Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, [ edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Semi-protection
Remedy 14 - Articles semi-protected - appears to go directly against the Protection policy where it says "Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents anonymous and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time." I think this is a very bad idea both as Arbcom should not be rewriting policy and because we should not be preventing new and unregistered users from at least joining discussions on talk pages. Semi protection has never been necessary for the talk page of George W. Bush and even Sarah Palin at it's height of popularity only had the talk page semi-protected for a few hours. It sets the worst example if Arbcom are going to impose such protection on the community. Davewild (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia policy is based on what works to fix problems, then we (Wikipedians) need to modify policy as needed when a new situation warrants a different approach. That said, I could not vote for the remedy with the idea that all articles associated with Obama would have permanent semi-protection of the article and talk page. Rather, it needs to be seen as a short term remedy that is reevaluated intermittently to see if an alternative approach would work. I support a modification of the wording to make it clear that this is not a permanent solution in the sense that it must be continued past the point that other alternatives would be effective. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Davewild's point is correct though. There is no reason to blanket semi-protect all talk pages with a decision here. The decision should rather allow admins to protect both articles and talk pages where needed without imposing it preemptively on all affected articles as the current wording of remedy #14 reads. I suggest a different wording, along the lines of:
 * 14) In case of constant disruption, articles relating directly to Barack Obama may be permanently semi-protected, to be interpreted narrowly. To allow anonymous editors to participate, talk pages of such articles should not be permanently semi-protected unless no other approach can be effective to stop constant disruption.
 * I think it's important to not pass a remedy that effectively bans anonymous editing from those articles. Regards  So Why  10:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here, the Arbcom should not make a precedent for arbitrary semi-protection. Moreover, the remedy is incredibly evasive, and would certainly trigger wheel-wars in its application. It's almost a sacred principle that protection is not to be used without cause, both for pages and talk pages. A remedy to lower the bar for semi-protection, and make it longer than normally, may be appropriate; but all of them indefinite permanent, without criteria other than being directly related to the article Barack Obama ? I don't see sufficient evidence (or, quite strangely as most of their role is to justify remedies, findings of fact) that could support such a move (and I'm familiar enough with this case). Cenarium (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm quite sympathetic to the spirit in which Wizardman offered remedy 14, I do not think that the remedy is needed or advisable at this time (this is based on my own impression from familiarity with the issues at hand, but also on my reading of the findings of fact as proposed, which I don't see as substantiating a need for this remedy). My argument here also applies to the more time-specific version in 14.1.


 * I've been keeping an eye on some of the Obama articles and have enforced article probation so I certainly understand the problem, but to date it has not risen to the level whereby lengthy semi-protection (particularly for talk pages) is a step we need to take. In spite of some significant flare-ups, article probation seems to work fairly well (at least in my view), and drive-by comments by SPAs on talk pages are generally dealt with in short order and with relatively little disruption. The original roots of this case were in real-world complaints that the main Obama article was biased and that editing suggestions about how to remove that bias were ignored. I am not sympathetic to that particular argument as expressed by WorldNetDaily, but in that context (not to mention in the general context of open editing on Wikipedia) it seems particularly advisable to avoid shutting out new accounts from editing or even commenting on article talk pages. Many of those accounts/editors will be here for disruption, but others might come with legitimate complaints and positive suggestions about how to improve articles. If Talk:Barack Obama and related pages were being absolutely bombarded with SPAs to the point that article improvement was impossible then I'd feel differently, but that's not at all where we're at.


 * Having said that, Casliber's alternative (14.2) seems reasonable to me since it leaves semi-protection up to the discretion of admins on a case-by-case basis, and as such basically operates in the spirit of the already existing article probation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An even milder alternative would be to say that although semi-protection of talk pages is not common, it may be used at the discretion of administrators on various Obama pages during periods of heavy traffic, vandalism, etc. That way Arbcom does not endorse or reject it, it just acknowledges that it can be done.  In the absence of semi-protection, and even with semi-protection in the case of trouble coming from established accounts, Arbcom needs to recognize as legitimate some of the steps that were taken to manage bad process moves and bad contributions on the talk page rather than holding them out as talk page violations.  Either that or propose some new means.  It seems to be trying to have it both ways, holding that some edits were themselves behavioral violations, yet for talk page watchers to undo those violations was edit warring.  Letting them stand is not a good option either, that basically abdicates article probation and allows the disruption to get worse.  At the risk of airing my own grievance here, I'm particularly taken aback that some members of Arbcom deem my removing copyvios to be a talk page violation, and wonder if they have actually reviewed the evidence on the subject.  Do we really want the Obama talk page to be 350K long with 100 mostly redundant threads, and contain two complete and one partial cut-and-paste of the World Net Daily article, while it's being edited 500 times per day, mostly by SPA accounts?  If not somebody has to manage the talk page.  That somebody is going to make occasional mistakes and questionable judgment calls, and be subject to a lot of criticism, even if they get it 99% right.  It's not reasonable that people taking on that role open themselves up to sanctions. Wikidemon (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment on proceedings
Travesty in motion: Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Proposed decision. Wikipedia's arbcom is in the process of dishing out heavy punishments to two good faith editors who have faced the wall of incivility and NPOV violating POV pushers camped out on the Obama articles. Despite many good faith efforts to discuss the issue and present alternatives for resolving it, Wizardman and the other Arbcoms appear ready to reinforce and encourage the incivility, obstruction, wikilawyering, and harassment carried out by those calling themselves "defenders" and "patrollers" on these pages. This is a dark time for Wikipedia when bias is encouraged and the censors are rewarded for their efforts. This endorsement of Wikidemon's harassment including 15 posts, 15, on my talk page on May 24, his refactoring of comments, his harassment of good faith editors is unacceptable. This is a truly shameful and disgraceful display. NPOV is a core policy and Arbcom is shitting on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Scjessey and myself seem to be particularly victimised here. Sceptre (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part is a travesty? Which two editors are you talking about?
 * There are findings and remedies proposed regarding Wikidemon; are they not strong enough? Did you provide evidence of the 15 posts on May 24?  (I count 13 posts?) I see a link to them in your evidence, but you dont describe it very well; what was the context?  I've had a quick look at one revision and his comment there is both informing another user about the legitimacy of their edit-warring notice (good), and also slapping you around a little ("they consider...") (not-so-good).  They have 40 edits to your talk page - I've not looked at them - can you point out why you believe they shouldnt be permitted to interact with you on your talk page?
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 12:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is good and not slapping around at all. I carefully considered that edit and wanted to mention, for ChildofMidnight's benefit as well as the other editors discussing and potentially acting on the 3RR report, some policy misconceptions ChildofMidnight had voiced elsewhere that would explain the edit warring and accusations, despite the apparently sincere beliefe that it was not edit warring and not uncivil.  Most editors' motivations can only be guessed at, and given WP:AGF it is best not to guess.  This is a rare case when an editor explains exactly why he is editing, and it turns out to be a nonstandard interpretation of a few of our policies: WP:NPOV, WP:EW, WP:NOT, and WP:VANDALISM.  I'll go beyond that - Arbcom really ought to take notice so that they can perhaps instruct ChildofMidnight rather than simply disable his account.  ChildofMidnight has vehemently rejected my efforts as well as those of a few administrators, and now he seems to be castigating Arbcom instead of listening.  ChildofMidnight has stated many times that he considers the exclusion of sourced criticism from an article to violate NPOV, and in so doing to be an act of "vandalism" for which the 3RR rule does not apply.  Thus, a 3RR warning for re-adding criticism of Obama is harassment, and administrators who tell him to stop are censoring him and making personal attacks.  He considers the repeated edit warring across many articles to be "good faith", and editors who wish him to stop edit warring to be a "wall of incivility and NPOV violating POV pushers"... and Arbcom's likely ruling to be a "dark day for Wikipedia".  Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove the wiggle room in "Consensus can change"
Honestly, just think about it:


 * Consensus can change
 * 10) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over the course of months or years in an attempt to shift consensus.

No, no, no. The same point should be brought up when there is significant new evidence. That's the way content building works, or at least one of the necessary ways. Change the language before this thing is settled or you're going to open up a can of worms for months (years?) into the future. Believe me. I ran into exactly this problem on the Obama page. And if you disagree with my point, think it over again. I think this statement simply wasn't thought through well enough. Obviously, the determination on whether significant new evidence has been brought forward is a matter of consensus on the talk page.

Proposed change: add the italicized words to the last sentence: "However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over the course of months or years in an attempt to shift consensus, unless significant new information is brought forward.

The "significant new information" may be thought to create a different point -- but it may not be read that way. I think I'm proposing something that clarifies what was really meant by this, or rather, closing up a whole that some weaselly editors will try to squeeze through in the future. And believe me, that's just the thing that has happened on the Obama pages. -- Noroton (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This whole case is becoming a clusterfuck. I mean, how can you take AC seriously when they propose the same remedies for an ex-admin who was desysopped for edit warring and someone trying to enforce BLP? Sceptre (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sceptre, that doesnt make sense. You are comparing someones past sins with someones current good behaviour.
 * Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo was five years ago.
 * ANI "Sceptre_block_evasion" was one year ago. Your block log is longer and more varied than Stevertigo.
 * Scjessey has also edit warred, during this case, here. Also there is a history of this. 1, and 2 (also discussed here), 3   In that last case, his reverts are claiming that mentioning Joe the Plumber on Public image of Barack Obama is a BLP violation.(see talk)  Obama is WP:WELLKNOWN, so provided that a change is well-documented and isnt irrelevant, it isnt a BLP violation.  Consensus may determine that something like this should be moved from one page to another, however the BLP exception shouldn't be used to justify edit-warring on changes like that.
 * If you have a specific instance of BLP enforcement in mind, please raise it and we can discuss the merits of it. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Past sins are, presumably, stale and/or reformed. And I don't think it's helpful to excuse one's own conduct or protest its punishment by pointing to another editor's worse conduct.  Nevertheless, I share Sceptre's disappointment that Arbcom seems not to distinguish between edits made to preserve order on the Obama articles, versus edits made to overturn consensus.  It is true that Scjessey edit warred in these instance, but it is also true that his edits were the procedurally correct ones.  Without getting into the merits of the content, in these examples Scjessey was restoring the status quo version of the article and engaging editors who proceeded with changes that clearly lacked consensus.  Wikipedia policies require that any editor gain consensus for disputed changes, and the terms of article probation reiterate this.  However, when an editor refuses to do so and simply keeps reintroducing disputed content without waiting for or in contravention of consensus on the talk page, there are few options left.  The outcome must be that the changes are rejected.  Either one editor can revert the nonconsensus changes multiple times, or multiple editors can revert once.  Both have happened.  Punishing the enforcers as harshly as the offenders gives the offenders a victory and encourages article destabilization.  I agree that Scjessey misconstrues the BLP policy, but there is a hornet's nest of legitimate BLP questions at the edges of this, not on behalf of Obama but of other people who got swept into the election fray.Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked on my talk to look deeper into Scjessey's prior 3RR violations which I have linked to above. On these, I am more inclined to towards the opinion expressed by  at User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2008.09, in that 3RR is a bright line that shouldnt be crossed, ever. It doesnt matter who raises the 3RR, or why, it is a line that shouldnt have been crossed. I did read the reports and diffs earlier, and realised that they were largely 'point violations'. However, constantly reverting creates new problems of ownership. I am not saying that was the motivation in the case of Scjessey, however it appears to have become a meme, whether there is truth in it or not. And 3RR is a way to avoid that happening. Since being asked to review this more closely, I have reviewed every damn edit by Scjessey to Barack_Obama, hoping that it is indicative of any problems elsewhere. On the whole, I see quite a few more 3RR violations, but they are also violations in the letter of the law of 3RR, rather than the spirit. So in summary, the above 3RR reports are indicative of stepping over the line, but with good intentions and the right result.

I'll be taking more time to consider how this affects my vote, however an idea (forward thinking) that came to me to avoid further acccusations of edit-warring, issues that are explain in an FAQ should be able to be reverted without being counted as a revert towards 3RR. Toward that end, I have created FAQ page and tagged all the pages I could find. I hope the community will develop this further, because these flash points (i.e. melt downs) will happen occasionally and we need to have a method of dealing with them. I would go as far as even recommending that we develop an FAQ namespace, so that discussion about the FAQ is separate to the discussion about the article. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very appreciative that John Vandenberg has taken the extra time to review this matter. I am sure there have been times that I have violated 3RR, although I would not do so intentionally (unless in the case of obvious vandalism or serious BLP concerns), and I will accept any punitive measures deemed appropriate. I am very pleased that John has seen fit to expand his analysis into investigating how to reduce the instances of this kind of edit warring with methods of prevention. Certainly I would welcome any constructive process that helps the "article patrollers" to avoid having to bend or break policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that John has hit on an important point here and I also appreciate his taking the time to review this aspect of what some call 3RR violations, but others recognize as necessary steps to protect the integrity of articles. Without undertaking the same kind of analysis that John has done, I'd add that my sense of Scjessey's edits - having worked alongside him for quite a long time - is that by and large they are indeed well-intentioned and with good result, whether or not I agree with all of them which I don't always. Sometimes the spirit of the law is more important to consider than the letter.  Tvoz / talk 17:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, there's nothing like necessary steps to protect the integrity of articles. No, nothing like integrity. And nothing like the well-intentioned Scjessey to do just that. Here's some more of Scjessey's integrity to review: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive445, now that we're all in favor of integrity. -- Noroton (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Especially after it turned out that the editor that Norton was trying to defend in his AN/I report above (User:WorkerBee74) was a sockpuppet of user:BryanFromPalatine and had been trying to game the system to try to put as much incendiary material into Obama's article to try and dissuade voters from voting for him. Brothejr (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's in political maneuvering where getting your opponent blocked for no good reason is viewed as just fine. When one is engaged in building, with integrity, an encyclopedia in collaboration with others that kind of activity is regarded as beyond the pale, and if not, it reveals something in the people doing the regarding. Whether it's Scjessey's political allies, admins who ignore ths situation or ArbCom members who hit this well-intentioned Wikipedian of integrity with a feather. It does not matter one bit who the party is who is mistreated. The nature of the victim is irrelevant. Not if we have integrity. Because gaming the system can't be acceptable for the parties we favor while being unacceptable only to the parties we don't favor. If what we're doing here is not just a political game. And if we have integrity. -- Noroton (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I think your accusations are an example of astonishing hypocrisy. As I recall, you allied yourself with a group of sock puppets and used Wikipedia to wage an extensive anti-Obama political campaign. You dug yourself into a giant hole and were forced to withdraw from Obama-related articles when you got a 3-week block and threats of being topic banned for edit-warring, wikigaming, tendentious editing and incivility. Were it not for your self-imposed withdrawal, I imagine you would feature prominently in this ArbCom process. Indeed, thanks to your comments here I can point to your historical activity as an example of the difficulties and antagonism faced by the "article patrollers" of this group of articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I got too angry after experiencing the treatment you and Wikidemon mete out to your opponents, you're well-intentioned: the patricide orphan defense. -- Noroton (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I wasn't forced to withdraw, I withdrew out of disgust for the kind of behavior you continually pull and out of disgust for the way Wikipedia tolerates your behavior and Wikidemon's out of either naivete or complicity. Get your facts straight. -- Noroton (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec with Scjessey @ 15:34) And lest any Arbcom members who bother to read this page should accept the assertion that the Obama-related subjects have had their integrity protected by the likes of Scjessey, do a word search for the word "terror" at Bill Ayers to see how that subject is treated in the article. Then review this. Then review this. And then see whether Wikipedia doesn't look like one of the sleaziest websites on the planet. And if you still don't get it, look up what Bill Ayers' girlfriend and best friend and underlings were building at 18 W. 11th St. and who they were going to kill with it (hint: do a word search for "officers and their dates"). I've just presented you with an illustration of the process of POV pushing and the result. Don't you people dare crow about integrity, protecting the encyclopedia from people who are gaming the system, and the good intentions of editors. I will say, in the defense of Scjessey and Wikidemon (as an ameliorating factor, not an excuse), that inviting them to edit controversial Wikipedia articles under a set of rules where even common political passion inevitably edges you closer to getting into trouble is a fault of Wikipedia, where guardrails and speed limits would prevent many crashes. But don't any of you people dare crow about "integrity" of articles and the "well-intentioned" editors who push their partisanship into article space. Wikipedia's articles on Weatherman-related subjects are just a little to obviously crappy to say that with a straight face. Arbcom doesn't have to make a content decision to recognize that Scjessey and Wikidemon have gamed the system, ignored the clear language of policies such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, violated behavioral policies and guidelines on talk pages and, at least in Scjessey's case, edit warred over and over again, and all the while proclaimed their virtue (loudly), with a chorus like Tvoz and Brothejr singing their praises in the background. Here's Mr. Well-Intentioned Integrity at work in one discussion, working with others to promote a more accurate encyclopedia. The links I've given you make it obvious what Wikidemon and Scjessey are all about. But why should I be angry that people who whitewash terrorists are treated with kid gloves by arbcom. I must be a partisan POV pusher to think that. And Arbcom must gracefully avert its eyes from mere content disputes involving gaming the system and treating talk pages like rhetorical slaughterhouses. After all, it's just a difference of political opinion. A few minor indiscretions on the parts of Wikidemon and Scjessey don't mean much. Not when they've been doing so much good work patrolling. -- Noroton (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Noroton, you are not a party to this case, nor has this case considered in any depth the period of your involvement. If you would like to find a way to adjudicate that you're welcome to petition the arbitrators.  However, we are in the final days of a long case and it is probably too late to re-open the case.  I do ask you to keep away from me with the vendetta you announced last time you were blocked.  If you don't I will either go to AN/I for enforcement, or ask the decision to be amended to ban you from Obama-related topics and from further antagonizing the editors there.  You need to accept that the community formed a consensus based on policy grounds against your many repeated attempts across multiple articles during the election to call Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn murderers and WP:TERRORISTs, while portraying Ayers as a close associate of Barack Obama.  Your behavior during the period in support of that effort was indefensible.  Please move on to other things.Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Wikidemon, when someone declines to take the law into their own hands, it isn't a vendetta, and if Arbcom restricts you, think of it as something closer to karma. Whether or not Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists or even murderers is supposed to be determined by comparing the evidence and submitting it to a consensus. Unless, of course, one is dealing with Wikidemon, who refuses to recognize consensus and prevents its implementation after consensus has been reached.  (edit summary: per longstanding discussion I do not believe there is consensus for calling them terrorists (was never a stable addition here)))  (es: per weight, and sense of consensus, work characterizations of terorrism into description of legacy and keep to a manageable length) Might just make an editor a li'l bit ticked off, but if that editor is commenting in an ArbCom case in which Wikidemon is being adminished and restricted -- for some of the same kinds of activities I complained about last year maybe, just maybe, that's an acceptable forum for a victimized editor to voice a concern. As for "indefensible" behavior, when it comes to what I was actually proposing, that's supposed to have something to do with the facts I put in evidence (see first link in this post), not the political faith you and your group have so effectively enforced on Weatherman-related topics. Indefensible behavior would be subverting Wikipedia to promote your personal political preferences, against consensus. Oh, and let's not forget Scjessey's "patrolling". Can't thank him enough for that consensus-conforming patrolling. -- Noroton (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there some problem with that edit you provided a diff for? It reverted 2 edits by an IP user that violated WP:TERRORISM and the consensus formed from the RfC discussion on the talk page at the time. Moreover, those 2 reverted edits remains the only edits by that IP editor. I cannot see why you would mention this edit, nor why you would do so in such a sarcastic manner. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec with below) Well, Scjessey, now that I look at it, you indeed have enforced the consensus not to mention "terrorism" in the lead section. Let me be the first to congratulate you. Have you also enforced the RfC consensus on categories, on putting the terrorism topic in its own section? How 'bout the consensus on what to do with the Bill Ayers article (here )? What about the consensus on what to do with the Bernardine Dohrn article (here )? Has your patrolling happened to include that, or just the parts of consensus that you happen to agree with? And if you're only enforcing parts of consensus you agree with, then it isn't really "patrolling" at all, is it? And when you "patrol" after making your heated comments on a talk page, do you really expect the rest of us to look on your "patrolling" as some kind of professional, neutral behavior or simply another part of your partisan zeal? Care to address the many, many other points I've made in this section and which you've ignored? -- Noroton (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I do not care to enable your apparent abuse of this process. You cannot expect me to defend edits I haven't made - if I edit The Moon but not The Sun, that does not make me pro-Moon and anti-Sun. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Noroton is throwing up random diffs and calling them evidence of a supposed pro-Obama Wikipedia conspiracy. It's the same old thing.  Hopefully the Arbcom ruling will outline an accepted course of action to deal with these onslaughts when they occur.  I'm particularly bothered by the whole vendetta thing, the vow to use every administrative recourse available against me and never quit until I am stopped.  You yourself have lots of stalkers but they seem content to just vandalize your talk page.  It's not good to have a stalker who vows to abuse process.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec with below) Yes, citing a consensus is an onslaught. I suppose citing your flouting of consensus is a personal attack and complaining that you flouted consensus is a vendetta, while providing more information on the claim that you flouted consensus is harrassment -- oh, I'm sorry, stalking. I've paid so very much attention to you for the past seven months. I must've commented on you -- what? ... three times before this case, then on the Request for Arbitation page and now on this page. It's just so very improper of me to point out to Arbcom why they should be concerned about you. Why I'm just out of control. Nice try with the "supposed ... conspiracy" strawman argument. -- Noroton (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The onslaught was your over-the-top editing and tendentiousness from last year. Your claims about consensus were and are nonsense, utterly ridiculous, and they are untimely here.  The conspiracy theory is your accusation that pro-Obama partisans are camped out on the Obama articles to punish good editors and prevent the truth from getting out.  The vendeta is your vowing to stalk me to abuse process, then making good on it, a few times already as you note.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What was over the top was your flouting consensus, first on the Weatherman talk page, next on the Weatherman RfC, always in pursuit of your POV. You keep commenting as if I haven't already been blocked for it and as if I haven't stated that I was wrong. The person who hasn't admitted that he was wrong and who continues to have an attitude that he is not only always in the right but that mere criticism of him is something improper is you. This is part of a pattern in which you also stick your opponents' comments in blue boxes and call for others to stop discussions of your bad behavior, no matter that they're relevant and connected to the purpose of the page. I encourage anyone to follow the links to see if my claims of consensus are "utterly ridiculous." Oddly, when I offered to get some Wikipedian to settle our differences over what the consensus was, you refused. (I asked NewYorkBrad, and he was willing to determine the consensus.) We both supported CENSEI's request at AN/I for a determination of consensus, and AN/I ignored the request. When you become GodKing of Wikipedia, you can make it an abuse of process for someone to occasionally complain about you. Till then, leave that determination to others. Oh, and it doesn't take a "conspiracy" for there to be Obama partisans camped out on Obama-related articles. It doesn't even require marshmallows. -- Noroton (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You never had consensus for those proposals despite edit warring, canvassing, process games, and generally abusing all of the editors who did not agree with you. The links are selective mentions of a few among the dozens of times you made the same proposals, and even there they don't even demonstrate a momentary consensus.  You have never admitted that the vendetta, edit warring, process games, etc., were wrong, only that you were wrong to lose your cool a few times in pursuing them, something I think you blamed me for because you say I deliberately provoked you.  Again, stop stalking me.  For you to continue harassing me on administrative boards in pursuit of a mission to "stop" me, as you have vowed, is process abuse.  Given your history, please stay away from me.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Never had consensus? No, no consensus here No consensus here. No consensus here. No consensus here. Funny how there was no consensus when the numbers of editors were so heavily in my favor. I guess these are just random diffs. Or maybe they're all part of some sort of process game. Presumably this lack of consensus is why the Bill Ayers article reads like it was written by him, lovingly quoting, at length, his phony denials of various types of wrongdoing while ignoring the vast evidence that he is famous for his terrorism -- in fact, it is his only claim to fame. His notability on education issues is like a candle next to the sun. He didn't get this kind of coverage from sources from advocating education reform. A POV-pusher's claims ultimately can be shown to be empty if enough research is shown. I did that. With yours.

Furthermore, you and Scjessey accuse me of simple partisanship, only wanting to get information about Ayers and Dohrn and Weatherman into the encyclopedia in order to hurt Obama. That assumption of bad faith depends on (1) evidence that I'm a POV pusher, working against the interests of the encyclopedia by trying to get in information that would not be allowed -- except you have no evidence of that, and when you made your arguments in front of other editors, you not only didn't get a consensus but I did, which you then flouted; and (2) that I have some kind of history of POV pushing. POV pushing is different from having a point of view, which we all have, and different from wanting the encyclopedia to reflect that point of view, which we also all have. It only becomes a problem when content guidelines and policies are violated, particularly NPOV, by squelching the points of view the pusher dislikes and overemphasizing the favored POV. We decide that by evidence-based consensus, which you flouted, or adherence to overriding policies like WP:BLP, which you distorted and never got consensus to implement. The current shape of the Bill Ayers article is a model of the POV-pusher's artifice. Thanks in good part to you. You've helped create a disgrace to this website. Editors, admins and ArbCom members who ignore or downplay your violations of Wikipedia's behavioral standards perpetuate the disgrace.

Unlike you, I have a long history of "writing for the other side", making sure to include opposing points of view and information supportive of POV that I oppose or living persons who I oppose. My edits to Early life and career of Barack Obama (my edits) and The Case Against Barack Obama and even Bernardine Dohrn and, yes, even Bill Ayers bear this out. That was why you and Scjessey praised me for them.  I spoke up on the John McCain page (before the election) in favor of mentioning negative information on him, and I defy anyone to call my rescue (from AfD) and rewriting of Controversies about the word "niggardly" biased one way or the other, despite the sensitivity of the topic. Those are some examples that show I've edited at Wikipedia for a purpose other than POV pushing, and on these very articles, over the course of months. All this may have something to do with the comments made about me in a 2008 request-for-arbitration discussion about the Obama articles. Hardly anyone was calling me a POV pusher then. The difference between me and you, Wikidemon, is that I edit the encyclopedia in the interests of the reader. You practically admit that you do so in the interests of Obama, stating explicitly that you wanted to keep out information about Ayers, Dohrn, and the Weatherman group because you thought it was damaging to Obama -- even though the information was that these subjects had long been described as "terrorist" by an overwhelming number of sources over decades, long before the public had ever heard of Obama. You wanted -- and want -- the encyclopedia to be biased. It's disgraceful. I don't know any other way to read comments like this (which you often repeated) and to interpret your behavior except as I've described it here. Disgraceful. And when you violate behavioral policies and guidelines to further your POV pushing, Arbcom should come down on you like a ton of bricks, to protect the encyclopedia from you. -- Noroton (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it never had consensus to call Bill Ayers a "terrorist" or "friend" of Obama, or accuse Ayers' wife of murder, and I'm not going to re-argue these content questions for the umpteenth time in yet another forum. Please stop harassing me.  If you cannot see fit to stop, I will ask Arbcom to enforce some separation between us.Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that sort of behavior is surely an abuse of this process. Perhaps this disruption should be brought up at WP:ANI? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think AN/I editors are going to do Arbcom case management like that - that's up to arbitrators. It would be useful if an arbitrator could clarify whether they're open to the new evidence and new parties relating to last year's Noroton / CENSEI / Workerbee74 / etc. affair.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Noroton / CENSEI / Workerbee74 / etc. affair"? Now you're in favor of guilt-by-association? Or are you alleging a conspiracy? Editors who agree on some things will agree on some things, and that's as far as the "affair" went. Unless you have some allegation to make. -- Noroton (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed it was too late for that, but actually I have no idea. This could either be viewed as a continuation of past events (directly-related to this case) or as an abuse of this case (tangentially-related). Or both, I suppose. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I for one don't want to prolong this case. I'm just saying that Noroton's piling on and advocating against me (and now you) should be discarded as the product of an avowed vendetta, and he should stay away from me in the future... also that any attempt to bring up new issues and episodes is untimely.  If any of this is to be considered, we need time and space to prepare the whole dossier on Noroton's involvement, which had before seemed moot because we had thought him inactive.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * should be discarded as the product of an avowed vendetta -- After I've shown the proof, as I just have, it's impossible for an honest person to discard it as the product of an avowed vendetta. When the evidence is shown, my statements about you are believed or not believed based on the strength of the evidence. Feel free to try to defend yourself against anything I've said. -- Noroton (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Principle 6 tips the scales too heavily toward protection, against fair criticism
This is one of the most watched articles about THE most powerful human being on the planet. Will you please take a step back and get a little perspective here? Quote (from "Principles"):


 * Biographies of living people
 * 6) Editors must take particular care when adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all our content policies, especially: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Articles must use high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately.

This is a bio article on a PUBLIC FIGURE who can do one helluva lot more harm to US than WE can ever do to HIM. While there's nothing actually wrong with your standard boilerplate here, it wrongly emphasises the relationship Wikipedia has to this subject. This finding will be used by weaselly editors to remove fair criticism from the article. It's not like that hasn't happened before.

What you need is a corresponding point to balance this off. Either that or add to this point. Please reread WP:WELLKNOWN. Something like this language from that passage at WP:BLP should be added:


 * If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative

For crying out loud, people, at least attempt to keep in mind that you need to look neutral. -- Noroton (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The principles encourages strict adherence to content policies without targeting particular views. The portion involving removing poorly sourced information explicitly applies to the full spectrum of views. It appear neutral in this light. --Vassyana (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it encourages strict adherence to certain parts of certain content policies, and overemphasis on certain parts is counterproductive, particularly when other parts of content policies are more at risk in the article. The danger to the Obama page isn't exactly that BLP violations will be inserted into it (or, if inserted, that they'll stay more than a few minutes). It's often been said that articles on the most famous living persons, with all their fans watching their page, have the least problem with BLP violations. WP:BLP recognizes the wall separating Church from Encyclopedia in the WP:WELLKNOWN passage, and with so many Obama worshippers on Wikipedia, it's worth noting it. Have you noticed, Vassyana, that Obama supporters do control that article? No one disputes that. Being in control, they don't need to be further encouraged to use WP:BLP policy as a club to protect the idol against criticism. It's worth noting in the proposal that the point made in WP:WELLKNOWN is also part of Wikipedia policy. -- Noroton (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The claims Noroton wanted to add about Obama supposedly palling around with terrorists, one of John McCain's last ditch election ploys, were deemed by the consensus process too insignificant and impertinent to add to the main Obama article. Repeating the claims as possibly true violated all manner of policies and guidelines, and mentioning them as a campaign tactic gives them too much weight in the main article - although there is an entire article (which I created) devoted to this, and it is mentioned in the articles about the campaign.  All of these subjects are well covered in the encyclopedia; it is simply a matter of covering things in summary style in proportion to their significance as evidenced by the sources.  Categorizing editors as "Obama worshipers" and "Obama supporters", who see Obama as an "idol" to "protect" is the heart of the problem.  If your content proposal to add disparagement to a BLP is rejected (and in Noroton's case, Republican Party talking points rejected several dozen times after proposing them on a daily basis during the election cycle, accompanied by a multitude of personal attacks and accusations), you need to accept it as the operation of the consensus process among volunteer editors rather than of a censorious cabal. Wikidemon (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact on Wikidemon don't go far enough
Regarding this:
 * 10) Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, teaming with Sceptre in removing comments,[28][29] including adding comments back on a user talk page removed by the user.[30]

And this:
 * 10.1) Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) violated talk page guidelines in removing sections of text and/or archiving them.[31][32][33][34]

I can't believe the comments some of you are making:


 * Wizardman: While talk page guidelines say generally not to remove comments, the state of the Obama talk page and the WorldNetDaily circumstances, as well as the comments themselves, make these diffs acceptable to me.


 * Coren: I'm not sure that guideline warrants a FoF unless it was oft repeated behavior; there are cases where a quiet deescalation might be appropriate. — Coren (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon doesn't just do this on the Obama talk page, he does it on any page he's got an Obama-related dispute going on. He engaged in abusive archiving at the WP:IAR talk page, as well, for which he was politely rebuked there and on his talk page (see bottom of this version of Wikidemon's talk page ; and this version gives the full discussion at Talk:IAR ). This incident happened in March, after this case was brought to Arbcom. Anyone who's familiar with Wikidemon's edits should recall other, similar incidents. So it is not just the Obama talk page where Wikidemon has this problem, and the particular circumstances there aren't the locus of the problem with Wikidemon's behavior. Wikidemon is arrogant about this, as you can see from his discussion of it. If you rap him too lightly on the knuckles for it, you'll be ineffective.

Removing or archiving other editors' comments on a talk page have been tactics Wikidemon has used in his efforts to escalate disputes in order to get the other party angry enough to commit a violation of a WP behavior policy -- which Wikidemon then rushes to AN/I or AN to complain about. This isn't rational discussion meant to reach a consensus: It's using the talk page of a politically charged article to conduct a WP:BATTLE imported from the political arena. It doesn't matter to Wikidemon whether he's engaging in his tactics on the Obama talk page or the WP:IAR talk page, so it should also be irrelevant to you where he is doing it. If the diffs I've just provided aren't convincing enough, I'll go hunt up some more. -- Noroton (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we please strike Noroton's vendetta-driven attack above, or else add Noroton to the case in view of a topic ban and stay-away order? I've been one of the most diligent editors in quieting disruption on the Obama articles, and for that I've gotten more than my share of stalkers, harassers, sockpuppet saboteurs, etc.  Noroton is one of the harassers.  He was historically one of the worst offenders on the Obama pages, far worse than Stevertigo and ChildofMidnight.  The accusation that I and other editors are acting in bad faith to deliberately provoke an emotional response from editors to get them blocked and banned in order to further our political agenda (and its corollaries, that editors are not responsible for their own misbehavior and that it's all the fault of the cabal that controls the Obama article) are copied straight from the playbook of  and his farm of sockpuppets, who targeted me for a series of bogus reports on WP:AN/I and elsewhere.  Noroton blew his lid at some point and got blocked for a week then three, then came back vowing to undo me.  Since then he's mostly avoided me and the Obama articles voluntarily, other than a few harassment incidents, which is why he has so far not been at issue here.  But if he is back we ought to do something.


 * To answer the substance of Noroton's lobbying against me, Arbcom hasn't addressed the context behind proposal 10. My reversions to Stevertigo's bizarre WP:IAR proposal, made during the World Net Daily fiasco, were a reasonable check on an editor who seemed to me to be sliding from minor disruption to a full-scale campaign of disrupting the entire encycloepedia to prove a fringe conspiracy WP:POINT about Obama.  If I did not remove the proposal, who would have?  Someone should have.  Abusive process like proposing to deprecate IAR out of unhappiness with Obama needs to be shut down, not followed for the sake of process.  10.1 is a complete nonstarter, and based on a ridiculous set of diffs provided by ChildofMidnight.  The diffs show that I reverted a redundant post from an indeffed editor, a bad faith personal attack, archived a non-sequitur IP soapbox, and deleted a copyright violation, also during the World Net Daily blow-up.  Again, all of those should have been removed, archived, or consolidated - if not me, who?  Wikidemon (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon's abuse is well documented. I have no idea why Arbcom has chosen to ignore it. Here's a diff where he refactors my response to his ANI report against me for a second time . This is one example of his unacceptable behavior. Wikidemon's pattern of disruption needs to be addressed by this committee and should not be allowed to continue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (posted out of sequence)One of the proposed sanctions here is that ChildofMidnight and I avoid each other - I'm trying to start that now, and think ChildofMidnight would do well to get an early start on that too. Regarding the diff ChildofMidnight provides above, ChildofMidnight tried in that AN/I report, as he did many times before and since, to derail reports of his own misbehavior by launching attacks on other editors.  In that particular case he got the Barney Frank article edit protected by edit warring, and began accusing other editors of homophobia.  One of the regulars on the Barney Frank article filed an AN/I report that, as usual, got sidetracked in by this.  I tried to separate the report on ChildofMidnight's edit warring and incivility, from his inevitable counter-claims against other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Wikidemon:
 * I've been one of the most diligent editors in quieting disruption
 * other than a few stalking/harassment incidents If anyone needed evidence of Wikidemon's habit of exaggerating in a dispute, that person should thank Wikidemon for providing it right here.
 * he's disrupting the Arbcom procedings here compare with Wikidemon's conduct on the IAR talk page. Wikidemon's opponents are always "disruptive", which is why their comments need to be removed from talk pages or boxed in blue for the archives. He's not battling, you see, he's just "patrolling". Whether it's at IAR talk, or Talk:Barack Obama or Talk:Proposed decision. Arbitrators, do you think you're setting Wikidemon on the right path with the sanctions so far proposed for him, or is this editor going to be weighing down the project with constant battling? Think of it as a question, and not a rhetorical one. Discuss amongst yourselves.
 * The bad faith accusation that I and other editors are deliberately provoking a bad response from editors to get them blocked and banned in order to further a political agenda (and its corollaries, that they are not responsible for their own misbehavior and that a cabal controls the Obama article) are copied straight from the playbook of BryanFromPalatine Honestly, I think I was making that accusation before Bryan and his sock army. I think he copied that from me.
 * BryanFromPalatine and his farm of sockpuppets, who targeted me for a series of bogus reports on WP:AN/I and elsewhere. And I think he copied that from Wikidemon, who was targeting opponents with bogus reports earlier and more often. I think we're straying from the point by mentioning Bryan, but I just wanted to defend myself. (And if anyone cares enough to suspect I may be some kind of sockpuppet of Bryan or any account editing the Obama pages, they should look into that and lay it to rest)
 * and its corollaries, that they are not responsible for their own misbehavior No, I've never said that. I recommended that one anti-Obama editor be blocked at one point. I'm not excusing anyone's behavior, including my own. I do think reacting to goading is something that should be taken into account, but it isn't an excuse, especially after a while. This is an example of Wikidemon's tactic of exaggerating.
 * if not me, who? Someone uninvolved, that's who. Which is why I suggest Arbcom make that a remedy. -- Noroton (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we please shut this one down? Noroton seems to think of himself as my nemesis.  I don't approach Wikipedia in that way, and could care less whether BryanFromPalentine was meatpuppeting Noroton or vice-versa.  When you try to help the project deal with disruption you come across editors being disruptive, that's a truism.  However, Noroton's revenge / stalking threats from last October do creep me out, and every time he acts on them it is unpleasant.  I really don't want to waste any more time dealing with this nonsense.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it interesting to see who's sticking with the subject here and who isn't? Anyone concerned for Wikidemon's welfare might want to check just what I said on my talk page about Wikidemon back then, and just what I said I'd do. I threatened to ... take him to Arbcom (I backed off because the idea of wallowing in this stinking mess any longer was too much even for an unpleasant creep like me). At the start of this case, I offered to join Wikidemon in the hot seat, but Arbcom rejected me as a martyr. I guess I wasn't creepy enough. When you try to help the project deal with disruption -- amazing how so much of the "disruption" just happens to come from one's political opponents. -- Noroton (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You must stop acting on that threat. Wikipedia is not for stalking or vendettas.  Your actions on the Obama pages were as I have said worse than any of the parties now here.  No evidence has been gathered on that because you were doing fairly well avoiding the subject that got you in trouble.  But having declared during your melt-down that you would continue to come after me in every forum until I was stopped, every time you back up that threat it is a problem.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But this case is partly about you not avoiding the subjects that have gotten you into trouble, isn't it? If, say, you were to stop "patrolling" against your political opponents, the project would be better off. Arbcom should officially take away your hall-monitor badge since you show no signs of stopping your "patrolling" and (as this talk page shows) seem to see nothing wrong with what you're doing. As for my "vendetta", if I happen to notice that you're again abusing editors the way you abused me, I'll comment on the new situation in the appropriate forum and stick to the subject, although I notice that the person here who most wants to get away from the subject of this talk page and regurgitate off-topic subject matter is you. Sorry, Wikidemon, you don't get to shut me up, much as that frustrates you. And just because I bring up a point, you don't effectively refute it simply by saying I'm the one who brought it up. -- Noroton (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This case is about Stevertigo, not me. Your assumptions that I have "opponents", that editors divide into political camps, and that I am somehow empowered by shutting you up are among the misconceptions that got you in trouble.  This is an encyclopedia, not a blood feud.  Please go away and stop stalking me.  Wikidemon (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @CoM and the "I have no idea why Arbcom has chosen to ignore [Wikidemon's abuse]" statement.  Did you consider the idea that they did consider it, and rejected the notion?  You passionately believe that you are the aggrieved party in all this, but that belief has apparently not gained any traction. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @Noroton, the talk page here really isn't the place for evidence presentations, this sort of stuff should have been done in the Evidence section. May be too late to do it now, since voting is almost done and all, I dunno.  That's a question for the clerk. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on the proposals and providing a few diffs to back up what I say. I think the arbs are capable of handling that. I came in late because I consider the whole subject of the Obama article a gangrenous, stinking, flies-buzzing-around-it mess at one end of my poor, beloved Wikipedia, and I don't really like dealing with it. It's been good for me to stay away from this subject, but also good for Wikipedia if I contribute a few thoughts about the problem here. Lucky Wikipedia that I should be both so wise and eleemysonary. -- Noroton (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy 2 needs an important addition
Regarding this:
 * Reminder of talk page decorum
 * 2) The Arbitration Committee, in recognizing the traffic and difficulty of handling the Barack Obama talk page, as well as per talk page guidelines, finds the removal of soapboxing and off-topic discussion acceptable and encourages its continuation.

Since, as I've shown above, removing comments from the talk page has been used not just for constructive purposes but for destructive battling, you should make a simple but important change to this proposal: forbid involved parties from removing the comments. Leave removal of comments to some uninvolved admin. Another idea would be to have people remove comments only when they agree with the underlying point but believe it's soapboxing or off-topic. Simply endorsing removal will only fan the flames. Really, haven't you all seen the many, many, many complaints from people on one side that their comments have been removed by people on the other side? Removal by someone not seen to be on anyone's side -- preferably someone who can say "I've removed comments from both sides" would snuff out those particular flames pretty fast.

As a general point: The comments of the arbitrators on the proposed-decision page indicate a lack of understanding about the fundamental disconnect between Wikipedia's conception (reflected in policies, guidelines and practices) of how articles should be discussed and improved in general (which generally works) and how articles on contentious topics where a lot of editors have deep disagreements are naturally pushed into battlegrounds. You can't hold an outdoor symposium in the middle of a hurricane. You need a shelter for that with walls thick enough so that people don't have to shout and shut windows so the research doesn't get blown around. More exact rules on how decisions will be made would mean less fighting over whether a decision has been made and less heartache for the losing side (which will otherwise get angrier, contributing to the battleground atmosphere). Quick enforcement of those rules, and civility rules, by watchful, neutral admins would give a sense that the forum is a level-enough field and a place where disagreeing editors can concentrate on rationally discussing opposing points (if editors think that battling is the way things get decided, the temptation to battle increases). Keep in mind that the more you promote the feeling among the losing side that they've been treated fairly, the less likely it is for editors on that side to battle in the future; as for the winning side of the content disputing, you need to hold them to strict account on behavioral issues, or their arrogance is going to grow like a weed.

You can sanction various editors today, but certain subjects will always attract more editors with similar difficulties tomorrow. More important than sanctions on individual editors is providing a supportive framework to shelter reasonable discussion. If you do a good job with that on this article, it may prove to be an example of a reform which might gain enough support to be adopted by the community in handling other battlegrounds on inherently contentious articles. Fundamentally, the trick is to encourage editors toward reasonable discussion and away from emotional battling, and that should be addressed at the "front end" -- the rules an editor is faced with before editing the talk page or the article page, and not the "back end" of sanctioning in a months-long arbitration case after a year-long crime spree. -- Noroton (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Noroton is right that this case will not resolve much if it does not provide a guide for the ongoing management of the articles. With a few exceptions none of the sanctioned behavior examined here was particularly severe, and the parties to this case are a tiny subset (and by far, not the worst) among those who caused trouble on the Obama-related articles.  Disruption and political dispute are facts of life here on Wikipedia.  Thus, it is reasonable to believe that even an entirely new slate of editors would quickly encounter the same problems as the parties to the case.  Applying a neutrality test is not going to work though, nor is a requirement that only admins manage the talk page.  In the first case, the vast majority of disruption to the Obama articles is in the form of edits and editors who disparage Obama, and the World Net Daily incident was all about fringe theories and disparaging Obama.  Most of the regular article patrollers have reverted vandalism and soapboxing that seems to support Obama, but that's a small fraction of the overall disruption, probably well under 5%.  That's probably a truism everywhere - that most threats to the integrity of a BLP article come from editors who wish to disparage the subject.  Regarding the second, very few admins have stepped in to help the Obama pages, certainly not enough for the around-the-clock watching that has to be done as in the March 9-10 period where there were 500 edits per day on the talk page.  Admins who do take action often get accused of taking sides, so the perception of neutrality is very hard to maintain.  Anyway, I think the answer is more process-oriented.  What kind of talk page comments can or should be archived, deleted, retitled, or moved, how should it be done, when are disputed talk page cleanup actions within the range of discretion or simple mistakes rather than behavioral violations, and how should editors respond if they disagree with a particular action?  Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Noroton is right that this case will not resolve much if it does not provide a guide for the ongoing management of the articles. Isn't it amazing how all I'm doing here is conducting a "blood feud" with Wikidemon and yet somehow, despite Wikidemon's insistance that all I'm doing is feuding with him, happen to comment on something that goes beyond him and, to some degree, shows how even he is a victim of the situation that Wikipedia puts us in. Some subjects are naturally contentious. Wikipedia is not set up to handle contentious subjects that naturally bring in large numbers of concerned people -- often sincere people who do want an article to reflect as close a version of the truth as we can get. Pretending that all or even most of the problems are only because certain bad people have misused Wikipedia is never going to solve the problem. That will only happen when we have policies, guidelines, procedures that can handle subjects that are this contentious. There are a lot of smart editors who would love to improve these articles if only they could interact in a reasonable atmosphere. In addition to Wikidemon and others failing here, Wikipedia is failing. A lot of us are not interested in editing articles where partisanship rules. As far as I'm concerned, that extends to the partisans I usually agree with as well as disagree with. The satisfaction comes only when I think editorial decisions on an article will come with an essentially nonpartisan mindset. But this isn't a website that encourages that kind of activity with anything more than empty words, devoid of methods that would actually promote nonpartisan behavior. -- Noroton (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy #5
I think this is way too punitive for what the FoF shows is minimal misconduct. And as I have pointed out several times, the remedy would leave me unable to maintain article quality for Doctor Who articles because, to be frank, in those areas multiple reversions per week is standard fare to maintain quality. There is also the point that Stevertigo, who was desysopped for edit warring, is getting the same sanction I am. If 1RR/week is the "first level" of sanctions, then it's strange to see a second AC-aware offense get another first warning. The diffs in the FoF either make leaps of faith, or characterise the prevention as disruption as misbehaviour. Seriously, do we have to entertain a proposal to make IAR historical? And what's so attacking about my "edit summary attack"; the word "fuck"? I'll accept an admonishment, but 1RR/week is way too punitive for what the FoF shows. Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of Sceptre's POV attacks preserved in the edit history . He and Wikidemon should be topic banned so good faith editors who dont' engage in this kind of disruptive activity can edit in a collaborative and collegial environment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I choose not to participate here. But can we please not use this talk page for advocating sanctions against specific editors or re-arguing the case?  Isn't that what the workshop and evidence pages are for, respectively?  Wikidemon (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators rarely read the Workshop. Sceptre (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, there are plenty of good conservative people. John McCain's not a bad bloke. David Cameron isn't either. That statement isn't aimed toward them. It's aimed towards the idiots who think FOX is "Fair and balanced" and honestly believe that FL-16 sent a Democratic delegate to Congress for the late 90s/early 00s. Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom's points

 * "Findings of fact":
 * 1) 7) Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and engaged in edit summary attacks on the Obama FAQ,[16].
 * 2) 7.1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) tried to mark WP:IAR historical, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.[17][18]
 * 3) 7.1.1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) proposed to mark WP:IAR historical in its talk page, asking other users to discuss his proposal.[19]


 * On issue 1, the concept called "edit warring" can be subjective, and moreso, because its application to particular cases and people are treated subjectively, its usage is only terminological and not categorical. Hence Arbcom has apparently been using in its own concepts, a characterization of actions as a kind of behavior, rather than a "fact," as implied by the heading. In other words the proper expression should be "we [the undersigned] characterize the actions of [user:name] as edit warring." When put in this context, its easy enough to separate the characterization from the concept behind the prohibition of disruptive editing, namely that it causes people to be upset. If I have upset people, I apologise. I did so simply because I understood that the concepts by which my opposition were operating were invalid (WP:NOCRIT) and not applicable to me: They assumed apparently that I was a WND troll, and though admittedly I have never seen the site, nor did I understand much about what was going on in terms of vandalism. -Stevertigo 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1b) I apologise for calling Sceptre a "crazy POV teenage lunatic wikistalker" . Indeed I have no evidence that he is or was actually a teenager. The other aspects involve characterizations, some of which were matching in tenor to the characterizations that at that point had been thrown at me: "trolling," "POV", etc. And as Arbcom itself noted in its findings "[Sceptre] has engaged in edit-warring[20][21][22] and continued to revert Stevertigo outside of the Barack Obama FAQ .[23][24] and engaged in edit summary attacks." If that isn't "wikistalking" what is? The adjectives "crazy" and "lunatic" were just expressive and artistic. -Stevertigo 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC) PS: After checking his page, the user in question appears to be only 18 years old. I may have in fact known this at the time, though I don't recall. Recap: of the five terms in "1) crazy 2) POV 3) teenage 4) lunatic 5) wikistalker" 3 and 5 are substantiated by a user's disclosure and a tentative Arbcom finding. 2, while possibly subjective, follows naturally from the context of prior engagements, and its usage by me simply parroted others' usage. All that remain are 1 and 4, and indeed I may have to even apologise for those. In reality I don't think I do, given the actions of that user, and any of the varied subjective characterizations many have thrown around here. I at least keep my characterizations colorful, and distinguish between terms of color and terms which try to assert greater meaning. Of course I did not mean to imply that the young person in question (a bit more than half my age) was actually lacking sanity to any greater degree than most 18 year olds. -Stevertigo 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Issue two involves a characterization of my actions as 1) "disrupting Wikipedia.." 2) "..to prove a point." The first part issue is subjective, as any case that comes before Arbcom is by nature a disruption, and in any case Arbcom should welcome such "disruptions" as opportunities to sort out issues. If it didn't have such disruptions, it wouldn't have anything to do with itself (in fact there are probably some Arbcom self-perception issues there). And the second part has certain logical issues. For one, are we to make points without "proving" them? Are we to discuss article issues without actually making "points?" What is the meaning of the idiom "prove a point" and what actual principle underlies its expression? Can it be restated in a way that is not so idiomatic or, in fact, oxymoronic?


 * This is what I wrote in full : "Flag as historical" was the section header. was the tag I added, and the text I wrote was "I propose this "policy" be flagged thusly. Discuss. -Stevertigo 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)." Aside from the fact that (as demonstrated above) "disrupting Wikipedia" is a subjective concept, and that "proving a point" is an oxymoron, how is this controversial or relevant to this case, or any other? -Stevertigo 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Was your edit to the IAR talk page, described above, a response to your editing experience on the Obama talk page and/or other pages that are the subject of this arbitration? Wikidemon (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your word "response" in this context appears to loaded with all sorts of peculiar implications and incriminations of "making a point." What are my other options? Note that even if my IAR deprecation request (still open by the way) was "directly related" to the issues dealing with a controversial topic, its relevance is questionable. After all what on Wikipedia isn't interrelated? -Stevertigo 22:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Was it directly related? My question is clear and you know what I'm getting at.  I'll be more specific.  What was the relationship if any between your decision to propose deprecating IAR and your editing experience on those pages? Wikidemon (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

↪No, your question was not clear, as you well know, because it contained loaded implications &mdash;implications that raise certain prerequisite questions: 1) Are we supposed to have barriers within our motivations such that we deal with one thing and not another? 2) How is anyone (Arbcom even) supposed to determine our motivations, except through the manner you now employ, in asking the person a direct question? And when you ask the question, you have to be prepared for a direct answer: 3) What are you implying by your question, and 4) can you list the choices I have and characterize what each response means?

In fact its such a loaded question, I have to break the possible answers down: Both of these imply that it was "related," sort of like asking someone "have you stopped beating your wife," (either answer gives certain validation to the accusation), and because you no doubt want to seize on whatever you can, you would perhaps take this and represent this as an admission of guilt. Now, its possible that you are trying to do more than just entrap me in an answer that validates your assumptions, but in lieu of a more clarified question &mdash;one that avoids and omits various insinuations about my motive &mdash;then I can't do any better at this time than to say, I was merely reminded (as things have a way of doing) by certain comments of my long-standing view that IAR needs to be demoted from its standing as a "pillar" of principle. Reminders generally demand action, as inaction often simply leads to forgetting. I chose not to be forgetful. -Stevertigo 01:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It was not directly related.
 * 2) It was directly related.
 * You know full well what I am asking, and you know what your motivations were in making the proposal to deprecate IAR. That you see answering the question as an admission is telling.  I have no interest in deconstructing common words like "response" and "related", and won't press the point further.  The question is out there should you care to answer it.Wikidemon (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that what you are were "getting at" is was based on an accusation, itself based on an assumption of my motives. I had no other way to respond, other than to deconstruct yours. While "response" and "related" are common words, you did not use them commonly, as you entwined them in this concept of what you were "getting at." I actually did give you an answer, in the context of being "reminded" about a tangential issue. Has our conversation not itself also reminded you of other "unrelated" things? What two things are "unrelated?"-Stevertigo 02:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am simply requesting information here. You have said these other things "reminded" you of an earlier dissatisfaction with IAR, but that still does not explain your reason for making the proposal.  This case involves many accusations about your edits during the period, for which sanctions are being considered.  You could respond by clarifying your motives.  Whether you were disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point by proposing to deprecate IAR, or doing something else, is an open question about which the arbitrators seem to disagree.  The proposal certainly gives that impression timed as it was after a long string of other edits that were perceived as disruptive, and to be blunt that you seem to be explaining away in a peculiar and unconvincing way.  It gave me that impression at least, and that is why I deleted it twice, for which I am now being admonished.  It is those other edits, not the IAR proposal, that the arbitrators seem to consider sanctionable conduct on your part.  I personally think all the sanctions against you are unnecessary, and an overreaction.  If I were in charge, all you would have to do is promise that you won't go on a rampage through the Obama articles again.  It would help if you accepted that your edits were a problem, and caused unnecessary trouble for those you antagonized and then dragged them into a 3-month arbitration case.  When you try to rationalize calling one of them a "crazy POV teenage lunatic wikistalker" I question whether you're going to get it.  But action is more important.  Even if you don't agree with the likely findings here, I would hope that as experienced an editor as you are, you would agree to go along with the ruling voluntarily in the spirit of cooperation rather than under threat of account blocks.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WD said: "I am simply requesting information here." - I dislike your apparent consideration of me as some kind of mindless oracle that I should simply spit out an expected value in an expected form. I further dislike the concept that any so-called professional might be in the habit of treating people as non-beings. Are all lawyers under the impression that simply repeating the same loaded question in a different way will get a better result? If you are, as I suspect, at the pinnacle of your profession, can I infer that the legal profession is itself largely founded upon similarly amateur-grade understandings of linguistics, psychology, and philosophy? WD: "Whether you were disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point by proposing to deprecate IAR, or doing something else, is an open question about which the arbitrators seem to disagree." Indeed there are subjectives involved. The one that first comes to mind is this one: How do you know, and how am I to know if what you say "arbitrators seem to disagree" is substantive? Yes, there were a couple holdouts on the proposed page, but do they really "disagree?" Do they actually discuss this case in private? If so, what can we do but to speculate on the nature of their disagreement? What answer can I give to you that would indirectly answer their questions? Do they have questions, or are they simply decided? This goes to the heart of the issue. I have already sufficiently destroyed three (somewhere around there) of Arbcom's issues against me. All I'm waiting for now is either an acknowledgment, an accusation of "wikilawyering," or else more typical monolithic bureaucratic silence &mdash;itself destructive to intelligent interaction. -Stevertigo 17:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If there ever was a perfect time to say yada yada yada, that time is now. You don't want to say why you nominated IAR for deprecation.  I get it.  No need to insult my intelligence or invoke linguistics, psychology, and philosophy just to say you won't answer the question.  Your off-topic comments destroy nothing; Arbcom will let you know if you changed their minds or convinced them to reform their operations.  Go ahead and bash me again, I see no value in furthering this line of discussion.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yada: Can't find it in my law dictionary. I have said that it was an issue of being reminded of a long-standing view, not "relation" or "motivation." I have tried hard not to insult your intelligence. My comments were not off-topic. I see no need to "bash [you] again" if, as you suggest, there will be no further provocation. :) -Stevertigo 20:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pertaining just to the IAR issue, I raised the point at WP:RFAR/OAW:
 * IAR issue
 * "Certainly Arbcom does not cite IAR much in deciding cases, does it?"

What I mean is that it's notable that one of the "Five Pillars" is a "policy" that can't be and appears to have never actually been referenced by Arbcom as a principle. Not only do I refute the charge that this was related or disruptive or motivated by anything other than the improvement principle, I stand by my assertion that IAR is not actually a principle. If it was, then I would simply ask that Arbcom factors IAR into understanding my actions in creating a previously deleted page that had no explanatory notation, changing a FAQ, and even addding commentary to the RFAR/proposed decision page &mdash;all of which fall under IAR, IMHO. -Stevertigo 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

4) Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Stevertigo exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
 * "Remedies"
 * Comment: After lunch. -Stevertigo 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

More on this soon. -Stevertigo 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification of policy

More on this soon. -Stevertigo 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Making characterizations instead of argument

Suggestions for the Arbitration committee

 * Note, new materials for Arbcom at #my proposed decision will be incorporated here, and distributed to general meta discussion.

It is natural that people involved in Arbcom cases may have issues with the particular case and how things come down. In reality though, Arbcom is not a monolithic entity (or it should not be) and ideas for its improvement should be commonplace &mdash;even among those involved in cases, as we often have certain insights. Thus there are certain distinctions between insights, suggestions, criticisms, and complaints, and if Arbcom cannot handle making these distinctions without prejudice, then there is a problem for Wikipedans to solve &mdash;a problem no less than edit warring or incivility, or (as once was the case) lacking an Arbcom to begin with.

Note that there is a basic conceptual problem with dealing with a group entity like Arbcom. Its in reality composed of individuals, but as a group it has certain abilities and drawbacks not generally found in individuals. For example, in thinking about an appropriate place for a Suggestions for the Arbitration committee page (a way to organize critical suggestions for improving Arbcom) I considered 1) Arbitration issues and 2) Arbitration committee issues &mdash;neither of which are suitable because 1 is impersonal and abstract beyond the issues of criticizing the way Arbcom deals with cases, and 2 is personalized to the committee members themselves. Criticizing 1 means criticizing Arbitration itself, which is not really the point. Criticizing 2 means criticizing the members of the committee, which is also not necessary.

The real focus of suggestions thus rest not with either Arbitration or the Arbitration committee, but with Arbcom *&mdash;this monolithic entity which hands down punitions with little in the way of open deliberations. In this regard, there is much to say about Arbcom, even while one may have no issue at all with either Arbitration (which I supported at the time and take certain credit in getting it started) or with the esteemed members of the committee (which IIRC I had the opportunity to join in its first incarnation, choosing instead to work on the Medcom). The current situation is that the term "Arbitration" is actually a misnomer, and the term "Arbcom" has quite a different meaning from its etymology. Regards, -Stevertigo 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Efficiency
Before there was an Arbcom (or a Medcom) I argued that there was a need for a "formal process" for handling disputes. The current Arbcom has many qualities and properties, and formality of process is first among them. But in addition to formality, there are other dimensions that need consideration. In fact I think this must have been what Jimbo was talking about when he opposed the creation of an Arbcom &mdash;that deliberations about people require care and even a human touch, such that can get lost when employing bureaucratic-style entities. But "human touch" in this context simply translates to "interaction," which is a different dimension than the efficiency dimension I'm talking about now.

Aspects of efficiency are relevant because they can help Arbcom do its job a little better. For example, why is there a vote for the statement:
 * " Purpose of Wikipedia: "1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or political dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited. "

While I understand that some things need to be stated (even though they go without saying), why does this statement need to be explicitly listed and then ratified anew for each case? Indeed, this indicates more the signatures of the signers and the authority they claim, rather than the transcendent relevance of the "purpose" clause. In fact I'm no stranger nor foe to transcendent concepts and references to them, its just rather that I find it both inefficient and redundant to make a list of "relevant principles," when the principles transcend even Arbcom, and never waver. What would be more efficient is if Arbcom decided to list which policies may have been in conflict, and then vote on ways to resolve these, or else figure out a way to involve the community in deciding these. -Stevertigo 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is significant waste of effort in the laying down of principles during the crafting of a decision. Most of those are, indeed, "boilerplate" that most people should be aware of (most of all the arbitrators themselves).  But they do serve a very useful purpose: they (re)state the foundation of the decision in a clear manner. Reiteration of a "known" principle may seem, at first glance, strictly redundant.  But even a cursory comparison of older to recent decisions show that they tend to evolve gradually over time to reflect the successive refinement of their interpretation or shifting community values.  In other words, they give context to the following findings of fact and remedies in a way that frames the decision within the state of Wikipedia at that time.  Given that the establishment of the principles tend to be the easiest, and far fastest, part of the entire deliberation process there is little to gain by avoiding them.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, its not really my central concern at this point that Arbcom routinely makes "boilerplate" out of principle &mdash;at least I'm sure its not as wrong as it sounds.
 * My real issues deal with interaction, and Arbcom's presence or lack thereof. I'm sure you and the others have read at least some of my comments on that at WP:RFAR/OAW/SV and WP:RFAR/OAW, and maybe one or two of you have even noted Wikidemon's request for "clarification" (read "interaction [in context]") below. What say you on these?
 * Not to make this a personal question, but still to address you as a person, do you Coren feel less than free to speak your mind on the subject, as an individual? -Stevertigo 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel free to speak my mind on the case pages. I don't reply if a side issue is brought in, or other arbs have given a reply that mirrors my own view. I try to make comments with votes as needed to explain my view to the involved parties and other arbs if the issue is not straightforward. I'll take a look at the questions and comments to see if my opinion will be of value, and reply as needed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you. I should offer the suggestion that your opinion will not at all be without "value." And I base this opinion only on the fact that the community has apparently entrusted you with title to an office that has the very purpose of upholding both dignity and virtue on Wikipedia. -Stevertigo 20:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I generally do not feel at liberty to speak my mind on most topics. The fact of the matter is that it is very much difficult to separate the "Arbitrator" persona from the "Editor" persona, and that any comment we make is given greater prominence than otherwise would be (for good or ill); therefore it is wiser to limit most of my comments to matter where I am wearing my "Arb" hat to avoid misunderstandings and drama. Additionally, there is the undeniable importance of remaining safely beyond the margins of any conflict so that we are not seen as being on a "side"&mdash; and that generally means steering clear of controversial or difficult areas altogether.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well stated. Hm. The issue of separating editor/arbitrator personae is something I had not considered. But just at first glance it appears to me to be attributable to a kind of unknown-to-me misconception Arbcom has about itself, that in turn has been undermining to the online personas of "arbs" themselves. As I noted in an earlier comment, arbitrators, as indicated by their demonstrated community trust (alone), *could speak freely on any editorial or behavioural matter (an important distinction) and not only be heard, but be regarded. I did not indicate to what particular degree or scope such "regard" should entail, and would not imagine anyone alone could do so. I simply stated, and now repeat, that there is a kind of obligation that people in positions of trust have to act upon the good will imparted to and entrusted upon them.
 * It is Arbcom's apparent primary mission to deal with beings who lack certain concepts of interaction, and thus its only ironic at best that Arbcom itself, as it currently sees itself, appears to hold similar apparent tendencies to diminish its own personal interactions &mdash;particularly so in the context of cases it is actively deciding. So it can't be helped that observers such as myself will attribute this diminished capacity to some flaw within either Arbcom's own concept of being, or else within the beings that member it.
 * The expression "more heat than light", once used a lot around here, appears to me to be quite relevant. "More light than heat" is the positive form, and if taken as a principle, it seems to apply everywhere. But we all have different ideas about how to bring that about in different contexts. In this context, as you indicate, the issue for "arbs" appears to be, simply put, a cautious concept that you might either get too much or else put out too much heat. Understanding all of that, I'm suggesting that "interaction" should be seen as bringing more light to both editors and current Arbcom members, and not the otherwise. Regards. -Stevertigo 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: A related concept comes to mind and I thought I should make note of it here. Interaction with people outside one's particular circle is also a good way for a group to avoid destroying itself from within, as closed groups tend to do. -Stevertigo 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Interaction
I am raising the issue of increasing Arbcom interactions with its case subjects. More on this later. -Stevertigo 23:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

May we get a clarification
May I ask Arbcom's assistance? There are some new proposals in the sections marked "Remove the wiggle room in "Consensus can change" and "Findings of fact on Wikidemon don't go far enough", that pertain to parties and evidence not considered in the case. I felt that I must answer them briefly because I consider it unfair and out of place to admit these statements without describing the context.  However, the accusations and denials are a dredging up of long-quiet issues that were not considered in the case, and this talk page does not seem like a productive forum for hearing them out.  Can we please get a clarification regarding whether the new claims and parties will be considered at this time and, if so, how we will go about gathering evidence, proposing finding of facts and remedies, etc.?  If not, can we find a way to wrap this up so we don't end up in a fruitless debate?  Thanks,  Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so briefly as it turns out, but I do not think the new debate on this page is a useful contribution to the proceedings, and I would very much like to disengage - permanently if possible - from the editor who is now rehashing an old grievance against me.Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As Tarc mentioned above, Noroton should have placed it on the /Evidence page at the appropriate time if he thought it was relevant to this case. It is much too big to be added at the end of the case on the PD talk page.  As a result I doubt any arbitrator has taken much notice of it, excepting that they may have learnt from it that certain editors have been involved in earlier disputes on these pages, if they didn't already know that. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I made my point, and it was read, as it needed to be. More people have a better understanding of Wikidemon's and Scjessey's behavior and how that's hurt the encyclopedia. I doubt any arbitrator has paid any more or less attention on this page than that arbitrator would have paid to the evidence page days or weeks ago. And if I had submitted evidence then, I probably would have wasted my time and become more frustrated that arbs were ignoring something because it was already too old to consider. That would have come across in the classic Arbcom manner of telling someone who's spent many hours -- even days -- gathering evidence that the committee just isn't interested. By not participating, I declined to be victimized yet again by Wikipedia. If arbitrators haven't changed the proposed decision page as a result, I can accept that -- but they didn't ease the proposed sanctions on Scjessey or Wikidemon either, as, Jay, you seemed to be inclined to do, given your comments on this page about Scjessey. Whatever sanctions Arbcom imposes, at least some of the arbs are now better informed about just what kind of crap this website not only tolerates but, through inaction and through lack of enforcement power for NPOV policy or consensus decisions, promotes. That's not a bad result, especially if there's some committee that's going to look into what to do to improve the situation on the Obama page.
 * And Jay (or do you prefer "John"?), don't tell me arbs didn't even read it. People who aren't totally apathetic already will give some attention when a reasonable case is made with logic and evidence linked to diffs, particularly when they show deeper problems than some difficult editors. Readers also saw Wikidemon's and Scjessey's reaction and attitudes, which is hugely instructive. If readers weren't better informed after that, nothing was going to affect them anyway, no matter when or on what page I presented it. I addressed these particular editors, but also tried to show how they fit into the larger, systemic problem. Anyone still dumb enough (or a POV pusher themselves) to think there isn't a huge systemic problem here -- with massive-scale POV-pushing campaigns by groups on Wikipedia -- wasn't going to change their minds. Arbcom members have to deal with mass-scale POV wars regarding Ireland, Greece/Macedonia and various other topics related to politics. If I were on Arbcom (a nightmare scenario), I'd be climbing the walls looking for ways to prevent these messes from starting and trying to get some insight into the behavioral patterns and policy gaps. How many times must arbitrators be thinking, "If so-and-so only started out with those normal political passions and had a chance to present them in a better-structured environment, fewer behavioral problems would have resulted"? Any arbitrator who isn't grappling with that is a hopeless case, anyway. No, I think my timing and placement worked just fine, although I didn't plan it that way.
 * Have fun wasting your time with the next visits by Wikidemon and Scjessey to AN/I and Arbcom, because based on their past behaviors (and attitudes after past rebukes), they're very likely to be problems. And have fun dealing with case after case after case of these massive POV imbroglios, each one with editors making similar mistakes based on Wikipedia policy gaps that don't account for normal human behavior. Since I've turned away from political-controversy articles and brushed the dust of my sandals, they aren't my problem, but they will be yours. -- Noroton (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I have a stalker. Other than the sock farms, Noroton was one of the worst of the worst from last year, getting along with other editors for a while, but he snapped at some point and became incredibly manipulative and antagonistic,  seeing everything as a POV battleground and his opponents as the cabal.  One of Arbcom's shortcomings here in reviewing the evidence and meting out sanctions is seeing things as a dispute between two content positions on the article, and two camps reverting each other and accusing each other of misbehavior, but what really happened was a large number of good editors was doing its best to cope with people who came to shift the perceived article bias, and when they could not get what they wanted through consensus resorted to socking, meatpuppetry, edit wars, accusations, and personal attacks.  I've dealt with this for over a year on the articles, and when people threw enough mud around some people obviously thought some of it stuck.  If this is the end of it, great.  However, if Noroton does continue to harass me as he has vowed to do, we are going to need administrative intervention of some sort to stop the stalking behavior.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You really would be so much better off keeping your cursor away from the "Save page" button, Wikidemon. I've already provided diffs and a provable explanation for why I snapped at you. You've made unproven statements about me that contradict each other, contradict my diffs and links, and contradict common sense. Your statements lack credibility. Next time, try admitting when you're wrong. Works for me. You present yourself as Mr. Simon Pure Wikidefender, but when you disruptively violated the consensus on terrorism concerning the Weatherman, Bill Ayers and Bernardette Dohrn articles, it showed you were nothing but a POV pusher. This happened after I spent tens of hours collecting the evidence on that RfC page (that you set up) and then worked within WP:CANVASS to get previously uninvolved editors to look at the evidence. Everyone can see who stuck to Wikipedia's principles and who was POV pushing because he was more concerned with Obama's reputation than he was with serving the reader. Those links and diffs don't lie. And you can't type your way around it. Just because you kept your cool better than I did doesn't mean you weren't a POV pusher, or that you didn't disrupt Wikipedia to promote your POV. It just makes you a more dangerous one. And pointing it out at your first (but I'm sure not last) Arbcom case isn't stalking, it's forwarding relevant evidence about your ongoing WP:BATTLE-ing. -- Noroton (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Noroton, you must disengage. You are all wet here in those rehashed claims, which are not worth the time or effort to respond to, and very creepy in following me across the encyclopedia on a vendetta like that.  Back off.  Stop responding.  Stay away from me, the Obama articles, and the editors who you are so upset with.  Find something else to do.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Wikidemon has said, and I like to add to it. I think it is abundantly clear that Noroton is a deeply involved editor who should absolutely have been a named party for his noxious attitude, mischaracterizations, accusations of bad faith and blatant POV pushing in concert with a known group of sock puppets. He was effectively "chased away" by admin warnings before, and has chosen to return to spew all this poison just at the culmination of the ArbCom process. He has been extremely lucky to have escaped this process, given that his behavior was far worse than that of any of the named parties. His apparent hatred of Wikidemon and obvious dislike of me coat every word he has written above, with assumptions of bad faith (and even predictions of future issues) abound. ArbCom should make a special case and give this "editor" the restrictions, blocks and bans that he so evidently deserves. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Scjessey, if I thought that a single other Wikipedian found your statement at all credible, even for a moment, I'd respond to it. -- Noroton (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could someone please close this section? I asked a question of the arbitrators, got a reasonable answer, and do not wish to engage in a side-debate with a non-party who is accusing me of bad faith.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon tells a good faith editor "You are all wet" and "not worth the time or effort to respond to" and "very creepy in following me across the encyclopedia on a vendetta" and then complains about assumptions of bad faith. Classic. Do not close this thread as it is yet another example of Wikidemon's disruption and attempts to tar other editors with all sorts of accusations and personal attacks while he plays the victim. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is completely off base, but I will not respond to your accusations. Arbcom is about to impose as a sanction that you and I are to avoid each other.  Please get started on that instead of posting screeds here and elsewhere against me, the administrators who have tried to police this, Arbcom for doing so, and even Jimbo Wales. Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, CoM, and everybody can see it. Interestingly, Wikidemon's and Scjessey's antics in these statements sometimes work rather well at AN/I. Wikidemon typically makes a slew of AN/I complaints and eventually some, ah, influenceable admin (with good intentions) will happen by, not look too hard into the background, and issue a warning or block or state support. It doesn't have to happen most of the time if they keep on posting complaints. And Wikidemon has incredible patience -- especially in collecting diffs over long periods of time (nobody on Wikipedia does it better -- nobody). Wikidemon will also threaten to complain at AN/I after some opponent has been goaded enough into making some behavioral indiscretion. I'm convinced many editors have given up on contributing to the articles Wikidemon "patrols" because of the goading and hair-trigger AN/I complaining and rough treatment those editors know they will get. Many of the editors who crowd these articles are incredibly unpleasant people to deal with, to say the least, so until admins and arbitrators start enforcing what policies Wikipedia actually has against them, editors who disagree with their ideology should just let that corner of the Wikipedia raft sink into the muck and concentrate on editing noncontroversial articles that are still above the muck line. True, the whole encyclopedia's reputation is damaged, with little credibility among millions who don't happen to worship Obama, but life is short and article wrangling is long. Wikipedia is worse off because I'm not touching politically charged articles, but I'm much happier. -- Noroton (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Noroton, stop now. Again, wet and creepy.  Stop fixating on me, and do not further stalk or harass me.  Anyone in a capacity to do so, please close this thread.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly advise all the parties to the case to disengage here. Post only information that might be direct relevance to the voting decisions of the arbitrators, such as myself. I will not be impressed by further name-calling or comments about other editors, unless directly relevant to the proposed decision (and even there, there cannot possibly be much that has been left unsaid, other than perhaps comments about the votes I cast this evening). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FoF 10 -- Wikidemon's conduct
Brad wrote:
 * The diffs are isolated, three months old, and all from a single day (indeed, from within the same hour). The underlying disputes on policy pages were petty and but for this case would have been long-forgotten. Wikidemon's response to this proposal on the workshop suggests a good-faith editor who was exasperated for a few moments on a particularly contentious evening. Without more, I see no need for an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say I've had experience with Wikidemon's "good faith" and found room for improvement. Scroll up for the details. Really, Brad, you should read this page before condeming it as off-topic, because it could inoculate you from statements like that. You say "Without more, I see no need ...", when I provide more, you ignore it. You seem unaware of Wikidemon's history over the past year and more, and I haven't seen such a rosey outlook on another person since I read Melanie's words in Gone With The Wind. In the seventh grade. -- Noroton (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aak! Will disengage from wikistalker. Wikidemon (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You disengage about as many times as the Eagles hold farewell tours. When will the end really be the end? Tarc (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one engaging, dude. I'm responding to strangely obsessive attacks from editors who have cast their inability to gain consensus for disparaging Obama as a liberal conspiracy, and vilified me as the object of their frustration as one of the most ardent editors upholding community standards -- in the case of Noroton from an editor who has vowed to wikistalk me indefinitely until he shuts me down, and in the other case to an editor who developed a similar obsession.  Responding to personal attacks is a lot different than making them, and one very poignant lesson if one studies politics is that you cannot ignore character assassination because when people hear nonsense often enough they start to believe it.  This was not an issue in arbitration because it came out late in the case, but if it continues it will come to a head sooner or later.  Wikidemon (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm going to note here that this is the 10th time on this page that Wikidemon has accused me of being a "wikistalker", which is 3.3 times the number of occasions that the two of us have engaged in any contact at all between last October and this RfA. There is no legitimate purpose to repeating this nine times on this page, particularly in one-line comments that don't advance the discussion. When I've commented on Wikidemon, I've done so for the purposes of the RfA, and he's been calling me a "wikistalker" here largely because I'm commenting on his RfA. This is not a a good-faith editor who was exasperated for a few moments on a particularly contentious evening, as Wikidemon's own behavior -- recent behavior shows. In fact, his main defense to my criticisms of him has been personal attack. He's had time to defend himself from my criticisms here, but hasn't. He's revealed at least as much about himself on this page as I've revealed about him. And by the way, Brad, Wikidemon just flouted your strong urging of all parties to stick to the subject. I think you should make a reassessment. -- Noroton (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop wikistalking me. Do not engage me.  You have no business carrying out your vendetta against me here or anywhere else.  Go away.  Wikidemon (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave a note on my talk page about this business of "wikistalking" in order to try to keep this talk page on track and, perhaps, allay some of Wikidemon's concerns. Anyone is invited to comment there. We're now up to 12 iterations of the "wikistalking" charge. -- Noroton (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That last diff pretty much sums up wiki-stalking. Just saying... - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That goes beyond just "stalking" into the realm of "threat", to be honest. Scary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FoF 11 -- Tarc and edit summaries
''1.That's not how I like to see Wikipedians talking to one another (or even to people they perceive as visitors or outsiders), but I'm not sure it rises to the ArbCom level either. As an aside to non-US arbitrators, there's a political context to the use of this term as quoted in one of the diffs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)''

(Referring to Tarc's edit-summary comments) Well, Brad, as I said just above,


 * Many of the editors who crowd these articles are incredibly unpleasant people to deal with, to say the least, so until admins and arbitrators start enforcing what policies Wikipedia actually has against them, editors who disagree with their ideology should just let that corner of the Wikipedia raft sink into the muck and concentrate on editing noncontroversial articles that are still above the muck line. True, the whole encyclopedia's reputation is damaged, with little credibility among millions who don't happen to worship Obama, [...]

When I said "muck", insulting comments directed at people who disagree with the commenter is one of the things I meant. Nothing against Tarc, who I don't really know, but when the Obama talk page has been as nasty as any page ever gets on Wikipedia, it's good for ArbCom to be on record opposing that kind of thing. And your "turd blossom" etymology comment removes none of its offensiveness. You know, it would be incredibly useful for you to use a sock account to make edits or talk-page comments from the minority viewpoint on a really contentious talk page. After you get pelted with turds, simply for upholding a view unpopular on the talk page, it would be a good time to review just how damaging you find that kind of conduct in that kind of situation. At that point, you may also want to review your attitude toward some of the other fine traditions that majorities adhere to on contentious talk pages, like goading, hairtrigger AN/I reports and the practice of summarily boxing off discussions started by adversaries. In the real world, contentious/emotional/rage-inspiring topics are generally discussed in forums where civility is enforced from the get-go, where decisions are made with clarity (not like our vague, aspirational policy on consensus), and where but I digress. Noroton (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FoF 11.1 -- Tarc "boxing" talk-page text
11.1) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) violated talk page guidelines in removing sections of text and/or archiving them.[38][39]

Brad voted to oppose. Casliber, also voting to oppose, commented "These ones seemed reasonable enough to remove", which, like all the Oppose votes, seems to ignore that the discussion referred to in the first diff was closed after three hours. That's too short, and it's dismissive. The page was not so long and unwieldy that the discussion couldn't have been allowed to run for a day. It is unprofessional, provocative (and on the Obama talk page, as I recall, was often meant to be provocative), and offensive to shut down discussions started by people in the minority viewpoint, even when those views seem a little deranged. It's a talk page, where freedom about topics should be broadly interpreted so long as the topics are related to article content and proposed content. Summarily closing these topics can be a way for the majority to shoo away anyone in disagreement with it. Having seen it on the Obama talk page, I'm convinced that this is the purpose of some of it. Even if the comments seem like nutty conspiracy theories, it's not hard to scroll past the crazy discussions for a day, or point out early on that the topic is covered in the FAQ, wait 24 hours and then close it. -- Noroton (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) added a few words to clarify that I wasn't directly commenting on Tarc's motives but of general practices on the Obama talk page -- Noroton (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FoF 13: Scjessey's behavior
has engaged in incivility and personal attacks,[48][49][50] templated established editors,[51][52][53][54], removed pieces of an AfD discussion,[55] and appeared to stalk ChildofMidnight’s edits

Brad wrote:
 * There is enough basis for a raised eyebrow here to support some sort of a finding, although some of the cited diffs are worse than others, and all are now three months old. I note that on the workshop, Scjessey has offered good-faith justifications for some of these edits while acknowledging that a few may have been over the line. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey's behavior in this regard goes back at least a year as far as incivility goes, and I'm sure there are personal attacks that I can dig up going way back. If it's recent personal attacks you want, scroll up this damn page. -- Noroton (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Brad, you were looking for more recent personal attacks and incivility? Try this, fresh from the discussion above:
 * Agreed. That goes beyond just "stalking" into the realm of "threat", to be honest. Scary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Brad, you stated above: I will not be impressed by further name-calling or comments about other editors, unless directly relevant to the proposed decision
 * How does Scjessey impress you now? Do you still think he's a good-faith editor who temporarily lost his cool? -- Noroton (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part of what I said was a "personal attack", and which part was "incivility"? I simply noted that this was a threat to stalk Wikidemon that sounded rather scary, and really demonstrates that you should be a named party in this process. No name-calling on my part, and directly relevant to the proposed decision because it shows the kind of issues named parties have had to deal with. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of pledging to work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines do you find threatening? You made a deliberate mischaracterization in order to make a personal attack. Impressive. -- Noroton (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'm not going to let you get away with it. Period."
 * That part. The part that sounded like a quote from Melville. That doesn't sound like "pledging to work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines" to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why I say you have no credibility. You take a single quote from when I was (justifiably) angry, just after a block (in which both you and Wikidemon came to my talk page to taunt me) and claim that's more important than what happened in the intervening eight months. Whether you're being simply obtuse or deliberately obtuse is not something I can figure out, but what I do know is that you won't get anyone to agree with you with a statement like that (unless they were in your camp anyway). And you make a wild statement like that while arbs are still voting on your arbitration case. You're embarassing Newyorkbrad, who just called you a good-faith editor who temporarily lost his cool. And as far as that cool of yours goes, here you go losing it again and again and again -- so much so that it's no assumption of bad faith to wonder just when you do have your cool. Here, take a look at this pattern on just one page, Talk:Bill Ayers presidential election controversy:
 * Perhaps after the election, when it is becomes clear how this was nothing more than a failed smear campaign, it will be merged with List of failed Republican smear campaigns. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was up to me, this article wouldn't even exist because it's a bunch of Republican POV bullshit. I was suggesting ("I'm just floating this idea out there to see what people think.") something that would solve a problem with inaccurate titling of the articles - nothing more than that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This entire article is designed to inflate the importance of a minuscule "controversy" pushed largely by desperate Republicans. Anything less than a straight description of events, rather than the scintillating exposé envisaged and advanced by Noroton, would be a gross misuse of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This constant attacking on a politically charged talk page that was part of the Obama articles probation is soapboxing, goading, making Wikipedia a battleground and not at all the result of comments or behavior by other editors. It took place over the course of a month -- and it is just a sample of the kind of comments Scjessey regularly made on one talk page or another. If you look at the discussions that his comments were a part of, his comments were the nastiest parts of them. And this is from only one talk page. This is not the behavior of a good-faith editor who temporarily lost his cool, it is the behavior of a POV-pushing, goading battler who likes to rough up editors who don't agree with him rather than try to come to a consensus with them. Are. We. Clear. On. This. Brad? -- Noroton (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going to engage in a moot debate here or anywhere else over these false claims. The announcement and pursuit of the vendetta are not taken out of context, nor an isolated incident.  I object to this being continued here, or anywhere.  The lengthy block obviously did not serve to stop the antagonism.  Noroton, get me out of your mind and stop having anything to do with me.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So I've finally done -- here, now -- what I said I'd do back then. I've told the world about you and Scjessey -- just what crap you pulled -- in what looks to me like a pretty appropriate, Wikipedia-approved spot, which is also just what I said I'd do. You don't have a leg to stand on -- either you or Scjessey. You acted like POV pushers, you violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to do so, and you have absolutely no excuse for it. Whatever Arbcom does or doesn't do at this point is secondary, frankly, and as far as I'm concerned, it reflects well or badly on them as much as on you and Scjessey. Anybody can see the diffs I've given are not out of context in any way that is unfair to you: Those diffs show you two as the POV-pushing policy violators that you've been. Have fun knowing that anybody else who cares to follow the links will see it, too. It's your record, you live with it -- and you might as well own up to it. If you could have refuted my evidence you would have by now. But you can't. That's why you're still whining that I said something you didn't like at the point when I was blocked in October. Back when you were taunting me on my talk page, remember? If I were "stalking" or "harassing" you, there would be more than three occasions in eight months when we crossed paths -- as anybody can figure out. You're quite obviously grasping at straws and quite obviously attacking me. Do you really think that's convincing anybody and not making you look even worse? At this point, unless you can come up with some better personal attack against me, I have nothing further to say to you. I've said it. If you commit some further outrage in the future, I reserve the right, just like any other Wikipedia editor, to expose it here or at some other appropriate Wikipedia forum. Same goes for Scjessey. Unless some arb wants more information or either of you make some claim I think needs to be answered, we're done here. Have a nice Wikicareer and try to stay out of trouble. -- Noroton (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The context of all of this is that for whatever reason you didn't want to become an involved party to this arbitration (and have your own edits audited) by participating in /Evidence. You want action? Sign yourself up as an involved party. If no action occurs, it is because you have skirted the process, not due to any of the logical fallacies that you propose above. IMO, you've proved nothing other than that you have a huge axe to grind. --guyzero | talk 04:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles: Feel free to include me as an involved party if you include Wikidemon, but include Wikidemon. -- Noroton (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC) As for having an ax to grind -- you mean I've been tendentious in article edits? I've responded to that. As for the evidence, it speaks for itself. As for what other's make of the evidence: I've said repeatedly that my evidence is so obvious and straightforward that the reaction of third parties to it is a reflection on them more than on the evidence. As for "action" ... reread the post you're responding to. -- Noroton (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

FoF 13.1 -- Scjessey's behavior
Brad wrote:
 * My reading of the situation, based on Scjessey's comments on the workshop among other input, is that this is a good-faith editor who temporarily lost his cool in what he found to be a stressful situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't know Scjessey. Even aside from his block log, he's a pretty confrontational partisan, not occasionally or under provocation, but normally. Need diffs? -- Noroton (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A proper study of my block log will reveal that (with a single exception, the first one) all blocks were shortened or lifted for various reasons. A block log is rarely a good guide to an editor's behavior (blocks are sometimes broadly applied to groups of editors, for example). Also, it is quite difficult to accumulate over 10,000 edits without running into the occasional difficulty. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I commented on Scjessey's confrontational partisanship above, with this diff. -- Noroton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Remedy 3 -- Editors encouraged
3) All involved editors in the Obama articles, parties or not, are encouraged to try to collaborate and work constructively instead of accusing others of misconduct.

Brad wrote: Minor copyedit—changed "the other side" to "others"—Wikipedians do not form "sides".

Except that they do. What you mean is "Wikipedians should not be forming 'sides'". But human beings inevitably tend to do that, especially in an environment like Wikipedia where there are few strictures on how to get decisions made on a talk page. It would be more useful to have Wikipedia policies and guidelines that reflect inevitable human conduct (human nature) and have enforcable rules that promote talk-page decisionmaking based on calm, reasonable discussion about the best way to put evidence from sources into articles. Accepting that people tend to line up on "sides" may or may not be part of that (probably not, but maybe). But one thing's for sure: We won't get people off of the "sides" unless we have an enforceable mechanism to do it, and we don't have one. And frankly, maintaining the aspiration while not having an eforceable mechanism is confusing and counterproductive because it deludes editors into thinking there is a mechanism somewhere, then shocks them when they discover the bitter reality. -- Noroton (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw my name here...
I did not know about this until just this evening. I have not edited any Obama articles since probably more than 3 months ago. I put myself on an "unofficial" topic ban following the WND siege, which occurred the night of March 8 / morning of March 9, which is when all those citations occurred. I was removing propaganda being posted by sleeper accounts and IP addresses which had come to attack wikipedia after being urged to do so by an article in WND. I was so disgusted with the lack of support I got for trying to defend wikipedia - most notably this offensive essay by ChildofMidnight - that I soon gave up on the Obama articles (I can't recall the exact day). So putting me on an "official" Obama topic ban, if that's what this is about, is just fine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you're not complaining that you weren't informed about the case, just explaining why you're commenting so late. -- Noroton (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had been notified on April 14th about the thread as being a "party" to it, as you indicate, but not that I was actually being complained about. So I never checked it out, and soon forgot about it, until I happened to run across it yesterday. No big deal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, nobody's proposing you get anything more than a modest chiding. So, worry about something more important, like the Cubs. 05:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a full-time job, even in the off-season. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)