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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 them. 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. 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 of the three that I edited after he first did, for two I did follow him 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. For the third article I followed a different editor there after seeing a topic I was interested in discussed on his talk page, that Phoenix and Winslow was there was the reason I used the Talk page only and he even agreed with the edit I proposed there, I did not edit the mainspace. 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. Phoenix and Winslow may sincerely believe his version of the events but I believe that editors should not allow his statement to influence any decision made. Thanks. Wayne (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [1] 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. [2]

His conduct also has been an issue in articles in the race and intelligence topic area, such as this sequence of edits [3] [4] [5] [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Back in April I had a look at Apostle12's edits to our White privilege article and found many of them problematic [7]. 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)[reply]

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"[8][9][10], "might"[11], "argued"[12][13][14][15]).
• In this series of edits[16][17][18][19] 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...[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]..."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)[reply]

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.[28][29] Others point out that this behavior violates Wikipedia policy or can get him blocked[30][31][32], and he returns to it.[33][34][35]

Apostle12 also adds material that is not verifiable[36] and removes material that is verifiable[37] despite having had it explained that verifiability is part of Wikipedia's standards.[38]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I have thus far been involved with related articles only to the extent that an uninvolved editor needed to enforce the BLP policy and I happened to be available. I don't think I have had any interaction with Apostle or the other editors here besides P&W. I do not think that a full case would be necessary. It would be a large expenditure of the Arbitration Committee's time when that time is sparse enough and the eventual result seems obvious. I think it would be easier to just handle it by motion (sanctions can be from editor probation or a topic ban), or alternatively, try out some new procedure – perhaps draft a panel of willing uninvolved administrators to look into the matter and decide as they see best or select a panel of arbitrators to hear the case on behalf of the Committee. NW (Talk) 17:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]