Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision/Archive

Hello?
Is anybody out there working on this? 5.12.69.171 (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They are. They are also very busy with the Sexology case; I'm expecting to see something here shortly after that one closes. Killer Chihuahua 15:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are also a fair amount of other things occupying our attention. I wouldn't expect to see anything before next week. NW ( Talk ) 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which would certainly fall under "shortly after". :-) Killer Chihuahua 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well hopefully we will resolve the Sexology case soon, but I think basically everyone is unhappy with that current decision but doesn't know how to proceed on it. Well, that's me anyway. NW ( Talk ) 18:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You all have my sympathies with that one, that's a murky mess and I'm sure you're all doing the best you can with it. Killer Chihuahua 18:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Officially one month late! Great work! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One hopes they will remember this and show tolerance should they be waiting on respondents in a case in the future. They can hardly insist on promptness while requiring patience for their own lack of adherence to schedule. Killer Chihuahua  21:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And in general I think we do a fair job of that. But SilkTork is 100% correct below – there has been plenty to distract us as of late and unfortunately, it had to take a bit higher priority than this case. NW ( Talk ) 18:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Structures aside, I think that the real (best hope for and most on-target) fix by Arbcom is what they/ SilkTork are doing at the article itself.  North8000 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To the drafting arbs (Newyorkbrad and SilkTork): How about striking out and revising the present proposed decision "deadline" (3 April) in the casenav template to some date you think likely, or possible? That's probably not the custom, but IMO it should be. Don't make me link deadline to Wiktionary, now. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC).


 * Frustrates me as well the delay on this. But that is due to matters not on Wiki that diverted the Committee's attention, and NYB in particular. I can assure everyone that the Committee have not been knitting. And that some of the distractions would be classed as very serious, and NYB's involvement was necessary and valued. At NYB's suggestion I took over, and I have just been waiting for the Committee to look over the draft before posting it on Monday.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My thanks to everyone for your patience (not that you had any choice about being patient, I know; and I sympathize completely, having been on the other side of the situation before I was an arbitrator). As SilkTork indicates, he took up the baton in preparing this decision, and I appreciate his doing so, and at the same time, apologize my contribution toward the delay in moving the case to a PD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Remedy 2
Broadly written this sounds like any edit if it removes anything anyone else has included would be in effect a revert and thus worthy of blocking. This also is unusual as compared to other similar restrictions which I have seen in other areas. What is to stop someone from adding something simply stupid and then being unable to revert? If you make it so that the main editors cannot revert anything...ever.. you basically make it impossible to have a viable project in this area. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know of any article or person where 0RR has worked? (Let me rephrase that.  Does anyone know of any situation where a pure 0RR can be distinguished from an editing ban?)  A modified 0RR (you cannot revert an edit which restores your previous edit) has been known to work.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with Rubin here; 0RR is a sticky wicket, virtually indistinguishable from an editing ban unless specifics are added. Killer Chihuahua 18:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the remedy is to reduce the extent to which the named editors are involved in disputes over the article. If this reduces their ability to revert new contributors to the article, then that is both advantageous and exactly what is intended by the remedy. The named contributors would still be welcome to tidy up new edits to the article (for instance, by expanding new content or fixing references) and to challenge new edits to the article (on the talk page). AGK  [•] 10:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate inference regarding me
I resent the inference created by the "union thugs" mentioned in conjunction with me out of context giving the impression that I wrote it. The workshop covers this in detail  It was written by somebody else, and my "insertion" of it was just via my reverting the blanking of an entire section which contained it, and which I was then immediately paring/editing minute by minute (after stating that I was doing such) when I was interrupted by a large reversion. Talk about BLP! Here is a false implied statement about me! North8000 (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When you make an edit, you take responsibility for its content, period. If you restore material written by someone else, then you need to be comfortable assuming responsibility for its content, or else you shouldn't restore it. Your defense here reflects poorly on you - you're essentially saying that you can't be held responsible because you were just reverting for the sake of reverting, without verifying the material in question. MastCell Talk 19:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No that's not what I said or meant. I meant that the inference (that I would deliberately make a BLP violation, or that I wrote that material) is false.  And since and I was doing a multi-step minute-by-minute edit, paring the material out of the blanking which I reverted when I was interrupted, I was most likely taking it out when I was interrupted.  I don't even remember, since this question was not even brought up until a stale 2 years later.  So it was either an easy-to-make error, or something that I wasn't even leaving in, and not an indicator of my attitude regarding BLP, contrary to the innuendos being case by yourself and NW.  So, to be clear, I'll say it again.   I take wp:blp seriously, and never did and never will knowingly violate it.   If I was intending to leave any violating item during that interrupted multi-step edit, it would have been wrong.  North8000 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * North, it's silly to send readers in search of where and how this mention was made. It's likely to make many of them lose interest, frankly. For your own sake, you should provide a link for context. (Here it is.) And preferably a link to the diff NW mentioned, too. (I haven't found that one; yes, you're right, NW might have provided it himself.) How do you expect us to know what you're talking about..? Bishonen &#124; talk 21:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the link. Well, regarding a diff of something that shows that their inuendo was correct, such does not exist, because the inuendo is false.  But I'll provide info and diffs related to the 2 year old item that was trying to be ginned up into something.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's nearly a whole section on the Workshop page, so a diff won't do it. And I can't get a link to work because there are multiple sections with the same name.   But if you do a text search on the workshop page for "Could you explain your concerns with that dif. It's from two years ago, and was part of an edit war involving several users", that text is at the start of that section.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this may be the thread that is being referred to (at least that link format works for me) and the diff NW mentioned was presumably this one. --Noren (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Finally, here is a diff where 'this question was brought up' at the time, including policy-based objections made to that exact diff. The full discussion thread is archived here.--Noren (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Noren, I see the "union thugs". I agree entirely with MastCell. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC).

Here is the chronology:


 * 13:16 July 12, 2011  The discussed material is already in the article, written by others, and PhGustaff blanks the entire section that contains it.
 * 13:36 July 12, 2011  I revert the blanking, and in the edit summary said that that is the starting point of a series of edits over minutes to upgrade and source it
 * 13:37 July 12, 2011  An edit by me in a series of of edits to upgrade and source it.
 * 13:38 July 12, 2011  An edit by me in a series of of edits to upgrade and source it.
 * 13:42 July 12, 2011  An edit by me in a series of of edits to upgrade and source it.
 * 13:44 July 12, 2011  An edit by me in a series of of edits to upgrade and source it.
 * 13:48 July 12, 2011  TFD interrupts my work by blanking the section and the material stays out.

Now, exactly WHAT is somebody claiming that the above shows about me? North8000 (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And having to go back two years to have to find even something that needs a lot of ginning up to make it sound like it shows something bad about me speaks volumes is several ways. North8000 (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is all exceedingly confusing, so I will simply say that few proposed remedies—and this includes the remedy in question—are proposed as a result of a single edit. Rebuttals to a remedy should therefore focus on the wider pattern of misconduct that the proposing arbitrator has recognised. AGK  [•] 10:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are referring to the overall situation at the article and not any individual editor. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It should also be said that North8000, after restoring the material as discussed above, also added a reference to a FoxNews story, allegedly supporting the material, including the "union thugs" expression. It remains for the Arbitrators to decide if the reference supported the characterization. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And right after TFD deleted that section, North8000 removed three other sections invoking "No double standard". 5.12.68.204 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was quite amazing. It seems that North8000 added the unsourced (and then later poorly-sourced) "union thug" material in order to give him leverage, so that when the poorly-sourced union thug material was inevitably removed from the article, he would in turn remove all of the material related to the Tea Party's controversies, which is exactly what he did. It seems that North8000 has violated WP:VAN: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. &mdash; goethean 17:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That diff is substantial in this context, regardless of the following remark.-- Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically, this reminds me of a tactic I once accused Xeno of using. It got me blocked. A mistake we can all learn from. Tread carefully when levying accusations. †TE†   Talk  17:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment for which you got bolcked did not include a diff to Xenophrenic's alleged misbehavior. I have included a diff to North8000's edit. North8000, on the other hand, continues to claim the right to make unsubstantiated accusations of WP:TE against fellow editors, and it doesn't appear that he will be blocked. &mdash; goethean 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That statement about me is so wrong is so many obvious, contrary-to evidence ways that I'll wait for the retraction and apology rather than responding further. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The most WP:LAME part came shortly after that edit was in turn reverted, in the form of an edit war over a subsection of that:

Tochiest: out Xenophrenic: in North8000: out Goethean: in Darkstar1st: out AzureCitizen: in Arthur Rubin: out Xenophrenic: in

Stephen Colbert would be proud. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000's proposed sanction
With all due respect to the drafting arbiter, I don't think a topic ban from the Tea Party movement is sufficient to address North's problematic editing. Let me offer my apologies for not bringing this up in the workshop or evidence phases - the only reason I didn't is because I could have sworn that it had already been mentioned and would have been addressed in the final decision. With that said, North8000 has a problematic history on at least one other page related to conservative politics, namely Homophobia. I have had this page on my watch list for years and up until a somewhat distant voluntary topic ban, North8000's comments were a consistently disruptive force on that article.

Basically, North8000 engaged in constant POV pushing by attempting to eschew the reliable sources on the subject - which discuss homophobia as a concept - for an etymological deduction which seemingly mitigated the stigma associated with being homophobic in contemporary times. That is, while the reliable sources discuss homophobia as a point of view encompassing opposition to homosexuality, North tendentiously argued that because the roots of "homophobia" include "phobia" then it must mean that charges of homophobia are irrational because homophobes aren't actually afraid of gays (they just "disagree" with homosexuality, or some such nonsense) (@North: sorry if I misinterpreted your argument, please feel free to correct me). It was explained on multiple occasions that WP articles are about subjects and not words, but to no avail until it went before AN/I and North agreed to said voluntary topic ban.

While the AN/I complaint was closed as essentially "no consensus" - and in part due to the voluntary topic ban - many of the opposes were based on faulty reasoning.

I implore Arbcom to read over the AN/I report I linked above - or even just half of it (there are plenty of diffs involved). I know it's long, but I believe it's important when considering that the sanctions being presented are directly relevant to North's disposition as an editor, and not simply on the particular article in question. I think that after reading it you will agree that the topic ban proposed should cover American politics, or to a lesser extent conservative politics, but certainly not just TPM. Thank you for your time, and again, my apologies for the late presentation. Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a complete misstatement of the situation. I had some of the guards there come after me just for trying to bring the article to neutral and not disappearing. Their complaint was that I was NOT editing the article, and posting about 24 comments on the talk page in a year. (basically agreeing with the continuous stream of other editors that voice concerns and who they keep chasing away)  I said that as a quick pragmatic solution I'd be happy to stay away from the article for a year, provided that it was very clear that such was no indication of being at "fault" for anything. PS shortly afterwords Associated Press (AP) came out with guidelines for the word which reinforced what I was saying.    <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * North, I respectfully disagree but doubt we will convince each other. It's entirely possible that I've incorrectly assessed the situation and I trust what ever conclusions Arbcom come to.  Regardless of the outcome, I have no intent to bring it up in the future, but I felt it pertinent to address here.  Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  12:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * North, is your "about 24 comments on the talk page in a year" a typo for "about 266 comments on the talk page in a year ", as stated in the ANI discussion Saedon links to, and as confirmed here? You want to be more careful with that kind of thing, or people will start distrusting what you say. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Using WikiChecker finds him with 170 edits in 15 months (way under the "266 in a year" level) ... and 32 talk page edits in one month, of which several were "minor" edits. He accounts for under 7% of edits in that period.    Fifth most active on the talk page in that period. Collect (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I gave a link for my figure; a link which also shows North as by far the top contributor to Talk:Homophobia in the relevant timespan (=the timespan dealt with in the ANI thread from 2012-11-16), namely 2011-11-27 to 2012-11-16. North started editing the page on 2011-11-27 and stopped on 2012-11-18, so I don't see the relevance of "15 months" — which 15 months? You don't give any links for yours. What is it with you people and links? Bishonen &#124; talk 14:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC).
 * I used the count on the TPM which is the subject of this propose decision so your carping about "Homophobia" is a straw man argument when seen from here THIS DECISION IS NOT ABOUT HOMOPHOBIA.  Is that quite clear?    Now why the hell is that important here?  N8000 has 8 edits on Talk:Homophobia in a period of about 6 months (175 days).  Period.  Making him tied for the nineteenth most active poster there, with under 2% of the edits on that talk page. .   Usually folks here know about Wikichecker, and giving new links to it every time is pretty silly. Collect (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is degenerating into spin, innuendo and shots, which is the OPPOSITE of what Arbcom is. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going from memory and thinking of the chronology in the "dissection of a myth" section. Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveNorth8000 Discussion Looking back, that was that I had 16 edits on the talk page in the 9 weeks preceding the ANI. One was agreeing with the guards on an unrelated topic, one was putting the missing notice in the talk page etc., one was agreeing to the demands of the guards.  As I hypothesized there, IMO the response was apparently "Holy crap, North just agreed to do EXACTLY as we asked - trouble in river city - we'd better do something! and then 16 hours later filed a ANI which pretended that that didn't happen.  <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You said you had "about 24 comments on the talk page in a year", my bolding, but you were thinking of something completely different and would like to change the subject? Your memory is crap. Please to check it before you hit save. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Yes, per above. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Having 266 edits on the talk page is not the same as having 266 comments. Seems that actually overstates it by around 100. I counted them manually. He was not the most active editor on that page either, though he was the only active editor whose views on homosexuality differed from the liberal perspective. Similarly this current situation arose because of liberal editors trying to remove the conservative editors from the Tea Party page. That, however, is not in the best interests of crafting an objective and reliable encyclopedic work. As Collect notes below, it is important to have all views represented.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, being a libertarian (not a conservative) my views on homosexuality match the liberal / LGBT  perspective, but my views on the nastier of  LGBT activist's tactics do not, particularly when those tactics are executed in articles contrary to wp:policies. That is what it was about.  <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not using "liberal" based on its literal meaning, but rather how it is understood in American political parlance. That perspective is actually at odds with the libertarian perspective.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What you said both times was fine, I was just clarifying. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My own view is that the committee should not be taking Saedon's original concerns into consideration, though I appreciate how detailed his statement here has been. If North8000 has excluded himself from editing these other conservatism articles, I do not see why we would need to examine his conduct on them. I am also generally reluctant to extend our scope at this late stage, given that further misconduct by North8000 on other conservatism articles at a later date could be dealt with by this committee in separate proceedings (probably by extending through a brief motion any topic ban or sanctions we give him in this case). AGK  [•] 11:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Basta
We now know that the mediation appears to be working -- which is what ought to have been done before this action. There is precious little evidence that "topic bans" on anyone are actually called for, and plenty of evidence that it is "time to get (editor x) for being "tendentious" which is not sufficient reason for an entire group of new arbitration findings and actions.

We also know the community did not have any consensus on any sanctions - and that sanctions were proposed which had absolutely no basis in reason -- that is, names were used without regard to any actual cause at all, providing no evidence whatsoever, based solely on personal dislike or animus (it appears) of editors who may actually have differing opinions. And it is precisely the allowing of "differing opinions" which is essential to the concept of Wikipedia. If we only allow "correct opinions" on topics, we can not call this an "encyclopedia" with a straight fae.

Thus I urge a new finding:
 * This action has been rendered moot due to mediation. Should the mediation end up as being failed, then a new action may be brought, based on the results and actions during that mediation.  You may all go home.

And a new principle:
 * Differing opinions on topics are essential to the project, and should not be used as a basis for barring any editor from colloegially expressing an opinion.

I realize that there is a lot of time invested in this, including more than a little hot air, but there are times, indeed, to say "Enough! Go home!" Collect (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you point to how you believe mediation has rendered the case moot? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. ArbCom generally declines cases where mediation is underway - and since it is underway, there is an intrinsic conflict with past ArbCom dicta.
 * 2. The mediation is proceeding apace - and it is possible that if it fails, that there would be suitable material for an ArbCom case which is not present in the current case (which has a lot of verbiage, and very little solid content as to current misbehaviour by anyone at all, quite frankly.  When 2 year old edits have to be drudged up, one wonders just how urgent the "cure" is).
 * 3. If the mediation succeeds, then what actual good shall have come from this case?
 * 4. Right now, the principles are basically the usual boiler-plate, with no sign that any of them are particulary or notably applicable to the evidence provided (other than 2 year old edits).
 * So we have a case which does not "solve" anything at the present time, and which does not do much more than be a chronophagous exercise. Collect (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To tell you the truth, I don't think that this case even knows what it is about. One thing that it was clearly about and succeeded at was ending the random-mob-violence snake pit (the ANI that never should have happenned) by shifting it to a basis of looking at the actual evidence. (although a few folks have violated that) So that is one place where the case solved the problem, not just rendered it moot.


 * The fundamental problem at the article is that the content has been determined by TE rather than discussions/decisions, and the reason for that (long story short) is that (so far) TE (for the people willing to do it) works and is even protected, discussion doesn't and isn't.   And the person most involved on this is not even listed as a party so anything related to individual editors who are parties would be a mis-fire.  Actually anything that that seeks to help this article that involves going after individual editors would (other than a nudge on TE for a couple) is a mis-fire.  0RR for just past active editors would just have them fade away and be replaced by a new set, doing the same thing.   That process has already started.


 * The moderated discussion combined with locking the article combined with folks knowing that they are under the magnifying glass have together made the situation better than it has been. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If tendentious editing is the root problem, then mediation is doomed to fail in the long run. In general, ArbCom's approach to disputes marked by tendentious editing has been to remove the worst offenders via topic-bans, apply revert restrictions, and turn over remaining issues to the admins at WP:AE via discretionary sanctions. The effectiveness of that approach varies (depending, in part, on ArbCom's success in identifying the problem editors), but it sometimes works and its track record is better than that of any other approach I've seen (certainly waaaaay better than the track record of mediation). Also, the fact that the editing atmosphere has improved during the case is not surprising, as all parties realize that they are under heightened scrutiny. Once the shadow of an open ArbCom case is gone, things will devolve back to the way they were unless some of the parameters are actually changed. MastCell Talk 17:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To respond to the original point, I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions. MastCell's observation that mediation of articles that are plagued by misconduct is unlikely to succeed is greatly relevant; if we turn this over to some poor mediator who's powerless to do much about misconduct, we are assuring this article has another terrible year. No, we certainly need to do something here; it would be a disservice to our readers to let the troubles with this article continue. AGK  [•] 11:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions" is one of the weirdest statements I have ever seen in my years on Wikipedia. One might as well say in a court of law the murder case was brought so 'someone' must be found guilty or the like.  This is not a rational nor logical position for anyone to take, especially not a position I would expect an arbitrator to take.  The fact a case is opened is not a valid reason to say someone must hang.      " we certainly need to do something here" is a splendid example of WP:Tiptibism at its most egregious.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What a strange position to take. I did not say we need to sanction people just because they are in front of the committee. I did say that the people who have edited disruptively need to be sanctioned because they have edited disruptively. You seem to suggest that we should not sanction misconduct; I submit that that would be utterly strange—arbitration exists to stop these disputes through binding sanctions. A silly essay like that one does not change the fact that sanctions are needed here. AGK  [•] 11:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I quoted you. If I misquoted you, say so.  More fully: I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions. Which means you predetermined that if arbitration is "necessary" that you think that those charged and "found guilty" inevitably require sanctions. Since I have this idiotic idea that if a case does not support sanctions as being a solution - and so far there is nothing which indicates to me as an outside observer, that sanctions are needed,  then sanctions for the sake of sanctions are silly.   YMMV, but I rather think I am not the only person who thinks that the mindset is pure WP:Tiptibism -- that because you can sanction a person that therefore it is your obligation to do so.  Even while a moderated discussion is taking place.   The real obligation is to say that where sanctions are not proven useful in the case at hand, that it is wrong to impse then just because an impartial arbitrator has the opinion that  Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions. Again - if I misquoted you, say so. If I quoted you accurately, please admit it.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say that you misquoted me. I said that you repeated what I said without comprehending it. The point is that this is not a case where "we can sanction someone, so we will". It is a case where "somebody is being disruptive, so we need to sanction them". Either you agree that disruptive editors need to be removed from an article for the good of the encyclopedia, or you think they should stay. If you agree, then we have the same view. If you disagree, well, you must consider your position. AGK  [•] 12:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where a content dispute is at the basis of a case (as is clearly the case at hand), the position that someone must hang as a precept is wrong, errant, and perverse. "Ban them all for the good of the encyclopedia" is no more logical than "banish the miscreants" was for the UK when they sent people to Australia.  Silly then. Silly now.  And kindly do not place words in my mouth which I do not say.  It ill-suits any impartial person to do so, and since it would be wrong for any editor to misrepresent my position, it is trebly true for an arbitrator to do so.  Again -- if a court hears a murder case, it is not required that someone must be found guilty and hanged because we know that someone must have done the murder" <g>.  But we seem to be hitting a philosophical point here -- I am philosophically opposed to any impartial arbitrator feeling that "something must be done" just because a case was opened.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, plainly, you know how it feels to have words put into your mouth. I am not saying that "something must be done" (and this is the fourth time that I have had to correct you on this point). I am saying that if we determine an editor has misconducted himself at the Tea Party article, that editor will have to be sanctioned so as to ensure they cannot continue to disrupt the article. I then observed that, with the exception of a handful of cases that have been summarily closed with no final decision, it is generally typical of disputes that come to arbitration that some people will indeed have misconducted themselves (disputes do not come to arbitration unless they are unresolvable, and they are often unresolvable because of serially poor behaviour). I additionally reminded everyone that, when or if we identify such misconduct, it is likely to be met with sanctions. I do not know what "<g>" means. AGK  [•] 13:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read and reread your philosophy. I come up with this:  I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions.  and your iteration which appears fully intentional of "inevitably."   "Inevitably" != "likely" as it means Impossible to avoid or prevent.  "likely" has nowhere that connotation.    As for "<g>", I have now been online for more than three decades, and it means "grin".  It is, in fact, documented on a number of websites.  and likely it an indicator that I have now read somewhere over five million messages (likely close to six million) and reviewed over 2 gigs of images which were mainly under 50k in size each.  Collect (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Evening of May 15 -- and most of the proposed sanctions have no votes at all yet at the two month mark ... the veritable essence of chronophagousness, IMHO. Collect (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that it is evidence that the case has achieved it's one concrete purpose (ending the mob-violence ANI snake pit) and has made small but best-yet progress due to SilkTork's efforts at the article, and that the remainign listed "action items" are not good ideas. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like ArbCom at ling last has decided to "suspend" this, which is pretty much waht I started with in this section three weeks ago. "Chronophagous" is a wonderful word. Collect (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Admonishments
I noted on the Workshop page that I think KillerChihuahua should be admonished for her conduct during this case as she has personalized and inflamed matters beyond what should be acceptable from an administrator, but I also think admonishments should be considered for other editors as well to serve as alternatives to sanctions. Specifically, it should be considered for editors who are not serious offenders such as Malke. Perhaps a general admonishment or "Editors reminded" to cover the behaviors in the topic area so there will be a template for editors who are less active or who become active there.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure I agree. She misinterpreted some statements (to the point that I would normally say that it would fall into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), and unnecessarily inflamed the situation, but I can't think of anything specific. which could be objectively described, which warrants sanctions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that I disagree strongly with TDA, across the board. And to be blunt, Killer deserves thanks from the entire Wikipedia Community for bringing this matter here. Indeed, I'd support her for ArbCom membership. Sanctions for her? Fah. Jus  da  fax   03:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Admonishments should be considered as an alternative to specific sanctions if the Committee cannot agree on specific sanctions but can agree the editor has not been helpful. I was just saying I don't see admonishments as being appropriate for KC, although, unlike Jusdafax, I can see serious errors she has made.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe assumption of bad faith would be the most accurate characterization. My summing up of the issues I saw that stuck out was here. Plus, I think it is telling that she focused so much on you and Malke with her evidence on this case, the two people who she apparently regarded as having most aggrieved her personally. You especially she seems to have singled out.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that a close analysis shows that KC did several things that were either erroneous, unfair or very poor choices, (and acting with a bit of a battling mentality) and such were key in creating the giant shitstorm over something that is routine at that article. My comments in the mob-violence-snake-pit (which make sense only in that context) not withstanding, I am the type to just try to "tell it straight" to the person in a matter-of-fact way (nobody is perfect, and most are guided by just hearing it) and then move on and try to be friends. My most prized barnsters are from those that I've butted heads with.. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, I had to pick and choose what evidence to give due to space constraints. There was no point duplicating someone else's evidence. So to think my choices were determined by ranking who I thought was the biggest problem is to misunderstand my approach fundamentally. TDA, we all know you want me sanctioned. You don't like me, we get it already. AR, you wish I'd done things differently but A) hindsight is 20/20 and B) everyone is different. I know *I* wouldn't have stirred the pot by calling for sanctions on an uninvolved admin, for example, nor would I call a fellow admin a bitch, even by inference, both of which you seem to find acceptable. Killer Chihuahua 18:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is not the case that I don't like you. What I do think is that there was never any reason for the situation to spiral out of control and that your conduct is a major reason why it did. You have taken sides in this dispute and made the situation personal with several of the opposing parties. At the time goethean asked for you to get involved, there were many uncivil and battleground-style comments that editor had made towards North just a little bit further up, but you either didn't bother to check those comments on the page or you just ignored them. That same thing happened when you posted your combative little "reminder" section a few days later. You admonished Malke for one comment, but made no mention of the comment immediately preceding it where goethean was attacking another editor.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're failing to make your case. Your linked post is full of inaccuracies, which frankly would not be worth my time to refute one by one; and your blanket allegations here lack any substance or evidence. However, this seems to be a dead horse anyway, as none of the Arbs seem to share your view. As I've said before, should an Arb ask a question, I'll be happy to answer, but I see no point in wasting time (re)answering your blanket allegations. Killer Chihuahua  14:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have found little evidence that KillerChihuahua disrupted this article at any time. If her actions were not effective or she was unable to enforce conduct standards on every single comment, I think that would best be explained by the fact that no other administrators were there to offer assistance—not by the suggestion that KC's conduct as an administrator was flawed. AGK  [•] 11:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment regarding "Enforcement of decision sanctions"
As in a previous case, I am of the view that the provision "Appeals of blocks may be made ... to arbitration enforcement" is too vague to be helpful, because it does not specify who makes the decision about the appeal at WP:AE, and with which degree of consensus. If I recall correctly, in the previous case, the provision was then amended to something like "by consensus of uninvolved administrators at WP:AE". In general, it would be helpful to have more specific general rules about arbitration appeals procedures, as I highlighted in a now-archived clarification request. Do arbitrators still intend to act on that request? <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  11:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The same applies to the "Standard Enforcement" provision, the title of which should, by the way, probably be capitalised as "Standard enforcement". <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  11:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was a bit reluctant because it might end up contradicting the procedural clarification motion that we should...hopefully...be voting on SoonTM. But I'll add it for now since we already passed a specific provision in WP:ARBRAN and cleaning up two cases isn't that much more work than cleaning up one, if it turns out necessary. Changing the standard enforcement would require a separate motion, though. T. Canens (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Uppercase changed to lowercase for the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing should be resolved by our general examination of arbitration enforcement, which was scheduled some time ago for Friday 17 May 2013 (though it will be later if we are still voting on cases on that day). Although I generally prefer lower case to be used for these kind of terms, I'm fine with the capitalisation "Standard Enforcement". AGK  [•] 11:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment regarding "Enforcement of discretionary sanctions"
I recommend to omit this remedy, which currently reads "Should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy." Is that not implicit in the grant of authority at WP:AC/DS? If not, I recommend to add it there, as part of the general rules. Because if this rule is added on a case-by-case basis to individual decisions, then it would be easy to (erroneously) conclude that this means that escalating sanctions, as envisaged by this provision, are not normally allowed as part of discretionary sanctions, and are therefore not permitted in cases which lack such an enforcement provision. <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  11:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the arbs who passed it in older cases intended, but for this case my intention is to clarify that enforcement 1 does not apply to discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording of the enforcement in this case is drawn from the Shakespeare authorship question case where I framed the enforcement in this way. That was two years ago and the language hasn't caused any problems in that case or any other. I understand the concern that Sandstein is raising (an inclusio unius est exclusio alterius argument by negative implication), but I don't think it's a real risk. Still, I think these enforcement provisions are how things should work in any case anyway, so I wouldn't object to an appropriate modification to the DS page as Sandstein suggests. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Provision E3 seems to re-state an obvious fact, and I disagree that it creates confusion or a problematic situation in cases where such a remedy is not included, so I am happy for us to include it in our decision. AGK  [•] 11:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment regarding the definition of "revert" in the 0RR restrictions
The proposed remedies with the wording "... is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit related to the Tea Party movement that could be reasonably construed as a revert" links to Help:Reverting. That page defines a revert as "undoing the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version". That is a more restrictive definition than the more commonly used one in WP:3RR, which says: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". The difference is that according to the first definition, an edit is only a revert if it restores a page to a previous version (that is, with the exact same wording). This means that, for the purpose of the proposed remedies, an edit that undoes the removal of (say) a racial slur by re-adding a slightly different racial slur is not a revert. I doubt that this is what is intended with the remedy, and recommend that arbitrators review the definition of "revert" they want to refer to. <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  12:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the middle ground for a revert definition in general would be the (broader) 3RR definition, with the qualifier that it be to a recent edit. I've seen claims that, for example, that the (first) removal of something put in years before is a "revert" of that ancient edit. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Even better would be "... any revert of recently added material which changes the nature or weight of any claim made in the article, other than removal of claims reasonably asserted to be violations of WP:BLP policy." I think this addresses Sandstein's position, as well as inserting the general exemption directly concerning BLP violations. If a person can reasonably assert that material is a violation of BLP, that should be noted here, rather than have endless chronophagous discussions on what is, or is not, an "actual" BLP violation. Collect (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that it's always a good effort to better define revert, but 0RR would likely make a mess out of things. In short, one can put crap in, but not modify or remove it. Any named editors would most likely disappear, replaced by new people who would do what the system teaches them (discussion never accomplishes anything here, TE always works, you can get away with it because it's too easy to smack the whistle blowers because it is such a huge job to prove.)  What it really needs is something that will change the playing field. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This remedy has in any event been voted down by every arbitrator who has voted so far (except the proposing arbitrator). However, I do not agree that the definition at Help:Reverting is unduly restrictive; a "previous version" would simply mean a version of the article that does not contain content added by another editor a closely-preceding change. AGK  [•] 11:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In Re: Community sanctions lifted

 * Support standard 1RR per Courcelles. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Community sanctions lifted

RFC/U for Arzel
Because Arzel has community support for a topic ban, a WP:RFC/U might be a decent means to meet any larger issues. Most of the user that voted for the topic ban were properly voting based on general interactions in American Politics, not the Tea Party. Therefore, sending this to WP:RFC/U might be a means to handle that issue. I started a conversation about it at the admin notice board, here. Casprings (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And if ArbCom sanctions Arzel, that would mean they weighed the evidence. If they don't - same thing.  Having an RfC/U which usually would be done before an ArbCom case is simply "two bites of the apple" for those who dislike that editor, especially since the evidence appears strong that it is not behaviour but normal content disputes which are involved.  I think you should look at the moderated discussin on the TPM article before making further judgments.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think his issues are wider than the tea party movement. As such, I think WP:RFC/U would be a good place to take a look at it.  There are a large number of editors who believe the same.  I think the discussions bear that out.  Not enough evidence with the tea party movement, but the fact that their is a clear community consensus to topic ban must be dealt with.  You can't just ignore a clear community consensus. Casprings (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I voted against the topic ban as it stood, since it was little more than a lynching based on personal animus, given the limited amount of evidence presented. Really, an RfC/U should have been done before this nonsensical case, but since this is about the Tea Party topic in general, it would not be obscene to have a broader discussion of specific editors involved. Presumably, any RfC/U would focus on concerns about an editor's conduct beyond this topic area.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. While there may not be enough evidence with Arzel's edits on the tea party, you have a clear consensus for a topic ban. You can't just ignore that.  I would assume most of the editors were voting based on issues with him in American Politics in general (which I did).  As such, RFC/U would be a good forum to explore those edits and deal with that consensus for a topic ban. Casprings (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You misapprehend what RfC/U is for, and what it is not for. What you seek is what it is not for. Collect (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think something that did this,

What RfC/U CANNOT do is: What RfC/U CAN do is: }}
 * Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;
 * Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct.
 * Allow an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their conduct.
 * Allow users to share information which might be relevant for later steps in the dispute resolution process, should that become necessary.


 * An RfC is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information.
 * An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration.
 * See also RfC/U rules.
 * would be just what the doctor ordered. Flush out if there are actuall problems, help Arzel understand the problems, and go from there.  Am I missing something?Casprings (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to simply be upset because I don't think your article regarding Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 is worthy of a Feature Article. Considering that most of my edits there have consisted of BLP concerns and Original Research concerns (with no edits since March) I am amazed that you would bring this to here.  I have raised a valid concern that you are attempting to prove that the events of Todd Akin et al. resulted in Obama's % of Women vote in the 2012 election.  To suggest that reliably sourced information (in context) showing that Obama received the same % of Women vote in 2008 (+/- 1% depending on the source) cannot be included only shows clearly what you are attempting to do.  Apparently, you must feel that your only solution is to remove me from the conversation.  Arzel (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Arzel, please do not make assumptions about another editor's motives. AGK  [•] 11:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not an assumption when the motives are abundantly clear. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it is an assumption of bad faith to conclude that an editor must be bearing a grudge against you because you opposed an FAC on an article which they expanded. Although I have no idea which of you is correct, it also strikes me as quite ungracious not to simply rebut the substantive accusation—and leave the speculation as to your colleague's motives out of your comment. Just something to think about (and to bear in mind when contributing to these arbitration case pages, which require people not use them to play out earlier disputes). AGK  [•] 13:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you not read what I provided?  Casprings is pushing for a feature article on the Rape and Pregnancy controversies of the 2012 election.  I have felt from the beginning that the entire article is little more than a personal research paper being done on WP and have particular problems with some of the conclusions that Casprings is trying to present as fact.  I have opposed Casprings on both their attempts to promote this to a FA and now on the second attempt this user submits this action against me.  I am not sure how you can not come to the conclusion that this is a retaliation for my comments (my comments, not even my edits) regarding that particular page.  If you go to the FA submission page you may get a better idea of why it is quite clear.  Arzel (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found many of your edits problematic, as I somewhat noted in the community consensus for a topic ban. As to the current FAC review, the issues you raised are at clear consensus both on the talk page and at WP:ORN.  To me, this is an issue with WP:Venue Shopping and is also problematic.  That did cause me to look at the state of this case and determine that the case is likely to be confined to only TPM.  As such, something should be done to deal with what is an a clear community consensus.Casprings (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

An wp:ani or wp:ani on a vague topic is just a measure of how many people are wiling to commit mob violence to ether pursue a grudge or to try to get rid of somebody or reduce their efforts)   (e.g. to stop or reduce their efforts to make articles neutral/npov.)  The common tactic is to make false negative generalization about the person, and give a diff or something (with a spin description) that many won't notice does not establish the false generalization.  So those is no way a an or ani on a vague topic is measure of "community support".   Arbcom is the place that goes by analysis of evidence, not false or unsupported shouts that came from the mob. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Responding to the original point, we are broadly trying to confine our examination to the TPM article and very closely related pages. You are therefore correct to suggest that more general problems with the conduct of a party should be dealt with outwith this case and in the usual venues. AGK  [•] 11:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And a place to determine the nature of those editors comments would be WP:RFC/U. If it is a lynch mob, than that should be reasonable easy to show there.  If it isn't, that should be shown.  However, for Arzel, the issue go beyond TPM.  With that being the case, one should not and cannot simply ignore a community consensus.  There is a process that could examine the issue and it should be used in this case.  Casprings (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying, I was not arguing against an RFC/U. RFC/U's are actually semi-civilized and more evidence-based in comparison.   I was just pointing out that anything from a vague behavior-accusation wp:an or wp:ani is not an indication of "community support". Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus is "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns." We have a strong majority of editors that thought there were legitimate concerns for Arzel.   Why not explore those concerns in what you admit is an "evidence-based" process.Casprings (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here. Casprings (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
Since someone else brought it up, I can't help but wonder if "Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012" is a real topic, or the product of WP:OR and WP:SYN from primary sources to cobbled together to create a topic that doesn't actually exist. Can someone more familiar to this Wikipedia article point me to a few articles from reliable sources about this topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This conversation may reveal some of the logic behind the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_the_2012_United_States_elections. The rational behind the article and the justification for keeping is there.Casprings (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

simplify the boilerplate
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors
 * Wikipedia ia a free-content encyclopedia project requiring polite interactions between its varied contributors.

''All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on "synthesized claims", or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.''
 * Wikipedia requires adherence to the policy WP:NPOV and to proper sourcing of all claims made in articles according to WP:RS and related policies.

''Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.''
 * Impolite behaviour towards other editors is improper. This includes "outing", harassment, personal attacks, and misusing Wikipedia processes in order to further such behaviour.  Accusations made in order to gain advantage in any content dispute are also improper.

'' Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.''
 * Content disputes are best settled by polite discussion among editors. Where consensus is not readily determined,  the use of a request for comment or other dispute resolution process is called for.  Edit war is not a means of determining consensus.

'' The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion.''
 * Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the verifiability policy as core principles. If there is any question as to the reliability of a source for a particular claim in an article, editors shall use the appropriate noticeboards to gain input from additional editors.

''The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should strive to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.''
 * Talk pages for articles exist for the express purpose of discussing improvements to article, and not for personal comments or asides, or attacks on the motives or positions of any other editor. Excessive repetition of lengthy material may be seen as an ineffective mode of discussion. 

Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.
 * The Arbitration Committee may look askance at clear "point of view" editing, and may regard such editing as allowing community topic bans, or topic bans to be imposed by the committee. In extreme cases, editors may be barred from Wikipedia.

''Articles may be placed under discretionary sanctions (DS) by the Arbitration Committee or on probation by the community. When an article is under probation or DS, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of the probation or DS.''
 * Either the community or the committee may impose sanctions upon articles or groups of articles, with the ability for sanctions to be enforced according to the wording of any such sanction.

'' Administrators are expected not to use administrator tools in disputes in which they are involved. The administrator policy states: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Administrators are responsible for assessing for themselves the nature of any possible involvement, and to ensure they are not being influenced by prior personal interactions with any of the editors or personal views regarding the subject-matter''
 * Administrators are not to use their position to gain any advantage in the editing of any article or topic for their own position, whether or not they actively edit on the article or topic. They must behave in all instances with absolute neutrality, and shall not be influenced in any manner by any prior interaction with other editors.

''Wider community participation in dispute resolution can help resolve disputes; however, care should be taken by everyone to remain neutral and to carefully examine the issues in good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute. Calls for sanctions should be based on quality evidence''
 * Each editor involved in any dispute resolution shall seek to neutrally examine the issues in order to resolve them. No editor who reasonably seeks to neutrally examine the issues shall be sanctioned, and any calls for sanctions must be based on clear evidence that an editor has not abided by this rule.

''Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as revert restrictions or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.''
 * Any organized use of reverts or edits by multiple editors to control the content of an article or topic may be considered "tag teaming" which is a prohibited behaviour. Sanctions for such behaviour may be imposed upon presentation of clear and convincing evidence of such behaviour.

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
 * This committee does not decide content disputes.

Comments? Collect (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well you did pick up the most prevalent form of really really really really nasty behavior "misusing Wikipedia processes" which was missed and is highly relevant in this case. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect: These are good. I don't think simplifying our standardised set of principles is so urgent an objective that we need to re-vote on all these principles, but the committee could certainly strive to simplify the principles in its decisions in the future. AGK  [•] 22:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * TY - my background is science and not law <g> but I did have to write a bunch of by-laws for various organizations in the past, so tend to think short and clear is best. Collect (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion by Arbitrators
Regarding the conversation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators, all due respect to Silk Tork, but saying that it's okay to give a topic ban to editors who don't really deserve one because it's the "price to pay" is totally unreasonable and there is no Wikipedia policy that justifies that. I had no involvement in this case other than being named here. I was not part of the original discussions that involved KC on the article talk page. I made brief comments, well after that, about the state of the article only. That's it. I was not editing the article. When this started, I had not edited that page since December 2010, and had only made two brief visits to the talk page, each one a full year apart.

KillerChihuahua made an error when she included me. I understand her confusion at the time this occurred, but I was not a participant in any of the issues that brought this case here and no one has shown otherwise. I've only stayed around now because when KC involved me here, it put me in the unfair position of having to defend myself. I've participated in the moderated discussion as best I can, but I don't plan to edit the article after it's unlocked. That should be fairly obvious by now since I've given up on the talk page, and I don't edit the new subarticles. I have not done anything to deserve a topic ban. I agree with Roger Davies that editors who have been there continuously for the past 3 years should be banned because if they haven't got it sorted by now they never will. I'm not part of the continuous bickering, tendentious editing, personal attacks, and edit warring that got the article here, and I don't believe I deserve to be included in the punishment just because it's "the price to pay." Malke 2010 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Topic ban" has negative connotations which are not warranted.  And the TE past has been determined to a great extent by "what works". (TE works, trying to get a resolution in talk doesn't)    It needs a change of the environment, not a change of editors.  The latter would just cause a repeat of the situation. Even just leaving the article fully locked would be a better choice than that. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Malke 2010. I have fewer concerns relating to your involvement in the article than that of others. My preferred solution for edit restriction for the main contributors is not gaining traction, and the case has stalled. I would not welcome proposals for individual topic bans as I feel there are group dynamics involved here, and if some folks get banned, but not others, I question how the article would proceed, and who else would then get involved to "redress the balance". AGK's comment: "Many of these contributors have spent quite long enough on this article; they've had their chance at improving it", is striking a chord with me, and I would seriously consider supporting a ban on the main editors. Clean out the old editors - allow some new ones in - see what happens. It's worth bearing in mind that ArbCom is not about being nice or fair, nor is it a court of law - the purpose is simply to end a difficult dispute. People hope that ArbCom can come up with nuanced and elegant solutions to disputes - unfortunately that is rarely the case. Often the reason a dispute ends up at ArbCom is because there is no reasonable solution - people have tried and failed. And the members of ArbCom do not have more brilliant minds than others on Wikipedia - they/we are simply the folks who have been voted in to make binding decisions. And a decision needs to be made in this case.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (e/c)No, you cannot claim "group dynamics" and just sweep me up when I shouldn't be here in the first place. Define 'group dynamics' and show the diffs that support I'm involved. You are acting out of a false assumption. You are assuming that by not banning me, I will have an advantage. What advantage do you reckon that would be?


 * Over the last 3 years, where are my contributions that have led to this case being brought here? There aren't any diffs. Killerchihuhua hasn't shown any diffs that justify my being here. You've none. If you want to protect Xenophrenic and Goethean, please find another way of doing it without throwing me under the bus.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that that "cure" (something that other people will use as a scarlet letter) is far worse than the disease which is just another eternally contentious unstable article, as nearly all Wikipedia articles on contentious topics are. Plus one new person (who would not be involved) is already doing more of the same than 3/4 of the pre-arbcom editors, so you already would have an immediate failure with that idea.
 * Plus the arbcom case has already succeeded in it's most important realistic objective....shutting down that unwarranted, baseless mindless random bloodfest at that ANI.  To an evidence based-venue which clarified the reality.     <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are some good points made. I'm not, however, proposing bans, and I'm not saying I would support a proposal - but I would seriously consider a proposal if one were made. I'm not seriously considering it now, because it's not on the table - and if it were, I would look again at everyone's participation. But I take on board quite firmly the notion that it may be the article itself that is the greater problem rather than the contributors, as that is a notion I have been kicking around from quite early on in my looking into this affair, and I may well have already mentioned that. We could remove this set of editors simply to replace them with another set who encounter the same frustrations. I am wondering if it might be better to suspend the ArbCom case to allow the moderated discussion time to see if the article can be stabilised and so remove the cause of the friction and frustration.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  23:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, excellent. Suspend the case. Taking the approach that it is the article that is the greater problem and not the editors might well be the way to sort this. It would necessarily have to include you remaining on to moderate; or if you are unable to stay, then another ArbCom admin. And I would also support keeping the article locked for the time being and no rush to unlock it until it is apparent the editors have established a collegial editing environ. It did exist at one time, however brief it was. I would also recommend that the notice box on the moderated discussion have a firm block warning so that it's understood violation of WP:PA will result in a block without further warning. It's not you needing to be there constantly as much as imposing more discipline that's needed. It will keep things civil when you're not there as in "SilkTork is only an email away" sort of thing. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. Also, while, of course, locking has it's downside, the combination of locking and a moderator has provided what this article needs.... a new landscape where  discussion decisions (rather than aggressive and TE editing) determines what happens. Later on (after the big needed changes are made) maybe the best of both worlds would be to dictate BRD with teeth.  Uncontested gnome edits would stick, contested edits could only be re-made as the result of a discussion decision. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Although this section is entitled "Discussion by Arbitrators" it would appear that there has been no discussion on the pages related to the case at hand for several days. As the "Moderated discussion" has become noticeably one sided and something of a parody of itself, while aspects of the dispute have spilled over onto the Talk page of the RFC/U on Xenophrenic, I would suggest that inaction on this case may be serving to validate the types of behavior that were the reason for the case being taken up in the first place.-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 10:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice try. So there are substantitive discussions going on where you apparently don't like where they are going or what they are discovering  and so you attempt to relabel them as bad behavior. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To what "substantitive discussions" are you referring?
 * How do they relate to this case?
 * What are they discovering?-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 11:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Progress at the article, and the research being done at the RFC/U. And I don't think that it takes me to answer which connections and overlaps do and don't exist.  Except to note that the RFC/U is broader than the TPM.   <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks at the RFC/U Xenophrenic Talk page
I don't know if the following comment about me/addressed to me is meant to provoke a reaction, but it clearly is not collegiale or constructive, and was not issued in response to any comment made my me either directly or indirectly to the posting editor."Regarding Ubikwit's making personal comments, he's already got an interaction ban with Evildoer. He's already banned from another article. He appears to have transferred his disruption to Tea Party movement. Most of you have probably noticed that he's got quite the fixation on me. Check the ArbCom workshop page, the moderated discussion page, and the old ANI where he started all this. I'm thinking of asking for an interaction ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)"

Perhaps I should point out that I have addressed Malke making somewhat egocentric statements earlier in the discussion, and several years ago against Viriditas. I didn't bother to mention the following comment she made with respect to Silk Tork (and me), as I didn't want to make it seem like I was insulting your intelligence, as it was a response that addressed "the reasoning" of a Committee member, but for the record"This is starting to sound like a 'let's get Malke line' (my emphasis) and there is no justification for this. I don't agree at all with Silk Tork's reasoning here... And the fact that Ubikwit is not mentioned here, and with his bad-faith record of disruption, violation of sanctions, and revert-only account is more than wrong. This is bias. Clearly. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)"-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 16:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

re: Proposed findings of fact: Goethean (alt)
I'd like to respond to NewYorkBrad's comment. I expressed regret here for one of the reverts (this one) and for an inaccurate edit summary. Additionally, two of the edits, as far as I can see, simply moved text around without removing any text, and gave precedence to external/secondary source s rather than to primary sources. The other two edits undid the removal of material. &mdash; goethean 20:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The odd thing about some of these reverts to me is that the article oscillated from containing one description of the Tea Party based on (a component of) its official website, and other description from an outside source, with the implication that only one or the other was correct or could be used. The diffs here don't show (maybe there are others that are relevant) effort to utilize both sources as showing different or complimentary perspectives on the movement.

Although Tea Party Patriots calls itself the official website of the Tea Party, I don't think that there is wide acceptance (on- or off-wiki) of that claim. If there were a single official Tea Party website, it would make the writing of the article a much, much easier task for all. Because there is no widely accepted official Tea Party website, several websites are listed. A secondary source (in this case a NYT article), I thought, should be listed first, in addition to the primary sources. &mdash; goethean 20:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not familiar with or weighing in on any potential behavioral issues, but I think that "representativeness" is a matter of degree. Being a prominent national organization within the TPM certainly pushes it higher on the scale, and anything having indication that it has the support of that organization (i.e. on their website) pushes it higher.  Still can't be considered to speak for or characterize the TPM as a whole, but a much stronger indicator of such than, for example, what an anti-TPM writer says.  And n the latter case, the writer is more of a participant than a source. (not saying that that particular case was such) <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Goethean, I could be wrong, but I don't think NewYorkBrad is talking about you specifically. I think he's talking about the edits to that section in general. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U for Xenophrenic
I noticed today that /Requests for comment/Xenophrenic has been opened, which seems directly related to this case. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic status
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision has no arb names under support but is listed as having two support votes in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision. As noted in the comments of #Xenophrenic restricted, they're not currently a named party. In light of the ongoing RFC/U please clarify their status with regard to this arb com case. NE Ent 13:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * IANAA but it is clear that Xenophrenic is not a named party (d'oh) to the case, but that at least one arbitrator though that the finding and sanction would be of relevance in the proposed decision process. In many cases, findings which appear of limited use end up "on the cutting room floor" in the process of crafting an actual decision.  As two arbitrators have indeed already opined that the concept for a sanction on a non-party was interesting, it is pretty clear that no such sanction will be issued.  AFAICT, there is no relevance to the ongoing RfC/U, nor should any such relevance be implied because of the material in the proposed decision page (which is like a piece of scrap paper with regard to the end decision). Collect (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple of observations, if I may:
 * I see no great obstacle to adding Xenophrenic as a party if ArbCom wishes to pronounce some finding about him. The ANI case involved allegations about him and proposed remedies against him early on . It seems odd that his behavior be completely ignored in this forum.
 * I was surprised that the RfC/U against Xenophrenic (such as it stands now) mostly repeats the evidence presented here, given that said evidence was found non-actionable by the couple of Arbitrators who got that far down the findings list. I was hoping we wouldn't have a repeat of the ANI case of vague allegations on strict partisan lines (in the RfC/U I mean), but I guess I was expecting too much in a case like this.
 * Regards, 5.12.68.204 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO the "vague allegations on strict partisan lines" at the ANI were almost totally in one direction and Xenophrenic was not the object of such, and there was certainly no evaluation of evidence in the mindless mess. But IMO there are NO individuals who should be the target of the arbcom case.   Xenophrenic and Geothean just needed a little nudge which I gave them, and then mis-actions in response to that snowballed it into the mindless stupid disaster completely-off-target mob-violence ANI, and arbcom was the way to end that mess, which it succeeded at.  SilkTork's efforts at the article have created a better-than-it-has-ever-been  (albeit still imperfect) situation.  Missison accomplished  as good as it will ever be (until policies are changed). Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the ANI thread had almost as much discussion about Xenophrenic's edits (at least one very long section) as it had about goethean. It seems very odd to leave one of them out of this ArbCom (and include the other one plus opponents). Given how the RfC/U on Xenophrenic is going, it may end up as TPm case II at ArbCom if nothing is decided in the current proceedings regarding Xenophrenic. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (added later) (5.12...whoever you really are) that's not what I said. As forced by that debacle, I provided the 10 day sample of Xenophrenic's edits only so show that my original nudge was warranted and reasonable, There really was no examination of Xenophrenic's activities at ANI.  If Xenophrenic accepts even a bit of the nudge at the RFC/U, I would oppose the TPM case II that you are alluding to.  Also I consider it a testament to the mis-actions that turned my nudge into that mob-violence ANI that the person who has most dominated the TPM article for the last 2 years is not even a party to the arbcom case.  And the person who's mis-actions snowballed the nudge into the ridiculuous ANI mess it is also not a party.  So the two most culpable persons are not even parties  to the arbcom case.  What a debacle....time to consider it a success and end it. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic's status in this case is that they are one of the individuals whose conduct is being examined regarding the editing of the Tea Party movement article, and the ANI incident that led to the case being opened. The RFC/U is a community process outside the scope of ArbCom, and while what happens and is said there may be considered by the Committee as a whole or by individual members of the Committee, it is not part of the case, and decisions on what happens there are down to the community not to ArbCom.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So, Xenophrenic not being listed as a party to this case is a simple clerical error? In the amendments made to her opening statement, KillerChihuahua wrote "[...] one of them certainly called for Xenophrenic to be topic banned and he is involved in editing that article. In hindsight, I should have added his name to the case;" North8000's opening statement concurred "And Xenophreninc, who has, by a lion's share, been the most involved should be on it." Xenophrenic is named more than a dozen times in the /Evidence page by at least three different editors and I counted around one hundred mentions of him in the /Workshop. In view of all this, I have to ask: Who decides the official list of parties anyway? And when is that list final? These are probably trivial matters in most circumstances, but in this case an entire "wikilegal" theory has been built in the RfC/U on Xenophrenic starting from the fact that he is not listed as a party here. So the community would certainly benefit from answers to these questions. And I suspect that future ArbCom proceedings would also benefit from such procedural clarifications. Thanks, 5.12.68.204 (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

User:NE Ent, I'm not sure what you're referring to, Xenophrenic restricted has no votes and the implementation notes reflect this, however Xenophrenic has two support votes and the implementation notes reflect this. Is it that you the two confused or am I missing something? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Either way it's too late to effectively add someone to this case. (I believe that 5.12.68.204, who has made efforts to deprecate the rfc/u, knows this.) And the two most important people are missing. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "made efforts to deprecate the rfc/u". Such as? 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (added later) Well, your last post is an example. Which implies that the entire RFC/U is founded on a legal theory that Xenophrenic is not a party.  And embedded in that is assertion of an incorrect premise that the RFC/U is about the TPM article rather than general behavior.  And then an inch or two above with the highly creative "found non-actionable" as a deprecation of the RFC/U.  <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wrote "was found non-actionable by the couple of Arbitrators who got that far down the findings list". See for yourself: ends with "Xenophrenic is not named as a party, and there is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions." Endorsed by two Arbs. Also  endorsed by none, but with three comments, two pretty surprised it was even proposed. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I don't mind Xenophrenic's behavior outside TPm being examined in a RfC/U or wherever else. I even commented on some of the evidence in the RfC/U. But ArbCom should make up its mind whether Xenophrenic's behavior on TPm is or isn't examined in these proceedings. I think it's absurd to declare that Xenophrenic's behavior is being examined (as SilkTork has done above) but at the same time write a finding that Xenophrenic isn't a party. The problem seems to stem from the lack of clear procedure in determining the parties list. It appears that was up for grabs and even when the filing parties concurred on who to add, nothing formally happened. Never mind that thereafter a non-party was named over a hundred times in /Evidence and /Workshop, including proposals for sanctions coming from other parties such as this one. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * IP: I've been waiting for that diff. That's exactly what Xenophrenic would point out. Been waiting for it since you got here. There's plenty of evidence of Xenophrenic's actionable behaviours. You've certainly mastered his usual talking points about himself––and his usual techniques such as claiming the RfC is 'non-actionable.' That's exactly what he tried to claim. He edit-warred over it. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say I'm Xenophrenic (or his sock-puppet)? 5.12.68.204 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it curious that Xenophrenic is named in this case and has refused to comment here. If one looks at Xenophrenic's typical behaviours, you would see he always vigorously defends himself. Look at the disruption he wrecked over several pages just from being identified as a tendentious editor by Arthur Rubin. Xenophrenic launched edit-warring, personal attacks, walls of rambling, disruptive text on Arthur Rubin's talk page, followed by an ANI that was another time-sink. He came to my talkpage with another wall of text after I posted on the Workshop that topic bans should include Xenophrenic and Goethean. Just the other day, he edit-warred over whether the RfC/U meets the minimum requirements, repeatedly moving the RfC/U up to "Candidate pages" from "Certified pages" on the UsersList: His reaction to any criticism is to launch a vigorous defense, and yet here on ArbCom he's silent? Does anyone else find that curious?  Malke 2010 (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he's not aware that he is named in the case. I don't know what the procedure is - maybe a Clerk could check that he's aware of what is going on. It would be inappropriate for us to be discussing him - especially in relation to possible sanctions - without him being formally made aware of it.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's certainly evidence he's aware. I think the Clerk sent him a notice. If not, the case and his involvement have been discussed repeatedly on the article talk page and the moderated discussion page. He seems aware of every mention of himself any where on Wikipedia. I've mentioned it to him, I know, on Arthur Rubin's talk page. Yes, he's well aware that he's named here. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

quote ''I'll repeat what I said above. You apparent missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)''


 * And Xen, you didn't go to ArbCom because you don't want them looking at you. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Malke is right on this aspect. Further below in that post, in reply to "And Xen, you didn't go to ArbCom because you don't want them looking at you. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)", Xenophrenic answered "Incorrect, Malke. I'm mentioned there on all of the case pages, and the associated Talk pages. At least 62 times. You apparently are unfamiliar with ArbCom; they are indeed looking at me. I explained above why I am not actively participating, apparently you missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)" So he was aware of the extensive examination of his edits. Which makes adding him as a party a mere formality, as I suspected all along. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the exchange where just prior Xenophrenic removed my three consecutive comments that referred to his prior comments, then split them up and answered them. I then restored them for context and he edit-warred over it. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed that you think Xenophrenic was edit warring in that exchange while you clearly weren't. I must have missed the policy that says editing other peoples talk page comments is exempt from edit warring. 204.101.237.139(talk) 19:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ^^^^^Nothing odd about this^^^^^ †TE†   Talk  23:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * IP, you're right, I should have mentioned that I was edit-warring, too. It takes at least two. Thing is, Xenophrenic starts edit-wars with so many editors for so many reasons on so many pages, it's easy to focus on that. I should have clarified. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Malke 2010 Man, you like to claim edit wars often.  For example, I made a mistake in informing Malke 2010 of a discussion at the administrators notice board.  I used {{, instead of [[ to link a user name. [|1]  I than tried to fix the mistake but that was quickly reverted. [|2]  I honestly thought I wikipedia had made a mistake, because it was back to displaying the wrong thing.  I fixed it again and it was quickly reverted. [|3].  I was than told I was a vandel and edit waring. [|4].  Heck, she couldn't even take another user telling him what went wrong. | 5If I didn't know better, I would almost think she was looking for a reason to question other editors that he may disagree with.Casprings (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that Malke is a she. Other than that... &mdash; goethean 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Casprings, regarding your various 'mistakes' over several talk pages and noticeboards, please consider your own words. ". . .almost think. . ." It's likely that you know as well as everybody here that when you hit the save button, your edit stares back at you. That was my point. And are you a vandal? Not likely, but you do things rapidly. Remember the RfC/U on Arzel? And if you'll recall I did commend you for responding to editors' comments on the talk page and asking it be closed. And regarding Ansh666, he'd already been asked not to return to my talk page several days earlier. I think we both know he wasn't really there to explain anything. An admin has now explained to him about not returning. And Goethean, have you considered writing articles instead of being a revert only account? Malke 2010 (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right it stares you in the face and you are right I was moving quickly to inform others of the discussion. I believe I made the mistake on your page and one other, before I noticed.  In which case, I figured out what was going on and moved to fix it.  Thanks for the compliment on the RFC/U on user:arzel.  While that was closed because of an admitted mistake on my part, I do hope you will show fairness in reviewing the actions of all users.  In my opinion, there are far more issues with user:arzel edits than with user:Xenophrenic.  I do find it interesting how the same editors, including myself, have lined up on the same side of each of those WP:RFC/Us. One almost thinks this has more to do with the substance and viewpoint of the editors than with their actual actions. Casprings (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why we use diffs to sort it. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Goethean, have you considered writing articles instead of being a revert only account?
 * You should consider familiarizing yourself with relevant facts before launching personal attacks that are obviously wrong. &mdash; goethean 15:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gpethean is a prolific article writer - that does not mean he is infallible <g>. Collect (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Goethean complaining about a "personal attack." Seriously? And a personal attack that is "clearly wrong?" So does that mean Goethean's personal attacks are all right? Unbelievable. First, my comment was in response to yet another ascerbic comment by Goethean: I think that Malke is a she. Other than that... &mdash; goethean 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC) He made that without knowing any of the facts, btw. And second, FYI Collect, when I checked his "articles created" at the bottom of his "contribs" this is what came back: . I still have no idea what articles he's written. And frankly, with an editor who routinely abuses fellow editors without ever apologizing or taking personal responsibility for his words, I don't care. You could show me a list of thousands of articles he's created and it would still not outweigh the things he's said to others. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And a personal attack that is "clearly wrong?" So does that mean Goethean's personal attacks are all right?
 * It means that if you want anyone (outside of the right-wing affinity group) to take your comments seriously, you should get your facts straight before posting complete nonsense. &mdash; goethean 15:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously you took my comment seriously enough or you wouldn't be back here with yet another personal attack. Right wing affinity group? Hilarious. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

Suspend case
Does this mean TPM will be locked down for another month? †TE†  Talk  02:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved from Proposed Decision page, which should be edited by Arbs and clerks only. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If the motion passes I would unlock the main article which then comes under discretionary sanctions. Discussion would continue on the moderated discussion page, with contributors seeking consensus for significant edits, and then actioning those edits themselves. The aim is to see if contributors can resolve this dispute themselves. If they can, there would be no need for sanctions. If they can't, then it is highly likely that topic bans would need to be issued.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  08:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Must've been quite the battle over there to trigger all of these actions. Glad I missed it. †TE†   Talk  13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really.<font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * SilkTork, long story short I think that suspend is the best realistic choice. The case was mis-worded from the start (some other totally uninvolved person should have written the start of it) leaving it too flawed to tackle the issues at the article or what then happened outside of the article.  But it still is in a position to accomplish an important mission (ending the ANI disaster, and moving it to an evidence based and rational venue) and it has succeeded at doing that.
 * Your continued involvement at the article would also make a big difference. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done Silk Tork for bringing the motion. I hope it passes. This seems the best solution especially as the articles will be under ArbCom sanctions during it. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed principle about tag-team editing
I'm shocked to see the committee invoke the paranoid "tag-team" notion, which was as far as I know invented by User:Elonka in a context where she wanted it as a bludgeon against her adversaries. I'm not saying genuine tag-teaming doesn't exist, though I do believe it's rare — I would guess at most 1 % as frequent as loosely thrown-out accusations about it — but how can it ever be substantiated? Unless you hack somebody's e-mail or their Private Message IRC conversations? And how can a smear about it ever be falsified? It's ridiculous! (Yes, this proposed principle and the votes about it is months old, but I don't look at this case every month.) Bishonen &#124; talk 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC).
 * It's pretty simple. When multiple editors disagree with you, they're a "tag team". When multiple editors agree with you, they're a "consensus". Pretty much every single time I've seen the term "tag team" used, it's boiled down to that equation. MastCell Talk 00:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that. And the principle can be taken further, into more populous arenas: when lots of people disagree with you, it means they're a mob with pitchforks. When lots of people agree with you, it means you're Jimbo. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC).


 * Additional note: see also the recent discussion on WT:Tag team. In 2008, User:Risker (an arb now, though not then) argued for the deletion of the tag team essay as "mostly a very useful checklist for POV warriors (singly or in groups) to use when attacking their opponents". Pity she's not active on this case. Congratulations to User:AGK for his 'lonely oppose vote'. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

I've said the same thing that MastCell just said many times. So the "tag team" term can be used to make entirely proper behavior sound like an offense. But in this article, editor #2 jumping in at key moments (combined with 1RR restriction & relentlessness) completed editor #1's domination of the article. Even then it is more of a situation to be recognized than "tag teaming" itself being an offense, and we seem to need to have a word for a phenomena in order to recognize it. Which is all old news now. Editor #1 has gotten much much better here and editor #2 has (at least temporarily) moved elsewhere. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

concerns
Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) has attempted to block the inclusion of a peer-reviewed publication because he disagrees with the publication's conclusion.[6] During the suspension of the case, Phoenix and Winslow was banned from editing the Tea Party movement article for 1 week by User:SilkTork[7]

Appears to consist of two separate parts connected together by "ArbSYNTH". ArbCom does not handle content disputes - and the issue as to what sources to use or not use is a content dispute, and not a behavioural issue. The discussion linked to [6] in the "finding" occurs after the article edit ban from SilkTork, and we do not use "reverse time logic" in stating findings. And for ArbCom to make a finding that the cause of his edit was because he dislikes the publication's conclusion is something not shown in the talk page posts that I can find. The ban by ST was based on an edit, and was not related to that content dispute from 5 days later, and thus that bit is a fish-hook without any fish on the end of it. When ArbCom seeks to make a finding about a person who is not a named party to a case, it should have extremely strong evidence. The case was open for a long time without P&W being mentioned - and the mention now is quite "out of process" entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC).


 * Well Phoenix and Winslow has been one of the most active edit warriors since the Arbcom case has been raised, and has been forum shopping. It might be synth but I find it difficult to see how s/he can be excluded. <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 16:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that the two sentences are not related, and the second has no connection to the first, nor the first to the second. I plead guilty to a bad pun ("ArbSYNTH" makes the heart grow fonder) but the issue as I stated it is correct.  If the finding were "P&W has edit warred" (with diffs to support that claim) that would be a quite different matter, but that is not what this strange finding asserts.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that that is P&W's apparent reason. The second is a finding of fact.  Even if P&W's attempt to block the inclusion of a peer-reviewed publication was improper, it seems that he based on the fact that the conclusion of the paper, as inserted into the article, is objectively false.  (I know, "verifiability, not truth".)  I don't recall whether he had a contrary source.
 * As a practical matter, the second sentence would almost certainly be approved by ArbCom; it's objective fact. The first is disputed, and might not be approved; in any case, ArbCom members should be given an opportunity to vote separately on the statements.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for any confusion guys; I drafted this finding pretty quickly yesterday and it is still quite incomplete. I was also under the impression that P&W must have been added a while back; after all, he has been editing the article for months now. I have asked a clerk to add him to the case. With respect to the bulk of the complaint, I do not see how one could read the thread starting at 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC) as being motivated be anything but disagreement with the source. P&W even starts off his comment with "Here's where Perrin goes astray". If you read the thread, it is clear that the source had been brought up for discussion and that P&W had no source to offer in counter to that. He or she is by no means the worst offender here (I was also highly disappointed by North8000 and ThinkEnemies in that thread), but I think this situation is important to document. I would welcome suggestions for copyedits. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also "highly disappointed" at ThinkEnemies most of the time, so you have a friend in me. Though, I might take offense to being named as an "offender," when I believe you've missed a few other contributors to an overall offensive dialogue. Criticism is only constructive when applied evenhandedly, IMHO. †TE†   Talk  18:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The 60,000 ft. view, and what can be done next
So the article was chugging along in the sad state that all contentious articles are in. A duo of editors (Xenophrenic, backed up Goethean at key moments) was dominating the article and needed a nudge which I gave them. Goethen decided to swing back by canvassing some admins to go after me and one of them (KC) did. KC mishandled about 90% of everything. The non-issue became a resolved/moot/stale non-issue but KC had slipped into battling (not admin) mode with me and persisted. As a part of the battle KC lit a bonfire at ANI, with no basis. The one good move by KC (moving it to Arbcom) was done in a way to send the arbcom case off on wrong tracks from the start. Leaving out one of the 2 main dominators, and declaring the other innocent at the start. She also left out the one whose mis-actions (herself) were responsible for the unnecessary bonfire and so the person who has done the most harm to the "people" situation is not even a party to the case. Subsequent mis-actions by KC (at Intelligent design) have (to me) confirmed that she is in battleground (not admin) mode with me. The immense evidence at the Xenophrenic RFC/U has confirmed that my original take on the situation was totally right, and KC's was totally wrong. Another tangent was ignoring the bonfire and the dustup, but the mere act of Arbcom taking the case solved that. The third tangent was the misdirection that "misbehavior" at the article was the cause of the inevitable sad state of the article. Even the worst of the behavior (Xenophrenic-Goethen) needed just a little "push", not an Arbcom case. So from the start the case was sent off on three tangents and it has never recovered. Now ALL of that has become old news. Xenophrenic has become much better there (I even just gave them a barnster for their efforts) (let's hope it lasts), Geothean has disappeared from the article (at least for now), and only one person (Ubikwit) has really still been doing battle, and they are doing in in a clever legal way (trying to gin/spin up stuff to get people into trouble) that will evade scrutiny, and they are not even a party to the case. So the whole case was sent off on a tangent from the start, and now to compound that, most of what is in it has been made obsolete by subsequent events.

SilkTork underestimated their success (even if they made a few mistakes). The debates have no longer been a battle, they have just been a complex mired down editing effort which nobody seems to be able to get moving. More progress has been made there in 1-2 months than the previous 3 years, not that that is saying much. Arbcom has already solved the bonfire problem. And the article being under the magnifying glass has helped and will help. But any further travel along the three wrong tangents that the case has been sent on and traveling will do harm rather than good. Regarding good still to be done, there really only is one viable route to do further good:


 * Abandon the three tangents. Put together something that will truly help the article to go forward.  This would be hard and complex to do but if you succeed it will be a success in an important area where wikipedia is batting about zero (the condition of contentious articles).  Something that will keep the drama level low while avoiding the pitfalls of making it an article which is too dangerous or hopeless for editors to try to participate / improve. Too complex for me to suggest something here, but the two recent proposals (one by me.....sort of supervised BRD with teeth, and where the status quo must stand as just another choice) on the moderated talk page might be a plan.

Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)<font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Shut the moderated page down and throw away the key
See in response to.

Six disparate editors all agreed to certain stricter rules than had been in place. One editor objects, and to deal with his objections would surely take weeks of discussing process instead of actually trying to find a rational consensus based on compromises. When "process" becomes all that important, the fact is that no discussion can ever reach a rational conclusion. Taking on the role of mistletoe in Norse mythology is not exactly the best way to impress this particular editor whose sole aim has bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing/1een a readable, NPOV encyclopedia article based on compromise and consensus. A bientot. Collect (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Which six "disparate" editors are you referring to here? &mdash; goethean 00:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the moderated discussion section "Lis alibi pendens" and you will see the discussion on this. "Disparate" is a common English adjective - what precisely did you mean by using quotation marks?   I had trusted the wording was clear (count is now higher as ThinkEnemies added to the supports). Collect (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd look for an antonym for disparate then it wouldn't need to be in quotes. We have a major set of behavioural issues on this article, not least of which is a consistent pattern of said disparate group voting in support of each other then one or other making the change before consensus is achieved.  Lets get this case out of the way then we can look at it again in the light of whatever rules and restrictions are laid out.  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 01:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I used quotes because the word is perfectly and obviously inappropriate when applied to the same group of editors who have been consistently working together to introduce a right-wing bias into articles. "Disparate"? Really? You, Arthur Rubin, Malke, North, Phoenix and Winslow? Disparate? Who do you think you're kidding? &mdash; goethean 02:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean like my "bias" in such articles as Mo Rocca, Wayne Madsen. Carl Truscott etc.? I daresay you regard my edits on Australian politics also as "right-wing"?  Sorry -- that is exactly the sort of uncivil charge which has been the downfall of many discussions on Wikipedia - I have no "right wing bias" that I know of as I am not "right wing" in the first place.  If you look at my last 20,000 edits you will find that I have also been accused of a "left wing bias" as well.   Now I submit your post above, under the proposed moderated page rules, would be grounds for your immediate banning from that page. And your charge of "working together" is beyond the pale, and I would ask the Arbitrators here to note your gross violation of civility rules in making such a claim without any evidence whatsoever.  In fact, I suggest it indicates that they should, indeed, note your behavior as warranting a topic ban from all political articles if this is how you conduct yourself.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Any chance of diffs to those 'left wing" accusations Collect, you have excited my curiosity <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 13:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Read all the talk pages and noticeboard posts about the "AWU Scandal" for example, and the "Johan Hari" article discussions.  A few dozen others if you like ... my biographical edits alone include Adrian Hilton Alan Cook Alan Feinstein Alan Harvey Alan Keyes Alan Rabinowitz Alex Sink Amelia Earhart Amity Shlaes Amy Scobee Anderson Cooper Andreas Teuber Andrew Storms Anita Van Buren Anjem Choudary Anthony Indelicato Armand Rousso Arthur A. Goldberg Arthur Kemp Ayn Rand Barbara West (TV news anchor) Ben Hecht Ben Savage Benjamin Harrison Benjamin Walker Bernard L. Madoff Bernard Madoff Bernard Miège Bertram Earl Jones Bian lian Bill Boner Bill White (neo-Nazi) Billie Jean King Billy Graham Billy James Hargis Bobby Jindal Boyd K. Packer Brent Galloway Brian Carney (editorialist) Brian McGinlay Brittany Murphy Carl Paladino Carl Truscott Carmel Maher Cecil Adams Charles G. Koch Charles Keating Charles Taze Russell Charles W. Fairbanks Charles W. Harkness Charlie Crist Christine Gregoire Christopher Burnham Chung Mong-joon Clement Bowman Corinne McLaughlin Creflo Dollar Criticism of Julian Assange Curtis Clark Daniel Chester French Danny Masterson Darcy LaPier Dave Snowden David Copperfield (illusionist) David H. Koch David Hightower Smith David Huckabee David Miscavige Dean Graziosi Death of Elli Perkins Death of Kaja Ballo Death of Lisa McPherson Death of Philip Gale Denise Drysdale Dick Cheney Dino Rossi Doc Rivers E. Roland Harriman Earl Jones (investment advisor) Edward Moskal Edward Nottingham Elvis Presley Enid Marx Frank R. Wallace Fred C. Koch Fredric U. Dicker Gabe Cazares Gail Riplinger Gavan McDonell Geoff Simpson Gerald Flurry Gerald MacGuire Geronimo Gideon Levy Gillian Hiscott Glenn Beck Gregory Dark Guo Shoujing Hans Zinsser Harley Reagan Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere Harriet Klausner Harry Wayland Randall Helen Jones-Kelley Herbert L. Becker Herbert Sorrell Howard Kaloogian Huey Long Hugo Gernsback Ian Plimer Ida Ljungqvist Iman (model) Iman Abdulmajid Irving Louis Horowitz Jacob Gelt Dekker James Cagney Jane Corwin Jay Bybee Jean-Claude Van Damme Jeffrey Zaslow Jennifer Carroll Jerry Rawlings Jerry Seinfeld Jim Goetz Jim Inhofe Joe Sulzer Joe Wurzelbacher Joel C. Rosenberg John Ashcroft John B. Kimble John Dodge (editor) John Dowd (motocross) John G. Roberts John J. Pershing John Lurie John M. Walker, Jr. John Resig John Roberts John W. Campbell Jon Peters Jon Wiener Joseph Widney Juan Williams Justus Weiner Kaja Bordevich Ballo Kendrick Moxon Kevin Powell Kevin Trudeau Kip Kinkel Kris Jenner Lawrence Wollersheim Lelia Doolan Leo C. Zeferetti Linda Eagle Linda McMahon Lisa McPherson Lori Douglas Loyola Guzmán Lynndie England Majora Carter Mark Lancaster Mark Twain Martin Eisenstadt Martin Gardner Martina Navratilova Marty Beckerman Matt Drudge Menelas N. Pangalos Michael Grimm (politician) Michael Lockwood (guitarist) Michael McGinn Michael R. Meyer Michael Savage (Political Commentator) Mike Darwin Mike Duke Monique Wadsted Morton Brilliant Nedra Pickler Neil Best Nerissa Corazon Soon-Ruiz Nguyen Tu Quang Nguyễn Tử Quảng Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers Norbert Wiener Patrick Kluivert Paul Krugman Peggy Orenstein Peter Bogdanovich Peter Breggin Peter H. Kostmayer Peter Hitchens Peter Mandelson Peter Vallone, Jr. Prem Rawat Premchand Dogra Prescott Bush Péter Medgyessy Rachel Corrie Ralph Nader Ravi Shankar Reza Moridi Richard Rossi Rick Santelli Rick Santorum Rick Scott Rick Warren Rob Bell Robert C. Michelson Robert Wurzelbacher Rush Limbaugh Samuel Dickstein (congressman) Samuel Gonzalez Jr. Sarah Palin Scott Crookes Sharon Keller Smedley Butler Steve Rivkin Steve Sailer Ted Frank Terry Bozzio Theodore Miller Edison Thomas Edison Thomas Muthee Tim D. Keanini Tom C. Korologos Tomasz Schafernaker Ulla Procopé Van Johnson Victor Berlin Vince McMahon Vincent Price W. Averell Harriman Walter Nowick Wayne Gretzky Wendy Campbell Wesley Donehue Westbrook Pegler Will Sohn William Ament William Averell Harriman William Dudley Pelley William F. Buckley, Jr. William Rodriguez William Scott Ament William Timmons and a few hundred others, but the fact is, as KC has stated heretofore, that any attacks on me as "right wing" are fatuous and ill-made.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not an attack. It is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that your use of the word "disparate" to refer to this group of editors is nothing but a very funny joke to anyone remotely familiar with the group's contributions. &mdash; goethean 14:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your demeanor here is less than exemplary, and your comments even less so. I routinely disagree with anyone, and agree with anyone, solely based on the content of the issue at hand.  I suggest you ask User:AndyTheGrump whether he agrees with this statement.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding. The only thing we agree on is that you and Ubikwit (and possibly Xeno) are presently not being helpful.  Both your accusation and this discussion should have no place on the moderated talk page, so I'm now in favor of continuing if a moderator can be found who agrees on the ground rules.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Arthur, we are all just as shocked as can be that anyone would dare to suggest that you regularly edit articles in concert with the same group of editors in order to bring the articles more in line with your ideology. Very shocking stuff here, I know. Actually the shocking thing is that a few of the usual suspects are missing. Are Darkstar1st and Arzel on vacation this week? &mdash; goethean 04:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit to having the same POV as North8000 and Collect (that most far-left and far-right articles have left-wing sources considered reliable and right-wing sources considered unreliable, without any reference to Wikipedia guidelines), but I only edit when material sourced only to unreliable far-left sources (usually blogs, or sometimes tweets) are included, and sometimes when material sourced to center- and right-wing sources are excluded, or when the left-wing material is being given undue weight, or when sources are being completely misinterpreted (Tobacco Control). Can you say the same (replacing left- and right-)?  If there weren't so many left-wing essays included as "reliable" sources, I might have time to determine which of the right-wing sources included as "reliable" were essays.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I believe Xeno is one of the 6 agreeing on continuation of the moderated page, and Ubikwit is the objecting editor. I'm sorry if that refutes your favorite hypothesis as to the expressed  editing biases of editors.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wrong. Xeno agreed to continuation of the moderated page, but refused to agree to any of the rules.  One of the editors generally considered to be in the left-wing gang agreed without reservation. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

We're never going to be able to rely on simple agreement to special rules. For a true POV warrior there is too much to be gained and too little to be lost by breaking or dismissing them. My proposal relied on the rules being madnatory and an admin to watch us and a gnome organizer involved to make the admin's job relatively small so that we can actually get someone to do it. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Updated evidence posted
Note to Arbs, I've posted an update on the evidence page. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to it: . Malke 2010 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting Votes
David Fuchs and AGK may need to review their votes. In particulate FoF 7 and 8 vs Remedies 7 and 8. If you agree there was no support or evidence for sanctions, you probably shouldn't be voting for a sanction. I note that T. Canens and Newyorkbrad expressed the same thought before those votes were cast.

Presuming AGK will keep his vote to topic ban, I expect he will have a better reason than just being an SPA. I can't find in that essay where it says it is grounds for a topic ban by itself. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Argh.
The only editor to be named in the final decision is apparently me, who never edited the darn article and never participated in any of the activities which have led to this article being in front of ArbCom. I request some of you - well meaning, I am sure - strike your supports and move to Oppose per T. Canens. If you choose not to do so, not a thing I can do, of course, but dang its silly to be listed as "was not guilty of anything, but peeps wanted to desysop her! which didn't get enough support". I don't have a crystal ball but this is a dreadful precendent IMO. Respectfully submitted, etc. Killer Chihuahua 18:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I only supported in order to lend my moral support to you, I have happily obliged. Regards, AGK  [•] 20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My style is to talk bluntly but not to see sanctions against people. ("de-sysop"  screams while being attacked in the ANI snake pit/bonfire aside and to be taken in that context....I do NOT want that).     This was just another contentious article chugging along in the same hopeless state as all of the others when you went into battling (not administrative) mode and decided to light a bonfire and pour gasoline on it, and later to mis-direct the arbcom case.       The biggest issue is not what happened in the article, it is what happened in the places outside of the article. I oppose sanctions against anybody and everybody (including you), (let's just move on) but IMO you have done the most harm of anybody in this overall situation. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * While you never edited the article, you did participate in the activities that led to this case. You were asked to get involved in the matter, and you did. And you eventually took the matter to ANI where it got out of hand. And then you brought it to ArbCom. There was nothing you did that calls for any sanctions. Though it's worth noting for future use that some of the article contributors felt you appeared to take sides in the dispute. The finding in the case was to say that the Committee had looked at the matter and felt that there was no need for sanctions. You brought up the desysopping in your opening statement, so I felt it was appropriate that it was shown that the Committee did look and cleared your name, otherwise it might be felt that that aspect of the case was either deliberately or unintentionally overlooked.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  14:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whenever an admin intervenes in a complex dispute, some editors will feel that the admin has "taken sides". That's virtually universal, and thus not really "worth noting". It's happened to virtually every admin who's intervened in Israeli-Palestinian disputes, or climate-change disputes, or cold-fusion disputes, or... well, you get the picture. It would be worth noting if an admin wasn't accused by someone of taking sides. Or if the Committee felt that there was actually some substance to these accusations. MastCell Talk 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true - in this particular case, the situation got out of hand with calls for topic-banning and desysopping and then a request for an ArbCom case. As such I felt it was worth commenting on.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it - thanks for the clarification. MastCell Talk 22:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that in this instance, KC only listed editors she perceived to be 'conservative.' She found no fault with Goethean's comments at the time she brought the ANI. It was Goethean's comments that North8000 was responding to that caused her to engage with him. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see accusations of admins "taking sides" very often, and this wasn't such a routine one. Analysis of an immense preponderance of evidence including (subsequently debunked)  finding (after non-analysis)  on Xenophrenic and Goethean, failing to list the main player (Xenophrenic) and immediately exonerating the other (Goethean),  conversations on her talk page, careful analysis the exchange on my talk page (the issue was clearly already stale/dead, and I was seeking to disengage with KC and she persisted) in tandem with the time line of  talk page of the article, and subsequent "drop and run" comment/threat at Intelligent design indicate that KC was clearly in battling mode, not admin mode with me. I don't seek any sanctions but this is telling it like it clearly is.<font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000, "battling mode" clearly describes your persistence in demanding answers from KC and refusing to desist even when her illness was pointed out to you. If that's you "trying to disengage" you really must learn to actually disengage. . . dave souza, talk 17:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Malke, I take great exception to this attack/accusation/slur. You have no reason to presume this was my rationale; I have explained my reasoning before, and it was strictly policy-based. I object to this personal smear on my character. Killer Chihuahua 18:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

banning everyone?
I would like to note that zero evidence to topic ban me has been presented, that the AN/I discussion found zero evidence to topic ban me and my major sin has been to be a good faith participant in the moderated discussion of all things. I take umbrage as much as KC does at such treatment and respectfully ask my name be removed from the "proposed decision". Adding mnames where zero evidence is given and no one has asked for the person to be topic banned is simply and frankly wrong. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The moral here seems to be never get involved in an ArbCom case. But more worrisome; the moral also seems to be never get involved in a highly contested article. The motion notes that not all (or any) of the topic-banned may be at fault, yet if they are listed in the ordinary topic-ban section they end up under a cloud, and will not be able to run for arbcom for instance. I think we may need a new category of topic bans: the non-fault topic bans, people in that category should be considered still in good standing. The current motion could actually make it more difficult to solve future stalled discussions, because new “independent” editors who aren’t over-eagerly interested in the topic will stay away due to fear of ending up with a topic ban that will tarnish their reputation. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not involved, AFAICT, in "contentious edits", I tried like hell to get folks to compromise on the moderated discussion page, I was not even a listed party to the case for almost the entire period until the past week (User:The Four Deuces also falls into this aggrieved category and should also be removed post haste)  and I sure as hell think this is one of the single most asinine draconian proposals ever made by any group in the history of groupdom.   If you wish to "ban them all" then you should include a bunch of editors more contentious than I or TFD. Including Snowded and Bbb23 of all people.  Cheers - but this sort of "decision" is like "kill them all and God will know his own"    and has a less than zero chance of redounding to anyone's respect for ArbCom at all.  Arbitrators: Stick to people whom you have evidence for, for God's sake! Collect (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a complete mis-fire. And there's not even a dispute going on any more.....the biggest current problem is a shortage of editors willing to actively participate. The Arbcom case has done a lot of good already. Unless they are going to come up with a creative new framework, they should just leave it at that and close it out. Any further actions that focus on editors are a complete misfire. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There were a few solutions mentioned, including dismissing the case, but as edit warring has continued and the article had to be locked, it was felt that a change of editors might be helpful. You'll note that the wording does not attempt to put blame on anyone - indeed, seeks to point out that apportioning blame to any individual or group of individuals might be inappropriate because difficulty in editing the article appears to be more due to the circumstances than to any individual. Difficult in the circumstances when we are not apportioning blame to actually select which editors to restrict. Restricting those named in the case seemed the fairest and easiest solution. I suggested at one point restricting everyone who had ever edited the article (including myself) as that would underline that no blame is being attached, but this is a more targeted and rationale approach. Some of the editors have been more helpful than others. Some have been more uncivil and obstructive than others. But it's difficult to draw a line. So everyone was named. This is simply asking everyone to step back for six months. No blame, no shame.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For me personally, (particularly with the all-important "no blame" qualifier, and the "no distinctions" idea needed to say that) the proposed idea sounds like a very pleasant, relieving >= 6 month vacation. But to realy do that you need to get the word "ban" out of there.  Nearly Wikipedia article which might have an effect on a real-world contest is in a similar situation.....the wikipedia system (policies, guidelines, noticeboards, etc.) doesn't work on those. So the problem isn't the editors, it is the system.   You could accomplish something huge by creating a framework that would help this move forward.   (something with "BRD with teeth and the status quo must stand as merely another choice" might help, and a success story on this would be huge with huge ramifications)  But such would be immensely complex/difficult to do.  So while the idea is, I think, not the best choice for the article, as currently written it is fine with me personally. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll note that the wording does not attempt to put blame on anyone ... Nevertheless, for years to come this decision will be used to beat well intentioned editors over the head for trying, in good faith, to bring a helpful resolution to a contentious article. You know perfectly well that some editors will be using this decision as a weapon, SilkTork.
 * Furthermore this motion avoids any decision on other matters which are appropiately brought before the Committee and should be acted upon, and I'm thinking specifically of the Wikistalking by WLRoss. If Arbitration members just don't have the time to review this properly, then perhaps they should resign and bring in a new group of Arbitrators who can handle these responsibilities. As far as I can tell, there is only one active proceeding before ArbCom and this is it. Essentially, perhaps you are admitting that you don't have the time to serve on the Arbitration Committee.
 * Iselilje and Collect bring up a very good point: do not become involved in a contentious article, especially one which is going into arbitration because you will be topic banned, regardless of how well you behave and how hard you work to genuinely improve the article.
 * This is simply asking everyone to step back for six months. No blame, no shame. Wrong again. The blame and the shame belong to the Arbitration Committee members who proposed, drafted, and voted for this motion, for it is a confession that the Arbitration Committee cannot do its job. In the business world we call this "incompetence." Voting was proceeding on various specific remedies which offered the likelihood of permanently topic banning the worst offenders. With this motion, you will have the very same worst offenders back in exactly six months, rested and refreshed and ready to do battle. It may be hard for some of you to spot and sanction the worst offenders, but it's not impossible. Such Arbitrators as AGK and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs proved that it's not impossible because they've voted on sanctions for the worst offenders.
 * Try harder. I have. So have several other editors who became involved in this mess, not due to some personal political crusade, but out of a desire to improve one of the worst trouble spots of the encyclopedia. Most people run out of a burning building. Firefighters run in. I was trying to serve in the role of a firefighter, and this is the thanks I get? Arbitrators need to make the same best effort that a few of the editors at Tea Party movement have made. A few people are genuinely without fault in this matter, such as Collect. Some have made a few mistakes along the way but are now making their best efforts ever, including North8000, Malke, Arthur and me. Some are escaping findings of genuine fault in this matter, and long-term sanctions that are not only well-earned, but in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. This is a Pontius Pilate approach to one's duties as an Arbitrator. By voting against this motion and then voting on appropriate sanctions for the appropriate individuals, a majority of Arbitrators still have an opportunity to do the right thing for Wikipedia, and for its editors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, P&W, but I am not an offender at all, let alone among the "worst offenders." I've made substantial contributions to moving this process forward and I've not broken any of the rules unlike you. Including me at all is patently unfair. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Malke, I wasn't thinking of you when I said "worst offenders." Please take note of the following sentence: "Some have made a few mistakes along the way but are now making their best efforts ever, including North8000, Malke, Arthur and me." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P&W, no, you said, "Such Arbitrators as AGK and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs proved that it's not impossible because they've voted on sanctions for the worst offenders." They've voted on sanctions against me, among others. Without any evidence, and AGK is using my block record which is three years old and none of the blocks were for TPm. And saying, "Some have made a few mistakes along the way but are now making their best efforts ever, including North8000, Malke, Arthur and me." What mistakes have I made? Do you have diffs? I'd like to see some especially since SilkTork, AGK and DWFuchs have none. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you see all this civil – but incessant and distracting – bickering with one another? I am afraid it is why the motion has been proposed. AGK  [•] 22:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * AGK makes a good point.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * AGK: Do you see that I'm not bickering but asking P&W to correct a serious misstatement he's made? Also, please note your comment here: ? You've said I was blocked for behaviours but you failed to note that none of the blocks were for behaviours on Tea Party movement and also failed to note that the blocks are 3 years old. Also, you've not shown one diff, not even one, that supports any kind of sanctions for me. I'd not edited that article in nearly 3 years. I'm not "the most active editor" there. I've not edit-warred, made personal attacks, or shown any other behaviours that would remotely justify sanctions against me. You claimed I'm the most active editor, based on what? On the edit count of 3 years ago? There's absolutely nothing to implicate me here, yet you single me out. And when I asked you on your talk page to reconsider, you didn't even give me the courtesy of a reply. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Malke 2010: I'm very sorry I didn't respond to your message on my talk page. You left it when I was on vacation, so I didn't read it at the time, but I should have – and I apologise for not doing so. To respond to the substance of your concerns: you may not have edited the article itself very often in the past year, but you have been a substantial contributor to its talk page, even in the past couple of months. Those contributions included such things as this, which I considered to be disruptive. As for singling you out, in actuality I have not been focussing on you any more than I have been focussing on the active contributors to the TPM article or talk page. Rather, I have been reviewing each party's conduct in sequence, beginning with somebody else and then you. After I wrote up the proposal to topic-ban you, I then decided to change tack and propose a "clean start" for the article – in the form of the motion that we are now voting on. I hope this makes my position more clear. Regards, AGK  [•] 23:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * AGK: No, I had not been active on the talk page. I made a comment on the talk page in February 2013 after an absence of a year on the talk page where I made a brief comment in passing and then left for another year, as I've explained in the evidence and the workshop and the main page. I had not made a comment before that for a year, and before that for another year. I have not edited the article at all in 3 years except for four edits in April 2013. I WAS a substantial contributor to the talk page, PAST TENSE, and the fact that I have so many edits there for the year 2010, shows that for the ONE YEAR that I did edit the Tea Party movement, I demonstrated that I'd rather discuss matters then engage in non-productive behaviours like edit wars which you will find consistently happening over these last 3 years from some of the other editors named here, but you will NOT find it for me. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And that diff? Sorry, but that absolutely DOES NOT justify a topic ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * SilkTork, I'd add that you've even stated there isn't enough to sanction me but you didn't want Xenophrenic to be disadvantaged if I wasn't also banned. Based on what? Where have I been editing that page or even any of it's subarticles? I've done nothing wrong. Have I made oversighted BLP violations? Have I made personal attacks? Hounded anyone? Edit-warred? No, I haven't yet you want to throw me under the bus. You're doing it to Collect and TFD also. What are these based on? Even KC has said she didn't see where I should be sanctioned and she brought the case: . I've done nothing wrong and I've contributed to the moderated discussion, followed all the rules, etc. And for what? You're the one who quit that. Sorry, all of you Arbitrators have got to rethink this and sort the real trouble-makers here and I'm not one of them. Neither is Collect or TFD. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Something that should be considered by parties who don't think their behavior is poor enough to sanction is that Wikipedia does not operate on societal principles of justice. This proposal - like all WP proposals in theory - is shaped to further the goals of the encyclopedia, not to immaculate justice for any particular editor.  Undoubtedly, there are editors in this dispute who have acted worse than others and I don't even disagree that some editors don't deserve sanctions.  But that's not the point.  Arbcom has a complicated case - maybe one of the most complicated in its history - and there are no easy solutions.  Banning the worst of the editors (if 'worst' can even be quantified here) will still leave an intractable dispute among the rest and what this article could really use is some fresh eyes, preferably eyes belonging to people who don't particularly care about politics.  So is this decision fair to the editors involved?  No, not to all.  But is it better for the encyclopedia?  In my opinion, yes - and whether it's good for the encyclopedia is the only relevant question.


 * I'm sure it's a policy most editors here are aware of but it should be iterated here that you have no rights on Wikipedia (which includes the right to justice/fairness). Quoting from WP:FREESPEECH: "Your only legal rights on Wikipedia are your right to fork (create another encyclopaedia independent of the Wikimedia Foundation) and your right to leave (stop editing)."


 * With that said, a couple of editors have expressed valid concerns that an Arbcom ban is tantamount to a de facto future RFA/Arbcom election failure. The proposal already deals with this to a certain extent, but to allay these concerns I think it should be very explicitly stated that this ban is not a statement about any particular editor, but rather that this combination of editors has been unable to deal with the problems present due to the contentious nature of the subject matter and possibly the timing of the previous presidential election.  As such, there is no blame to go around and no inference can be made about any specific editor.


 * The only other concern I have is the possibility of an even worse editing environment being created to fill the power vacuum should this proposal pass. Discretionary sanctions are the front line to deal with this but it may require heavily active administration in the forthcoming months.


 * AGK & co: your proposal was audacious and took courage to present. I've been following this case a little and have been at a loss as to what solutions would work.  I know that if you've gotten to this point it's because you believe you have no other choice and obviously I'm inclined to agree.  Hopefully the next 6 months will demonstrate you were right.  N o f  o  rmation  Talk 00:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then let's see some diffs. You obviously think editors here have demonstrated poor behaviour. Let's see the diffs. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's your response to what I wrote then I don't think you understood what I wrote. However, if you're simply looking for reading material then the evidence subpage may have what you're looking for. N o f  o  rmation  Talk 00:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Bad wording in motion
The motion says (in effect) "this is not a topic ban" and then in the next sentence says "if any editor violates the topic ban". Looie496 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch. I've modified the second "topic" mention to "page ban". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of the encyclopedia, I can support this motion
In order to forego the enormous amount of work it would take to sort through the policy issues and conduct of each editor, this sounds like a reasonable approach. And insofar as it is a novel approach, it holds out promise for bringing to the surface further aspects of group dynamic editing problems on contentious articles, hopefully producing more fair and efficient methods for remedying such scenarios in the future.

Though I feel that I am one of the least culpable on the list, others will undoubtedly feel the same, and I would hope that they would consider this comment in the spirit of opening the article up to other editors for the time being, freeing it temporarily from the preconceptions and biases that have proved insurmountable for the group of editors listed.-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 15:10/3:40 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that is the right attitude to take, and I thank you for posting this.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course you think this is the right attitude to take because it allows you to do what you want: enable the Arbitration Committee to fail or refuse to do its job. I repeat, this appears to be the only active case before the Arbitration Committee. So this is, in effect, an admission that you do not have the time (or perhaps the desire) to actively serve on the Arbitration Committee and perform its most necessary function. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is an outrageous accusation backed up by sloppy facts (the committee has four cases in front of it as we speak). AGK  [•] 11:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Two are brand new, just in the past couple of weeks: "Infoboxes" and "Ironholds." So that makes three, two of which just opened. "Race and politics" was closed five days ago with no further action, after a lengthy period of suspension. I rarely use the word "outrageous," AGK. What's truly outrageous here is what Xenophrenic, Goethean and WLRoss are being allowed to get away with. I remember Apostle12 of the "Race and politics" case from three years ago, helping WLRoss author and then tenaciously defend the Franklin article's horrendous BLP violations. I knew it wouldn't be the last we'd see of him. I'm just as certain this will not be the last that you see of WLRoss, Xenophrenic or Goethean. All three are tendentious POV pushers. In addition, WLRoss is a Wikistalker; and as you've personally observed, Xenophrenics contribs are a textbook definition of an SPA. The evidence is overwhelming against all three of them; let them slip away now, and they'll cause train wrecks like this on some other article (or articles), just as sure as the sun's coming up in the morning. When will anything be done about it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ubikwit made an egregious BLP violation calling a living person a sociopath and then claimed he'd have to read the policy on that though he's been editing since 2009. He broke all the rules on the moderated discussion. He edit-warred multiple times, he hounded me, he regularly made personal attacks against editors, he brought ANI complaints without justification, from the beginning he attempted to get editors in trouble by tattling at your talk page, and he continuously disrupted what sincere editors were attempting to accomplish. So far, the worst editor on the list is Ubikwit. Why are you so protective of him? You never banned him when he broke all the rules, in fact, you made it easy for him to get away with it. You allowed him to revert himself.


 * Please show me the evidence right here, right now, that proves why any of us, excepting Ubikwit, should be topic banned. Where's the evidence? Show the diffs. Show the bad behaviours. I'll be happy to show the bad behaviours of Ubikwit that deserve a site ban. Starting with that BLP violation.


 * Where's the evidence?

Malke 2010 (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ubikwit's BLP violation
 * Oversight of BLP violation:
 * Says he’ll have to read the policy.


 * Ubikwit makes edit to TPm article without any discussion or consensus on an article that is already under editing restrictions and had just come under ArbCom scrutiny.


 * Ubikwit's recent history on arrival at TPm included an interaction ban with Evildoer:


 * Ubikwit violates interaction ban:


 * Makes personal attacks : ....


 * Hounding: "What do you mean. . .. "Since Malke has chimed in. . ." ..


 * Violates the no ‘revert rule imposed by Silk Tork on the Moderated Discussion page.
 * Violates consensus rule on Moderated Discussion page by actioning edit with just his ivote and one other: "Discussion and ivote".


 * Claims edit is made “per moderated discussion” in his edit summary when none exists:.


 * SilkTork allows Ubikwit to self-revert instead of blocking him for violating the rules again:..


 * July 2nd reverts where he “forgot” the rules again, this time because they were 'hatted.':.


 * Admits on Silk Tork's talk page that edit he's just made without consensus will be objected to, yet he made it anyway:.


 * Silk Tork allows Ubikwit to revert it, no block:.


 * Obstructionism: The edit proposed here is Ubikwit's own version combined with Xenophrenic's version. The only thing missing is a blockquote Ubikwit cannot explain the meaning of but insists it be included: . "Oppose" ivote:.


 * Ubikwit wrote several proposed versions of the Agenda section edit. In each, he insisted that this quote be included even though the quote itself read as having no relation to the whole:


 * Ubikwit was asked several times to explain what the quote meant and it was even suggested he simply paraphrase it. He would not respond to editors' requests to explain the quote, but on one occasion when asked again, "What does the blockquote mean?" he replied:

"It's html markup language jargon, not plain English.-- <font face='Papyrus'>Ubikwit 連絡<font color='#801818' face='Papyrus'>見学/迷惑 14:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)"


 * SPA:.
 * No articles created:

Malke 2010 (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A yes but ...
Having walked away from the any real engagement with the article given the impossibility of making progress I think this is a good solution, but I would exclude Collect and the The Four Deuces from the list, both have followed both the rules and principles here and have attempted to move things along. <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 18:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, since you didn't put the time and effort into the moderated discussion when it might have been useful in the fray that it was--as your statement implicitly recognizes--what makes you so sure that you can accurately make such a statement? In fact, only a full-on course of Arbcom proceedings examining the specific conduct of each individual editor could yield such a result.
 * Thus, I, for one, would only support the proposal in its present form, including all listed editors. And note that I was the last individual added to the list.-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 18:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have a choice. It's up to ArbCom.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Counterproposal
Amend your motion, or present a new one. Procedure allows two such motions to be pending and voted upon simultaneously, and it also allows motions to be amended. Whichever remedy you feel would be most likely to succeed, go for it.


 * The evidence against Xenophrenic and Goethean is overwhelming. Extensive histories of tendentious editing, battleground behavior and editwarring, with a history of blocks for it. In Xenophrenic's case, barely escaping without being blocked and topic banned just a couple of weeks ago, despite starting an editwar, violating 1RR and getting the article fully protected. In Goethean's case, at least one ArbCom member has noticed how he darts in at key editwarring moments and reverts, and his comments on the Talk page and at the RfC/U are actionable. Indefinite topic bans for both, appealable after a year.


 * The oversighted BLP violations by Ubikwit and ThinkEnemies, coupled with evidence against Ubikwit that Malke has just brought to light, are also very damaging. One-year topic ban for Ubikwit, appealable after six months. Six-month topic ban for ThinkEnemies, appealable after three months.


 * The Wikistalking evidence against WLRoss is also overwhelming. This is the classic open and shut case. He Wikistalked me after his extensive BLP violations were removed at the Franklin article, he was called to discuss his Wikistalking on User talk:MONGO, he was notified on that page that there's a problem with "Wikihounding," he said that he'd "stopped editing Tea Party movement as soon as [the Wikistalking allegation] was brought up," and six weeks later after the heat had died down, there he was again at Talk:Tea Party movement, joining the other side in a content dispute. Permanent topic bans from all articles and Talk pages related to Ugg boots, Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, 9/11 related articles, and of course Tea Party movement, with an interaction ban protecting me.

Make it clear in all five cases that these topic bans and the interaction ban are the direct result of their misconduct, to protect these articles and the Wikipedia project.

Then return to moderated editing with an admin or ArbCom member volunteering as moderator. In the alternative to the moderated discussion, a two-month mandatory break from Tea Party movement and its Talk pages for everybody not named above who has participated at all on the Moderated Discussion page, as determined by the contrib history of that page, including an explicit statement that it is a no-fault mandatory break. This includes such editors as Snowded and ArtifexMayhem.

This solution zeroes in on the worst offenders and removes them from the equation. Progress was being made in moderated discussion, greater progress than had been made in the previous three years, despite obstructions by those who will be removed from the equation. Remove them and let the rest of us get back to work, either now, or 60 days from now. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ThinkEnemies was blocked by SilkTork for criticizing the opinion of an author who specializes in the projection of their own racial bias onto others, but that comment wasn't bad enough to be hatted, reverted and especially not "oversighted" by the blocking admin. The fact it was posted on a moderated talk page and ThinkEnemies had only arrived two weeks beforehand presented an appealing opportunity for SilkTork to lay down the law. I can't speak for Ubikwit or their own WP:BLPTALK indiscretion as it has been oversighted. I'd assume it was something more serious. On the other hand, the OP's block for edit-warring on TPM and forum shopping on the dramaboards should warrant further scrutiny. †TE†   Talk  20:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ThinkEnemies was blocked by SilkTork for criticizing the opinion of an author ... Wow, you're right. My mistake. I apologize. I was taking it as a given that when you were blocked for it, it really was a BLP violation serious enough to be oversighted. Ubikwit, on the other hand, called a living person a sociopath, presumably without any formal training or licensing as a mental health professional and without interviewing the individual. But he wasn't blocked. Instead, he was given a barnstar. And Xenophrenic, of all people, also received a barnstar. Meanwhile, all that ThinkEnemies, North8000 and I got were blocks and week-long topic bans. Members of the Arbitration Committee are cordially invited to review the offenses for which we were blocked and topic banned, and determine for themselves whether they rise to the level of Ubikwit calling a living person a sociopath, or Xenophrenic violating 1RR (with his recent history of a 48-hour block for editwarring in February). regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancies in ArtifexMayhem's evidence
ArtifexMayhem's evidence does not accurately reflect the chain of events he recounts nor does it accurately reflect the source he's claiming editors opposed. Nor does he present the context within which all of this occurred.


 * Ubikwit makes this change in TPm lede (without any prior discussion on the talk page) on April 8, 2013:
 * He gets reverted with the editor reverting mentioning that the stable lede is the result of mediation.
 * But in his evidence, ArtifexMayhem claims that the discussion he then links to is directly related to this edit. But it is not. Instead, it is linking to a discussion in June related to an edit made by another editor who changed the lede: John Paul’s edit:
 * Shortly after on June 15, Ubikwit opens a discussion about the edit and suggests that his edit from April be restored. Casprings agrees with him and votes, "Support."
 * On June 17, Ubikwit makes the edit claiming he has consensus when it’s really only been 24 hours and the “consensus” is just himself and Casprings:.
 * And with this edit, Ubikwit puts in a new source: . The problem is, Ubikwit's source doesn't discuss constitutional originalism. Ubikwit doesn't understand at that point that there is a difference between popular constitutionalism and constitutional originalism.
 * Ubikwit informs SilkTork on his talk page that he’s made an edit and expects opposition to it..
 * Phoenix and Winslow opens a thread to assess editors’ reactions. He begins by saying, “This is in response to Ubikwit's editing of the lede sentence and introducing the words, "constitutional originalism.". Note that when ArtifexMayhem presents this ivote, he leaves off "This is in response to Ubikwit's editing of the lede senctence and introducing the words "constitutional originalism." Instead, he gives the impression that the editors are against the source only.
 * Because there's been no discussion and no consensus, Ubikwit is allowed to self-revert..
 * ArtifexMayhem has combined the two events making it appear that the opposition is to the academic source mentioned in the New York Times article, but in fact, it is to the fact that he made the edit in the first place without any consensus, and put in a new source which does not support his edit anymore the other one did. Neither source supports Ubikwit's edit. The first source a book, "The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review" by Larry D. Kramer, doesn't even have originalism in it per a word search in the book for "originalism" and "constitutional originalism." The second source, a law review article, speaks to the TPm's "popular constitutionalism," and doesn't support the edit either.

In his ivote on the current motion, NuclearWarfare said in part, “. . .there ought to be some giant blinking red light telling them that they went too far when they started to refute academic sources based on their personal beliefs.” But he does not name editors, nor does he offer diffs to comments that show these editors espousing their opposition to the academic sources based on their personal beliefs.

Malke 2010 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think NuclearWarfare was talking about me. And I think, with all due respect, there are a couple of things he's overlooked. It is NOT my position that they're unreliable sources. Xenophrenic is trying to use two or three academic sources to overturn 20+ reliable sources, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, and CBS News, and claim that the minority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT is really the majority viewpoint. All I've tried to do is demonstrate that the two or three academic sources that actually do support his position don't deserve that much weight. As editors we are allowed to consider a lot of different factors in determining the amount of weight to be assigned to a particular source. See WP:CONTEXT.
 * MastCell presented the Perrin source on the article's Talk page (not the MD page), that was the approach that I used, and again my effort was misinterpreted as an attempt to declare that it's an unreliable source. I'm just trying to determine how much weight to assign to it. North8000 has also discussed this when he mentions sources that satisfy the "floor" of WP:RS. Three reliable sources can't outweight 20+ reliable sources unless their quality is simply overwhelming, and the quality of the 20+ is somehow suspect. All I was saying is that the quality of those three sources is not overwhelming. And I'm sure that a thorough review would confirm this. NuclearWarfare, and the other ArbCom members who support this motion, have indicated that "for whatever reason," such a thorough review is not being done in this case. Which makes me wonder why I invested the time to compile the evidence for them to review.
 * This brings me back around to Xenophrenic and the other editors who really are obstructing progress on the article. The nature of their low-level, relentless guerrilla warfare is such that you can't point to one or two diffs and say, "There it is. That's why you need to block this [expletive deleted]." You really need to post 100 diffs and examine them with some degree of care and detail, to demonstrate that yes, he's pushing a POV and yes, he's editwarring and yes, he really is being tendentious. "For whatever reason," ArbCom is unable or unwilling to review those diffs once we take the time and effort to compile them. Therefore, "for whatever reason," ArbCom cannot or will not protect Wikipedia from a tendentious, POV-pushing SPA like Xenophrenic.
 * NuclearWarfare and the other ArbCom members who support this motion are also avoiding a decision on WLRoss and his painfully obvious Wikistalking, which has led to more than two years of content disputes at Ugg boots and related articles. WLRoss is another example of a low-level guerrilla warrior, always careful to stay under the radar. NuclearWarfare is one of the two current and former ArbCom members (along with FloNight) who stubbed the Franklin article after a truckload of really ugly BLP violations. NuclearWarfare is familiar with WLRoss, and his motive for retaliation. And NuclearWarfare, "for whatever reason," is doing nothing about it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add that Xenophrenic and WLRoss haven't even shown up here at ArbCom to say "Hello, not guilty." They're too busy elsewhere, being tendentious. (Here's Xenophrenic at WP:FTN, abusing Collect and tendentiously pushing his POV, for those who care about such matters.) Clearly they consider spending even one minute on an ArbCom case to be a waste of their valuable POV-pushing time. And they're still winning the case. So why did we go to all this trouble to assemble all these diffs about their behavior? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed motion
I agree with Courcelles' comment here. It's time Findings of Fact were presented with evidence. And I'd like the FOF on me to be corrected. I have not been active on the TPm article since January 2010. I had not edited that article in over 2.5 years. My blocks are three years old and not at all related to the TPm. I did have over 500 edits to the article (all in 2010) but as SilkTork noted I had 13 reverts and three of those were for vandalism. That's 10 reverts out of over 500 edits. I participated in the moderated discussion because SilkTork claimed that as the "leading contributor" I had to agree to the moderated discussion or there wouldn't be one. I opposed it in the beginning because it seemed to me it would put editors who participated at an unfair advantage and could lead to ArbCom sanctions. I didn't break any rules of that page, nor did I violate any Wikipedia rules. There's not been any evidence presented that shows I deserve to be here. And I'd like to point out that I was editing while being subjected to relentless hounding and personal attacks by Ubikwit which included a groundless ANI complaint. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Decision Suggestion
If I could make a suggestion, I would create a two month period when the article is off limits to any editor with significant(any) involvement in American Politics. I would recruit some un-involved editors to work on the article. With the work that is already done on the talk page and the moderated discussion, creating a very good quality article should be low hanging fruit for truly un-involved editors. I would argue the work is basically there and one could get the article to WP:FA in that time period. Casprings (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Another proposal — this one may be more attractive
ArbCom reviews cases in the same way that the United States Supreme Court does: every member is expected to sift through all the evidence on every case. However, the USSC rejects about 90% of the cases petitioned for review. Also, they assign a lot of the reading and research to their law clerks, who are expected to write a reliable and very thoroughly researched memorandum, which the justices then rely upon in making their decisions. And they have a lot more clerks than ArbCom does. Frankly, ArbCom just doesn't have the clerks or the options to handle its case load that way, when confronted with a monster like this one.

I suggest that ArbCom should try handling this case in a manner that learns a few lessons from America's lesser courts of appeal: the federal district courts, and appellate courts of the 50 states. In those courts, the justices divide into panels of three, each panel is chaired by a senior justice, and each case is assigned to a panel. They have fewer clerks than the USSC but they also assign a lot of reviewing and research work to the clerks. And in an appellate court with nine justices (for example), they have three such panels, so they hear and issue prompt decisions on three times as many cases as the USSC.

In this case, I suggest that you divide into panels of three, each panel being chaired by one of the most active ArbCom members who have not recused themselves. The other ArbCom members could be assigned randomly. Each panel gets one clerk. Each panel reviews the evidence on an equal share of the editors in question. An effort should be made to ensure that each panel has a roughly equivalent workload. In a couple of weeks, each panel submits a brief report to the committee as a whole. The report summarizes the evidence against each editor reviewed, and proposed sanctions if any. For example, "Editor ABC was editwarring on one occasion[21][22][23] and engaged in a few moments of battleground behavior with some unkind remarks in moderated discussion,[24][25] but also made several attempts to compromise and was for the most part cordial and cooperative. No sanctions are indicated here."

On an individual basis, if an ArbCom member accepts the report at face value, he should vote for (or against) sanctions accordingly. If the member feels the report may not be accurate, he is still welcome to conduct his own investigation into the evidence. I think this proposal would break up the logjam, make the pending motion unnecessary, and get this case moving in an appropriate direction. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua's comment
I agree with KC that editors should not have been added after the evidence phase/workshop with the exception of Ubikwit. His actions and his record speak for themselves.

As for the others, I have been over the TPm talk page, especially from the early years and I can't find a single comment that justifies adding The Four Deuces, Collect, or ThinkEnemies to this complaint. In fact, as I recall in my time editing the TPm back in 2010, The Four Deuces was, and still is, a very collegial fellow and did not once push a POV. The same is true for ThinkEnemies. As far as Collect, my experience with him has been on the moderated discussion and other than an edit-war kerfluffle on one of the sub-pages, Collect has also been very collegial, very productive on that page, and not at all pushing a POV. I support dismissing them from the case.

As for Phoenix and Winslow, he's being accused of not going along with a source. Whatever sins Phoenix and Winslow may have committed on the moderated discussion, he learned from his mistakes and his block/bans and he didn't do it again. I'd also like to point out, he arrived at the moderated discussion in all sincerity to improve the article, to help create the sub-articles, and his work helped accomplish the goals that were met there. As for the other editor mentioned, WLRoss, I don't know him at all, nor can I find any evidence that he belongs here either. Whatever issue he has with P&W doesn't belong here anymore than Casprings' issue with Arzel belongs here.

These editors have all been placed at a terrible disadvantage because none of them is in a position to present exculpatory evidence since none of them has been given a clear understanding of what they've done wrong. No evidence has been offered to show egregious behaviours requiring ArbCom sanctions. With the exception of Ubikwit, I support dismissing them from the case. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

How's about this?
Any of the listed editors can voluntarily submit to a 2-month topic ban from editing the Tea Party movement and all associated subpages, including talk and sandboxes. It's my observation that more than a few contributors listed have already supported the current motion. One can only assume they'd be happy to accept two months instead of the proposed six. Refusal to accept the terms of this offer will result in an up-or-down vote on the individual editor by ArbCom using whatever criteria they see fit. The penalty being a mandatory 6-month topic ban from the Tea Party movement and all associated subpages, including talk and sandbox. If ArbCom finds evidence insufficient for the mandatory sentence, the individual editor will be permitted to resume editing at Tea Party movement and all subpages under the current discretionary sanctions.

†TE†  Talk  13:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing parties to the case Parties who should be listed under the Motion for final decision

 * - Previously a party Still an "involved party."


 * - Participant at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion and yesterday POV tagged Agenda of the Tea Party movement.


 * - Participant at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion.


 * - Participant at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion.


 * - Participant at Talk:Tea_Party_movement and at least 2 related articles.

Just a few more going through the edit history. †TE†  Talk  14:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * KillerChihuahua: "'There was a decision to have a 'Remedy' that nothing needed to be done about me, since I'd done nothing wrong, and it seemed silly to me (and several Arbs) to have that as a final remedy, so at my suggestion/request, they took it out - on my part, I thought it was a bad precedent to have 'remedies' with no problem and which did nothing. Was I wrong?'"


 * That's not for me to answer. Maybe whoever drafted this Motion for Final Decision can help:


 * How you're not listed "eludes" many of us. †TE†   Talk  17:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, you look involved here. And the problem is, North8000 had been editing that article well before any issue on Tea Party movement talk.

Goethean came to you and asked you to intervene in an argument he was having with others on the TPm talk, you didn't arrive there independently, but ever wonder why Goethean asked you instead of going to ANI and asking for community input? You were already involved on another article with an editor he clearly does not like. (See his personal attacks/incivility below.)

You said the TPm environ was toxic. But you didn't provide any evidence to support that. Below are some of Goethean's comments to editors at TPm talk. He made 191 edits to that page. Of those some are copy edits, of the rest 94 comments are directed at North8000, all of them incivil. Included below are comments to others as well.


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


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


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


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


 * “Bullshit.”


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


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


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


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


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


 * “Please watch your tongue. . .” At least he said “please”


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


 * “When all you have is a hammer.”


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


 * “Oh wow, really?”


 * “Please watch your tongue. . .It is not I who has been incessantly pushing. . .”


 * “Maybe you are right and everybody else is wrong.”


 * “Yes I know, your near constant advocacy, which has lasted how many months now. . .”


 * “Sockpuppet of a now blocked right-winger."


 * “Based on what Wikipedia policy?”


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


 * “Is that based on anything other than Malke’s freelance reporting work?”


 * “. . .User Darkstar1 has failed miserably and at ridiculous length to make his improbable and hair-splitting point. This conversation has long ago exceeded WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Not everyone’s patience for this patent nonsense is as extensive as WillBeback’s.”


 * “Darkstar1 do you think that you understand political science terminology better than the editors of Foreign Affairs magazine


 * Reverts IP who asks a question

Still think North8000 is the problem?

Malke 2010 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW "I can’t tell you how gratifying that is" was Goethean sarcastically shredding an olive branch that I offered. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did see that olive branch but I didn't want to add commentary. On the proposed motion AGK commented to Courcelles that part of the problem was that editors just couldn't get along, so I spent the weekend, off and on going through the archives. No matter what, Xenophrenic was still a likable guy as we all know. No matter how frustrating things seemed, you still had to like and respect the guy. I then read Goethean's talk page comments. I read all 191 of them. I never realized what a hard time you'd been having because I wasn't around anymore. I couldn't believe those comments and yet you stayed civil and even tried to be friends, as did the others, I must add. But over 90 of those comments were directed at you. And they were rough. Well done you. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is what North8000 calls an olive branch. &mdash; goethean 21:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, for someone who has said all of the above and more to me, it was a reach and a genuine start. Here's another one.   Let's be genuinely friendly and eventually friends.  Continuing to disagree on and  bluntly criticizing and argue against arguments and edits is fine and not inconsistent with that.  But trying to "win" by deprecating the individual would definitely be inconsistent with that.     <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, let's be friends. &mdash; goethean 21:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool. Realistically, first genuinely friendly and then friends. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Where the problem really is - diff provided for anyone willing to look at it
demonstrates OR, SYNTH, POV, and insertion of parenthetical claims which are not supported by sources. Deal with it, instead of the cloud-cuckoo-land topic-banning of editors chosen arbitrarily, without evidence or findings of any sort, who have not been given any opportunity to answer the claims which have not even been made about them, and where the original complainant of the case says that some editors do not belong here. BTW, should the "motion" pass, I shall take a "long leave of absence" from patrolling BLPs etc. I suggest that since we have not been given the courtesy of having time to present evidence to contradict the non-existent charges, that ArbCom shall have violated its remit as given by the community. Cheers. Now look at the damn diff and tell us what you think it shows. Collect (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not about evidence. It's about which political view you are perceived to hold. The evidence against Xenophrenic, Goethean and Ubikwit is overwhelming. There is no evidence to warrant an ArbCom case against the rest of us. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the correct Wikipedia view to hold. . Malke 2010 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting diff. Its first paragraph is probably the most honest and self-aware thing that any of the participants have said on the subject to date. The second paragraph seems to be a response to your rather odd description of the New York Times as a questionable source. MastCell Talk 18:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MastCell, here's what is really odd. You could not stop going on about North8000 making a BLP violation from two years ago. But we've not seen one word from you regarding Ubikwit's oversighted BLP violation from two months ago. Now that's odd. And as regards the NYTimes, that I believe the NYTimes will always present it's view of things in the best light, that has never stopped me from using the New York Times as a source. And if you bother to search the edit history, you'll see I've used the NYTimes many, many times. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, it would have been helpful if you'd taken a stand for appropriate sourcing (as defined by this site's guidelines), rather than enabling some of the more fanciful approaches to sourcing which have dominated this subject area. I haven't seen Ubikwit's BLP violation (perhaps because it's been oversighted), but if people who have seen it feel it's sanction-worthy then he should be sanctioned. MastCell Talk 19:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you've not provided diffs to the whole conversation, I can't really tell what I should or should not have done. It may be I was simply trying to mediate an argument. Unlike you, who seems anxious to start one. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . It has been revdeleted, not oversighted. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . Malke 2010 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, that conversation, in which Malke 2010 and North8000 attempted to remove the portions of the article that contain negative material about the TPM, began a mere four days after User:Will Beback was indefinitely blocked.. Will Beback's block, and the subsequent attempts to capitalize on the vacuum left by his absence, could be seen as what sparked, or worsened, the current dispute. &mdash; goethean 20:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, you have no diffs to support your conspiracy claim. Nor do you have diffs that link this conversation to any removal of material from the article especially any removal by me, nor do you have diffs of me participating in any argument between you and North that caused you to ask KillerChihuahua to mediate. Nor do you have any diffs to show that I was even aware of WillBeBack's blocks and subsequent troubles on Wikipedia, which as I have since learned, had nothing to do with the TPm. It's just another nasty comment, which if you'll bother to see above, you've got quite a history of making. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In most of those diffs, the text that you elided and replaced with ellipses was the more interesting and relevant material. I trust the readers of this page to go more deeply and to look at my comments in context rather than taking your claims at face value. &mdash; goethean 21:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The insults you made to others is the point of the posting. And note, I did provide the diff so that the whole comment could be read. So your complaint is what exactly? The insults are still insults. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The observation is that you deliberately removed the context in order to make the comments appear worse. But that's okay; at this point, I think that readers of this page are wise to such tactics. &mdash; goethean 21:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And that observation speaks to who you are, not to who I am. I provided the diff. And you haven't pointed to any comment that is rendered civil by the addition of the full comment. And you also seem to be missing what I'm sure everyone else has noted, you've not expressed any regret or embarrassment at what you've said to others. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not do as good a job as I should have. If I could go back, I would do things differently.


 * There is a group of editors here who have some very peculiar ideas about Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. North8000 thinks that the NYT is on a par with Rush Limbaugh in terms of reliability. And you apparently agreed with him (even if you no longer do). If the Arbitration Committee thinks that you and North8000 should be empowered to re-write the article without my input, they have the power to implement that decision right now. The fact that they have not done so tells me that I am not completely wrong when I think that some of the ideas here about policy are rather peculiar. &mdash; goethean 22:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You would do things differently? You've still not pointed to any comment that is rendered civil by the addition of the full comment. Nor have you expressed any regret or embarrassment for the things you've said to editors on the Tea Party movement talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

New discussion

 * I'd like to see a diff that shows I have anything but contempt for Rush Limbaugh let alone one that shows I compared the New York Times, which has a world-class fact checking department, to that guy. And the only thing peculiar here are your assumptions. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just went through the few comments I made to the talk page in 2011 and 2012 and I can't find a single diff that shows me stating that the New York Times is the same as Rush Limbaugh. Where exactly is that conversation? Malke 2010 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MastCell supplied the diff above. Here is the list of sources that User:Lionelt linked to and whose bias you compared to that of the NYT, saying: "Xenophrenic, why are Lionelt's sources biased but your source, the NYTimes, is not? The left leaning bias of the NYTimes is legend." The list includes such gems as American Renaissance (magazine), a magazine which embraces racialist theories. &mdash; goethean 23:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! No, I DID NOT compare Lionelt's list to the NYTimes. I DID NOT compare "bias." I DID NOT say anything about that list or even look at it. I didn't come up with that list. My question was to learn the difference that Xenophrenic saw between them. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between that and what you are suggesting I did. HUGE. One is the truth the other is totally not the truth. Do you have diffs of any follow-up arguments to point to that would show me defending any source, or even naming a source, on Lionelt's list? Of course you don't because I never did that. And that's not at all what my question to Xenophrenic was about. It's obvious what I'm asking there.

And here is another instance where you've done the same. You accused me of saying that right wing sources are more reliable than left wing sources. So I asked you to show me where I'd said that. But you couldn't show me, because you'd made a mistake. But rather than saying, "Sorry Malke, I meant to reply to North," instead, you blame me for your mistake by saying "there seems very little different [sic] between your positions" You fail to notice that I not only didn't have a position, I'd never made the comment at all.


 * You accuse me of something I'd not done, so I ask you to show me where I'd said it:

"@Goethean, please show me where I said that right wing sources are more reliable than left wing sources? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)"


 * You realize you've made a mistake but instead of admitting it, you blame me for it:

"I intended to reply to User:North8000 (there seems to be very little different between your positions), who said that 'the NYT is about as biased as Rush Limbaugh.' No offense, but that's a crazy statement. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)"

Why are you telling me "that's a crazy statement." I didn't say it. And "very little different [sic] between your positions"? What position are you speaking of there? I never said anything about Rush Limbaugh, nor do I recall having a position other than loathing him in the same way that I imagine most women on the planet do. You apparently are not at all familiar with the things he says about women.

You've made a nearly identical error accusing me of trying to remove a "peer reviewed source," here when I'd done no such thing.

I pointed it out to you and you had to strike it here.

Also, you said that if you get topic-banned, and North and I don't, that the Arbs are concerned that we'll edit the article without you? We edited the moderated discussion, along with several others, without you. And now there are several subarticles. Progress was made. Without you. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure that things are going swimmingly. That's why you have Collect at the top of this thread demanding(!) that ARBCOM ban Xenophrenic while he is also demanding(!) that ARBCOM not ban Collect. Because as long as there is one non-conservative editing the article and standing up to the conservative harmonious editing club, that non-conservative must be banned from the article. That's not exactly what I would call a well-functioning editing atmosphere. &mdash; goethean 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I made no such demand, but proffered a diff showing where the problem really appears to be, I find your demeanour to be less than collegial as a minimum, and trolling in all likelihood to boot. BTW, I am not a "conservative" but simply try to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Nice try at defaming editors, though, but Ikip is now gone. Collect (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. I apologize for defaming you by calling you a conservative.


 * Here are some of the edits that misled me. In the first, you removed seven paragraphs of material, some of it sourced to FoxNews, the Washington Post, The Guardian, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Dayton Daily News, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and CNN. In the edit summary for the second edit, you claimed that an article in the academic journal Tobacco Review "is not RS for making a contentious claim involving living persons per WP:BLP". &mdash; goethean 16:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. It would be nice if you avoided POV argumentation here and did not grossly overstate your case.  In fact, where the source for later news articles in "reliable sources" violates BLP, then those articles also violate BLP.  Being one step removed from a primary source does not affect whether a claim  is a BLP violation or not.   2.  I suggest you look at my 30,000 edits on other articles before making "assume" a byword for you.  Can you assign any political position to the Joseph Widney article?    Specifically my "conservative" edits about Australian and UK political figures, my edits on Canadian issues, my edits on US politics, etc.  Basing your categorization of any editor on well he removed material citing BLP is not only absurd, it is non-collegial and inane.  Collect (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, where the source for later news articles in "reliable sources" violates BLP, then those articles also violate BLP.
 * You lost me here. Can you explain what this means? My understanding is that WP:BLP says that material about living persons must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source. But your explanation makes it sound like that's not good enough. Please elaborate. &mdash; goethean 18:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of lost as well. Collect's first point, above, directly contradicts Wikipedia policy. Sources that are "at least one step removed" from primary sources are called secondary sources. Contrary to Collect's assertion, the question of whether or not an edit violates WP:BLP often turns on this distinction. Cases abound in which citing a primary source would violate WP:BLP, but citing a secondary source describing that primary source is appropriate or even essential. I'll file this misunderstanding among the many odd ideas about sourcing which have taken hold among editors in this topic area. MastCell Talk 18:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You misapprehend the problem -- since the original source violated WP:BLP in my opinion, sources iterating a BLP violation are still violative of BLP.  Cheers. - but you are now carping over a WP policy which, as far as I can tell, is clear about contentious claims about living people.  Contentious claims require strong sourcing, not iterations of the same original source. Nor do I see why holding strong and consistent views about WP:BLP makes one into a "conservative", "liberal" or "Gnarphist" by any stretch of the imagination. Collect (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Collect (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what the "original source" is that you refer to, which you claim violated BLP, and which renders any secondary source, no matter how reliable, (including such sources as The Washington Post, for example) to be violative of BLP. You removed seven paragraphs of material which was cited to reliable sources, claiming that the material violated BLP. Reading WP:BLP, the material did not violate WP:BLP. Please explain your understanding of BLP on which material referenced to the Washington Post et. al. violates BLP. &mdash; goethean 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? That has "nothing to do with the price of eggs".  What is important is that trying to categorize anyone politically on the basis of properly conducted discussions on appropriate noticeboards does not work, never has worked, and never will work.  This particular page is decidedly ill-suited for re-arguing decisions long since made.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, so Collect's personal understanding of BLP policy (let's call it C-BLP), on the basis of which it is proper to remove what seems like well-sourced material, will forever remain a mystery. &mdash; goethean 20:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that what they were essentially saying is that wp:BLP says that there is an even higher standard for contentious BLP material. Sincerely, <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously. I'm interested in discovering what that standard is, and why it must be adhered to, according to Collect, if it is not articulated in WP:BLP. It shouldn't be that hard to explain. &mdash; goethean 22:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO it's unclear at wp:blp. The existence of a separate section and the general wording in that section indicate a even higher standard for contentious BLP items. But the specific operative wording in that section specifies something that sounds the same as regular wp:blp. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's another mystery about Collect's abuse of WP:BLP -- what living persons, exactly, was he defending with his edits? The unnamed people in attendence at a Tea Party Rally? For all we know, they could all be dead, and there are no living people that he is defending! and what living person does this edit affect? It is becoming clear that Collect's BLP policy includes anything that Collect doesn't like. &mdash; goethean 00:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ad hom attacks on editors do not make for proper discussion on this page, nor on any page whatsoever on Wikipedia.  That discussion was over some time ago, and I see no reason in hell why you are pursuing it here.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem perfectly happy to discuss the edits of other users, just not your own. I was discussing your citing WP:BLP in order to remove material for edits which did not involve living persons, and if it had, still would not have violated WP:BLP, because the material was well-sourced. (This is not an "Ad hom attack".) In response, you referred me to a personal, more stringent, more subjective, but less coherent BLP policy atop your talk page which recommends removing anything which can be construed as an allegation, which arguably could include (apparently at your discretion) any content in Wikipedia which relates to living persons (or, in the case of your edits, which does not relate to any identifiable persons) that you see fit to remove. &mdash; goethean 01:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Read discussions at WP:BLP/N before making such aspersions and see what edits I do make there. I trust you will find I edit in accord with all Wikipedia policies, and I find your continued argumentation here to be less than worthwhile.  Adios. Collect (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Where the problem still is -- A diff maybe MC or whoever else will actually look at instead of passing over it to comment on other stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_protests&curid=21898839&diff=567572312&oldid=567414929


 * Xenophrenic rejects this source http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/apr/06/audio-rep-carson-first-peddles-out-racism-story-re/ and all content associated with it because "...the audio clip transcription produced by that Breitbart opinion writer, Kerry Picket, in the Washington Times piece has several errors." So I guess because Xenophrenic considers Kerry Picket to be a secret Breitbart agent and the Washington Times no longer to be a RS because he finds fault in their publication -- It justifies a thorough scrubbing by Xenophrenic and burial behind content for which it has absolutely nothing to due with and is now cited, i.e. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said as he walked several yards behind Lewis, he distinctly heard "nigger."[137][142]

Good work.


 * Xenophrenic inserts his own OR interpretation and transcription of a non-notable event because: "'Notability' is a requirement for article creation, not content within a Wikipedia article," and "transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." Well, I may not have a fancy wiki-law degree but I believe notability, or noteworthiness, or whatever you want to call it does factor into the equation when using primary sourcing of events that haven't been covered in any meaningful way by secondary sources. It would take extraordinary circumstances for me to hold the view of Xenophrenic in this area. Could you imagine a Wikipedia where any trivial nonsense deemed notable, or noteworthy by pseudonymous wikipedians would warrant such inclusion?

That's not a project for me.

There's more like his gross misrepresentation of sources in relation to Breitbart and a complete hitjob on Health Shuler we can discuss, and even more after that if any Arbs are willing to nut up. †TE†  Talk  21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_protests&curid=21898839&diff=567602011&oldid=567572312
 * Xenophrenic, upon reading this discussion as he's been shown to do here, has decided to move the source he previously rejected up to the content he utilized to replace the sourced content from the Washington Times of which he found unreliable. Now we have misrepresentation of yet another ref. The content from that Breitbart opinion writer, Kerry Picket, does not support the content: "One guy, I remember he just rattled it off several times. Then John looks at me and says, 'You know, this reminds me of a different time."

Instead, text from this source newly cited by Xenophrenic in the same detail he finds important would go something like: When asked how many people were saying it, Carson replied: "Maybe fifteen people about fifteen times." This quote discrepancy is just the most glaring. We'd then move onto other content from other sources. I've offered numerous scenarios where content from both sources are used in a responsible way, separate from eachother. Xenophrenic always declines, be it his known OWNership issues or what may be an even larger problem, a pattern Xenophrenic displays on sources -- The most opinionated and scathing against this movement he despises must get top billing. Period. It's a verifiable fact. If anyone cares. †TE†  Talk  23:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOTABLE: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Article content is regulated in this context by WP:WEIGHT, a subsection of WP:NPOV.  (No comment on anything else).  N o f  o  rmation  Talk 23:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, and when this subject is deemed notable and given an article, anything and more appropriately, everything in regards to this notable person, place or thing can and should be added. No questions asked, no guidelines required. That's wicked smaaart. †TE†   Talk  00:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But, moving on from WP:OR which I'm correct in citing, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV are both violated on the regular by the aforementioned editor.

†TE†  Talk  00:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's literally exactly what I wrote and/or what the notability policy says ಠ_ಠ.  N o f  o  rmation  Talk 05:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, but I've already swapped notable with noteworthy, so as not to confuse the powdered wigs. Sure both have the same meaning in the vernacular of commoners such as myself, but apparently not according to wiki-law. If you've read my comments it should've been abundantly clear WP:OR is the violation being cited, not some strawman as if we're talking about a newly-created article. Now, let's not further engage in obfuscation of the issue. †TE†   Talk  12:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this the longest Arbitration Case in Wikipedia History?
This is a very interesting case. The complexity of what to do is really interesting. The length of time that this has been going on seems to not be the norm. I have a simple question regarding the process. Is this the longest case ever or have other cases gone longer?
 * (from Iselilja) An additional question. Are User:Risker and User:Salvio giuliano active in this case? I can't see they have made a single comment to the "proposed decision" page which has been open since the beginning of May. Their votes will now decide whether the last motion will pass or fail. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a long one at days, with still more to go, but there have been other long cases. Scientology ( days), Date delinking ( days), the EEML ( days) and Climate change ( days) all come to mind as long cases. For fun, I am going to see if I can get a list of the longest arb cases up sometime this month. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  17:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Better long (or even letting it fade out) than making a bad decision. <font color ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Responding to Iselilja above, both Risker and Salvio giuliano are inactive on this case. See the listing at the very top of this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Iselilja, good question! I've used the wait to create articles. I've created 48 articles since this began. . Malke 2010 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NYB. Sorry, I mixed up here. I managed to miss that listing, looked somewhere else. Now, I see it's you are one of the two who haven't voted yet, so I guess we will see the end of this case relatively soon, then. I was almost getting a never-ending-story feeling here. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So Scientology is the case to beat? Go tea party go. Only a few more days!Casprings (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think the five weeks the case was formally suspended (for the moderated discussion) should count.
 * In my memory, Climate change was the most drawn-out case, but I'll defer to those who have done the math. Needless to say, delays of this sort are not desirable, to say the least. Of course I said this very often and very loudly before I became an arbitrator, as well. Those who are sure they wouldn't tolerate such delays are invited to run for the Committee this year. (I realize that that may come off as sarcastic or sardonic, but it is sincerely not meant in that fashion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sure with the current structure, such delays should be expected with cases such as this. First, it is a reasonable large group that has to research something pretty complex.  There is something that called real life that might get in the way for some  of the members.  Second, it is a conflict between two values that are in conflict here.  Fairness to an individual editor versus a solution that might be better for wikipedia and moving content ahead. Casprings (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't good for Wikipedia to make a decision like this without findings of fact. What each individual editor has done or has not done is relevant and should be listed. You cannot ask a jury to legitimately come to a verdict and tell them beforehand that they are not allowed to see the evidence. You cannot convict someone of wrong doing without evidence from the accuser. And I think that's what is so bothering the Arbs who have voted against it. It's not a good solution. Do you think you should be included? I don't. But what if someone had added you to the list? You might have a very different view of things then. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we were talking about jail time or a civil fine, I would agree. But we aren't talking about that.  We are talking about an article of wikipedia. THis is something that is done by volunteers in a collaborative effort for the purpose of building an encyclopedia.  The page is dysfunctional so having a new group look at it is logical, at least if one views this in terms of resolving disputes.  If one views the primary value as being fair to individual editors, than it is not a good decision.  It is fundamentally a subjective values judgement.Casprings (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not too late to add Casprings to the list—he edited the article as recently as June 23! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that and it is up to the committee. I have edited the article twice and both on the 23rd.  Both were copyedits.
 * Heck, I think the sledge hammer approach (if one goes that way), would be more effective if they went all out. The committee is already saying they are not punishing anyone on the list.  Why not take it a step forward and not allow anyone to touch the article that has involvement in American Politics.  Then ask uninvolved editors at various places on wikipedia to edit the article.  That would be more effective, if you aren't worried about fairness to individual editors.  In any case, if the committee wishes to add me, it is up to them.Casprings (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If I were punishing a bunch of people without a shred of evidence brought against them, heck, I might claim that it wasn't a punishment, too. It's called Newspeak.  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Should the five weeks the case was formally suspended for the moderated discussion count? Someone should open an RfC so we can discuss the matter. :)  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

ho