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

What does the committee want evidence of? NE Ent 15:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That idea was brought up during the request. The committee opted instead for a full case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the (perceived by the Arbs) scope is not just the Koch brothers, then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It just seems easier. American Politics is a very big and polerized subject. Casprings (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Duly noted. Thank you, AGK [•] 00:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The deeper I look into the material in relation to which I've commented in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Workshop#Analysis_of_VictorD7.27s_evidence section, the more I wonder whether VictorD7's conduct needs to be scrutinzed on that article, perhaps along with Mattand.

Progressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables. For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum, the United States has the most progressive federal tax system among its peer nations.[50][51] However, the progressiveness of the US tax system is reduced by state and local taxes, which tends on the whole to be regressive.[52][53][54][55]

Progressive taxation often must be considered as part of an overall system since tax codes have many interdependent variables. For example, when refundable tax credits and other tax incentives are included across the entire income spectrum, the United States has the most progressive income tax code among its peer nations.[52][53]

Do these fall under the scope of conduct issues to be examines in the case? Mattnad has responded and I have attempted to address his concerns along with offering an apology. I'm not sure that all of the issues are resolved with respect to the Talk page editing environment, sourcing and content disputes. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:08, 08:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me an apology too for multiple inaccuracies in your description. [4] I don't see how this Talk Page content dispute relates to this case, especially considering you demonstrably haven't read it carefully. VictorD7 (talk)

1. Evidence related to VictorD7 has been cited, primarily in the Workshop. The arbs are not constrained to look at only diffs provided. Diff in evidence are a starting point, not an ending point for material to review.
2. The main areas of disagreement appears to center on how best to measure the progressivity of US taxes. The economics profession has not (AFAIK) reached a consensus on this issue, so it is unlikely that Wikipedia editors can (or even should) reach such a consensus, and it is even more certain that Arbcom is not interested in determining the best may to do the measure. (there is broad agreement on the general measure, but the devil is in the details.) The articles ought to be reflecting the disparity of opinion about the alternatives, the curious and frustrating fact that differences in approach lead to markedly different conclusions. Attempting to solve the underlying economic issue via Arbcom is doomed to failure. Arbcom can help ensure that adherents to various views are acting according to Wikipedia conduct policies.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've restored the failure to strike though an incorrect User wikilink. As to whether Talk page conduct relates to the case, I think it does, whether your specific conduct does seems open to question, as described below. My recourse to WP policy jargon is partially and expedient means for intelligibly describing conduct, and I've indicated that I understand that it is something of a gray area to refer to OR and SYNTH with respect to Talk page discussions. I would prefer to wait for an Arbitrator to weigh in before admitting that I was wrong to bring the matter up at all. Of course I'd apologize for doing so if that were deemed to be the case.

I've just posted this link on the workshop in response to VictorD7[5]. It is the same link posted above with an excerpt of the answer provided by LK. After briefly perusing the sources, I did two quick searches, one for "state taxes" and the other for "total taxation" (as per VictorD7's question to LK, but got not hits on either. I don't have time to go through those sources or analyze whether they say what VictorD7 claims they say or not, but in light of the exchange between talk and LK on the Talk page and this revert, it seems like a viable question.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHY are these topics being raised here? The diffs deal with on-going article talk page discussions. The evidence phase of the arbitration is closed. I urge you two to look at the last sentence of the introductory paragraph at the top of this page. "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." In my opinion, adding new diffs to the Workshop discussion is not helpful. Adding diffs and asking for apologies here is disruptive. – S. Rich (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because I started looking into a single thread which led to a single revert which opened a can of worms, basically. I wasn't expecting this to mushroom, but once I found what seemed to be a graph that might have been compiled from various sources along with other suggestions on the Talk page that were being combined to justify excluding four RS and delete a sentence that seems to more accurately reflect RS than what is in the article now, I decided to ask whether I should post the material as evidence, precisely because the official evidence phase of the case has closed.

I've since discussed the graph with Mattnad and cleared that up for the most part, as it is apparent that he wasn't doing OR, just combining a couple of graphs from what I gather is RS.

I suppose that it is in fact the case that I got involved in the content dispute (an unintended consequence involving time consuming examination of sources, etc.) aspect due to the discussion o the Workshop page, so I came here asking for advice.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My statement about an apology was rhetorical and referenced his mention of apology in the preceding post, S. Rich, and if you're referring to my addition of diffs to the Workshop page (from my Evidence section; not new), that was after reading Newyorkbrad's suggestion ([6]) that participants do so. VictorD7 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With some trepidation, I am compelled to ask whether ongoing behavior similar to that which has already been presented in the form of diffs and analysis pertaining to separate articles would be of interest to the Committee at this stage. This is unrelated to the previous question. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: More evidence is always helpful, so you may submit further evidence to this page. However, the evidence may not be fully taken into account due to the constraints of time. You also must notify editors who you mention in supplementary submissions, so that they can rebut if they so wish. AGK [•] 14:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: OK, thank you. For the moment, I'll just post links to two discussions related to sourcing in which I find @Collect: to be engaging in conduct similar to that which I submitted in the evidence phase, some of which relates to misrepresentation of this source, which he diminutively characterizes as a mere book review after an apparent consensus had been reached that it was RS for the text concerned, and after this edit had already been carried out. It would be necessary to read that source in full in order to appreciate its scope, which certainly exceeds that of a book review however, offering some fairly in depth analysis of political schools of thought, geopolitics, etc.

There is also tendentiousness in the discussions.

1. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Voice_of_Russia_article_reliable_for_quotations_attributed_to_PM.3F
2. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Victoria_Nuland_and_Robert_Kagan
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What this is "evidence" of is the fact that you have a serious problem with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Collect's comments there are right on target. Can evidence be "boomeranged"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with all other proceedings of this nature, the behavior of all involved is under scrutiny. In other words (without commenting on whether that is the case here) yes. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My participation on the noticeboards was absolutely proper and in line with the policies applicable to such noticeboards, and Ubikwit is verging on WP:HARASS at this point. He was long since disinvited from posting on my UT page, and his comments on the noticeboards are rife with ad hominem arguments, alas. As noted before, I shall not participate in trying to disprove his claims, as they fail of their own weight IMO. Collect (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather late in the process here, but as Volunteer Marek has joined the party, I submit that his editing and talk page conduct on articles falling under the scope of this case should be subject to scrutiny a well. The final link is to an ongoing An/I thread, which I'm not sure is something that falls under the remit of the Committee at this point in time, but it will surely be resolved before this case is. The other links are two pages relating to the discussions already linked to above regarding the conduct of Collect. Note that it may be the case that User:Iryna Harpy is in need of a little guidance regarding her conduct on the repsective RS/N and BLP/N threads. I will notify her, but since the nature of the issues from my perspective will be clear from out interaction in those discussions, the only other reference necessary is to her User Talk page.

1. problematic edit summaries, section blanking, etc.
2. [Talk:Victoria_Nuland#BLP_restart failure to engage in discussion on Talk page after page blanking revert, disrupting the WP:BRD cycle]
3. Same as above
4. removal of more than two-year consensus version text, repeatedly reverting attempts to restore without engaging on Talk page, again disrupting BRD cycle
5. [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.E2.80.8EUser:Volunteer_Marek_deleting_well-sourced_material_from_Robert_Kagan_article_w.2Ffalse_recourse_to_BLP]
6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_editing_by_Volunteer_Marek
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O jeez freakin' christ. This is, what, sixth? Seventh? venue that you bring this up in? And that's AFTER you've ALREADY been told to quit it with the WP:FORUMSHOPPING! When other people, and I'm not referring here to myself, tell you to drop the stick and walk away, it's a really BAD idea to double down. If these people tell you, you shouldn't double down when you don't get the answer you want, you don't make matters even worse by starting to spamm your request to any barely relevant page or request.

I've joined the party by making a short comment. I haven't even been aware of this ArbCom case until like two hours ago. You've gone full on WP:BATTLEGROUND mode. With regard to me. And User:Iryna Harpy whose only crime appears to be that she didn't agree with you at WP:BLP and WP:RSN. You're starting to really annoy people and are not exactly earning marks for collaborative behavior. Before I thought you just needed a topic ban to get you away from a topic area you are not suitable to edit. Now it looks like you need some serious mentorship and if that doesn't work, a site ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VM, though I don't find your colorful language interesting, other's might.

Regarding User:Iryna Harpy, her first comment to me ever was made with an edit comment accusing me of WP:GAME. Considering that we had never interacted before on this site, that represents an egregious violation of WP:AGF. She will have to answer for that herself, however, as you are not her proxy.

`Arbitrators, I would like to suggest that User:Collect is something of a WP:DIVA at BLP/N with supports lurking lying in wait for a chance to support his pronouncements there, and I refer to the comments in the Workshop by User:Cube lurker[7][8], etc., as partial testimony to that. And when I queried Cube lurker regarding evidence or a proposed finding pertaining to BLP issues, his reply was that it didn't matter that there was none. He seems to basically have intended to vouch for the character of Collect [9], insinuating that I was missing the "forest for the trees".

With regard to Iryna, I don't know the history of her activity on BLP/N or with Collect and don't have time to look into that, but her immediate accusation of forum shopping without first maybe asking me a question or trying to engage me with regard to the possible perception of forum shopping is suspect. her comment here, in response to this comment by Collect makes me wonder, because the comments are fully attributed to the Russian Prime Minister, not "stated as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia".

Though this is the very first BLP issue in which I've engaged at the BLP/N, the comment by User:FormerIP at ES/N coincides with my understanding of WP:RS in general. FormerIP's comment was completely ignored by Collect, who apparently didn't hear it--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:56, 17:06 23 May 2014 (UTC)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am an individual wikipedian in good standing. I am part of no cabal. Also I rarely contribute to articles at the locus of this case. That I supported Collect on the workshop means that in my opinion he is correct. I stand by my opinions as mine and mine alone. It is not against wiki policy to disagree with you.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Did I ever say it was against Wikipedia policy to disagree with me? I simply asked for the rationale that was the basis of you statements, as they appeared to relate to matters not addressed in the case, but rather to be a sort of character reference, as described above in the amended text.

The crux of the matter is that although you assert that Collect was correct in your opinion, there is no substantial matter in this case with respect to which your opinion has a counterpart. That is to say, and I repeat myself, basically, there was not a single BLP issue raised in the case, though you supported Collect in terms of his being right in BLP battles, as you yourself opined[10].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have differences of opinion. That is fine. My objection is on this page you characterizing me as one "lurking in wait for a chance to support his pronouncements". I am no ones "support" I am no "meatpuppet". I am a man with an opinion who gave it in the appropriate workshop section. Feel free to disagree. Do not feel free to turn me in to some sort of linked ally of anyone.--Cube lurker (talk)

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you, I should have been wary of the fact that "lurker" is part of your use name. I'll strike that phrasing (though I can only replace it with "lying"). The gist of my statement was made with reference to the following passage from the WP:DIVA essay. Please have look. Thanks.

A truly successful diva has a loyal (and usually large) following. Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. Administrator pals are most valued, and threats to block those that step on a diva's toes are effective tools in the enabling process. A diva may often be regarded as literally "the best" editor on the project for certain tasks; and they know it.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. With regards to that DIVA essay it touches on a difficult area. People who question an editors work may be attacked by supporters due to some cult of personality True. People who question an editors work may be attacked by supporters because the editor is correct. Also True. It's possible that there will be a mix of both groups in the same discussion. It would be wrong to assume that because someone has people agreeing with them, they must be wrong and only supported due to a "loyal following". I can only speak for myself in that I try to only support people when I believe they're correct.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My only interest in Ubikwit's involvement in editing Wikipedia was triggered by noting that he/she was pushing for tendentious BLP content in two forums simultaneously. In fact, I'd tried to make a discrete observation on both pages about WP:ADMINSHOP first on the RS/N as a "comment", then on the BLP/N noting that it could be potentially construed as WP:GAME in the edit summary.

I didn't get the chance to make any comments regarding the content being promoted for a BLP as WP:Coatrack, hence better left for appropriate articles dealing with the subject matter, due to Ubikwit's predisposition for posting walls of text at a remarkably rapid rate. Perhaps his/her treating all content matters as a race might explain the misunderstanding of VM's removal of inappropriate content for a BLP by an SPA IP user as being removal of content from a 'consensus' version which had stood for 2 years. I most certainly couldn't establish any consensus for this content on the talk page (unless 2 editors working on it in 2012 constitutes consensus); neither was it the content which had stood for 2 years.

As to assertions by Ubikwit that I could do with mentoring, I invite admins to track all of my contributions and the copious WP:BRD discussions I have initiated in order to establish due and undue content, working seriously and collaboratively on creating NPOV content right across the board. As has been suggested above, it is Ubikwit who is in need of mentoring (at the least). According to him/her, It is appropriate practice to ask a user on their user page if they may have a COI, hence posting COI? as a section heading on an unknown-quantity user's talk page (that is, me) is obviously AGF. I've yet to encounter such practices as standard communication unless identified editing practice patterns have suggested it to be warranted. In any other circumstances, such inferences are downright uncivil.

I'm concerned with Ubikwit's general attitude to actually checking the history of articles, editors' history, and simply paying attention to anyone other than those s/he wants to listen to. Approaching Wikipedia as a race, a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and other WP:NOTHERE issues is detrimental to the project. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, Iryna's very first interaction with me on this site involved an accusation in her edit summary that I was WP:GAME, which was not only unsubstantiated and a violation of WP:AF, but disruptive. Firstly, it was an allegation of misconduct, which, if she thought could be substantiated should have been raised at AN/I instead of used to disrupt the content discussion. Secondly, it spanned a scope encompassing two articles, and two separate--though not entirely unrelated--sourcing discussions.

Iryna's appearance at the BLP/N discussion occurred after material had been restored to the Kagan article and Collect had tried to dismiss the FA piece as a mere book review, while VM concurrently was attempted to misrepresent the FA article by asserting that the author actually considers Kagan to be a realist instead of a neoconservative[11] on the pretext of a cherry-picked quote taken out of context and. I responded to both Collect and VM's dubious mischaracterizations of the source in a single comment[12]. at that stage, the issue on the Nuland article related to the phone conversation had been stabilized, and the ES/N post related to comments attributed to the Russian prime minister and to a page where the comments of three other prominent public officials were presented, on the one hand, and to the allegations regarding Nuland's interference in the internal affairs of Russia as well as Ukraine, in relation to which there are numerous other sources, such as this Western Diplomats Are Going to Disappoint Ukraine’s Protesters, Time Magazine, December 13, 2013 mainstream media RS, which I was compelled to quote a paragraph from toward the end of the RS/N discussion as content unrelated to the initial question had been introduced. I expressed my willingness to adress her concerns relating to the content dispute, and referenced WP:BATTLE[13].

Iryna's language was somewhat bizarre to me, so I decided to check her User page and noticed that she had a box declaring

This user is a proud descendant of the Zaporozhian Cossacks.

Since %90 of my knowledge about the Cossacs is derived from reading about events surrounding the recent crisis regarding the Crimean peninsula and Ukraine, and considering that Ukraine comprises areas seeing episodes of armed conflict, I decided to leave a query regarding any potential COI at her User page[14], which I believe is appropriate practice, and I have once before had occasion to do same.

After asking her to use plain English and for clarification as to what she meant, she responded in colored/bolded text that

I don't really get the allusions to an "end game" here, but this is of course related to the Ukraine crisis, just from another angle... [15]

That quote, in turn, she had lifted from my post at RS/N here..

She also hurled a tit-for-tat accusation of COI at me in the comment as per the preceding diff from the BLP/N page.

Note that regarding the SPA to which she refers, I agree that the content in question doesn't belong in the article and have myself reverted that. However, the scope of the content being removed was far broader, encompassing a 2+-year consensus text pertaining to the "neoconservative" characterization and accompanying sourcing. Had VM simply removed that material and not tried to misrepresent the FA article and dismiss the Guardian piece, as shown in this exchange between him and User:Nomoskedasticity[16], none of these issues would have been brought about.

One last point I'd like to have considered relates to something I mentioned in the above-diffed joint response to Collect/VM, and that pertains to sourcing and BLPs. I understand the need for more stringent standards for BLP sourcing, but with respect to syndicated columnists like Krugman (use in Robert P. Murphy BLP vis-avia Austrian Economics arbitration) and William Pfaff (exclusion of refcite from Kagan article), the attempts to exclude their statements (or even simply refcites) from BLPs seems to be a significant and continual source of friction on the project. The attempt to arbitrarily dismiss Voice of Russia seems to me a related issue, thought the BLP issue is peripheral to the blanket dismissal thereof as RS. Clarification on those points with respect to policy is desirable.

In closing, I would like to draw attention to the fact that I raised the policy WP:PUBLICFIGURE directly on numerous occasion, eliciting not a single response from the other editors on the relevant discussion pages. I consider that to further demonstrate that there was an I didn't heat that form of obstruction aimed at manipulating the outcome of the respective content discussions one example.--[[User:Ubikwit|<span style="text-shadow:black 0.07em --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:39, 06:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First - being descended from Alexander the Great and Macedonians would not make someone have a COI with regard to modern Greek history <g> and the bandying of COI "questions" is insulting to many editors. Just as being an Arab or Jew is not a "COI" with regard to the IP issues. WP:COI does not remotely come close to calling such tenuous connections a "conflict of interest" and I fear trying to use it as a bungee cord to attack other editors is a significant issue here. Second, the repeated erroneous assertion that I would exclude VoR as a source is getting tiresome - the issue is whether Wikipedia's voice should be used to make an opinion of a person being quoted into a fact about a living person. This has been stated several times now, and should be noted as in accord with WP:BLP as policy. Collect (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]