Wikipedia : Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop

, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source.

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a

undue weight

Herein lies the crux of the problem on Tea Party movement. One side wants to edit in as much negative content as possible and keep out positive edits, while the other side wants to edit out negativity and load in more positive edits. These negotiations almost always involve the sources. The problem with a topic like TPM is that it's vague and so you don't often find, especially after all this time, reliable sources like the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, picking up these news bits. Instead, you get Joe's blog, or some dodgy journal masquerading as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. As an example, Goethean opened a thread about a journal/study that claimed the TPM, this amorphous entire movement, was actually started/funded long ago by the tobacco industry.

Apparently, this was a brand new claim and had not been picked up by the mainstream media as yet. When an editor questioned the source, Goethean informed the editor that his comments were "strictly partisan, had no relation to Wikipedia policy and could be ignored as irrelevant." And then he announced that the source was of the "highest order" and "will be used in this article." And what followed were several interminable threads about RS. The edit was made, it was reverted, etc. I don't even know if it's in or out at this point. It doesn't matter. What matters, IMHO, is that these round-robins about negative/positive content and sources, are the font from which animosity, personal attacks, battle, and incivility spring. At the end of the day, the encyclopedia suffers.

talk) 02:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

I think that the tone of your remark belies the tendentious nature of the discussions over reliable sources, which really should not be so tendentious.

Neutrality does not mean that the content of an article is not going to present views that might offend the sensibilities of someone with an emotional attachment to the topic. Neutrality is defined in relation to sources, and the attempt by advocates to deprecate sources is one of the largest hindrances I have come across in trying to contribute content to this website.

Now then, where was I at before distraction took over?

Oh yeah, I was going to quote this passage from one of the above-referenced policies.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Dealing with repeated and persistent irrational opposition regarding sources is not a joke, as it prevents anything from getting done on the article that would actually reflect the state of what RS are saying.

It definitely is the case that RS/N should be used more in relation to such indirect content disputes, but the discussion related to the tobacco article there shows that even there making progress can be difficult.Ubikwit (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I said above.

talk) 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

Neutrality and sources

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a

guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional

.

One would have to grant that the TPM article, in view of the decentralized character of the movement, presents certain problems with respect to harmonizing sources, which may relate to any of the respective various disparate constituent non-parts of the phantom whole in all of their burgeoning glory.

It may make for an interesting opportunity for word play, but I, for one, am not of a mind that it is not possible to address the TPM as a whole.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good-faith participation welcome

5) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, tagging articles for clean-up, initiating or participating in community deletion discussions, or performing of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

6) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Though not a party to this action and having minimal experience editing the article and participating in related discussions, I have gleaned a couple of insights.

First, due to the fragmented nature of the TPM, it is inevitable that there is going to be a fair amount of piecemeal editing related to one aspect or another of the activities or the like of one group or another affiliated with "the movement".

That in itself seems to be a cause of friction against with editors that want to present a united front for "the movement".

This, in turn, point to the main division relating to the topic disputes that drive a good deal of the tendentious editing. That is, namely, the so-called "astro-turf" vs authentic divide.

In the single section of the article I engaged in editing, I recall that there appeared to be an attempt to misappropriate a source related to an Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Racism.2C_Resignation_of_NPR_CEO_Vivian_Schiller NPR controversy. In that case, there was an incident in which the CEO resigned because of statements made by an executive heading the fund raising department in a sting set up by (TPM?) activists.

There were editors that wanted to represent the source solely as a source for casting aspersions on the "liberal" media by the mea cupa resignation of the CEO, while deprecating the statements made by the fund raiser that triggered the resignation. It seemed obvious to me that the statement of the fund raiser were relevant context, yet most of the editors had not even done the homework of examining the sources. In the end people recognized the claims I was making (which basically expanded on or supported claims made by Gothean or Xenophreninc earlier), after which what I suppose was a consensus was reached not to include anything from that source at all.

It seems to me that perhaps something about that incident should be described on the article, as it appears to have received a fair amount of attention in the media. However, because the statements of the fund raiser problematized the possibility of presenting the incident with the sort of high-impact POV that was apparently being sought, everything was nixed, leaving something of a hole in the article, certainly not informing the reading public.

Most of the tendentious interaction I've seen has been on the Talk page, and much of it relates to sources and the application thereof in the above-described context.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article sanctions

7) Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fanning the flames

8) While wider community participation can help resolve disputes and issues, participating editors are expected to remain civil, to assume good faith, and to avoid disruption to prove a

point

to avoid further inflaming the issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We can disagree as to which editors may have violated this. It would also be a good suggestion that participating editors accurately interpret what has been said and done, and to note that unjust attacks may also further inflame the issues, even if done civilly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Administrators

9)

policies and guidelines

and any action taken by them may be influential on other editors, who trust the administrator to know what is and is not appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disruption by administrators

10) Disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be faced with sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, including the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrator responsiveness

11) Administrators are expected to be responsive and "respond promptly and civilly to queries", and be prepared to provide evidence in the form of diffs, and be open to discussion, when they call for sanctions on other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seeking community input

12) In cases where there are longstanding complex behavioral and content issues, an uninvolved editor may seek community assistance via posting at

WP:ANI

. ANI is for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." Such requests for community input, if they are made in a spirit of good faith and neutrally presented, are permitted and should not be discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

ANI is all of the above. The problem is picking the right battle to bring there. North8000 was being disruptive and KC should have blocked him. ANI does not stop disruption in the moment. Blocks do that. It would have been better to save going to ANI for an interminable dispute, which happen often enough. This might well have brought out rational editors suggesting ArbCom. Certainly the desysop bit wouldn't have happened, but that's not KC's fault. I've never seen editors come out so fast and post such vitriol so furiously. Their posts offered virtually nothing in the way of constructively managing problems at TPM.

talk) 03:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

I think the chaotic, hostile reaction shows my judgment was correct, rather than the reverse, in choosing to take this to a wider audience. Had it been merely North8000, it would not have spiraled out of control so fast - and I note below you call for sanctions on Goethean and Xenophrenic, which would hardly be the case if you thought North8000 were the sole issue. As he is not the sole issue, I contend my decision to take this to ANI was the appropriate decision. Killer Chihuahua 20:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were definitely right to close that thread and come here. I wonder if it was a full moon that night. I still think a block was in order. Next time, remember you have that

talk) 19:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

Thanks; I think so too. As far as remembering to use my "special admin Twinkle app" (cute!) remember that there are 1,354 results for for "admin abuse" on prefix:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - which doesn't even include other phrasing, such as "investigate admin for misuse of block" or "this admin abused their tools" etc. Most of those are because admins remembered they had "special admin Twinkle". It is often best to be slow and sure, rather than quick to block. Killer Chihuahua 20:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Tea Party movement article

1) The

Tea party movement

article and related articles have been subject to edit warring, partisan editing, and generally incivil behavior. This has at times spilled out into noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There was discussion that the scope of this case should include US politics rather than just the Tea party movement. But I don't think that is what you mean by "related articles". Do you mean the articles mentioned by Viriditas? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that this is an issue which is particular to articles in Category:Tea Party movement, or that it is present in US politics articles, but only in Tea Party movement does the behaviour become serious enough for possible ArbCom sanctions? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think it would be helpful to name the related articles, because I am not aware of what is related beyond Tea Party rallies.

talk) 16:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

SilkTork, I mean at least that. Unfortunately, due to space and time constraints, I was unable to do so, but I believe it would be fairly easy to document similar issues on all articles included in Category:Tea Party movement. I think the remedy should include the category; it will make determining whether an article comes under DS very simple. Should you feel that is too broad, then I would think some care will need to be taken to determine the scope. Killer Chihuahua 15:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that US politics in general at this time tends towards strong opinion and partisan editing. I would not say that all US politics articles are currently in need of DS, although a good case could be made for several. I would have to say many, but not all, TPM articles have serious behavior which would indicate a need for sanctions - and I think that 1) the category makes it easy to determine which articles without in-depth analysis of each and every article and 2) if we choose some, then there is likelihood the behavior will spill onto currently not-so-problematic, related articles, much as Abortion issues leak over into the Fetus article. I'm Goldilocks here - I think all US politics would be too broad a topic for sanctions, I think naming a few articles would be too narrow; I think the TPM category might be just right. If we name specific articles, I will probably ask for an extension so I can examine all the articles in question in greater detail. Killer Chihuahua 18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)But what articles would that be? I'm not familiar with

talk) 18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

Articles in Category:Tea Party movement. Click on the category for a list. Or look at the categories in any given article to see if that category is present, and if the category is there, then it is in that category. Killer Chihuahua 18:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it has its own category!

talk) 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

North8000

2) North8000 has engaged in incivility and personal attacks on

battleground behavior

.

You might want to split this one into two parts and treat each part separately. Killer Chihuahua 10:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has no basis. This is centered around two accurate useful comments. Please see the evidence. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Darkstar1st

3) Darkstar1st has engaged in incivility on

battleground behavior

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You might want to split this one into two parts and treat each part separately. Killer Chihuahua 10:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one edit to the article since August 2012, which was reverted, am I really battling? The incivility claims are from 2011 when I attempted to remove grossly offensive terms from the article, which remain still. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring tends to show in article edits; battleground behavior shows more in talk and other page posts. You intentionally started a section with a heading of words you find objectionable, and you did it again in your evidence section here. You could have titled the section on the TPM talk page as "Objectionable content" and you could have titled your evidence section here as "Talk page headings" - but you didn't. You actually chose to use words you, yourself, find offensive - not just offensive, but "grossly offensive". You were trying to get a rise out of people, you were intentionally using offensive words. You were picking a fight, and that's battleground to a T. And it wasn't just then, it is, as we can see on the evidence page, here and now. Killer Chihuahua 09:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless. Darkstar has probably the most gentle wording style of any of the editors there. Their style (very very brief wording) is unique which can get misread. Even when they are "hanging tough" they are not uncivil. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Malke 2010

4) Malke 2010 has engaged in incivility and failed to assume good faith on Talk:Tea Party movement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My one comment to KillerChihuahua on the talk page was an ill-timed reaction to both North8000 and KC using my name in their argument. I have taken several opportunities at ANI and ArbCom to apologize to her. Granted, it's hard to assume good faith when your name is being bandied about. However, had I investigated further I would have seen that the real issue was about something that had occurred at an earlier date, and had nothing to do with me.

talk) 05:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

You might want to take this as a lesson learned, and not attack editors out of hand in the future. Killer Chihuahua 08:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously commented on Ubikwit and suggested he be included in any edit restriction/sanctions under the section "Edit restrictions." [1]

With regard to the edits he's talking about below, the article history speaks for itself, but I attempted to make a compromise edit with a better source that quoted the tea party directly.

In the meantime, Ubikwit made a personal attack on the moderated discussion page accusing me of advocacy, which I removed. I brought the issue to his talk page. In his last comment in that discussion, he mentioned the compromise edit I'd made to the article. Soon after, he went to the article and deleted my edit.

Talk page comment at 0726 13 April [2] Reverts Malke’s edit at 0811 13 April [3].

I do not know Ubikwit. I've never edited with him. I try to avoid replying to him now because he seems to have a similar fixation with me as did User:Izauze and his two socks, which were an IP [4] and Dylan Flaherty. At some point, Jpgordon reminded Izauze on his talk page to sign in when editing and not use his IP. Eventually Dylan was indef blocked by LessHeard vanU. Izauze was blocked for socking [5]. The IP hounded me and was warned by an admin. Izauze was eventually unblocked, but has not edited in over a year. He appears to have abandoned his account.

In hindsight, it likely would have been better to not engage with Ubikwit, because I can now see the long run. But in the moment, the problem is you always want to AGF and you think commenting might solve the problem.

I've worked hard on Wikipedia in the last 2.5 years improving articles despite being very busy in RL. I've recently created several articles, improved several more over several topics. I've got several more articles in the works but no time now to do anything with them in the immediate future.

People keep going on about me being a major contributor to Tea Party movement, but up until March, 2013, I had not edited the article in 2.5 years. That hardly makes me a major contributor anymore, despite what the edit counter says. It's not reality. And I'd only made very brief one-off comments on the talk page once in 2011, and again in 2012. All comments were regarding article improvement. 2011 Opened new section: [6] 2012 Worst article ever:[7] worst article ever subsection 1:[8] worst article ever subsection 2nd attempt and Discussion: [9]

I think the best thing that has happened to the article is Silk Tork moderating a discussion which seems to be working well, and ArbCom taking it on.

Some editors think Killer Chihuahua is involved, but I think her assuming I was still a major contributor speaks to her not being involved. It appears she assumed I was an active editor there based on the edit count. Had she been involved, she would have seen I was not active and no longer a major contributor.

talk) 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

I would like to call attention to the recent apparently arbitrary blanket reversions by Malke in the "Agenda" section of the TPm article. I have asked her and Arzel, who'd also reverted the same content once before Snowed mentioned "tag teaming" on the Talk page, for their policy-based rationales regarding claims that my edits were WP:OR, violated WP:DUE etc., and have received no response from either.

SilkTork has noted that Malke is the main contributor to the article, and I'm beginning to wonder whether

Wikipedia:OWN#Multiple-editor_ownership

might be apply to the situation with this article.

Note that the edits Malke has reverted today included passages from a source that she herself used first, but which she is basically seeking to restrict to a one sentence paraphrase, excluding the substantial amount of relevant material I pulled out of it. This is the version of the section that was blanket reverted today Agenda

She has also made a comment in the early stages of the moderated discussion to reduce content of the article [10], but not offering a policy-based rationale or even mentioning specific material. She accuesd me of making a personal attack for commenting that

Malke states above that the article should "not stay mired in excessive details", which I assume means that, as in the case of the Agenda section, she wants to minimize the content so that the article presents only information that serves the purpose of advocacy as opposed to providing encyclopedic coverage of the topic.

I admit that the comment was improper, but it was made after reverts by Malke and Arzel to the same content with no responses to Talk page queries and I was a little frustrated and a rather sleep-deprived.

Malke has continuously--up to and including today--refused to engage in discussion on the Talk page [11] [12] [13] regarding the edits at hand, which are based on excellent sources by legal scholars. I do not think that Malke has demonstrated a willingness to collaborate on those edits in a collegial manner. The moderated discussion is getting off to a slow start, as it is app apparent that Arbcom has multiple cases pending, and perhaps she is trying to prevent edits to the article until that discussion takes place, but I don't believe we have been requested to stop editing the article in the interim. Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 12:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've already invested a fair amount of time in these proceedings, and have been compelled to look more closely at various things, I’m going to note the results.

First, I've been compelled to look more closely because Malke made some unusual comments about me above (17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)), including the following.

I do not know Ubikwit. I've never edited with him. I try to avoid replying to him now because he seems to have a similar fixation with me as did User:Izauze and his two socks, which were an IP [4] and Dylan Flaherty...

In hindsight, it likely would have been better to not engage with Ubikwit, because I can now see the long run.

I don’t know whether she is insinuating that maybe I am a sock of one of the editors she mentions, but it seems possible. What does she mean by "the long run"? It sounds somewhat incoherent to me.

Several years ago she accused Viriditas of having an unusual interest in her, similar to what she has asserted about me. I will post that quote below, but first I want to point out a couple of things that stuck out once I looked at two threads from the article Talk page a little closer, with regard to her edit count ("one-off edits") and the involvement of IP accounts.

Malke started this thread[14], had 4 edits and started the following subsection, making the sole edit there:

Editing Wish List

Please list things you like to see eliminated for summerized in the article.

1) Eliminate the "Commentaries" section. 2) Summarize everything that comes after it. The racism, Islam monkey comment, etc., are all WP:Undue weight. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

An IP account which was an SPA that was active for exactly six days Special:Contributions/76.20.32.102 also participated, voicing support.

This thread was started by an IP account[15]. The edit starting that thread was the sole edit to the TPm Talk page made by the IP, ever.[16].

It strikes me as a little unusual for an editor with no contributions whatsoever to the article or related discussions to start such a thread. Malke was the first to respond to the IP's opening edit, and that response on 2 March 2012 represented her first edit to the article Talk page since this edit on 29 August 2011, approximately 7 months earlier. Malke made 15 edits in that thread, including the following exchange with North8000.

My idea was to start nuking out the trivia and items not ABOUT the TPM per above. Then's we'd have an article 1/2 the size of the current one. And then rbuild with quality relevant stuff. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay with me on the nuke thing. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The parallel push for eliminating whole sections of the article and “nuking out” material seem noteworthy with respect to attempts at WP:OWN. Though not actually editing the article, it appears that an effort to build some sort of pseudo consensus was being made to eliminate material deemed undesirable (or irrelevant) by Malke and North8000, as it were. It also struck me that the respective section titles are somewhat similar: “This article is a train wreck”, and “Worst article EVER”.

I don’t know if the above-described points quite form a pattern, but the activity and parallels seems somewhat suspicious to me.

Instead of diffs, I’m going to post the passages from the Talk page discussion in which she makes the abovementioned comment about Viriditas. Note that the comment was made during the course of discussions at Malke’s Talk page in 2010 on “Reverts and Article ownership” related to the Tea Party movement[17]

Comment to Viriditas:

Now, please I think it's best to end this discussion, as I don't know what's upset you, or why you seem to have an unusual interest in me, but it seems to me that further engagement here won't solve whatever it is. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also this comment from Will Beback, leading me to believe that this is a repeat performance by Malke on the same article.

Malke 2010, did you read that policy like I asked you to? I see that elsewhere you say you've done nothing wrong and don't intend to even respond to this request.[21] Instead of responding to me you've made more reverts.[22][23] I think that's unhelpful behavior and reminiscent of the behaviors that led to previous enforcement actions. Nobody wants to see a repeat of those. Again I request that you please read and closely follow WP:OWN. Will Beback talk 09:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 01:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin is involved

5) Arthur Rubin is involved as an active editor of Tea party movement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not active, really, unless the standards for being "active" have devolved considerably. Involved, yes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my evidence, and wonder, how is a little more than an edit every other day not active? If it were only two or three a week? Only one a week? It looks active to me. I don't know where your line of demarcation is, but this is not even borderline to me. One edit a week is still "currently editing" and you're doing considerably more than that. Killer Chihuahua 08:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin has violated POINT

6) Arthur Rubin has disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point; has failed to respond to requests for rationale and evidence while continuing to assert sanctions on another editor were called for.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The "disruption" due to my actions was minimal. It would have done quite well without me. I admit to violating

WP:POINT, as did most editors in the ANI thread/subpage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

That's a rather sweeping accusation. Are you certain it is "most" and not merely "some"? I only counted two, out of a total of at least 34 editors (some commented before it was moved to the subpage),[18] who I think violated POINT. Yet you contend more than half violated POINT? If you do think so, why did you offer no evidence to support that allegation? Why do you not propose the persons be found to have violated POINT as a proposed finding of fact? I think you're painting with a very broad brush there, and I see no reason to think that most parties were not genuinely trying to offer input and resolve the issues. I grant you that, as Malke states elsewhere on this page, it was a case of "editors come out so fast and post such vitriol so furiously" yet I do not believe there was intentional disruption of Wikipedia by most of these. Some were cases of a battlefield mindset, others very probably due to frustration at a long running problem on the article. I believe many editors were genuinely trying to resolve the problem. Killer Chihuahua 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC, you were trying to resolve the issue and maybe a few others. Most of those people commenting had never even edited TPM. That aside, Arthur should not have added to the desysop post. As I recall, he said he had an e/c and did not know that would be there. There's no reason not to believe him so I give him the benefit of the doubt. The issue was not about you and any posts to suggest you were acting in bad faith should have been redacted by the editors involved. IMHO, there was no proof of bad faith behavior by you.

talk) 05:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

I said one of those sentences backwards, but as I got the rest right I trust everyone knew it was a typo. Fixed from "I see no reason to think most were" to "I see no reason to think most were not". Apologies for any confusion. Killer Chihuahua 08:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, in the post where he said he had an edit conflict, he said he'd been planning to start a section to call for sanctions on me.[19] He added to the started section (North8000 calling for my desysoping) instead. The edit conflict exonerates nothing. I don't doubt it; I do believe Rubin when he stated that he'd been planning to start a section calling for sanctions against me, especially as he promptly doubled-down on the call.[20] Killer Chihuahua 08:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't read that section thoroughly at the time. The thread title was still banging around my head.

talk) 15:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

I am taking everything said in that random mob-violence snake-pit situation (the ANI) by those while they were being eaten as being only in that context, and not having any meaning outside of that context. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin previously admonished

7) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, closed 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC), Arthur Rubin was "admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Precedent set by C68-FM-SV#FeloniousMonk, and I presume other cases, to note prior instances of remedies by ArbCom in the case of an administrator. Killer Chihuahua 08:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no basis. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin hasn't accused of misusing his admin tools, so I fail to see how this is relevant. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While past admonishments and or sanctions oftentimes do show evidences of problematic behavior, the evidence that Arthur Rubin has abused his tools or position in this situation are exceptionally weak at best.--MONGO 19:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua is uninvolved

8) KillerChihuahua is an uninvolved admin, and has been acting in that capacity regarding the Tea party movement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see that KC is involved. I have a question for KC, though, which may be underlying what North is concerned about. When approached for advice, KC gave an excellent response. The comments there underline an important principle about dealing with incivility: ignoring someone's tone of voice or temporary fit of pique may be more beneficial than confronting it. However, having given that advice, KC was still requested to follow up. The request was to look into if goethean's editing was tendentious. What KC did was to ask North8000 to stop making that accusation or provide difs. My question is: did KC look into if goethean's editing was tendentious? And if so, did KC feel that North8000's comments were totally unjustified, and that the tone of voice was unjustified when compared to goethean's tone of voice. I think this is important, as it appears to me that North felt unfairly picked on, as it probably appeared to North that what they were doing was no different to what goethean was doing - such as here, and so perhaps felt that KC was taking sides. I suspect that is what North means by "involved". An explanation that the matter was investigated as requested, and a fair and accurate judgement that North's behaviour was incivil and disproportionate compared to goethean's, would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I realized if this isn't a finding of fact, I might be considered involved due to this case. A ruling on this is necessary for me moving forward; I must know how the committee views this, and I prefer to know pre-emptively. Killer Chihuahua 20:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the catalyst for the conflagration was the dustup between you and me on my talk page, IMHO you were involved on that. You may have been uninvolved at the article but it is really only a sidebar to the catalyst for the conflagration. I used "catalyst" in it's technical sense. Once the fuse is lit, AN and ANI's on vague behavioral charges tend to turn into random mob violence situations all on their own. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, I was involved in being an uninvolved admin? There was no "dustup." There was me telling you to stop accusing others with no diffs, and telling you to stop the personal attacks, and there was you arguing. That's not a "dustup" that's a poor choice on your part. I have already explained[21][22] to you that I am not involved just because I warned you about behavior. An admin is specifically not involved if all they do is act in an administrative capacity. You can repeat your belief until the cows come home, but it won't hold water. I quote from the

policy page: One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'. Killer Chihuahua 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

I believe that a dustup between you and me happened which was quite separate from anything at the article. I think that you made 3-4 errors early in the process, I tried engaging you in discussion on some of those, you refused to do so. Despite the fact that I disengaged on both the talk page and the article on that topic and it went stale, what was your basis for going to ANI based on one comment in an unrelated area? IMHO the dominant force in the course of events was a dustup between you and me on my talk page, not anything that happened at the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree rather thoroughly on this. I think the only error I might have made was the one Malke 2010 pointed out, in that it might have been simpler just to block you rather than to go to ANI. I certainly don't recall you "trying to engage" me. Killer Chihuahua 12:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the errors made were:

Immediately declaring that Goethean had not been doing Tendentious editing, that self-check ostensibly being the reason tat they approached you on this. Tendentiousness takes a huge amount of work to check out, how could you have done that immediately?
Erroneously implying that my commenting on behavior without supplying DIFFS (not without basis, but specifically without DIFFS) was improper behavior. And despite the fact that a specific case was the immediate item under discussion. Is one supposed to provide diffs to the current discussion?
Created an impossible / certain-to-fail situation for me, knowing that it takes an immense amount of history to establish Tendentiousness, and knowing that trying to show it with a few diffs is a recipe for certain failure, you said I needed to do that.
Refusing to answer my very reasonable question on the above dilemma, instead just saying that you "have spoken"
(arguable) I would think that you would know by now that vague behavior-related topic at AN and ANI nearly always turn into chaotic mob-violence, so taking it there in a vague fashion was an arguably an error.
With the original topic having gone disengaged and stale, going to ANI on the basis of a single comment on an unrelated topic, my comment about a nasty comment that Goethen made.
At the ANI, immediately defending Goethean against any action, while "stoking it" regarding me

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't do that. I asked for diffs, so I could determine whether he had. You refused to provide even a single diff.
I don't know what you think the error is here. If you want to complain about disruption (or any misbehavior) to an admin, you need to provide at least one diff.
I am sorry you found it impossible to provide even the one single diff I asked for. However, that was your lookout when you made the accusation.
What question?
ANI sometimes a drama-fest. It is still the appropriate place for an admin to seek input on a complex problem.
Yes, the original accusations by you were a little stale. It is too bad you started up with them again, and then accused me of being involved due to my trying to get a diff from you, and warning you, earlier.
Really? That's not how I'd characterize what I did at ANI.

I think we'd best let this drop at this point, and let the Arbs decide. Killer Chihuahua 15:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your insistence on difs is inconsistent. When Xenophrenic added me to your ANI to topic ban me you asked for difs, which have yet to be provided, wouldn't that be the greater violation of not diffing? North didn't even bring charges against Goethean. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC, you could be seen as involved since you have not included Goethean and Xenophrenic. Please see evidence page re: Goethean. You moderated a dispute after Goethean contacted you. I looked that over. That seemed fine. But now, you don't seem to be seeing Goethean's

talk) 16:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

That would be KC showing bias, not KC being involved. It's still good grounds for removal from taking administrative and quasi-administrative actions on the topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be me not finding evidence against them. If I don't find evidence, I'm not going to call for sanctions, and that is in no way bias. I am insulted and offended that you have so characterized my evidence here. I note Malke 2010 has called for sanctions on G and X and no one else- yet I do not accuse her of bias, thereby insulting her. I would appreciate it if you could manage at least on this case page not to malign my ethics without strong evidence - and this is not only not strong evidence, it is not evidence at all. I have myself given extensive evidence that Goethean and I have virtully never agreed[23] and I have had no reason until now to do a similar study of my interactions with Xeno but I would not be surprised to find a similar non-history. And Rubin, I'd think you'd be about done calling for sanctions and measures against me. Don't you think you've done yourself enough damage? Killer Chihuahua 18:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I was merely pointing out that not including Goethean and Xenophrenic could be seen as involvement, i.e., showing a bias. That's why I pointed out Goethean's violations of

talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

I wasn't saying you were being biased, Malke, I was saying no one should accuse you of being biased because you only added a couple of editors - which is what AR is doing to me. Using you as an example is all. Apologies if I was unclear and confused things. Killer Chihuahua 19:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'kay, no problem.

talk) 19:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

you need to hush up about it...puppy has spoken; puppy is done, [24] this appears to be the beginning of things going bad. KC is demanding difs concerning a talk page post by North hours later, yet a week later has yet to demand difs from Xenophrenic who was seeking a topic ban for me at KC's ANI. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Cherry picking is not helpful. Full quote: ":I don't know how clear I can make this. If you cannot make a case to someone else, you need to hush up about it. Otherwise you're just slinging around unsubstantiated allegations, which might rebound on you and will cause no sanctions against him. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. " and this was after I asked for a diff two times and ~~you~~ he failed to provide one. It was not that I was refusing to consider evidence; it was that ~~you~~ he failed utterly to give any. Killer Chihuahua 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are confused, you have never ask me for a dif. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is more confusing is why you insist on a dif here, and not from Xenophrenic which was actually part of an ANI, not just some idle talk page dustup. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many replies at once, I was thinking of North8000 of course. I have corrected this. And I did ask for diffs from Xeno. That was also a different situation. Multiple people were offering diffs and views; I was not by myself investigating one lone editor making personal attacks and accusations. Killer Chihuahua 19:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple people were offering diffs and views, incorrect, not a single dif was offered before or after you ask. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Around 40 people offered different views and many of them posted diffs. I don't think you're looking at the same page I am. Killer Chihuahua 20:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps not, could you post the difs of my behavior submitted at your ANI here? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the confusion. I said diffs and views and you thought it was all about you. It wasn't. There were sections for at least half a dozen editors. The diffs of your behavior are on the evidence page here. And now I'm going to ask you to cease this off topic line of discussion here; this has nothing to do with whether I was or was not involved. Killer Chihuahua 20:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thought an ANI you started and i was added to not by you but never diffed was all about me, perhaps you are confused again? this convo has been helpful as it established you require difs from some, but not others, which is what started the ANI, now here. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what it has established. We'll have to just disagree on that one. Killer Chihuahua 21:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you started the ANI about North providing no difs, Xenophrenic added me without difs, you ask for the difs then oppose my topic ban when none provided, yet take no action against Xenophrenic? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am taking no action against anyone for merely listing someone who edited the article for sanctions on that ANI thread. None of them. I am bringing here the people whom I had already decided were the problems on that article, which was not resolved at ANI. I added you when I saw some of your edits while searching the history. But no one was added here by me for proposing sanctions on active editors on the article, on an ANI thread. There is absolute consistency here. The only person I listed here due to their actions on ANI (and talk pages) is Arthur Rubin, who did something else. Now, I'm done with this dead horse. This has nothing to do whatsoever with whether I am involved. Killer Chihuahua 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, you started an ANI because North failed to provide difs concerning a talk page discussion, yet you did nothing when an editor made a baseless charge asking for a topic ban in an ANI case, continuity non existit. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to say that is not why I started that thread for it to sink in? You are in error. You have mistaken my intent and reason. You are, in short, wrong. I'm done here. Killer Chihuahua 22:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the opening sentence of the ANI: ...I asked the accusing editor to provide a diff...[25]. cherry-picking not applicable, i post the quote with ellipses to save space here with the hope those interested will see the context after clicking the link. feel free to post the entire quote if you feel i am in error. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And fairy tales begin once upon a time, but that is not why the prince slays the dragon. I not only feel you are in error, I've told you that you're dead wrong several times now, and yet you persist. Are you calling me a liar? You're edging into badgering now. IDHT wears pretty thin after the first 3 or 4 times. Killer Chihuahua 03:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...vague accusations but not a single diff..., ...either provide diffs, or cease the accusations..., difs were the focus of your ANI wording, no matter your intent, which appears to be selective as you did not tell other editors making far more serious allegations the same. North was on a talk page, Xenophrenic was in your ANI. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KC, Responding on those 7 items:

By the same day that you said you were going to look at it (Feb 19th) you already said to Goethean that it that it appeared that my coments were motivated by a content dispute rather than concern about TE editing.
I didn't want to complain about anything to an admin. I only wanted to note the behavior at the article talk page in an effort to try to reduce that behavior. It was over at that point.
You completely missed or misheard the point. I said that it was impossible to show TE editing with one or a few diffs, such requires hundreds of observations.
Answering your question, My question that you wouldn't answer was that, acknowledging #3, what did you want me to do
(nothing further)
I didn't start them up again. It was over. Then Goethean made a very nasty comment on a totally different topic and I noted that such nastiness was against guidelines. Then you want after me for saying that.
You immediately proposed topic bans, and immediately defended Goethean against bans. Later that mob violence situation ensued, probably more than anyone intended.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, several of your point items are wrong, and none of them make me involved. You're really beating a dead horse here. Killer Chihuahua 20:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I not would call happenings at the core of this whole case thing to be a dead horse, but I think we both finished saying what we wanted to say. Except that if you think that I'm wrong on any matters of fact you should provide specifics. Of course a few items (such as #5 & #7) must be acknowledged as matters of opinion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't see how KC is involved. It sounds to me like one (or more?) editors simply disagree with their admin actions. That doesn't make them involved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The Tea Party movement is placed under discretionary sanctions

1) Articles relating to the area of the Tea Party movement are placed under

discretionary sanctions

. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, they may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, including page protection. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

This remedy supersedes the limited sanctions that were put in place by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think something that the Committee will need to decide is if it is the topic itself that is problematic, or certain editors. Or both. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Whatever is in place on The Troubles would likely be effective for the Tea Party movement and related articles.

talk) 16:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

TROUBLES is under standard discretionary sanctions, which is what I am proposing here. See

here. Killer Chihuahua 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

ST: It is something to decide, but it's not necessarily a two-choice decision. There is always the possibility it is both. The topic is a problem, and there are problem editors editing the topic. Killer Chihuahua 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have a somewhat novel--perhaps--proposal that doesn't fit under any of the categories in this section, so I'm going to beg your pardons and be so presumptuous as to post this here.

It seems to me that a reasonable amount of evidence (albeit somewhat lacking in particular diffs) has been provided that should compel the Committee, upon examination of the discussions at hand, that there are a plurality of editors acting in a collusional manner constituting a group characterized by a shared disposition toward the topical matter of the article (what I've referred to as an "affinity group") that violates various policies.

The collusion is motivated by a desire to prevent editing of the article by editors not sharing the same disposition toward the topic of the article that would result in representing positions found in RS that counter the POV of the particular narrative sought by the affinity group of editors, an editing practice/behavior I've characterized as obstructionism.

The solution I propose is that any group of editors found to have acted in such a manner--and in this case I would include North8000, Malke, Arthur Rubin, and Arzel in the group--should be banned for a nominal amount of time, such as a month, during which the editors whose edits they were obstructing have a chance to rework the article into better form.

Naturally, after the nominal ban period has expired the no-longer-banned editors could rejoin the editing practice as normal.

I think that such a sanctionary regime provides impetus for reasonable, source-based cooperation--if not collaboration--as well as provides ample deterrent force insofar as being banned as a group for a month would allow for substantial input by the obstructed editors during the interim. And in the case of topic areas with Arbcom sanctions, that would represent a substantial barrier to unreasonable POV advocacy.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you infer "collusion" and a secret "affinity group" acting to promote POV editing. Having suggested this hitherto unknown group actually exists, you propose to a "nominal" topic ban on its members. This is indeed a novel approach. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "a group characterized by a shared disposition toward the topical matter of the article" includes no inference about a secret or conspiratorial dimension to the group of editors I listed, but thanks for the drama. A number of individuals acting in a similar manner in view of shared interests does not need to have had signed a charter or take an oath to be considered to constitute a group by an outside observer.--Ubikwit (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything wrong with "a number of individuals acting in a similar manner in view of shared interests" which should lead to restrictions? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't violating policy, no. Perhaps it is in respect of policy where the line between source-based, GF collaboration and something more akin to tacit collusive interaction between editors, which is based on shared values and perceptions and results in subverting policy insofar as it relates to some sort of group-think autopilot support of a POV, has to be drawn by those assessing the behavior at issue.

When more than one individual is fervently intent on supporting a particular POV on a given article relating to a controversial topic, it would seem that they are on a course that is almost inevitably going to lead to their violating one policy or another.Ubikwit (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that any implication of "collusion" by anybody is a baseless personal attack. Regarding working "in concert" or towards the same ends a look at the disputes and how they have ended up clearly shows that the dominant editing force in determining the article content on these has been Xenophrenic, backed up by Goethean at key moments. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the committee decides that the topic itself is problematic, then place them under

discretionary sanctions would be wise. The admins at AE do a much better job handling difficult disputes than AN/I which has a Lord of the Flies mentality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

Agree, strongly support DS After the course of the past month of interaction in these proceedings and in editing the article, I've come to view my earlier proposal of something like temporary topic bans as an unrealistic remedy, but I suppose I should leave the suggestion up, for the record.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 04:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors encouraged

2) All involved editors in the Tea party movement topic area are encouraged to try to collaborate and work constructively instead of accusing others of misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

North8000 topic banned

3) North8000 is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have looked at North8000's edits on the article and I'm not seeing an obvious reason for a topic ban. I see North8000 doing a lot of reverting, but this doesn't appear to move into edit wars. Is this based on comments made on the talkpage? There's over two years worth of comments there, and much of it appears to be an attempt to get discussion going on how to improve the article (but I've not examined the full two years worth). In the comment that initiated this case, North8000 wasn't diplomatic with his use of words. But that appears to be the case for many people involved in this case. And we have various users issuing threats and assuming bad faith. I'm not sure anyone is coming out of this looking good. However, for a topic ban, I think we need some evidence of long term disruption, not one incident which blew up out of control. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, my assumption of all users is that they are here to assist the project, so I'm not that interested in dif which support my assumption, I would be more interested in difs which support a view that North8000 has been disruptive in the topic area and so needs topic banning. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC, there's not huge community support there. 60%? And a number of people appear to be reacting to the blow up, rather than the history of North8000's involvement in the topic area. I'm wondering if there is anything more serious here than a group of people blowing up. And also, if this can be resolved by people examining their behaviour, realising what mistakes they themselves made, apologising, and then moving on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked again, because what I missed is the tag teaming, and also - of course - the revert restriction on the article. I think 18 Feb is a representative sample:

(cur | prev) 23:23, 18 February 2013‎ Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (165,368 bytes) (+836)‎ . . (Add content tag; much of this is subject to edit wars, without any credible discussion.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 21:39, 18 February 2013‎ Goethean (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,532 bytes) (-577)‎ . . (Undid revision 538927416 by North8000 (talk) please do not violate WP:OR. the source never mentions the TPM. a secondary source needs to connect this event to the Tea Party Movement.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 21:34, 18 February 2013‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (165,109 bytes) (+577)‎ . . (Undid revision 538921568 by Xenophrenic (talk) Material is obviously relevant.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:56, 18 February 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,532 bytes) (+131)‎ . . (a little more relevant than other talking heads; +ref) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:50, 18 February 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,401 bytes) (-577)‎ . . (rem moneybomb party; no indication in source of any relation to the "Tea Party movement") (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:47, 18 February 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,978 bytes) (+3,793)‎ . . (ret sourced content on Koch funding & org support (no cmt yet on suggested move to 'History' section); ret McAllister sentence; rem unsupported "first event" wording) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:20, 18 February 2013‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (161,185 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Commentaries on origin: +"organizations within" . The movement is not an entity) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:00, 18 February 2013‎ Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (161,163 bytes) (-3,143)‎ . . (Undid revision 538869884 by Goethean (talk) yes, it is (or should be) covered in history, as there is no claim that Koch-related groups _presented_ support the TPM) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:46, 18 February 2013‎ Goethean (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,306 bytes) (+3,143)‎ . . (Undid revision 538868096 by Darkstar1st (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:28, 18 February 2013‎ Darkstar1st (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (161,163 bytes) (-3,143)‎ . . (→‎Influence of Koch Industries: removed redundant section already covered in history) (undo)

and that does give me a snap-shot of the "battle" that is taking place. What it doesn't tell us, of course, is whose position is "correct". Is the article being filled with negative trivia picked from scandal sheets to discredit the Tea Party? Or is the article being picked clean of any possible negative comments in order to present the Tea Party in a more favourable light? I tend to find in such disputes that as long as editors are prepared to discuss, that a middle path can be found. An article can sometimes benefit from having editors with differing views. And I do note that discussion has been taking place. What I think we would need, in order to consider a topic ban for any of the editors, is signs of disrupting the process of working toward consensus. Signs of an editor (or group of editors) forcing their view in an unreasonable manner, being excessively obstructive, ignoring consensus, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Malke. That looks like there is an awareness that there are differences of opinion in how to develop the article, but that the parties are willing to discuss in a tense but civil manner those differences, and agree to disagree at times, and agree that both sides have the best interests of the article at heart.

When there is a controversial topic, there are going to be tense discussions, and at times these may spill out into incivil remarks. What we do is impose sanctions when incivility starts to get out of hand. The difficulty is in judging when it has got out of hand. It is a perennial problem on Wikipedia, and one for which we have no adequate solution. The question here is, apart from the blow up following KC's involvement, has there been sufficient incivility to sanction anyone, or to impose extra conditions on the article? I would like to see evidence of that, and I'm not seeing it yet. I'm not saying it's not there, but that I'm not yet seeing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

3 and 4 are "pick one". This is my second choice. Killer Chihuahua 09:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely NO basis for this. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ST: Clearly I should not have spent so much of my evidence space on AR, leaving none for N8. That said, editors are regularly topic banned for personal attacks and creating a hostile atmosphere - battleground behavior is prohibited. And this is one of the worst cases I've seen. Killer Chihuahua 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, North8000 often takes a mediator role on TPM. My recollection is that from the beginning of his participation there he has tried to negotiate less negativity. If you like I could point you to some archive threads so you don't have to scroll through three years of talk page.

talk) 18:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

ST: You may wish to examine the level of community support for this from the ANI thread as well. Killer Chihuahua 19:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, the only time I've seen North8000 disruptive is that incident on the TPM talk page that lead to the ANI and here. I will go back and search out the archives.

talk) 14:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

(after ec) SilkTork, there were repeated NPA violations prior to the "blow up"; that's why I took it to ANI to begin with. And I don't see North8000 resolving this by examining their behaviour, realising what mistakes they themselves made, apologising, and then moving on - I see him commenting on my proposed finding of fact above that his unsubstantiated attacks were "two accurate useful comments" - I fail to see him acknowledging in any way his culpability here. Then of course he did double down by proposing my desysopping for being the admin who responded to Goethean's request. Had he responded as you suggest, this would probably have been done with a month ago, never gone to ANI and not here. While I applaud your optimism, I see no solid evidence that it is grounded in anything solid. I see continuing evidence that he has a battleground mindset and is firm in his conviction that he was, and is, in the right. Killer Chihuahua 14:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But where are the diffs? I'm reading threads but can't find this. Where should I be looking?

talk) 18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

Silk Tork, I'm working on getting diffs for your question.

talk) 17:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

Silk Tork, here are two diffs which I think say a lot about the situation. North makes a comment in a long discussion [26]and Goethean responds with his view of apparently why they'll never agree and ends with the suggestion that his view is the Wikipedia view or rather the view that is acceptable on Wikipedia: [27]

talk) 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

Here again, North explains an earlier comment he made: North explains to Goethean what he meant earlier in the discussion [28] and Goethean responds [29]

talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

And here: Goethean opens a new thread about it: [30] North responds [31]Goethean says [32]

talk) 18:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

I really don't see much, if any, tag-teaming in the example above in the Arbs section. My revert was based more on the edit summaries than on the texts of the edits, but, it was more in opposition to G's unreasonable edit summary than in support of D. (and I know this is 25 minutes late...) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silktort, given your remarks[33], I would be very interested in knowing whether you think that North8000's comment[34], which started the current dispute, was constructive, and what you would have advised the accused parties to do in response to his accusations. Thanks. — goethean 14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could have ignored it. Or, you could have handled it the way I handled this: [35]. I simply assumed good faith and explained and clarified what I meant.[36]

talk) 17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

yet Goethean was the one who sought an admin instead of responding to North, or simply disengaging.

SilkTork, the diffs of Goethean's comments appear to show a consistent, long-term incivility to the other editors who simply go around it, or when they do respond they assume good faith. At times his comments appear to taunt or bait others as when he wrote, "When all you have is a hammer," rather than simply saying, "I've found an RS that should settle the matter." It would seem that if North8000 is to be banned or sanctioned for one outburst, which was a response to another Goethean comment, [37], then clearly Goethean needs to be banned or sanctioned as well. Even now, in his question to you he's blaming North8000 for getting the whole thing started, yet Goethean was the one who sought an admin instead of responding to North, or simply disengaging. And I apologize for this late entry and understand if it is removed.
talk) 17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I really wonder how you imagine that I could have constructively responded to that freely-flowing stream of personal attacks and evidence-lacking accusations. The very fact that you can find fault with my consulting with two uninvolved admins in response to North8000's series of evidenceless (and meritless) accusations should tell readers exactly where you stand on this issue. You are heavily involved, and you have no objectivity on the subject. You are just arguing for one side. — goethean 18:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I explained what you could have done. Is it better to say, "When all you have is a hammer," or is it better to say, "I've found an RS that should settle the matter,"? Or, as I said, you could have disengaged. And we've discussed this at ANI. You admitted your comment about the source "will be in the article" was the wrong thing to say. You always have choices about how you respond. And disengaging is one of them. I told you before, you make these comments to people without regard for how they will take it. When an editor appears clearly upset by something you've said, or by behaviours you've engaged in, then either disengage or simply apologize and explain that his reaction is not what you sought. That's how I imagine you could have constructively responded. This is my best "Moonriddengirl advice." And now, we should not be here. If you like, you can comment on my talk page.

talk) 18:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

It seems that no matter who says what, in your opinion it is always my fault. — goethean 18:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it very clear that in my opinion your comments to others are at the root of the problem, as well as how they've responded to you. In my opinion, North8000 should have been blocked for his disruption. You should have been warned of

talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

Goethean, at the time it based on years of observation. And "calling it out" was intended only to reduce the problem at the article. Subsequently I was forced into getting diffs regarding this and IMHO it has been shown to be both merited and evidenced. To be direct, you have done less TE stuff than Xenophrenic, but your comments often tend to be more abrasive than theirs. As you may have noted with my last olive branch, although I am often very direct /blunt when trying to improve the situaiotn, but harbor no ill will. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you still think that your comment was constructive. — goethean 18:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What it was was calling out the behavior in the hopes that merely doing so / putting a spotlight on it would reduce the problem, plus making the "this has to stop" type comment. So I would call it leaning on you and Xenophrenic for a constructive purpose. And it was 100% behavior focused, nothing abrasive towards th individuals. But it does not meet the highest level of "constructive" which is e.g. criticism blended with compliments. etc. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely NO basis for any such action. Nothing has been shown, just vague impugning of me. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Silk Tork, I believe that you are searching for a sort of egregious behavior that has probably not been the motive force that resulting in the ANI case that quickly manifested the unwieldy dimension that landed it here. KC has provided a couple of diffs representing personal attacks. North's behavior may not be seen to represent egregious incivility, but he has been prominent in several of the instances that I have seen of legitimate sources being suppressed by an appeal to a non-consensus based claim that resorts to attempts to undermine the credibility of one or another aspect of the source in an illegitimate manner. I have encountered precisely the same sort of behavior on other topics with a completely different set of editors.

In short, the behavior at issue is generally speaking of a more subtle manifestation of battleground mentality in the form of passive obstructionism as opposed to aggressive anti-social outbursts, and it is manifest in the group dynamic as much as in the conduct of individual editors.

If I had more time, I would make the effort to explicate an instance or two further, but I have provided a couple of diffs to threads where such behavior can be seen, I believe.

Silk Tork, I would say that it is a combination of the topic of the TPM itself as well as the conduct of editors in relation to the problematic nature of the topic.

I would seriously hope that you take into consideration my proposal of a novel sanctions regime even on an experimental basis, as this problem is not unique to this topic.

North has repeatedly argued that the article is in bad shape, and that is an incontrovertible fact. However, I find North's comportment as an editor to have contributed to that status.

If I had time--which I don't--I would try to flesh out a workable framework for this article, first and foremost, taking into the consideration the

1)fragmentary character of the TPM, and

2) the Astro-turf - authentic bifurcation

that seem to be topical aspects that perpetuate the state of suspended animation of a disjointed and unintelligible article.

Even topic bans of a week for the editors I've suggested would give Gothean and Xenophrenic a chance to try to rework the article in a manner that might prove productive after the ban expired and the other editors re-engaged.Ubikwit (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would exacerbate not help the problem as Xenophrenic and Goethean have already dominated the results in the article of every disputed item. Havign an outside uninvolved non-political editor take a few weeks to go thought the article while the regulars all sit back would be a much better idea. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 topic banned (2)

4) North8000 is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, indefinitely. He may apply to have the ban lifted after a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

3 and 4 are "pick one". This is my first choice; I beleive it will encourage editing in other areas of Wikipeida, and picking up some much needed experience working with others. Killer Chihuahua 09:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely NO basis for this. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Darkstar1st topic banned

5) Darkstar1st is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm seeing revert editing and negative comments on the talkpage, but I'm not seeing significant problems. The question of whether the reverts are keeping out inappropriate content, or suppressing legitimate content, is open to editorial debate.

The more I look into this case, the more uncomfortable I am becoming at the general level of reverts taking place by the main editors on an article which has a revert restriction. But I'm still not sure if the problem is the users editing the article, or the topic itself. If it is the topic itself, then topic-banning the current editors may just be shifting the problem onto the next batch of editors. If it is the topic, then the current restrictions are not working well enough to overcome problems. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

5 and 6 are "pick one". This is my second choice. Killer Chihuahua 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely NO basis for this. North8000 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Darkstar1st topic banned (2)

6) Darkstar1st is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, indefinitely. He may apply to have the ban lifted after a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

5 and 6 are "pick one". This is my first choice; I believe it will encourage editing in other areas of Wikipedia, and picking up some much needed experience working with others. Killer Chihuahua 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually this was your 3rd choice as you opposed the topic ban Xenophrenic called for after he failed to provide diffs. [38] (KC was originally neutral in the ANI waiting for Xenophrenic to support his allegation. Minutes after i noted the inconsistency here, KC amended her response to support) Darkstar1st (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i do not plan to make any more edits to the tea party article or talk page. yesterday i brought a source about teaparty.net supporting the starbucks boycott because the starbucks CEO is opposed to gay marriage, the source was rejected as insignificant and unreliable.[39] We already say that the Tea Party opposes same sex marriage., was the reason it was rejected. I also agree most of the problem here is combining hundreds of groups into a "movement", which none claim individually to belong. OWS makes no mention of members who attempted to blow up a bridge Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge (they even pushed the detonator) and even deleted the OWS/Cleveland chapter article, yet if a dog barks it is included on the TP article, i give up and am moving on to topics like Camp Chapman attack. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely NO basis for this. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin reminded

7) Arthur Rubin is reminded that as an administrator, he must be responsive to requests for information, especially when he has called for sanctions or other administrative actions against another editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

7 and 8 are probably "pick one". Killer Chihuahua 23:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin admonished

8) Arthur Rubin is admonished for calling for sanctions against an uninvolved administrator on an article which he actively edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

7 and 8 are probably "pick one". Killer Chihuahua 23:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Even assuming that Arthur Rubin was wrong, no one should be admonished for good faith mistakes. Editors should be allowed to voice their opinions without fear of admonishment simply for having an opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin topic banned

9) Arthur Rubin is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What is the basis for this? I can understand that some kind of response and closure would be helpful for Arthur Rubin's involvement in the ANI discussion, but is his editing in the topic area problematic? I don't think there's evidence for that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Schulz evidence consists of a link to this discussion on RSN. Rubin took part in that discussion, but I'm afraid you're going to have to explain to me why his taking part in a discussion on a source means he should be topic banned. I'm clearly missing something, because both you and Schulz are seeing something there, so it would help to have some guidance on what it is you folks are seeing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have a stab at it: Rubin has doubts about the suitability of a source, and you and others feel that his doubts are not reasonable, and that he is deliberately attempting to suppress a legitimate source in order to bias the Tea Party article. I think the Committee might need more evidence. If there are more occasions in which Rubin can be seen to be unreasonably blocking legitimate material, or has been introducing bias in the article either by direct editing or supporting inappropriate ideas on the talkpage, that would be worth looking at. But one discussion in which he feels a source is not the right fit, is unlikely to be sufficient by itself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely looking for evidence. I'm working through people's contributions and the article history, and the talkpage archives, and reading statements. This takes time, so any assistance with finding the facts would be much appreciated. We're all part-time volunteers, and Committee members are no more blessed with extra spare time and energy than any other volunteer! I'm not sure NYB has finished looking at the evidence yet. We said we'd look at it and discuss our thoughts this week, but I know that he has been absorbed by some internal Committee matters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Rubin was actively editing throughout this case; I believe his POINTy BATTLE call for sanctions was due to his involvement with the article. I can see no other plausible reason for his aggressive and inappropriate behavior. I don't anticipate this passing, but offer it as a possible remedy as I think it might be helpful to have him removed from the article during its first months of probation. I have not been encouraged by his attitude during this case to believe that he regrets his actions and plans to not allow his personal interest in an article cloud his judgment. This is regrettable in any editor, but doubly so in an administrator. Killer Chihuahua 20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ST: as I said, I don't see this one passing. I put it forward for consideration because it appears to me that Rubin is enabling problem editors. If the committee feels that is not grounds for such a remedy, then that's perfectly acceptable to me. Killer Chihuahua 18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to also consider the evidence given by Stephan Schulz, and the observations by MastCell on the evidence talk page. Killer Chihuahua 19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This workshop page is due to close today. The evidence page is already closed. I'm not sure whether you're asking me to find and post more evidence here, or simply politely saying this isn't going to happen. Killer Chihuahua 14:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like SilkTork is asking for help in locating evidence to support the proposed ban.

talk) 21:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

There is absolutely NO basis for this. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I can't say I've followed this case or the topic area closely, but regarding Arthur... in my interactions elsewhere, I've found him to be an opinionated but generally conscientious editor. I can recall times we've agreed and times we've disagreed, but he's been reasonable either way. When it was pointed out that Tobacco Control is in fact peer-reviewed, he did back off his statement to the contrary. As is probably evident from my comments on the Evidence talkpage, I'm much more concerned by editors who continue repeating false statements even after they've been shown to be false. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know; thank you for taking the time to add that. Killer Chihuahua 22:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is somewhat similar to MastCell's. I've not followed the case too closely and I've had interactions with Arthur Rubin, some positive and some negative. Although we've had some disagreements in the past, I've never felt like Arthur Rubin was being disingenuous or not editing in good faith. Further, I don't see any evidence to support this sanction. Indeed, Arthur Rubin is attribute to Wikipedia and should be thanked for his contributions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tea Party movement#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. Killer Chihuahua 20:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:North8000

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

The Tea party Movement article is in very bad shape

1) The Tea party Movement article is in very bad shape.

The article is in bad shape and contains large amounts of trivia that is in there for effect rather than to inform. This is the case with most Wikipedia articles on topics which cover a real world "conflict". While the "fault" primarily lies with Wikipedia policies which either fail to help guide these situations, or which are too easily mis-used in situations such as this, other actions can help the situation. Two factors have made the course of the TPM article somewhat different. One is the the 1RR restriction which tends to reward tendentious editing, and in fact, the results of disputes at the article have been largely determined by tendentiousness than resolution in discussions. The second is that the TPM is a phenomena, not an entity, leaving it open to very creative interpretations of what is and isn't germane.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"the 1RR restriction ... tends to reward tendentious editing" and "an active POV-warrior can add multiple contentious statements, and the "reverting" editor might only be able to remove one". Are there examples of this? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think, perhaps Viriditas may be correct that this particular 1RR restriction rewards tendentious editing more than the standard one. However, I, personally, think the standard 1RR would make it worse, as an active POV-warrior can add multiple contentious statements, and the "reverting" editor might only be able to remove one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a problem with Wikipedia policies. The policies are meant to be flexible to fit unforeseen situations. The problem seems to be with editors who want to interpret the policies to their advantage to win an argument/battle, or to block an editor from making an edit they don't agree with. And that is an enduring problem on TPM. And I'm not speaking to the 1RR, I'm responding to policy in general. As for 1RR, the need for it speaks to the larger issues which 1RR can't resolve.

talk) 04:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

I think that we're partially agreeing. But I think that one big hole is on the topic of inclusion/exclusion. The net effect that degree of relevance is easily excluded from the conversation, and also that the others are still too easily mis-quoted as saying that verifiability is a force for inclusion rather than (just) a requirement for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(to SilkTork). I don't have a specific example. Hypothetically, if editor X adds contentious material A and B and removes contentious material C and D, in an article subject to standard 1RR restrictions, and, editor Y removes A, and editor Z makes a edit in a different section of the article, then Y could not remove B or restore C or D without violating 1RR. It makes it even more critical in making POV edits, to do them quickly, so that they cannot easily be reverted; and in reverting to do so summarily without thought, to avoid being prevented (by 1RR) from making other constructive reverts and partial reverts. Perhaps if 0RR/self is added (you may not revert any edit which restores an edit you previously made), together with this 1RR restriction, it might help stabilize the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That math of what you are both saying is very true and I think that the possibility that you are describing exists. However, my observation is the the main way that the 1RR has rewarded TE editing is by making edit wars longer term and less visible. Despite warnings against slow motion edit wars, there has been zero scrutiny or enforcement on that point. Thus, anyone who is willing to conduct slow motion edit wars always wins. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would suggest that in addition to any obviously irrelevant trivial content (of which there would appear to be an ample supply), what can be referred to as trivia in one context can be meaningful in another. In this case, the decentralized nature of the TPM means that the discussion of it easily becomes fragmented, and it is a formidable task to craft a coherent narrative out of the activities and utterances emanating from the agglomeration of groups that often betray contradictory stances to one another.

The problem with the affinity group editors is that they are aware of this, and take advantage of that to illicitly block inclusion of sources on the basis of the logical fallacy that because a given source doesn't support a position held by one entity associated with the TPM it can't be used in the article.

To editors attempting to present the fractured nature of the TPM, such so-called trivia are key pieces of information to serve that purpose insofar as such content demonstrates a lack of cohesion and agreement.

On the other hand, to editors trying to present the TPM as some sort of coherent united front, that is undesirable, and this is one source of the content dispute that results in behavior issues appearing in the form of the partisan group dynamic as well as individual personal attacks, most evident with respect to the handling of sources.

The same 'coherent united front' argument holds for those arguing against inclusion of material related to the so-called 'Astro-turf' aspects, with a shift in the locus of meaning to the opposition between characterizations as grass-roots vs. corporate funded.Ubikwit (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have consistently argued against trivia and for broader level information. So I was in favor of including coverage of the astroturf assertions, as such. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the details of how it is in bad shape are relevant. If the article contains a lot of trivial factoids, who inserted them, and why? That will say a lot about responsibility for the state of the article. This is especially true if there was a significant battle over the material. In fact, I would argue that such battles are more significant than the behavioral indicators the Arbitrators seem to be most interested in.William Jockusch (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content results in disputed areas have largely been determined by tendentious editing rather than the results of discussions

2) Content results in disputed areas have largely been determined by TE rather than the results of discussions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stated reason for approaching KC

3) Goethean's stated reason for approaching KC was for KC to review whether or not Goethean has engaged in tendentious editing as alleged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Error in immediate dismissal of tendentious editing concern

4) TE editing is a pattern established over a long period of time, and investigating requires a review of such. KC erred in (on Feb 19th, on the same day that they first said they'd look into it) immediately dismissing TE as being a concern; far too quickly to have investigated it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Error in requiring the near-impossible from North

5)Tendentious editing can only be shown by the combination of an immense number of instances. Any attempt to show TE by one or a few diffs is invalid and a recipe for certain failure. So this was in essence, a suicide demand. So KC was in error or unreasonable in requiring this of North.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is key. North8000 continues to claim the right to make unsubstantiated accusations against fellow editors. — goethean 14:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean not providing proving diffs every time that one makes a comment about behavior, yes. If that were not the norm, you would be long gone from Wikipedia because you have done it many times. However, I held myself to a very high standard, only being sure enough after two years of observation, and then only to make a "push-back" against the behavior for the sake of the article, not to take them somewhere to try to get them into trouble. And TE is a special case in this respect, because by its definition it is very dispersed. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Error in refusing to answer reasonable question

6) North asked KC a question regarding resolving the dilemma posed by finding #5. KC erred by refusing to address or respond to the reasonable point of the question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Error in implying that a comment about behavior without proof in diffs was improper behavior

7) KC implied that North's action complaining about behavior was improper because it did not include diffs. It was in error to imply this; such is common and accepted practice in Wikipedia; other forms of basis are often given. Doubly so in view of the dilemma described in finding #5. Triply so in that North had said it was a one time comment (i.e. over with) only to try to improve the situation at the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Error in opening a general ANI with proposed broad sanctions

8) KC had discussed only two actions by North, a few comments ending Feb 18th on TE editing which had passed into old news, and an arguably valid policy comment on a nasty comment made by Goethean. With only these as a basis, it was in error to open an ani requesting broad and severe sanctions against North while immediately defending Goethean against possible sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reviewing / transferring this to a venue (Arbcom) which operates on evidence and careful analysis of evidence is itself an important outcome

9) Reviewing / transferring this to a venue (Arbcom) which operates on evidence and careful analysis of evidence is itself an important outcome

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Above-described errors by KC to be noted

1) Above-described errors by KC to be noted. Just noting them is sufficient input to KC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General warning against TE and slow motion edit wars

2) A general warning to be issued for the TPM article against TE and slow motion edit wars. The results on disputes are to be decided by proper processes (talk, RFC's etc.) not by TE and slow motion edit wars. The warning will include a recommendation that admins give this aspect a higher level of scrutiny and analysis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Malke 2010

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Topic bans must include Goethean and Xenophrenic

5) Improvement of the article must come first. Topic bans are not punitive. They are meant to prevent disruption. Any imposition of topic bans must include the editors actively contributing on a regular basis to the problems on the article. As a special sanction for Tea Party movement, no editor can remain active for more than one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please note, I've removed Xenophrenic from my proposed remedy. I mistakenly attributed two threads with tendentious editing to him. In going back to find diffs, I discovered this mistake and have apologized to Xenophrenic.

talk) 01:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

I have subsequently gathered evidence to show Xenophrenic's behaviours on the article. I've removed the strike outs I previously added for that reason. The material is posted under "Xenophrenic."

talk) 12:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

The problem is that the same editors are there all the time, voicing the same complaints and editing in the same way, with no improvement to the article. I stopped by after a year and found the same arguments as usual but noticed Goethean's civility had seriously deteriorated. I discussed one of his comments with him on the ANI. He admitted his comment was wrong but blamed North8000. Banning one editor will not improve the article. Some editors have been regular, nearly daily, contributors for almost three years. This includes Goethean and Xenophrenic. Not just North8000. And Goethean's and Xenophrenic's arguments and edit wars today are the same ones they had back in 2010. Goethean violates

talk) 18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

I see insufficient justification for this remedy. Killer Chihuahua 08:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this case is seeking sanctions only against those attempting to remove/minimize negative and trivial text according to weight, yet more active editors who have sought and succeeded to include negative material are absent here, why? since article is rated C, does that mean there needs to be more negative trivia, what was left out? i can think of no example of a negative passage has been successfully removed to date ex: neo-Klansmen and knuckle-dragging hillbillies (how does a verbal attack inform readers about the TP?), They are predominantly white, (the only movement in WP described as such, although the majority could be described the same), even less liked than Muslims and atheists, (is this not offensive to those groups?). Darkstar1st (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstar1st, you are a party to this case. You may make any proposals you feel are indicated. If you think there are editors for whom sanctions would be appropriate remedies, who are not listed, by all means list them. I listed those I felt were appropriate, Malke 2010 listed those she thought were appropriate, and you may list those you think are appropriate. Your "why?" question can only be answered by you. Killer Chihuahua 12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims of neutrality ring a little hollow seeing as when I tried to add an article from a peer-reviewed public policy journal to the article, Arthur Rubin used every tendentious argument he could think up in order to remove the source._{[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]} He was of course joined in this effort by North8000 and ~~Malke2010~~ Arzel, Darkstar1st, Collect, ThargorOrlando. And of course this journal said nothing about Klansmen or racism, it simply use good sources to analyze the financial sources of the organizations that funded the movement. — goethean 13:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have difs of North8000, Arzel, Darkstar1st, Collect, ThargorOrlando joining? everything above is linking to AR?Darkstar1st (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean, do you have diffs of me "joining this effort?" Because I just looked the tobacco threads over and I'm not seeing Malke there. My first edit to the talk page in a year was to the 'worst article ever' thread. Your tobacco study/source debate started the beginning of February. Unless you can come up with a diff that shows me "joining this effort," please strike your comment. Thank you.

talk) 17:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

There is still good reason to believe that the article represents the views of the authors outside their particular field of expertise and outside the field of expertise of the journal (that field is the politics of the Tobacco industry, and the field of the statement made is the Tea Party). There is no reason to believe the statement Goethean originally added, attributing it to that article, was in the article, even though it was there for 2 months before being challenged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geothean, what you described above (making it sound like the issue and effort was to "remove a source" is very misleading, at least with respect to your involvement of me. My core argument was that the material you were warring in was not even in the source, and not only wp:synth, but faulty synthesis at that. Here is my core comment "The text that you are trying to war in makes claims about the entire tea party movement, which is unsupported by even the cherry-picked sources and in fact in conflict with them. The text is in clear violation of wp:ver, and doubly so of wp:synth (not only is it synthesis, but it is faulty synthesis). And the additional source that you just provided reinforces that point. So mere presence of the material violates wp:ver and wp:synth, putting it in over such objection violates wp:burden, and trying to war it in makes it three-times-over problematic. " North8000 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North and Arthur, do you have any comment on topic banning Goethean and Xenophrenic? Because I think we're suppose to keep the comments to the relevant topic. Forgive me, but this seems like talk page stuff.

talk) 19:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

To Ubikwit; ~~The~~ A problem with the article, is that editors (such as G and X) are willing to add any negative information about anyone or -thing associated with the TPm to the article, without establishing reliability, relevance, or appropriate weight. I've noticed a similar phenomenon in the Occupy articles (which I've given up on), in which any positive statement can be added without challenge, but negative entries are removed on sight. Some of the negative items there were overweighted, but one cannot honestly say that the mainstream news coverage of the Occupy movement is positive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Maybe this is a TPM topic-specific feature that causes the turmoil to exceed the norm of what is encountered at other US politics articles. It seems to me that, in a sense, North is, in effect setting up a straw man by claiming that because the TP is a decentralized movement, one can't address it as a whole without being wrong with respect to one of the constitutive non-parts of a phantom whole.

That basically instantiates a scenario where editors not supportive of the TPM can only introduce piecemeal bits that address only one of the constitutive parts of the non-whole TPM.Ubikwit (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point was not my intention when I said that it is really a phenomena rather than an entity. Its complicated, but my consistent theme over the years at the article is that content (either pro or con is fine) should be informative at some higher level, dealing at the regional level, national level or regarding contests for elected offices. So one local guy's twitter comment would not be in there. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I will grant that you have basically shown reasonableness--though stopped short of actually acceding that Hunt is a reliable source--in disussions relating to sources after the AN/I case, and I am not here seeking bogus punitive blocks or bans for anyone. On the other hand, I have to reiterate my disagreement regarding the status of the authors of the tobacco industry article and the relationship of the article to the TPM.

The crux of the matter, the way I see it, is that the authors are indeed public health policy experts that have as one of their manifold focuses the tobacco industry, which has been exposed to be nefarious at least since the exposure of subliminal advertising techniques and misleading consumers about adverse health effects of which they were fully aware.

The status of the article as an RS for the TPM article can be summed up in terms that the research of the authors on the tobacco industry vis-a-vis public health has indirectly exposed a connection to the TPM, which they explicated in the paper. The article demonstrates direct connections between the TPM and groups that were initially funded by the tobacco industry to counter anti-smoke grass-roots organizations, after which the relationship was developed and the groups transformed with respect to the issue of tobacco excise taxes as an issue that resonates with the overall anti-tax platform of the TPM.

The fact that the authors focus is on public health policy and not politics in no way detracts from the results of their research into the tobacco industry (with respect to public health and regulation, basically (second-hand smoke, etc.)) and the resulting expose on groups they are funding in an effort to counteract actual popular movements that they see as a threat to their bottom line. It just so happens that their examination of the PR related undertakings tobacco industry uncovered the fact that the TPm is in part an outgrowth of those efforts.

At any rate, there is nothing in any of that which would pose any sort of dilemma with respect to the authors writing outside of their field of expertise. So I found your reaction during the RS/N discussion, that is to say, shifting the basis of your opposition to the source as RS from a negation of the publication itself--which you seem to have acknowledged at one point--to a disqualification of the authors to be somewhat disingenuous.

That seems to represent a trait resembling a battleground disposition.Ubikwit (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until now, I've stayed out of this because I'm a relative newcomer to the Tea Party movement article. My opinion is that Malke is correct regarding Xenophrenic: a topic ban is appropriate. Regarding Goethean, I haven't seen enough of his conduct to make that determination. We don't need topic bans for both sides because one person, on one side, has been a great deal more tendentious than anyone else; and the conduct of everyone else would require, at the most, a 0RR restriction for a few months, and continued obedience to the terms of article probation.

In the moderated discussion — moderated by SilkTork — as well as on the main Talk page, Xenophrenic has been tendentious and pushing a POV. Fighting to keep negative trivia in the article, and give it greater

WP:NEWSORG); posting enormous amounts of text; repeated mention, for weeks and weeks afterward, of mistakes made by other editors with whom he disagrees; arguing tenaciously over one sentence, or even one word at a time (such as "grass-roots" and "anti-immigration"); and when edit-warring in the article mainspace was no longer an option, he actually started edit-warring in a "sandbox" subpage of the moderated discussion, where we're working on what will eventually become a spin-off article: [50]

Other people on both sides — Ubikwit, North8000, KillerChihuahua, Arthur Rubin, Goethean, etc. — should get nothing worse than a 0RR restriction for a few months. Xenophrenic is the exception. He's been like this for several years, on several articles related to U.S. politics; his block log confirms it. A topic ban is appropriate, to protect all articles related to U.S. politics. There are literally millions of other articles that he could constructively edit. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by SilkTork

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus building

4) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion — involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply

edit-warring

back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sourcing

5) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Talk pages

6) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Article sanctions

8) Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

In recent years, the ArbCom has typically used the "discretionary sanctions" terminology rather than "probation," although some community-based remedies (as in this case) still use "probation." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators

9) Administrators are expected to lead by example. An administrator is expected to know the policies and guidelines and any action taken by them may be influential on other editors, who trust the administrator to know what is and is not appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is generally sound, but it might be read as going too far in suggesting that administrators are acting as administrators even when they are simply content-editors on an article rather than performing administrator actions concerning it. Perhaps: "

policies and guidelines most relevant in a given situation. Administrators should bear in mind that their actions may be influential on other editors, who may trust the administrator to know what is and is not appropriate, and should therefore strive to model good behavior, even when not acting in their administrator capacity." Or is this too much a counsel of perfection, that we would be better off dropping? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

As there are no sanctions against admins, and nothing in the case to say that admin actions were inappropriate, this principle can be left out. There were claims that KC was acting as an involved admin, but in reality it was a misunderstanding regarding apparent bias as KC didn't explain her actions and thinking clearly, and set out the AN/I discussion and initial topic bans in a manner that could be seen to be taking sides. I think everyone now understands that. There was also a suggestion by KC that Rubin was using his admin status in manner that may weight arguments, but that suggestion doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and I don't think KC is pursuing it any longer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involvement

10) The

WP:INVOLVED

section of the Admin Policy, states: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." It is up to each admin to assess for themselves the nature of any possible involvement, and to ensure they are not being influenced by any of the editors or the topic matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Generally sound, but the last clause is a bit too vague. Do we mean "influenced by prior personal interactions with any of the editors or personal views regarding the subject-matter"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seeking community input

11) Wider community participation in dispute resolution can help resolve disputes; however, care should be taken by everyone to remain neutral and to carefully examine the issues in good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute. Calls for sanctions should be based on evidence; the greater the sanction, the greater the need for appropriate evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tag-team editing

12) Tag teams work in unison to push a

consensus

prevailing – is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

13) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute 1

1) This case addresses concerns related to the editing of the Tea Party movement article. The article was created in January 2010 as a split from Tea Party protests. The topic is sensitive, high profile, and attracts polarising views, so editing has been problematic from the start with a combination of vandal edits, edit warring, and concerns about POV. In November 2010, there was an informal mediation on content. At about the same time community sanctions were imposed, following this discussion, which states that "No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period". Concerns about the length and quality of the article, as well as debate about wording and content, have been raised on the talkpage since 2010, and discussions now fill 21 archives. Reverts regularly take place, creating a slow moving edit war that may meet the wording of the community sanction, but not the spirit. The article is currently fully protected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute 2

2) Following a content disagreement on 18 Feb, North8000 made a comment that Xenophrenic and Goethean were tendentiously editing in favour of their POV. Goethean asked KillerChihuahua to check their editing was in line with policy. KillerChihuahua advised that the matter be dealt with in a low key; offering to speak with North8000. Following an inconclusive discussion regarding evidence for tendentious editing, North8000 made a comment that Goethean was "being rude as usual", KillerChihuahua gave North8000 a warning for uncivil behaviour. At this point North8000 and Malke 2010 said they felt KillerChihuahua was involved/siding with Goethean, so KillerChihuahua took the matter to ANI, stating that they had checked for tendentious editing by Goethean, found no problems, and proposed topic bans for North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010, which were later extended by others to include other contributors. North8000 proposed desysopping KillerChihuahua. A clear consensus was not emerging from discussions, so the matter came to ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The post to which you link was me organizing and listing proposed topic bans, rather than proposing myself. I would appreciate a tweak to the verbiage to reflect this, thanks. Killer Chihuahua 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am becoming more aware of that, and will later be looking more closely at the AN/I thread and seeing who said what and when. Meanwhile I would encourage other people to read through my workings and point me in the right direction as I go along. Better to do it now, than when it is on the PD page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that. I note you omitted that after North8000 proposed desysopping me, Rubin proposed a topic ban instead. I have no quarrel with leaving it out if you wish, but that did occur prior to my filing an RFAR. Killer Chihuahua 16:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silktork, if you would like to really understand, you must realize that there isn't one locus, are really three different topics involved here; one begat the other but they are in reality best understood as unrelated.

The article chugging along in it's same, sad state, with only occasional hot debates which are never settled, and the content result gets determined by TE. Failure is not a big flaming war, it is when people give up on any substantive effort to fix it. And the dominant player is not even a party to this case.
A dustup between KC and me on my talk page which was ostensibly about the article but really wasn't.
The vague random mob-violence ANI which was ostensibly about the article but really wasn't.

The reality is that so far this case has gone off in the wrong direction from any fix on #1 by ignoring the main issues and instead reviewing the behaviors of the secondary players, (though your moderated discussion is on the right track) #2 is long over, and that by taking this case on, you have already fixed #3 by ending the mob violence ANI. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am keen to examine claims of editors inappropriately dominating an article to their preferred POV, though I would need evidence in the form of difs. There have been rather a lot of assertions in this case, and little hard evidence. What I have seen (and am attempting to briefly record) is that most of the editors involved in this case have been reverting to their preferred state, and have commentated tensely at times. I'm not seeing significant problems, though there are three editors I have yet to finish re-examining more closely, and also I am looking again at the AN/I incident. It's interesting to note that a number of editors involved in this article have block records for edit warring on this and/or other articles. Is it that this article attracts edit warriors - or that the editors attracted to this article are interested in contentious topics where emotions run high? I sometimes think we'd be better off without the undo/revert button - though that would make the work of the vandal fighters more difficult. Well, the project is still young, and we are learning and improving all the time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your final question, every article which reflects a real world conflict or contest, where one side sees that they have something to gain or lose by what is in the article tends to be this way. The only way that stability is achieved on these is when one side manages to "run off" or silence the editors from the other side. Neither side has yet been "run off" in the TPM article. Of course this is "caused" by the RW contest/conflict, but in Wikipedia terms this is caused by weaknesses and problems with the policies and guidelines. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first three sentences are an accurate summary of the situation. Looking at the last two years, the editor who has had the most article-lifetime edits (Malke2010) has been absent. And the simple reality is that the editor who has done the most "have been reverting to their preferred state" (but normally reverting by editing rather than the "revert" button) is Xenophrenic. This combined with Goethean "helping" at key moments, and the fact to no debate ever gets resolved at the article means that Xenophrenic/Goethean has been the dominant force in determining what has ended up in the article in each of the contested areas. This behavior merited the "nudge" that I gave that (through unrelated happennings) snowballed into the baseless random mob violence at AN/I, but does NOT constitute mis-behavior that needs some arbcom smackdown. I LIKE Xenophrenic, and would adamantly oppose any sanction other than something like a caution or warning. The "evidence"/"diffs" of my correctness on this is in the one week samplers of diffs on each that I gave in the AN/I. This is only to support the accuracy of what I said, it is NOT to take action (other than something like a caution or warning) against either of them. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The (large amount of) diffs, one week samplers from my ~150 weeks of observation at the article are at Xenophrenic and Goethean. Again, this is ONLY to establish the accuracy of what I was sayng for the good of the article, NOT to get anbody smacked. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are admitting that Malke has the most edits but claim she has been "absent". Since when? Again, here is a representative thread from 2012 where you are using a metadiscourse based on an anti-trivia approach, supported by Malke, while others are resisting (citing recourse to dispute resolution and policy) your proposed "nuking" of content (i.e., "trivia").

Your statement about Xenophrenic's editing, "the editor who has done the most "have been reverting to their preferred state" (but normally reverting by editing rather than the "revert" button) is Xenophrenic" is somewhat incoherent. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by "(but normally reverting by editing rather than the "revert" button)"?

Meanwhile, you state that "Xenophrenic/Goethean has been the dominant force in determining what has ended up in the article in each of the contested areas", which sort of sounds like an arbitrary assertion. Was it your intention to accuse them of being "editors inappropriately dominating an article to their preferred POV"? Where are the diffs? Why do you blame them for "the fact to no debate ever gets resolved at the article"?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your first question, (re Malke) I meant for the 2 years ending about a week before the avalanche . On your second question, I meant changing to the desired version by editing rather than by using the "revert" button, so it does not obviously show up as a revert. Your last questions reflect ignoring what I just wrote and and trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say or intend, and mis-stating what I just said, so on those I'll just say see what I wrote. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in editing this article prior to the AN/I, basically, but there has been WP:OWN related behavior recently demonstrated on the article. See my comment on this page with time stamp "12:57, 13 April 2013" under Malke 2010.

For easy reference, here are the diffs for the edits (i.e., reverts) requiring scrutiny and the associated edit summaries:

[51](rmv WP:OR. No tea parties mentioned. This is the agenda section. That means their agenda.)

The edit summary would seem to reflect a refusal to allow material other than primary sources.

[52](Undid revision 549538619 by Ubikwit (talk)Unbelievable POV pushing.)

Can this be seen as tag teaming? The "unbelievable POV pushing" I am accused of in the edit summary was never explained, even though I requested an explanation.

[53](reduced content for relevance per WP:UNDUE added w/cite)

In the above edit, Malke introduces another reference to the constitution by a legal scholar--a very good reference--and attempts to relegate the content thereof to a single sentence paraphrase, basically, while removing the content I'd introduced from other similar sources related to the constitution.

[54](rmv WP:UNDUE/WP:OR/and redundant material)

I read some of the reference introduced by Malke and incorporated a substantial amount of content that seemed highly relevant to the TPm agenda, only to meet with yet another banket reversion.

I fail to see how such editing can be assumed to be constructive or collegial. I would also be inclined to question whether the edits were made in good faith, since the reverting editors didn't even have the courtesy to respond to the related Talk page queries [55][56][57].--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 12:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit has back-edited his comment in regard Malke, adding a claim that those in opposition to Malke and North (in removal of trivia) were citing policy. As it was backedited, later comments discussing it are problematic. A correct version would be that the editors in opposition were quoting policy, but that that policy had little referent to the facts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not sure what you mean by "back-edited", but here is the passage I was referring to from the archived discussion linked to above. Perhaps I should apologize for describing it in a manner that caused some confusion. I did not intend to assert that policy with respect to trivia removal or the like had been directly cited. The statement made by Xeonphrenic is fairly self-explanatory.

We need to delete that. And over the objections of the approx 2 folks who have kept this article locked down in POV junk status because they like it that way. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. I prefer to abide by Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, instead of your proposal to edit war your POV edits upon the article over the objection of other editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic didn't exactly cite policy or quote it, but referred to it indirectly with respect to making recourse to WP dispute resolution in opposition to POV edit warring.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the intention of the "locus" section was to try to understand the overall situation in an attempt to move forward, not just another venue to try to do battle against individuals. That is why I made such a point of wording it the way that I did, and also saying that I would adamantly oppose any sanctions against the individuals that I was discussing. North8000 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the Xenophrenic evidence, and the discussion following. Who else feels as you do that Xenophrenic's editing and behaviour is inappropriately dominating the article to their preferred POV? I'm asking that question because I'm not picking up from your evidence where Xenophrenic is doing anything different from what you are doing. But I am picking up that you are pushing your assertion that he is engaged in tendentious editing in a manner that could be thought to be tendentious in itself. My thinking from early on in this case, has been that the significant editors on this article have all been editing and behaving in a sub-optimal manner, but that people, both those involved, and those who have observed, have tended to take sides - perhaps based on a political allegiance, or some unseen bias. I haven't finished looking yet (hopefully this weekend), but without clear and obvious evidence that one side has behaved significantly worse than the other, it would be inappropriate to pick sides, and do a lop-sided topic-ban. I think it needs to be everyone or nobody. However, I am concerned when the matter spills out from the article and involves the rest of the community - as it has done here. We can look at the timeline of how that occurred - you made a comment, Geothean asked KC to look into it, KC and you got into a disagreement, and KC took the matter to AN/I where the matter quickly escalated into sanctions for all, including KC. Reflecting back on that timeline, who do you feel is responsible for the community dust up? Would you feel you share some responsibility yourself? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also now looked at the Goethean evidence. Only two of the three "anti-immigration" edits are Goethean. One of the links is used twice. The time frame for the edit you list, indicates it was an edit by Xenophrenic. The talkpage comments you cite are not evidence for a topic ban, nor of someone dominating an article. All the time what I am seeing is people editing an article and disagreeing - but the actual nuance of one side being worse than the other, is not emerging. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have failed to make one abstract point clear. My observations and diffs regarding Xenophrenic and Goethean are ONLY ONLY to establish that my comment which started all of this was not out of line, and so that we can have an accurate picture to move forward. It is NOT to say that action (other than a warning) should be taken against them. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my comment was about and to push back on the Xenophrenic/Goethean TE situation collectively. In short, Xenophrenic did it the most, and Goethean jumped in at key moments. I see no meanness and seldom nastiness in Xenophrenic, just a person on a mission. I have seen and endured many abrasive comments from Goethean, and they shredded one of my olive branches. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question on the dustup, I feel that Goethen's solicitation set the wheels in motion but that KC is responsible for the dustup through multiple errors. A close look at the dialog shows that I kept trying to disengage, and the discussed item (my discussion about TE) was OVER and ENDED before the dustup even started. Of course I could have avoided it by bowing and (wrongly) saying that that my TE comment was wrong and improper, but I would not consider that to be a "cause". I could have also committed the suicide that they demanded by "trying" to show TE with a couple of diffs. (a quest that would be certain to fail, and rightly so) I think that I did everything short of that to disengage. I am the type to easily and quickly admit to an error, oversight, mis-action of mine so if you see one, let me know. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed something in the initial "locus2" wording which may reflect a misunderstanding of what happened / the sequence of events. The discussion at the article about my TE statement was over (and I had dis-engaged on that topic) before the exchange between me and KC even began. The subsequent linked comment about Goethean was on a completely different topic, a response to Goethean's comment/accusations to Malke on their sub-article idea. In the locus above, it appears that the these were thought to be the same situation. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North, you've hit on a very important point that the two are separate and this might not be entirely clear to everyone. You and the others were earlier involved in something that Goethean asked KC to come over and take a look at. You're right, it appears that issue had been resolved. This whole thing is really about an argument between you and KC. But that keeps getting ignored. I think Silk Tork is absolutely right. These matters should be well sorted by the community before they arrive at ArbCom. If admins had stepped in straight away at ANI, this would have been sorted right then and there. Whoever moved that ANI thread, (I'm sure unintentionally), actually disrupted what likely would have been a fair understanding of what was really going on, and a satisfactory resolution to it.

talk) 16:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

As I said above under the section being prepared by Malke, it is evident to me (in the two months or so that I've edited the article) that the problem is principally the behavior of Xenophrenic. Other problems radiate outward from his behavior. Removing him from the equation is like putting out a grease fire. Not only do the burns stop happening, the smoke inhalation stops happening too. Other editors would no longer be incited to misconduct by his tendentious editing. He's pushing a POV, and he's been doing it for years. A review of his editing trail confirms that he's doing this across several articles related to U.S. politics. He stays just under the radar by limiting his mainspace reversions to key moments in an ongoing edit war — which is the textbook definition of

WP:TE — and dominates the article Talk pages with arguments and mockery. North8000 is correct in his diagnosis with regard to this editor, but his proposed remedy doesn't go far enough. For the protection of the Wikipedia project, I recommend a topic ban, broadly construed across all WP articles related to U.S. politics. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

Calls for sanctions on AN/I

2.1) Topic bans were proposed for

talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), and Darkstar1st (talk · contribs). A desysopping was proposed for KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs

)

North8000 proposed the desysopping; I see no reason to use passive voice as though we weren't certain who that was. Killer Chihuahua 16:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've addressed this in Locus of dispute 2, thanks. Killer Chihuahua 16:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Goethean

3) Goethean has edited Tea Party movement since 2010, making 43 edits - 24 of which have been reverts. Goethean has edited the talk page 191 times. After a break for nearly a year, talkpage involvement restarted in Feb in 2013 with a tense discussion on The tobacco industry and the Tea Party, some difs from which were used in evidence to indicate uncivil behaviour. In the community discussion there was no consensus for a topic ban. Goethean was blocked in 2006 and twice in 2010 for edit warring on other articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Goethean's contributions to the article can be seen as less than helpful. Direct edits tend to be mainly reverts, and while not making flagrant personal attacks, the talkpage comments do not assist in generating a positive atmosphere. However, there is not evidence to suggest a topic ban would be appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have to say, looking over Goethean's evidence against North and some of his comments on the article talk page, it seems to me has been nursing a lot of hostility towards North for some time. My impression of North's comments are that he is less livid towards Goethean, but is frustrated with some of his conduct. As their interaction is the source of this case, I think it should get ample consideration with regards to findings and remedies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North8000

4) North8000 has edited Tea Party movement since September 2010 and is the third main contributor with 195 edits - 38 of which were reverts; of those, 10 are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. North8000 is the main contributor to the talkpage with 1374 edits. In the topic ban discussion 60% were in favour of a ban. North8000 has no blocks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I suggested last week on the Arbitration Committee's mailing list that North8000 be topic banned. I noted specifically evidence of I what I believed to be tendentious editing in Archives 16 and 18 in particular. There are plenty of other diffs on the ANI thread, but one that stuck out to me in particular was [58]. NW (Talk) 12:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your concerns with that dif. It's from two years ago, and was part of an edit war involving several users:

(cur | prev) 15:06, 12 July 2011‎ The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (137,533 bytes) (+12,588)‎ . . (Undid revision 439089070 by North8000 (talk)rv. tit-for-tat mass blanking) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:03, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (124,945 bytes) (-12,588)‎ . . (→‎Racial issues: No double standard for this section, based on TFD deletion. Either balanced or out. Let's start over.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:48, 12 July 2011‎ The Four Deuces (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (137,533 bytes) (-1,125)‎ . . (→‎Alleged racist attacks by opponents of the tea party: Remove section - see talk page) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:44, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,658 bytes) (+135)‎ . . (→‎Alleged racist attacks by opponents of the tea party: + ref and cite) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:42, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,523 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (→‎Alleged racist attacks by opponents of the tea party: + phrase from reference, reference coming) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:38, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,496 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Alleged racist attacks by opponents the tea party: grammar) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:37, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,493 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Racist attacks by opponents the tea party: npov the section header) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:36, 12 July 2011‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,485 bytes) (+952)‎ . . (Undid removal by PhGustaf. Starting point...I'll upgrade and cite this during the next 15 minuutes.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:16, 12 July 2011‎ PhGustaf (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (137,533 bytes) (-952)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by Darkstar1st (talk): Rv uncited illiteracy. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:55, 12 July 2011‎ Darkstar1st (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,485 bytes) (-22)‎ . . (→‎Dale Robertson racial slur sign) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:49, 12 July 2011‎ Darkstar1st (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,507 bytes) (+974)‎ . . (Undid revision 438957801 by Fat&Happy (talk)if racial issues are going to remain part of this article, lets include both sides) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:14, 11 July 2011‎ Fat&Happy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (137,533 bytes) (-974)‎ . . (rv NPOV, ungrammatical coatrack) (undo)
cur | prev) 20:00, 11 July 2011‎ Freedomthinker (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,507 bytes) (+974)‎ . . (undo)

I'm still looking into conduct by North8000 so any additional insights would be very valuable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the below discussion only reinforces my point. The edit war is meaningless, but there was a huge violation of BLP there that charged living individuals of crimes, which was never adequately excised by North8000. Honestly, he kept a statement referring to them being union thugs. The fact that he (and Darkstar1st) are still defending edits like this is prima facie evidence that they have zero proper understanding of NPOV and BLP. NW (Talk) 06:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

exactly which edits am i still defending? i support trimming the article, not adding material. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those that missed it, I said that I never have and never will knowingly violate wp:BLP. I understand its importance. And from a close look at the 2 year old exchange that somebody was trying to gin up into that 2 years later, there was not even an unknowing violation in the material that I reinserted. Plus even the claim (i.e. that one piece of the block was not supported by the source) was NOT made or discussed then. Plus if someone has to look back two years to find something to falsely gin up into a alleged knowing BLP violation, I must be doing pretty good and they must be trying awfully hard. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@SilkTork: I don't think the concern over that diff has anything to do with edit-warring. Look at the diff again. North8000 inserted language stating that two private individuals had been charged with serious crimes, with no supporting source. That's a canonical, egregious violation of

WP:BLP - it's hard to think of a worse one.

Two minutes later, North8000 inserted a citation to FoxNews. Unfortunately, the cited source directly contradicted his edit (it stated that one individual had yet to be charged with anything, while the other individual isn't even mentioned). So North8000 wrote that two private, living individuals had been charged with serious crimes, without any supporting sources. He then added a source but misrepresented its content, again in a way which potentially defamed two living, private individuals. I suppose one could argue that it was two years ago, or employ a total ignorance of this site's standards for biographical material as a defense, but surely you see the cause for concern there? MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

Thanks for that. I was seeing an edit war over the material. The material itself had been added earlier: by Freedomthinker, then removed by Fat&Happy and added by Darkstar1st removed by PhGustaf and added by North8000. If this is a concern about BLP issues, then for any sanctions to apply, it would need to be shown that North8000 had been made aware of BLP issues, and flagrantly ignored them. Is that the case, as far as you are aware? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

What is going on here? This was material put in by somebody else (not be me); the diff was to me reverting the removal of it and added a cite which supported it. Now, 2 years later, someone looks back two years and claims that one piece of it was not supported by the source. Someone having to search two years to find and bring up something even that weak would be a sign of exemplary behavior on my part. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you were edit-warring to restore someone else's BLP violation, rather than your own, isn't a mitigating factor - if anything, it makes things worse. You're responsible for the edits you make. Based on the sequence outlined by SilkTork, Fat&Happy and PhGustaf acted properly (and their actions were not "edit-warring", but rather an appropriate response to a serious

WP:BLP is still active, and he'd do the same again today. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

I don't recall any discussion or expressed concerns along those lines. I would never put in an edit if there was even an open question of a BLP issue. Was there? Or is this just a brand new angle two years later? Apparently your claim (first made two years later) is that the material which I restored was only 95% supported by the reference I supplied. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get it. You restored totally unsourced material stating that two people had been charged with crimes - a serious BLP violation in its own right. Then you added a reference which did not support the statement that either had been charged. That's another serious BLP violation. Let's make this simple: do you believe now, two years later, that these edits violate

WP:BLP? MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

I asked you first. This is much more relevant to the topic at hand. North8000 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. I have the luxury of walking away at this point, but I'm starting to understand what it must be like to be engaged in a content dispute with you, and why other editors rapidly become frustrated. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear, we're not having a content dispute here, we're dealing with an accusation made by you. If you found 5% of the restored item 2 years later that wasn't covered by the source, which nobody noticed or even brought up, that is evidence of an oversight by everybody at the time, not bad behavior by me. That is why my question is relevant. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see North8000 making any intentional BLP vio here. I agree with Silk Tork in that it would need to be shown that North8000 was previously warned about a BLP vio and continued to post a negative comment without a source. I don't see that happening here. Also, I don't see it being repeated. This diff is from July 2011. I don't see anyone coming up with diffs from all his time editing that shows he consistently violates

talk) 22:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

But North8000 is defending that BLP violation, now, 2 years later - or least trying to evade responsibility for it. So why should we believe that he'll respect BLP going forward? In any case, he can consider himself warned. The next I see North8000 use a Wikipedia article to accuse living private individuals of serious crimes without any supporting sources, I or another admin will block him, in accordance with the commitment to ethical treatment of living people which has been repeatedly affirmed by the community, by ArbCom, and by the Foundation. An established editor shouldn't need to be told that, but now he has been. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just gave away any authority to do any of that. Your actions here seem juvenile and vindictive to say the least. You seem more interesting in "getting" North than trying to improve WP or this article. Arzel (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, you are evading the central point. If there was no known, discussed or alleged BLP violation at the time by anybody, and just now, 2 years later, you are saying that 5% of the material (which I didn't even write) was not supported by the source, that (even if true) is called an oversight by everybody, NOT mis-behavior. I never did and never will knowingly commit a wp:blp violation. End of story. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that an admin stating he will defend Wikipedia against BLP violations can be construed as "vindictive". North8000 has now been, if he was not before, informed of his responsibility as regards BLP and been warned of likely consequences should he choose to ignore that warning and post unsourced content on living persons in violation. Arzel, I advise you that calling another editor "juvenile" may be construed as a personal attack, and suggest your speculations about the supposed motives of others is not helpful. Killer Chihuahua 19:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the most disturbing thing about North8000's behavior on that day is that he would subsequently cite the removal of that BLP-violating "union thug" material as a rationale to remove all of the race-related controversies in the entire article. (No double standard for this section, based on TFD deletion. Either balanced or out. Let's start over.) It is as if he is adding bad content to the article as a bargaining chip, the predictable removal of which will give him cover to remove the controversy material that he has vociferously opposed, and continues to oppose, for years ("junk" "trivia", etc).

P.S. Here is a write-up of how that "union thug" story entered the news media and what has happened to it since. Quite a story, esp. considering that this is the type of content that North8000 would have in the TPM article. — goethean 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. here is the talk page discussion in which North8000 defends the inclusion of the material as better sourced than the material which he opposes. — goethean 19:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good link, if one reads it carefully, on sees that it refutes what you said and implied about me. And having to go back 2 years to find even something that weak (that needs ginning up here to make it sound bad) says even more. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that North is one of the most prolific editors on this subject, I think it would be better to look for a less restrictive solution. A straight topic ban would seem to be too much in my opinion. Most of the incivility and battleground accusations are trivial or basically represent how several of the named parties on all sides have acted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I disagree that you can then block North at any time if you believe he's violated BLP, unless he does it right now. A warning followed by a block would only apply if he repeats the same violation again now. North has no history of doing that. If it's a BLP vio at all, it's a one-off. Please show the Wikipedia policy that would allow you to block North at any time in future, without warning. Thanks.

talk) 14:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

The first clause of your sentence made me think the natural progression of your comment was "and thus should be banned per the general "At wit's end" principles that the Committee has passed". But different ideas I suppose. NW (Talk) 06:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, different ideas. But I appreciate your dry sense of humour.

talk) 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

For those that missed it, I said that I never have and never will knowingly violate wp:BLP. I understand its importance. And from a close look at the 2 year old exchange that somebody was trying to gin up into that 2 years later, there was not even an unknowing violation in the material that I reinserted. Plus even the claim (i.e. that one piece of the block of text was not supported by the source) was NOT made or discussed then. Plus if someone has to look back two years to find something to falsely gin up into a alleged knowing BLP violation, I must be doing pretty good and they must be trying awfully hard. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that two living people had been charged with serious crimes, without any supporting references for that claim ([59]). That is a serious violation of both the letter and the ethical spirit of

WP:BLP. The violation occurred 2 years ago, as you point out. I haven't looked at any of your subsequent editing, and looked at this particular diff only because NW highlighted it. I have no idea whether your subsequent editing record has been free of BLP violations. I do think that your response here - to minimize what is an extremely serious BLP violation and argue technicalities - does not reflect well upon you, but I'll leave it there for others to decide. As an admin, I retain the right (and, arguably, the responsibility) to act appropriately to address any future BLP violations. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

I reverted blanking of the entire two paragraph section. Two year later you or NW are saying that one piece of what I restored was not supported by the source. Looking back, I think that everything about any named individuals was supported by the source, but either way this is a point which you are first raising 2 years later and either certainly not indicative of any knowing violation back then. And I never have and never will knowingly commit BLP violation, such a thing, so I don't know where you got "minimizing" that from. BTW, if you want an actual knowing BLP violation to work on, there is a phrase in the article right now which implies that Ron Paul (the guy who wants to legalize trade with Cuba) is an isolationist, which is exactly opposite to his deeply held beliefs. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your edit, in which you said that two people were charged criminally. And here's your cited source, which makes clear that one individual had not yet been charged with anything, while the second individual isn't even mentioned. You keep saying that this is just "one piece", or just "5%" of your edit - thus minimizing an extremely serious violation, regardless of what percentage of your edit it comprised. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the source says they were arrested for such offenses but that authorities were not sure if charges would be pursued, and they apparently were pursued. It doesn't mention the one name specifically, but does indicate others were arrested. My impression is that the only real issue is with the phrasing of the content. Judging from the discussion it does appear North was in the process of rectifying the issue and was simply interrupted. One can fault him for not getting his ducks in a row beforehand, but I don't think that is a basis for any serious action, especially not two years after the fact.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to what you just said. North's edit states that an individual was charged with a crime. As you recognize, the source doesn't even mention that individual's name. That's more than a cosmetic issue. I suspect that if someone claimed you committed a crime on a widely read, highly Google-ranked website, using your real name, you'd be a little less blase about getting one's ducks in a row before making an edit like that. MastCell ^Talk 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up there for a grand total of fifteen minutes before being balanced and made accurate as North stated was his intent then I really wouldn't care.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, it's two years on now, and he's not done it since.

talk) 22:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

I undid the blanking of the entire multi-paragraph section (which was written by somebody else) and was in the process of rapidly paring it (4 edits in 7 minutes), (I don't remember, it was years ago..if I was taking those out too, when I was interrupted by reblanking of the entire section. The specific issues first brought here two years later were not mentioned by anybody back then. Either way, I never have and never will knowingly violate wp:blp, and I take it seriously. How may times do I need to say that before the false claims otherwise will stop? MastCell, are checking into the CURRENT probable BLP violation in the TPM article I told you about? North8000 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel

5) Arzel has edited Tea Party movement since April 2010, and is a significant contributor with 158 edits - 63 of which have been reverts. Arzel has edited the talkpage 270 times. There was community support for a topic ban. Arzel's edits in other articles have been questioned, but insufficient evidence has been provided that conduct on editing Tea Party movement warrants sanctions. Arzel was blocked in 2008 and 2010 for edit warring on other articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am concerned that so many editors felt that Arzel's conduct was generally poor enough to support topic banning; however, when looking into the conduct related to the case, I don't think there is sufficient evidence for a sanction. I don't think it would be appropriate for the Committee to extend its reach beyond the case pages; and this case is not about Arzel, but about conduct related to the Tea Party movement article. There is mention on the AN/I page of opening a

WP:RfC/U on Arzel, and somebody may consider doing that as there are concerns regarding his editing. The other Committee members will also be casting their eye over Arzel's conduct and may have a different opinion to mine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

Malke 2010

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

6) Malke 2010 has edited Tea Party movement since January 2010, and is the main contributor with 512 edits - 13 of which are reverts; of which, 3 are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. Malke 2010 has made 1129 edits to the talkpage. There was no consensus for a topic ban by the community, and insufficient evidence provided in the case for applying sanctions. Malke 2010 has apologised to KillerChihuahua. Malke 2010 was blocked twice in 2009 and five times in 2010 for disruptive editing and personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I see no problems with this editor who - other than recently - appears to be mainly using discussion rather than reverting as a means to address content disputes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I accepted the apology from Malke 2010. Killer Chihuahua 15:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously commented on Ubikwit and suggested he be included in any edit restriction/sanctions under the section "Edit restrictions." [60]

With regard to the edits he's talking about below, the article history speaks for itself, but I attempted to make a compromise edit with a better source that quoted the tea party directly.

In the meantime, Ubikwit made a personal attack on the moderated discussion page accusing me of advocacy, which I removed. I brought the issue to his talk page. In his last comment in that discussion, he mentioned the compromise edit I'd made to the article. Soon after, he went to the article and deleted my edit.

Talk page comment at 0726 13 April [61] Reverts Malke’s edit at 0811 13 April [62].

I do not know Ubikwit. I've never edited with him. I try to avoid replying to him now because he seems to have a similar fixation with me as did User:Izauze and his two socks, which were an IP [63] and Dylan Flaherty. At some point, Jpgordon reminded Izauze on his talk page to sign in when editing and not use his IP. Eventually Dylan was indef blocked by LessHeard vanU. Izauze was blocked for socking [64]. The IP hounded me and was warned by an admin. Izauze was eventually unblocked, but has not edited in over a year. He appears to have abandoned his account.

In hindsight, it likely would have been better to not engage with Ubikwit, because I can now see the long run. But in the moment, the problem is you always want to AGF and you think commenting might solve the problem.

I've worked hard on Wikipedia in the last 2.5 years improving articles despite being very busy in RL. I've recently created several articles, improved several more over several topics. I've got several more articles in the works but no time now to do anything with them in the immediate future.

People keep going on about me being a major contributor to Tea Party movement, but up until March, 2013, I had not edited the article in 2.5 years. That hardly makes me a major contributor anymore, despite what the edit counter says. It's not reality. And I'd only made very brief one-off comments on the talk page once in 2011, and again in 2012. 2011 All my comments were about article improvement. Opened new section: [65] and in 2012 commented at Worst article ever [66] worst article ever subsection 1: [67] worst article ever subsection 2nd attempt and Discussion: [68]

I think the best thing that has happened to the article is Silk Tork moderating a discussion which seems to be working well, and ArbCom taking it on.

Some editors think Killer Chihuahua is involved, but I think her assuming I was still a major contributor speaks to her not being involved. It appears she assumed I was an active editor there based on the edit count. Had she been involved, she would have seen I was not active and no longer a major contributor.

talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

I'm revising the following section of comments, redacting portions, etc., having reviewed policy and found portions of my text that were simply incorrect, written in a sleep-deprived state, which is an occupational hazard I've been trying to rectify lately with minimal success.

These comments were initiated in response to certain policy related assertions by Malke in different sections on this page.

Regarding the "slow-moving edit war" only once did I simply revert an edit by replacing the same exact material, and that was in response to Malke's edit summary claiming that my edit was WP:OR and seeming to insist that the section be based solely on primary sources. Arzel then made a tag-team revert with a somewhat insulting edit summary that in and of itself may constitute a personal attack. After that revert, I tried another version of the Constitution subsection I was trying to add based on four RS secondary sources. Initially, Malke and Arzel simply eliminated the entirety of what I continue to consider to be WP:DUE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. compliant text).

The following passage (and entire page) seems relevant:

Wikipedia:Reverting#When_to_revert

Finally, do not revert any edits that can be verified per WP:V and would be an improvement to a page, within the boundaries of other Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. If an edit can be verified as encyclopedic, and improves a page but you still worry that someone else might disagree, then let the person who disagrees with the change revert the edit. Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy.

There is also another statement on the

WP:3RR page that may be relevant

A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.^{[clarification needed}

The reason given for the request for clarification is that "it should be made clear if an initial edit modifying a page (edited by the other person/persons) counts".

There is also the following passage from

WP:BRD

Try to move the discussion towards making a new, and different, Bold edit as quickly as possible. One should seek to have an iterative cycle going on the page itself where people "try this" or "try that" and just try to see what sticks best. Warning: Repetitively doing this can easily violate the (recently strengthened) 3RR policy and get good-faith editors blocked even during a productive editing exchange. Any such edits must be clear attempts to try another solution, not ones that have been tried and rejected(my emphasis).

I believe that since there are at least four reliable sources by legal scholars that specifically address the TPm agenda vis-à-vis the constitution, that the inclusion of a fairly detailed account of the analysis in such sources meets the relevant policies noted above. It should be pointed out that thus far I had only included information from three of those sources, having yet to have gotten around to the one cited in the NYT article by the professor from Columbia, and tried to use new material in a manner that I feel meets the italicized statement in the above cited passage. I attempted to take into account any concern stated in an edit summary that might be deemed legitimate, such as removing the paragraph on “birth-right citizenship” and the related constitutional amendment, and I made queries to Malke and Arzel on the Talk page regarding the content.

Maybe this is primarily a content dispute related material, but the edit summaries by Malke and Arzel skewed policy in ways that seem to represent conduct issues as much as content, and they refused to engage in discussion.

It bears noting that even though Malke did not respond to the queries on the Talk page of the article, she did attempt to engage me in a different manner on my User Talk page User_talk:Ubikwit#Suggestion.

The final version of the text I posted incorporated material from the source introduced by Malke, including the following

The Tea Party contains a welter of oftentimes conflicting Agendas... Yet within this confusing constellation of ideas and viewpoints, there is a relatively stable ideological core to the Tea Party. This core is particularly evident when one focuses on the vision of the Constitution regularly professed by movement leaders, activists, and supporters. ^[1]

Malke's second revert incorporated what could be construed as a WP:BOLD edit insofar as it introduced a new source--even though it sequestered the source and eliminated the Constitution subsection. That would be closer to policy-based reality than calling it a "compromise edit", at any rate.

Here are the diffs for Malke's three reverts over a period of three days for different text and references each time. I have left out the diff to what appears to be a tag-team revert by Arzel

[69](rmv WP:OR. No tea parties mentioned. This is the agenda section. That means their agenda.)

[70](reduced content for relevance per WP:UNDUE added w/cite)

[71](rmv WP:UNDUE/WP:OR/and redundant material)--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 05:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke seems determined to get the last word in here, and I would just as soon let her have it if she weren't making fallacious assertions.

First, "the article history speaks for itself" is probably true on some level, but the her assertion about making a "compromise edit" is duplicitous, because she did not even respond to two queries I made to her on the article Talk page related to her ongoing reversions of my edits under the Agenda section addressing the constitution.

It takes two to edit war, and it takes two to compromise. Rather, she attempted to Wikilawyer and intimidate me on my Talk page.

Secondly, I did not make a direct personal attack against her, only an improper remark that the content she favored including in the article was only content that could be deemed to portray the TPm in a favorable light. I did use the term advocacy as a short hand, but plainly not in the COI sense. I have posted the comment on this page already and recognize that it was improper, even if not a violation of NPA.

Thirdly, Malke attempts to portray herself as inactive on the article during 2011 and 2012, but I have provided a link to substantial discussion in which she is involved in a sort of tag team Talk page POV pushing with North8000--hardly one-off comments.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 19:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can one make an assertion in good faith as the leading contributor to the article that said article is "a train wreck" or the "worst article ever"? --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the reality, that Malke has been total absent from the article page for the 2 or 2 1/2 year period ending recently, and also absent from its talk page for the same period (except for 2 or 3 conversations) and then look at the misleading creation of Ubikwit's above, one can see why the impressions given by Ubikwit in these types of creations should be given little credibility. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds counterintuitive to hear the leading contributor claim that the article is the worst ever or is a "train wreck". Moreover, why would she repeatedly make such assertions, starting sections on the Talk page, etc., instead of editing the article in the normal manner, addressing concretely sections of the article that one feels need work? It is not unreasonable to consider that as somewhat tendentious.

For what it's worth, here is some information facilitating a comparison of the versions of the article from the point in time in 2010 of Malke's last edit to the article before a long break and her comment of March 2, 2012 on the Talk page.

December 2010 Malke edit to the article[72]

This version of the article:[73]

This article is a train wreck section created on 28 August 2011[74]

This version of the article:[75]

Talk page “Worst article EVER” discussion March 2012[76]

This version of the article:[77]

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is one relatively simple comparison to make in the above versions of the article, and that relates to the Commentaries section in relation to Malke's article Talk page comment of 28 August 2011 to "Eliminate the "Commentaries" section." That is to say, the amount of difference between the Commentaries section as it stood in December 2010 and August 2011 appears to be almost negligible. The list of corresponding references (153-173; 195-223) is similar, showing only a relatively small expansion (+8) therebetween.

That begs the question as to why the call for such a radical course of action such as eliminating the section when there had been no corresponding radical change to the article in the interim?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 05:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I feel inclined to acknowledging that the above-quoted remark I made at the Moderated discussion, though intended as a comment on the content of the relevant edits by Malke, was phrased it in a manner that addresses the editor to a degree that likes runs afoul of WP:NPA.

Had I been more circumspect, I would have pointed out a corollary between the "mired in excessive details" comment and the previous references to "nuking out the trivia", etc.

I stated early in these proceedings that I do consider Malke to be engaged in POV pushing and advocacy (not of the COI type) as defined under the above "Neutrality and conflicts of interest" subsection under the Proposed Principles section. I identified her in the early stages as one of several editors I consider to be part of an affinity group collectively engaged in such POV pushing, tag-teaming, etc., and provided a thread from the article Talk page to substantiate the characterization. Though I'd initially been commenting as something of an outsider, based on participation in an RS/N discussion on the Tobacco Control article and evaluating past Talk page discussions, the extent of that POV pushing and tag-teaming impacted me as an editor directly with respect to the edits and reverts of the Constitution subsection I created under the Agenda section.

At any rate. I apologize for the disruptive comment. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic

7) Xenophrenic has edited Tea Party movement since March 2010, and is the second main contributor with 397 edits - 63 of which have been reverts; 5 of which are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. Xenophrenic was blocked in 2011 for breaking community sanctions on Tea Party movement, and was blocked twice in 2007 and once in 2013 for edit warring on other articles. Xenophrenic has made 573 edits to the talkpage. There was no community support for a topic ban, Xenophrenic is not named as a party, and there is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As with most other contributors to this article, there is an unfortunate tendency at times to revert, but I am not seeing anything significant considering the amount of time Xenophrenic has spent on the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor copyediting nit (applies to all of these proposals, placed here for visibility): Change "main" to "leading". Still reviewing the substance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Xenophrenic's behavior appears to be disruptive on the talk page. At the moment, he will not stop arguing against current consensus to not use the term 'anti-immigration.' He has been active on the article for over three years on a near daily basis. Xenophrenic has more than a tendency to revert. He's edit warred and never makes concessions on the talk page. Currently, he refuses to participate in the moderated discussion opened by Silk Tork.

talk) 15:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

We need difs - "appears" is not enough when there are three years and 573 edits to sift through. That a contributor does not agree with another contributor, and says so, is not in itself grounds for a sanction, especially when the climate on a talkpage has been argumentative. The expectation always is that people will conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the writing of an encyclopedia, and will be respectful, polite, considerate, and rationale. The reality, sadly, is sometimes a little divorced from that because editing can be stressful. If there is persistent, inflammatory personal comments, after requests to stop, then sanctions can be looked into. In a situation where one person is being rude in response to the rudeness of another, then sanctions may apply to both parties. So when looking at difs, one also has to consider the background. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's edit warred and never makes concessions on the talk page.

...and this is as opposed to the behavior of which editors exactly, who you believe have been open to compromise? — goethean 16:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Tork, I will get diffs. I'm very busy in RL at the moment, but I will get around to it sometime today. Thanks.

talk) 18:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

I was going to say that the status of the page, itself, adequately indicates disruption (although I wouldn't necessarily say disruptive intent, just disruption), not just diagreement. In addition, his blanking of the comments about his edits as a "personal attack" is also disruption. I'm afraid I'm busy in real life, also; my wife is having surgery Monday (29 April). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope everything goes well, Arthur.

talk) 21:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

Xenophrenic is currently focused on claiming the tea party movement is 'anti-immigration' and also incorporates the term 'nativism' with that. [78]

Here are links to sections on the current talk page and a few of the archives.

Xenophrenic became upset with Malke’s edit that said the real issue is “Immigration reform” and makes personal attacks [79].

Xenophrenic argues for the use of the word “Generally” since he wants to use it to support his edit [80]

Archives regarding ‘racism’ in the article which is a special interest of Xenophrenic’s [81]

Xenophrenic’s comments under Neutrality section: [82]

Here Xenophrenic tells editors they are misstating what he has said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_20#Al_Hunt.27s_.22Letter_from_Washington.22_shouldn.27t_be_attributed_to_the_New_York_Times.2C_but_Bloomberg_News

Recent edit wars over comments Xenophrenic either doesn’t like, or wishes to rearrange without the editor’s permission: On Tea Party movement talk page: First, Arthur Rubin said: “. . . I should add that now there is strong evidence toward Xenophrenic's

tendentious editing in intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments (in the "anti-immigration" section) in favor of an absurd interpretation. . .Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

Xenophrenic argued and edit warred in response:[83] and again [84] and again [85]. [86]

Xenophrenic then went to Arthur Rubin’s talk page: [87] Not satisfied, he went to ANI: [88]

And on Arthur Rubin's talk page just today. He moved my comments and I moved them back and when he kept reverting, I told him to re-edit his own comments instead.

And Arthur Rubin’s talk page.

(cur | prev) 16:15, 27 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,866 bytes) (+182)‎ . . (+sig & wl) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:28, 27 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,684 bytes) (+3,005)‎ . . (+responses to individual comments again, for readability; +cmt) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:15, 27 April 2013‎ Malke 2010 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,679 bytes) (+241)‎ . . (→‎Re: "Anti-immigration": cmt) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:12, 27 April 2013‎ Malke 2010 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,438 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (Undid revision 552425922 by Xenophrenic (talk) STOP. Yu are edit warring.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:09, 27 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,429 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (returning the order of my responses to the order in which they were made) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:06, 27 April 2013‎ Malke 2010 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,438 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (Undid revision 552320189 by Xenophrenic no, you cannot redact my comments. I'm not responsible for the "order" of your answer) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:42, 27 April 2013‎ MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (69,429 bytes) (-18,161)‎ . . (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 28d) to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2013.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:36, 26 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,590 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (returning the order of my responses to the order in which they were made) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:02, 26 April 2013‎ Malke 2010 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (87,599 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (→‎Re: "Anti-immigration": restoring edit) (undo)

Here is the comment I made on his talk page. Note he changed the section title I'd made and he also did the same thing to me there that he did on Arthur Rubin's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xenophrenic#Edit_warring.2Fredacting_the_comments_of_others

Xenophrenic's comments consistently show a lack of respect for other editors. His lengthy and repetitive arguments wear out editors. He often uses trivial comments in sources he finds on Google books to source his arguments. Right now he's claiming sources show that the tea party movement is "anti-immigration," yet he offers no reliable sources other than trivial mentions in Google books searches. And even where the author doesn't even use the word 'anti-immigration' he will claim that is what the author is really talking about. The archives are filled with these same arguments about racism in the tea party, which Xenophrenic takes the lead on whenever that topic comes up. I have several other examples of disruption, incivil comments, and battle, but I don't have time today due to RL work obligations.

talk) 21:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

What is true about this case is that the editors involved are butting heads, and complaining about each other. What is interesting is that none of you are reflecting on your own behaviour - you all seem so focused on being angry with the other guy that you are not seeing what you are doing yourself. An edit war involves two people. A person cannot edit war with themselves. The editing on Arthur Rubin’s talk page reflects badly on both Xenophrenic and Malke 2010. If we cannot get through this case without everyone agreeing to get along and edit the article constructively, then perhaps topic bans all round is the best solution. I'm certainly not seeing a case for banning one side but not the other. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I like Xenophrenic is that (after extensive interaction and observation) I see no meanness or viciousness in them, and no attempts to "go after" people to get rid of them. (as has been commonplace in the ANI and Arbcom case on this) But they are a special case in that that they are the most (quietly) relentless person towards a particular end I've ever seen, and this includes a lot of "creative" stuff on talk pages (e.g. renaming sections, inserting new heading over existing posts, splitting existing threads etc.) And so folks are not out of line for noting that special case. Again, I adamantly oppose anything beyond a warning on this, but we must recognize the realities in order to move forward. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my behaviour. I've not tried to minimize what I've said or done. I agree that it takes two to edit war, but Xenophrenic always starts the edit wars. He has a long history of edit warring on Tea Party movement and elsewhere, including talk pages. Look what he does to other editors. He is without a doubt, the single most disruptive and incivil editor at Tea Party movement. The article would definitely have a chance to improve in his absence. Absolutely it would. There's no need to topic ban anybody else. Nobody else is doing what Xenophrenic is doing.

talk) 01:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

Case in point: I provided a well-sourced alternative to the anti-immigration argument. This is how Xenophrenic responded in part:

". . .And not to change the subject, but did I just see you link to Talking Points Memo, and DailyKos yesterday? You did wash your hands afterward, right? People are going to talk, you know.Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then Arzel said this: The Cruz piece is in the context of Illegal Immigration which is seperate from the general anti-immigration issue. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this is how Xenophrenic responded to him:

And that has what to do with this? And is that the best Malke impersonation you can do? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's tame compared to some of his other comments to other editors. Imagine having to deal with this day in and day out while trying to AGF, and get along with others on a very contentious topic. This behaviour is not collegial and it's not fair to any of the others editing there.

talk) 01:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

@Ubikwit: I provided a link to an interesting article which seemed to clarify the tobacco issue. I did not provide the link to you specifically. And you still need to reread the article, as you claimed that these were right wing corporations which the article does not claim, and certainly no other editor stated that but you. Any subsequent comment was to point that out to you.

talk) 11:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

This thread provides a little more context related to that discussion. The Daily Kos is a left leaning media outlet and Xenophrenic was using a little irony in referring to the fact that you provided that source to me in a conversation about the Tobacco Control article. I fail to see where it reaches the incivil, even if you don't appreciate the attempt at humor.

This diff, in particular, shows Malke arguing against the characterizations in the source, which at the time made me question why she' introduced it in the first place. The source did contain some interesting material which I found worthwhile to discuss, but it didn't the type of material that would actually support Malke's position that it discredited the Tobacco Control report.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this relates to sources and the use thereof, I'll make this belated reply to Malke's last comment above. The statement about "right wing corporations" was cited as a block quote on the Talk page because I took it directly from the source, which Malke provided.

Perhaps Malke should have taken care to read the article thoroughly herself before telling me that I "still need to reread the article" because of her apparently biased misconceptions with no basis in reality. The following two quotes appear in succession in the Daily Kos article, the first of which I posted on the TPm Talk page in the above-cited thread.

...But the fact is, CSE wasn't just funded by big tobacco. Like all these groups, they were funded by a whole host of big, right wing corporations(my emphasis).

Look, it's true that many of the same players involved with CART back then are involved with Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity groups now. But the truth is, the whole right wing PR front group racket(my emphasis) is a big, incestuous crowd. Many go in the same circles, draw from the same talent pool, and work for all the same corporate interest groups.

The last sentence in the second paragraph makes a statement that addresses a claim that is not made in the Tobacco Control article, so it is a polemic statement made in the context of the authors editorializing. It does not refute the findings of the Tobacco Control article or "clarify the tobacco issue".

But this study provides zero evidence that big tobaccos was the client that pulled the trigger on the "Operation Tea Party" in the spring of 2009.

The accusation that I made a claim not found in the article when I in fact provided reference to the claim as a block quote on the article page is somewhat tiresome, and certainly counterproductive. It is the article that characterizes the corporations on the list provided therein as "right wing", I only quoted in block form) the article. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 04:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thargor Orlando

8) Thargor Orlando has made few edits to the Tea Party movement article or talkpage. There was no community consensus for a topic ban, and no further evidence offered.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thargor Orlando is not named as a party, and has no significant part to play. Information placed here as Thargor Orlando was one of those for whom a topic ban was proposed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This finding need not be moved over. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin

9) Arthur Rubin has edited Tea Party movement since 2010 and is a significant contributor with 131 edits - 50 of which have been reverts; of those, 8 are identified as self-reverts. Arthur Rubin has made 298 edits to the talkpage. There was no community support for a topic ban. Arthur Rubin was blocked four times in 2008 and once in 2012 for edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is unpleasant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC) The main complaints against Arthur Rubin appear to be in relation to his behaviour at the AN/I thread, and his responses to KC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Arthur Rubin has apologised to KC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

He apologized for "accusing KC of misinterpreting policy" - not something I consider requiring an apology. He has not apologized for repeatedly calling for serious sanctions against me when I was acting in the capacity of uninvolved admin and had not even used my tools, and for his repeated accusation that I have acted improperly, nor for effectively calling me a bitch; these I do feel require an apology. In short, he has offered an apology for his least offense, while ignoring his greater ones. One presumes he still feels justified in those. Killer Chihuahua 15:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, I don't expect to be called a bitch due to my uName any more than I expect to be raped due to a short skirt; in both cases I think "she was asking for it" is not a helpful approach. Killer Chihuahua 07:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Killer Chihuahua. TDA that's a highly offensive and outrageous comment. You should withdraw it and apologize.

talk) 20:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

Apparently, the selfless consistency of my ethics is not enough.
Frankly, when someone is of the female gender, adopts a dog-based username, and then constantly talks about being a puppy, one should hardly react to the occasional snarky "bitch" remark in heated discussion and should really just expect it. My username has been used in an insulting fashion many a time, but it is the cross I bear for the pseudonym I chose.

As Rubin has acknowledged the error of that whole "topic ban" nonsense, I think the only concern should be with his editing of the article and interactions with other editors. The major parties editing the article pretty much all have a large number of reverts in content disputes, but I don't think a "We must topic ban ALL the editors!" approach is the way to go.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, I readily expect someone to twist my username into some sort of insult, because it's tailor-made for such insults and normally I would actually consider being likened to one of the most malevolent beings in religious lore more offensive than some veiled reference to a typical profane insult. I have basically zero concern about someone occasionally making an obvious quip about an editor's username and I think it is far less "helpful" to use it as the basis for some crusade against the offending editor.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

10) Collect has edited Tea Party movement since March 2012, contributing 16 edits - of which 7 are reverts. Collect has made 53 edits to the talkpage. There was no community support for a topic ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Collect is not named as a party, and has no significant part to play. Information placed here as Collect was one of those for whom a topic ban was proposed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This finding need not be moved over. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I don't even remember who added Collect, but I do note there has been a distressing tendency to accuse Collect of malfeasance whenever right wing politics articles arrive on ANI. I find this regrettable and have in the past spoken out rather strongly against it. I don't want to go look and find out who added Collect - I'd prefer not to know - but if they are reading this I suggest they consider carefully before adding Collect to any such list in the future. I have seen no evidence that Collect has acted improperly on TPM or the associated talk page; I think this is a case of a hanging party deciding Collect bears guilt by association. We should avoid such accusations. Killer Chihuahua 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[89], it was you, KillerChihuahua, who added Collect, which is especially troubling since you obviously cannot remember. also troubling is the fact you would propose a topic ban without submitting diffs, which is the very reason you brought this case to arbcom after North did not supply diffs for a talk page accusation of TE. wouldn't failing to provide diffs for a topic ban be a far more serious omission? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your link shows it was another editor who suggested Collect be added. You linked me clerking; you apparently failed to read the edit summary or look at the prior edit by Binksternet which actually added Collect, as well as Thragar Orlando and Arthur Rubin.[90] Killer Chihuahua 07:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i read both, perhaps it is you who failed to gather evidence before asking for several editors to be topic banned in an ANI you created? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Darkstar1st

11) Darkstar1st has edited Tea Party movement since 2010, making 64 edits - 21 of which have been reverts. Darkstar1st has been blocked twice in 2011 for breaking community sanctions on Tea Party movement, and was blocked in twice in 2010, once in 2011, and once in 2012 for edit warring on other articles; and once in 2011 for personal attacks. Darkstar1st has made 333 edits to the talkpage. Evidence for combative and pointy behaviour mainly relates to 2011. There was no community support for a topic ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As with a number of contributors to this article, I see heated behaviour, but most of the more questionable stuff is two years ago, and there's not enough recent stuff to warrant sanctions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

KillerChihuahua

12) KillerChihuahua has not edited Tea Party movement, nor had meaningful previous contact with the main contributors, other than with Goethean. There was no community support for a desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The whole desysop bit was utter nonsense. Killer Chihuahua did nothing to deserve that.

talk) 18:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

Although desysopping is obviously an absurd proposition under these circumstances, I think there should be some consideration given to KC's general conduct on this matter. Some of her accusations of misconduct against editors have been frivolous and unsubstantiated. For instance, insisting without any basis that Darkstar opposed another editor's RFA just because she was the nom and her non-apology apology are both very suggestive of WP:BATTLE behavior. Claiming that North was engaging in battleground behavior by responding to an editor who was agitating against him on KC's page is also obscene as he has a reasonable interest in responding to allegations made against him at an admin's talk page. Her claims about Malke were also misrepresentation as she was only accused of being there at the "behest" of goethean, which was not an uncivil or inaccurate characterization as she was there after an earnest request from him. These types of incendiary and unsubstantiated accusations are not what we should expect from an administrator, especially one presenting herself as uninvolved on the subject. Admins should put forward an appearance of impartiality and circumspection. I think some form of admonishment should be considered.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i am concerned about KillerChihuahua not being able to remember proposing the topic ban for Collect, as well as not providing diffs. Xenophrenic proposed a topic ban for me and neglected to provide diffs, even after being ask by KC, yet no action was taken against Xenophrenic? this case started by KC asking for diffs from North over a talk page comment, yet apparently not as concerned of diffs in topic bans? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need not be concerned about me, since it was Binksternet who actually proposed Collect, as well as Thragar Orlando and Arthur Rubin.[91] I merely clerked afterwards. Killer Chihuahua 07:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no one claimed you suggested Collect, I would add Thargor Orlando, Arthur Rubin and Collect to the proposed topic ban. Binksternet, yet he did not add Collect, rather stated what he would do if he had created the ANI you actually created. it was you who added his name to the ANI and it was you who claimed you did not know who added him, I don't even remember who added Collect. it was also you who neither provided diffs, nor asked for diffs from Blinkernet, why? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding TDA's comments, I'm going to ignore them unless an Arb asks me to respond. Killer Chihuahua 07:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some aspects of your involvement in this which I have noted. Though you stated on the ANI thread that you had looked into the TE claims, you didn't make this clear to North - indeed, asking him to supply difs gave the impression that you hadn't. I think it was this, that generated heat and frustration. When you brought the matter to ANI you presented the matter in language that could be seen to be biased: "Sure enough, not a week later and North8000 is making uncivil comments and personal attacks..." (my bold), and though there are several people involved in edit warring and tense discussions on the article, you selected only those editors on one side of the dispute. While you are not involved, you may have given the appearance of taking sides, which has unsettled matters. However, these are not big concerns, and certainly far from warranting a desysopping, so there is no need to respond to The Devil's Advocate. I am hoping to be in a position to stop drafting today, and to ask the rest of the Committee to review the draft so we can decide what to put on the PD page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had I seen someone else say something similarly uncollegiate, I would have spoken to them. I cannot be held responsible for North8000 choosing to do so. Point taken that North8000, especially if he were a suspicious and untrusting type, might think I hadn't looked at Goethean's edits. I will attempt to be more verbose and long winded in the future. Killer Chihuahua 12:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, I do not think desysopping is warranted at all either, but an admonishment seems reasonable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC, lack of explanation may be a part of it, but TE editing is something that has occurred over a period of years. It took me over two years of observation at the article to get to the point of being sure enough to say what I did, and the fact that you had dismissed it on the same day you said you were going to look into it is the main reason. I would have thought it would take at least twenty hours to review that history which even at an hour a day would take almost three weeks. More time than I'd like to spend, but you are the one who said they checked it out enough to say that my statement was wrong. And, I submit that my 1 week samples of diffs at the ANI (which themselves took me many hours to prepare) support that my comment was not only reasonable but also accurate. . North8000 (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns have been raised regarding the wording of the Community Sanctions

13) Concern has been raised that the wording of the community sanctions, which says: "No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period", (my bold), makes assessment of edit warring difficult. Added to which, there are instances where several different editors revert the same material, so while no single editor is reverting more than once, the combined effort results in an edit war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Continued edit warring

14) User:Arzel, User:Xenophrenic, and User:Malke 2010 have all continued edit warring on Tea Party movement since the ArbCom case opened, and contributed to the article being fully protected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I am reluctant to recommend topic bans, I have been disappointed by how edit warring has continued even though a case was opened to look into such matters. If these editors are prepared to edit war against the spirit of the community sanctions even when ArbCom are closely watching them, then there is a big question about how they will behave once the case is closed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(cur | prev) 13:39, 7 April 2013‎ Arzel (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,612 bytes) (-28)‎ . . (→‎Agenda: This is NOT supported by the sources, especially the word "Generally" which means in most cases when very view, if any, sources are using the statement.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:33, 7 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,640 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (replace original link from arch; (still looking to see where NYT moved it)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:30, 7 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,598 bytes) (-53)‎ . . (rem sentence not conveyed by cited sources; returned reliably sourced content per WP:NOTCONSENSUS, and per admonishment at ANI & BLPN) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:48, 7 April 2013‎ RichardBond (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,651 bytes) (+84)‎ . . (→‎On issues of race, bigotry and public perception) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:27, 6 April 2013‎ Phoenix and Winslow (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (168,567 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (→‎Agenda: CORRECTING GRAMMAR. Don't tase me bro) (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:48, 6 April 2013‎ Malke 2010 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,571 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (rmv no per no WP:RS plus consensus on talk page is against use of 'anti-immigration') (undo)
(cur | prev) 06:14, 6 April 2013‎ Snowded (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,598 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (Well it was a compromise by an uninvolved editor, restore pending proper resolution on the talk page) (undo)
(cur | prev) 04:54, 6 April 2013‎ Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,567 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Xenophrenic (talk): Actually, that one isn't sourced. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 04:46, 6 April 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,598 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (wording per cited sources) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:54, 6 April 2013‎ Phoenix and Winslow (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,567 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Current status) (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:32, 6 April 2013‎ Arzel (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,567 bytes) (-40)‎ . . (Undid revision 548912272 by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)"Generally" and "Strongly" r not supported by the sources, it is both WP:WEASEL and synth.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:34, 6 April 2013‎ The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,607 bytes) (+40)‎ . . (Undid revision 548911718 by Phoenix and Winslow (talk)There is no BLP issue as you were told before. Bring it up at wp:BLPN like told before or drop it.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:29, 6 April 2013‎ Phoenix and Winslow (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (168,567 bytes) (-40)‎ . . (You don't have consensus. The survey demonstrates that you don't have consensus. The burden of obtaining consensus, and proving that you have it, is on you. See WP:NOCONSENSUS regarding contentious material about living persons.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 23:47, 4 April 2013‎ AzureCitizen (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (168,607 bytes) (+62)‎ . . (Restored some non-controversial edits.) (undo)

Comment by parties:

Silk Tork, making one revert on the anti-immigration edit doesn't seem like edit warring. That's just not something I do. And the anti-immigration edit became stable after another editor changed the wording. Not a single editor engaged it after that. And Ubikwit is not listed. It was his slow-moving edit war that caused the page to be locked. He persisted in adding a very large edit that was undue weight and poorly sourced. I tried to solve the problem by editing down what he'd written to a paragraph and adding a more reliable source that directly involved the Tea Party movement. The edit seemed stable. Ubikwit became angry when I deleted his personal attack on the moderated discussion sub-page. I engaged him on his talk page regarding it. His last comment in that discussion was regarding the edit I'd made to the article. He then went and reverted the article edit again. Had I seen his talk page comment first, I would have just taken him to the 3RR noticeboard. There is no evidence that I edit-war.

talk) 10:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

You were clearly involved in an edit war as the evidence above shows. I think you may be feeling that as long as you don't violate 3RR it's not an edit war. But when you join in with others to revert the same material you are engaged in edit warring. When several people do it, it's called tag team edit warring. On disputed articles, getting consensus for an edit can be a slow and frustrating process, but that's what we have to do. Wikipedia is going to be here for a long time - way after we are all dead and gone. It's very important to get it right for the long term. Editors who don't have the patience for that process should step away rather than attempt to assert their views by force. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Malke had only one edit in that sequence, and it was on pretty solid ground in the edit summary. While I think that the exchange is illustrative of the history of this article IMHO doesn't show particular mis-behavior by Malke. Also illustrative is that on all of the big contested ones I can think of, the anti-TPM "side" was the most persistent on the article page and in the end that/they determined the content. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Silk Tork, yes, that's an edit war, but my point was that making one revert did not make me an edit warrior and is not grounds for banning. And I understand what you're saying about 3RR, but I don't routinely engage in a round-robin of reverting. I much prefer talk page discussion to solve an issue. When that stalls, you'll notice I don't go back to the article and engage in reverting/edit-warring. I simply continue using the talk page. My attempt to solve the problem with Ubikwit's edit shows that I'm more interested in compromise. Edit-warriors don't do that.

talk) 11:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

I am building information to assist the rest of the Committee to make an informed judgement. As I am doing so, it is also focusing my mind on what is happening, and what may be the most appropriate solution to suggest. I do not want to suggest topic bans for anyone, but I am struggling with the facts before me, in which I see edit wars on the article until I protected it, and little involvement in the moderated discussion, but continued complaints about other users. Not everyone is doing all or some of these things, but enough are to cause me some concern at this stage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis of what's been going on has been on the mark so far. The edit wars might well be a permanent feature. Part of the problem seems to be that many editors tie the tea party to the election of Barack Obama. They see the tea party as his opposition because he's black. They pass every edit through that prism. It's written in the Agenda section, "oppose Obama." It's the reason for the racism section and why bits about bbq grills get warred over. Any word that reinforces racism is battled over like 'anti-immigration' instead of 'illegal immigration.' It's been there from the start of the article. The intensity has never abated. It's well and truly polarized.

talk) 18:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

I'd like to point out that USER:UBIKWIT's slow-moving edit war contributed to the article being locked. He needs to be included. He's participated here and that makes him subject to sanctions as well.

talk) 15:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

Yes, that's right, Malke, I own that--slow-moving edit war--lock stock and barrel.

I'm not going to engage you in some tit-for-tat tete-a-tete, but I am available for comment, as the Committee deems necessary.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Previous record

15)

talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), and Darkstar1st (talk · contribs

) have block records for edit warring and/or personal attacks.

This would only be needed if there were to be bans of some sort. I don't think this is needed for an editing restriction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I've not had any blocks going on 3 years now and I've not repeated any of the behaviours for which I received blocks. I have reverted edits but have not violated 3RR or made provocative edits that start edit-wars. I've made reverts based on policy, and I've made a compromise edit in an effort to settle a matter.

talk) 19:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

Yeah, I don't think this is particularly useful information without context. Xenophrenic had a block just three months ago so that one does seem pertinent, but Darkstar's most recent one is from nearly six months ago with the one before that being a year prior, Rubin's most recent block is from over a year ago, and all other editors only had blocks from around three years ago or more.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is no need to belabor the point here, but in light of the deeper context that I discovered yesterday, I do feel compelled to directly refer here to evidence on her Talk page that would seem to refute the assertions made above by Malke that she has "not repeated any of the behaviors" for which she has been previously blocked (possibly in relation to the same article), and that she "made reverts based on policy". The deeper context is the discussion from 2010 on Malke's Talk page referred to below involving Viriditas and Will Beback, which would seem to indicate that she had been sanctioned for behavior relating to reverts and violating WP:OWN.

The Talk page thread is related to Malke's editing at the Tea Party movement article (numerous diffs for reverts are presented), but I don't know if the enforcement actions against violations by Malke referred to in that thread related to editing at the TPm article.

I have already addressed her claim to having had made a "compromise edit" elsewhere.

I have tried to be thorough in addressing the matters that have arisen here, but would prefer not to have to further examine Malke's Talk page or the enforcement measures referred to in that thread, and am going to presume that this comment intended as a refutation is not missing anything of direct bearing for not having done so. The Talk page discussion demonstrates that she has been warned by admins about such behavior on the same article, and has been sanctioned for the same types of behavior whether on that article or another.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 12:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template

16) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary Sanctions

Tea Party movement

1)

arbitration enforcement action

on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. The existing Community sanctions are superseded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think we need to be a little more clear as to how the transition is to work. Please see the Climate change decision for some possible wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tea Party movement articles

2)

arbitration enforcement action

on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. The existing Community sanctions are superseded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit restrictions

3)

arbitration enforcement action

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The slow moving tag team edit warring must stop. Concerns regarding content must be resolved on the talkpage, not via force on the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 05:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to propose additional topic bans for everyone listed here (with the exception of Arthur Rubin) as well as North8000. I may not support all of them, but I am considering proposing site bans for some of them so I feel it is only proper to offer topic bans as well. NW (Talk) 06:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This amounts to a "0RR forever" restriction. That might be a little bit much? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of a time-limit or a lesser editing restriction? If time limit: allow an automatic return after six months or on appeal? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

support. this may or may not be necessary for all of us, yet if all of the above editors are included, it would be impossible to finger point later or suggest arbcom is partial to a pov/editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how much I care about people falsely thinking I am partial to one side or another? None. I see my entire job with respect ot this article as creating an editing environment where editors who agree to abide by our policies can do so in peace. There will be no

battleground allegations), then so be it. NW (Talk) 06:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

i do not think you or arbcom are partial to a pov/editor, nor do i think there are sides. many editors above have made arguments opposite of all the other editors above at one time or another in relation to this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the evidence from my editing record that supports this. I don't see any diffs. I see one revert that I made in over two years. That's right. That was my first revert in years. So please, show me diffs that show a pattern of edit warring on Tea Party movement.

talk) 15:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Malke+2010&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

Editing records:

Malke 2010: article 512/ talk 1120

Goethean: article 43/ talk 191

Almost entirely reverts: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Goethean&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

Xenophrenic: article 397/talk 576

Almost entirely reverts: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Xenophrenic&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

North: article 195/talk 1374

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=North8000&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

Arthur Rubin: article 131/talk 298

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Arthur+Rubin&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

Darkstar1st: article 64/talk 333

http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Darkstar1st&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=100

Azure Citizen: article 42/talk 53

Almost entirely reverts: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=AzureCitizen&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=100

Ubikwit: article: 28 /talk 87

First three edits ever on TPm were reverts: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Ubikwit&page=Tea+Party+movement&server=enwiki&max=500

I don't see anywhere in my editing record here that I engage in edit warring. I'd like to point out that my last edit to TPm prior to this was on December 9, 2010 and it was to add a wikilink. Recent edits are:
March 1, I rewrote the agenda section after discussion. Goethean reverted it.
April 6, Removed the word "anti-immgration" after talk page discussion.
April 9, I reverted Ubikwit's undue content.
April 12, I rewrote the material Ubikwit had added yet again, to reduce to fit due weight and added a better source.
April 13, I reverted Ubiwit who went to the article and reverted my edit after he became angry on his talk page where he made it plain he was going to take his anger out on that edit. Talk page comment about Malke’s edit at 0726 13 April [92] Reverts Malke’s edit at 0811 13 April [93].

talk) 18:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

But by the flawed definition of "revert" nearly every edit could be considered to be a revert. (I once had somebody say that an edit was a "revert" of something done three years before, and somebody said "technically, yes".) I think that Malke's data and summaries are very informative. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've only got 13 reverts out of 512 edits, 3 of which were either self-reverts and or for vandalism as Silk Tork himself stated earlier in the Malke 2010 thread. I could be wrong, but I don't think 10 reverts over 3 years constitutes tag-team edit warring.

talk) 22:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

So does this mean these editors would all be subject to a zero-revert restriction or something close to it? I am not sure why Malke would be subjected to such a restriction when, based on your workshop proposal, that editor has done very little reverting even without considering the number of reverts relative to other edits. That is a very different situation from the other parties.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When looking into editing histories it is difficult to give appropriate weighting to users who have been heavily involved in the article since 2010, and over that time have made a lot of reverts, against those who haven't edited much, but when they do they mainly revert, against those who have rarely reverted, but when they have, it has had a negative impact. Rather than pick out some and not others and leave the possibility that those left out become tempted in the heat of the moment to revert, which the others can't, it seems more appropriate to just impose restrictions on the major players. And, yes, if someone hasn't been reverting much, then a restriction is not going to change matters as regards editing behaviour. I would rather go down the editing restriction route than hand out topic bans, because - again - handing out bans to some but not others may cause problems. The main aim here is to make sure conflict stops and the article improves, rather than what is "fair" for the editors involved. And I'm not keen on preventing the most knowledgeable editors on this topic from editing the article, as I don't think that will help the article. Let's sort out the conflict in as low key a manner as possible and see where we go from there. With DS in place, if conflict does flare up, then those involved can be blocked and/or banned. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your underlying analysis is sound (as has been the case all along). But I think that singling out past active editors is a mis-fire. It already misses one that most needs it (Ubikwit). It would be better to say no reverts in general on material once it is contested. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to sound like a 'let's get Malke line' and there is no justification for this. I don't agree at all with Silk Tork's reasoning here. I don't at all deserve any kind of sanction. I got swept up in an overheated argument that KC was having with North. This whole thing has been needlessly stressful and has been allowed to go on for three months with the excuse that ArbCom is so busy elsewhere. And the argument that since I don't make edits to the article, then a sanction won't make a difference is beyond the pale. It does make a difference It's totally wrong. And the fact that Ubikwit is not mentioned here, and with his bad-faith record of disruption, violation of sanctions, and revert-only account is more than wrong. This is bias. Clearly.

talk) 15:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

And I am NOT a major player and have NOT been since December 2010, and there is NO evidence that I am a major player now.

talk) 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

My comment is probably just a sidebar on this, but my post sort of accidentally indirectly mis-implied that you are an active editor there. I know that you have not been, and didn't mean to imply that. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't think you'd done that.

talk) 17:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

I think at this point that it is behooves me to point out that she appears to have made several somewhat egocentric remarks based on phantom projections as to my editing behavior, not to mention that of Viriditas in 2010. For the record, prior to her blanket reverts of the aforementioned edits, Malke had not been no bigger a blip on the radar screen than any of the other editors I have described in these proceedings as being part of an affinity group.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 04:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that Malke appears to make another false assertion (this time directly related to my behavior) in this section as well:"reverted my edit after he became angry on his talk page where he made it plain he was going to take his anger out on that edit". The only anger demonstrated in that thread on my Talk page is from Malke. With regard to the edits, I mentioned that the source (Schmidt) she had posted was good, and after reading through part of it I reverted her revert of the Constitution subsection I'd started under the Agenda section and incorporated material from the Schmidt source, as it supported the existence of the Constitution section and included further material beneficial to the article.

She basically seems to be accusing me of behaving in an irrational and vengeful manner with herself being the object. While there is no question that I was indignant after Arzel's edit summary and that the lack of a response on the Talk page to my requests for discussion of the content of the edits was also not encouraging, I read the source she cited, and made the edit incorporating material from the source.

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by The Devil's Advocate

Proposed principles

Administrators

1) Administrators are expected to be leading examples of compliance with regards to conduct policies. This means maintaining a collaborative and civil composure when interacting with other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This reflects the basic underlying issue as there is no evidence of actual tool misuse, but just evidence of poor conduct.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

KillerChihuahua's interactions with other parties

1) Over the course of her interaction with the other parties KillerChihuahua has conducted herself in an uncivil fashion and impeded collegial behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My discussion of TE editing, the reason for KC's initial interaction with me was OVER and (and I said then it was over) before even the initial interaction between KC and me. Further, KC essentially issued a suicide demand to "show" TE with a few diffs, something that (rightly) would be sure to fail. As the record shows, I tried multiple times to disengage and KC kept coming back at me. KC later then launched the ANI based on a totally unrelated comment that I made, when I (on firm policy grounds) commented on Geothean's uncalled-for nasty comment to Malke. At best this is a series of significant errors by KC. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are in error. You made an uncivil comment regarding Goethean; I brought this to your attention. As the first instance was of you accusing Goethean without evidence or willingness to offer any evidence at all, and the second instance was of you accusing Goethean of a character flaw, again without evidence, the two are related. They are both instances of you commenting on the contributor and not the content; and the second instance was an escalation from the first, as you expanded your assertion to include not just an instance but his entire character (as usual). As an admin asked to look at the situation, I would be remiss if I ignored your actions and did not bring them to your attention; yet here you are trying to paint my "very mild" (see talk page of evidence) reminder as being "uncivil". If I erred in anything, it is as Malke has said numerous times, it was in not simply blocking you for personal attacks/incivility. You have repeatedly managed to be deaf to my reasons for opening the ANI thread; you have repeatedly tried to paint this as a "dispute" between the two of us. Nothing could be less accurate. Killer Chihuahua 02:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Arbs: I am, yet again, not going to engage TDA; please let me know if you wish my thoughts on any of this, thanks. Killer Chihuahua 10:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, responding only to previous post) ) I think that the diffs provided (and in particular the discussion at my talk page) and the chronology show that that is not accurate. You are renaming the original dispute in a way that makes the second topic sound like a part of it. The first was me simply making push against TE editing by (after 2+ years of observation) making a claim the Xenophrenic & Goethean). (Later, after I was forced to spend 8 hours compiling diffs at the ANI, this was shown to be accurate). And ostensibly Goethean's reason for going to you was to see if the TE claim was warranted. The second was me commenting on Geothean's very nasty comment against Malke. Yes I correctly added a "rude as usual" from long personal knowledge, as I had endured many particularly abrasive and insulting comments from Goethean, and they had also recently shredded an olive branch that I offered. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The reasons for this have been covered, but, in summary, her persistence in pushing for action against Malke and Rubin particularly seems to have been more motivated out of a desire for retribution over a personal slight as opposed to evidence of serious disruption. Additionally, her claim that North was engaging in battleground behavior by responding to an editor's accusation against him on KC's talk and the baseless accusation that Darkstar opposed an RFA simply because KC was the nom were both uncivil. Generally, her persistence in pursuing this has likely inflamed a lot of the underlying tensions more than was necessary to resolve the initial concerns.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

KillerChihuahua

1) KillerChihuahua is admonished for uncivil conduct unbecoming of an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Much less than a desysop and is something that I think should be considered given the various complaints about her conduct on this matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Phoenix and Winslow

Proposed principles

Wikistalking is prohibited

1) After an editor has become involved in a content dispute or other dispute with another editor, following that editor's contributions in an effort to harass or badger that editor in retaliation for the dispute is prohibited. Editors who engage in this behavior, known as "Wikistalking" or "Wikihounding," will be warned and, if the behavior continued, they may be blocked, topic banned, or banned from interaction with the targeted editor, either by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by an uninvolved administrator under discretionary or probationary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Basic statement of principle regarding Wikistalking/Wikihounding. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Whistleblowers are protected

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written in obedience to several fundamental principles including

protection of the reputations of living persons

. When any of these principles are violated, editors must be free to report such violations to administrators and the community, and ensure that they are properly remedied. Such editors must be protected from harassment or other forms of retaliation by editors whose edits were subsequently found to be in violation of any of these principles. Protection may take the form of a warning, a block, a topic ban, or an interaction ban, either by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by an uninvolved administrator under discretionary or probationary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Basic statement of principle regarding protection of whistleblowers. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Burden of compliance with topic bans and interaction bans

3) The burden of compliance with a topic ban or interaction ban will be on the editor who was found to be in violation of Wikipedia policy or principle, where this violation led to the topic ban or interaction ban. However, once an interaction ban has been imposed, an editor protected by the interaction ban must not deliberately start editing any Wikipedia page where the editor found to be in violation is known to be actively editing, as shown by the recent history of the page. This may be seen as provocation and, in extreme cases, may be

disruptive

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This explains how involved editors should conduct themselves once a topic ban or interaction ban has been imposed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Tendentious editing by Xenophrenic on U.S. politics articles

1) Since the initiation of this Arbitration Committee proceeding, substantial evidence has been provided here and at an RfC/U proving that Xenophrenic has violated the Wikipedia principle regarding

editwarring

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Preferred version. Includes

WP:ANI thread in February 2013, there was no community support for a topic ban. Xenophrenic ~~is not~~ was not originally named as a party in this Arbitration Committee proceeding, and there is was little evidence presented in the case prior to July 2013 to point to sanctions." This edit would accommodate the later development of the evidence against Xenophrenic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

Tendentious editing by Xenophrenic on Tea Party movement

1.1) Since the initiation of this Arbitration Committee proceeding, substantial evidence has been provided here and at an RfC/U proving that Xenophrenic has violated the Wikipedia principle regarding

editwarring

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Alternate version. Includes

WP:TE only at "Tea Party movement and related articles." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

Brief editing of Ugg boots by WLRoss

2) For several months leading up to October 2010, Phoenix and Winslow edited the Ugg boots article and participated actively on its Talk page. On October 20, 2010, WLRoss briefly edited the article, but did not participate on the Talk page and had no interaction with Phoenix and Winslow at that time. WLRoss then stopped editing the article for more than four months, effectively abandoning it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Initial brief participation by WLRoss at Ugg boots article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit was on 20 October 2010, not 2009 and came back on 3 March 2011. A look at my contributions shows I do not "abandon" articles. As long as they are in my watchlist, which contains 544 pages, they remain active. Several have had breaks of two or more years between editing. I’m at a loss as to why this is in the Tea Party Movement workshop as I have made no edits to the Tea Party Movement article and only eight edits to the Talk page, six in section "Closure request" and two in section "17th Amendment." Wayne (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dates have been corrected. You are being listed here because your eight edits to Talk:Tea Party movement were the result of Wikistalking me to that page, in retaliation for previous content disputes; more significantly because you were joining the other side in a content dispute; and most significantly of all because, after you were clearly aware that your editing of Talk:Tea Party movement was being perceived as Wikistalking, and you indicated that you had stopped editing the page "as soon as [Wikistalking] was brought up," you waited six weeks for the heat to die down, and returned to the page, on the other side in the content dispute. This is crystal clear Wikistalking behavior. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Content dispute at Franklin article

3) In January through June 2011, WLRoss and Apostle12 became involved in a content dispute with Phoenix and Winslow at

WP:RSN

, and eventually the community determined that the Bryant book was not a sufficiently reliable source. Through the use of tag team editwarring, other editwarring, and arguments on the article's Talk page, WLRoss and Apostle12 continued to protect unsourced negative material about living persons in the article that had been sourced to the Bryant book, reverting efforts to remove it. NuclearWarfare and FloNight then removed the unsourced negative material about living persons from the article, eventually stubbing the article in May 2011.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Locus of dispute at Franklin article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is a combination of self-serving claims and exaggerations. First, it was January to June 2011 not January and February 2010. In regards to this article, another editor took Phoenix and Winslow to the Wikiquette board[94] where he was told to strike out comments and not to bring my editing of this article up again in disputes. I myself have taken him to two noticeboards[95][96] over his behaviour where I was advised to take out a RFC/U against him. I drafted a case for a RFC/U[97] but chose not to continue as Phoenix and Winslow stopped harassing me. Wayne (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dates have been corrected. If you felt my conduct deserved ArbCom scrutiny, you had an opportunity just like everyone else to present evidence, including diffs of my alleged misconduct. That opportunity has now expired. Significantly, you don't deny the allegations against you: that you were engaged in tag-team editwarring to protect poorly sourced negative material in a BLP article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear. There was no tag-team edit-warring. Phoenix and Winslow was the only editor disputing the edits out of the four active editors editing the article from January until April when he canvassed for support from editors I had been in dispute with on another article and it was one of those editors (an admin) who made the first BLP deletions. To get the ruling that the source was unreliable, Phoenix and Winslow took the source to three additional noticeboards (RFCN, FTN and RSN) after I'd already taken it to the NPOVN and he only gained a majority after canvassing. The edits were NOT poorly sourced UNTIL it was ruled that the source was not acceptable at which time I stopped using that source. It should be noted that this source was supported by court transcripts which were sealed by court order after the book was published, the findings of a state board of enquiry and another secondary source that was rejected after it was placed behind a paywall that would cost $1,700 to access. Phoenix and Winslow's involvement with the article was initially an attempt to remove any mention that the main character was a Republican and after failing he went on to BLP issues[98] Here it is two years later and Phoenix and Winslow is still edit-warring to not only keep the Republican mention out but also adding the false claim that a source was "self published" in order to lower it's weight.[99][100][101] Wayne (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WLRoss returned to Ugg boots article

4) In March 2011, WLRoss returned to the

Ugg boots trademark disputes

in April 2013.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposed. Locus of dispute at Ugg boots and related articles. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix and Winslow claims I returned to UGG Boots on March 2010 and became aggressively involved in a content dispute with him. While I did return it was in March 2011 and I had little interaction with him. The content dispute in question did not occur until October 2011. In regards to against Phoenix and Winslow and other editors, all but two of the “other editors” were found to be sockpuppet’s[102] and those two geolocated to Phoenix and Winslow’s hometown.
Regarding the “improper closure of a Request for Comment,” I had made a formal request[103] for closure 40 days after the RFC was opened at

WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. This RFC was marred by extensive canvassing by Phoenix and Winslow but still resulted in an oppose vote which he objected to so he objected to the closure. As a result, an admin re-opened the RFC and re-closed it as no consensus. A new admin moderated RFC was then conducted. This RFC was open for 58 days before I made a request for closure[104] and it was closed by an uninvolved admin with the same majority oppose result as the previous RFC. Wayne (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

Dates and timespan of content dispute have been corrected. Again, if WLRoss felt that my conduct deserved scrutiny by ArbCom, he was more than welcome to present evidence at the appropriate time and he declined to do so after proper notification. There was never any actual finding that I was involved in any socking activity, just a lot of half-truths, false accusations and innuendo as we see here. The canvassing allegation is just another example of these half-truths and false accusations. I tend to seek input from previously uninvolved editors who have indicated that they are willing to participate in a discussion, whether they are recent participants at

WP:CANVASS. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

For the RSN, I take it that it was just a coincidence that they are were all involved in a previous dispute with me? You may have had no idea how the editors you canvassed would vote in the Rfc but in the request you posted on their Talk pages you specifically worded the request to encourage support for you which is prohibited by

WP:CANVASS and you were given a warning [105] You also violated WP policy by altering the Rfc question to give support to your vote which resulted in requests that the Rfc be abandoned[106][107] You also copy pasted a comment from another editors discussion to the Rfc as a support vote from that editor[108] Wayne (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

The constant distortions by this editor, which are obvious when closely examining a few of the things he's described — for example, this "warning" [109] isn't really a warning — should be taken into account when reviewing the rest of his claims, and should also be taken into consideration when contemplating the remedies to be imposed. Also, he continues to attempt to present evidence (on this page) when the time period for presenting evidence (on the appropriate page) has long expired. This may be reasonably viewed as abuse of process. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "presenting evidence", I'm replying to the ridiculous claims you are making. What has this got to do with TPM anyway, it should have been lodged at a more appropriate noticeboard if you think you have a problem. Wayne (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were merely responding to evidence and proposed FOFs supported by that evidence, you would be defending your own behavior. Instead, you are posting diffs of my behavior, and other people's reactions. It is clearly an attempt to present evidence on the wrong page, and long past the deadline. I consider this abuse of process. By Wikistalking me to the Talk:Tea Party movement page, and then returning to that page after being warned by MONGO about Wikistalking, you submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of this ArbCom proceeding. That's what it's got to do with TPm. I have grown very weary of noticeboards, because they've proven to be completely ineffective at dealing with the relentless, tendentious POV-pushing and Wikistalking displayed by certain editors. So here we are. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to defend my behavior, I'm having to refute the false claims you are making about my behavior, claims you are making without providing any diffs. MONGO "warned me" because you told him I followed you to both the Ugg boots and TPM articles after the Franklin dispute. After he was told that Ugg boots was edited by us both before the Franklin dispute and that I was editing Franklin before you, he "warned" both of us as he couldn't determine if you were instead stalking me. Wayne (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to defend my behavior, I'm having to refute the false claims you are making about my behavior, claims you are making without providing any diffs. The diffs are on the Evidence page where they belong, and your behavior is indefensible.
... as he couldn't determine if you were instead stalking me. When you Wikistalked me to Talk:Tea Party movement, that made it all crystal clear, as his subsequent comments demonstrated. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO's opinion carries no weight.
"We both know that you would support the sky being green if it were against me." - (Wayne 17:06, 30 March 2013)
"I do traditionally oppose anyone who has a history of supporting fringe theories on this website." - (MONGO 15:42, 31 March 2013) Wayne (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what's the "evidence page" you mentioned? Wayne (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WLRoss began editing Talk:Tea Party movement

5) In April 2013, WLRoss began editing the Talk page at Tea Party movement, becoming involved in the content dispute against Phoenix and Winslow and other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Involvement by WLRoss in content dispute at Tea Party movement. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I began editing the Talk page at Tea Party movement on 22 April (not May)[110] in response to a post by another editor after seeing the dispute mentioned on the Talk page of the admin who was doing a Good Article Review for one of my articles. Phoenix and Winslow replied to my post followed by posts by three other editors supporting me. Phoenix and Winslow gained no support from other editors and accused me of Wikistalking so I declined to take any further part in that particular dispute, basically to shut him up and avoid conflict. Seven weeks later another editor started a new section on another matter and I replied to him.[111] Phoenix and Winslow took no part in that discussion. Wayne (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date has been corrected. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WLRoss violated Wikistalking principle

6) The editing activities by WLRoss described above, subsequent to the content dispute at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, were in violation of Wikipedia principles regarding Wikistalking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Wikistalking by WLRoss. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the timeline is taken into account this claim is ridiculous.
Ugg Boots was the first article we both edited (Oct 2010).
My first edit to the Franklin article was in late 2009 while Phoenix and Winslow’s first edit was in January 2011. I did however follow him to two articles from there. Phoenix and Winslow had made an edit to the Franklin article he stated was supported by two other Wikipedia articles. I had a look at both articles and found that Phoenix and Winslow had added derogatory claims to both (without references) the previous day to support his edit in the Franklin article. I placed cite tags on both articles and other editors later reverted his edits.
I created the Ugg boots trademark dispute article on 31 March 2012. Phoenix and Winslow made two minor edits to the article (7 Sept and 5 Dec) and after more than a year of stability, a good article review began on 4 February 2013. The review was almost completed when on 26 February Phoenix and Winslow objected to the reviewer passing the article. It took four months and two RFCs to resolve the resulting dispute (resolved 29 June 2013).
As per previous section I first edited Tea Party movement, which Phoenix and Winslow was already editing, on 22 April 2013 but I never went there by following him. Wayne (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Talk:TPm subthread on creating a subarticle on the fiscal issues

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Looking in detail at the first evidence field presented by Goethean under 2/23, at Talk:TPM; (No offense intended, but I will replace "Goethean" by "G", "Malke2010" by "M", "North8000" by "N", and "Arthur Rubin" by "AR" in my comments. I will not change quotes from other editors.)

[112]
G's analysis: Malke2010 suggests "new article about the fiscal issues".

AR's comment: Malke2010 suggests subarticle on about the fiscal issues, stating that "the new article wouldn't resemble the kluge that exists right now." That's not the usual reason for a
WP:SPINOFF
, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to create an NPOV subarticle of a POV article.
[113]
G's analysis: Goethean links to WP:POVFORK.

AR's comment: Yep; links, without explaining potential relevance.
[114]
G's analysis: Malke2010 says it would not be not a fork.

AR's comment: Accurate, but Malke2010's statement would also be accurate. It would be a
WP:SPINOFF
, assuming she would then replace the comments in the main article with an NPOV summary. There is no reason to believe otherwise.
.[115]
G's analysis: Goethean says that proposed new article would be the textbook definition of a POV fork.

AR's comment: G can accurately view his own statements, but it represents the textbook definition of a
WP:SPINOFF
.
[116]
G's analysis: Malke2010 says it would not be a fork.

AR's comment: See above
[117]
G's analysis: North8000 says Goethean violated WP:AGF.

AR's comment: I don't fully agree with N, but it's a reasonable hypothesis. G may merely be ignorant of
WP:POVFORK
.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[118]
As I said in my evidence, I've suggested a sub-article on fiscal policies of the TPM before. It's not a new suggestion and I've never intended nor suggested an editor should write a sub-article as a means to advance POV. I made a clarifying reply to Goethean that made it very clear what my intentions were.

-

talk) 05:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

General discussion

I think there is a lesson to be learned. It is, however, a question of judgement as to when to reject a case because the community can deal with it and when to accept a case so as not to discourage the community from requesting cases. As ArbCom is a committee of individuals, that judgement is going to vary. My own view is that ArbCom is still going to be available, even if the Committee initially declines a case, so declining is not a big deal, and does not have as demoralising an impact on community dispute resolution as declining a case. It is not uncommon for the Committee to reject a case several times before accepting it. So, I'd rather ArbCom erred on the side of letting the community deal with matters, so as to discourage people from requesting a case too early. What might be useful is to hold a community discussion to see if as part of ArbCom procedures, a new rule could be included that a case request cannot be opened while community discussion is ongoing. Opening a case request derails the community discussion. In effect, it is undermining the confidence of the community in its ability to deal with matters. If it is felt a community discussion has stalled, then call for closure of the discussion, and get the discussion closed BEFORE making an ArbCom request. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

After thinking about this, I suggest this may cause more problems than any it might potentially solve. The committee has in the past, and certainly may in the future, stated they will wait and see what happens in a community discussion before deciding whether to take a case. However, forbidding even filing is a Bad Idea(tm). I forsee endless wikilawyering about what is active or not, and gaming by two or three editors making sure the "discussing" continues. This is RulesCreep, and I advise against it. Killer Chihuahua 19:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And doubly so in this case....it ended the mob violence (ANI) that usually ensues on AN's ANI's that are on non-specific items. Hate to say it, but there is nobody except Arbcom who does that.....look at evidence instead of listening to shouts from the mob. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what Silk Tork is getting at. It is better for the community to resolve issues. But in this particular case, I have to agree with Killer Chihuahua and North. Right from the start, the ANI thread went off the rails. KC is right. There would be endless wikilawyering. I think it's a good thing that this case came to ArbCom. It doesn't sound like there will be sanctions, but the article should still come under ArbCom control at least for the next six months. Just compare the tone of the editors on the moderated discussion Silk Tork opened, to the talk page discussions. Very different behaviour between the two. That's because Silk Tork is there. His presence is a very steadying influence. Having ArbCom around will keep things on track.

talk) 03:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

I've changed my mind about this. Silk Tork is right. The community should sort matters before coming to ArbCom. I went back and looked at the ANI thread on this. And then I looked at ANI archives. This particular issue did not have sufficient time at ANI to be resolved. It might be owing to the lateness of the hour at the time, or the rapidly growing off-topic comments being made at the ANI thread, that caused it to jump here. But in looking at ANI archives about other issues, they've sorted much more serious and complicated issues than this. The Gordian knots are the ones that need to come here.

talk) 17:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply