Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-03/Arbitration report

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement

The case, brought before the Committee on 23 February 2013 by KillerChihuahua, involves accusations raised against Goethean and the filer. The filer alleges North8000 insulted him and "misrepesented Goethean" and Malke 2010 accused the filer of being Goethean's meatpuppet. He called the environment "toxic" and went on to say that North8000, Malke 2010 and Arzel had previously engaged in battleground behaviour and violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

In his statement, North8000 stated that the dispute is a two-way dispute between himself and the filer. He alleged that the crux of the dispute does not lie with nor did it take place on the talk page for the Tea Party movement article. In his statement, Arzel claimed that KillerChihuahua's statement that: "They [Arzel and North8000] reject any editors and any sources which do not promote the Tea Party movement, to the point that the New York Times and MSNBC were dismissed as non-RS - rather snidely, too - by Arzel and Malke 2010." is completely inaccurate and a baseless accusation.

He clarifies his position by stating that his involvement in the dispute began when an editor added to the Tea Party movement article the "agenda/defintion [sic] from the point of view of a person outside of the movement. I simply moved that sentence to later in the section with the reasoning that the movement should define itself first." He then provided a verbatim copy of his edit and asked the filer where in this edit he mentions the New York Times and MSNBC as being unreliable sources:

"It is written as an opinion of the writer. Who says that this writer gets to define the Tea Party? Why doesn't it belong in the media section? It is formed from a media outlet, what makes the NYT special in this regard? Why not include ALL of the media opinions in the definition? Arzel (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)"

The case was unsuspended on 2 July 2013.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

3 July 2013

In the media

Featured content

WikiProject report

News and notes

Discussion report

Technology report

Traffic report

Arbitration report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

• The "New York Times and MSNBC were dismissed as non-
  RS" and as well they should have been dismissed. This is a partisan divide and a case where Wikipedia either needs to really find consensus about non-partisan journalism or adopt an "attributable point of view" policy where a case for and against can be equally discussed. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]