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

Statement by CMBJ
While I'm not an involved party here, I urge the Commitee to decline this case because it is premature; the community has not exhausted its ability to resolve issues with these users. —  C M B J  06:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax
I am also not a party to this matter, as I have never edited the article, though I had a number of comments to make at what is now the ANI sub-page thread. One of those statements was to the effect that I did not think the time was ripe to take this matter here. For clarity, I want to make it clear that I now agree with the filing administrator's decision to request this case be taken up by ArbCom. I urge you to take on this issue, as in my view it is of the utmost importance.

Statement by Viriditas
In contrast to the opinion put forward by CMBJ, I believe this filing is not premature, as the recent discussion on ANI (linked above) has shown that the community is unable (and/or unwilling) to resolve conduct (and content) disputes and to enforce the article probation that has been in place since late 2010. As incredible as it sounds, there is a consensus among the involved parties that article improvement cannot occur (and has failed to occur for several years) and that efforts to work things out on the talk page have stalled. If this isn't a case for arbcom, I don't know what is. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment: we are in desperate need of prophylactic measures. It may be wise to widen the scope of this request to encompass all U.S. politics articles as it has come to my attention that certain editors involved in this topic area may be using this incident (and the lack of any continuing enforcement in this area) as a litmus test for what they can get away with in the coming days. For example, just after the ANI report was filed and this arbcom request was made, User:The Devil's Advocate and User:Casprings began disrupting Binders full of women with time wasting snow keep AfD noms and out-of-order merges against consensus. I see this continuing problem with political articles connected to previous issues with WikiProject Conservatism and Barack Obama, and more recently with John Kerry and the current Tea Party movement. I hope that arbcom can draw a line in the sand and put a stop to this as the political rhetoric heats up and the POV warriors begin swarming at the gates to do battle. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional disruption: now occurring at New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case by User:Little green rosetta and User:RightCowLeftCoast after RightCowLeftCoast canvassed WikiProject Conservatism for backup support. Note how the same editors find their way into the same conflicts over U.S. politics, religion, and homosexuality. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Hasty filing; [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=539991909 ANI] only started 920 pm Saturday, ArbCom opened 1230 am Monday? Recommend declining case per further community input. NE Ent 10:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Risker Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive219 NE Ent 12:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC) By changing horses we've arrived at a DR Mexican standoff; community interest in resolving the issue without AC, as indicated the variety of editors participating in the ANI subpage has waned; the committee tally thus far is all in the other category.
 * The Lady, or the Tiger?

I've found two recent ANI threads that were subpaged in addition to TPM:
 * Homophobia
 * Hebephilia


 * The former ran 10 days and resulted in a solution.
 * The latter only ran 3 with no result; discussion stopped as stop as the A-word was brought up.

See also a recent USPLACE discussion than ran 10 days and resulted in an "artistic" close in which the sanctioned editor gave the closing admin a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATParis&diff=539316719&oldid=539301035 barnstar] and the OP described it as [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATParis&diff=539430928&oldid=539426175 "solomic"]

My understanding, after discussion with KC, is that the perceived benefit of AC/DS vs community sanction is that she perceives the editing norms of AE preferrable to that of AN. I submit that is a reason to from consensus to reform AN, or perhaps merge AC/DS into a sanction enforcement board, similar to the way editing restrictions logs both AC and community sanctions, not kick issues to arbcom.

The remit of the committee is serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. (emphasis mine), not become a "discretionary sanctions, ban, ban, topic ban, topic ban, admonishment" assembly line. We all reap what we sow; while DS'ing Tea Party, whether by case or motion, is a reasonable to solution to the specific issue at hand, it will encourage the community to continue to prematurely file cases before exhausting other avenues. The current "wait and see" responses thus far are inadequate to compel community activity; I urge ya'll to explicitly decline the case. If, after a week or two, the community is still unable to arrive at a solution a case could be opened then. NE Ent 14:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci
Article probation does not seem to be working here, judging from the hostile reaction to KillerChihuahua. To an uninvolved observer the responses to her posting on the talk page of TPM seem quite disproportionate. Perhaps there are underlying issues of WP:OWN which might be just one symptom of a toxic editing atmosphere. Article probation has worked on Men's rights movement, but in that case a fair number of neutral observers, including administrators, keep matters in check; that article was initially targeted by activists/advocates on off-wiki sites. Perhaps, like Mass killings under communist regimes, this article (or related articles) could benefit from discretionary sanctions. The discussions at WP:ANI regarding the TPM article have been chaotic, with various attempts to prevent any kind of administrative action related to article probation. When neutral administrators are attacked like that, something is wrong. Without naming names, it does look like just a few individuals, several of whom have yet to comment. Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * North8000's comments below, which show no assumptions of good faith, are an illustration of the problems here. He has crossed a line by writing in such embattled terms about an uninvolved administrator. Mathsci (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If, as NuclearWarfare suggests, this could possibly be resolved by a motion imposing discretionary sanctions on "TPM articles," could the underlying principles just be taken to be those for the "Obama articles" here? (4 current arbitrators were active on that case.) Admins at WP:AE sometimes find it useful to have a set of principles available when a report is made. Mathsci (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cavarrone
Let's give a week to the community to deal with that, then, if no clear outcome is possible, restart this one. Cavarrone (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Reject speedily. ASAP. Stat. Post haste. Read the weird AN/I postings and note the desire of some to shout "Off With Their Heads!" over what is obviously a content dispute which is never something ArbCom deals with or ought to deal with. A quick rejection is in fact a message - that using silly proposals is not something the committee thinks is a valid basis for a real case. I concur with Arthur Rubin here. Collect (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean: Your first wording appeared far more accurate with regard to your edits and intent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I welcome anyone actually reading my edits and talk page comments. Your characterization of them is absurd from any neutral perspective. For example: has me stating that a journal whose express interest is to oppose the tobacco industry (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 an eensy indication that the journal might lack objectivity,  and a clear claim of "guilt by association" in the first place), is not necessarily a reliable source connecting all sorts of groups by association to the "tobacco industry." That is a legitimate issue for discussion, but to assert own advocacy of some of the positions shared by the most flagrant offenders is sufficiently far afield as to warrant inquiry of such a poster. And I am proud to assert that following policies and guidelines is a "meaningless platitude" to you. I consider such a post, in fact, to be uncollegial and contrary to any rational basis for reaching consensus if one can simply assert "the other editor should be banned because he disagrees on content." Cheers -- but your own words show where the problem lies. Collect (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I read your post and stand by my own post. I have now been online for over three decades, and please accept my assurance that (having read well over five million messages, and reviewed over 50,000 image files) I have some minimal experince in this field. Draconian solutions are exceedingly rarely beneficial. That you find this a "platitude" is unfortunate. I think mandatory 20 year sentences for possession of a small amount of LSD is absurd. I think $500 parking tickets which destroy poor people economically are absurd. All "platitudes". We have intersected on about 2% of the articles I have edited. I recollect no specific editing disagreement with you which would reasonably result in your posts. Feel free to post diffs on my talk page of edits which you find egregious. Cheers.Collect (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit
I've posted this link to a thread from the TPM Talk page on ANI page as I think it encapsulates--if not in a dramatic manner--a sort of collaborative obstructionism in which a group of editors would seem to be engaged. The scope would seem to be somewhat expansive in light of the response the case garnered in such a short period, so maybe it is too cumbersome for ANI. At any rate, the above statement by North8000 should be evaluated against this thread, which demonstrates the sort of interaction and the respective dispositions of three of the above-listed involved editors as well as Xenophrenic .--Ubikwit (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
This issue probably doesn't need a case to decide. If my analysis is correct, there is in fact only one question that ArbCom needs to decide: "Has KillerChihuahua been acting as an uninvolved admin in a dispute over a page subject to probation?"

I've looked at the pages referred to above and I am convinced that she has. If ArbCom agrees with me on that, then it simply needs to state that it will support KC (and any other uninvolved admin) in discharging that role - and perhaps admonish those misguided individuals who have attempted to pervert those actions. Anything less will create a chilling effect on admins who voluntarily put themselves through stress and hassle purely to keep Wikipedia running. Is it any wonder that the pool of active admins willing to take on such jobs is continually shrinking? --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel
The hysterical overreaction to KillerChihuahua's very mild attempts at rule enforcement and community involvement demonstrate quite clearly that some sort of intervention is needed at this article. Article ownership and incivility, not to mention outright hostility, are rampant. Someone, the community, arbcom, whoever, needs to step in to curb the battleground mentality of political-minded editors, some of whom have been unchecked for years. To those who are disputing the need for action (most loudly perhaps Collect, who neglects to mention his own editing on that article, his own advocacy of some of the positions shared by the most flagrant offenders, and the fact that he's well known on various noticeboards for advocating against any suggestion of community or administrative action in pretty much any case), they should be required to specifically lay out what they would do instead, besides absolutely nothing or reciting meaningless platitudes. A wide topic ban on political articles would be an effective way to eliminate this battleground mentality. Those editors could contribute to Wikipedia in less contentious ways besides editing political articles, and if they were single issue accounts dedicated to only politics, then they should be banned anyway, and Wikipedia has lost nothing and gained much. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Collect You claim my position is "the other editor should be banned because he disagrees on content", but I obviously said no such thing, and if you had any interest in collegiality as you claim to have, you would withdraw such a ridiculous claim. I simply want to enforce existing rules regarding civility, battleground behavior, etc. You claim to be in favor of "following policies and guidelines" but you have consistently advocated against even the most minor enforcement actions in regards to those policies. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
I have been involved with some of the wrangling over U.S. politics articles over the past months, particularly during the election season, and do not see any benefit to the project in accepting a case on the Tea Party Movement at this point in time. The ANI filing by KC is a sterling example of everything wrong with that noticeboard or, more accuraely, everything wrong with how certain editors use it. People were voting for broad topic bans on U.S. politics articles without any meaningful inquiry into the topic area or the editors in question. Basically it was, and is, little more than an emotionally-driven lynching by editors who are mostly biased in one respect or another. I think an arbitration case will find plenty of misconduct on all sides, quite probably also finding fault with KC's conduct, and that we will have a lot of restrictions and sanctions passed on a whole lot of editors from all sides during the case or in the aftermath should discretionary sanctions be imposed on "edits relating to the Tea Party Movement broadly construed" as is a likely outcome. However, the effect will only be a stifling of activity on this topic and U.S. politics in general for as long as the Tea Party remains a relevant movement.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Accept the case, and then suspend it pending mediation. The mediation will give the involved editors a last chance to argue on the basis of the content, so there is then a big incentive to take that opportunity. If that fails, the ArbCom case can go ahead but then the primary focus will be the conduct of the editors. Count Iblis (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, the personal attacks must ultimately originate from some content dispute. If the problems between some editors are now unrelated to content issues, then if they are sent to mediation where they have to address content, that may well all by itself resolve the problem without the mediators having to do much, apart from making sure the editors are focussed on editing the content and not fighting out other disputes. This is similar to how the mere presense of a teacher in class can calm down the students and make sure they are focussed on the lessons and not on other things.

An import issue here is that the teacher has authority (disciplinary measures can be taken against students, and they can end up failing exams), while here on Wikipedia, the authority of Admins can be questioned and appealed. If ArbCom were to send the case to mediation, with the understanding that an ArbCom case will start if the mediation isn't successful, the editors know that they have to drop their content unrelated disputes or else face sanctions later. Of course the editors can do that right now too, but I'm of the opinion that you have to give the editors a chance to show how their present disputes are related to content issues and argue on the basis of that. Count Iblis (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz
According to this thread at KillerChihuahua's talk page, she may currently be unable to participate in this debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
T. Canen's comments below are to my eyes more than a bit relevant here. I also think, as has been said below, that there is a real chance that the final decision could almost be written before the case is presented. But, as someone who occasionally is a bit involved at AE, and as I said before in the most recent Falun Gong arbitration, there are times when I believe that it is in the community's interest to have individuals who have been elected by the community based on their judgment and knowledge of the subject to decide matters, rather than having something addressed by the admins at AE, who were generally not made admins specifically for their ability to resolve arbitration matters. By saying this I am in no way saying that the admins who offer more frequent input at AE are in any way not qualified to do so, and I do not at all believe that they aren't qualified to do so - some of them are in fact individuals who I hold in very high regard, and at least one is someone I myself asked to run for ArbCom before the last election. But this does not strike me as being necessarily an incident in which the rulings of the basically self-appointed AE editors would be preferable to the opinions of the elected arbitrators. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to some of the comments of arbitrators below, I seem to remember in the past one arbitrator saying that there is a difference between sanctions imposed by community consensus and sanctions imposed by ArbCom, specifically that individual administrators can be in some cases considered qualified to overturn individual instances of discretionary sanctions when those sanctions have been imposed by the community, but that it is much harder (if not impossible) for them to do the same thing when those discretionary sanctions are enacted by ArbCom ruling. Whether that should be the case is another matter entirely, but at least at the time procedurally there at least was a perceived difference between the two. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
Like John Carter above, as an admin active at AE, I'm responding to the discussion among arbitrators about the usefulness of discretionary sanctions. In my experience, AE works well for some 90% of the cases, in which the facts are relatively simple and clear-cut, and which involve one or two editors. We do have problems dealing adequately with cases that involve many editors, or long-term patterns of difficult-to-pin-down misconduct (such as tendentious editing), or the social dynamics among long-term contributors. This may be both because of the amount of evidence and analysis such cases require, which is often more than individual volunteers are willing to make time for. Also, decisions in such relatively complicated cases are of necessity more a matter of judgment and therefore more open to criticism. That in and of itself is of course not a problem, but in my experience it can range up to very violent reprobations, accusations of harrassment, requests for desysop, etc. from the affected users or their friends. It is understandable that relatively few admins want to expose themselves to this repeatedly in what is after all their hobby, not their job.

It is in this sense that I agree with T. Canens that AE is less well-equipped than ArbCom to deal with certain cases. It's not really a matter of time – AE threads can in theory last as long as they need to – or of restrictions, because there are few explicit restrictions on discretionary sanctions. It's that AE administrators, as unelected individual functionaries, lack the institutional resources of ArbCom, i.e., a relatively large pool of clerks and arbitrators who have committed themselves to the job, as well as the Committee's institutional protections – collective rather than individual responsibility for decisions, an electoral mandate, a fixed term of service and being the authority of last resort. That is what makes ArbCom more suited than AE to dealing with cases involving many people, complicated facts and/or complicated social dynamics.

That's not to say that the typical outcome of ArbCom cases, as outlined by NuclearWarfare – "discretionary sanctions, ban, ban, topic ban, topic ban, admonishment" – is a bad thing. It's probably the best thing ArbCom can do in many situations (minus the admonishments, which I think are pointless and patronizing). What the Committee should consider, however, is developing procedures for cases of intermediate difficulty that are a bit too much for AE to handle effectively, but which are not necessarily worth the attention of the full Committee. As I've previously suggested, one way to do this could be to institute subcommittees of three or five arbitrators to which enforcement requests could be referred by AE administrators.  Sandstein  13:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and also I agree with T. Canens that "it is this Committee's responsibility to resolve intractable user conduct disputes, not say 'hey admins, here's some shiny new tools, now go resolve the dispute for us'". The tendency of increasing reliance on discretionary sanctions can indeed be seen as abandoning this responsibility to some degree. What I'd do, if I were in your place, would be to try to make ArbCom procedures more efficient so that you have more capacity for processing cases. For instance, I'd consider hearing cases in smaller panels, instituting tight evidence submission rules and deadlines, abandoning the workshop page, and discuss and vote on decisions in camera – that is, working the way most real-life courts do.  Sandstein   14:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by CartoonDiablo
There is a similar problem in the single-payer healthcare article with many of the same editors listed here (North8000, Arzel etc.). KC referred me to here although I'm not sure if the original scope of US Politics still applies. From what I can tell many of the editors (North8000 in particular) often engage in WP:Battleground tactics (as recently as today). One of the only remedies I can see are temporary topic bans as suggested in the Tea Party Movement AN/I but I'll hold off on voting for that until a decision to accept or deny the dispute is reached here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SilkTork, would it be better to give an opinion to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input prior to here? My suspicion is it won't go anywhere even with my contribution. Also I think people on both sides (ArbComm and AN/I) are waiting for a response from either and not sure which needs to stall before continuing with the other. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
I am very disappointed by AGK's statement. If you run for Arbitration Committee it is your job to hear intractable disputes, to review the evidence and to propose constructive solutions. It is not your job to shoot from the hip before hearing all the evidence, state a conclusion, and declare who should be banned before the case starts. Now AGK will have to recuse himself because he's obviously not ready to hear the case with an open mind. Jehochman Talk 13:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If the dispute weren't intractable, something would have been resolved at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input. This is a complex, multiparty dispute that should be heard in full.  Jehochman Talk 13:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why don't the lot of you arbitrators just pass a motion enabling discretionary sanctions for all articles, and then you can resign as being an unnecessary appendage to Wikipedia? (That's not an earnest statement.)  AE has its limits.  When there is a scrum of hostile editors battling over one or more articles, arbitration is necessary to thoughtfully consider the volumes of evidence and remove the worst offenders.  Once that is done, discretionary sanctions may be useful to clean up any unfinished business or to deal with new editors arriving on the scene to cause disruption.  Discretionary sanctions are not a replacement for arbitration; they are a supplement. Community sanctions can work in simple cases where small numbers of editors are involved.  In this case I think there are too many editors involved for community sanctions to work.  The ANI subpage grew quite lengthy with all the different editors and comments about them.  When a discussion becomes so long and intricate that uninvolved editors can't casually review the walls of text to form an informed opinion, that's when arbitration is needed.  Unlike a community discussion, you folks have clerks who can prune cruft; you have evidence limits, and you have time to review things at length and in depth.  (Where is Carcharoth when we need him?  I wonder what he would say about this.)  Jehochman Talk 17:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Bishonen -- "Tea Party, broadly construed" would cover the topics you've mentioned. As in, don't use Wikipedia as a platform for political advocacy. Jehochman Talk 13:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan
I am likewise disappointed by AGK's statement, as it was framed as a multi-party dispute, not a two-party dispute. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Struck, comment referred to earlier version of statement. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
Judging on the sheer size of this mess and the fact that the community is unable to resolve the dispute, ArbCom has little choice but to accept the case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
I see the case is going to be accepted. KC originally listed it as "Tea Party movement / US politics", and Roger Davies shortened the name to "Tea Party movement" (with the comment that he was shortening "for now"). Both KC and CartoonDiablo have recently expressed uncertainty as to whether the originally proposed scope, US Politics, will apply when the case goes live. Perhaps the committee hasn't made up its collective mind on that score yet. I urge you to in fact try to do something about ongoing POV disruption at the entire "US politics" spectrum and to invite evidence on articles like Gun control and Single-payer healthcare. Or, as second best, to at least consider a wider topic ban for North8000 and probably one or two others than merely from specifically Tea Party-related pages. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC).

Statement by Black Kite
I would urge ArbCom to accept this. I have no interest in American politics but do have a number of high-profile homosexuality-related pages on my watchlist (as they are magnets for vandals and nutcases) and see a number of problematic editors' names re-occurring here. The link to WikiProject Conservatism probably needs investigation here. Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (Just to clarify: I am not including said editors in the "vandals or nutcases" category, merely that a number of names mentioned here have been involved in edit-warring and/or POV issues on said articles). Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by a13ean
I have not edited either the article or talk page, but commented on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_143#British_Medical_Journal_imprint.2C_.22Tobacco_Control.2C.22_on_one_way_how_big_tobacco_has_affected_society. the thread at RS/N]. I was surprised to see how many users coming from the Tea Party talk page had a clear battleground mentality, and immediately began making personal attacks. A quick glance at the TP talk page shows there is clearly a toxic culture there, and it appears other dispute resolution options have not been successful. a13ean (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny
Having done some time a few years ago babysitting the Sarah Palin article, I strongly suggest that the committee set up a rotation for admins watching over this article and the myriad related articles that are doubtless affected by the same issues involving the same warring parties. Ask for volunteers, vet them, and then set it up so none of them are stuck doing this for more than a month or so at a stretch. Fringy US politics will cause faster burnout than almost any other topic. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 00:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO
I hope arbcom leaves their politics at the door on this and limit their sanctions (if any) solely to user conduct. A broad, this is a political article under discretionary sanctions boilerplate after this is over will only set up a lot of drama for the future.--MONGO 18:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
This is just entrenched editors that believe their version is neutral and any deviations is biased. A simple review of wording of talk page subjects confirms this. I would caution that Wikipedia demographics don't match U.S. voting demographics so in-built perceptions by the community will not be perceived as neutral. Trying to resolve this as a content dispute will devolve into the type of arguments regarding the Iraq War ("Liberation" or "Occupation"?). If arbcom does take it, I would hope they choose to address sources for claim (i.e. what is "reliable" and "neutral") but even that would be difficult (i.e. is Al Hunt an award winning reliable source or a commentating editor formerly on the left side of the Evans and Novak roundtable?). Unfortunately I don't see a way to address these issues as the biases of the editor come into play. Bottom line is that people interested enough to edit these articles already have an agenda. A nice thing to have might be a WP:BLP-like policy for current events and surrounding articles. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative information is simply removed from these articles. Make organization objectives and ideology similar to LGBT BLP articles and only include self-identified descriptions. Anything outside of that would require exceptional sources. --DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for amendment (September 2013)
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=575139241#Amendment_request:_Tea_Party_movement Archived version]


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by  — Arthur Rubin (talk) at 04:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 8.1


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision
 * Add a clause to note that Arthur Rubin is specifically allowed to revert socks of blocked editors on pages related to the Tea Party movement. If ArbCom prefers, it could be restricted to socks of blocked editors not restricted in this decision, or not mentioned in this decision.

Statement by Arthur Rubin
The "Michigan Kid" (see User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the socks) is blocked, the initial block not being by me. I've been summarily reverting his edits when I notice him, for some time. (For a while, I was reverting only edits in violation of guidelines such as WP:OVERLINK and WP:REDLINK; then reverting edits not obviously good; and now reverting all edits.) For reasons related to WP:ECHO, I often receive notification of his edits. (WP:BEANS suggests that I should not comment further; I'll E-mail an ArbCom member with details on request.) Now that I've found a "rollback all" script, I actually have time to do other edits while keeping track of this obstructive editor. If some of his edits touch on articles related to the Tea Party movement, and I am not permitted to revert those edits, I would have to revert that incarnation manually, as there is no "rollback all except Tea Party movement" button.

I don't see that this affects any other user; if ArbCom thinks otherwise, I'm willing to notify the other users. If it is desired to modify the topic bans by other rollbackers, I would have no objection, but I was given to believe that it would not be appropriate for me to make requests on behalf of other editors.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't think a motion is necessary here. Banning policy and Ignore all rules provide adequate justification for reverting obvious blocked sockpuppets using mass rollback tools. NW ( Talk ) 16:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nuke here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with my learned colleagues, here. You should have nothing to fear, Arthur. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful to inform someone (the Committee or the Clerks or the AE admins) at the time, so as to avoid (or quickly clear up) a possible sanction.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues. AGK  [•] 21:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Worm TT( talk ) 12:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as well. Courcelles 13:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification (December 2013)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=588620966#Clarification_request:_Tea_Party_movement Original discussion]

Initiated by  Xenophrenic (talk) at 21:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision
 * Link to relevant decision

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Xenophrenic
I am presently "topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed." I have recently edited the James O'Keefe biography article, which I obviously do not see as falling under this restriction since O'Keefe has no relation to the Tea Party. My edits were also wholly unrelated to the Tea Party. However, another editor raised the question on the O'Keefe talk page which has prompted me to cease editing that article until I obtain clarification here. Please note: I see the phrase "Tea Party" does briefly appear elsewhere in the O'Keefe article, and I have no desire to circumvent the ArbCom case restrictions even inadvertantly, so I have to ask...
 * Does the article James O'Keefe qualify as related to the Tea Party movement for the purposes of this sanction? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox
This is where the "broadly construed" phrasing can get tricky. O'Keefe may not be "officially" assosciated with the Tea Party, but his mentor was Andrew Breitbart and his activities are pretty clearly aligned with the goals and values of the Tea Party. If there is any doubt, you should probably just stay away. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando
As the "other editor" in question, this is actually good guidance for those of us on the periphery. In this case, I raised the question not to get anyone in trouble (and I would hope that any admin/arb reading this would see it for what it is and not an attempt by Xenophrenic to skirt the boundaries of the ArbCom case), but because of this specific section in the article, which is about a video release noteworthy because of the NPR associate's comments on the Tea Party movement.

Looking back at the original case, it appears that ArbCom chose not to address the question of what "broadly construed" means. For the sake of reducing inter-editorial strife, I'm hoping some sort of guidance can come of this clarification request.
 * @User:AGK, if that's the case, there is no complaint. The question would then remain what "broadly construed" means when we're discussing an article that has a direct relationship to a noteworthy Tea Party situation as I have linked above.  If "broadly construed" does not include articles with explicit Tea Party relationships within the text, what does it mean?  Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai
"Tea Party" is often used in daily conversation in America imprecisely and usually pejoratively to indicate anyone sufficiently the right of American politics. The fairest definition of the topic of "Tea Party movement" however should refer to organizations, voters, and activists self-identifying as themselves members of the Tea Party or Tea Party organizations, self identifying as allies of the same, or politicians whose support derives from those efforts. James O'Keefe would seem to not qualify on that end, except that one of his major claims to fame is a video he released of an NPR executive speaking candidly about the Tea Party. Since the topic ban is on "all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed" (emphasis added), the presence of the topic as a component of the article on James O'Keefe, activist, renders the Wikipedia-en page James O'Keefe under the topic ban. This is why topic bans are best written as editing subject bans and not page bans. I suggest that the Committee clarify or amend the wording of the topic ban to apply to edits concerning the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, and that the edits in question be allowed, although I think Xenophrenic is better advised to steer clear because of the specific history of O'Keefe's activism --Tznkai (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It just occurred to me that someone might be concerned that making bans on a per subject of edit basis versus a per subject of page basis would allow an editor to say, make minor grammar changes in an area they were told to steer clear from. I think it is reasonably obvious that all edits to page concerning a topic are in fact edits concerning the topic.--Tznkai (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, broadly construed cannot also mean unpredictable and arbitrary. Does it also include "patriotism" since the Tea Party movement self identifies as patriotic? How about "Republicans" because they draw support from Republicans or "Democrats" because they are in opposition? How about taxes, a core issue? How about James Madison and the Federalist papers? How about Right-wing politics, conservativism, Edmund Burke? How about Christianity? How about Nazis, since sometimes some loudmouth decides that all of them are? How about white privilege, for the same reason? Evolution, the Bible, and the public education system, individually or as interrelated?
 * Political movements, by their nature, have an opinion about nearly everything, broadly construing them for anything they have thematic relevance with is not only absurd, it is cruel, and unnecessarily so. My definition is not exhaustive, since that is a mug's game, but it is hardly restrictive. Broadly construed was, I think more than anything a signal to administrators to be reasonable in invoking their jurisdiction. Now, I fear, it is a crutch for the lazy administrator and the vindictive partisan.--Tznkai (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, I believe you are exemplifying the problem of broadly construed in this context. You are not describing belief of the general public, but the broad constructions of the general leftward leaning politic interested in American politics, which you in turn wish for administrators to broadly construe.
 * Ultimately of course, the Committee (hopefully) knows best what it means, but I believe the most reasonable interpretation of what they say is in line with my elucidation above. All in all I advise fellow administrators to read "broadly construed" with considerable restraint, if only to defend against being used as chess pieces by article warriors, even if that is not what is happening this time. --Tznkai (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond my Ken, you are of course free to speculate as you'd like on my off-Wiki political leanings, but my talk page or an e-mail is a more appropriate venue. As to construction of the topic, it should surprise absolutely no one that given any dichotomous divide, a group on one end will be more prone to identifying the other end with its least popular groups, while the home-team for that same group will be much more specific. Thus right-aligned persons will naturally be much more particular about the Tea Party than left aligned persons, and the "general public" doesn't really exist as a useful construction, and even if it did, it isn't neutral! This is the sort of danger lurking in general with broad constructions, but it is especially bad when considering political movements since political movements provoke passions and cover wide ground. From a neutral perspective, there is serious disagreement over what qualifies, both formally as the Tea Party, and their "attitude, behavior or politics." The approach Beyond my Ken advances here invites stereotypes and prejudices, two things we (ought to) try our damnedest to bury as editors.
 * I'm sure I'm quite a bit over the word limit, and I don't want to completely sidetrack with point-counterpoint, so if the clerks and Committee will indulge an old-in-wiki-years-fogey in summarizing his point: "broad construction" is asking for trouble in politically related arenas, well written per edit bans are better than page bans in such difficult ground, and the committee ought to encourage administrators to apply restraint and reason in interpreting this and any other ban language. Especially since an admin well grounded in policy often need not invoke topic bans when trouble is afoot.--Tznkai (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
The suggestion by Tznkai that "The fairest definition of the topic of 'Tea Party movement' however should refer to organizations, voters, and activists self-identifying as themselves members of the Tea Party or Tea Party organizations, self identifying as allies of the same, or politicians whose support derives from those efforts" flies squarely in the face of what "broadly construed" clearly means. Although, obviously, that phrase is (deliberately) imprecise, any clarification of its meaning to come from the committee must cast the widest possible net, and not be hamstrung by restrictive definitions such as Tznkai's. In this case, the "Tea Party" should include everyone Tzankai mentioned, as well as  all  those people to whom it is applied in the common understanding of its meaning. The goal here is not to make some kind of socio-political point, but to reduce disturbance in the editing environment. To schieve that, "broadly construed" must mean what it says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Tznkai: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' &mdash; Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass"If the general public or the press use "Tea Party" to describe a certain person, they do so because it seems to fit the person's attitude, behavior or politics, regardless of whatever their "official" status is. Such a person is more than likely to create the same possibility of disputatious editing, and should, therefore, be included in the "broadly construed" definition, which is, again, a definition to be used in regard to editing behavior only. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Tznkai: "Leftward leaning politic" - You are apparently approaching this from your own specific political POV, and wish to keep the definition of "broadly construed" as tightly constricted as possible for that reason. On the other hand, I am concerned about what is needed to keep editorial disruption in this subject area to a minimum, which I believe serves the Wikipedia community best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Essentially, Tznkai is arguing that the committee should interpret "broadly construed" as "strictly defined", which is to say, to essentially ignore the meaning of the phrase and neuter it entirely. To my mind, that does nothing to serve the purpose the remedy was designed to achieve, and, in fact, opens the door to further disruption of the type that brought about the arbitration in the first place.  I would urge the committee not to follow this path. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Reading the entry, I did not see an explicit link between James O'Keefe personally and the Tea Party. He simply seems to be a Conservative activist. I would treat the article as excluded from the TPM topic bans, at least for now. AGK  [•] 06:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic, my advice here is similar to that stated by Beeblebrox: "If there is any doubt, you should probably just stay away." I would add that if there is doubt you could also ask for clarification before editing any articles that include mentions of the Tea Party. If you have asked beforehand, that will help mollify any concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My thoughts align Carcharoth's on the matter of whether there is doubt. As for the case in hand, I think if it comes down to hairsplitting to justify whether something is in the scope of the topic ban or not... it can be included in 'broadly construed'. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification (January 2014)
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=590600729#Clarification_request:_Tea_Party_movement Original discussion]


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by  Malke 2010 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)at 00:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision
 * Link to relevant decision

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)


 * Users notified:
 * Arthur Rubin
 * Collect
 * North8000
 * Goethean

Statement by Malke 2010
The 2013 Arbitration case involving Tea Party movement resulted in topic bans for myself and the above named editors. I'd made an edit request at Gun control. It later occurred to me that gun control is an issue for some groups in the tea party movement. Since the topic ban states, "broadly construed," I'd like to know if this article would be considered among those that are to be avoided. The above named editors have all edited the article after the TPm topic ban. I've avoided all political articles as I do not wish to violate the ban in any way. Thank you.


 * Does the article Gun control qualify as one of the pages included in the Tea Party movement topic ban?

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thank you for the commonsense approach. That's an interesting analogy, but Amelia Earhardt didn't make Cookies a political issue. Apparently, the gun thing is a big issue for the tea party movement as well as certain constitutional amendments including the 2nd amendment, right to bear arms. I agree commonsense should be the guide, but when one is topic banned, it's best to ask first, edit second. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad & Carcharoth: Thank you both. That is excellent advice. General topics okay, specific no. Best to stay away from everything until ban lifted. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
No, not covered  If "gun control" is covered by the Tea Party topic ban, then all articles on every issue mentioned in any local Tea Party chapter's platform are similarly covered by the ban. That would be absurd. If I am banned from talking about Amelia Earhart, and I wish to edit Cookies, am I barred from doing so, since Earhart liked to bake cookies? Same difference. Discussion of an issue is not the same thing as discussion about a party that happnes to care about the issue. That said, one should steer clear of overtly party-related subsections, and I know that's dicey, but the world's an imperfect place. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
I suggest that before assuming that the article in question has anything to do with the TPm, one might note that "tea party" occurs exactly zero times in that article. In fact "tea" occurs zero times in that article. I suggest that saying it is covered in any part by a ban on TPm is stretching the bungee cord to the breaking point, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Paul Ryan case is interesting. It does not make any reference to him being directly connected with the TPm at all. The only "connection" is surmise in an AP article. The article is not listed in any TPm related categories whatsoever. North8000 made no edit remotely connected with the TPm on that BLP that I can find. So -- no real connection to TPm and the edits had absolutely no connection to the TPm means that side issue is grossly overstated here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Tangent by MastCell
While we're on the subject of defining the Tea-Party topic ban, what about ? Ryan has been closely identified with the Tea Party and its agenda by, among others, the Associated Press ("Tea party gets its man in Ryan for vice president"), the New York Times ("Ryan Brings the Tea Party to the Ticket"), and CBS News ("Why Tea Party senior citizens love Paul Ryan").

is topic-banned from Tea-Party-related topics broadly construed. Yet North8000 is actively editing the article and talkpage, after being recruited by another editor to "enforce the consensus" on the article. Does the Paul Ryan article fall under the umbrella of Tea-Party-related topics, broadly construed? MastCell Talk 17:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare
I agree with the views of the Committee members that have been stated so far. However, I think that it is worth considering (for the future, maybe, but maybe also for now) whether we made a mistake in making the topic ban so narrow. Might it have been a better choice to make the topic ban an American politics topic ban, or a "really, stop dancing around the edges of all this and go edit something about Mesopotamian architecture"-ban. After all, should we really expect someone who has been disruptive at Tea Party movement to be any better at John Cornyn or Libertarianism or BigGovernment.com? NW ( Talk ) 20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by olive
While the Tea Party movement deals with gun control, the topic of gun control is not limited to the Tea Party movement. So, for an editor to edit on gun control does not in any way mean they are editing in the area of the Tea Party movement. Surmise, and extending a sanction based on a surmise so that a sanction becomes sweeping is hardly fair or logical in my opinion. Per Floqquenbeam, the question should be specific. Does this article deal with the Tea Party movement specifically. If it takes the arbitration committee to clarify if it does or not, (and I so no evidence that it does), then the second question to ask is, did the editor know this article falls under Tea Party movement. Giving the editor the benefit of the doubt given even the arb committee is discussing this means, in my mind, the editor should be warned to be careful not sanctioned. But as I said in this case, there is no evidence that the article falls under Tea Party movement.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * In my view, edits about gun control in general would not be covered, although edits about the specific issue of Tea Party members' views on gun control would be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad, so the advice seems to be that if those banned from the Tea Party topic want to edit any article not directly on the Tea Party topic, but where this movement and its policies are mentioned, they should do so with caution and with the topic ban in mind. It may be easier to find something else to edit. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand why people might think gun control (and Paul Ryan) could be covered by the tea party topic, but I believe they're both far enough removed that they really shouldn't be. If someone who is already topic banned from TPM articles is causing trouble at articles on a slightly-related subject, I don't think the community needs to start at ground zero for the new topic in trying to change the behavior, but as a straight-up "is it covered or not" question, I would say no. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with all the above. There are certainly places where the topics of gun control and the Tea Party intersect. Those places are not somewhere for users subject to a topic ban to be editing, but the broader topic should not be off limits. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with my learned colleagues. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As do I. NativeForeigner Talk 08:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for amendment (April 2014)

 * Original request


 * Information about amendment request

Initiated by  Malke 2010 at 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Principle 1
 * 2) Finding 2
 * 3) Remedy 3


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement
 * Details of desired modification:

Statement by Malke 2010
This is a request to lift the topic ban on Tea Party movement. I abandoned the article in December 2010. After that I made rare talk page comments. One of the comments lead to my inclusion in the case. During the case, I participated in the moderated discussion and made positive contributions there. Before, during and after the case, I continued to write articles. The list is here, almost all of them on viruses. I've written 120 in 12 months.

If the topic ban were lifted, I would continue on as I've been doing, focusing on virology and virology related topics, avoiding political articles and politicized articles. These seem to attract editors more interested in engaging in battle for battle's sake, and I've no interest in that. Occasionally, I do vandal patrol and I would continue with that, and the welcoming committee. I'd like to help expand WikiProject:Viruses, but that will have to wait until much later in the year as RL is very busy at the moment.


 * , I do have a specific reason. As I said above, I'm not really interested in political articles, especially the issue based, politicized ones, like Gun control, etc. They're time sinks. But I do have a particular interest in Hillary Clinton in 2016, as I sure most women in America do. I created an article on Buffy Wicks, who is taking part in the run up to Hillary declaring her intention to run. Before I wrote that article, I researched carefully to make sure the Tea Partiers had not taken exception to her in any major way (because of the Walmart thing) so I would not get caught up in something untoward. In doing so, I realized, that unfortunately, the Tea Party movement touches all areas of the American political process. It's ubiquitous, like dog-poop on a New York City sidewalk . They also have an especial dislike of Hillary. It's inevitable that I could come across an article and not knowing, end up in big trouble. That would put me off doing any editing on any articles relating to her campaign, etc.


 * sorry about the analogy, I didn't mean they were dog-poop, just that they are everywhere like dog poop in NYC. No offense intended on New York City.


 * There is nowhere in my editing history after 2010, where I engaged on topics involving the tea party or any other other political arguments, or any arguments on any topic for that matter. There's no temptation there for me, as can be shown by my history. I'm a good editor on Wikipedia and am not focused on political topics. I'm not saying it's wrong for others to have that focus, but your argument seems to suggest that I've always been in the thick of those matters, and I've not been. You can easily see by my record on the moderated discussion, that I was collegial and always looking to compromise and settle arguments. I did not cause problems and did not engage in edit wars or get blocked or restricted, as many of the others did.


 * What should an editor demonstrate in order to have a topic ban lifted?


 * I'd abandoned the article in December 2010. I didn't see the point in it anymore. Also I was finishing graduate school, so I used the time I did have for Wikipedia for other articles. But about once a year after that, I'd stop by the talk page to see what the others were doing. It was always the same arguments. I'd make suggestions. Nothing changed. I'd leave again.


 * The last time I stopped by was in February 2013. After I'd left a comment, another editor made an incivil reply, which I ignored. Another editor came along and took it up and got into an argument with an admin over it. It looked to me like the incivil editor had asked her to come to the talk page so I made a comment to the admin about that.


 * Next thing I knew I was at ANI, then at ArbCom.


 * What went "horribly wrong?" Got caught up in the stream.


 * What would I do differently? I'm assuming you mean, going forward? I'd continue doing what I'm doing now. Not getting involved in those types of articles, and of course, don't comment on the editor, comment on the comment. And pay careful attention to WP:RS and policy. If you stay within those bounds, there shouldn't be a problem. And don't argue over it. Something is either RS or it's not, and you either have consensus or you don't. I wouldn't edit TPm again. The movement has evolved into something toxic.


 * Yes, it was a toxic environment. Some of that is due to the topic and the rest is due to the mix of editors. And on, "broadly Republican," articles, no, not interested in those.


 * That's fine. I'd still like my topic ban lifted. I'd like to not have that on my record. I've been a very good editor and made significant contributions to Wikipedia writing and improving articles. Even when I was editing TPm, I was not contentious. I initiated dispute resolution and worked to achieve consensus. I didn't edit war or display any disruptive behaviours. I was never blocked for any behaviour problems on that article.
 * I'm not going to be editing the TPm article or any related articles. I'd like my topic ban lifted. I'd like to get that off my record and also prevent any possible unknowing breach of the topic ban.

@ARBS: Can someone please explain to me why none of you seem to be reading anything I've written here? I'd like to know what does it take to get the topic ban lifted? What specifically do I have to do/demonstrate to get this ban lifted? Thanks.


 * Thank you, Ed. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back, WTT. Yes, you're right, it should be a much longer period of time. Okay, I'll try again next year.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Having reviewed the case Malke's main error was extending SYTH and OR to third party sources. We absolutely expect, and need, reliable third parties to perform SYNTH and OR.

As Killer Chihuahua commented "The environment is toxic." and I believe that given that environment one might, in retrospect, be more forgiving of confrontational behaviour.

I believe that if the committee is not minded to grant the request, there is scope for a progressive statement making it clear that editing articles on broadly Republican [Democrat] (did I get that right? - [no I didn't] ) issues is no longer within the scope of the topic ban as long as editing with respect to TP articles and TP sections of articles is avoided.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Corrected alignment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC).


 * 1) "The dust has barely settled" - the case closed in September of last year!
 * 2) The evidence in the finding you refer to is very weak.  KC makes it clear in the last diff of their evidence that they think this is minor, "if you simply say words to the effect of "yeah, could have been more civil, will be in the future" I don't forsee any action being taken regarding your actions".  It is doubtful whether Malke even warranted being sanctioned over this - there are links to other matters that suggest problems in the past, but not relating to TPM.
 * 3) If you focus on the purpose of the request, it can easily fit in with former amendments/clarifications to the case, and draw the line around TPM a little more tightly than the well known problematic "broadly construed" - for example "Articles about the TP or TPM,  sections of articles when that section mentions the TP or TPM".
 * 4) Note that even this is probably unnecessary.  Malke has been editing without problem as far as I can see for some time, and mistakes of fact or misreading of policy are easily corrected and should in no way be subject to any form of sanction.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC).

Question by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
Malke 2010, can you please tell us what went so horribly wrong last time that it required that you be topic-banned and explain to us how you plan to avoid such problems in the future? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Observation from EdChem
This finding was passed by ArbCom without dissent, including support from several still-serving Arbitrators. Whether you agree with it or not, the Arbitrators who supported it are likely to believe it is true and other Arbitrators are likely to start from the same assumption. Whether you think it is fair or not, arguing that it was flawed is almost certain to get you nowhere. Strategically, demonstrating a balanced use of academic sources and avoiding incivility in areas of controversy (ie. not near the (I presume) largely uncontroversial virology area) are more likely approaches to being given a second chance than is arguing the case was wrongly decided with respect to you. Even if ArbCom is wrong (about which I take no position), the chances of them admitting it is very low, and fighting for a reversal of their finding has the potential to be seen as battleground behaviour. You may see the topic ban as a badge of shame, and so want it removed, but the way to achieve that is to demonstrate that the reasons given for it do not apply now and leaving aside the question of whether they ever applied... that is, in my opinion, your best chance for achieving relaxation and ultimately removal of your ban. You don't have to declare that the finding is correct, but you do need to accept that it will be the starting point in their thinking. EdChem (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Malke 2010, you don't seem to mention the reason you want the topic ban lifted - is there any work that it's specifically keeping you from? I'm generally reluctant to lift topic bans without a good reason, as there are many other articles available for you to edit. Worm TT( talk ) 14:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I may be naive here, but neither Hilary Clinton, nor Buffy Wicks would come under Tea Party Movement, which you are topic banned from. Therefore, whilst there may be parts of the articles which link through to the TPM and you should stay away from those. You should also exercise extreme care during editing those articles, but given the fact they are about to become very controversial, you should be doing that anyway. At the moment, I'm not seeing the need for any relaxation. Worm TT( talk ) 14:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologise for taking so long to reply, I've been away for a few days. Topic bans are not dished out lightly, they are used when an editor has shown themselves to be problematic in an area. I will only consider removing them slowly, after a significant time period and with evidence of good work elsewhere. I'd also like to see good reasons for the topic ban to be removed. Now, at the moment, I've seen the good work, but not the good reasons or the significant time period. Worm TT( talk ) 07:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Allowing a couple of days for statements from any other editors with relevant knowledge before reaching a conclusion here. My initial inclination is to allow for some relaxation but not a total lifting of the topic-ban. (A restriction against flippantly analogizing any political movement to dog poop would probably remain in place. :) ) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline to make an exception for H. Clinton 2016 or to amend the topic ban at all. This topic area is the object of irresistible, ongoing controversy and dispute; relaxing topic bans willy-nilly is not what we need right now. AGK  [•] 22:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In reply to 's latest note: the onus is on you to convince us that this finding no longer poses a concern. Your request here, when the dust on the arbitration case has barely settled, does not – to my mind – do any such thing. AGK  [•] 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with my cohorts--if the area is likely to become one of serious potential disputes, the best option is to back off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also not see Hillary Clinton or Buffy Wicks as off limits in their entirety, though of course any portions of the article relating to the TPM would be covered under the ban. Given that the controversy over articles like these will only heat up over the coming few years, I do not believe removing the ban to be a good idea at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for Amendment (August 2014)
Original discussion

Initiated by  — Arthur Rubin (talk) at 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * 1) Remedy 8.1


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

N/A
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * Information about amendment request


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement
 * I am requesting removal of the topic ban.

Statement by your Arthur Rubin
It has been 7 months since my last reported violation of the topic ban, although this may be a technical violation, which is part of the reason for my request. Per a previous clarification, I'm allowed to revert banned editors at TPm pages, but I'm not allowed to talk about it. I was going to make an arguably gnomish edit on Citizen Koch (combining 3 references which all support the same statement into one), and, today, I discovered a MonkBot error on Tea Party movement which I technically cannot fix without violating the topic ban. I'm willing to abide by a 1RR per area of an article if it helps your decision, but I would prefer not to be bound by that in an active discussion. If I'm the second and fourth in A → B → A'b → B → B'A', I have made 2 reverts, but I'm actively working on the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @. I don't see how you could reach that conclusion.  I admit that I consider the IP's edit on Citizen Koch, restored by a real editor, absurd.  But I wasn't planning to actually revert it.  Consolidating 3 references (including the one added by the banned IP) into one isn't reverting the addition.  And I was planning to revert a bot on Tea Party movement.  My further discussion on a potential edit war was hypothetical, but in that particular configuration, I would be trying to improve the article, while the opponent would be attempting to revert to the present state.  However, I would agree to a 1RR limitation if the committee feels it necessary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't mean to imply that I would be edit warring; I would prefer to be able to try variations, which would technically be "reverts", as it would probably be changing the wording (which I don't like, or find objectionable, or in violation of Wikipedia policies (but not BLP)) to something more like what was there previously, but it would never be exactly a revert. I'm willing to abide by 1RR per section or 0*RR (never revert reversions of my edits; 0RR is problematic, because of the expansive definition of "revert") if you feel it necessary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In regard possible changing the topic ban to 1RR; obviously I cannot dictate the form of the remedy, but I do think the 1RR/area/week allows more legitimate editing than 1RR/article/day. Even a restriction from article-space would allow me to suggest or discuss edits which have made some articles absurd, but not a policy violation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
Arthur was swept up in the prior case for fairly minor sins, and the "time served" argument which is rarely pertinent actually does apply here as he has "noted" - especially where a result occurs which makes no reasonable sense to any outside observer. Collect (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
The Committee based its findings of edit-warring on the following 4 diffs:


 * 11:42, February 17, 2013


 * 09:00, February 18, 2013


 * 11:28, March 6, 2013


 * 04:13, July 16, 2013

Yep, that's right. Four reverts over the course of 5 months. Had this occurred in a 24 hour period, then sure, yes, this would be edit-warring and would warrant a 24 hour block. But it didn't happen over 24 hours. This is 5 months of editing. We don't topic ban for 4 reverts over 24 hours nor should we topic ban for 4 reverts over 5 months. If we topic-banned every editor who was at 4RR over a 5 month period, there would be scant editors to edit.

Nevermind the fact that many editors consider WP:BRD to be a best practice.

Face it, the Committee f***ed up and f***ed up royally. Not only should this request be granted, the Committee should apologize for such a ridiculous, absurd ruling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Absolutely the Committee should grant this request. Arthur Rubin is a generally non-combative editor of long standing, and a good contributor. Even in this vexed area (TPM) his editing does not amount to anything sanctionable it would seem. I would urge the Committee to go further and remove the topic ban altogether. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC).

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * 1-week 1RR means one revert per week, correct? - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Thinking about the request, but in the meantime I'll just say this is the first time I've seen an edit-war described in sonata form notation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, this does not seem to be such a good idea. Just to clarify ... the request is about restoring access to someone who has been topic-banned for edit-editing so that they may return to edit-war. No?  Roger Davies  talk 08:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ I was just taking at face value what you'd written: "I'm willing to abide by a 1RR per area of an article if it helps your decision, but I would prefer not to be bound by that in an active discussion". Can you clarify what this means please?  Roger Davies  talk 08:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the Edit warring policy as from you've just said you probably won't be sticking to 1RR at all,  Roger Davies  talk 10:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to downgrade Arthur's sanction to an indefinite 1-rr coupled with the standard one-year keep-your-nose-clean topic ban suspension. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I sympathise with Arthur Rubin's frustration that the Tea Party movement articles require further work, I think an insufficient amount of time has passed since the original case for it to be in the interests of the project to reduce or remove the sanctions adopted a year ago. I would therefore decline this request, with absolutely no prejudice to considering it again in the future. AGK  [•] 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to consider 1RR, but it would be a standard 1RR, that is, one revert per article per (day|week). I would not be willing to consider a complex system depending on exactly where in the article a revert occurred. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be a reasonable level of support for it, I'll put together a motion changing the topic ban to 1RR/week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd potentially support a 1 week duration 1RR, but I'd like to read over the past evidence a bit more. NativeForeigner Talk 08:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support a 1-week 1RR or similar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Arthur Rubin topic ban suspension and 1RR


Proposed:


 * Remedy 8.1 (Arthur Rubin topic banned) in the Tea Party movement case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow Wikipedia's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by the ban. Such reinstatement may be appealed via the normal appeals process for arbitration enforcement actions. At one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements were successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted permanently.


 * The following restriction is enacted: Arthur Rubin is restricted indefinitely to one revert per page per week in the area of the Tea Party movement. Enforcement of this restriction shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Tea Party movement case and any enforcement actions shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed after no less than one year from the date of passage of this motion, and if unsuccessful no less than one year following the decline of that or any subsequent appeal.


 * Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this case to date shall remain in force unaffected.


 * Support
 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer 0RR (or Arthur's 0*RR) and would recommend he at least attempts to hold himself to that. Worm TT( talk ) 10:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems a reasonable approach. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth a try. T. Canens (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  04:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators


 * Motion passed. Clerk to close and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

{{{{archive bottom}}

Request for amendment (December 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Xenophrenic (talk) at 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 7.1 (topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed)
 * 2) Remedy 7.2 (prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect anywhere on Wikipedia)


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Collect (diff of notification of this thread on Collect's talk page)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement
 * Request for the lifting of Arbitration remedies 7.1 and 7.2 as no longer necessary.

Statement by Xenophrenic
The Arbitration Committee imposed upon me a topic ban and a one-way interaction ban on 5 September 2013, with instructions that I may appeal to ArbCom after 6 months. Now that 14 months have passed, I am requesting that the bans be lifted as no longer necessary, and an undue burden. The "Finding of Fact" about me indicates the Arbs perceived some problems with my Talk page interaction with other Wikipedia editors. I "personalized" the discussions by stubbornly demanding that editors substantiate certain negative personal comments about me, even to the point of "edit warring over comments that negatively portray" me, and "thereby further increasing tension" as I repeatedly deleted those comments and replaced them with templates. I agree that my conduct was substandard. I have since grown thicker skin and changed the way I respond to those situations -- with the best response often being for me to just ignore it and get back to collaborative editing. I apologize to the Arbs, the clerks and the community for their wasted time and energy due to my part in this matter, and extend my assurance that I won't repeat that conduct. With regard to User:Collect, I "engaged in unnecessary mockery" of his use of Cheers by responding with Where everybody knows your name. I've ceased that response as well, but more to the larger point, I have and will continue to refrain from unnecessary mockery of editors. And Collect: Please accept my apology.

In addition to being no longer necessary, these two remedies are becoming increasingly burdensome. I frequently find myself having to play Six Broadly Construed Degrees of Separation whenever I see the words 'Tea' and 'Party' somewhere in an article I wish to edit or discuss. (Example: while typing a question to Newyorkbrad in response to his comment, I discovered he was talking about a lawsuit drafted by a Tea Party activist, so I had to hold my tongue, lest someone twist that into a topic ban violation.) See this discussion for an example of how reasonable people can completely disagree on what is "related to" the Tea Party; there are 1000s of articles linked to Tea Party. It is cumbersome to "not interact with" an editor after they revert your edits and open a Request for Comment(RfC) on those very edits, while still trying to communicate on the Talk page. More examples upon request.

I'm up against the word-limit now, but if there are any reservations about lifting the sanctions, I can strengthen my request by providing details on:
 * (Good behavior) -how every editor sanctioned in this ArbCom case 14 months ago, except me (and Snowded), has since received additional Blocks, Bans, ArbCom sanctions, or violated existing sanctions
 * (Topic relevance) -how the FoF evidence for me described an editor-interaction problem not specifically related to the TPm "topic" or subject matter, unlike many of the other FoFs describing problems related to topic content, sources and POV

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I'll leave you with these wise words on I-BANs, with which I happen to agree. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First - this is a draconian solution for what appears to be a common problem. Thus it won't work. Second, the idea of a "1 way ban" has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other.


 * Response to Collect: Either I was unclear, or you have misunderstood. I make no complaint against you here; I have no issue with you here. To the contrary, for more than 14 months there has been only productive discourse whenever you and I have crossed paths at noticeboards and Talk pages. I only provided diffs to the Infobox RfC example above to illustrate the contortions I must go through in order to respond to your direct interaction with me while "not interacting with you". It would be so much easier to just converse normally with you, rather than talk past you while pretending you aren't part of the discussion, as I try to convey my thoughts to you within the constraints of a one-way I-Ban.  Given that I am already constrained by Wikipedia's policies on civility and collaboration, and you now have my assurance I won't transgress again, and you can rest assured that repeated transgression will likely result in doubly swift and harsh penalties, what utility do you see in maintaining the I-Ban?


 * Response to Thargor Orlando: Thank you, um... I think? I agree with you on your two points: my edits weren't "problematic the way other editors' edits were", and you'll find no evidence that I've "continued that behavior". I agree, and that is why I am now asking to have the sanctions lifted. I must strongly disagree, however, with your assertion that I have not kept away from Tea Party-related articles.  Looking at the 5 diffs you provided, the first three articles have no mention of the Tea Party at all. The remaining two articles do briefly mention the Tea Party in sections near the end of the articles, unbeknownst to me, but the subjects of those articles are the farthest thing from "related to" the Tea Party. And there was no obvious indication that I should search for TP references buried in those two biographies while I was rapidly making minor tweaks to infobox templates in a batch of biographies. Had I known that the words "Tea Party" existed in those two articles, I most certainly would have requested clarification here, as I have in the past. Your examples perfectly highlight my point that reasonable people can disagree on what is "related to" Tea Party articles, and the burden such a topic ban imposes.
 * Thargor Orlando, why must it be either/or? I believe ArbCom wanted both (to keep me away from Tea Party content and that I demonstrate non-disruptive interaction), and I have conducted myself accordingly. I still frequent contentious subject matter involving politics, religion, war, conspiracy — all the hot spots — but without incident over 14 months. I also feel I have exercised an abundance of caution in avoiding TPm-related content. I can't count how many articles and discussions I've avoided because of the topic ban, and I've even refrained from pestering the Committee with what could have been almost daily clarification requests, opting instead simply to edit elsewhere. Even in this specific case, where the Arbiter who authored the topic ban (who better knows its intent?) gave me the green light to continue editing an article containing "Tea Party" text, I opted to take onboard the advice of others and ceased editing that article. I believe I've taken proper care in complying with the intent and spirit of the topic ban, your two examples containing Tea Party text notwithstanding.


 * If it will grease the wheels in this process, and satisfy Collect, I can return here in 49 days and resubmit my request to have the I-Ban lifted. I admit I still do not understand the reasoning behind the requested delay, but at this point ... whatever works to bring closure to the matter.

Statement by Collect
I would be fully unaffected by this amendment, as I have no sanctions extant under the Tea Party Movement case. My appeal to has met with absolutely no response, but we are well past the six month mark making this amendment request totally moot. The one way interaction ban should be carefully weighed - I have not interacted with Xenophrenic at any point, and would just as soon have him continued to be constrained. Collect (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am, moreover, aghast that the common use in infoboxes to include degrees received is what his major complaint appears to be. There was, in fact, a discussion on the template page, as I trust he is aware, and he appeared to be in full accord with the solution, so I do not know what his issue with me is here. Collect (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note to people who note my belief that 1 way bans should be of specified duration - I still hold that view. I do not understand why my position here that the single 1 way ban should not be abrogated at this point is of any dispute, though I would think that making it for a specified period as notes would not be amiss. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic I would suggest that a "date certain" to end the iban is in accord with my consistent positions on such bans,  and think perhaps setting it at 1 January 2015 would not be unduly burdensome. I further note that I have never had any "enemies list" to stalk or make derogatory comments about on Wikipedia,  though I will grant some of your older posts did vex me a tad. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

My position has always been that 1 way Ibans should have a defined term, at least to the best of my recollection, and the charge of "hypocrisy" is painful. The case presented, however, seeks two distinct and basically unrelated changes to the ArbCom sanctions, thus separating the two seemed to me to be rational. Setting a time certain is rational, but tying it to this request is quite imperfect. One should note that I have, as far as I can tell, been civil to Xenophrenic, and have not made any edits with any intent other than benefitting the project. This would leave the sole issue the actual TPm topic ban, for which I proffer no opinion. Nor did I proffer evidence against any editor in the TPm case, and the "findings" against me were drafted by an Arbitrator using diffs not presented by anyone other than the single arbitrator. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando
I brought up the initial clarification before, so I'm commenting to note that, while I haven't had any further encounters with Xenophrenic since then, others certainly have and probably didn't notice that he was under sanction, given that even in the last few months he has edits to sanction-related articles like Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Efforts to impeach Barack Obama , United States House of Representatives v. Obama , Van Jones , and Alan Grayson (and this is using a fairly narrow standard of "broadly construed." If the topic ban is about keeping him from engaging in incivility on these pages, I'm unaware of any evidence that he's continued that behavior. If the topic ban, however, was to keep him away from Tea Party-related articles, he has very clearly not done so. I have no interest in stalking his edits to keep him in line, but the result of this appeal should really be about the intent of the topic ban, especially as his edits, at first glance, do not appear to be problematic the way other editors' edits were. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , and that's all my point is: if the idea is to keep you away from Tea Party-related articles, and you're not taking the proper care in making sure you're doing so, then this amendment should be denied. If the point was to demonstrate that you can actually be civil and not disruptive with those you disagree with on contentious articles, then I agree with you.  It's all about what ArbCom was trying to accomplish. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
Collect has previously been very vocal and consistent in his belief that one-way interaction bans are unfair and useless:


 * "One-way interaction bans have never made a great deal of sense, and continue to make little sense. I rather believe I have said this in the past... but the fact remains - one way bans are an open invitation to see Game theory at work. All one way bans should simply be made mutual by motion." (edit summary: "one way bans have never worked").
 * "as noted frequently (including just above on this noticeboard) - such bans (one-way interaction bans) do not work."
 * "the idea of a '1 way ban' has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other."
 * (Basically a reiteration of the preceding comment)
 * "One way interaction bans are problematic at best... I commend editors to read the ArbCom discussions thereon, and see how poorly the 'one way bans' work in general."

In light of Collect's vehement opposition to one-way interaction bans, I find his support for continuing such a ban here puzzling. I'm not sure it has any bearing on whether Xenophrenic's interaction ban should be lifted (it probably should, on a trial basis and on the basis of good behavior, particularly as the 1-way ban allows Collect to revert him with impunity). It's more that, having now spent more than 8 years on Wikipedia, my patience with hypocrisy is pretty much depleted and I find it difficult to ignore. MastCell Talk 19:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
MastCell, I think there are plenty of examples of hypocrisy by all of us, myself included, that can be brought up whenever one of us is trying to push our individual agendas in these administrative forums by pushing for the sanctions to be lifted on an editor whose edits we approve of or to poison the well against an editor whose perceived bias we disapprove of. Part of the Wiki-gameplaying which makes WP such a pleasant place to be a part of. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Tea Party movement: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * if I'm understanding you correctly, you would object to the IBAN being lifted at this time, but would not object to ending it as of 1 January? I'm not clear on what difference having it run for an extra month and a half would make? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would grant this petition. AGK  [•] 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with both the t-ban and the i-ban going. Perhaps the way forward is that both are suspended immediately and if there are no problem with either by the end of the year, they both expire on 31st December. If there's enthusaism for this, I'll propose a suitably convoluted motion,  Roger Davies  talk 17:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per above colleagues. NativeForeigner Talk 08:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think lifting both bans makes sense. I have no strong opinion on when or exactly how the bans are lifted, but I don't see much point in saying that we will lift them, and then imposing some odd time limit or suspension/expiration plan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also thinkwe can lift these. I'll propose a motion shortly if nobody else beats me too it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Tea Party movement (Xenophrenic)
Proposed:


 * Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. AGK  [•] 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) L Faraone  02:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 5)   Roger Davies  talk 14:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) And thanks for doing the motion, real life caught up with me yesterday... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) T. Canens (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Worm TT( talk ) 08:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments