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

By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the |talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Darkstar1st has shown repeated battleground behavior, POV
October 2012 Darstar1st started a section on the talk page with a combative heading (this heading was so bad someone reverted it, thinking it was vandalism), and quickly moved to posts which had nothing to do with the Tea Party, his only intent seemingly to disparage Democrat politicians and leaders   and singling out H. Clinton (this is about Jerry Oppenheimer's book State of the Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton (2000), which is the only source for this, and which allegedly occurred well before the TPM)  and using edit summaries such as "typical fucking jew Indian" all of which led to another editor saying he was "distorting the truth" to which Darkstar1st replied with a bizarre post about Obama - with the edit summary ""typical white person" - much like his grandma - fears black men on the street". An editor called for him to cease his WP:BATTLE approach
 * 06:25, 8 September 2012 POV - as he put it, "The tea party is more important than D or R now and deserves the most prose in wp" (which could be viewed as a content dispute but added with other edits made shows advocacy)
 * 06:27, 8 September 2012? - POV, and ignorance as well, which I realize is not a sanctionable offense, but this has a bearing on his actions I'm sure

Arthur Rubin is an active editor of The Tea Party movement

 * Arthur Rubin has (as of 21:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)) 240 edits to Talk:Tea Party movement and 124 edits to the article beginning 8 October 2010.
 * Rubin has added 12 edits to the article (not including Talk) in Mar 2013, and 15 in Feb 2013, and as of this posting is currently editing.
 * Rubin also edits other pages regarding the TPM; on 6 March 2013 he opened a thread on WP:RSN about a source used in the article.

Arthur Rubin called repeatedly for sanctions on an uninvolved admin
Arthur Rubin repeatedly called for me to be topic banned, originally as a "topic ban on US Politics and related subjects", which he quickly upped to a more draconian suggestion of "including a ban on discussion, administrative actions, and discussion of adminstrative actions." which I can only read as an attempt to intimidate me and shut me up; as an active editor he knew I had never edited the article, and arrived at the talk page only recently as an uninvolved admin trying to encourage more civil behavior. Although asked multiple times for a diff or explanation, offered no diffs but did repeat his view, claiming there was just as much reason to topic ban me as any other editor.(scroll, it's a two part edit) He did, once I filed an RFAR, amend his accusations to state that I had not misrepresented policy but had misunderstood actions; now that this case has been accepted he has offered an apology. I am unencouraged by his decision to apologise once under examination himself, rather than either showing good judgment and restraint to begin with, or at least by responding to reasonable requests before being added to an ArbCom case. He called for sanctions and failed to respond with any evidence when asked; a lack of responsiveness which reflects poorly on him, because as an admin he is supposed to be responsive to requests for explanation when calling for sanctions. He has yet to retract his assertion that taking a complex problem to ANI for other input is "battleground behavior", he even upped his call to suggest, somewhat obliquely, that I should be site banned merely for bringing the matter to ANI: "Your bringing this "report" here reflects a battlefield mentality which would best be removed from Wikipedia." While I personally am unimpressed with his wrong-headed view, I am concerned that failing to correct this will have a chilling effect and discourage other editors and admins from bringing problems to the community. Seeking community input is never of itself battleground behavior; calling for sanctions against one who does so shows what appears to me to be a blatant effort at intimidation. This must be discouraged; editors must feel free to bring matters to ANI without fear that there will be a boomerang on innocent parties merely for doing so. A half-hearted apology when one is before ArbCom, rather than showing responsiveness and good judgment beforehand, merely sends the message that unless one is willing to push for an ArbCom case, one must suffer such bullying. Established admins should show restraint when calling for sanctions; at the very least they should respond when asked for their evidence and/or rationale.
 * Arthur, I did close the thread, when I filed the RFAR. It was promptly unclosed, which I respected. All of this happened after your multiple calls for sanctions against me, and before any comments by Arbs. Please try to actually refute my evidence if you post something which purports to do so.

Arthur Rubin has been previously admonished for misuse of his admin status/tools

 * Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking I think this is relevant because his appearance at ANI calling for sanctions against me was a factor in how quickly the situation spiraled into chaos - and I don't think that would have happened were he not an admin, whose views about sanctions are generally given more weight. I am not saying he misused his tools this time, only his status. Had he spoken in favor of more reasonable discourse, I think others would have been less apt to jump on the bandwagon calling for sanctions against any and all comers. As it is, he encouraged the free-for-all.

Arthur Rubin has been incivil

 * On his talk page, which he knew I was watching since I had an unanswered question.

Malke 2010 shows battleground behavior

 * 18:43, 23 February 2013 Suggests what sounds like it might be a POV fork
 * 18:58, 23 February 2013?  when the possible problems are mentioned, doesn't explain why the suggestion isn't a POV fork, merely states it won't be - pls note the issue is not about whether Malke's suggestion was or was not a fork. The issue is how M responded.
 * 19:23, 23 February 2013? "Agree with Arzel. What some dimwit from either MSNBC or the NYTs thinks of the TPM is not relevant. For that matter the media section and all those silly commentaries should be deleted. They are not relevant and are POV." BATTLE, POV
 * 22:54, 23 February 2013 My note reminding editors to be civil
 * 00:20, 24 February 2013 responds to my note by accusing me of acting as Goethean's meatpuppet.
 * See also this

Community input

 * Found at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input

Comment to Darkstar1st
Was it not? Then I apologize. It did bear that appearance. It is, after all, the only Rfa in which you have ever participated.

Apology
For what it's worth, I do apologize for accusing KC of misinterpreting policy. I withdrew the statement at the ANI page and at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement#Statement by Arthur Rubin. I still think she misinterperted Goethean's actions by not warning G about improper interactions with North8000, no matter how much provoked. I should not have supported sanctions against KC at the ANI page; I had no evidence that KC was not acting within policy, albeit in a way which added to the drama. (That's why I usually don't intervene any more in dogma-based disputes, such as Race and intelligence.) It was a reaction to some of the other topic bans suggested at ANI (not to North8000's requrest for a desysop; I was actualy going to propose a topic ban, but I edit-conflicted with North's request for a desysop.)  It was a WP:POINT violation on my part; the evidence in favor of a topic ban on KC was (and is still) better than that against Malke 2010, although neither should have been mentioned at all.

Comments on my being "active"
124 edits in over 2 years (even disregarding times the article was fully protected) doesn't sound like "active", even for an article under 1RR (for the same edit); I admit to being "involved".

KC, ANI and policy
Editors bringing matters to ANI should not be surprised when their own conduct is brought up. In this case, KC attempted to close the ANI thread which she opened. Some of the ArbComm members were waiting to see if the ANI thread would reach a conclusion beforing accepting the case; closure (at least in the opinion of those ArbComm members) was non-constructive. (I'm not going to report diffs of ArbComm members' actions; they know who they are.)

Reliable sources
For material to be included:
 * 1) The source (either the publisher, or the authors) must be reliable in the field of of the material to be sourced ; (i.e., an article about politics in a peer-reviewed medical journal is not necessarily reliable)
 * 2) *If the general reliablility of the publisher is grounds for considering the source reliable, the article/column must be subject to the publisher's fact-checking. Invited columns, editorials, op-eds, etc., are not subject to the publisher's fact-checking.
 * 3) Accurately paraphrased. (now  done with the Tobacco Control quote, but originally (looking for original insertion in November? 2012; I can't find it at the moment)  not done)
 * 4) Relevant to the article. (Comments about the actions of a TPm organization member are not necessarily relevant to the TPm, even if reliable sources, on a slow news day, mention the connection)

Viriditas "evidence"

 * 1) Assumes here that all edits by User:Arzel and User:Darkstar1st are reverts, without evidence.
 * 2) Is there a policy-based reason to assume that a "revert-only" account is not constructive?
 * 3) Incorrectly notes (per this link) that I supported Malke 2010; if you would read it carefully, you would see that I stated the articles would eventually be separate, but there is no present reason for them to be separate.  (Regardless of the incorrect assertion that it would be a POVFORK, even so.

I suggest that, if this evidence is to be considered by the Committee, it should be checked carefully for accuracy and relevance.

Goethean's evidence
It was WP:POINT, not WP:BATTLE, that I violated in calling for a topic ban against KC. And, I suspect that it wasn't KC who added the more absurd topic ban proposals, but, since they weren't signed, it's hard to tell.

Evidence presented by North8000
It's not clear what the case is about, whether it is "going after" individuals, or dealing with improvement of the general state at that article. I am going to try to start and help keep this on a high plane, which assumes that it is on how to improve the situation at the article. I believe that my actions there were not only within policy but beyond that very reasonable, and beyond that useful regarding the situation at the article, as I think has been proven out already. If negative assertions are made (or considered standing) regarding my actions there, then I intend to respond with the minimal needed to support the reasonableness and policy-compliance of my actions, not to "go after" anybody. I do not want and oppose any actions against anybody beyond possibly a warning. Otherwise I intend to focus on the general situation at the article and how it might be improved.

There are three 99%-unrelated topics here:
 * 1) The article
 * 2) The dust-up on my talk page
 * 3) The ani

The article is in really bad shape;something has gone badly wrong
That has been the near-unanimous assessment. Emblematic of this is the trivia that has been fought into the article. Basically if it's negative, has had any mention of the TPM in the press, that has been considered grounds to force it into into the top level TPM article. A few items emblematic of this are the twitter comment section, the cut BBQ grille line section, the "somebody said that some unknown person at a rally said something racist" section, and the part which indirectly says that Ron Paul (the person who wants to start trade with Cuba) is an isolationist. As an example, I believe that I did a word count on the discussion on the "isolationist" item and an 80,000 word discussion was insufficient to get it removed. In each case the end result was that it stayed in, and the result was determined by not by a decision but by whichever editor or set of editors was most relentless. And two editors (Xenophrenic and Goethean) have been controlling the result of the above and many other areas in the article via this method. With Malke 2010 basically gone from the article (1 edit in the last 2-1/4 years) the combination of Xenophrenic's large number of edits (#2 on the list) with a high proportion of those being reversals in disputes, they have more than anyone determined what is or isn't in the article. I'm a distant third on the list and much much smaller fraction of mine are reversals. I actually LIKE Xenophrenic, and would oppose anything bigger than a warning for them, but this is the reality.

My actions at the article and my talkpage were not only within policy, they were accurate and probably useful
Finally, after two years of observation to be absolutely sure, and with a new such issue in progress, I came, out and challenged the two individuals on their behavior in an effort to reduce that behavior. . One-week samplers from my 150 weeks of observation are at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input and Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input These show that my statement was beyond-acceptable, it was very accurate and likely useful for the progress of the article. The correctness of my statement was subsequently reinforced by immense evidence (my section in particular) at Requests_for_comment/Xenophrenic.

I didn't plan to post anything on the dustup between KC and me on my talk page, but someone posted an incorrect version of this thus forcing me to do it. Goethean bypassed the admin who has been handling the article (Magog the Ogre) and any forums and approached two particular admins with this ostensibly to see if what I said of them was right. Despite the fact that it would take days to review my TE concern, KC quickly indicated that Goethen was OK and then came after me. Pretty much the whole dustup is contained in two brief adjacent sections on my talk page; this one User_talk:North8000 and User_talk:North8000. These are very important to read and carefully analyze. I'll let them speak for themselves except to point out a few nuances. As background, TE by its definition takes an immense amount of diffs to prove. As I saw it KC was asserting that I did something wrong by noting the behavior without providing diffs. Comments on behavior that are without diffs are the norm in Wikipedia. Secondly, I asked KC about the dilemma that you can't prove TE with just a few diffs, and they did not respond. My comment at the TPM article was over and I disengaged on it everywhere; it became old news.

Later Malke2010 suggested a new subarticle. Goethean responded with this. Seeing this as both an ongoing problem which merited mentioning, and also as Goethean beating up on a friend, I responded with this. . KC approached on my talk page and implied that my behavior was wrong. I did not agree and then KC opened an ani suggesting topic bans and then immediately defending Goethean against one.

To call the ensuing ani a basis-free, mindless, random dangerous mob rule situation would be far too flattering. In desperation / and for perspective, I posted an equally overkill measure for KC. All of the ideas, including mine, were overkill and I later said I was changing (without actually editing them) all to "warning only"

Another unrelated item which I was not going to mention except somebody put it in here spun to the opposite of reality is this exchange at KC's talk page which was complementary. "Single payer healthcare" section at ["Single payer healthcare" at     I think that it speaks volumes on many fronts (including the situation at that other article) that I urged KC to review that situation and said that I would trust their judgement on it. My other posts there were to wish them well, indicating that all else is unimportant in comparison. North8000 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to Viriditas' "evidence" which is 3 years old:
Nine items here. My response is:

1: States my editing dropped off due to U.S. elections. But on ANI makes different claim.

2: In preparing this article edit, I learned about Jenny Beth Martin and the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, noticed they didn’t have articles.

3: Stopped editing TPM December 2010. Reason given.

4: Not active on those pages after 2010.

5: Old pre-mentor behaviors. Shows nothing new from end of 2010 to date. 6: Mentorship did not fail. If MRG and LessHeard vanU had believed that, they would have taken steps to protect Wikipedia. Mentors are there to protect Wikipedia, not to protect the mentee. They were both outstanding mentors. Prior to my mentorship, I had a terrible attitude and went about nearly everything the wrong way. A few things were okay, I was getting good at mediating disputes, and working with others on opposite sides, but the bad still far outweighed the good. MRG and LessHeard helped me turn that around.

7: Toddst1’s comment is old and taken out of context. What follows is not accurate at all and has nothing to do with Toddst1’s comment.

8: Not true and no evidence offered to support claim. Entire talk page exchange is here:

9: Comments out of context and have been explained.

Goethean's incivility to editors on the Tea Party movement talk page

 * Goethean made 191 edits to the TPm talk page. Of those, some are copy edits, of the rest, 94 are directed at North8000, all of them incivil. Included below are a sampling of comments to North and to others as well.


 * “And another lazy, inscrutable non-sequitor [sic] by the class clown caps off another discussion.”


 * “Please spare me and the other readers of this page from your pathetic whining. . .”


 * “. . .your comments are completely unhelpful and borderline spam. Please contribute to the discussion in a mature manner or just shut up.”


 * “I was saying ‘Wow’ at your comments which are quite divorced from realty, reveal a comfort level with racism, and are internally inconsistent. . .”


 * “Bullshit.”


 * “Actually I’m being more polite and charitable than your comments warrant. . .”


 * “No that’s not what the source says, try reading.”


 * “You have proved nothing apart from your own rhetoric.”


 * “Your attempts at media criticism are off-topic and not of interest”


 * “Distinguishing inscrutable nonsequitor [sic] from my own comments.”


 * “Please watch your tongue. . .”


 * “When all you have is a hammer.”


 * “I can’t tell you how gratifying that is.”


 * “As usual, your comments are strictly partisan, have no relation to Wikipedia policy, and can be ignored as irrelevant.”

Response to AGK's misleading and inaccurate statement

 * I would like the Arbitrators to consider the facts regarding my activity on Tea Party movement in light of AGK's comment.

''Malke 2010 is the most active contributor to the TPM article, yet he has been blocked several times for misconduct. Time to change the guard. AGK [•] 22:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)''


 * @AGK Please take a moment to review my block log. You will see that my blocks are:
 * 3 years old
 * not related to the Tea Party movement article.

Please take a look at my contribs to the Tea Party movement article. You will see that:
 * I made 4 edits to the Tea Party movement article in April, 2013
 * Prior to that, my last edit was 9 December 2010.
 * My brief comments on the talk page, prior to the ArbCom, are each a year apart.
 * I do not edit with an "affinity group."
 * I have made positive contributions to the moderated discussion.
 * I've not edited any of the new sub-articles that have been produced from that discussion.
 * Prior to February 2013, I'd not edited the main article talk page for a year and then only to make brief comments. Before that it was another year with only brief comments. I've not edited the subarticles nor any of the talk pages.
 * I've not had any disciplinary actions as a result of editing the moderated discussion. I've followed the rules.

Just because I made 512 edits to the Tea Party movement article in 2010, does not at all mean that I'm the most active editor there now, nor have I been. Other editors have been present there for the last three years continuously. I have not. My blocks are old, the edit history is old, and there's nothing in the past nor the present to support editing restrictions or a topic ban.

How the fire got started
When I saw this comment, I perceived it as using my name as a weapon to battle Goethean. KC's reminder seemed reasonable. It frustrated me that she engaged with him and was also using my name to advance an argument that was not mine.

I reacted to that and should not have. I had no issue with Goethean's comment. If I'd had, I would have taken it to his talk page as I did here when I questioned his edit summary on another matter.

I've apologized to KillerChihuahua for my comment. I had no quarrel with either Goethean or KillerChihuahua and did not understand why I was over on AN/I. But I figured the situation would get sorted.

Comment from AN/I:
 * Not seeing it. If Malke 2010 deserves a topic ban then it is not about contributing to the Tea Party movement talk page or article in the last year. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not suggest a POV/fork and I did not engage in WP:BATTLE
I suggested North write an article on the fiscal goals of the TPM. I mentioned this to him over two years ago. 

KillerChihuahua has skipped over a few diffs and overlooked the whole exchange between me and Goethean. KC said, "when the possible problems are mentioned, doesn't explain why the suggestion isn't a POV fork. . ."

But I did explain.. Here's the whole exchange:
 * first comment by Malke 2010
 * reply by North8000
 * reply by Malke 2010
 * link given by Goethean
 * reply by Malke 2010
 * reply by Goethean
 * reply by Malke 2010
 * reply by North8000

Evidence presented by Stephan Schulz
I'm only involved in so far as the underlying conflict seems to run rampant through large parts of the Wikipedia noticeboard space. I was accidentally hit by it at WP:RS/N, and I would like to offer [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=540201676#British_Medical_Journal_imprint.2C_.22Tobacco_Control.2C.22_on_one_way_how_big_tobacco_has_affected_society. this discussion] as an example of what is going on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Collect
WRT the learned journal article, the precis is:
 * Starting in the 1980s, tobacco companies worked to create the appearance of broad opposition to tobacco control policies by attempting to create a grassroots smokers’ rights movement. Simultaneously, they funded and worked through third-party groups, such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks, to accomplish their economic and political agenda. There has been continuity of some key players, strategies and messages from these groups to Tea Party organisations. As of 2012, the Tea Party was beginning to spread internationally. 

Which exactly and precisely is not a medical article, and is not internally peer-reviewed, but is an editorial claim on the order of:

The Tobacco Industry backed "movement A" which opposed tobacco control. The same companies also supported free market economic groups (movement B) along with people who were absolutely unrelated to the Tobacco Industry. These people, not the tobacco industry, then supported "movement C" which means the people who support "movement c" are therefore actually sekritly connected to the tobacco industry. I suggested this is not a true "research paper under peer review" and I would trust the committee reads ay least this precis and conclusion from the journal page


 * Rather than being a purely grassroots movement that spontaneously developed in 2009, the Tea Party has developed over time, in part through decades of work by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests. It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations. 

Seems to indicate that the journal is not precisely dispassionate on the tobacco issue, but the use to label the "Tea Party" as being their paid pawn seemed to me to be pushing the envelope. I am only posting this as "completion" of incomplete evidence from another editor here. Collect (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

@HP - It would not even have been accepted in an MIT student publication. The URL I found before indicated this was paywalled. This "article" was reviewed by at least one person - which is a bit weak for what is clearly an article making leaps of connections worthy of Joe McCarthy . Collect (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC) @AR The edit you seek is which inaptly uses the sources, the WP:BLP concern was due to the incorrect ascription to the Koch brothers as being connected in any way at all to the tobacco companies, which the TC article carefully avoids. ( including groups Citizens for a Sound Economy (founded by the Koch brothers ). I consider this still to be a BLP violation, as it connects people who have zero established connection to tobacco with the tobacco industry.  WP:SYNTH as a minimum.  "Guilt by association" in spades. Collect (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

@ArtifexMayhem: Read per word limits. Collect (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read.

I note I am now defined as "involved" as of 16 Jul 2013. Kinda late in the process, so I decline to play that role. My acts in the moderated discussion are clear, and I have done nothing to be ashamed of in any way. Why this sudden addition is beyond comprehension. I will not be on much from the 20th to the 29th. Collect (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Hal peridol
I just wished to point out that Collect's assertion about this paper is incorrect - the paper was externally peer reviewed, as stated in the footnotes. Hal peridol (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

niggar, Monkey God, and faggot
in response to i agree these words are offensive, why are they still in the article? why is it more offensive to discuss removing these terms in talk? the terms are hurtful and serve no purpose other than to malign the TP, which has rejected racism from the beginning and outed those who would use such language.

...so i see your(not my) point. (which is) The tea party is more important(or has more coverage in RS) than D or R now and deserves the most prose in wp
the above text is presented as if this was my opinion, when actually it was the other editor resisting my proposal to trim some of the more trivial and hurtful material. I started the thread, this article is too long, there is no reason for it to be longer by half than the Republican or Democrat articles which have no mention of racial slurs used by elected members of the party. After an editor continued to push for the inclusion, in desperation i tried to understand why he thought the article needed to be the longest of the 3. i was not stating the above as my opinion, rather attempting to understand the editors rational for inclusion of what appeared contrary to, weight, due.

Xenophrenic
this case started by KC because North8000 did not provide difs fast enough, yet the editor who added me (is that normal?) to the case KC started has yet to supply such, even after being prompted by KC who opposes a topic ban for me Darkstar1st (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic is the 2nd most active editor on the article with 388 edits and 449 in talk
 * Xenophrenic's primary contribution to the Tea Party movement article is as a "revert-only" account. many edits are labeled as "Undo", scores more are full or partial reverts. There are a few minor content contributions, exclusively material critical of the Tea Party.
 * Xenophrenic has been blocked several times for edit warring: Darkstar1st (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

my vendetta/retaliation against KillerChihuahua
i have been accused of opposing a RFA to exact revenge for being mentioned here. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * your apology is sounding more like a renewed accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * the RFA has now failed by a wide margin with several supporting difs and reasons. a tiny minority were related to this case or wp/conservatim. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

or Viriditas

 * who also accused me opposing the same RFA, not to spite KC, but him.
 * Viriditas is convinced I am using my mother's computer
 * ...WikiProject Conservatism crowd who are always denying us our freedom as individuals Before this case we have never edited the same article or talk page. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism
WikiProject Conservatism members include: Darkstar1st (joined 8 July 2011); Malke 2010 (joined 6 December 2011); North8000 (joined 9 December 2011);

Editors aligned with goals of Conservatism project but not members include: Arthur Rubin; Arzel

Malke 2010

 * Most active on Wikipedia from July 2009 to February 2011, during heyday of the Tea Party movement and run-up to the 2010 U.S. elections. After elections, Malke's editing dropped off and became sporadic and sparse.
 * Returns to active editing as the new Tea Party PAC forms for the upcoming 2014 U.S. Senate primaries and elections. See Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund and Jenny Beth Martin
 * 9,458 total edits. 1,007 of these edits were made to Talk:Tea Party movement, representing 11.05% of edits to that page. 508 edits have been made to the Tea Party movement.
 * Activity from 2009-2011 involved focusing on these political articles: Talk:Tea_Party_movement, Tea_Party_movement, Talk:Sarah_Palin, Talk:Karl_Rove, Karl_Rove, Scott_Brown, Sarah_Palin and Talk:Scott_Brown
 * Long history of engaging in casting aspersionsSeptember 2009,June 2010
 * Failed mentorship in 2010:
 * Toddst1 summarized the problem: Current problem same as the old problem:, Attempt to POVFORK and "scrub" the Tea Party movement article of negative sources mirrors her previous disruption of the Karl Rove article in 2009.
 * Creation of multiple articles as a form of advocacy. When a merge proposal was initiated, she failed to respond directly to the questions asked and posted fallacious comments distracting from the discussion. This was pointed out to her by the original AfC host.  Before creating the article in mainspace, she was asked by the AfC host to improve the references. which at this time still relies on less than reliable sources and duplicates an already existing  topic (Tea Party Patriots). Her response in the merge discussion was to also ignore his comments and change the subject, showing that she still refuses to discuss the problem. Arthur Rubin and North8000 then showed up to support her.
 * Malke 2010 engages in disruptive and tendentious editing, ,

Arthur Rubin

 * 234 edits to Talk:Tea Party movement and 121 edits to the main article, Tea Party Movement.
 * "Revert-only" account.,, , , ,
 * Arthur Rubin engages in casting aspersions, ,

Darkstar1st

 * 309 edits to Talk:Tea Party movement and 64 edits to the main article, Tea Party movement.
 * "Revert-only" account. 19 edits explicitly labeled as "Undo", while remaining 45 consist of ambiguously labeled full or partial reverts.
 * There are a few minor content contributions in addition to the majority of reverts.
 * Blocked multiple times for edit warring on Tea Party movement.

Arzel

 * 232 edits to Talk:Tea Party movement, and 153 edits to the main article, Tea Party movement.
 * "Revert-only" account. 59 of 153 edits are explicit reverts using the "undo" button, while remaining 94 edits consist of ambiguously worded, full or partial reverts.

Talk page interaction
I'm here due to what I perceive as an endemic problem owing to similar encounters with affinity-group editors collaborating to frame the narrative of articles on politically and/or religiously sensitive topics in a manner that concurs with an advocacy POV, while employing manifold obstructionist tactics against any edit deemed not conformant to their agenda. Such affinity-group editors' activities would seem to be prima facie abuse and/or violations of policy.

Obstructionist tactics include the making unfounded assertions dismissive of RS that don't support an advocacy POV, frequently in conjunction with assertions related to consensus, and represent a passive form of WP:OWN insofar as they prevent others from making constructive edits, resulting in a default state of suspended animation that reflects the POV of the advocacy/affinity group.

The following archived Talk page discussion is representative of certain aspects of the counterproductive state of affairs. 

Editors in the affinity group can be seen voicing agreement with each other's banal statements, producing false consensus to obstruct. As Viriditas has astutely pointed out, the majority are revert-only contributors, perhaps overtly violating WP:OWN.

RS/N
The response by Collect to the Tobacco article demonstrates recourse to hyperbole as well as outlandish associations such as the comparison to "Joe McCarthy". Setting the irony aside, it is similar to the nonchalant bandying about of the label "anti-Semite" I've encountered on WP. I've taken the time to read the article and the RS board section relating to it, and think that the response to this source evinces typical aspects of the affinity group mentality in action. The peer-reviewed paper authored by academics and health care professionals relates to tobacco taxes and "smoke-free laws" and the opposition thereto by TP associated groups (Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks) connected to "smokers' rights groups" established by the tobacco industry (in the 1980s) to counter the momentum by "local grassroots non-smokers' rights movement". Pertinent quotes: "“The tobacco industry and their allied organisations have been using the ‘Tea Party’ metaphor to oppose taxation since at least the 1980s'." "CSE (which split into AFP and FreedomWorks in 2004) was co-founded in 1984 by David Koch…" "AFP and FreedomWorks are registered as public charities and social welfare organisations under the US tax code sections 501(c)3 or 501(c)4, which, as of 2012, do not have to disclose their donors."

The RS-based attacks against this article are particularly telling in light of the fact that the article itself exposes "third-party advocacy", which is very close to what this group of editors seems engaged in on the TPM article.

It seems necessary to differentiate between good-faith collaboration vs collusion aimed at preventing constructive edits that would problematize the narrative line advanced by affinity group advocates. Arthur Rubin seems to have a habit of questioning/dismissing any RS with which he disagrees, raising objections that skew policy, thereby requiring an editor that has presented an RS to go through a cumbersome process to validate the RS; i.e., obstructionism, such as this

North8000 violated WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE (possibly also WP:HA)
In order to avoid misrepresenting anyone, I have chosen to show the entire context of North8000's accusations.

2/18: At Talk:TPM, North8000 accused Goethean and Xenophrenic of "long term POV efforts", cited removal of Paul rally material, support of ("warring in") Mead material (which calls the "Paulite wing" of the TPM neo-isolationist and which does not comment on Paul himself), support of Perriello material, support of Sonny Thomas material, support of racial/ethnic issues. When asked to support his accusations with evidence, North8000 says his accusation is "based on years of observation". ThargarOrlando (wrongly) says that Goethean violated 1RR. Xenophrenic requests specifics from North8000. North8000 says Xenophrenic is tendentious, Goethean is rude and violated WP:AGF, cites Paul rally removal ("trying to war out"), support of ("warred in") Mead material. 2/19 2/23: 2/24: 2/25: At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, Goethean notes (pace North8000’s implication that Goethean was canvassing) that he contacted SlimVirgin and KillerChihuahua precisely because they were on opposite sides of a dispute long ago, and that they would thus be good candidates to give a neutral review of Goethean's edits.
 * I requested edit review at Talk:KillerChihuahua and Talk:SlimVirgin.
 * At Talk:North8000, KillerChihuahua requests diffs to support WP:TE accusation. North8000 cites ("warring to remove") Paul rally, rudeness; cites ThargorOrlando's (false) allegation of 1RR violation. KillerChihuahua says that if he cant give a single diff, then he needs to stop making accusations. North8000 cites years of observations. KillerChihuahua says to stop making unsupported accusations. North8000 says he will begin building case.
 * At Talk:TPM, Malke2010 suggests "new article about the fiscal issues". Goethean links to WP:POVFORK. Malke2010 says it would not be not a fork. Goethean says that proposed new article would be the textbook definition of a POV fork. Malke2010 says it would not be a fork. North8000 says Goethean violated WP:AGF.
 * At Talk:North8000, KillerChihuahua says to either post diffs or stop making accusations. North8000 says that he has stopped making accusations. KillerChihuahua warns North8000 on WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE. North8000 says that he is reporting "extreme violation" of WP:CIV, WP:AGF and that KillerChihuahua is involved, not being objective. KillerChihuahua says that she is not involved, that North8000 violated WP:CIV, WP:NPA. North8000 says that this "could use a third party set of eyes if this goes any further", implies Killer Chihuahua is not being objective.
 * At Talk:TPM/Reminder: KillerChihuahua warns North8000. North8000 says KillerChihuahua is involved. KillerChihuahua says that she is not involved, quotes WP:INVOLVED, asks North8000 to stop attacking other editors. North8000 says Goethean’s comment violated WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF. KillerChihuahua says Goethean did not violate WP:CIV, and that North8000’s accusation violated WP:NPA. Arzel says Goethean violated WP:NPA with earier Mormon comment. (Not true, I was simply drawing an analogy of how those inside a movement see it versus how those outside the movement see it, and advocating that Wikipedia must take the outsider's view). Malke2010 says Goethean violated WP:CIV, says KillerChihuahua is here "at the behest  of goethean who apparently wants to bully editors he doesn't agree with". Goethean provides a diff/context for Arzel’s accusation Jusdafax suggests a ban from political articles for Malke2010, says s/he often  violates WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, has had 8 blocks in one year and unsuccessful mentoring. North8000 calls Jusdafax’s comment an ad hominem argument/attack. Fat&Happy refactors Jusdafax’s comment as  WP:NPA.
 * KillerChihuahua opens ANI thread, suggests two-week topic ban for North8000, Arzel, Malke2010 per WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA. North8000 says that Goethean "bypassed the admin who has been watching the article, and message boards and instead solicited two selected / particular admins)" (presumably referring to ArthurRubin --- which makes no sense given North8000’s claims that KillerChihuahua is involved since ArthurRubin is clearly involved), says (thrice) KillerChihuahua "came after me", says KillerChihuahua is involved "twice over", says (thrice) KillerChihuahua is not being objective.
 * Later at ANI, Goethean asks North8000: who is this bypassed admin? (Never received an answer.)

North8000 violated WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE when he nominated KillerChihuahua to be desysoped

 * “For heavy and biased involvement in ways that can harm Wikipedians. Proposing draconian sanctions while giving no basis. Mis-use of the imprimatur.  As long as we're getting crazy, this is not any wilder than the other stuff proposed.” This is presumably in retaliation for KillerChihuahua’s repeated requests for North8000 to provide evidence for his repeated accusations of WP:TE against Goethean and Xenophrenic, and in retaliation for KillerChihuahua’s repeated warnings to stop violating WP:NPA.

Arthur Rubin violated WP:BATTLE when he proposed a topic ban on KillerChihuahua

 * Calls North8000's POINTy call for desysoping "a bit excessive".

North8000 violated WP:HA
North8000 was aware that KC was having health issues which were preventing from editing Wikipedia.

The following occurred six days after North8000 called for KillerChihuahua to be desysoped.

At User talk:KillerChihuahua, CartoonDiablo starts a "Single-payer healthcare" thread, saying that TPM editors (North8000, Thargor Orlando and Arzel) are edit warring against consensus at Single-payer healthcare. KillerChihuahua asks CartoonDiablo to add his complaint to the TPM RFAR that KillerChihuahua started. North8000 accuses CartoonDiablo of forum-shopping, says that CartoonDiablo contacted KillerChihuahua “for obvious reasons”. KillerChihuahua invites North8000 to take his complaint to ARBCOM, and says that North8000’s following CartoonDiablo to her talk page violates WP:BATTLE. Says "Please do not reply here." North8000 redacts "for obvious reasons" to "hoping for certain things". North8000 redacts "hoping for certain things" to "due to our recent interactions". CartoonDiablo confirms that he has added his complaint to the TPM RFAR. North8000 says “Forgive one more post”…says that he trusts and requests KillerChihuahua’s judgement, notes his redaction, asks KillerChihuahua to review Talk:Single-payer healthcare, offers apologies for any misunderstanding. KillerChihuahua says that North8000’s following CartoonDiablo to her user page and accusing him of forum-shopping is the issue, notes irony that North8000 says that he trust her judgement on this issue but not on others. North8000 says that this dispute is different from TPM dispute. North8000 asks CartoonDiablo why he is changing his request CartoonDiablo asks KillerChihuahua if he should add to ANI discussion. Bishonen says that North8000 is violating WP:HA, warns North8000 not to post again on KillerChihuahua's talk page or he will be blocked.

At User talk:North8000, Bishonen reiterates the warning. North8000 responds.

Response to Malke2010
Malke2010 claims: "When asked about it he claims he can’t revert without violating 1RR". That's not what I said.&mdash; goethean 15:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jester Pepperhot
In his evidence section, Viriditas blames Arthur Rubin for "casting aspersions" about the editor Xerographica (and confusing him with Xenophrenic, but Arthur Rubin rectified that). It should also be noted that Xerographica is currently blocked indefinitely by Bwilkins, so perhaps the aspersions were justified. Jester Pepperhot (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Obstructionism and battleground behavior
The moderated discussion, its three archives, and the 23 archives of Talk:Tea Party movement are riddled with obstructionism and battleground behavior.

The discussion found at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion/Archive_3&oldid=562146503#The_Constitution.2C_Agenda_section.2C_opening_sentence_of_lead.2C_etc. The Constitution, Agenda section, opening sentence of lead, etc.] provides a good example. It concerns User:Ubikwit changing to lede from "...advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution, ..." to "...advocates a version of constitutional originalism, ...", and was based on the existing New York Times source, Tea-ing Up the Constitution, which reads in part, The edit was promptly reverted.

After ~48 hours of discussion, a survey of !votes was taken on the issue.

No sources are provided by any of the "oppose" !votes to support the arguments against the inclusion of text plainly found in the cited source,


 * User:Malke 2010, "Oppose until the lede has been returned to the stable edit and consensus has been reached regarding the next issue to be taken up"
 * User:Phoenix and Winslow, "Strongly oppose. The sources I've seen do not support the contention that the entire TPm favors constitutional originalism. As Arthur pointed out, it's WP:SYNTH. One would have thought, with all the topic bans that have been handed out recently for proceeding with less than perfectly clear consensus, Ubikwit would have seen Arthur's post as an objection. I certainly did, which is why I didn't find it necessary to speak out against Ubikwit's edit at that time. I support going back to the original wording for the lede sentence, that lasted for so long and was so stable before the article was unlocked. And rather than discussing this, which is clearly not a constructive edit, we should be discussing the three action items I suggested immediately after the article was unlocked. The fact that Ubikwit has chosen to completely ignore those proposals tells me a lot."
 * User:North8000, "Oppose "Strict interpretation of the constitution" says it all, was in for years, and was a result of the mediation. The POV nightmare that was recently put in should go and it should remain "Strict interpretation of the constitution"."
 * User:Arthur Rubin, "Oppose. Those sources which refer to the TPm as supporting Constitutional originalism redefine the term."
 * User:Collect, "Oppose Per Arthur - Wikipedia is not a place for Humpty-Dumpty redefinitions of terms of art."

More battleground behavior
After several months of following the discussions and weeks of research and reading sources, I made two edits to Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion (08:55 and 15:28, 2 July 2013. I had not previously edited the article or its talk page). The response to my !votes, as well as those made by another editor just prior to mine, is emblematic of the battleground issues that plauge the topic space...

It is worth noting that even the most cursory review of Ubikwit's contributions will show the editor consistently supplies excellent sources to support their proposed edits...a rare breed. Also, I typically fly when making the 5468 mile trip to Cornwall. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Phoenix and Winslow
I'll be providing evidence on the behavior of three editors. Each will be separated by a few days, since I need time to prepare the evidence for posting. First will be Xenophrenic, who was the subject of an RfC/U. For each editor, I will provide a summary here plus a link to a Sandbox Evidence page off my User Talk page, to avoid cluttering up this page. Please click on the green link to review the evidence on each of these editors.

Response to ArtifexMayhem
That's a classic example of editing out of context. The boxed edit occurred, not on the article Talk page or on the Moderated Discussion page (MDP), but at User talk:SilkTork. ST was the moderator, and encouraged everyone to post concerns about other users' behavior on that page rather than the MDP. Essentially, AM wants the committee to take action against me for using the informal dispute resolution process that ST had provided.

Re: Xenophrenic
This is a tendentious editor pushing a progressive POV. Rather than just Tea Party movement, his behavior stretches across several years and several articles related to U.S. politics. I first encountered this behavior at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and at some articles related to Ward Churchill, in 2009. Generally speaking, it's as though he's trying to remake Wikipedia into an opposition research database for Democratic Party political operatives to use, while preventing its usefulness for that purpose to members of other parties and political groups. He adds and amplifies negative material in articles about conservative political figures and organizations, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it might be, or how much it employs fallacies such as guilt by association; and he removes or tones down negative content about progressive political figures and organizations. He achieves these goals by being tendentious, and by using edit warring to a limited extent (particularly the slow edit war technique, or tag teaming).

When presented with abundant evidence of this behavior at RfC/U, Xenophrenic defended each individual edit, failing to realize that WP:TE addresses the totality of an editor's behavior. He can't see the forest for the "trees." Each individual "tree" may be defensible, but it's their cumulative effect that reveals his tendentious, POV-pushing behavior. Xenophrenic is the one person most responsible for the execrable condition of Tea Party movement before moderated discussion began.

Evidence presented at RfC/U is posted here, with significant revisions from the RfC/U version. Please click on the green link to review the evidence. I recommend a topic ban from all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed. After 18 months, if he has been editing constructively on unrelated topics he can apply to have the topic ban lifted. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

New evidence
Just within the past week, Xenophrenic has started another editwar in the mainspace, which again caused the article to be fully protected. Xenophrenic suddenly began editwarring on the Tea Party movement article to introduce negative content into the "Agenda" section without consensus. On the Moderated Talk page, everyone except Xenophrenic agreed to several new conditions for continuing the moderated discussion. One of the conditions was that a proposed edit needed at least four "votes" to claim consensus. Another long standing condition was that there would be no major changes to the article mainspace without establishing consensus first. Xenophrenic blatantly ignored these agreed conditions and started a new edit war. I reported his behavior at WP:3RRN and at SilkTork's User Talk page. Rather than block Xeno and give him a topic ban, which was the correct thing to do, SilkTork protected the article, ignoring the likelihood already indicated here that Xeno would simply turn his disruptive and tendentious POV-pushing to other political articles. The admin at 3RRN noted that a block would now be punitive rather than protective and gave Xeno a "final warning."

Re: Goethean
Since there already appears to be more than enough evidence presented here for sanctions against Goethean for his direct involvement at TPm, I will not add to that abundant evidence. However, his conduct at Xenophrenic's RfC/U bears mention, particularly its Talk page. He acted as lead defense counsel, attacking and badgering any editor who suggested that Xenophrenic's behavior has been objectionable. In general, he treated the RfC/U dispute resolution procedure with complete contempt and guaranteed its failure. Interventions by defense Wikilawyers like Goethean are why we need ArbCom proceedings like this one. ArbCom should address and sanction this conduct.

Re: WLRoss "Wayne"
Wayne has participated for many years as a POV-pusher on behalf of small minority and fringe viewpoints. In some cases, he doesn't make many edits to the mainspace, instead pushing his POV aggressively on the article Talk page, and on User Talk pages of other editors. WP:WEIGHT indicates how to address this but he's very good at finding fringe sources and presenting them as reliable sources. He started by jumping into a "9/11 Truther" type dispute about what really caused the collapse of the World Trade Center. Only one edit to the mainspace, but he was all over the Talk page and User Talk pages. MONGO encountered him there.

He was also involved in WP:BLP violations at Kerry and Kay Danes. In that case, User:Jimbo Wales stubbed the article himself. BLP articles are the one area where fringe POV pushers can be the most damaging for Wikipedia, since they tend to latch on to theories that the innocent people were really guilty, and it was all a clever cover-up. (See next.)

I first encountered him at the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article and, as the name implies, it was a minefield of BLP violations. Wayne had partnered up with another fringe POV-pusher, User:Apostle12, whose post-Franklin editing activities were recently discussed at the "Race and politics" ArbCom. They had found a fringe POV "reliable source" that had been published by a small, very fringey publisher, and they were basically using it as a roadmap to write the Franklin article. I took them to WP:RSN, and got the source declared unreliable. ArbCom members User:FloNight and User:NuclearWarfare then stubbed the article, because so much negative material about living persons had suddenly become unsourced.

Ever since then, Wayne has been stalking me. He follows my contribs and whenever I become involved in good faith in a content dispute, he joins the content dispute on the opposite side. Additional evidence is provided at a sandbox page linked to my User Talk page here. Please click on the green link to review this evidence.

Wayne encapsulates the very worst kind of editor for admins and other editors to deal with. Xenophrenic and Goethean are two more examples. They're smart and (usually) polite. They're capable of good writing and excellent research. The push their POVs tendentiously and relentlessly like bulldozers, use every trick in the book, go to other editors' User Talk pages to stir up trouble rather than resolve conflicts, and never genuinely improve their behavior. They deny that their behavior causes problems, tone it down for a while and then, when the heat has died down, they're back to their usual bad behavior.

In Wayne's case, there's also Wikistalking. Editors need to be able to report WP:BLP violations and get admins to take effective action, without being Wikistalked in retaliation like this for the rest of their Wikipedia lives. ArbCom needs to take action to protect whistleblowers from this kind of behavior. Someone at ANI suggested a topic ban for me on Ugg boots and a topic ban for Wayne on the Franklin article. That would reward Wayne for stalking me, since I was editing Ugg boots before he was. His only reason for returning to that article in 2011 was to make trouble for me by joining the other side in a content dispute. He will protest that he has created the article Ugg boots trademark disputes and that he should be allowed to continue editing it; but it is my position that it was created as a new variation of the old WP:POVFORK strategy, and whether I'm right or wrong about that, it belongs to Wikipedia, not to him.

For all these reasons, I respectfully recommend a topic ban for Wayne on all pages related to the Tea Party movement, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Ugg boots, and Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, broadly construed — to include any mention of any of these topics on any Wikipedia page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing and edit warring by user:arzel
I argue that user:arzel has WP:EW in the article to push a conservative POV. Moreover, he has done so in an aggressive way (as evidenced by the edit summaries. He has sought to exclude information from the article, despite strong sourcing, some of which was academically reviewed.

Edit Waring over academically reviewed article 15 17 19 20 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Edit war over comment of tea party leader towards Islam 11 12 14 16 18 21 22 25 26

Edit warring over racial issues 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 32 33 34

Evidence presented by {Insert User Name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.