Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Temporary desysop of Kevin	Motions	6 March 2013	{{{votes}}}
Tea Party movement		25 February 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	none	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	21 June 2024

Temporary desysop of Kevin

Initiated by NE Ent at 02:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Arbitration Committee
• Kevin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The committee is obviously aware of relevant off-wiki discussion; see noticeboard discussion.

Statement by NE Ent

The motion indicate Kevin's desysoping was intended as temporary; the response to my follow up question recommended RFAR as a possible avenue of restoring his access. Applicable procedures state the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. Given that:

• No further doxing occurred during while the editor was unblocked.
• The policy at the time of the unblocking focused on reversal of the block, not unblocking after user made unblock request with promise not to continue the behavior [dubious - discuss]'.

Desysoping does not benefit the encyclopedia and reinstating the bits is just a better resolution to the dispute.

No endorsement of the unblock is implied. NE Ent 03:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

I read this differently from NE Ent above: the issues are satisfactorily resolved feels more like "when Cla68's appeal is heard and decided", as the outcome of the appeal would clearly tie into this case. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@B: I'm wary of assuming too much, so I always ask (and re-ask). It's better to be more cautious (and not assume things wrong). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

I think we have a binary set here. Either Kevin says flat out (either here at the RfArb or an email to the Committee) "Yeah, what I did was wrong, and it won't happen again", and I'd suggest restoring the tools, with the admonition that should anything like this happen again, the tools are gone, period, end of story, or without such assurances, make the removal of terms permanent. I don't think yet another front to argue about the Committee's actions is useful or warranted, but I've been wrong before. SirFozzie (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

How can the Arbitration Committee review a case with themselves as a party? Wouldn't WP:INVOLVED indicate that they all would by necessity be required to recuse? — Ched :  ?  03:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• awaiting further input, but should this move forward then I suggest that once the scope is defined, perhaps other participants should be added to the list of parties. — Ched :  ?  04:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

Everything that SirFozzie said, plus this sounds similar to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu. I don't see how the Committee can decline this as a case unless Kevin chooses not to appeal, or unless Kevin provides satisfactory assurance that this will not happen again. --Rschen7754 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by B

I have no particularly strong opinion about the ultimate outcome of the case. But I do have a very strong opinion that the emergency desysop was inappropriate for several reasons.

1. The emergency desysop violates the preventative nature of the rule. The rule says, "Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place ... ." If there is no evidence of imminent harm, then removal is inappropriate.
2. Oversighter Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) said several times [2][3][4] that if Cla68 would agree to abide by the outing policy that he could be unblocked. It is not unreasonable for someone to interpret those statements as permission to unblock.
3. By passing judgment that Kevin's actions were (1) wrong and (2) warranted desysopping, the Arbitration Committee has abandoned its role as a neutral arbiter and instead become the prosecutor and executioner.

Respectfully submitted, B (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• (The following was added later, after several others had commented on my statement.) The comment below by SilkTork (talk · contribs) is downright chilling ("Something else to consider in accepting this as a full case is that we might then be looking more closely at the events on the talkpage which led to Kevin taking the action he did, which could mean adding Jehochman and Ched as parties, as it was Jehochman's suggestion that if Cla posted a comment that "he will not discuss editors' real life identities" that he could then be unblocked, so Ched went and proxy posted Cla's comments."). That is presumably in reference to this suggestion by Jehochman. He offers an opinion that if Cla68 were to repent, he should be unblocked. He doesn't say, "by the power vested in me, I decree that I will unblock him" - he simply says that if the conditions arise where there is no longer a reason for the block, he should be unblocked. I would hope that we could all take this as axiomatic as it is the foundation of our blocking policy - blocks are to prevent disruption, not to punish. Incidentally, the blocking oversighter had already said that this was his intention. Your take on this rather non-controversial statement of Jehochman can only have a chilling effect on community involvement and community discussion. You are sending the message, "shut up or you will be punished". --B (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MZMcBride

I agree with everything B wrote in his section. I'd just add a fourth point: removing Kevin's adminship only needlessly aggravated and perpetuated the drama, clearly as an attempt by the Arbitration Committee to scare off other would-be clue-by-four-wielders. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin

A case is a foregone conclusion, as Hersfold has noted that permissions will not be reinstated routinely, and Level 2 procedures require the opening of a case[5][6][7]. So I would think that there is little point adding more here until the case is opened. Kevin (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, it would seem that Hersfold has taken that option away. Kevin (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Response to Nuclear Warfare: Hell yeah! Volunteer Marek 04:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Another quandary: are the Arbs who voted on Kevin's desysop going to vote on whether to accept or decline the case? If yes, and if they mostly vote no, after telling Kevin "you have the option of going to ArbCom", then that instruction will seem like... not sure how to put it nicely, but basically toying with someone's emotions: "you can take it up with ArbCom, but we're the ArbCom and ha ha ha, after forcing you to do it, we laugh in your stupid face!". Hence, if yes, they do vote on acceptance, they will have to vote "accept". But in that case their acceptance is forced by their ... "involvedness" (or whatever you want to call it, and whether or not you want to admit it's stiting right there like a bad pierogi on the table). Hence it's not a real, good faithed vote. So that means that those who voted for the de-sysop should not vote whether to accept the case or not. And... judging by NW's smart action below, those who recused or where inactive or did not vote may not be very inclined to change that. So... where does that leave us?

Someone page Salvio Guiliano and have him decide unilaterally whether or not to accept it? And then decide the whole case all by his lonesome?

You folks managed to get yourself in one helluva mess. Been here almost 8 years and this is the dumbest situation I've seen in awhile, if not ever.Volunteer Marek 05:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

In no respect is NE Ent an "involved party" (if he is, then every Wikipedia editor is as well), and he has no standing to bring this case. If Kevin want to contest his desysopping, he's been clearly told the steps available to him; it's not up to another editor to make the choice for him. I urge that this case request be rejected for those reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

The policy wasn't particular difficult reading. I'm not sure why this would need to be an "arbcom decision" instead of just an exercise in sentence construction. Arbcom is not a party to this dispute any more than judges are listed as parties in an appeal. Advanced permission removal procedures are in place to address situations when such an account appears to be harming the project. This a general statement and doesn't imply any specific temporality. For a level II action, the conduct is discussed among arbitrators, they review the actions and if, in their sole discretion as a body, decide an account is harming the project with the advanced tools, they reach out to the account user for an explanation. If, as a body, they believe the response to be inadequate, they simply remove the advanced permissions of the account. The removal of permissions remains until arbcom is convinced the account would not harm the project. This can either be an adequate statement that Arbcom considers or a request for a review by the user that lost permissions. Normally, one would think that someone entrusted with the Advanced permissions would be able formulate an adequate response and the tools would be reinstated (or not taken away). To date, this appears not to be the case here, so the formal remedies are all that's left. User:Kevin can try again with his response and send email to arbcom. He can file for a full review. He can stand for another RfA. But talking about whether it needed to be done immediately or whether the continued desysop protects the project or whether it's tied to Cla or that arbCom is "involved" is just noise. They are strawman arguments created to be easily torn down but don't address a single issue. Until User:Kevin can demonstrate to ArbCom that the tools should be reinstated or to the community through RfA, no amount of shouting, stomping or wikilawyering should change this action. ArbCom should reject this request and instead direct User:NE_Ent to the RfA process where he can nominate Kevin for adminship. Only Kevin can initiate an ArbCom request to review his de-sysopping. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bwilkins

There's no admin in their right mind who would read the words "the is an oversighter block" and then unanimously unblock. This is the most bizarre element of the entire situation. Regardless of Kevins involvement in that offsite forum, or possible communications with Cla, the process with any oversight-related block is pretty obvious. Oddly enough, Kevin continues to claim his unblock was correct everywhere he posts. Strange that, because before this started, all he had to say somewhere (anywhere) was "oh, my mistake - it will never happen again...shall I undo my reblock?" and he never would have been desysopped. The fact that he did not say most of that in his statement above is pretty odd behaviour, and one of the behaviours that show that he doesn't "get it" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Staberinde

Major complaint seems to be appropriateness of arbcom's motion to desysop Kevin. So there are 2 options, arbcom motions are always "right" and therefore there is nothing to discuss in this matter. Alternatively, if they can be regarded as "wrong" or "inappropriate" for situation, then who should determine this? Same arbitrators who voted for the original motion themselves?--Staberinde (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Wehwalt

The motion seems wildly inappropriate and an attempt to use ArbCom hammers, the only tool they seem to have, in a situation where that's a poor idea. I suggest the committee reverse itself. Blocks and unblocks seem to be becoming more and more political than anything else, if you know the right people, the community is simply told to lump it, if not, they lose their bits in an increasingly summary way. Very regrettable. I do not think the problem of administrators undoing these blocks is so serious that it is necessary, in ArbCom, to desysop an administrator from time to time pour encourager les autres. I suggest the committee reverse itself and figure out a way to open this for a case even though most of you have expressed a position on the merits and would have to recuse. Better yet, reverse yourself and simply hope we've forgotten by the next election.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

B is correct.

I found, moreover, the suggestion that Kevin must "prove his innocence" on the talk page to be quite remarkable. If this case is not accepted, them Joseph Heller will smile. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for motion by TParis

These oversight blocks need to stop right now. User:MZMcBride is now blocked for participating in this case and violating WP:BADSITES. These kind of 'oversight blocks' are clearly controversial and their policy support is dubious at best. This looks a helluva lot like a power grab by the oversighters. I request an immediate halt to 'oversight blocks' until this matter receives an actual honest-to-god discussion of the community and not Arbcom.--v/r - TP 13:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• @WormTT: "Just a little more time would have lead to a much more amicable solution, with less controversy and almost none of this mess." This comment does not acknowledge any mistakes on Arbcom's part. Are you saying that Cla68 and Kevin are the sole propagators of this drama?--v/r - TP 13:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Temporary desysop of Kevin: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/2/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• I recused on the initial motion and will again recuse for this case. NW (Talk) 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Commenting here, to note that I would accept a case if Kevin requests one. I have also just responded to one of the e-mails he sent to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, going into more detail about what I think his options are. My view (to summarise here) is that the desysop is only temporary and if appropriate assurances are given I would be fine with resysopping (though I can't speak for my colleagues). The same applies, as far as I am concerned, with the initial block that started all this (though what really actually started this is another matter). The amount of attention that this matter has gathered at each stage is unfortunate, but was predictable. I'm hoping that everyone can help dial back the drama quotient a bit, regardless of how angry or indignant they might feel about this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This request is probably premature as, to my mind, the Level II process is not a binary choice and the procedure has yet to run its course. The steps/options for Kevin are as follows:
  1. Lets the matter drop altogether, which effectively accepts the committee's decision and makes the desysop permanent;
  2. Provides assurances to the committee about his future use of the tools if they are restored and asks for reconsideration in the light of the assurances; or;
  3. Asks the committee to open a full case to examine the desysop and make a final binding determination;
  4. Alternatively, Kevin can simply ask the community for the return of the tools at RFA, the eventual outcome of which the committee would obviously respect.
  At this point though, the ball is in Kevin's court,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• We could accept this and decide it by motion as the facts are already known. We had just reached the point on discussions on the email list where we were about to go to motion anyway, so it's just a matter of where to place the motion. I see this, of course, as an argument for ArbCom discussions taking place openly on Wikipedia so people can see what is going on and not create situations which are duplicating what is already happening.

The irony of Kevin's action is that it is delaying the Committee dealing with Cla's appeal, which was progressing, but has stalled since the unblocking took place. Difficult to know how things would have turned out, but Cla might at this point have already been unblocked.

Something else to consider in accepting this as a full case is that we might then be looking more closely at the events on the talkpage which led to Kevin taking the action he did, which could mean adding Jehochman and Ched as parties, as it was Jehochman's suggestion that if Cla posted a comment that "he will not discuss editors' real life identities" that he could then be unblocked, so Ched went and proxy posted Cla's comments. None of this was helpful as the Committee was already in discussion with Cla, and neither of those users checked to see if that was taking place.

It has been mentioned that perhaps a notice should have been placed on Cla's talkpage saying an appeal was taking place. This is not part of procedure, and should not be necessary in a situation where a user has been blocked by an ArbCom appointed functionary with a note saying "do not unblock without consulting the oversight team", and where the talkpage access has been removed so the appropriate appeal route is via the Committee. However, what might be appropriate is when a user's talkpage access is removed, that the talkpage is then fully protected so that only admin's can edit it to make consensus agreed statements or notices. That might prevent this sort of situation occurring again, and might address some of Kevin's concerns regarding how the talkpage was being used to criticise a user who could not reply. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I've really commented on the whole affair, besides agreeing to the new system and endorsing Brad's summary comments. Here would be as good as anywhere to make my thoughts known. I was not available (primarily due to sleep) for the entire discussion, but I had looked at the situation quickly when Kevin made his unblock. In my personal opinion, Cla68 was on his way towards being unblocked, Kevin shortcircuited the process and deserves a good clip round the ear for doing so. Just a little more time would have lead to a much more amicable solution, with less controversy and almost none of this mess. Having said that, we encourage that behaviour on Wikipedia, we encourage bold edits, we encourage ignoring of rules. Why? Because the wiki system is not meant to be built up around bureaucracy. I would have supported neither the re-blocking of Cla68, nor the desysop of Kevin. So, to Kevin specifically - in my head, a case is not a foregone conclusion. If you ask for one, I will certainly support that request. Worm^TT(talk) 13:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  @TParis. No, it's rare that there are "sole propagators" of anything. I don't agree with the committee's decision, but that doesn't mean I don't understand it. I believe all parties, including Cla68, Kevin and the committee as a whole has something to learn here and "more haste" isn't one of the lessons. Worm^TT(talk) 14:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Recused. Kirill ^[talk] 13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've previously posted my thoughts about the Level II desysopping on the noticeboard talkpage. At this stage, if Kevin posts in his section above (as I believe he is willing to do) that he will not reverse any block designated as an ArbCom, checkuser, or oversight-based block, I will offer a motion to reinstate his adminship. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

Initiated by KillerChihuahua at 05:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notification)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Linked above

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User_talk:North8000#Tea_Party_Movement.2C_POV_pushing.2C_and_TE
• User_talk:North8000#Please_be_more_circumspect_in_your_comments
• Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Reminder
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input

Statement by KillerChihuahua

• Note: I've never filed an ArbCom case before so if I screw up, it's purely accidental - just let me know and I'll fix it, thanks - KillerChihuahua 05:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is on community article probation. I was asked on 18 February to take a look by User:Goethean, who had been accused of poor behavior (specifically, WP:TE) and wanted a second opinion from an uninvolved admin (see here). I looked, couldn't find anything objectionable in his edits, so I asked the accusing editor to provide a diff here, but as you can see by following the link, I got reams of vague accusations but not a single diff. I hatted the accusatory accusations on the article talk page [8] (my first ever edit there) and advised the accusing editor, North8000, to either provide diffs, or cease the accusations (basically put up or shut up.) Then I added the TPM article to my watchlist. Less than a week later North8000 was making uncivil comments and personal attacks on article talk page.[9] I posted on his talk page asking him to be more civil and I added a reminder on the arkticle talk page that the article is under probation and in only a couple of hours North8000 told me I'm involved, Arzel insulted Goethean again and misrepresented him, and Malke 2010 basically told me I'm Goethean's meatpuppet in order to enable Goethean to bully people - the exact phrasing was "you're here at the behest of goethean who apparently wants to bully editors he doesn't agree with. You, like goethean are failing to assume good faith"[10] There have been repeated instances of BATTLE and NPA from North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010. The environment is toxic. I took this situation to ANI (as Tea Party movement; looking for community input) , now at the sub-page HERE. So far, there have been multiple views on a number of editors, several editors have added to the "Proposed topic ban" lists (several with no evidence at all), and including North8000 calling for my desysopping, and Arthur Rubin calling for me being topic banned for BATTLE because I brought the issue to ANI. I think this one is going to to take an ArbCom case to make any headway.

• Roger, I'm not in a dispute. I'm an uninvolved admin sending up a flare. The issue is one of several editors exhibiting severe battleground behavior, and making the TPM article too toxic for others to edit. The article is under community probation, but that hasn't worked at all. I think the behavior of Arzel, Malke 2010, and especially North8000 need examination; I believe they are holding the article hostage to their views and attacking and accusing anyone with whom they disagree. Goethean asked me to take a look; I tried to caution and warn the editors who were exhibiting the poor behavior but the reaction was so hostile and accusatory that I took it to ANI, where it got even worse. They reject any editors and any sources which do not promote the Tea Party movement, to the point that the New York Times and MSNBC were dismissed as non-RS - rather snidely, too - by Arzel and Malke 2010. KillerChihuahua 06:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Adding, I have five total edits to the article talk page; Feb 19, 23, 24; all in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. None to the article. KillerChihuahua 06:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Arthur Rubin was added to this case because he asked for sanctions against me in this topic area - "A complete topic ban, including a ban on discussion, administrative actions, and discussion of adminstrative actions. Your bringing this "report" here reflects a battlefield mentality which would best be removed from Wikipedia.". If he's asking for sanctions, seems appropriate to add him to this case so his evidence can be considered. KillerChihuahua 12:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Risker, the discussion is linked in my first sentence, at "is on community article probation." - apologies if that was unclear. I got that link from the Talk:Tea Party movement page. I haven't been able to find any probation page such as we set up for Sarah Palin here, or Men's rights movement here; I don't know if there is one. There is an editonotice here. KillerChihuahua 12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  You might want to note the final line in the editnotice, that "Violations can be reported at WP:ANI. " - which is precisely what Arthur Rubin wants to sanction me for, oddly enough. KillerChihuahua 12:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: While I sympathise with those who wish to leave this at ANI, in the short time between posting there and filing here, there have been calls to topic ban 9 editors, a call to desysop me, several editors calling for the issue to be sent to ArbCom, 7 supports and 5 opposes (one of them mine) to "shut this down". IOW, it went off the rails really fast, and that's why I brought it here. KillerChihuahua 13:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Update: NE Ent has unclosed the ANI sub-page thread, and there is activity there. KillerChihuahua 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• (This is in response to Rexx's statement, but to the Arbs): I would prefer Arbcom accept this case; I think there have been serious problems with the behavior of some of those who have been active at TPM, and I also know the differences between community probation and ArbCom sanctions. Most of you know I enforced probation on Sarah Palin and now on Men's rights movement. It was done well; a much stronger consensus at ANI and a subpage with a chart to track who had been notified (not warned, we use notification) and a place to record sanctions. The TPM has no such page; but worse, it has no admins willing to babysit the article - until me, and you see what has happened here. I'm facing not just accusations of "involved" from the parties I've warned, there is an admin calling for me to be sanctioned for even trying to help on this toxic cesspit. On probation since 2010, I have found zero instances of anything being done about problems there. It's like the editnotice was added, and then things went on as before. If the article is under Arb probation, it can be seen at AE, which is always watched. In the past I have argued against that on some articles, but in this case, I think it might be warranted. I do think some of the editors on TPM should be looked at by Arbcom, but of course if you choose not to, please at least do pass a motion or two so other admins and myself can set up a better probation and enforce it. KillerChihuahua 18:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• NW, I do think replacing the community probation with standard discretionary sanctions would be helpful. I also think your "ban, topic ban, admonish" would be helpful. KillerChihuahua 01:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  You could also follow RexxS's suggested course of action. The current probation is set up wrong, but I can fix it, I do have experience with that. KillerChihuahua 03:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Count Iblis, this is a behavioral issue. Mediation is for content disputes. Mediation does not handle NPA, TE, and so on. There is nothing to mediate in this case. KillerChihuahua 12:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  If I thought there was a snowballs chance in hell of mediation solving the issues at this article, I would not be here. KillerChihuahua 12:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• North8000 seems to be very adamant that this is a dispute between the two of us. There is no dispute between us, but that aside - if that is his view, then he is saying he called for me to be desysoped because of a dispute. KillerChihuahua 13:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Mr Chihuahua brought me my tablet. I may not be fast to respond (I am still in the hospital and they're still doing tests) but I do have access. Puppy (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Arthur: I don't see how this is an improvement over your earlier assertions. I not only haven't misinterpreted or misunderstood consensus, I haven't said anything about content at all, let alone about consensus. And your shift from calling for me to be topic banned for misunderstanding some unspecified policy, to calling for me to be topic banned for supposedly misunderstanding some unstated consensus (when I've said nothing about such a thing) is still calling for me to be topic banned for an alleged misunderstanding. This is absurd. You have no diffs, because there was no such comment, whether accurate or a misunderstanding; and your call for a topic ban is not only baseless, it wouldn't even hold water if I had misunderstood something. We do not topic ban for misunderstandings. Puppy (talk)

adding: you need to stop making noise about the ANI subpage, it is only evidence you didn't bother to read my opening staement here, where I said it was at a sub-page and gave the link. I also left a link here on Talk:Tea party movement. Puppy (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• NE Ent, that would be a benefit, but it is emphatically not the only reason I brought this here. Puppy (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• AGK, not only is this not a two party dispute, I'm not even sure who you think the parties are. Please re-read the statement I have given, and the ANI subpage here, and/or feel free to ask questions. I will illuminate as much as I am able, but I thought I had made it very clear that it is a complex situation, and I brought this here because I think ArbCom is the right venue due to the complexity. If it had been North8000 alone, I would probably have started an ANI thread titled "Proposed topic ban for North8000" and done with it, or simply blocked him myself and gone on blocking him repeatedly until he either learned to edit collegially or wound up indeffed by default. I did not; I titled the thread "Tea Party movement, looking for community input" because it is several editors, not two. I in fact named the three (here on the RFAR) that I thought needed their actions examined. There may be more. This is not a two party dispute between Goethean and North8000, nor between Arzel and Goethean, or Malke 2010 and anyone, or even Arthur Rubin or North8000 and Xenophrenic, although one of them certainly called for Xenophrenic to be topic banned and he is involved in editing that article. In hindsight, I should have added his name to the case; not because I have seen anything in his actions to cause me to think sanctions are in order for him, but rather because he could give valuable evidence. Obviously it is not a dispute between North8000 and myself, since I have no dispute with him, and never did have any dispute with him (or any editor here, except long ago on far different articles.) There are at least a half dozen editors involved; I named the three I thought were causing the most serious issues. I concur that North8000 is the most serious problem at this time, and topic banning him would be helpful. It will not, however, resolve the entire problem. Should you choose that solution, I forsee many problems to come on TPM and other right-wing US political articles; anyone who gets a "pass" this time may well feel vindicated and justified in further battleground behavior. Well, I didn't mean to say so much, but dang, Anthony, I am really surprised anyone could read even just my first statement and somehow come away with the idea that it is a two party dispute. My communication skills must be going down the toilet with my health. KillerChihuahua 22:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• AGK, thanks in advance for your patience here. I didn't expect to have to provide evidence until and unless the case were accepted. I am digging through diffs, but before I finish, is this covering the behavior of the editors on US politics as I originally listed the case or am I confined to Tea Party movement only? - KillerChihuahua 19:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural question I was digging through history and think I erred and left out an editor who should have been included in the Involved parties - what is the correct approach to add an editor? Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua 15:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by CMBJ

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

Statement by Jusdafax

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

Statement by Arthur Rubin

I quite agree with all parties that the article is in sad shape. However, it appears there is significant disagreement as to which parts are inappropriate or inadequately covered, but, until recently, discussions have generally been civil. I see few, if any, violations of WP:BATTLEFIELD, but there may be some WP:TAGTEAM edits (which, as far as I know, are completely uncoordinated, and almost certainly in good faith.) In terms of my specific edits, my impression is that there is an effort to add anything negative about any person connected to any organization in the TPm, whether or not relevant, even to the person. I've made some effort to remove material I consider undue, from unreliable sources (until I see consensus that the sources are reliable), misquoted, or irrelevant. As for the NYT and MSNBC being "unreliable", I would like to see specific diffs, but at least one of the NYT references was to an editorial, which is not reliable for statements of "fact", only for notable opinions.

I'll supply some diffs, later, if there is anything potentially indicating I've done something wrong other than stating that KC has misinterpreted policies, guidelines, and individual edits, and suggesting, at ANI, a topic ban at ANI, only because there is as much evidence for one against KC as against some of the other proposed editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

On consideration, I don't think KC has misinterpreted policies. He has misinterpreted actions by a number of editors, and possibly misinterpreted consensus as not to note that thee two editors North8000 mentioned, as well as others, were edit warring against consensus in a couple cases (although, in the Ron Paul case, they seem to be correct, but for the wrong reason). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

@ RexxS. I disagree. Whether or not KC has improperly taken sides, his interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines editors' actions is wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Question: There are comments on the Arbitrator section proposing suspending any sanctions until there is progress at ANI. I can't find the ANI section. I also can't find, in Talk:Tea Party movement, a summary of the active content disputes, unless it's in the (ignored) section which I started. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I see the subpage of ANI is still there, but not linked. Discussion is still occurring there, but, I don't know if all the parties are aware of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

@Followup. I'm afraid I over-reacted. Still, I don't see how an unbiased analysis could produce any conclusion but that Goethean sometimes "discussed" policy, but was never willing to follow it unless it agreed with his attempts to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There are a few editors who have been WP:TE from time to time, but among those active recently, only G was unwilling to follow consensus once established. I have doubts about North8000 being WP:CIVIL. Most of the other editors named are on the edge of the matter (on the TPm, anyway), and have few, if any, violations. I do apologize for saying KC should be banned from the subject; it's clear she doesn't understand what's happening, but that is not a reason for a topic ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Viriditas

In contrast to the opinion put forward by CMBJ, I believe this filing is not premature, as the recent discussion on ANI (linked above) has shown that the community is unable (and/or unwilling) to resolve conduct (and content) disputes and to enforce the article probation that has been in place since late 2010.[11] As incredible as it sounds, there is a consensus among the involved parties that article improvement cannot occur (and has failed to occur for several years) and that efforts to work things out on the talk page have stalled. If this isn't a case for arbcom, I don't know what is. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by NE Ent

Hasty filing; ANI only started 920 pm Saturday, ArbCom opened 1230 am Monday? Recommend declining case per further community input. NE Ent 10:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Risker Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive219#Sanctions_on_Tea_Party_movement NE Ent 12:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Lady, or the Tiger?

By changing horses we've arrived at a DR Mexican standoff; community interest in resolving the issue without AC, as indicated the variety of editors participating in the ANI subpage has waned; the committee tally thus far is all in the other category.

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

• Homophobia
• Hebephilia

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

See also a recent USPLACE discussion than ran 10 days and resulted in an "artistic" close in which the sanctioned editor gave the closing admin a barnstar and the OP described it as "solomic"

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

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

Statement by Mathsci

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

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

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

Statement by Cavarrone

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

Statement by Collect

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

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

@Gamaliel: I welcome anyone actually reading my edits and talk page comments. Your characterization of them is absurd from any neutral perspective. For example: [12] has me stating that a journal whose express interest is to oppose the tobacco industry (It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations. seems an eensy indication that the journal might lack objectivity, and a clear claim of "guilt by association" in the first place), is not necessarily a reliable source connecting all sorts of groups by association to the "tobacco industry." That is a legitimate issue for discussion, but to assert own advocacy of some of the positions shared by the most flagrant offenders is sufficiently far afield as to warrant inquiry of such a poster. And I am proud to assert that following policies and guidelines is a "meaningless platitude" to you. I consider such a post, in fact, to be uncollegial and contrary to any rational basis for reaching consensus if one can simply assert "the other editor should be banned because he disagrees on content." Cheers -- but your own words show where the problem lies. Collect (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Statement by North8000

There is an important lack of clarity and important flaws in the listing of participants in the formation of this, but if the current fact-free shit-storm at ani were to go even one inch further it should go to Arbcom (or possibly to mediation). (So "kill it all immediately" is also a good choice.) A thorough analysis (vs. the fact free mess that is occurring now) of what has occurred will show that I did ZERO wrong; if anything against me continues even an inch further I demand that thorough analysis. Any AN/ANI that is on a vague complaint (with contemplated sanctions) turns into fact-free disaster, and this one certainly has. POV warriors do not view POV warriors from the opposite side as their main targets. Persons who carefully, credibly and persistently work to bring the article to the neutral center are far harder to get rid of and the main threat to their POV agenda. A good way to spot fact-free ones is posts to the effect of "this just shows how bad North is" instead of "North did this: (insert specific)" I'm one of those and some of the most infamous of them (mostly not from this article) have showed up at the ANI with basis-free negative "assessments" of me as a part of their battle. And I am confident how any actual careful analysis (with the best hope of achieving that being Arbcom) will end up. However, beyond that, here is is where the clarity is needed.

• If this is about the current shit-storm, that is basically 98% a two person dispute, me and KillerChihuahua. (looks like it may be over now) And it is generally NOT at or about the TPM article. The article was and is chugging along in its average state of going nowhere. A look at two threads on my talk page (User_talk:North8000#Tea Party Movement, POV pushing, and TE and the one after it) tells 80% of the story and the solicitation thread at KC's talk page another 5% of it. Another 5% would be analysis of the (lack of) any specific basis for opening the ANI thread. A thorough analysis (vs. the fact free mess that is occurring now) of what has occurred will show that I did ZERO wrong; if anything against me continues even an inch further I demand that thorough analysis. KillerChihuahua, without basis, quickly dismissed the validity of the TE concern (the review which was ostensibly the reason Goethean was soliciting people) got into a battling mentality, incorrectly used their imprimatur in their battle, and baselessy escalated it into the shit-storm. With Geothean (via soliciting) probably being the largest in the other 2% involvement. So the list is flawed. And the idea of having one of the two involved disputants formulate it is also not a good idea, although I commend KC for closing the ani and bringing it here. Possibly a mediation between the two of us would be even a better idea. (but it looks like it may be over now)

• If we are talking about the tussles at the article in recent times, (e.g. 1-2 years) the list is also malformed. Malke (who has been absent for a long time) should not be on it. And Xenophreninc, who has, by a lion's share, been the most involved should be on it. And KillerChihuahua was not involved until recently.

• The most productive thing for Arb Com to take up is the overall intractable mess and strife at that article. The inevitable proximate finding will be that Xenophrenic primarily and Geothean secondarilyy have dominated the article via TE and prevented its Wikification. (And maybe that I said "this article is a total disaster" too many times.) But I consider even that to be an effect, not a cause. But for the root cause this article is merely a poster child. It is flaws in policies and the system that been the ultimate cause of practically ALL of Wikipedia's articles on contentious topics being unstable, strife-ridden junky articles. Any findings that would come out of tackling this one as a "poster child" would do immense good for Wikipedia.

BTW, in case anybody is wondering, my RW politics is libertarian, not conservative, and which is in conflict with conservationism on about 1/2 of issues. More importantly, that is irrelevant; we check those hats at the door when we edit wikipedia. A careful review of my discussion at the TPM article will confirm this successful separation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@KC you may be half right, so I should clarify. The TPM article was and is just chugging along in its usual normal sad state. IMO your ANI post was a volley as a result of a dispute between you and me which then picked up a life of its own as a mindless fact-free shit storm. The dispute is mostly right here User_talk:North8000#Tea Party Movement, POV pushing, and TE and speaks for itself. Since as it shows I had already repeatedly disengaged, and it takes at least one to have a dispute, if you say that there is not currently a dispute between us then there no longer is one. So all that's left is the fact-free basis-free shitstorm which arose from it. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

On of the few things that can / would help on articles that have long term difficulties (until we can fix the policies the enable those problems) is for a person to objectively make an extensive long term analysis and form conclusions. If an issue is spotted, but not where it merits disciplinary action against any individual, just pointing out what has been happening at the article that can tend to reduce those problems. Oh wait!......that's me, and that's what I did.....so conservatively that I took two years to make sure (and I bet it will be the best thing that happened to that article in years) .......and look what happened. What a great system. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If this gets accepted, step 1 should be a thorough analysis, then a discussion, and then decisions. I am seeing comments here which are trying to skip the earlier steps and guess at or imply the final steps, which defeats the purpose of the Arbcom process. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit

I've posted this link to a thread from the TPM Talk page on ANI page as I think it encapsulates--if not in a dramatic manner--a sort of collaborative obstructionism in which a group of editors would seem to be engaged. The scope would seem to be somewhat expansive in light of the response the case garnered in such a short period, so maybe it is too cumbersome for ANI. At any rate, the above statement by North8000 should be evaluated against this thread, which demonstrates the sort of interaction and the respective dispositions of three of the above-listed involved editors as well as Xenophrenic [13].--Ubikwit (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Malke 2010

The AN/I case has been reopened. The AN/I thread was less than 24 hours old and I'd like to see it continue before coming here. I think posting here right now is premature. If the situation changes and this is the venue then I will come back and make a statement and include whatever diffs are necessary.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

First, let me start off by saying I did not call KillerChihuahua a meat puppet. [14] Nor did I question the NYTs as a reliable source. My comment about the MSNBC and the NYTs was based on the objection to the NYTs opinion piece. In the past, I have always relied on the news coverage by the NYTs because they have very strict fact checking and they are reliable. But the opinion pages are not RS.

As to my comment that KillerChihuahua refers to, when I read the exchange between North8000 and KillerChihuahua, it came across to me that KC wasn’t listening to North8000. While I felt KillerChihuahua made some good points, it seemed to me that the two of them were winding each other up. And her comments seemed biased towards Goethean which only made things worse with Arzel then commenting. I think North8000 reacted the way he did, and Arzel then commented as well, because KillerChihuahua seemed to them and myself, too, to be excusing Goethean’s last comment to me which was the one North8000 was reacting to. (Here is the diff with both Goethean's comment to me, my response to him, and North8000s comment: [15]. As I made clear on the AN, I'm not defending North8000s reply. I thought the exchange was over and was not at all happy with his comment.)

That made KillerChihuahua seem not uninvolved as she was claiming, but rather very much involved. And I reacted to what seemed to me to be unfair advantage for Goethean. I’ve been on Wikipedia long enough to know accusing someone of meat puppetry is not welcome and certainly never tell that to an admin.

And so my comment came in the context of defending North8000 for what I perceived to be a lack of fairness, but certainly not meat puppetry. As it turned out, KillerChihuahua and North8000 had already had an exchange on his talk page. She never came to my talk page with any concerns of meat puppetry or anything else.

I felt the AN/I was premature as cooler heads could have prevailed. North8000 is not an unreasonable editor and I’m certain that had they both just stopped commenting, things would have picked up on a far better note the following day.

I don’t edit the Tea Party Movement anymore. Specifically, I became disenchanted after numerous run-ins with Will Beback and Dylan Flaherty, both now banned from editing Wikipedia. If the page is in a sad state now, it wasn’t always like that. As Xenophrenic, who was editing back in 2010 with me and several others could tell you, we had a far more collegial atmosphere in comparison. Once the aforementioned editors appeared, sometime in the fall of 2010, things changed dramatically. A few editors left immediately as the atmosphere was stiffled by the presence of a dominating administrator who made changes at will with virtually no discussion. I could not see the point in continuing especially after some of the encounters with Dylan Flaherty on my talk page that went beyond the pale to the point where he was banned from my talk page (but not blocked which seemed very unfair to me at the time.) In the end, it was more baggage than seemed reasonable to be carrying for a voluntary editor. And since then I've restricted myself to random edits and writing and editing legal articles.

I think North8000 was simply frustrated, being a more conservative editor, by the other-side-of-the-aisle bias that exists on Wikipedia. He was looking for KillerChihuahua to acknowledge that Goethean had made an uncivil comment but instead she defended it. Fireworks ensued. If I've offended her or Goethean in any way, I certainly apologize as I did on the AN/I. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole exchange is here:

[16] first comment by Malke 2010

[17] reply by North8000

[18] reply by Malke 2010

[19] link given by Goethean

[20] reply by Malke 2010

[21] reply by Goethean

[22] reply by Malke 2010

[23] reply by North8000

@Count Iblis - You make an excellent point. The TPM talk page revolves around content disputes that fall along idealogical lines. I can go back and find diffs for you to arguments but as a quick example, one side wanted to show that the TPM came about as a 'response' to the election of Obama, while the other side claimed it was grassroots and all about the money. Arguments over petty, silly 'news' items such as an incident in Maryland where a man claimed his outdoor barbecue grill was sabotaged by tea party members because he was an Obama supporter. Xenophrenic fought like crazy for that and anytime it got deleted, he put it right back.

You can ban all the the editors there right now and a new group will come in and do the same. I like your analogy to the school teacher keeping the students focused on the work. This is why I believe ArbCom control of the article like it has over The Troubles articles, will turn that page around. I could be naive about this, but I've edited a bit on The Troubles and things got sorted out between editors and without the incivility that occurs now on the TPM talk page.

These are my recollections since I've not been editing there in a long time as an active editor and I've not gone back to sort the archives but as I recall, the problem with the Tea Party Movement is that it was put on probation and then ignored by admins. There was an admin editing there, Will Beback, and the other admins would not reign him in. Will Beback really unsettled that page, as did his co-editor Dylan Flaherty. It was after Dylan started editing warring, and full disclosure everybody there did some of that including me, that the page got put on probation. Dylan is the one who really got things rolling in that direction with the page getting locked several times. After the article got put on probation, it got ignored by the admins because Will Beback was there. If ArbCom had been in control of things, all that disruption would not have happened, and I really believe editors would have settled down and focused on really establishing a collegial talk page to sort things out.

As it is now, it is mired in incivility and obstruction. And there are editors there now whose behavior is just on the edge of true consequences for the things they say and do. They dance right on the edge of 3RR and personal attacks. And that behavior is the source of the obstructionism. And when an admin shows up, what is he to do? Even if he can see the editor is sailing close to the wind, all he can say to the other editor is, "I can't find any violation."

Typical exchange on the origins of the tea party.[24] Goethean also informs the other editors this study will be in the article, despite their protests. [25] Behavior disputes: [26]

Here is an example of cooperation and positive comments despite Dylan Flaherty. This is also with the help of the mediation cabal, which I believe I suggested. [27] As I recall, it may have been derailed by Dylan in the final stages. My point though is that these same editors are able to work together on this page, and civily, if there is some oversight.

Statement by Goethean

My goal at Tea Party Movement has been to help ensure accuracy, neutrality and the use of reliable sources. There were lots of edit wars and battleground tactics at the article before I arrived, during the time that I edited the article, and edit wars have continued after I disengaged from the article a few days ago.

On 18 Feb, User:Xenophrenic and I were accused by User:North8000 of tendentious editing. The reason that User:North8000 provided as evidence of my (alleged) tendentious editing is that I removed a reference to a 2007 Ron Paul rally as the origin of the Tea Party Movement. No sources have been offered which explicitly connect that rally to the Tea Party Movement, which is generally thought to have originated in 2009. Arthur Rubin, who very often takes the side of User:North8000, seems to agree with me that the rally does not refer to the same tea party as the article covers.

In response to User:North8000's accusation, I contacted two high-profile and completely uninvolved admins, User:SlimVirgin and User:KillerChihuahua, with whom I had had a long disagreement at the Human article several years ago ('05 - '06), and with whom I have had very little contact since. I contacted them because I was genuinely interested in discovering whether I had violated policy, and I figured that two admins who had no connection to the article would be the best people to help me answer that question. — goethean 16:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

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

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

Statement by Gamaliel

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

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

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

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

Statement by Count Iblis

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

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

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

Statement by Stephan Schulz

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

Statement by John Carter

T. Canen's comments below are to my eyes more than a bit relevant here. I also think, as has been said below, that there is a real chance that the final decision could almost be written before the case is presented. But, as someone who occasionally is a bit involved at AE, and as I said before in the most recent Falun Gong arbitration, there are times when I believe that it is in the community's interest to have individuals who have been elected by the community based on their judgment and knowledge of the subject to decide matters, rather than having something addressed by the admins at AE, who were generally not made admins specifically for their ability to resolve arbitration matters. By saying this I am in no way saying that the admins who offer more frequent input at AE are in any way not qualified to do so, and I do not at all believe that they aren't qualified to do so - some of them are in fact individuals who I hold in very high regard, and at least one is someone I myself asked to run for ArbCom before the last election. But this does not strike me as being necessarily an incident in which the rulings of the basically self-appointed AE editors would be preferable to the opinions of the elected arbitrators. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to some of the comments of arbitrators below, I seem to remember in the past one arbitrator saying that there is a difference between sanctions imposed by community consensus and sanctions imposed by ArbCom, specifically that individual administrators can be in some cases considered qualified to overturn individual instances of discretionary sanctions when those sanctions have been imposed by the community, but that it is much harder (if not impossible) for them to do the same thing when those discretionary sanctions are enacted by ArbCom ruling. Whether that should be the case is another matter entirely, but at least at the time procedurally there at least was a perceived difference between the two. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

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

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

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

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

Statement by CartoonDiablo

There is a similar problem in the single-payer healthcare article with many of the same editors listed here (North8000, Arzel etc.). KC referred me to here although I'm not sure if the original scope of US Politics still applies. From what I can tell many of the editors (North8000 in particular) often engage in WP:Battleground tactics (as recently as today). One of the only remedies I can see are temporary topic bans as suggested in the Tea Party Movement AN/I but I'll hold off on voting for that until a decision to accept or deny the dispute is reached here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, would it be better to give an opinion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input prior to here? My suspicion is it won't go anywhere even with my contribution. Also I think people on both sides (ArbComm and AN/I) are waiting for a response from either and not sure which needs to stall before continuing with the other. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

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

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

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

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

Statement by Arzel

My primary comment to clear up a false statement that KC has continued to make against me. KC's statement They reject any editors and any sources which do not promote the Tea Party movement, to the point that the New York Times and MSNBC were dismissed as non-RS - rather snidely, too - by Arzel and Malke 2010. KillerChihuahua 06:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC) is simply false. I never said that the NYT or MSNBC were non-RS sources.

My part in this endevour began because an editor added to the TPM agenda the agenda/defintion from the point of view of a person outside of the movement. I simply moved that sentence to later in the section with the reasoning that the movement should define itself first. I then made the following comment.

"It is written as an opinion of the writer. Who says that this writer gets to define the Tea Party? Why doesn't it belong in the media section? It is formed from a media outlet, what makes the NYT special in this regard? Why not include ALL of the media opinions in the definition? Arzel (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)"

I would ask that KC provide a link where I said that the NYT and MSNBC were non-RS. I did not remove the information, and I am getting a little sick of this crap.

Additionally, I fail to see how questioning whether the actual movement should have first say in their agenda is problematic. Arzel (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

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

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

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

Statement Bishonen

I see the case is going to be accepted. KC originally listed it as "Tea Party movement / US politics", and Roger Davies shortened the name to "Tea Party movement" (with the comment that he was shortening "for now"). Both KC and CartoonDiablo have recently expressed uncertainty as to whether the originally proposed scope, US Politics, will apply when the case goes live.[28][29] Perhaps the committee hasn't made up its collective mind on that score yet. I urge you to in fact try to do something about ongoing POV disruption at the entire "US politics" spectrum and to invite evidence on articles like Gun control and Single-payer healthcare. Or, as second best, to at least consider a wider topic ban for North8000 and probably one or two others than merely from specifically Tea Party-related pages. Bishonen | talk 15:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC).

Statement by Black Kite

I would urge ArbCom to accept this. I have no interest in American politics but do have a number of high-profile homosexuality-related pages on my watchlist (as they are magnets for vandals and nutcases) and see a number of problematic editors' names re-occurring here. The link to WikiProject Conservatism probably needs investigation here. Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(Just to clarify: I am not including said editors in the "vandals or nutcases" category, merely that a number of names mentioned here have been involved in edit-warring and/or POV issues on said articles). Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by a13ean

I have not edited either the article or talk page, but commented on the thread at RS/N. I was surprised to see how many users coming from the Tea Party talk page had a clear battleground mentality, and immediately began making personal attacks. A quick glance at the TP talk page shows there is clearly a toxic culture there, and it appears other dispute resolution options have not been successful. a13ean (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny

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

Statement by MONGO

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

Statement by DHeyward

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

Clerk notes

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

• Timotheus Canens' vote takes the tally to a net four to accept, and starts the 24 hour minimum clock to opening a case. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• I have volunteered to be the lead clerk with Callanecc (talk · contribs) as a trainee. Do any of the parties object to this? --Guerillero | My Talk 01:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Comment: @KC. Could you briefly summarise the actual dispute here please?  Roger Davies ^talk 06:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Accept,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Could someone please provide a link to the discussion that resulted in the article probation? Thanks. Risker (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks to those who ensured the necessary links were present and clear. I agree with my colleague Timotheus that simply shuttling this off to discretionary sanctions and arbitration enforcement is simply shifting the burden from a committee of 15 to a tiny handful of admins, of which only one would be ultimately responsible for a decision; this is not fair to either those whose behaviour is reviewed nor to the few administrators who are willing to carry out AE. Community sanctions have already been tried; are they sufficient? Are they working at all? If not, I am inclined to accept this case. Risker (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Accept. Risker (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Holding off on voting for a day or two to see if any progress is made at ANI. Will evaluate at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Accept. I've waited a week rather than a day, but I don't see much progress being made. My instinct is that this case might wind up being resolved as some people have already predicted, but except in the clearest situations, I'd prefer to open a case to examine the evidence rather than adopt a remedy based on my instincts. If the case is accepted, all parties are reminded that the focus will be on user misconduct and what remedies would best assist out goal of creating a reliable, neutral encyclopeida, and not on the underlying real-world political disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• @KC: When this was brought up on the mailing list last night, I wrote, "We could probably write the proposed decision for such a case now: discretionary sanctions, ban, ban, topic ban, topic ban, admonishment." Do you think that ArbCom replacing community article probation with discretionary sanctions for the area by motion would be a helpful step? That would allow the case to return to ArbCom for closer inspection only if it fails. NW (Talk) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Accept. NW (Talk) 00:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• One of the things I criticized as an AE admin is the Committee's relatively recent tendency to slap discretionary sanctions on a topic and call it a day, leaving the bulk of the work of actually figuring out who's deserving of sanctions to the less-well-equipped AE admins. It would be hypocritical for me to support a simple DS motion here. If we are going to do something here, I would accept a full case. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

By less well equipped, do you mean not having direct access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

They do not have the luxury of time. We have months in which we can systematically review someone's conduct. A thread at AE generally lasts a few days. T. Canens (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Is haste built into AE decisions, or can the admins there decide to take more time to consider a matter? I am aware that outside of AE if a matter is considered serious and complex enough, a RfC is initiated, and those typically take 30 days. Is the haste because of potential ongoing disruption to articles under discretionary sanctions? Outside of AE, I am aware that if a matter is complex enough to require time to consider, that an article is locked down until the matter is resolved. I am not an AE admin so these are genuine questions - if it is felt that AE admins are operating in a restricted manner compared to non-AE admins, I think it's something we should be seriously looking into, because we would want to be enabling AE admins rather than restricting them, or over-burdening them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not built in, but 1) like most sanctions of the non-arbcom variety, people tend to bring up the "preventative not punitive" mantra if the sanction is separated from the misconduct for too long, and 2) if you let an AE thread drag on for too long, it tends to get filled with assorted walls of text, most of which are of questionable relevance, but all of which have to be read. As a result, you'll get very, very few admins who would be willing to look at it. Moreover, it's really a massive undertaking to review a lengthy and bitter dispute with dozens of diffs as a single admin, well beyond what we could reasonably expect from our administrators. I tried doing it once, and it was not pretty at all; the second time an equally massive thread in the topic area popped up, we passed the buck back to ArbCom. In the end, it is this Committee's responsibility to resolve intractable user conduct disputes, not say "hey admins, here's some shiny new tools, now go resolve the dispute for us". T. Canens (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, we are supposed to let the Community handle things if we can. I'm still inclined to give discretionary sanctions a shot and if it doesn't work, we can take on a case then. Sandstein's idea seems like an interesting one. I've thought about it before, and I can see it working if the community is fine with us using this case as a test vehicle. NW (Talk) 16:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions has nothing to do with the Community. It is, and has always been, a Committee process. Simply passing discretionary sanctions does nothing to return the dispute to the community; it merely shifts the actual, hard work to the few admins working at AE. T. Canens (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think discretionary sanctions is passing the issue back to the community, I think it's the Committee's attempt at reaching a solution. There is a limit to what the Committee can do. We can return the issue back to the community/decline; we can ban; we can give warnings of various sorts; and we can issue sanctions which are then enforced by the community - which would mean someone who takes an interest in the case, the user, or in the topic, or who, as part of their volunteer work, are willing to keep an eye on ArbCom sanctions and enforce them as required. I would feel a little uncomfortable about not utilising sanctions because of a concern that such sanctions would overburden those who have volunteered to enforce them - that would then limit what options are available to us: we would be limited to either ban, warn or decline. Sanctions are an important part of what ArbCom does. If there is a concern that sanctions are now getting difficult to enforce, perhaps we can have a RfC on this to find a way of making it less burdensome. I'm not sure that it should influence our decision in how to deal with this particular case request. I think we should keep active all options until the matter has been more thoroughly discussed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Accept as a case. I would be open to a motion authorizing DS in the topic area for the duration of the case. T. Canens (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Accept in some form. I'm not exactly against the idea of just turning the DS knob and seeing what needs doing in three months, but something, and I'd slightly lean towards that being a case (shunting this towards AE is suboptimal), is needed here, as the topic area is just not working. Courcelles 06:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Accept. I've been researching the dispute at greater length, and I don't think I can stand by my earlier reading of this as a low-level dispute. This dispute has been raging for quite some time, and the imposition of community-based general sanctions in 2010. Nothing I've read since this request has been filed convinces me that further community review is likely to lead to a tempering of this dispute, nor do I think the community can easily tackle this dispute (without the investment of a disproportionate amount of editorial time). My original comments on this request are here. AGK [•] 18:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to keep this case narrow in scope, and have us only examine the Tea Party movement. Omnibus cases are difficult to resolve and more difficult to conduct; and a case concerning "U.S. politics" would so broad in scope that it'd certainly be an "omnibus" case. I suggest to my colleagues that problematic editing on pages will only be arbitrated if they are brought to us as part of a separate request for arbitration. AGK [•] 19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting for something to be resolved at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input, though I suspect, as someone has hinted above, that when a problem is referred to ArbCom, the community might lose interest and motivation in attempting to resolve it. I'm interested to see that, as well as topic bans being proposed for what appears to be the cast list for a Cecil B. DeMille film, that increased sanctions are being proposed. As community sanctions are listed on the same page as ArbCom sanctions, I'd be interested to hear what in effect would be the difference between the community imposing further sanctions and ArbCom doing it. Whichever way it goes, somebody will have to make an assessment and then carry out the appropriate sanction. If the concern is that existing community sanctions are not working on this topic because some individuals are not respecting that and/or because the situation is more complex than can be decided under pressure, but that making them ArbCom sanctions would simply be shifting the problem to another group of individuals who would also be unable to make the appropriate assessments, are the Committee being pushed in the direction of handing out topic/site bans - either now by gut-instinct motion, or in three months time after examining the contribution history of that Cecil B. DeMille cast list?

I am concerned at the response to KillerChihuahua's attempt to sort out a problem, and, whatever else comes out of this, I'd like to see that users who respond inappropriately to reasonable attempts by uninvolved volunteers (admins or otherwise) to resolve problems are reminded that such behaviour is counter to the Wikipedia spirit, and erodes the project. It is a wearisome, unpleasant and thankless task resolving conflicts - those of us who attempt it do get tired of it. We need to support those who still have the energy, interest and dedication to help resolve problems - otherwise, as with AE admins burning out because they are being asked to deal with too many sanctions, so we'll see dispute resolution volunteers giving up, and then the warriors will take over the encyclopedia.

If the community discussion doesn't go anywhere, then I think we need to take this case and look carefully at the conduct of a number of people. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Accept. The community discussion has clearly stalled. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, I'm not sure where it would be "better" to comment, nor am I sure whose solution would be "better" - there are people who believe that only ArbCom can solve this situation because some users have ignored an admin attempting to remind them of a community sanction, and so an ArbCom enforced sanction is needed. I am hesitant to turn too quickly toward ArbCom, as I feel that each time a community resolvable situation is given up to ArbCom, the community loses some of the belief that the community can resolve issues. While some members of the community still believe that the problem can be resolved without ArbCom, I will support and applaud and encourage that - in the same way that I want to support and applaud and encourage admins like KillerChihuahua who attempt to resolve problems. We are a collaborative community who have together formed our rules and procedures, and we have created a community to be proud of. Working collaboratively we have created this encyclopedia, and we handle on a day to day basis complex issues. Let's hold our heads up, and let's not lose faith in ourselves. Certainly we need a body for truly intractable issues, or simply where the community have exhausted attempts at resolution. I'm not sure, yet, though, that the community are exhausted, and I for one am willing to wait. ArbCom will be here if needed. But I'd rather not rush into that yet. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've had a skim read through the relevent pages and I believe that a case is necessary here. Accept Worm^TT(talk) 14:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Accept, it seems a full case is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)