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

Comments on Collect's and Hal peridol's "evidence"
Evidence as to the underlying facts are only relevant to a content dispute, edit warring to remove absurd "information" not in an unreliable source (as asserted by Collect) is still edit warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kindly note that rather than "edit war" I specifically placed the issue on the correct noticeboard to elicit other opinions. My comment on the evidence page here was in response to a prior piece of "evidence" placed on that page which might be misleading when seen sans context - which is a proper use of "evidence."    My aim was to show that the issue was one which could reasonably be seen as I saw it - the use of a "medical journal" to make an overtly political statement - where even the article text in that journal states that the "tobacco industry" is not the only or primary basis for the TPM.    And WP has seen a number of cases in the past where a source is "RS" in its own field, but is not automatically then RS for statements made outside its expertise.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what? The Tobacco Control article was externally peer-reviewed (see footnotes). You (and others) keep claiming, incorrectly, that it wasn't peer-reviewed . In other words, you keep asserting something which you should know is false. That's not complicated. I'm not interested in the Tea Party article specifically, but a serious global problem on these politicized articles is that people keep pushing these sorts of talking points even when they're clearly false. There seems to be a deeply ingrained disregard for objective reality, which makes it nearly impossible to have a productive discussion or resolve a content dispute. It's like a living example of how facts backfire. MastCell Talk 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Read my damn post where I stated it was externally reviewed by at least one person.  The "Tobacco Control" article includes: Other corporate interests have funded and influenced the network of organisations that support the Tea Party and  Many factors beyond the tobacco industry have contributed to the development of the Tea Party.9 Anti-tax sentiment has been linked to notions of patriotism since the inception of the USA when the colonies were protesting against taxation by the British as well as  This paper focuses on only one of the multiple industries with connections to the Tea Party. In addition, it would be difficult to assess and record the full extent of corporate connections, because they reach beyond disclosed contributions and industry lobbyists. Another limitation is that a major source for this paper was the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, which is not a complete collection and is limited to documents produced in litigation against the tobacco industry.  which all tend to delimit the actual factual claims of the article.   One of the biggest problems is that the Tea Party Movement has absolutely no positions on tobacco usage  which does tend to make the editorial position a teeny bit shaky here.   For what it is worth, I and my family have historically been opposed to tobacco usage since the first reports in Readers Digest made the case clear back in the 50s.  I have no connection whatsoever to the Tea Party, nor to any tobacco company at all,  nor do I have any political ax to grind in making clear that this article is not "medical fact" but actually states that it does not cover anything except a very limited view of any organization.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular interest in your personal position on tobacco or the Tea Party. I'm simply asking you not to repeat things that aren't true. You said that the Tobacco Control source was "not a medical article, and is not peer-reviewed". But of course, it is a medical article, and it is peer-reviewed. If you later retracted your erroneous statement, please point me to the retraction (via diff), as I seem to have missed it. MastCell Talk 01:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, although I didn't originally think it's peer-reviewed, it's a peer-reviewed medical journal used to source political statements not directly related to their claimed political expertise. The fact that the statement "sourced" wasn't there at all just added to the problems.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The question of whether this particular peer-reviewed medical article should be used is up to the editors of the Tea Party movement article - a group I have no interest in joining. I'm just really tired of people continually and confidently asserting things that just. aren't. true. MastCell Talk 01:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The attempt to dismiss that paper on the basis that because it is a medical journal it can't address matters that have political import is also a fallacy. The content relates to public health and efforts by corporations that are attempting to suppress citizens movements that they feared were succeeding in effecting public policy that would be adverse to their economics. The authors are academics and health care professionals.
 * In short, your claim that because those authors aren't political science professors they can't make statements that relate to topics in the public sphere and be considered a reliable source is ludicrous. The paper puts into clear relief the connection/continuity between tobacco industry funded anti-tax and anti-smoking ban (second-hand smoke) laws advocacy groups formed in the late 1980s and the Tea Party.
 * You, in fact, are the only person asserting that they have staked some "claim" to "political expertise". And you have done so in a manner such as to divert attention from the public health narrative (with respect to which the authors are experts) of the paper, as is amply demonstrated by your posts in the related RS/N discussion.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article's claims are all well cited within the article. There should be no debate about the article's reliability or relevance to the TPM. &mdash; goethean 16:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with that, but the article is somewhat involved, so I am going to post a quote here from the section "Historical context for tobacco industry third-party efforts" pertaining to the basis of my situating the article within the scope of public health discourse, as opposed to the attempt to narrowly characterize it as a gratuitous attack on the TP.
 * "By the late 1980s, confronted with increasing success of the local grassroots non-smokers’ rights movement, RJ Reynolds (RJR) and Philip Morris began creating and facilitating ‘smokers’ rights’ groups to oppose smoke-free laws."
 * Smoke-free laws protecting against exposure to second-hand smoke is probably the foremost issue of the "non-smokers' rights movement", and that is clearly a public health issue. That is to say, it was a public health issue that was being advocated for by authentic grass roots organizations, to which the tobacco industry, seeing its corporate interests threatened, responded by funding pseudo grass roots counter-movement in an attempt to protect its narrow corporate interests over and against the interest of public health.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Collect, I have some trouble with understanding your "internal peer review" statement. All academic journals I've worked with, wether as an author, reviewer, or editor, use a multi-level review process. Articles submitted are processed by an editor (or group of editors). They reject obviously out-of-scope, nonsensical, or impossibly bad papers. What remains is send to multiple (external) peer reviewers. The reviewers write their reviews, and return them to the editor, who collates the reviews and makes the final decision if the paper should be accepted, rejected, or is returned to the authors with requests for changes (in which case it can go another round, and sometimes yet another if the editors feel it's worth the effort). The term "peer review" may have been been used in other contexts, but the version that makes academic journals the gold standard of sources is always external both to the journal, and to the author's institution (if any). Am I missing something? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect appears to vary his opinion of what meets rs. In October 2012 for example he defended a book,The Lost Literature of Socialism published by a general publisher, by George Watson, a Fellow in English at St John's College, Cambridge, as a source for a controversial political article, Mass killings under Communist regimes.  He had defended the book at the RSN noticeboard:  "You have iterated your position. Often. The fact remains that it is RS by WP guidelines."  Could Collect please explain how these two circumstances differ.  TFD (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, attack? TFD, you misrepresent my positions, my posts, my opinions, the nature of the publisher, etc. in your post.   I ask anyone to read the actual discussions and my posts rather than rely on your "interesting versions" thereof.  A book on a topic published by a reputable publisher  (which is described as a long-established British academic publisher specialising in historical and theological books and also in reference materials and whose books have a significant number of cites in Wikipedia it appears) and is not a simple "general publisher" as you opine)) per WP standards, and specifically regarding a topic with which the writer is presumably familiar is not exactly the same as an editorial article which is initially fully misquoted, and which is from a journal known for medical articles and not for political articles. I am sorry you do not see any difference.   You need not reply.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The book was published by the Lutterworth Press, which specializes in "adult non-fiction, religious titles, children's titles and children's religious titles," according to their website. It is not an academic publisher.  Regardless, how is an English professor "presumably familiar" with the influence of 19th century German writers on 20th century mass killings?  TFD (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * states "James Clarke & Co.". Perhaops that elided your notice? English professors have no idea what "literature" is?  What an intriguing concept!  Meanwhile the book is cited in  a Routledge book,   a Palgrave book,  and reviewed in an RS publication.  That Lutterworth is an "imprint" of James Clarke is not relevant to your argument here - whether a book which is cited in RS books, and published by an RS publisher, is not RS - I suggested you ask at RS/N if you had doubts, and IIRC you demurred making a post there.  Cheers - now do you have anything substantive relevant to the topic of this talk page? Collect (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC).


 * The book says that it was published by Luttworth and the Luttworth website claims they are the publisher, which is clear from the links I provided. When you voted that the book was rs, I wrote it was "not presented by the academic press" and Barnabypage said "Lutterworth is a very respectable publisher."  You never argued it was published by James Clarke & Co.  When on the article discussion page an editor complained " there aren't even citations for the claims made (no footnotes, no endnotes, no bibliography, etc", you replied, "Clue" There is no requirement that a cited book have footnotes etc."  I assume you are aware that academic writing uses citations.  The reasonable conclusion is that you were aware it was not an academic source and you present different criteria for reliability for articles about the Tea Party and Communism, even though there is more academic writing about Communism.  Now that you know the source you defended is not academic, you are not going to change your support, and will probably revert to your earlier reasons for support.
 * Your comment "English professors have no idea what "literature" is?" is sarcastic. The article is about politics not literature, just as the medical journal article is about politics.  Again, you use a loose standard to accept sources you prefer and a tight standard to exclude sources you dislike.
 * By the way, I am not making any statement about what is rs, merely explaining how your criteria is inconsistent and depends on whether the sources support a specific point of view.
 * TFD (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd really prefer it if everybody stopped referring to Tobacco Control as "a medical journal" when its focus is not on narrow medical issues, but on public health, education, and policy. It's published my the BMJ Group, but that does not make it "a medical journal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot not updating all case counts
I noticed the bot failed to update the word and diff count for Malke 2010. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: the bot seems to be focusing only on my edits. Can a clerk reset (delete) the old counts for Malke 2010 and others?  It's not working. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. Wonder why it didn't work before? Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A quick comment on goethean's evidence
I am not involving myself any further on this topic, and I want nothing to do with the topic any further or this case, but goethean has claimed that I "wrongly" accused him of breaking the editing probation at the Tea Party movement article. This is not true. The editing restricting is a 1RR, and geothean had two reverts within an eight hour period:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

I do not intend to be involved any further on this, but if my name is going to be mentioned in passing, the truth should be part of it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not two reverts of the same material. You are claiming that my two reverts within 24 hours on two different passages violates the 1RR sanction? I don't think that it works that way. &mdash; goethean 03:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It does, though. Undoing other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. There is a practical background - any other approach would cause even more discussion about what counts as "the same" or "a revert". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that must be a change in policy, because whenever I've been at ANI/EW, the question was whether it was the same material that had been reverted. &mdash; goethean 13:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been that way as long as I can remember (and my memory is not that bad ;-). Your mistake is a common one, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that the policy has always been thus, then a great many admins must be as "mistaken" as I am, because I have definitely seen 3RR reports rejected because it was not the same material being reverted. I don't think that your understanding of the policy has always held sway. &mdash; goethean 16:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons why 3RR reports may not result in a sanction, but I'd be very surprised if admins routinely reject them because the reverts of the same page affect different material. Do you have any examples at hand? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1RR applies only to reverting the same material (or, sometimes, material in the same section). G is correct in that aspect.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's how it works. WP:3RR applies to only to a single page, but it doesn't matter whether it's the same material or not: ""An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.""

WP:1R is identical to 3RR except it applies to 1 revert instead of 3: ""A 'one-revert rule' is often analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words 'more than three reverts' replaced by 'more than one revert'.""

It has been like this for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure how far you want to go back, but I checked a version of the policy from 5 years ago and it states:

""A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.""

I don't hang out at WP:AN/EW so I have no idea how the admins there apply 3RR or 1RR. Admins there may choose to lock a page to avoid the drama of blocking multiple editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 1RR on some articles uses the same definition of "revert" as WP:3RR, but not on this one. Please read the specific restriction "here" carefully.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, but that wording directly undermines the entire concept of 1RR. The notice is wrong and should be changed immediately. What is the point of a loose 1RR restriction? No wonder the article still has problems almost three years later.  My claim that this and always has been an enforcement problem is now confirmed. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, again, that you do not understand what you read:
 * Editors of this article are subject to the following restriction:
 * No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large.
 * This restriction is not license for a slow-moving revert-war (e.g., making the same revert once a day, every day); editors who engage in a slow-moving edit war are subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning.
 * For more information, see this page.}}
 * (emphasis added) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly. A 1RR restriction does not mean you get to make 3RR on different content.  The restriction is wrong and should be changed.  That this has been allowed to stand for three years is unfathomable. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You understand nothing, it would appear. 3RR is violated if you make 4 reverts (not counting edits in a set of consecutive edits, reverting vandalism or clear BLP or copyright violation) in 24 hours.  1RR (on this articles) is violated if you make 2 reverts (probably with the same exemptions, although "set of consecutive edits", BLP, and copyright are not mentioned) of the same material within 24 hours.  Hence, you can violate 1RR without violating 3RR, 3RR without violating 1RR, or EW without violating either.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that this novel set of restrictions is complete nonsense and deviates from best practice. Someone screwed up three years ago to give tea partiers a bizarre exemption from normal application of the 1RR, which in practice restricts editors from reverting any content more than once. So this restriction was gamed and it benefits those who act as revert only accounts.  It needs to be stricken and replaced with an actual restriction that prevents anyone from reverting any content more than once, just like any other 1RR restriction in place. Why this article has been given a loose set of restrictions should be looked into a bit closer. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that is the "normal" 1RR restriction. Almost all 1RR restrictions require the revert to be a specific revert, rather than the norm for 3RR in which any deletion of (even a word of) text may be considered a revert, because some editor must have added it.  You may think this "deviates from best practice", but your opinion that "1RR" should be the same as "3RR" with "3" replaced by "1" has never been common practice, and clearly (in the opinion of admins proposing and enforcing such sanctions) not been considered "best practice".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see: WP:1RR is in error; even then, it says "often", so may not apply to any particular 1RR restriction.  I'll bring up the matter at WT:EW.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Because of the particular wording of the 1RR restriction, G didn't violate it.  There are a number of different 1RR restrictions, and this one, according to WT:EW, appears to be uncommon.  However, this still could be a "best practice", except in V's opinion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this article was using a non-standard version of 1RR. I'm not sure what the logic in that is. If anything, it will confuse people. Does anyone know who the admin is who implemented this 1RR restriction? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be Magog the Ogre. Killer Chihuahua 13:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert-only accounts
I don't really see what's wrong with being a "revert-only account", unless, perhaps the reverts are of a single (constructive) editor. (Both Xenophrenic and I are accused in the "evidence" of being revert-only accounts.) It should be noted that I, at least, revert nonsense, BLP, or UNDUE violations from both "sides". I'm not going to put this in "Evidence", as it's just commentary that some of the evidence is irrelevant, as is commentary as to whether something is a reliable source for what was stated, but only behavior related to the discussion of whether it is a reliable source. I don't agree with the interpretation made about my commentary about reliable sources in the article, but the the argument is appropriate; the question of whether the source is reliable being irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd have to think about this for a bit, but are you discussing why you're reverting on the talk page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering. I finally got around to asking the question on the evidence page, as well; V accused 3 parties of being "revert-only" (without any evidence in the case of the editors other than myself); if it were against guidelines, it would be a PA; if not, then it merely indicates that V doesn't understand what is going on.  I trust the Arbs will reach a conclusion if that matter is brought to their attention.  (I don't think I was reverting on this talk page or on Talk:TPm.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever considered that you should take people's concerns about your behavior seriously, rather than dismissing editors as stupid? Just a thought. &mdash; goethean 11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I take it seriously. When I don't have time to find sources, it may still be possible to see that many of the edits made do not accurately reflect reliable sources, and should not be there.  We all agree that many of the edits made on the article are reverts; we don't agree on which reverts are proper, and any rational person should agree that a person whose edits are all proper reverts is a good editor.  Hence, I don't know what I'm being accused of.
 * V's accusations that Darkstar1st and Arzel are "revert-only accounts" based on the assertion that about 1/3 of their edits are stated to be reverts and the remaining 2/3 "consist of ambiguously labeled full or partial reverts" is not a credible accusation. Darkstar1st accused Xenophrenic (not presently a party) of being a "revert-only account".  In my case, I don't know what V is asserting, and what he thinks is bad about it.  I agree that most of my edits on TPm have been (partial) reverts, and most of those have been reverts of incorrectly paraphrased text, from a source I didn't consider reliable, or clearly irrelevant to the article.
 * So, I say again, although I don't see that V as accurately interpreted hardly anything that has happened in this article, I don't know of what he is accusing me that is, in fact, inappropriate. I'm not going to ask him, because he rarely actually replies to questions with anything other than an assertion that the question is a personal attack.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Were the majority of your edits to the Tea party movement article reverts? Yes or no and why or why not?   If they were reverts, did your reverts help improve the article or contribute to edit warring and a divisive atmosphere?  If the majority of your edits were not reverts, what content did you help expand and which diff or diffs represent your most substantial contributions? Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Geothean's presentation
Gooethean's material regarding me is misleading at best. (and that is being gracious) I posted less problematic coverage of those areas (with diffs etc.) in my evidence. His post forced me to get into areas where I did not intend. North8000 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For example, regarding Geothean's wp:ha assertion regarding my exchange at KC's talk page, a comparison between a reading of the ACTUAL EXCHANGE ("Single payer healthcare" section at ) with Geothean's post shows that Goethean's "spun" version is totally misleading. This is representative of most of their post regarding me.

And, while a well founded and useful behaviorial observation made by me was a trigger here, in their post they made an accusation which in contrast, is absolutely false and in conflict with clear info at the article. As I have stated continuously at Single Payer Healthcare (and the other approx 12 venues that someone took it to), I DON'T CARE how the issue in contest ends up, and barely commented on it. One individual was using a phony claim of "consensus" to edit war without discussing. Afterwards they used claims of "this is been taken up somewhere else" are reasons to edit war without discussing, while they went through a series of nearly every possible noticeboard and forum as an excuse to not discuss while they were edit warring. After they ran out of venues (including taking it to arbcom) their excuse to continue to edit war without discussing was that they were discussing it it with an unnamed administrator. My role and goal (emphatically stated over and over)  was to support the process of handling it in discussion and supporting whatever decision came out of discussion. This was a painful duty on behalf of Wikipedia, and on several occasions I requested an admin to take my place at the article and watch it in this respect. (Rather than get into all of this I just welcomed a review of the situation by KC and let them see for themselves)  And of this Goethean writes that I was "edit warring against consensus". How preposterous! North8000 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What I wrote is that CartoonDiablo *SAID* that you were edit warring against consensus, which, of course, is exactly what he said, if you would bother to look at the diffs that I painstakingly provided. What is truly preposterous is the fact that you can't be bothered to accurately read the evidence that I have posted, and that instead of reading and understanding it, you have called my posted evidence false and misleading. You continue to call me a liar when what I wrote is obviously perfectly accurate. Your continued unacceptable behavior continues to be perfectly in line with the violations of Wikipedia policy that I have outlined on the evidence page. &mdash; goethean 14:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never said that the evidence is inaccurate. And I didn't say "liar" because that would mean deliberately saying something that someone knows to be wrong.   What I DO say is that much of the material regarding me in your post is misleading, via a bunch of "safer" methods.  North8000 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You continue &mdash; as you have done throughout this entire episode &mdash; to make unsubstantiated charges that I have attempted to mislead. I have shown that your above complaint regarding what CartoonDiablo said has no merit; in my evidence, I reported CartoonDiablo's words accurately. Please elaborate on exactly what I have said that is false or misleading, and on exactly how it differs from what transpired in actual point of fact. If you cannot or refuse to do so, then I request that you stop making unsubstantiated charges and stop calling my evidence misleading and false. &mdash; goethean 19:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see previous post. OK lets start with the first sentence. The 4 problematic areas were identified by their core items (they centered on a cut BBQ grill line, a claim that some unknown person(s) in the crowd at a rally said somehting racist, a twitter comment by a low level guy, and a warred in piece that implies that Ron Paul is an isolationist.  On the fist three you eliminated the identification by the issues (thus obscuring the main points)  and on the fourth you ignored the implied and made a reply which implied a straw-man version of what I said, and then you refuted the straw man implying that you were refuting what I actually said which was that the comment implied that Ron Paul is an isolationist.  If someone were to say "the Obama type-communists" I would say that that is implying that he is a communist. The reply in your logic in that sentence would be "nowhere does the statement say that he is a communist". OK, we're almost done with the first sentence. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that whenever I don't accept your framing of article content, and call it by the actual terms used in the article, such as referring to the "Sonny Thomas material" which you call "a twitter comment by a low level guy", you will accuse me of distorting the facts. Let me tell you something. Just because you call a sentence one thing, and I call it something else, that doesn't mean that I am distorting or misleading, or whatever BS unsubstantiated accusation you want to throw around without any consequences. And let me tell you something else. This is not the way that people communicate with each other. Constantly throwing around unsubstantiated BS accusations is not an acceptable way to behave in a community. Yet again, you have failed to substantiate your personal attacks. It appears that you have no intentions of stopping these unsubstantiated accusations, which can only be described as personal attacks. Since it appears that you have nothing to offer Wikipedia other than personal attacks, I think that I am done talking to you. &mdash; goethean 21:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was answering your question on how your material on me is misleading, and I answered it, at least for the first sentence as an example. Now you just incorrectly called that a "personal attack", added a word "distorting" which I never said, and ended with a one two punch "it appears that you have nothing to offer Wikipedia other than personal attacks". This nastiness is what you have been doing all along at the article.  And I did not go dig out diffs on that from the TPM article (and I think we both know that there are a lot of doozies in there) because I am not out to "get" anyone; there's just what showed up in the 1 week sampler (of 100+ weeks of observation) which was I forced into.  I know that it is very hard to separate the two, but this whole thread was to comment your post regarding me, not on you, and I am still not out to "get" anyone, yourself included.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Malke's evidence
If an editor states "do not reply here" on their own talk page and the editor to whom they are speaking posts three more times, that's often considered harassment. North8000 says he doesn't think it was because I "didn't mention it again" - which leaves me wondering, what is the magic number? How many times must one tell North8000 something before he takes it in, gives it credence, believes you actually meant what you said? IDHT that is generally not taken as a valid rationale for ignoring someone. While it is true North8000 left a very nice message regarding my health (for which I am appreciative, it was very kind of him), that has nothing to do with ignoring my request he drop the other subject on my talk page. If I tell you I like your userpage, and then harass you, I don't get a free pass because of the compliment. The two are unrelated. Killer Chihuahua 13:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi KC, I understand your point. I just wanted to show that North wasn't there to harass you. It seemed his continued posts were to correct any wrong impression he may have given. And he did leave. North doesn't seem the kind of editor who wants to cause distress and that was my point. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000 stopped posting after he was threatened with a block. I'm not sure how that speaks well for him. &mdash; goethean 15:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. North had left her page. Bishonen came along 12 hours later and posted his warning. North had left on his own and it appears he wasn't coming back. I'm sure it does speak well for him. He's not someone who would deliberately harass anyone. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
 * No, that is completely correct. North8000 did not post on my page after Bishonen warned him. The only way it would be incorrect is if he had posted after. That he'd not posted in several hours makes no difference. Perhaps he was waiting for me to reply. Perhaps he was sleeping or at work. He did post three separate messages after I told him not to reply; and he did stop after Bishonen warned him. There is no refuting this; the evidence is clear. Killer Chihuahua 15:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow "The only way it would be incorrect is if he had posted after." Malke 2010 (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Goethean: North8000 stopped posting on KC's page after warning from Bishonon
 * 2) Malke2010: "That's not correct."
 * Me: Oh, yes it is. Where is the diff of North8000 posting on my page after warning from Bishonen? There is none, because he stopped posting on my page after the warning. Killer Chihuahua 16:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * KC, why would North8000 posting on your page after a warning be proof that North stopped posting as a result of the warning? Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Proof? Who said anything about proof? The only one who has speculated about Noth8000's motives has been you. I have not; nor has Goethean. Killer Chihuahua 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. It is probably seriously misleading. See post hoc ergo propter hoc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be seen as misleading. But North indicated he was leaving by his "one last question" posts. It's apparent he's been told by KC to leave, he's acknowledged that and he's leaving. Bishonen came along 12 hours later to lock the door long after the horse had left. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point seems to be that your unfounded speculation is a better source of knowledge than simply saying what actually happened. &mdash; goethean 16:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm using evidence from the talk page. North indicated he was leaving and he left. If North had not indicated he was leaving, or if North had challenged KC about kicking him off her talk page, and then Bishonen had come along shortly after and given a warning, and then North did not post again, I would say that is direct evidence that North stopped because he was threatened with a block. What Goethean is suggesting is that North not coming back is direct evidence he ceased because of the block threat and there is no direct evidence of that. On the contrary, the evidence is in North's favor that he left on his own volition. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't indicate he was leaving. He did say on the first of the three posts "forgive just one more post" but then it turned out it was three more, not one. And he didn't say he was leaving, or indicate it, in any of the three, unless you count the demonstrably false "one more post". Killer Chihuahua 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I am counting the "forgive one more post." That indicates he's acknowledging your request and he's leaving. That he continues to post doesn't mean he's not leaving anymore than your subsequent reply to him is evidence you were now allowing him on your talk page. Also, KC, I don't understand your earlier post. Why would North8000 posting on your page after a warning be proof that North stopped posting as a result of Bishonen's warning? Malke 2010 (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the two words Block Warning had something to do with it. Also, that he continued to post doesn't mean he isn't leaving? w. t. f. Of course it does. If he'd left, he wouldn't be posting. Your logic is all broken. And have you read my one reply? It was telling him off in no uncertain terms. So no, not so much encouragement there. Srsly. Killer Chihuahua 17:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that the block warning isn't what made North leave. And since he'd stopped posting for 12 hours, there's no evidence he would have come back anyway. The block warning just guarantees he won't be back. Goethean's scenario is misleading in that it suggests Bishonen came along in the middle of North's activity, warned him, and that is what made North leave. That is not correct. North had no interaction with Bishonen on your talk page. North left on his own and had been gone for 12 hours already when Bishonen came along and posted his warning. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is accusing me of misleading because I didn't imaginatively make up a bunch of motives and impute them to North8000 in the absence of any evidence. I consider your comments to be a violation of WP:NPA. &mdash; goethean 18:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the last post that North8000 made to KC's talk page. There is nothing in that post that indicates that North8000 was going to stop posting on KC's talk page. In fact, he's not even talking the KC, he's carrying on a conversation with CartoonDiablo. There is nothing to indicate that he was leaving or that he had left. &mdash; goethean 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * CartoonDiablo's thread is what drew North in the first place. That he'd make his parting comment to CD makes sense. And no subsequent posts for 12 hours before the arrival of Bishonen indicates he's said all he's had to say on the subject. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it, now. Because by that logic, we can ignore all your evidence after the 16th, since it was three full days until you started adding more evidence. You must have said all you had to say, since it had been more than 12 hours. See the problem with your logic now? Killer Chihuahua 17:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we're going round-robin with this and that is not my intent. ArbCom evidence/talk page discussions are not the same thing. Editors were waiting for you to post. I know I was. And RL does come first. I don't believe North was harassing you. Annoying is more like it. Maybe in future, if you tell an editor to stop posting and he continues to do so, don't respond again. Either block him yourself (if that's allowed) or get Bishonen. It's not that I'm not sympathetic to you over the desysop bit. I certainly am. It's just that I believe Goethean's scenario misleads. And now I am well and done with this thread. Hope your day goes well. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

((outdent)) No, you weren't waiting for me to post between the 16th and the 19th. I posted the bulk of my evidence on the 15th and 16th. You posted on the 16th, then not again until the 19th. More than 12 hours. Shall I find another page, say an article talk page, where you posted and then posted again more than 12 hours later? Because the point is that just because it has been 12 hours does not mean you are done, which you assert. It means it has been 12 hours. Period. That's all it means. Not that you're done, not that you've decided to never post about it again. It means it has been 12 hours. Killer Chihuahua 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

May I offer that reading the exchange itself ("Single payer healthcare" section at ) is more informative than descriptions of it? Between the fact that my posts were complimentary to KC, plus a third party was using it as a venue to post false info about me, plus the sequence of the exchange, plus the fact that KC was discussing with me rather than repeating "don't post" ...I think that a read of it shows that a good faith belief that it was OK is very plausible. Either way the topic was over with and I wasn't going back there. North8000 (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Extension
I would like to see the deadline for providing evidence extended to the end of the current week. I have already asked Brad about this as I am looking to providing evidence given the slanted nature of this case at the moment and I think the slow start at getting evidence in further justifies an extension. Mentioning here to see if there is any support for such a move.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have trouble seeing a reason for an extension. ArbCom cases tend to go much too long anyways. Given the nature of Wikipedia, "evidence" that takes forever to dig out and post is likely to be one-sided to begin with. Obvious problems, on the other hand, should be fairly easy to document. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I say the evidence would take forever to find? It does take time to gather a sufficient amount of diffs and compile it. As it stands, my concern is that this case is one-sided because one side has a more active interest in determining the outcome.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to hear what the somewhat incoherent assertion related to "slanted nature" to which you've called our attention actually refers.
 * One would imagine that unlike the mob-rule tendency occasionally apparent at ANI, Arbcom proceedings are a little more immune to being swayed due to a circumstance such as "one side has a more active interest in determining the outcome".
 * Your request also seems to be somewhat ill-timed, given the fact that you would appear to have waited until the period for submitting evidence was basically closed before having posted a single sentence or diff yourself.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say that if any of the involved parties had asked for an extension, I'm pretty sure that I know what the answer would have been. &mdash; goethean 12:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Devils Advocate, how much time are you talking about?Malke 2010 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, the end of the week, i.e. March 24th.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's up to the ArbCom of course, but I'd support that. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this a common type of request? I haven't participated in an Arbcom case before, but this strikes me as somewhat unusual.
 * The obvious problem with the proposed extension is that you have proclaimed a partisan stance vis-a-vis the case, and whichever involved editor(s) your evidence attempts to correct the "slant", they are then going to be within their rights to request a further extension in order to find diffs to counter whatever claims you make in conjunction with the evidence you present after the 2-week long presentation period has expired.
 * I'm not an involved editor, but there are obvious potential drawbacks to allowing for such requests to be recognized without a sound reason, which I haven't seen presented. Ubikwit (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * extension sounds reasonable, some editors involved have been away due to RL issues, also the sheer volume of TPM edits by some of those involved would take a few hours of solid reading. one editor, me, was added to the case days after evidence time started, which is odd because the same thing happened when this was in ANI, yet a different editor added me that time. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, you were added at 14:20, 6 March 2013. The case was opened at 23:17, 6 March 2013. So you were added several hours before the case opened. You had just as much time as everyone else to add evidence. Killer Chihuahua 18:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Also, the extension could just apply to Devils Advocate, while the rest of us concentrated on the workshop page. Darkstar1st makes a good point about being added late. Darkstar1st, if you feel you need more time, I'd support that. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is eerily familiar! The people wanting more time are the same people supporting more time.  Wasn't this the problem with the Tea Party talk page? Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you've already provided plenty of evidence so you have no real reason to desire an extension.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I couldn't even provide 90% of my evidence due to the length restrictions for uninvolved parties. But hey, this is Animal Farm right?  You guys are more equal than us, so you deserve more time. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the details, but if he was added as a party later, he should have at least the same 2 weeks to prepare evidence as the rest of us. I decline comment on the value of your evidence. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, Darkstar isn't the editor that requested the extension, so you have failed to address that issue.
 * The basic problem here is that TDA has made a statement that is recorded here Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement and then not a peep from him afterwards until everyone else has finished submitting evidence and making statements, until he starts this section on an extension, mentioning that he has contacted one of the committee members with whom he would seem to be acquainted on a first-name basis.
 * The more I look at it the less it seems possible to ignore the aspects of the request that resemble an attempt to game the system in favor of promoting the partisan bias his statements readily display.
 * The evidence submission process demonstrates a substantial degree of back and forth postings between the parties, so any such extension that didn't permit responses would be a blatant short-circuiting of that dynamic.Ubikwit (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I 'did check, and Darkstar1st was added at 14:20, 6 March 2013. The case was opened at 23:17, 6 March 2013. He was added several hours before the case opened, and had just as much time as everyone else to add evidence. Killer Chihuahua 18:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was added 10 days after you notified the other involved parties, which is odd, yet not as odd as the fact a different editor added me to your ani (without providing difs), OR the editor who did is absent in involved parties although they are nearly the most active editor of the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's adding you to the RFAR. The case didn't start until several hours later. Do you understand the difference between a request for arbitration, and an arbitration case? They are not the same, and no one can add any evidence at all until a case is open. Killer Chihuahua  21:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * true, yet in your extended research resulting in my addition, how did you miss Xenophrenic, a far more involved editor, mostly reverts often of the same material over extended periods? why has North been brought here for not providing difs, yet Xenophrenic added me to an ANI with no difs, and you have no issue there? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * North8000 was not "brought here for not providing difs". You are mistaken. Killer Chihuahua 00:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * good point, how did you get from your first interaction on behalf of a request from Goethean concerning North, If you cannot make a case to someone else, you need to hush up about it. to listing me 1st in evidence? why didnt you tell Xenophrenic to "hush up" when he made an actual ANI case without evidence?Darkstar1st (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with whether an extension is justified, am I missing something? It sounds like you're changing topics in the middle of a discussion but maybe I'm misreading.   Sædon talk  01:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for presentation of extended evidence
There's been no activity on this page for over three months. I hope that a clerk has it watchlisted. I would like to respectfully request permission to present evidence of an extended length. Currently as an editor who is not named as a party in the dispute, I am limited to 500 words and 50 diffs. I hope to present evidence regarding the behavior of three editors, and the evidence on each of the three editors may very easily exceed the 500word/50diff limit. We can do this however you'd prefer, but I suggest preparing the evidence on each editor on a separate Sandbox page linked to my User Talk page, and then link the three Sandbox Evidence pages here, to keep the main Evidence page shorter and more readable. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Just about everything has changed since this case was started,and even it's start was mis-directed. This should either be re-started from scratch or closed out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that this proceeding can be salvaged and directed in a productive way, if the personnel who are responsible for the proceeding are willing to either do the work, or provide us with guidance and the necessary authorizations (such as authorizing me to present extended-length evidence) so that we can do the work ourselves, North. Once we clear that hurdle, the enormous amount of time and effort that have already been poured into this ArbCom proceeding will not be wasted. The record that already exists can be properly built upon, and the proper parties brought in and notified so that they may properly respond. Then we can actually do something with all of this that would be productive, possibly very productive, for the Wikipedia project.
 * Specifically, in the last few posts on the March 23 thread above, DarkStar and KC were talking. DarkStar asked why KC, who had started the ArbCom proceeding, didn't name Xenophrenic as a party. KC never really answered that question. Xenophrenic is one of the most prolific, if not the most prolific, editor of the TPm article and its Talk page. More than anyone else, he is responsible (in my opinion) for the execrably poor condition of that article before SilkTork started leading a moderated discussion, ripping the article apart, and then putting it back together in a Good Article way. Xenophrenic is a Black Belt Ninja Warrior when it comes to staying under the radar while pushing his POV tendentiously, but even he has been unable to prevent all of his DailyKos cruft (a term I recently coined) from being chainsawed out of the article and removed. Because SilkTork was right there, almost every day, and Xenophrenic needed to stay under the radar under those circumstances, or a topic ban would have been dead certain for him. He was still fighting to keep the DailyKos cruft from being removed, but he never went so far, or fought so hard, that he was blocked or topic banned under discretionary sanctions.
 * We need to refocus and redirect this ArbCom proceeding. And we need to start by zeroing in on the editor who has been, by far, the biggest problem. Somehow, for some reason, KC did not name him as a party. An ArbCom member needs to step up with a motion to bring in Xenophrenic as a party. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Moderated discussion news
A clear consensus at the moderated discussion appears to propose that a new moderator be asked to continue that discussion, with posited rules about civility and consensus, in order to get this thing done. Such a request has now been posted at WP:AN. The idea is that waiting for an ArbCom decision, especially with new parties added, and which perforce makes no content rulings, should not preclude people trying to actually make consensus decisions about the article form and content. The prior discussion under SilkTork made substantial progress, and I suggest the entire process, barring behavior problems, could be completed within the month, provided the moderator moves discussions toward workable, albeit imperfect by definition, compromises. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Apology for presenting evidence without permission and request to present evidence
I apologies for presenting evidence without first getting permission. I did not understand the rules of the page. With that said, I request permission to present evidence on user:arzel. There is a lack of evidence presented and I think this evidence is relevant.Casprings (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: There are two more evidence sections that were added after the deadline. Might as well ask for permission "by proxy" for them.TMCk (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your evidence. We will certainly take your submission into account. However, as you are aware, the evidence phase ended long ago, so we can consider your submission to a much more limited extent than we have considered the rest of the evidence. AGK  [•] 15:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you have a look at the other late filings? Here is the range of edits in question.TMCk (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been brought in as a new party in these proceedings just a couple of weeks ago and accordingly, I respectfully request permission to furnish evidence in support of my position. I would further respectfully request that this evidence be considered to the same extent as previously filed evidence. Also, over a week ago I sent a request via email to User:NuclearWarfare to add two other editors as parties and no action has been taken on this request. Please add these two editors as parties in the proceeding. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you've been recently added, you should have two weeks to present evidence, just like everybody else. In addition, you are allowed to edit your evidence. And whoever added you to the case, needs to present his evidence to show why you should be included. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it did take me about two weeks due to real life commitments. Real life comes first. I have presented additional evidence on the conduct of WLRoss and Xenophrenic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Should/can evidence be updated?
Subsequent developments have shed additional light. Should I update my evidence section? North8000 (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (side note: my post refers to "additional light" on the tangent that this case was sent off on.  This does not address the question of the major redirection / restart that would be needed to get this onto the main track for improvement of the situation there)  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been updating mine. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)