would be inappropriate to sum up the Koch brothers activities as solely falling under TPM. I think while American politics is a bit broad, it's better than trying to nail down a precise category. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Does anyone object to discussing the scope here? I would also agree the focus is on the Koch brothers such a narrow scoping would ignore several problem articles. NativeForeigner Talk 05:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Now that you mention it, I don't see any reason this discussion needs to happen on the mailing list. My personal take is that we are looking for behaviors from the parties to the case as opposed to any rigidly defined topical area. I would not be inclined to ignore problematic behavior just because it happened at a article not related to the Koch brothers. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC) In attempting to frame this, I came up with several alternatives although all hold some sorrt of POV issue. Broadly it involves the impact of money in american politics. Yet this ultimately bleeds into other facets. I'm not particularly satisfied with anything I've come up with so far. NativeForeigner Talk 09:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Isn't the dispute more over how an editor's conduct was evaluated by the community. In other words, one group of "liberal" editors were alleged of going after him, while another group of "conservative" editors were alleged to protect him. As far as the content, Arzel is active in a wide range of pages that relate to American Politics. Why not just name it the VERY orginal name of the request, "RFC/U on Arzel". Or you could use "conduct dispute on Arzel" I am not saying its only about one editor. However, unless one focuses on the behavior around the editor, the scope is unlimited. Casprings (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC) In the past they have been great complaints that naming a case on a single party effectively prejudges the case and the outcome; there's a lot of statistical nonsense related to that sentiment, but it seems fair to try and avoid labeling a case solely on an editor if there are other issues raised. The suggestion elsewhere to limit it to participants of the RfC might be a tenable option; I'll have to go back and reread the RfC to see if that will cast enough of a net. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC) It just seems easier. American Politics is a very big and polerized subject. Casprings (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I think you're focusing too much on the title. It's only a title. You'll probably be closer to the mark if you give evidence based on what you think the title should be, than if you somehow try to broaden your evidence, just because the official name (not scope) is "American Politics".--Cube lurker (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Shouldn't the name match the scope? That said, name it whatever, but I still need a defined scope. When I asked for this, it was because one group of editors said A and the other group said B in an RFC. I was thinking this would look into Arzel, group A and group B. I am not sure that is the case. Casprings (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Speaking strictly for myself, when I voted to open this case, I thought that the conduct of, as you say, "Arzel, group A and group B" would have to be reviewed and so, as far as I'm concerned, it would be reasonable to take that as the scope of the case. Then again, I'm not the drafter... Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC) I understood the scope to be "Misconduct in the area of American Politics by Arzel and other, recently-active editors". We are looking at people who are prolifically active on many pages in this topic area. We are not looking at occasional editors, nor at resolved or very old disputes. Shall we assume this as our scope? AGK [•] 14:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC) So just to clarify, an editor like Anonymous209.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is active in American Politics and involved in disputes but did not take part in the RFC/U, could have evidence presented agaist him or her. NOTE: I am not saying I will present evidence or that there is a problem with his or her behavior. I was just trying to come up with an example.Casprings (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC) @Casprings: That editor appears only semi-active on Wikipedia at all, and problems with their conduct would probably not pass the test for inclusion of "prolifically active" or "not [an] occasional editor". AGK [•] 21:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Can we have a longer Evidence phase?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With it currently defined as American Politics (a very troubled area), I would think more editors should be involved in this case. Can we have a longer evidence phrase to better define who should be involved? Casprings (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC) My understanding of the reasoning for Arbcom taking this as a case as opposed to widening discressionary sanctions was that this way it could focused on the small number of parties involved in the incidents/RFCU that led to the request, and not turn into some attempt to regulate every disagreement on the pedia that results from disagreements over Left V. Right US politics.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC) That's is exactly right. I don't think any of us are crazy enough to believe a single ArbCom case could possibly resolve every issue relating to any political issue in the entire history of the United States. What we are looking to do is to identify and eliminate problematic behaviors from specific users, as in those who are named parties to this case. See the above section where the scope is under discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC) So if I am presenting evidence, it should be on one of the three named parties in the case? Casprings (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC) The scope of this case really needs to be specified so that we know what evidence to present. Originally, this started as a case involving Arzel, but some arbitrators decided that other editors' conduct should be scrutinized as well, but no names were mentioned. Is the case limited to the behavior of the named parties, everyone who commented on the RFC/U, or everyone who made a statement in the RFAR? Is it limited to those users' behaviors, only in the topic area of American Politics, or for all topics? Can users be added to the case and if so, by whom? - MrX 21:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC) I would once again mention that we are trying to sort out this exact issue in the thread directly above this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Clarification sought

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it permissible for editors that were topic banned in the Tea Party case to discuss evidence related to editor conduct from that case in relation to the dispute that is the subject of this case? I seem to recall reading that it is permissible to discuss such a topic for dispute resolution purposes, but clarification would appear to be necessary.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Previous conduct problems with articles about the Tea Party movement could certainly be flagged, as context and background, in these proceedings. The committee is not interested in re-litigating that case, but we would clearly wish to know if an editor active in the disputes of this case has previously misconducted themselves in the TPM dispute. AGK [•] 14:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC) OK, thanks.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Drafters' statement on case parties and scope

We intend to draft a decision within the following parameters.

Any editor who wishes to participate in this case, particularly by presenting evidence, must read the following directions.

Parties to the case

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

Case scope

The scope is "Misconduct in the area of American Politics by recently-active editors". We are looking at people who are prolifically active on many pages in this topic area. We are not looking at occasional editors, nor at resolved and old disputes

Deadlines

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

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

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

Submitting evidence

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

Proper notification of editors

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

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

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

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

Accusations of synthesis

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I object to accusations of synthesis when the clear majority of secondary peer reviewed sources support the statement in question. EllenCT (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Duly noted. Thank you, AGK [•] 00:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented in opening statements

Is there any need to put the RFC/U (or any of the dif in the RFC/U) or any of the dif. presented in the opening statements on the evidence page? I basically started this to get that evaluated so it would stop dragging on. I will add if needed, but I wouldn't think it would be needed.Casprings (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you do not need to repeat evidence submitted during the arbitration request. You may remind us of your evidence with a single, short sentence, at the end of your submission, like "See also the evidence I submitted when this case was at RFAR: <link>". That sentence would be excluded from your word count. AGK [•] 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt I will add evidence. The linked RFC and the links within should be enough for the committee to review the evidence. However, before I didn't, I wanted to ask if anything else would be useful for the committee. If so, I will add it tomorrow.Casprings (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Casprings: Evidence of actual misconduct on articles or talk pages would be most useful. If you have no such evidence, feel free to use your quota to instead evaluate the RFC/U for us. However, you can safely assume that Beeblebrox and I will be examining the entire RFC/U ourselves, in any event. AGK [•] 10:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

And they have links to all the talk pages, I think. I added two differences because I thought they were unique. I feel like I should add something, since I did request this. However, all I wanted was a determination based on the WP:RFC/U.Casprings (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I added a little bit. It is something I think would not have been seen.Casprings (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for evidence: overview of disputants

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are many actors in this dispute, and I have been slightly confused by the overlap between this case and previous ones (e.g. Gun control, Tea Party movement). Therefore, it would be exceedingly helpful if someone could provide an overview of the relevant participants in the Arzel 2 RFC (and in related article disputes). Ideally, such an overview would be grouped by 'faction'; for example: Republican: Editor A Editor B Democrat: Editor F Editor G Unidentified: Editor X Editor Y I would be happy to provide you with an extension to your word count if you supply such an overview in addition to submitting other evidence. Thank you, AGK [•] 12:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC) That is productive. I can work on that. Could there be an exception to the policy that no one can edit other's evidence on this? This could/should be easier with collaboration. Casprings (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Using the two major US political parties is likely to be problematic. For the example, in the above list, I would belong on the Unidentified category, although if you define the categories as (American) liberal, (American) conservative, and Unidentified, then I would mostly land in the (American) liberal category. - MrX 13:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC) @Casprings: Feel free to collaboratively write the summary on the Workshop, then submit the finished copy as evidence. (However, please don't collaborate in an actual evidence submission, on the evidence page proper; that is likely to cause problems.) @MrX: If there are better ways to distinguish between the factions within these disputes, then feel free to use it. I am not an American, nor active in this topic area, so you will be better able to distinguish between the factions than I can. I just need a rough idea of what side of this dispute each actor sits on. Thank you both, AGK [•] 14:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC) @MrX: I think that works better. I copy and pasted it to the evidence page. However, we could just start going through and sorting editors. The enemy of good, is prefect... as they say.Casprings (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC) I believe this kind of political profiling of various Wikipedia editors is way out of line. It’s a general disruptive problem that people are «pseudo-profiling» each other on political and other leanings, and to have this kind of profiling legitimized by ArbCom would set a terrible precedent. Of course, if editors have a true bias in their editing which violates the NPOV policiy this can be called out and lead to restrictions. But this appeal by AGK seems to be a call to get a general overview over perceived political leanings of editors, before it’s concluded that they have any qualified bias in their editing. In the Gun Control Case for instance, only one side was found to have a bias in their editing; there would be no reason and in fact be highly inappropriate to conclude anything about the political leanings about those editors who supported the unbiased version. Iselilja (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC) It is extremely difficult to spot patterns in behaviour when you do not know who are working together and who are in opposition. Therefore, my request for this overview of the actors will stand. AGK [•] 14:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Quite frankly, I agree with Iselilja. I find it problematic to start sorting editors on the basis of their perceived leanings. If there is evidence of tag-teaming or POV-pushing or other disruptive behaviour, then, by all means, do provide evidence of that. However, speaking personally, I don't find sorting editors useful or even desirable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Speaking personally, I do find it useful. However, given your objections, I will do this in my own time and without the parties' assistance. AGK [•] 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks! However, I may be the odd man out (which is why I clarified I was speaking personally), and other arbs may disagree... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Miles Money

Currently-banned editor Miles Money purported to have evidence of a "conservative cloud" ([1] etc). I'd be interested to know if he sent anything persuasive to arbcom about this. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney has been totally blocked (not just banned) since January 29, 2014. MM has not sent anything anywhere. – S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that MM was in communication with arbcom (they declined his ban appeal on January 27). I don't know what he sent them and I don't think you do either. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I don't know what s/he sent them. I was thinking you meant has s/he posted any evidence re this arbitration. – S. Rich (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Banned editors may submit evidence by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, at which point we would decide whether to admit his material into evidence. In my view, material submitted would have to be of sufficient quality to justify making an exception to WP:BMB. If we decided to admit it, an arbitrator or clerk would then publish the material on the case evidence page, where it could be rebutted and discussed by the participants in the ordinary way. I believe we have not received any evidence from any banned user for this case, as of today. AGK [•] 10:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

ATTN: 70.36.142.114

70.36.142.114 (talk · contribs) – You are participating in this arbitration case as an anonymous editor. Is this because you do not have, and have never had, a Wikipedia account? If so, have you contributed to the topic area of American politics? If not, please contact the committee to disclose your previous and current registered accounts. Anonymous editors are not usually permitted to contribute extensively to arbitration cases unless they genuinely are contributors with no registered account. If you have concerns or questions, feel free to e-mail me directly. Thanks, and sorry to inconvenience you. AGK [•] 10:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider myself to be a regular contributor to US politics articles, although (e.g.) I made a double edit here about a long-deceased politician. In the case of living politicians and current events, I generally don't even read the articles, both for privacy reasons (the WMF's invasive disclosure of Wikipedia viewership statistics) and because I'm generally unimpressed with their content. That plus the hostile editing environment around them is enough to keep me from contributing to them.

I don't think I contributed "extensively" to this case, or anyway I didn't intend to. I made a post saying I had thought about contributing to an RFC but didn't do so, and I made a comment saying I wondered whether another editor had sent arbcom anything, since he made some allegations relevant to the topic the arbitration case is supposedly investigating, and said he had evidence to contribute.

I don't think I agree with your claim about arbcom processes historically, but either way I don't have any interest in participating further in this case. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

pro forma request for added time

[2] has me added to the case at the eleventh hour - I request until 17 May to add, revise and extend evidence as a normal procedural request. I consider three days to be insufficient, as such things as Mother's Day trips are scheduled and I will not cancel them. Without an extension, I will be unable to do anything much at all. Collect (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: No problem. You may edit the Evidence page until 17 May 2014, and material added through to this time in seven days will be taken into account when we write the draft decision. Thank you for checking with us. AGK [•] 13:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic: In my country, we celebrated Mother's Day last month, so at first your message confused me. I didn't know until I checked the Wikipedia article that the celebration date differs depending continent and country. The more you know… AGK [•] 13:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Longer Evidence Phase?

I noticed that AGK just notified a large number of editors about this case. With such a large notification, should the time for the evidence phrase be extended?Casprings (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

We'll see what comes of the notices, first. Most of those editors won't offer evidence. AGK [•] 09:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

@MrX: Yes, evidence will stay open until at least tonight. AGK [•] 17:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hail and Farewell

This section was not initially intended to be posted -- alas there is a lot of activity among editors seeking to "co-ordinate" evidence, which I find to be a very disturbing type of activity. (and the fact is that WP:BLP is an ongoing struggle for those remaining - just this morning an editor said that if allegations of "racial bigotry" falling in articles covered by the van Mises case were "verifiable" (as being printed), but he fails to note that the tem "contentious claims" well covers allegations of "racial bigotry" as needing strong sources, not just "someone wrote that:)) When such co-ordination exists, the probability increases that such coordinated efforts will have their desired result - to successfully attack the editor about whom the "evidence" is intended by sheer dint of repetition (The "Wikipedia gloss" I cite in the evidence).

The following evidence was not "provided by others", therefore the evidence was provided by AGK. The "evidence" is not found in any post on the Evidence page whatsoever:

11) Collect (talk · contribs) has been dismissive of other users' views (e.g. [3]) and needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants

([4],

[5],

[6],

[7]).

and was posted by AGK as a "finding" in the TPM case. . This was not just "drafting" a decision- it is actively acting as investigator and as prosecutor in a case where the poster also is a judge.

I invite lurkers to weigh in on the "momentous importance" of the evidence, noting no one but AGK had mentioned it, and in context not a single one was offensive to anyone.

With "proffered evidence", I assume you are trying to say "drafted decisions". This is part of my responsibilities as an arbitrator, and therefore is not grounds for recusal. Please familiarize yourself with, and then follow, the arbitration policy § Recusal of arbitrators. Thank you, AGK [•] 14:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC) (AGK)

The section about arbitrator recusal which he referred to directly states:

and is expected to do so where he or she has a significant conflict of interest. Typically, a conflict of interest includes significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties

Which is pretty evident in the case at hand - AGK has had significant personal contact outside normal arbitrator contact with me. If any personal animus is seen, recusal is the only option.

The person then posted:

I am not speaking as an arbitrator; I am asking you to extend the expected level of respect to another contributor. Only you can decide whether or not to do so. AGK [•] 22:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Consider - a judge "asks" you to do something. Do you assume he is telling you the truth when he says "this request has nothing to do with the fact I sit in judgment on you"? Really?

Where an arb is directly involved in the production of evidence, in the examination of that self-same evidence, and in the sanctions proposed on the basis of the evidence he himself provided, that is clearly beyond just "drafting" and falls well into "personal involvement."

Beyond that:

[8] was the "proposed decision" for the Tea Party case including a number of people who had never been a part of the case whatsoever.

[9] shows a reasonably direct personal interaction with me completely unrelated to any arbitration proceeding:

You are not a teacher; we are equals. You should not have expected me not to correct what I considered a misunderstanding in the question: that one arbitrator's private approach does not mean the whole committee ignored the workshop and evidence pages. In your question, you wrongly implied we did. You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not. I will say nothing more on the matter. Regards, (User:AGK) (emphasis mine - it looks like he is saying I am not honest in how I treated him)

and [10] has

You say you are going to evaluate answers in an "impartial manner" and assign values "from 0 to 5 for each answer … In several cases the aim of the question is to get a feeling for the Wikianschauung of the candidate". Could you therefore explain how my seven answers together returned a score of 'one?' ((AGK)

[11] shows the questions and answers from the ArbCom election pages.

On my user talk page the following "suggestion" was made:

I would ask you to remove this section, because it contravenes Wikipedia policy as at WP:POLEMIC. Thank you, AGK [•] 14:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: WP:POLEMIC is not a "policy" and, in fact, discourse relating to Wikipedia, and especially including evidence is specifically allowed in user space.

From his posts:

_Collect You are not sure whether this is or is not a quote, but no, evidence and workshop pages are never ignored by the committee or by me. despite the fact that is was an exact quote, and one which he appears not to have wanted to read.

People naturally gravitate towards groups that support their own view.

shows a clear desire to categorize editors as "part of a group" which I find to be an abhorrent and misused concept for an arbitrator. Especially as he had classed me as part of a very large "group" in the Tea Party case. And in the case at hand where he sought to label editors as belong to "factions" with which, thankfully, otter arbitrators demurred.

AGK specifically directs our attention to his comments in this thread

[12] To respond to the original point, I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions.

I did not say that you misquoted me. I said that you repeated what I said without comprehending it. The point is that this is not a case where "we can sanction someone, so we will". It is a case where "somebody is being disruptive, so we need to sanction them". Either you agree that disruptive editors need to be removed from an article for the good of the encyclopedia, or you think they should stay. If you agree, then we have the same view. If you disagree, well, you must consider your position.

IMO reads as a threat that my "position" on this issue will lead to my being sanctioned. Other parsing of If you disagree, well, you must consider your position. is welcomed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision&diff=571386292&oldid=571384278[ shows AGK's response to my points about being added only after a "Kill them All" resolution as defeated "I have nothing more to say." I was not added until after the "Kill them all" resolution was downed, was added by AGK, and with the only evidence being from AGK. The evidence phase was already closed, and no opportunity for rebuttal was given whatsoever.

[13] Losing your temper won't help us. Question for you: do you think you have not "needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants" or "been dismissive of other users' views" during the dispute discussions? shows a clear case of prejudgment in the first place. Especially since the "evidence" shows nothing remotely like what he "knows" to be the "truth."

AGK in the past, when he was the "investigated party" wrote:

I am displeased at being listed as a party to this case. In the event that this request is accepted (a prospect I make no comment on at this point) and that the final decision involves some variation of the usual "All parties are reminded to act like reasonable adults" remedy, I would be annoyed enough to retire from editing. Doubtless many of the other administrators whose involvement in these disputes is confined to attempts to keep editor conduct in line will be similarly annoyed at having been listed as parties to this request. AGK 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet he lectures me <g>.

AGK is "involved" now. Plain and simple. Both by acts and words.

And I note my agreement with User:KillerChihuahua and many others [14]

:I think no one should have been added after the evidence phase closed, without re-opening the evidence page. I think adding parties after the Workshop was closed is even worse. If you want to close the case, then ban some people individually based on their activities on the "moderated discussion" or the talk page in general or whatever; or reopen the case, or start a new case; I think that would have been a better approach. But adding parties after a case is basically closed except for Arbs is just wrong. Having this "invitation to comment on the talk page of the Proposed decision" does not make up for not having Evidence open and a full case for those listed after the appropriate timeframe. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the case now at hand, I find above the dicta from AGK:

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

to be troublesome at best, and completely at odds with any rational process at worst. Pays your money and takes your choice.

There are many actors in this dispute, and I have been slightly confused by the overlap between this case and previous ones (e.g. Gun control, Tea Party movement). Therefore, it would be exceedingly helpful if someone could provide an overview of the relevant participants in the Arzel 2 RFC (and in related article disputes). Ideally, such an overview would be grouped by 'faction'; for example:

Republican:

• Editor A
• Editor B

Democrat:

• Editor F
• Editor G

Unidentified:

• Editor X
• Editor Y

I would be happy to provide you with an extension to your word count if you supply such an overview in addition to submitting other evidence. Thank you, AGK [•] 12:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Shows an apparent desire to categorize editors and treat them on the basis of what someone asserts to be the truth about them, is violative of privacy, is violative of WP:OUTING and violative of commonsense.

Speaking personally, I do find it useful. However, given your objections, I will do this in my own time and without the parties' assistance. AGK [•] 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Is a promise or threat to "out" editors, or, worse yet, to make claims about them not based on objective fact. Which is yet another reason for AGK to recuse here -- prejudice, outing and categorization of editors are all against Wikipedia policy.

And his favourite treatment of policy is shown clearly by

1.A principle such as "Editors are expected to listen and respond to - not ignore - the community's concerns" would apply. However, these paragraphs are of little relevance to the dispute, and I do not think we need to mindlessly regurgitate basic policy in this way. AGK [•] 19:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeppers - an arbitrator saying use of policy is "regurgitation" where it interferes with his positions :(.

[15] shows my iterated position:

What is important is that trying to categorize anyone politically on the basis of properly conducted discussions on appropriate noticeboards does not work, never has worked, and never will work. This particular page is decidedly ill-suited for re-arguing decisions long since made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

On which position Wikipedia shall stand or fall.

As a result of likely prejudice and involvement by an arbitrator, who may have already "poisoned the well", I decline to add any further evidence of any type whatsoever, and decline to participate in the workshop, and decline to "out" myself or anyone in any way or participate in such any such exercise. If AGK has indeed categorized or outed any editors whatsoever, even in internal discussions, this proceeding is nugatory in my honest opinion.

Proverbially, a wise man will not drink from a poisoned well. Collect (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)