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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Notice to parties and response to motion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Feel free to leave your comments on the final decision proposal in this section. However given the bickering and whinging that was going on above we're going to do this a little more orderly. Exactly as you would if this were a case request, create a subsection (level 3 heading) with your comments, please try not to go over 500 words. And keep in mind that there is to be no threaded discussion, if you absolutely need to reply to another user then please comment only in your own section. Arbitrators - feel free to reply or comment where ever you'd like. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Arthur Rubin

I really don't think that this will help, but I can't think of anything that will help, so it seems a reasonable try. However, the standard WP:SOCK rules need to be applied; all parties need to inform ArbCom (or an ArbCom member) of all alternate accounts, etc., etc. (I had already informed NYB of all alternate accounts where I still know the password....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The list of restricted editors should be produced by a mechanical process; say all editors who a certain number of edits in a specified time at TPm, talk pages, and subarticles, although the AN and ANI threads might also be included. Otherwise, it will be (read as is) seen as an arbitrary list with no inclusion criteria. I agree that, if this proposal is accepted, I should be on the list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by The Four Deuces

No evidence has been presented that I even edited "Tea Party movement" and I therefore request that my name by removed from the case. TFD (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by ThinkEnemies

From ThinkEnemies' talk page:

Hello ThinkEnemies, this is a notice to inform you that you have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, you may wish to review the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 7:19 pm, 25 July 2013, last Thursday (4 days ago) (UTC−5)

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk• contribs • logs) 8:00 pm, Today (UTC−5) Announces a proposed topic ban from TPM and related articles for period of 6 months. †TE†Talk 12:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this process, so my criticism is limited to logic. I would say such a quick turnaround with zero documented discussion/rationale behind such severe sanctions against ThinkEnemies is problematic at best. Maybe this is normal. Let's hope not. This project already has enough trouble attracting and/or retaining editors (and no, it's not because people are too stupid for wikimarkup). What I see here is a list of editors being grouped together in the name of expediency. Instead of this flawed methodology, I'll propose the novel idea of voting on individual editors.

If your process can't be done in a responsible and thoughtful way, maybe it shouldn't be done at all. †TE†Talk 12:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by North8000

This is a mistake. First,there is no "dispute". Now (and before the bonfire lit by KC) this is in the same state just like all of the other articles that reflect a real-world contest.....sadly chugging along. This idea reflects a mis-reading of the situation, and would do more harm than good. It also sets a terrible and harmful precedent. There are actually only 2 viable courses of action:

1. Just close it out without further action. It has done some good.
2. Create a framework for the article to actually move forward. I could draft this if you are interested.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@AGK There is no "dispute" There was a temporary bonfire that was not even at the article which Arbcom has already solved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

Comment by Collect

TFD and I are no more "disputants" here than would be Bbb23, Snowded, Casprings, Prototime and a host of others. I am only here because of an AN/I thread where it was unanimously agreed that I had done no ill -- which is a really strange way to claim a person is a "disputant". I then did the horrid thing of trying to get people to agree on a consensus in the moderated discussion, which is clearly a punishable offence. In fact, I was only added here less than two weeks ago, and consider this one of the single worst concepts and examples of WP:Tiptibism, Catch-22 and Calvinball rolled all into one. And if this be "bickering" to bar me from posting here, then make the most of it (historical allusion). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Note (per AR): I have no "socks." Collect (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@ST - your "rationale" is "ir". That you deliberately [1] added people who were trying to get a reasonable consensus and singling them out at the last second is absurd, and contrary to what is known generally as "common sense" I would also note that if you did so deliberately add people, you have ceased to be an "uninvolved" Arbitrator and should recuse immediately yourself from any person whom you added to the case at the last minute. You added people with whom you had an editorial relationship on the moderated page, and like any admin in such a position, you are involved with respect to the editors you added. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@ST I note you wrote [2] I have proposed adding "(or where it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, regards of conduct)" so the whole line would read: {{ex|The Arbitration Committee may impose restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior (or where it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, regardless of conduct), usually following a request for arbitration)). There have been no objections. So if the motion passes, I will do that which I regard as a clear case of "sentence first, trial later, or maybe never" which is not something I would expect an involved admin to make as a proposed change, and you are showing exceedingly clearly that you are actually "involved" with the editors you added (though you now say you only "suggested" adding them at the last minute. I consider that culpable conduct on your part utterly - one does not change the rules at the end to justify the decision any more than a justice of the peace can find a jaywalker guilty of manslaughter without any trial or even any accusation <g> Cheers. And recuse yourself before this gets laughed at by everyone now. BTW, your "proposed change" would mean any majority of arbs could ban anyone they wished without even having a case of any sort before them ("usually following a request for arbitration" means such a request is not needed for such actions under your proposed rule which requires consent of the entire community as far as I can tell)- did you or any other arb realize that? Collect (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Irony alert: Calls for sanctions should be based on evidence; the greater the sanction, the greater the need for appropriate evidence signed by SilkTork. Collect (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I take on board your views that I should recuse. When the case reopened I gave some thought to recusing completely, but as I had worked on the case it seemed relevant that I took part in the discussions which led to this motion being formulated. Having been a part of that, it seems somewhat inappropriate to then wash my hands of the affair in order to avoid a bit of flak.

I don't think I became involved. I believe I remained civil and polite with everyone involved, and handed out warnings and sanctions where appropriate. Having said that, I don't think it helped that it was an ArbCom member who was moderating the discussion, as that led to some confusion of roles, and I think reduced the willingness of others to help out. It's not something that I would want to do again. I started the discussion as there was a delay in getting the case going because NYB was tied up at that time on another matter. As the discussion progressed, I had a hope that if people did pull together, that the problems could be resolved, the article improved, and the case could be dismissed. That was a genuine belief. And I will say that I felt that you provided great assistance in pursuing consensus, and I have nothing but respect for you. At times I took your suggestions and sought out your advice. Unfortunately, we were not able to get the improvements in behaviour or article we wanted, and so we are both disappointed, and walking away from this unhappy. I accept that I failed, and so also accept that I will get a fair amount of grief and flak. And I particularly accept it from you, because I understand how you feel. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The page I am talking about editing is Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. It's not a policy page. It's an information page. It sums up something that has been done. Currently I believe that everyone listed on that page has misbehaved. But if the motion passes, and the names on the motion are posted on that page, it seems appropriate to add a comment that signifies that not everyone on the page is there for bad behaviour. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As your motion is worded, the ArbCom could actually desysop any admin without any complaint being brought by anyone, and without any evidence of wrongdoing at all, for example, or ban any editor whatsoever without any complaint or hearing of any sort. I consider such a motion to be extraordinarily ill-advised, and likely to result in community motions regarding that extension of ArbCom's reach. BTW, the fact you feel you "failed" is a really strange rationale for your motion and for your addition of editors to the case at the last minute. I believe the term is Star Chamber at that point, and trust those who actually understand why procedures and limits exist in the first place will explain it to you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Malke 2010

To the Arbitrators:

At this very moment the article is locked. [3]. Who is responsible for that? Anyone posting here right now? No. None of us is responsible for that. What was the purpose of the moderated discussion? Was it to gather evidence or was it to truthfully work on the issues? You are punishing editors who did nothing wrong to begin with and who made an honest effort to resolve the issues. And to lump us all in with editors who did edit-war, got the page locked, violated policy, broke the rules of the moderated discussion repeatedly, is egregious. Especially when you consider some of those editors violated policy in the most egregious way by continuing on and not changing their behaviours.

The decision to bring this motion makes you all appear to be short-tempered and lacking judgment in the moment. You cannot possibly equate editors making sincere efforts with editors who continue to edit-war and continue to violate policy despite this being an ArbCom case. These editors showed absolutely no respect for any of you, this process, or the project and yet you are prepared to punish those editors who did show respect, who do care about the project, and did make a genuine effort?

I can't believe this is coming from all of you. This cannot be a political decision. It must be based on the merits. It's not enough to make sweeping statements with no evidence and ban all. That is beyond the pale. And Callenecc please reconsider your comments. There are no editors here whinging or bickering.

• Suggestion for sorting this

• Make a list of the editors and ask these questions about each one:

• Has this editor been continuously active on the Tea Party movement for 2 or more years?

If yes, that's bad. Score = 0. If no, that's good. Score = 1.

• Did this editor's contribution to the article mainly consist of adding content?

If yes, that's good. Score = 1. If no, that's bad. Score = 0.

• Did this editor's contribution to the article mainly consist of reverts?

If yes, that's bad. Score = 0. If no, that's good. Score = 1.

• Does this editor have blocks/bans within the past year that directly relate to the behaviour problems on the Tea Party movement article?

If yes, that's bad. Score = 0. If no, that's good. Score = 1.

• Is this editor an SPA?

If yes, that's bad. Score = 0. If no, that's good. Score = 1.

• Does this editor contribute to the encyclopedia in other ways? Article creation, wikiprojects, vandal fighting, page patrol, etc.

If yes, that's good. Score = 1. If no, that's bad. Score = 0.

• Did this editor participate in the moderated discussion?

If yes, that's good. Score = 1. If no, that's bad. Score = 0.

• If so, did this editor violate any of the rules of the moderated discussion such as personal attacks, edit-warring, etc.

If yes, that's bad. Score = 0. If no, that's good. Score = 1.

• A score of 7 to 8 gets a barnstar.

• A score of 5 to 6 gets an "Okay, but don't do it again."

• A score of 4 and under gets topic banned.

@SilkTork: adding yourself to the list of involved editors does not help justify a blanket decision that will affect editors who are not guilty of wrong-doing. You are the one who withdrew from the moderated discussion. It is your opinion that it failed because editors didn't perform to your expectations. But what did you do to contribute to that failure? You were not attending to the page daily or at least checking for problems. If you go back and review your talk page and the moderated discussion, can you honestly say you didn't allow Ubikwit a free hand to abuse the other editors? Can you honestly say you applied disciplines to all editors evenly? Did you respect the opinions of the other editors? For example, after the Perceptions of the Tea Party movement sub-article was launched, I suggested we then get to work on something easy, to help restore/encourage a more collegial atmosphere as that had been a difficult subarticle to create. But you allowed Ubikwit to set the next task. You also allowed his further disruptions which included actioning his edit without proper discussion.

The disciplines were fast in coming for North8000 and Phoenix&Winslow and ThinkEnemies. But not for Ubikwit. He made a BLP violation that required oversighting. As an ArbCom admin with oversight who was at that time moderating the discussion, surely you were aware of what he'd done. Yet nothing came of it until you blocked ThinkEnemies for a far less BLP violation. I then pointed out the disparity between what Ubikwit had done and what TE had done. You deleted my comment and left a stern warning on my talk page. When that got sorted you apologized to me. But all that happened to Ubikwit was a belated warning with no block, no topic ban, which would certainly have been justified, even coming a few weeks later. The moderated discussion had it's own rules and seeking redress outside that page was not possible. No other admin wanted to touch it. And now that page is locked again.

@Arbs: Please seriously consider my above solution for evaluating the merits of each editor. I based this evaluation on comments made by each of you across all the pages of this case. For example, you want to include an editor's history. That's there. You've said you want to consider the length of editing time on the article. That's there, too. Blocks/bans? Got it. Problems on the moderated discussion? Included.

@AGK [•]. On the Proposed Decision page, you singled me out for an especially false and harsh statement. I'd like you to strike it through or modify it to just your signature. here. You didn't make such a personalized comment to any of the others, so I suspect you've been singling me out all along. I am not the most active editor, Xenophrenic is, and your comment makes it appear that I was the most active editor and had misconduct on the TPm, in other words, you are essentially calling me the biggest troublemaker. That's a personal attack. Thank you for removing it.

@KillerChihuahua: You and North8000 both edited Intelligent Design before the TPm issue began and apparently on opposite sides. I was just pointing out it can make you look involved. Since you are on opposite sides of the fence there, it might have been best to avoid any involvement at TPm.

As for saying I should have posted Goethean's comments on the evidence page, the question is, why didn't you do that? The Arbs, I believe it was SilkTork, specifically asked if you'd looked into Goethean's behaviour and you said you had. So that means you've read his comments.

Comment by Goethean

I think that it is not a bad decision and among the better of the available options. My only complaint is that the editors who defied, battled, attacked, and harassed User:KillerChihuahua, who disrupted Wikipedia in order to do so, and who appear to be completely unrepentant about their behavior, will not be admonished and may take that lack of admonishment as encouragement to continue their disruptive partisan behavior. — goethean 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Phoenix and Winslow

Predictably, editors who have already walked away from the article (Ubikwit, Goethean and Snowded) are saying, "What a great idea," while editors who haven't given up on the article are saying, "This is a really bad idea."

It's very demoralizing to work this hard for this long to improve one of Wikipedia's trouble spots, and then get kicked off because someone else is being tendentious. SilkTork has expressed a valid concern that ArbCom attention to an article has a chilling effect. I've felt that chilling effect and seen its effect on others. This motion, if passed, would raise that chilling effect to ice storm level. Good veteran editors and admins are going to take a hands off approach because no matter how hard they try to improve the article, and no matter how much good faith they exhibit, one tendentious POV warrior like Xenophrenic would mean they'll be page-banned.

Most people run out of burning buildings. Firefighters run in to put the fire out. (And it's clear we've had at least two arsonists on this article.) Wikipedia needs more firefighters on contentious articles like this one. This motion, if passed, would ensure that we have fewer firefighters, not more.

Strangely enough, one of the very same Arbitrators who are now advocating this poorly conceived motion resisted the idea of collective punishment just a few weeks ago, explicitly stating the need to find individual remedies for each individual: "Procedural opposition: will vote on sub-divided proposals instead."[4] Comments by Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, in supporting this motion, demonstrate that it is purely experimental in nature. ArbCom is hoping that if they remove this group of people, the "right people" will just show up, reach agreement quickly, and everything will be just swell. The "right people" will instead be kept away by the chilling effect. The ones most likely to show up will be the "wrong people" — tendentious POV warriors who see this as their golden opportunity. The next six months will most likely be very much like the last six months. Different names, same games.

I include by reference the remarks I made above,[5] before Malke asked me the question about "worst offenders." The committee didn't hesitate to take KC off the list of page-banned editors. Collect should be taken off as well. He's completely without fault in this matter. He offered a reasonable concern about readability, showed a willingness to compromise on that, and continued offering reasonable compromises to the very end. Similarly, Snowded should be added to the list and made a party to this proceeding, Despite a hatnote at the top of the MD page prohibiting remarks about other editors, he made a negative remark about an editor.[6] Furthermore, he participated as one of Xenophrenic's Wikilawyers in the RfC/U,[7][8] though not as actively as Goethean, and at WP:3RRN.[9][10] The risk that Snowded will step forward as a new POV warrior, picking up where Xenophrenic has left off, is too great.

Regarding the current lockdown of the article, let's review — see links to WP:3RRN above which contain the diffs. Xenophrenic Boldly made a massive edit without consensus. Then I Reverted him, citing the absence of consensus and even citing WP:BRD in my edit summary. What was supposed to happen next was Discussion. Instead Xenophrenic reverted, then Arthur reverted again, and then Xenophrenic violated 1RR. Xenophrenic is the one who broke the prescribed BRD sequence of events, therefore Xenophrenic started the edit war. And considering the state of this ArbCom proceeding at the time, I respectfully suggest that he was mooning the jury.

This article was making excellent progress under the effective moderation of SilkTork. That moderation should continue. Our new moderator, User:cyberpower678, needs to get the admin support necessary to continue making it effective. Also, the Wikistalking by WLRoss must be addressed and remedied. (This part shouldn't be hard at all. It's painfully obvious.) He will view ArbCom's failure to act as a seal of approval.

ArbCom doesn't just need to do the right thing here. ArbCom needs to be SEEN doing the right thing here, even though it's hard. This will encourage editors and admins throughout the project to do the right thing, even though it's hard. It's not impossible to spot the most troublesome, tendentious editors on this article. Their names are Xenophrenic and Goethean. And to a lesser extent, most recently Ubikwit. Permanently topic-ban the first two, topic-ban Ubikwit for a year, and watch this article continue to improve. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by KillerChihuahua

Agree with Collect in that the only reason he was added to the case was that sanctions (against him) were proposed on ANI, so I added his name here under the presumption that whoever added him would likely be adding evidence which Collect should be allowed to rebut. Neither happened; keeping him in is as silly as keeping me in. Part of the ANI insanity, in which there was somewhat of a free for all. Let's not be guilty of repeating the ANI free for all, shall we? I don't recall adding TFD, who added him and why? If his case is the same as Collect's, he should also be omitted. KillerChihuahua 14:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking I'd added Collect, but went and checked after Ubikwit's comment and find that no, I didn't. Allow me to update my comment, then: I think no one should have been added after the evidence phase closed, without re-opening the evidence page. I think adding parties after the Workshop was closed is even worse. If you want to close the case, then ban some people individually based on their activities on the "moderated discussion" or the talk page in general or whatever; or reopen the case, or start a new case; I think that would have been a better approach. But adding parties after a case is basically closed except for Arbs is just wrong. Having this "invitation to comment on the talk page of the Proposed decision" does not make up for not having Evidence open and a full case for those listed after the appropriate timeframe. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 15:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies: How the freak am I "missing"? This eludes me. I was not "previously a party" I am the filing party. Was, still am. There was a decision to have a "Remedy" that nothing needed to be done about me, since I'd done nothing wrong, and it seemed silly to me (and several Arbs) to have that as a final remedy, so at my suggestion/request, they took it out - on my part, I thought it was a bad precedent to have "remedies" with no problem and which did nothing. Was I wrong? Do you need it spelled out for you that some people don't need to have remedies, by name? Are you confused? Do you think if Arbs change their votes on a remedy, the party mentioned is automagically no longer a party to the case? I can assure you the second is not correct, (I am still listed as a party, first in the list) and the first (that not all parties get remedies has to be spelled out for anyone) is rather surprising to me. KillerChihuahua 15:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies, I'm not "involved". I've never edited the article. Ever. I've only edited the talk page IIRC 6 times, all prior to going to ANI, all in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. When you act only as an admin, you don't somehow become "involved". Please see from the intro to the WP:ADMIN page: "Uninvolved administrators" can also help in the management of Arbitration Committee remedies and the dispute resolution concerning disruptive areas and situations. Administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with. Lists of sanctions that are to be enforced by neutral administrators can be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions (see also requests for enforcement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement). as well as a more detailed explanation at WP:UNINVOLVED. Hope this helps clear up your confusion. KillerChihuahua 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Re to Malke: Your first link is me warning North8000 on a different article. Admin often warn editors, this does not make them involved. The rest of your diffs should have been placed on the evidence page of this case, not the talk page of the final decision. Your question presupposes a position I do not hold, and is a leading question. I do not, nor have I ever, thought North8000 was the problem, singular. Therefore asking me if I still think something I have never thought is unlikely to be a helpful question for you to ask. Do you still think chickens have lips? would have been just as useful a question. KillerChihuahua 19:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's bad to have remedies with no evidence. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Ubikwit

In light of the fact that KC has now posted a comment that relates solely to events predating the Moderated discussion, I'm adding this comment. Neither KC nor Snowed participated in the Moderated discussion to a significant degree that enables them to make judgmental statements on the status of any individual that has been named as a party subsequently. It is somewhat baffling that they would presume to do so.

The Moderated discussion demonstrates that Collect has been as obstructive as anyone else, though he managed to fly below the radar by not committing egregious POV pushing edits.

Alas, I long to put the readability indexes behind me...

TFD has not been very active and though some of his contributions were positive, in my view, I seem to recall some problems in regard to sourcing and the use of academic sources, particularly the Perrin source.

The reactions on this page by a number of editors demonstrate an excessive (emotional) attachment to the article, and a mere six month trial suspension instead of more serious sanctions would seem to me something that should be more widely embraced.

So while I agree with Courcelles comment that there are people up there who should in no way be returning to this topic in merely six months, the proposed motion seems worthy of serious consideration because:

1. It deals with the group dynamic issue in a novel and expedient manner that may subsequently lead to insights enabling more effective and efficient handling of such problems. The article should be amply improved in six months, and the behavior upon return should be more easily assesable on the basis of the changes enacted in the interim, facilitating the imposition of conduct related sanctions in a less politically charged atmosphere.
2. It eliminates the necessity of dealing with the gray zones overlapping the content and conduct issues that may be related to the somewhat novel approach that was adopted in the form of the Moderated discussion.
3. It is not punitive insofar as it is a short-term "page ban", and assumes good faith in that it aims to address the inability of editors to productively collaborate in the face of potentially (mutually) incommensurate (political) views.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

KC provides constructive input in modifying her original comment, but I am of a mind that the Moderated discussion was an integral part of the process, and since discretionary sanctions were introduced, new to these proceedings though I am, it would seem within the purview of those that set up the Moderated discussion to incorporate any findings gleaned therefrom here. Since this is an Arbcom case, such findings would seem to encompass the scope of adding editors to the case.

Note that I myself fall into that category, and though I have some reservations about being subjected to sanctions, I firmly believe that the reams of text from the Moderated discussion provide valuable material from which to glean insight into the nature of the problems with the article as well as the editing thereof. What more could you ask for in the course of seeking for a solution to a problem?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Xenophrenic

I think the drafting Arbitrators as well as everyone else could have gone through each party one by one and isolated where they went astray in not editing according to Wikipedia's policies. I tried that with one or two editors below, but without a full analysis from the rest of the Committee on each of the editors involved, that process is never going to work. And for whatever reason, that was not done in this case. --NW

Which begs the question: Why not?! Or perhaps more importantly, what is stopping you? I count 11 Arbiters (plus clerks) with six months to review a dozen editors -- certainly not a walk in the park, but it didn't strike me as an impossible mission.

I do not share the optimism of the Arbiters expressing support for this proposed decision, especially of those who use the description "solution" in their supportive comments. This isn't a solution, as it doesn't solve anything. It just kicks the can down the road for 6 more months. I don't even see agreement between the Arbiters about what the problem is. Some say there has been no overt misconduct, and it's not an issue with any specific individual; yet others say there are distinct, identifiable individuals who absolutely should not be editing. According to the proposal, the purpose of these page-bans is to give previously uninvolved editors an opportunity to make a fresh start toward compromise on the contents of the Tea Party movement article, which sounds good on paper and I'm certain is a good faith attempt, but it (in my opinion as a contributor since the early days of these articles) completely misreads the situation. The dozen editors listed in the page-ban proposal, and their various disputes on talk pages, do not bar or disuade uninvolved editors from contributing (although the Page Protection lock certainly does).

The interest isn't there. Please consider that during the past 6 months, while these "highly active editors" were restrained by these ArbCom proceedings and the Moderated discussions, "uninvolved editors" did not swoop in and improve the contents of the article. SilkTork personally petitioned a half-dozen qualified uninvolved editors to help with the article, and none showed any interest (although one made a dozen uncontroversial copy-edits and hasn't been seen since). When we petitioned on noticeboards for another Moderator, only one editor showed interest during the whole time the notice was active. An editor even posted a notice to interested editors to sound off on the Talk page, but there has been no interest. The fact is, for the past couple years there hasn't been much content activity on the article at all unless one of two things happens: the Tea Party makes news (i.e.; taking a stance on immigration reform; IRS scrutiny scandal), which they've done with decreasing frequency, or a Wikipedia editor tries to add or remove negative content. (See pretty green bar graph here. Note that before this Admin/ANI/ArbCom mess began in February, generating 70-100 article edits per month, there were only 7 edits in January, and the article was mostly dormant the previous 5 months -- simply no interest.) Most of the present TP article content was actually created back in the movement's infancy during 2009-2010, and therein lies one of the two root causes of problems.

(Problem #1) As the movement first became "notable", all information on it came from either news media reports, political pundits or self-proclaimed spokespeople -- and our articles reflected that. Our Wikipedia articles read very much like tabloids, full of snippets of information gleaned from news headlines and spokesperson talking points, and occasionally an opinion poll, but very little substantive, researched information. Now, however, in 2012-2013, we finally have higher quality sources and actual scholarship available on the subject matter. Researchers have finally been able to pour through the thousands of news stories and polls on the movement, personally interview thousands of actual participants, attend actual strategy meetings and audit their group websites and social media -- and the findings and conclusions are now being published. When some of these findings and conclusions are less than flattering, or contradict a long-held but less-accurate narrative established back in 2009/2010, conflict flares up between editors over their use. This has been at the root of many disputes. While I hesitate to use the phrase "tag-team", I will note that there is a fairly consistent dividing line between editors who favor newer, more comprehensive and nuanced research sources and those who prefer news media reports and prominent participants within the movement as sources.

(Problem #2) I've seen heated arguments that claim self-published spokespeople within the Tea Party movement are as reliable, or even more reliable, than uninvolved high quality academic scholarship sources on the same content. I'm not joking. I believe that is a misunderstanding of our Reliable Source policies. I've seen heated arguments claiming that numerous news media reports carry more "weight" than a few high quality academic books published by Oxford and Princeton, simply by virtue of numeric superiority. I believe that is a misapplication of the Due Weight section of our Neutral Point of View policies. This illustrates the second major source of problems in editing Tea Party content: convenient misunderstanding of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. Editors have argued that because the TP movement is made up of "people", critical content describing the movement as generally anti-immigrant or anti-compromise violate our BLP policy. Editors have argued that numeric superiority of !votes determines WP:Consensus. Editors have argued that our Reliable Sources policy forbids some reliable sources from being used because they may be "biased". Editors have argued that content they personally deemed to be "trivia", "Daily KOS cruft" or "junk" needs to be forked into its own sub-article. Editors have argued that high quality, peer reviewed and heavily cited, academic published works by experts in their field (i.e.; Originalist Constitutionalism; Astroturf Lobbying and Public Relations) can't be used because the Wikipedia editor feels they have "redefined" originalism, astroturfing, etc. All of the above illustrate misunderstanding and misuse of Wikipedia policy; I'll leave it up to the Committee to determine if it is intentional or merely unfortunate.

Two big problems, and neither are solved or even addressed by this proposal. Page-banning a dozen editors doesn't solve rampant misapplication of Wikipedia policy and disdain for editing conventions; it only moves that problem to other articles for six months. It doesn't address the fact that the present article is cobbled together from low-grade sources in a manner that more closely reflects the chaotic development of the movement, instead of the orderly development of an encyclopedia article based on more comprehensive sources. Removing a dozen interested (and perhaps better informed) editors from an article does not create a magic vacuum that will automagically be filled with "uninvolved editors" free from the same biases and behaviors. This proposal doesn't address the almost certainty that the same behavior, good and bad, by all parties will resume six months from now. Behavior does not change when you tell editors that your solution is "not to be taken as a finding of fault". I was quite surprised to read that the Committee does not feel comfortable adopting findings and remedies blaming specific named editors for the ongoing problems - isn't that the very reason we pay you the big bucks? If you insist on being squeamish about sanctioning individuals, have you at least considered adopting evidence-based "findings" anyway, while reserving "remedies" for later if problematic behavior persists? At least that would give editors with genuinely problematic behavior some indication of what needs to be changed or improved. Without at least that much, you are asking to have problematic editors interpret your reluctance to find fault as tacit approval.

This is my first edit ever on this ArbCom case; I haven't made a single comment or introduced a single item of evidence, as I haven't seen a need to do so. Editor participation in these fun-fests usually falls into three categories: defending oneself; prosecuting other editors; offering constructive comments. Hopefully my comments above are informative. As for prosecuting my fellow editors, I'm not a big fan of that - even the ones vociferously screaming for my head on a platter. I didn't try to build cases against other editors at the preceding AN/I discussion, and I didn't do it here even though I easily could. Some editors, through their very actions here, seem bent on convicting themselves. Editors with different, even opposing, perspectives are an inevitability — and in my opinion, a necessity — when editing controversial subject matter, if neutral presentation is to be achieved. I can work productively with any editor involved in this case, even the most venomous, as long as we are all following the same rules (and interpretations thereof - see Problem #2 above).

As for defending myself, SilkTork assured me months ago that even though he was taking the lead in drafting Findings of Fact and Proposals, he was not speaking for every Arbitrator. He assured me that each of you would independently review evidence and form your own reasoned conclusions, and that I need not worry about initial "proposed Findings" concerning me as a lot of that would never become part of the Final Decision. To quote SilkTork, "I'll not be taking over to the PD page any findings that are not relevant, which I think includes the one you are concerned about." I took comfort in seeing that the only Finding of Fact about me that made it to the Final Decision page was: There was no community support for a topic ban, There is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions. However, recent events have left me with serious doubts about the actual level of thoroughness and independence employed by this Committee. I don't know what all is going on behind the scenes here, but there have been many indications that you guys are just phoning this one in. (Referring to KC or Malke as "he"? Arbitrarily adding some names and not others to the "Parties" list? Mischaracterizing an account as SPA?)

With only a single finding of fact concerning me on the Proposed Decision page, I've felt no compulsion to post here in my defense. I'm not blind to the considerable amount of text generated on the Evidence and Workshop pages regarding me, but I trust that Arbitrators have not accepted those allegations as fact, and have instead thoroughly investigated the charges. A couple editors have been extraordinarily persistent in repeating, over and over again, how they have provided "immense/massive/truckload/extensive/overwhelming" evidence showing various bad behavior on my part. No doubt I am also the cause of world hunger, climate change and Middle East strife, if you ask them, and they will repeat it ad infinitum until the fiction becomes "truth". The reality is that while they have produced an intimidating quantity of diffs and links, they do not at all convey what the accusers say they do. Ninety-percent of this "evidence" is copied over from the AN/I discussion and an RfC/U and has already been thoroughly examined and debunked here (AN/I) and here (RfC/U) respectively. By "debunked" I don't mean simply excused or rationalized, but actually demonstrated how each example is not problematic as described. Some "evidence", in fact, turns out to be about editors other than me or attributes edits to me that I didn't make, yet they still maintain these "examples" in their lists nonetheless.

As for the more recent accusations against me on this very Talk page, please do take a closer look:

Action requests for Arbitrators

• Here where Collect demands, "OR, SYNTH, POV, and insertion of parenthetical claims which are not supported by sources. Deal with it" -- yes, please do. Note the complete misapplication by Collect of OR & SYNTH policies, lack of "POV" except that conveyed by reliable sources, and no instances of unsupported claims. Also carefully note the associated Talk page (or minimal discussion therein by certain parties), as well as the demeanor of the edit-warring party: Personal attacks.
• Here where ThinkEnemies claims I "rejects this source" and I consider "the Washington Times no longer to be a RS because he finds fault in their publication" -- false, and I request that you verify this. In reality I left the source in the article and merely cautioned ThinkEnemies that I had found errors in the transcription which was performed not by a journalist or reporter, but an opinion writer. (TE had quoted one of the errors in an edit summary.) ThinkEnemies also claims, "Xenophrenic inserts his own OR interpretation and transcription of a non-notable event", which did not happen. As I explained to him on the Talk page, WP:TRANSCRIPTION says: transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research, and per WP:RS: audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Per WP:VIDEOREF: A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge -- which is exactly what I did when I transcribed a plain-English quote, and I even asked him to verify it for good measure. Regarding "notability", Brietbart made an accusation and Trumka, arguably more notable, refuted it -- and ThinkEnemies wants only half of that equation in our article. Please review these carefully, Arbitrators, as the account given by ThinkEnemies is not accurate, and the accusations are distorted. Yet another example misapplication of policy (see "Problem #2" above).
• Here where Phoenix and Winslow accuses me of causing the TPm article to be locked, because Xenophrenic Boldly made a massive edit without consensus. Then I Reverted him, citing the absence of consensus and even citing WP:BRD in my edit summary. What was supposed to happen next was Discussion. Instead Xenophrenic reverted, then Arthur reverted again, and then Xenophrenic violated 1RR. Xenophrenic is the one who broke the prescribed BRD sequence of events, therefore Xenophrenic started the edit war. -- yes, please look carefully at this. Did he revert me, or did he selectively revert some edits of mine, some of ThinkEnemies, while leaving some in? Did he invoke BRD, or did I open discussions at his suggestion, before adding only content that wasn't objected to over almost a week of discussion? Please pay careful attention.
• Arbiter AGK has stated, Frankly, Special:Contributions/Xenophrenic is the epitome of single-purpose account contributing and proposed an indefinite topic ban in the same breath. If you'll allow me to borrow your exact words from the "Proposed decision" page to express my own feelings: That is an outrageous accusation backed up by sloppy facts. I gather by looking at that edit that you think my account has the special purpose of editing "Tea Party" content, and furthermore that you feel that warrants a 1 year ban from that topic area. I respectfully request that you consider the following: 1) More than 80-85% of my account activity is Non-Tea Party related. 2) I was called an SPA back in 2011/12 when I made hundreds of edits almost exclusively on SOPA/PIPA content. I was also called an SPA before that when I edited content almost exclusively about Vietnam War protests & veterans (which still tallies more than my Tea Party contributions even today). All 3 accusations of SPA are wrong, and self-refuting. 3) This account predates the existence of the Tea Party by years, which rather kills the SPA claim. 4) If your statement is based on only the past half-year of edits, please note that I edited the TPm article on only THREE days during the previous half-year. My increased attention to the subject now is only due to the fact that it is in the community spotlight. 5) Here is a true SPA for comparison purposes: User:TeaParty1. I ask you to please strike the unfounded "SPA" accusation, as well as the proposal for a 1 year ban you felt was justified by it. If you feel there is other substantiation for the ban proposal, I request that you provide an appropriately substantiated Finding of Fact to support it. (You might consider this request moot with the impending passage of the current proposal, but I would appreciate having it stricken anyway, because it is already being cited to poison the well at other Talk pages.)
• Could one of the Arbitrators please explain how the present list of "Parties to the case" was developed? If it is derived from participants at the previous AN/I, then you missed some. If you were including editors from the article Talk and Moderated Discussion pages, then you missed some. If it is a list of editors who have edited the article since this case started, then you missed some. I don't understand how some editors arrived on the list. For example, WLRoss is listed as a party, but hasn't made a single edit to any Tea Party article, and only made a few constructive Talk page comments. The only accusation against him I can see is that he "Wikistalked" Phoenix and Winslow to the Tea Party article. I find it fascinating that Phoenix and Winslow would make such a charge, considering that Wikistalking me is exactly how P&W first came to the Tea Party article. Phoenix and Winslow's first ever visit to a TP article was made while I was editing it -- just minutes after revert-warring with me on another article, and just before returning to that other article's Talk page to attack me -- as if to just let me know he was watching me. According to WTT's Talk page, it appears WLRoss is on the list not because of anything to do with this ArbCom, but only because of bad blood from past conflicts.
• Here where Phoenix and Winslow claims " Xenophrenic is trying to use two or three academic sources to overturn 20+ reliable sources," -- would an Arbitrator kindly bring P&W back to reality? Perhaps User:Newyorkbrad, if he is still reviewing accusations to separate fact from hyperbole, can verify that "two or three academic sources" is gross deception, and that I've never attempted to "overturn" a single source presented by him, much less 20. Yet another example of an editor misunderstanding policy (WP:WEIGHT), see "Problem #2" above, as well as misrepresenting the actual disagreement.

Discussion and comments by Arbitrators

Comment by AGK: I would like to selectively quote from the preamble to the motion that is the subject of confusion or opposition:

[I]t has been difficult to arrive at a final decision. Unlike many other disputes resolved in arbitration, the editorial strife on Tea Party movement has not generally resulted from overt user misconduct on the part of one or a small group of editors. […] the broader problem is that editing on this highly contentious article has been dominated by a group of highly active editors, representing differing points of view, who […] have been unable to compromise or to develop consensus language for the article.

Although the Committee does not feel comfortable adopting findings and remedies blaming specific named editors for the ongoing problems with the Tea Party movement article, it also concludes that it would not be appropriate simply to dismiss the case without action.

[…] in intractable situations where other measures have proved insufficient to solve a problem, the Committee may adopt otherwise seemingly draconian measures, temporarily or otherwise, as a means of resolving the dispute. We conclude that this is one of the rare cases in which it is necessary to invoke this principle.

In other words, we arbitrators have concluded that removing all the previously-active disputants from the TPM article is the only feasible method of ending the dispute and ensuring the article is stable for our readers in the future. As we have explicitly stated, each individual restriction is not necessarily a reflection on the individual's past or present conduct. Rather, the list of topic bans are simply a long way of saying "If you have previously edited this article, you may not do so for the next few months. Please go and work on a different article and let other people take care of this one." AGK [•] 10:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

To pick up on AGK's phrase "previously-active disputants": not everyone on the list would see themselves as a disputant; indeed, observers might see some individuals as working hard in good faith to improve the article and/or to reduce the dispute. What we have done is simply to include those who were active in the dispute process, and not exclude any individuals.

The point we are making is not that the folks on the list are being excluded because they have behaved badly, but simply that they have tried and not been able to improve the article. If we exclude any significant participants that would create a dividing line between those on the list and those not; such a line would suggest those on the list were all guilty of poor behaviour. That is not to say that none of those on the list have behaved badly - some have, and some display on this page behaviours that are not conducive to a positive collegiate working atmosphere; but our role here is to end dispute in order that the encyclopedia can be built, not to simply punish people.

There's been some very bad feeling generated between individuals in the editing of this article, and this has led to extraordinary frustrations. Those who have edited contentious articles on Wikipedia will empathize with others who get caught up in the savage frustrations that can occur. Even the most patient of us can lose our cool now and again. This is not to excuse some of the incivility, but it can put it into perspective.

Six months on Wikipedia is not a long time. Indeed, this ArbCom case has already dragged on for five months, with the article locked for much of that time. We are building this project for future generations. Editing an article on Wikipedia is like placing a brick in the Great Pyramid of Giza. We are taking part in something monumental and impressive. Waiting six months in the context of what we are attempting to achieve is not much. And if some people feel that their efforts have not been appreciated, I understand and sympathize with that. In general much of what all of us do isn't appreciated. As members of ArbCom we are only too aware of that. Yes, some people may be put off helping out because their efforts are not appreciated. But good people will still step forward. I have no doubt of that. The Wikipedia community is one of the most impressive aspects of this project - the dedication and selflessness of the volunteers is breath-taking. Yes, there are bad apples, and they tend to get most of the attention. But the bulk of the community roll up their sleeves everyday, and get on with the job. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed "motion for final decision" may exceed ArbCom's remit

IMO, it may be beyond ArbCom's authority (as currently defined) to enact this "motion for final decision" (imposing a six-month page ban on most of the parties to this case). In the absence of any findings of fact establishing specific misconduct by individual editors, this case can no longer be said to be a conduct dispute — rather, it is a content dispute, and ArbCom has not been authorized to impose binding decisions to resolve content disputes. I can't find anything, either in the Arbitration Policy or in the Banning Policy, to justify such a sanction either by ArbCom or by the community (with the possible, but very iffy, exception of an interaction ban imposed on all editors involved). If I'm mistaken here, I would welcome a correction. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Rich, I had wondered about that too. The operative clause would seem to be in the 'Policy and precedent' section in 'Arbitration Policy,' which reads The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. That seems pretty clear. But are there any conduct issues in play? In other words, is it a mix of conduct and content? Jusdafax 23:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that there is much doubt that there has been tendentious editing and edit warring, which are conduct issues. Like nearly all ArbCom cases in this decade, it involves both content issues and conduct issues. (In the past, the ArbCom also dealt with cases that did not involve content, such as the banning of trolls and flamers, who are now dealt with by "community consensus" or not dealt with by "community consensus".) So the question is whether the ArbCom can impose a remedy for a combined content and conduct issue without identifying specific conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is no finding of fact stating that there have been conduct issues, then there is no conduct issue as far as ArbCom is concerned, and the only other type of issue is a content dispute (which ArbCom is not allowed to address). There have to be findings of fact to support any remedy that is enacted. In this case, there are no findings of fact at all (except for the usual boilerplate identifying the locus of the dispute). Richwales has hit the nail on the head, although some of the statements by Malke, Collect and TFD have touched on this: without one or more findings of fact that a specific editor has engaged in misconduct, there can be no remedy imposed against that editor. ArbCom can approve a motion to close a case with discretionary sanctions, article probation, etc. ... but those remedies affect all Wikipedia editors, including those who have never looked at the article before. And several ArbCom members have indicated that such a remedy would be inadequate. They know there's a conduct issue here.

The problem is that the ArbCom members who haven't yet voted on such findings of fact and proposed remedies are unwilling, or unable, to devote the time and effort necessary to identify the worst offenders and the extent of their misconduct — and also unwilling to rely on the judgment of such ArbCom members as AGK and Fuchs, in identifying the worst offenders and the remedies that should be imposed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

So I haven't been following this case very closely, but the idea that the committee can impose punishments (however phrased) without supporting findings of fact shocked me back into commenting. As a former arbitrator with a reputation (and not undeservedly so) for favoring sanctions in virtually every circumstance, I might be expected to be the one person cheering on the committee's proposed Kill them all, for the Lord will know his own approach. I do not. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and thank you for your statement. Without specific findings of fact it appears this remedy of six month topic bans sets a new and dangerous precedent, which then could be applied to other editors in future cases. In effect, it does create new policy regarding sanctions, and although a cursory look at the TMP article appears to show various editors indulging in questionable practices over a period of years, I would rather see this case thrown out than see ArbCom, Wikipedia's court of last appeal, become a place where bans of any kind are handed down without clearly stated itemized reasons for doing so. Yes, a fully itemized listing would be a lot of work and subject to further quibbling, but if elected members of this body are unwilling to take the time to do that and intend to implement the policy, then in my view a new Wiki-wide conversation is in order. Jusdafax 08:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Jclemens here (and I was partially involved). The net effect of this will be for editors to keep away from controversial articles because they may just get swept up in the net. Its also a license for sock & meat farms - swamp an article, get everyone blocked then set another group of editors to get your way. I think what happened here is that the drafting arbitrator got involved in trying to mediate the situation and then fell victim to that failure by in effect withdrawing. Findings of fact would lead to variable bans if previous cases are anything to go by. The strength of wikipedia is that it is a complex adaptive system in which the only modifying sanction is individual behaviour. We are in danger of loosing that. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a problem in this case there are issues relating to group behavior. This article is not unique in that aspect, but the worst case I've seen. At present the "March against Monsanto" article sees similar group dynamics, but is generally less problematic than this article in part due to the broader scope of this article.

Generally speaking, more strict enforcement of content policies, particularly in regard to sourcing and the preference for academic sources. Then might it be possible to indirectly redress the problem wherein editors with different political stances are unable to compromise. I they can't resort to illegitimate sourcing arguments, then the major avenue of recourse used to obstruct the building of the article on the basis of introducing scholarly commentary would be obviated.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You must be talking about the argument that two or three reliable sources outweigh 20+ reliable sources. That's definitely an illegitimate sourcing argument. Arguments regarding the amount of weight to be assigned to each source due to context, such as the source's own reliance on unreliable sources, a lower experience level of authorship (a Connecticut law student, for example, compared to a Florida law professor who makes regular appearances on CNN to provide expert commentary on the law and politics), or the possibility of bias, are completely legitimate per WP:CONTEXT. Attempting to delegitimize such a perfectly legitimate argument is a hallmark of the disastrous editing atmosphere on that article. It's one of the principal reasons why the substantial progress we've made under moderation has proceeded at such a glacially slow pace, and only as a result of enormously patient and time-consuming efforts by those who truly wish to bring about that progress. When seven editors are working on an article and just one dissenting "vote" from just one proven tendentious editor is enabled by admins to block any progress at all, it's virtually hopeless. When ArbCom refuses to remove that tendentious editor, but instead furloughs them all for six months without any findings of fact that would support such a move — with a fresh battalion of partisans either waiting in the wings, or already stepping out on stage — it's completely hopeless. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It can be done. I remember the Ayn Rand one where I got three months ban from the article (but not from talk) for two sets of 2rr not even 3rr, others got a full year etc. That article was as contentious, had group behaviour etc. A key difference is the drafting arbitrator did not engage, but went through every editor with findings of fact. It is a part of Arbcom's duty and one which has been neglected here. To Ubikwit, I think part of a solution can be a couple of monitoring admins to validate sources but that will always be difficult. Witness P&W's comments above and previous forum shopping. It has to be an examination of individual behaviour and it has to be done by Arbcom, that is what they are there for. Personally I think a couple of them should simply call a halt to this, then go through the evidence again and come up with a proper set of findings. Otherwise if this solution continues I think it needs to be a far wider community debate. It represents a major shift in policy ----Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this proposed decision is both a major change of policy and beyond the remit of ArbCom's authority. Rather than this "collective punishment" approach, the effort should be made to go through the evidencs and identify the improper individual conduct and propose appropriate sanctions.

Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behavior of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions.

I think this approach should be avoided. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Chilling effect

I concur with the comment that the proposed decision would provide a chilling effect on resolution of any other highly contentious articles having a combination of content issues and conduct issues. If an article content Request for Comments is attempted to bring in outside editors to resolve the content dispute, new editors, who see that the article is probably headed for arbitration anyway, may be intimidated from editing out of concern that they, as well as the original edit warriors, will be topic-banned without consideration of the conduct details. The issue is not only the fate of the article, which might benefit from a six-month ban on the "usual suspects", but other highly contentious articles, where the precedent set by this article would intimidate new editors from trying to fix an article. The proposed remedy might be what this article needs, but it isn't what, for instance, March Against Monsanto needs, a warning to avoid highly contentious articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC) I would propose WP:TNT, to blow up the article and start over, but on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Majority

The Proposed decision page says: "For this case, there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority" However, Carcharoth has since been listed as inactive and Silk Tork has recused, so there are in practice 9 active arbitrators. If I have understood the rules correctly, that will mean that 5 votes are enough for majority, and that the motion (which currently has 5 votes in favour) is set to pass regardless of the vote of New York Brad. Or, have I misunderstood? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's correct, however the Committee requested that NYB have time to vote and make any comments before the motion is enacted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. I've continued to review the best way of achieving a positive, or at least reasonably acceptable, outcome in this complex and difficult case, and I unexpectedly had far less online time than I expected to have over this past weekend. I certainly expect to provide my input in the next 24 hours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Just so I am not misunderstood, it wasn't my intention to complain about time use here, sorry if it looked that way. Just me being curious. Must have been a really tiresome case for the arbitrators. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You're entitled to complain about the time it's taken. Pretty much every single arbitrator ever elected since 2005 or so ran on a platform of reducing the delays in resolving cases. Certainly, perhaps especially, including myself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that Carcharoth is active on the case (and opposing the motion), it appears to me that Brad has ended up with a casting vote. Poor guy. EdChem (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not *that* bad

I haven't been involved in this at all, but just a comment as an observer (for what little is worth) that the resolution-by-motion currently hanging in the balance isn't that bad.

• Of course, a scalpel-rather-than-sword approach to resolve specific behavioural issues in a dispute brought to Arbcom is preferable. But if the committee has tried and failed to find a better way to proceed than removing a whole bunch of people from the scene, so be it. We all want Arbcom to reasonably effectively resolve conduct issues that the community cannot handle, but there comes a point where detailed forensics carries diminishing returns on the time of everyone involved
• The motion bends over backwards to explain that the parties being temporarily topic banned are not necessarily "guilty". But some voting arbitrators are concerned that nevertheless topic banning is a "sanction" and should never be imposed without proven "guilt". I think we need to step away from that latter thinking. While part of the wiki philosophy is that a crowd of people operating by community consensus within the 5 principles (and whatever plethora of policies, rules, etc that seems to imply) can build an encyclopedia, we all know sometimes that fails. There is no shame in admitting that in some isolated circumstances. While no one would want to make it at all a regular thing, in particularly tricky areas saying "Folks, we know you've been doing your best, but time to take a break and let a new crew try. Even though we're sure many of you could do a good job, let's just try with a new team" is not tragic. There is a risk that doing this too often becomes gameable ("my reserves are bigger than the enemies' reserves, so let's force an impasse following which our B team can clean up") but if it is implemented once in a while by Arbcom at its wits' end, that risk is not severe.

So - by all means, if some members of Arbcom think that with a bit more time they can clean up this mess with some careful scalpel work, by all means. But if that's not working, there is no shame in trying what the motion proposes. Martinp (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Martinp (and, for that matter, Newyorkbrad) and I may probably need to "agree to disagree" regarding the desirability or consequences of passing this motion. NYB has, of course, been on ArbCom for many years, and I do think his experience and insights are worthy of considerable deference. However, for better or worse, we have adopted a strong precedent over the years to the effect that topic bans are a sanction, carrying a significant stigma, and that they are to be used only in cases involving intentional (or stubbornly clueless) disruptive behaviour. We may very possibly need to fine-tune this view — especially if we're ever going to decide, as a community, to expand ArbCom's jurisdiction to include intractable content disputes not involving any clear instances of misconduct. However, if we (the community) are going to do such a thing, I believe we need to discuss the idea (with all its implications) thoroughly first — I don't think ArbCom should break new ground by adopting this sort of practice on its own, not even for a case that appears to be solvable in no other way. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rich, my fear is that this form of thinking occasionally (fortunately not frequently) leaves an excluded middle. Here (taking the PD at face value, I haven't dug into the details) there is a content dispute complicated by poor overall group conduct - even if the number of "clear instances of [specific] misconduct" is relative low. (I suspect any of us who has brought up kids close in age to each other has experienced this in real life.) As to the stigma of topic bans, we should be pragmatic. If a "nonsanction, nonstigma topic ban" is helpful, we should not shy away from trying it, explicitly disclaiming the stigma -- as the bradspeak preamble and several arb supporting votes clearly assert. We routinely tweak policy to add nuance, and if after x years of not needing a "no guilt implied temporary topic ban" we now discover it is helpful, so be it. Martinp (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The case should be dismissed

@Richwales, you make an excellent point. A community discussion regarding that should take place first. In the meantime, this case should be dismissed. It has been on-going for the editors orignally named for 6 months now. We are volunteer editors, not whipping posts. KillerChihuaha did not present any real evidence at the beginning of the case to even justify taking the case. The lack of evidence is what caused the delay in resolving the case.The moderated discussion should be seen as the ArbCom solution to this case. The discussion made progress. It's time to let AE sort things from now on. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dismissal (keeping the findings already made) is the best option at this point. The only better option (setting a framework in place so that the editors (including / especially the ones that have been making an effort can more this forward, hinted at in my "60,000 view above) ) is a complex one which arbcom has not even nibbled at and so isn't going to happen. (The only other big idea floated (page bans for everybody) shows a lack of understanding of what the challenge is, would do an immense amount of harm and zero good.) Especially since the case was sent off on a false tangent from the very beginning, and it has never recovered from that. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Limiting to substantial contributors

If one looks at total edits to articles and talk pages related to the "Tea Party movement" (excluding the arbcom pages and moderated discussion) one finds the following to be the most "involved" at this point in time: top two are Xenophrenic and ThinkEnemies at this point. Next are Ubikwit and Phoenix & Winslow. North8000 lags substantially behind. All the rest are well below that level. I suggest that the committee look first at findings and evidence about those five, and not get bogged down in minutiae. I note that saying "a sanction is not a sanction" is not going to impress many people at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Then it needs a new case to do that, IMHO. In the meantime, unlock the article and let AE sort things. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that ThinkEnemies flushed out the OWNer of Tea Party protests not because he wanted to be martyr, but because somebody had to do it. This put a bullseye on his ass, which was an unfortunate side-effect for which he's well aware. ThinkEnemies only wants to spend time improving articles instead of wasting countless hours banging his head against the wall trying to convince tendentious editors to quit destroying this project. They're beyond repair, but their stomping grounds can be reclaimed by the community with some help from the powers that be. We've pretty much been reduced to begging for assistance. Moving on, it should also be noted the most productive period of time at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion occurred soon after ThinkEnemies arrived. Could be causation, could be correlation, but can't be denied. †TE†Talk 23:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@TE — You broke up the logjam. For that, I thank you.

@Collect, you're using raw numbers —— which isn't usually the best thing to do when examining human behavior. One of the ArbCom members (AGK I think) noticed how Goethean didn't have many edits on the article and related pages, but always managed to pop in with a revert at just the right moment during an editwar. He stopped editing completely when ArbCom took the case. But he's one of the principal reasons why ArbCom took the case.

@Malke, I don't believe we need a new case. We need ArbCom to examine the evidence carefully and topic ban the worst offenders, which (I'll spell it out this time) do not include you. In other words, the case we have needs to be salvaged and steered in the right direction. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@P&W: I was not making any judgements about anyone's behaviour - only saying that if ArbCom starts with those with the most edits, and then look for evidence, that this is a better practice than looking at 1500+ editors and trying to sort them all out one by one. Collect (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for a special talk subpage for banned editors

I propose a special talk subpage where the 14 editors who have been banned would be invited to post once with suggestions for what issues they see as needing attention and what should be done to improve the article. They could also respond to questions from non-banned editors if asked. I think this would be helpful to the next crop of editors and might relieve some frustration. Any incivility would result in a ban on the special subpage too.--agr (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the motion to ban the 14 editors has failed, as it ended 5-5 in votes. The plan now appears to be to make a new attempt to hand out more traditional topic bans based on finding of faults for a selective number of the editors. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

New party: User:Snowded

For the record, I have directed the case clerks to add Snowded (talk · contribs) as a party to this case. AGK [•] 13:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I question the wisdom of adding any parties when it is clear that removing parties is likely to be far more efficacious in arriving at findings and decisions. Collect (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added the party because I am preparing to present a finding relating to his edits, so I am not sure how his presence will hinder the presenting of other findings. AGK [•] 17:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Its OK by me, but I won't be able to put up any response until Tuesday ----Snowded ^TALK 18:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, Snowed. The gyroscope and compass got washed overboard in stormy waters, so this voyage may be bound for destinations unbeknownst, to the likes of us.

Shiver me timbers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

AGK, some clarification please. You've just added me to the involved parties but I cannot make a statement as the evidence period is closed, but you say you are going to make a finding? I got involved early on in the main as there seemed to be tag team editing and vote counting (the latter in the main with P&W followed by forum shopping). It became obvious early on that no progress was going to be made without Arbcom or other intervention and I had little or no time free so I withdrew. I kept the page under watch and have intervened a couple of times since when I had a few moments. I have argued since that the earlier resolution (now defeated) would be against WIkipedia policy and most recently commented another P&W example of assuming consensus on the basis of majority voting (creation of the 'Views' page). Now that is all from memory in a snatched early morning moment before heading off for a couple of days break. I was going to put something on the evidence page but that is closed. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about AGK, but when Snowded declared his involvement in moderated discussion it was really helpful to many of us. I for one wouldn't want to disregard his contributions. Give credit where credit is due, I say. †TE†Talk 05:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)z

This case has become politicized. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: The following is what I am preparing to propose as a finding of fact. I will consider your response before I propose.

15) Snowded has been disparaging toward ([11], [12], [13], [14]) and combative with ([15]) other editors of the Tea Party movement article.

If it would be convenient to you, please offer your response in a new section on this page. Thanks, AGK [•] 16:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

When I have a decent Internet connection and some time tomorrow I will. You might just have a case on the first but if you are correct on the others no one in their right mind will,engage on a controversial article again. I'll work through them tomorrow ----Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Snowded: Thank you for your response. Since you were online this evening, I will look for your response to my proposed finding if I am online tomorrow. If you have not responded by that point, I will formally propose the finding (and the resulting remedy), although any comments you make after it is formally proposed will of course still be considered.

When formulating your response, please remember that the important thing to rebut in the finding is the underlying message ("that you have been disparaging towards and combative with other editors"), rather than the specific diffs given. In other words, the finding alleges that your behaviour in general has been of the nature described, rather than that you have simply misconducted yourself in the five different instances given. Regards, AGK [•] 23:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I was on line briefly AGK, and handle a few pressing matters between grabbing some food and dealing with two conference calls. I will get more time today (after morning calls, a train to London and various meetings) which is when I plan to go through it but it won't be when you get up its more likely to be late pm. I assume you want a considered response given that all other involved editors had several weeks on the evidence pages. You have also just made the issue far more problematic, both for me and in terms of policy. I can respond to the specific diffs i.e. evidence, but you now say you want me to comment more generally. Findings I thought had to be evidence based, and I naively thought that meant I should respond to evidence presented. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

AGK, All of those edits are recent and therefore have nothing to do with the events that lead to KillerChihuahua filing her report six months ago. Furthermore in order to establish a "pattern" you would need to re-open the process by posting to the evidence page and discussing on the workshop page. We could then read through all Snowded's edits, consider the context in which they were made, and have everyone comment on them to see if they detect a pattern that hinders progress in the article. It makes no sense that you have allowed yourself six months to consider a case and now provide an editor and everyone else with just hours to respond to your latest posting. If you think that any of Snowded's individual postings warrant sanctions (which they appear not to), then the correct procedure is administrative action.

My advice is to take the evidence that has already been presented and the workshop discussions and come to a decision. The nuclear option suggestion delayed resolution of this case by ten days, and took up considerable time of all involved - eleven administrators and fourteen other editors and led to one administrator recusing himself.

Re-opening the case to admit and discuss new evidence will create similar delays. And there can be no end of it either, if every editor who joins the discussion at Talk:Tea Party movement becomes a person of interest to this case.

TFD (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside the substance of your post, what strikes me is the degree of proactiveness with which you participate here as contrasted to your reticence to participate in the Moderated discussion. I post this as a general concern, because in general, I have had no problems interacting with you and Snowed, and bear you no ill will.

What you've referred to--in somewhat dramatic fashion--as the "nuclear" option can also be seen as simply to have offered a cooling off period, a chance for the disputants to step back and observe how others handled the material for six months.

It was an expedient measure that could have spread the shame and pain about in a relatively fair manner, except for the fact that egos--and what not--got in the way.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I became "proactive" on this case after being added as an involved party three weeks ago. I was not active on the moderated discussion because I had made absolutely no edits to either the talk page or the main page in the months before the discussion was set up and had very little involvement in the past (2 edits in November 2012, 2 edits in August 2012, etc., and a total of three edits to the main page over the entire history of the article). TFD (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, but in a sense, that just confirms my point and begs the question: If you had an interest in the article and the discussions, why did you refrain from engaging in the Moderated discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Because I had no interest in the article and the discussions, which is why I was not involved in them. TFD (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Response

OK its late at night and its been a long day but I promised a response so here goes. I will firstly deal with the 'evidence' and then comment on process. I suspect my main sin is challenging the previous resolution as beyond Arbcom's remit and I also suspect there is a OK they didn't like that now lets show them element in the way this is now being handled. If that is disparaging then so be it. So to the diffs in the same sequence:

1. This to P&W I find bewildering. FIrstly, P&W has for the whole of this period being making the claim that he is an Obama supporter and just wants to be neutral. I don't think anyone believes him and he has been challenged in more vigorous tones than mine on at least two articles. Here he had just nailed his colours to the past with a series of statements about the Tea Party which were out and out praise for that organisation. To comment on that is entirely reasonable. Secondly for the last few days P&W has been claiming that ARbcom will simply ban three editors who oppose him, to suggest he might also be a candidate is normal commentary.
2. P&W again on source counting. Anyone familiar with the history of this case will know that P&W counts votes and sources regardless of quality. My comment says it is nonsense to take this line and that he should take it to a notice board if he disagrees. The irony reference is because he already had and been rejected but was still ignoring it. Simply counting votes is mob rule and I make no apology for saying so, its clearly against Wikipedia policy.
3. P&W says "I am right" in response to a reasoned argument I respond with an ironic intro sentence and a request for information about the sources. I really can't see anything disparaging there .
4. To Collect who says that my previous statement is "Complete bosh and twaddle" and I make a jocular response. This one really is nonsense, especially as I later argued that you had wrongly swept up Collect in the lets just stop everyone editing for a bit solution. Collect and I have had multiple interactions of the years and while I disagree with him I respect his ability to follow process here. A bit of background research would have shown that.
5. to Arthur who is an admin. It is hardly combative to suggest a degree of evasion when the evidence supports it. He should as I said 'know better'. There is nothing offensive or agressive in that statement

More generally I would make the following points:

1. It is an abuse of process to simply tag another editor in and give them less than 48hours to respond outside the normal arbitration workflow. You should reopen the case if you want to do this. Also some of us are not undergraduates on vacation, we have business to run, software to develop and clients to visit. Try and respect that
2. There is nothing in any of the statements for which any admin or ANI would sanction me or any other editor. If it is not sanctionable then it is dubious to make an assertion such as the one you propose.
3. I could find you hundreds of examples of far more robust language from senior editors on a range of articles not just the controversial ones. In making the statements you have you seem to want to discourage editors from engaging. It takes a degree of resilience to work on the controversial articles and with that comes some direct speaking. I can't see anything in your evidence which justifies the conclusions you have drawn.
4. Finally you ask me to respond generally on my editing overall on this article. Given the time allowed and given the lack of coherence in the evidence you have presented I am not going to do that. If any of the above is disparaging or combative then I am guilty over multiple articles as are oh so many other editors. I originally joined the community as part of a research project into complex adaptive systems (of which Wikipedia is an example). I think its secret is that it allows vigorous debate, but editors not allow abuse. Its control mechanism if behaviour and through admin sanction. Nothing in the evidence presented is abusive or would stand up to an ANI test for sanctions and I suspect you know that. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC) ----Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so promptly. AGK [•] 11:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It was a pleasure, but as expected it didn't make a blind bit of difference. Not impressed AGK I thought better of you ----Snowded ^TALK 14:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fully recuse

I had considered earlier recusing on the whole case since I had got involved in the moderated discussion, which did not achieve its principle aims. That, in a sense, was a gamble that didn't pay off, and got me too involved in the mechanics of both the article, and the dispute and debates that are the nuts and bolts of this case. As I was the principle drafter of the case I wondered how appropriate it would be to recuse, but as the case has now been taken over I can fully recuse from the whole case, not just the motion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You have been speaking too lowly of the results of your moderated discussion. Though not perfect, it was the biggest success that the article has seen in at least three years. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That statement strikes me as representative of the degree of disconnect between some of the editors and the reality of the article and its editing environment. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it reflects what was accomplished during the effort. North8000 (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice arbs are now voting on the first proposal, where Silk Tork has already cast some votes, so they should be stroken then. (I didn't follow the moderated discussion page, but looking at the article itself, it looks neater now to me). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Three requests for ArbCom

1. ARBS, Please retract any statements that ARE NOT SUPPORTED by actual evidence in the form of diffs. Please no more generalized statements disparaging an editor without actual evidence. If you are claiming an editor has "misbehaviours" or edit-wars, is incivil, or engages in battle, then do please show the exact diffs to support these claims. Otherwise you are casting aspersions on living people.

2. Also, please note that when an editor posts evidence on the evidence page to counter claims made about him or her, please do acknowledge that you've examined their evidence and please show why you feel it either does or doesn't overcome your evidence.

3. Please re-open the Evidence phase so that editors may post evidence to counter your new claims. Especially since you've now added another editor, Snowded, and he has stated that he can't post anything in his defence until Tuesday.

Thank you, Malke 2010 (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We are proceeding with the case, and I have prepared findings relating to a number of other disputants. As you will remember, I did propose a blanket motion that would have compelled everyone to take a break from the article without singling swathes of editors out in findings of fact; since that has been rejected, I will now offer motions that evaluate everyone's conduct in the normal manner. I think you will find, once they are proposed, that those findings contain evidence that is representative of the editors' conduct, and that the "actual evidence" you have asked for will be provided.

I do not plan to support re-opening the evidence phase of this case, nor – to my knowledge – do any of the other arbitrators. Thank you for your comments, AGK [•] 16:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The case should be dismissed and a new one brought. If you are proceeding, then the evidence phase for all editors should be reopened. Too much time has elapsed. The evidence that the originally named editors presented won't help them with any subsequent editing and discussion they participated in after the case was brought. And not allowing newly named editors to present evidence goes against the fundamentals of an ArbCom case. The integrity of the process must be respected. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As of the opening of the case Malke was not even involved on the article for I believe 2 years except for a few days before the case. So the comments about Malke being "most active editor" by that finding are factually wrong unless you include the irrelevant main editing which ended about 2 1/2 years ago. This case was misdirected form the start, and now, adding to that, the landscape has fully changes in the approx 1/2 year since the case was openened. Time to just close it. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

On the first point, the original narrative findings (of the form "User X has made Y edits over Z months") have been withdrawn, and deleted from the proposed decision page. On the second point, I do not believe we will be abandoning the case, but rather we will be voting on a final decision in the next week. The final decision will relate mainly to the parties' conduct over the past half a year or so (although it will take notice of earlier conduct).

Relating to Malke2010's point about the "integrity of the process", our only aim is to resolve the dispute – and although editors will have the opportunity to respond to findings and remedies proposed against them, we do not make any provision for "due process" or other such judicial concepts. We are a problem-solving body, not a court; and this dispute still needs solved. Regards to you both, AGK [•] 19:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

But your vote against me still contains the phrase, "most active editor" as well as a false claim about my block history. I was never blocked for any behaviours on TPm and all blocks were in 2010. And NW has said that my editing is primarily "American politics," which is not true at all. That was true in 2009/2010, but not since then. And if you look at the edit counter here it is more accurate but still not quite truly representative of my activities. Edits I made in 2011 and 2012 were largely to legal articles like Padilla v. Kentucky and others such as Ridley Park, Pennsylvania. Edits in 2013, with the exception of the Arbcase pages and moderated discussion, have been entirely to a few legal articles with the balance of edits to medical/virus articles and article creation.

Also, using edits made in the last 6 months seems to imply that there was insufficient evidence at the start of the case. For editors named at the beginning, including myself, we were then editing under the strain of the ArbCom case. Having to edit the moderated discussion was not made easy given some disruption caused there by some editors. And having to present evidence in one's defence, and endure the comments and occasional baiting from editors on the ArbCom talk pages was not easy either. That should be taken into consideration. This has been an unfair and unreasonably long process. The case has changed character with the newly added editors. And while we don't have 'due process,' those new editors should still be given adequate time to present their evidence. While everyone understands ArbCom is not a court of law, it is the place of last resort on Wikipedia. The committee members are seen as the most trusted arbitrators of disputes on the project. Trust is reposed in all of you and the expectation is that the process will have integrity and a respect for the editors before it. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There IS no current dispute. And there were (and will be) only the routine disputes present in all Wikipedia articles representing a real-world contest. The main thing different here from other articles is that somebody decided to light a bonfire outside of the article. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Further ongoings for the considertion of the Committee

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Phoenix_and_Winslow_reported_by_User:Ubikwit_.28Result:_.29
• Agenda_of_the_Tea_Party_movement
• Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Proposed_merge_with_Agenda_of_the_Tea_Party_movement

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To what extent do the disputes at Agenda of the Tea Party movement cross over with the disputes at Tea Party movement? I have noticed that many of the actors in this dispute also contribute to that article, but in order to limit the amount of time demanded by this case I have been largely ignoring the Agenda article. AGK [•] 19:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That's an astute question, and though I am generally of a mind that it would behoove me not to add to the already immense workload this case has wrought, there are factors that have over-ridden those concerns an compelled me to bring this to your attention as well.

First, please refer to Silk Tork's response in the relevant section on his Talk page. Note that he indicates that the subarticle was not created with consensus under the purview of the Moderated discussion. That in and of itself may represent a bit of gamesmanship of the system.

Other than that, for the sake of brevity, I'll just point out that the topic matter relates to a recurrent subject that has been the focus of sourcing related disputes.

Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How many places are you intending to post essentially your same arguments? I note you ANEW post about 2 week old diffs -- where you seem to be more interested in forumshopping and harassment than in achieving actual polite consensus - sigh. BTW, the arbs are perfectly capable of reading the moderated discussion without a trot. Collect (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is another illustration of the battleground mentality that Ubikwit has displayed more and more over the past few months. Originally I thought this was an editor I could work with, even though we disagree on many issues. I was mistaken. Ubikwit is already under one topic ban and an interaction ban, and he has a recent history of multiple blocks for editwarring and a violation of the interaction ban, as his User Talk page[16] clearly shows.

A thorough review of that page and his block log[17] is instructive. Others have criticized Ubikwit for posting at great length when he should be summarizing, and for behaving in a manner as though he believes that he is superior to other editors. This behavior continues to be displayed recently at the TPm moderated discussion, indicating that he does not respond to criticism, or even blocks, by improving his behavior. He just waits the block out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO Ubikwit has done the most battling at TPM over the recent months, often by trying to use wiki-legal methods to go after people. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: New Findings of Fact on Proposed Decision page

Recently, we saw a Kill them all, for the Lord will know his own motion that failed to obtain a majority (5-5 vote). The new proposed Findings of Fact and Remedies on the Proposed Decision page may represent an attempt to achieve the same result by other means. And the result I'm talking about is sanctions against individual editors without sufficient evidence.

Regarding the FOF against me, I take issue with the FOF drafted by NW concerning my behavior:

• I have not attempted to exclude any reliable source, and I would like to see a diff that actually supports such a claim. I've only tried to determine the amount of WP:WEIGHT to be assigned to each source. Thus I've criticized some reliable sources, particularly where they're being used to declare an academic consensus when there are six times as many reliable sources that say the opposite. But I'd like to see a diff proving that I actually attempted to exclude one.

• It is alleged that I've exhibited battleground behavior on a "related" article — but the diff provided is from the Barack Obama biography. Claiming that it's a related article is a real stretch. If the Obama biography is related to the Tea Party movement, then every article about post-2008 U.S. politics is related to the Tea Party movement. And I've already voluntarily stopped editing the Obama article.

• Yes, I was briefly topic banned by SilkTork. Take a good look at the underlying reason why I was briefly topic banned.[18] I'm sure you'll agree that the brief topic ban was more than sufficient to protect the Wikipedia project.

Evidence against Collect, Malke, Arthur and North is similarly very weak, and generally very stale. But in seeking topic bans against them, they're being treated the same as Xenophrenic, Goethean, Snowded and Ubikwit, whose exhibitions of battleground mentality, editwarring and tendentiousness are far more recent and pervasive. It is in the best interests of Wikipedia for experienced editors who are showing behavioral problems to improve their behavior. And for this reason, the Arbitration Committee should recognize such improvements in behavior. Put another way, it is very clear that it is no longer necessary to protect the Wikipedia project against Malke, Arthur and North. And it never was necessary to to protect the project against Collect.

Also, there's no indication that the Committee is examining the conclusive Wikistalking evidence against WLRoss. By stalking me to the Talk:Tea Party movement page, WLRoss submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this proceeding. The evidence is overwhelming. I've posted more than sufficient diffs on the Evidence page, and on sandbox pages linked to the Evidence page, against both Xenophrenic and WLRoss. Reviewing the evidence against WLRoss does not substantially add to the workload of this case because Wikistalking quickly becomes very obvious. WLRoss and Apostle12 should have been sanctioned by the community two years ago, after Franklin child prostitution ring allegations was stubbed for their massive BLP violations, and I regret not pushing the issue at WP:ANI at that time. Two years later, Apostle12 produced the "Race and politics" ArbCom proceeding, and WLRoss is Wikistalking me. Ignoring misconduct by WLRoss for a second time will only result in further abuse by WLRoss and further proceedings at ArbCom, as Apostle12 demonstrated. Save yourselves some work and take action against him now. It has become necessary to protect the Wikipedia project against WLRoss.

On the other hand, the recent proposed FOFs and Remedies against Xenophrenic, Goethean, Snowded and Ubikwit are very appropriate. And I note that in the proposed FOF against Snowded, four of the five evidence diffs selected by AGK showed Snowded's misconduct in interacting with me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WTF

I am accused of being "dismissive" of a person who used a source to make a claim directly antithetical to what the source said. If that is being "dismissive" than the Wiki-world is about as far off reality as is possible. There is no way in hell that anyone can provide "proof" that they are not "dismissive" when such edits are made, and I suspect the arbitrator who proposed that claim is errant, off-base, and is not dealing with reality on this case. I would point out that I have made exceedingly few edits on the topic other than in the moderated discussion which ought to follow the policy about "mediated discussions" which is that they, in general, not used in ArbCom cases in the first place. If a person who participates in such a mediation, doing his damndest to reach a consensus through seeking compromise, is then going to be called on the carpet by ArbCom, then the whole concept of "mediation" on Wikipedia is in the toilet well and truly. Note the very first mediator on the list at Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee. Note also ytthat no one has suggested that I even belong in this case -- though AGK did not issue comparable "findings" about TFD who is in pretty much the same boat as I. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (still on Wikistrike - and not willing to try "disproving" vague claims made on non-evidence in the first place -- will someone show an ounce of sense here please? ) BTW, not a single one of the diffs cited as a reason for a six month topic ban is remotely near the level of evidence normally required by ArbCom to do a damn thing in any other case in the history of that committee. . If pointing this is "dismissive" of ArbCom, so be it. (The two parts of this post were posted at the same time and were not separated in time) Collect (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Findings of fact without evidence/punishments are disproportional/Malke 2010

Findings of Fact

• One of Malke 2010's primary focuses on Wikipedia has been modern American politics.

That is not at all accurate. I have edited over 1400 pages on Wikipedia. Of those fewer than 10 involve American politics. I have made over 12000 edits to Wikipedia. Of those edits fewer than 1000 are to political articles. See lists of some of the articles I've edited below.

• In this topic area, he has treated Wikipedia as a battleground (see KillerChihuahua's evidence). (Please see my rebuttal)

That is not at all true, and especially not across an entire topic. As regards KC's evidence, I'd like to know why one comment from me, "It would not be a fork." Is labeled as battle but then I go on to explain what I meant, and yet Goethean's comments are not identified aas battle? He's failing AGF and claiming he knows my motives without any further need to explain on my part apparently.

But I'm seen as the one doing battle? As for the comment I made to her, I've explained several times now, that I said this after I saw KC and North using my name as a battle weapon. I can't imagine any editor who would want to be put in that situation. And it appeared to me, as has been noted by Silk Tork, that she was taking sides. She was engaged with North8000 in her capacity as an Administrator and she seemed to be defending Goethean's comment. Which, btw, everybody seems to have completely skipped over the fact that I ignored Goethean's comment. Therefore, there's no battle there. And please look at the irony here, I suggested a subarticle. And what has come of the moderated discussion? Subarticles. One of them, Perceptions of the Tea Party movement, now contains the racism bits I suggested be moved off to a subarticle way back in September 2010.

I did apologize for any offense. And even KC has said in her evidence that given the situation, the toxic nature of the page, she didn't see sanctions against me.

• and has a history of acting uncivilly (Viriditas' evidence) (Please see my rebuttal)

That's true back in 2009/2010. But not since then. Viriditas links to two ANI complaints, one in September 2009 and the other in June 2010. More importantly, they are from 3 and 4 years ago. And not at all related to the Tea Party movement. I don't see how any of that is even relevant.

Viriditas then weaves diffs into his own narrative which frankly is preposterous. He claims I'm an advocate for the tea party movement because I created Jenny Beth Martin. He purports to know my motivations and apparently my daily schedule since he claims my editing dropped off after 2010 because the mid-term elections were over. If I edit to the election cycle, why wasn't I active for the far more important U.S. presidential elections in 2012?

There's no credibility to his evidence. He then claims I've come back to "active editing" in time for the 2014 elections. I'd like to know how he's come by this a priori knowledge regarding my intentions and motives for the things I do in life. He also sugggests there's a conspiracy on Wikipedia driven by the Wikiproject Conservatism members and I and the others are part of it. At the moment he's currently blocked for three months.

Regarding any issues back in 2010, I went through a highly public mentorship in 2010 and for which there is no Wikipedia policy for such a thing. It quickly became a wall of shame. In fact, I had editors email me using that very phrase. During it, I was abused by editors who wanted to win content disputes, launch personal attacks, and hound and mock me. But I carried on with it. And I've not had a problem since then. And it's never allowed to be forgotten.

To this day, if I do something someone doesn't like, there is always at least one editor who will come along and say Malke was in a mentorship. I think we should contact Moonriddengirl. Yet, there is NO other editor on Wikipedia who has been made to go through that. NONE. And likely it would never happen to a male editor. And certainly not an admin of either sex.

• Malke 2010 has sought to disinclude sources authored by academics on the grounds that their research is flawed (see generally Archive 22).

Well, specifically that discussion was an objection to Xenophrenic's claim that the Skocpol book was stating that the Tea Party is nativist/anti-immigration. I got the book from my local library and read it straight through. It does not say that. Later, I used the Skocpol book in my suggested edit on the moderated discussion. The edit was meant for the lead paragraph of a new subarticle being created. Obviously, I'm not blocking a "scholarly source."

• Proposed remedy is indef topic ban

I am being accused of "misbehaviours" without any evidence. What misbehaviours?

My punishment is the most harsh of all those being proposed, yet I have not at all contributed to the environment on that page that lead to this case. I was not in the inciting incident that brought KillerChihuahua to the page to moderate the dispute. I wasn't even around and had not been in a year. And please note, I had stopped being a regular contributor to the talk page. I made comments once a year, briefly, always on the same thing which was, the usual complaints about the article.

But I'm to have an indef ban. IMHO, there seems to be a great deal more going on here than I'm being told. My one comment to KillerChihuahua on the talk page back in February cannot possibly be the source of this animosity from AGK and NW. And btw, I was supportive of KC throughout this whole thing. I thought that desysop bit was inappropriate. And when an editor made a sexist and entirely inappropriate comment about her, I defended her.

• Malke has done plenty that has been just fine, especially in the moderated discussion, but there is also plenty of evidence of misbehavior.

Again, no diffs of "misbehaviour" are offered. I kept all the rules, I did not make incivil comments, I even got a barnstar for cooperating. I contributed as best I could on the moderated discussion. I often went along with the majority, and on many occasions I tried to keep things collegial. And I allowed for points of view on the most contentious topic on that article which is the 'grassroots/astroturf in the lede argument.' And when I was, past tense, active on the Tea Party movement back in 2010, I was the one who initiated the mediation cabal. [19].

In addition, SilkTork came to me through email to ask about a situation on the moderated discussion and I assisted him in that. Why would he come to an editor who is "incivil" and engages in "battle?" I did help and the problem was evenutally resolved. I will send an email to some of the Arbs, and if you email me back I will forward the emails to you so that you can see, I am not deserving of this.

I am NOT a disciplinary problem on that article and have not been such anywhere on Wikipedia since 2010 and I trust that the findings of fact as stated will not be supported. Thank you.

• Editing history

And again, and to put this to rest once and for all, I had 512 edits to the Tea Party movement article in 2010. Only a few were reverts, mostly for vandalism, and over 1100 edits to the talk page. That shows I use the talk page to discuss. And I did not edit war. I had NO edits to the article in 2011, I had NO edits to the article in 2012. I had 5 edits to the article in 2013 AFTER the ArbCase was brought. That's it. And I am NOT primarily interested in "American Politics."

Here is a sampling of my editing history after 2010:

• Article creation

[20]

Malke 2010 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Malke, I have removed my incidental comment that you are the "most active" editor. However, the new finding of fact amply substantiates the notion that you have misconducted yourself, so I have nothing else to say at this point in time. You are not understanding that the committee is not concerned about the number of edits you have made, but rather about the actions specified in the new finding of fact that was proposed this month. AGK [•] 23:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, AGK. From the beginning, my edit count was referred to. The blocks are old and were never because of editing on the Tea Party movement. And when I look at behaviours of others, I am baffled that I am receiving the most punishment. I have not caused trouble, and even Silk Tork said that there wasn't evidence to support sanctions. I made one comment to KillerChihuahua. The punishment is out of proportion and the findings of fact seem especially disparaging of me. Considering that I did participate in the moderated discussion and did well there, I don't understand why I am being singled out for such harsh punishment. It does not add up. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, evidence of incivility is from 4 and 3 years ago, and again, it was not on the Tea Party movement. So please explain why old evidence is being used here that is not relevant. It seems to be that there is far more going on here than I am being told. I don't see findings of fact that bring up old behaviours from 3 and 4 years ago on any of the others. For example, there's no mention of Ubikwit's record whatsoever, yet that is very recent behaviour. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

closed comments

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here, it would seem to bear mentioning that it has been pointed out numerous times that you have the most edits among the "original" editors. It seems somewhat incongruent that you continually choose to deny that fact, as if it were a determining factor that would seal your fate.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC) What does "most edits" mean? Malke 2010 (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC) This is a threaded discussion, refactoring is not necessary at this point. Are the two words "most edits" unintelligible to you as English? Moreover, are you pretending to not be aware of the indications to which I have referred? Are you insinuating that I have fabricated the information found in the indications to which I have referred?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What a mess

Extended content

So the original problem was just that Xenophrenic and Goethean just needed a little leaning on for (since-proven) dominating TE editing (which I did), then KC got into battling (not admin) mode and decided to light the bonfire and misdirect the arbcom case and created this whole mess. And IMHO the only person being really nasty during the last 4 months is Ubikwit, and they are doing it in a wiki-clever way. I see comments in the "findings" page which are ludicrous, which a small amount of checking would dispel. And the only discussions seem to be focused on punishing the diligent and innocent. If that line of thought goes any further, this case would be a clear poster child for a complete failure of the process. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I never did find out what got all this started with KC getting involved etc. What was that dispute about that Goethean had to go find an admin? It might be helpful if you explained that here. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I couldn't agree more with North8000. Seriously. The Kill them all, for the Lord will know his own approach by some ArbCom members must stop immediately. I suspect that despite the denials by some ArbCom members, there is a desire to appear "fair" by sanctioning both sides in a content dispute that got rough. Perhaps they're afraid of accusations of unfairness if they don't sanction both sides equally. But history is loaded with examples of conflicts where one side was clearly waging a war of aggression, and the other side was generally far less guilty and just reacting to the bad behavior of the aggressors. In this instance, "Side A" consists of editors who made some mistakes in 2011-2012 and early 2013, but have clearly cleaned up their act in the past six months, and at least one other editor who is virtually without fault in this matter; and "Side B" consists of editors who arrived at TPm with extensive histories of POV-pushing, editwarring, and generally tendentious behavior on other articles and, if anything, actually dialed up their misconduct to a more intense level. And then of course there's the guy who came late to the party via painfully obvious Wikistalking, and joined "Side B." If ArbCom fails to recognize that the Wikipedia project generally needs to be protected from one side in this dispute, but not the other, and then take appropriate action along those lines, then this process is a miserable failure and inspires no confidence at all. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC) There's a lot of emotion associated with the topic and I think part of the problem here is that some of the Arbs are tired, and others have an emotional involvement. It seems it's become politicized, though I will say, I still have faith that this will all sort out. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Clearly North8000 still considers it his right and duty to make unfounded accusations against fellow editors. No one, least of all myself, has ever needed you, North8000, to "lean" on them. The idea that your neutrality is so unquestioned that you should be "leaning on" editors such as Xenophrenic and myself can only be construed as some kind of bizarre joke. Please stop portraying yourself as neutral and above-the-fray, which you very clearly are not. Do I need to remind you that you have findings of facts and proposed remedies against you which are just as serious as are the ones against myself or anyone else in this dispute? And one of these findings of facts is commenting on behavior without evidence! Yet you continue to exhibit the same behavior on the very talk page of the ARBCOM proceedings in which you are being held to account! Your blithe, repeated insistence on continuing to make unfounded accusations against myself and others, after being asked not to (how many times? let me count the diffs) constitute continued violations of WP:CIVIL. Again, please stop making unfounded accusations of tendentious editing against me and other fellow editors. It is not appreciated. It is not helpful. It is not civil. If your intent was to wear my patience very thin with your bizarre antics, then you have succeeded. — goethean 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC) What I mentioned about you and Xenophrenic is old news now.....note that I said "just needed a little leaning on". I only mentioned it now because: 1. Because it is a part of the main sequence of events on this whole mess. 2. To say that they were were well founded (based on years of observation at the time, and subsequently proven.....as indicated originally, your role was lesser (but nastier :-) )) By the very nature of TE, I had to spend about 12 hours of work proving it, and so a demand for such to even raise the TE concern is unworkable, to put it mildly. I oppose any sanctions (beyond a warning) against anyone, including you and Xenophrenic and I'm sorry I had to go back there for the current conversation. I'm also keeping the accepted olive branch in mind. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Then your conception of what constitutes an olive branch is completely nuts. You want to be "friends" with me?[21] Then stop making personal attacks against me. Is that sufficiently clear? — goethean 21:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Goethean, then you need to show him diffs. When I looked up your contributions to the talk page, I didn't see North attacking you. I saw you consistently attacking him. If what you say is true, then show North the diffs of his behaviour. He can't change if you don't at least show him these personal attacks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Hi Malke. Look above, in this thread, where North8000 writes: So the original problem was just that Xenophrenic and Goethean just needed a little leaning on for (since-proven) dominating TE editing (which I did), then KC got into battling (not admin) mode and decided to light the bonfire and misdirect the arbcom case and created this whole mess. He's accusing Xenophrenic and myself of tendentious editing, and accusing KillerChihuahua of violating WP:Battle. He flatly refuses to stop making these accusations. I wonder how you or North8000 or any of the rest would respond if I constantly referred to your "since-proven tendentious editing". I can easily dig up the diffs in which North has repeated this accusation again and again and again, and in which I have asked him again and again and again to stop making unfounded accusations. And there is an open finding of fact in this case that North8000 has commented on the behavior of editors without evidence. This is North's modus operandi, to blithely refer to everyone he doesn't like as the bad guys, which is something that he thinks he's proven, although he hasn't, and then to portray himself as the neutral mediator. It's an old trick that no one falls for and I'm tired of it. — goethean 22:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I said that KC was in battling not admin mode with me. I didn't say that they violated wp:battle as you just incorrectly said. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not helpful to the committee, so I have collapsed it. Do not re-open or edit it. AGK [•] 23:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee members are encouraged to review both of these collapsed threads to determine the true source of incivility and bickering at Talk:Tea Party movement. Both are very revealing in that regard. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

FoF 12: Ubikwit

It states...

Ubikwit has ignored sound arguments about article content.

And then a diff is presented (currently no. 36). Following that diff takes you to a statement Ubikwit made in response to a post by TuckerResearch. My reading of Tuckers post shows he is comparing what is said in the article to the wording in three sources cited and concludes a sentence should be removed due to the sources not backing it up.

Ubikwit's responce is a clear agreement with TuckerResearch. Explicitly stating he believes it an example "where the text of the article doesn't reflect what the cited references say".

I don't understand how Ubikwit agreeing with TuckerResearch acts as an example of him ignoring sound arguments. What am I missing here? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for raising this issue and bringing it to everyone's attention.

That statement was one of about 4-5 instances where I had found, upon examining the cited sources and comparing the content of the statements in the sources with the text in the article claiming to be based on the sources that there was no correspondence between the two.

Here is another example from the same archived discussion, made several days later:

Yet another example where the text of the article doesn't reflect what the cited references say.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• @AGK Excuse me for being a little slow to undertake this effort, but I am busier than most people I know. The more I examine your FOF pertaining to me, the more I have come to question the reasoning that serves as the basis for some of the "findings".

First, let me just state in advance that conduct-based claim for the above-described finding has been negated, so I would appreciate you expeditious removal of it. I wouldn't take issue with a valid finding of fact pertaining to my editing conduct, but this is purely errant, and I do hope you will revise it forthwith.

Secondly, I'm going to examine just one more of your findings pertaining to me--because that is all that I have the time to do at the moment--and it isn't pretty. You have reversed some of your earlier statements pertaining to Arzel, who just so happens to have reverted some of my edits related to the Constitution with no good reason, as I have clearly indicated on the relevant case pages, yet there is absolutely no FOF on Arzel. On the other hand, in your second diff of the FOF pertaining to me, you include a diff that includes a comment by Arzel in which he is condescending and denigrates academic sources from the social sciences and humanities (comparing them disfavorably to math) so that he can prioritize sources from the mass media. The threaded conversation on the Talk "Some Sources" page is here.

In light of the above-described somewhat extraordinary circumstances (you seem to be defending an editor that denigrates academic sources while accusing me of violating WP:AGF for defending academic sources?), I'm rather perplexed at the moment. Perhaps you'd care to provide clarification of the rationale upon which you arrived at said FOF.

This is the comment made by Arzel, in full, followed by my response, in full

Peer review for opinion is little more than grammer checking. Peer review for mathmatical equations and hard facts is much more rigorous. I done quite a bit of peer reivew and it entails checking math and making sure that what they are saying makes sense, not whether it is correct factaully. If anything books like these are the worst reliable of all. Each chapter has only a few eyes checking it for factual mistakes. Newspapers, at least, have thousands of eyes double checking the final product for factual statements. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, perhaps you should stick to math, because you seem to not know much about social sciences research. You are deliberately attempting to denigrate academic sources (from outside your field, apparently) by dismissing them as mere "opinion". The information contained in the academic sources is of a higher order than that in new media. Your condescending attitude toward the social sciences is perhaps somewhat problematic.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 15:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity and convenience, I've bolded the portion of Arzel's post where he refers to the following books, which were listed at the beginning of the corresponding Talk page section.

1. Foley, Elizabeth Price. 2012. The Tea Party: Three Principles. Cambridge University Press.
2. Formisano, Ronald. 2012. The Tea Party: A Brief History. Johns Hopkins University Press.
3. Rosenthal, Lawrence & Christine Trost. 2012. Steep: The precipitous rise of the Tea Party. California University Press.
4. Miller, William J. & Jeremy D. Walling (eds.) 2012. Tea Party Effects on the 2012 U.S. Senate Elections. Lexington Books.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Another diff from the FoF

Well, this is from the same thread as another of the diffs. In fact, the following comment by P&W follows the comment by me posted above in response to Arzel. In his comment, P&W makes recourse to sources in a manner that is equivalent to WP:OR, thus speculative, and he does so in a manner such as to discount the published statements of scholars in academic sources and prioritize mass media sources. He totally dismisses the academically published public health study on Tobacco control because he is "certain there's no real substance to" it.
Furthermore, he attempts to elevate the editorial status of Authur and Arzel, who appear to be mathematicians or the like, over and against social science/humanities scholars such as Maunus and me, claiming that they know a lot about peer-reviewed publishing. P&W makes assertions based on his personal experience and knowledge as opposed to statements from WP:RS in an attempt to falsely prioritize news media sources over (multiple) academic sources.
Morevoer, it's a partisan, tendentious post that extend--as seen below--for four full paragraphs (bulleted), and though I refer to it as a "screed", I fail to see how that represents misconduct vis-a-vis WP:AGF.

They have not confirmed the selfdefinition, they have repeated it. No, I think that reputable, well-established news organizations like the New York Times would check into the details supporting the "grass-roots" claims by TPm groups, before they publish something like their detailed examination of the start-up of a TPm group by Keli Carender in early 2009. Arzel and Arthur know a lot about peer-reviewed academic publishing. My knowledge is more in the area of news publishing. I happen to know a couple of things that cut the legs out from under your argument, Maunus.

First, newspapers and broadcast news networks do a lot of fact-checking. Even smaller, local daily newspapers and network affiliates will usually have at least one fact-checker on the staff, even if it's just an intern. Larger, more established organizations have entire departments of fact-checkers. Any reporter who simply repeated the self-serving self-definition of some political organization, without checking it out, would be committing career suicide.

Second, there's a phenomenon called investigative journalism. Every college journalism major dreams of becoming the next Bob Woodward, uncovering lies and corruption. Due to the way TPm is organized ("disorganized" would be a better word), it would be fairly easy for them to go undercover and dig up a lot of dirt about TPm if there was any dirt for them to dig up. When they go looking for targets, they like big, juicy ones. TPm is a big, juicy target.

This is how I'm so certain that there's no real substance to the Tobacco Control story. If there was any substance there, investigative reporters from the big news organizations would have been crawling all over it. Instead it's just the Huffington Post, a progressive-biased, glorified blog that was founded as a liberal alternative to the Drudge Report. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

P&W, that screed seems to be purely speculative; moreover, you continue to ignore RS aside from the Tobacco Control article that characterize the TPm as including astroturfing.Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 15:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

comments

• For my part, see WP:CONTEXT — editors are allowed to consider context in determining the WP:WEIGHT to be assigned to a source. That's exactly what I was doing. I was considering context. The context was that no reputable, unbiased news organization, nor any other "peer-reviewed academic journal" besides the highly partisan Tobacco Control, was willing to touch that study with a ten-foot pole.
• For your part, see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I refuse to get baited into an argument here so this will be my last post on this thread. AGK has been very, very "hit and miss" with this latest batch of FOFs and Remedies, and several of them were way off target. But yours was a direct hit, well supported by the evidence, and if you'd like to see more diffs, I'd be more than happy to add a proposed Finding of Fact on you on the Workshop page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only benefit to Wikipedia stemming from these ill-founded FoF postings by AGK is that it requires me to present an analysis of your related edits in the process of defending myself. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I should explicitly point out that even your above response on this page demonstrates a WP:TE battlefield mentality, "partisan" tendentiousness, and disregard for WP:RS and WP:YESPOV. The Wikipedia article on Tobacco Control includes the following with respect to the journal you have again denigrated

Tobacco Control is also the name of a journal published by BMJ Group (the publisher of the British Medical Journal) which studies the nature and implications of tobacco use and the effect of tobacco use upon health, the economy, the environment and society. Edited by Ruth Malone, Professor and Chair, Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, it was first published in 1992.

If Arbcom could find a way to more strictly enforce content related policies, I would imagine that a substantial degree of the conduct issues would thereby be resolved. But I've been saying that since becoming involved in this case, basically. The RS/N discussions related to the above source have been referenced on the Evidence page, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It has just dawned on me--cognitive gears a little slow of late perhaps--that what I attempted to characterize above as WP:OR is one step short of the goal analytically speaking.

What I have realized is that the above-described Talk page behavior can be used to illustrate one form of obstructive editing conduct. In other words, the synthetic statements made in that post by P&W are not necessarily geared toward including WP:OR in the article, but toward excluding the inclusion of WP:RS.

Maybe this will lead to an RFC on one of the policy pages related to sourcing, under the heading of "Obstructionism" or something to that effect. Though I'm not well-versed in policy, it seems that the introduction of the concept of obstructionism might add a useful tool to the remedies for problematic Talk page conduct. Note that the imperviousness to reasoning for the inclusion of statements published in academic sources in relation to this article continues to be obdurate even with this case pending.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Tobacco Control may be reliable, although extremely biased, for comments about Tobacco Industry conspiracies (by that, I mean, conspiracies involving the Tobacco Industry, not conspiracies about the Tobacco Industry). What that article said about the TPm is probably not reliable, and has nothing to do with the text that Ubikit and Xeno Goethean and others were trying to edit-war into the article. It's presently being used to source only " that organizations within the movement were connected with non-profit organizations that the tobacco industry and other corporate interests worked with and provided funding for", which would be unlikely to be false for any political movement which has a significant number of conservatives or Republicans. If it weren't for the poisonous atmosphere being created by the lack of progress in this ArbComm case, and the (perception of) lack of progress in the editing preceding the case, I'd open up an RfC to delete that material entirely. Now, it would just produce a series of !votes not related to the actual issue of there is any statement which could accurately be sourced to Tobacco Control which is relevant to the TPm. Further discussion should be on the article talk page, but that also seems to serve no purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Per your comment about the Arb case lack of progress, it seems to be related to the FOF's. They don't reflect the actual problems or even the source of the problems and in some cases, your for one and mine included, have questionable "evidence." And yours, the edit-warring claim. But as AQFK points out, you're not edit-warring.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Arthur, did you just accuse me of "trying to edit-war" in relation to Tobacco Control?

If you check my editing record to the article, you'll see that I haven't made a single edit to material related to that paper in the origins and astroturfing related passages. My participation was limited to talk page discussion related to the reliability of the source, where I was against the removal from the article of the material cited (and attributed) from the paper.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, please explain to everyone why you believe that the medical journal Tobacco Control "may be reliable, although extremely biased". I'm very interested in hearing you elaborate on your opinion on how biased and unusable medical journals are for Wikipedia articles, and I'm sure that the Arbitration Committee will be interested in hearing your opinions on such matters as well. In the past I have found that Arthur Rubin's opinions regarding what sources are and are not usable for the Tea Party Movement article to be...quite interesting. — goethean 17:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that misstating Arthur's position as a general statement that medical journals are biased and unusable for WP is both very inaccurate and very nasty. North8000 (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

It's not a medical journal. It doesn't claim to be a medical journal. It claims to be a biased sociological journal, although I would call it "political". And I don't see why the authors or reviewers should necessarily be considered experts outside of the Tobacco Industry; and the TPm is clearly outside of the Tobacco Industry.

Fortunately, though, we need not consider whether the journal or article is reliable, as it doesn't say anything of interest about the TPm. As I noted above, the present content is unlikely to be false for any political organization containing a large number of conservatives or Republicans. The previous claim that the Tobacco Industry funded even a part of the TPm has not been sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

...It claims to be a biased sociological journal...

Fascinating as always, Arthur. Where exactly is this claim made? — goethean 18:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Tobacco Control is an international peer review journal covering the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide; tobacco's effects on population health, the economy, the environment, and society; efforts to prevent and control the global tobacco epidemic through population level education and policy changes; the ethical dimensions of tobacco control policies; and the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies.

(Emphasis added.) Nothing there that looks like a medical journal. It's biased, because it's clear it would not accept papers which state that it is unethical to control others' actions in regard tobacco, nor papers which state, for example, the fact that "second-hand smoke" is not correlated with increased cancer risk, regardless of other journals publishing falsified research to the contrary. If there are such articles, I apologize, and would probably remove my "biased" statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

How odd! Second hand smoke says:

Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.[1][2][3]

Your claim is that you are in possession of a fact which prove this claim to be false. And your possession of this fact also prove that articles in the Tobacco Control journal are biased and unreliable. But your fact is flatly contradicted by the third sentence of the Wikipedia article on Second hand smoke. Do you find this odd? — goethean 19:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I encourage interested parties to review the arguments against this source as an example of exactly what kinds of arguments have been employed at the TPM article. I personally find them amazing.

• Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_20
• WP:RSN/Archive_143
• User:Binksternet's 1st summary
• User:Binksternet's 2nd summary
• Talk:TPM archive search — goethean 18:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion, I don't have this publication in front of me. But Tobacco Control might be what is called a 'throw-away journal.' If there are any doctors on the Arb committee they will know what I mean. A throw-away is free to professionals. The idea is to get as many names of practicing doctors who can prescribe the drugs and services advertised. These are essentially marketing tools. The 'peer review' element is questionable. The content is really more like news items than actual science. I mention this because it seems "peer review" is being used here to establish credibility. There are levels of 'peer review.' Think of it like this: an optician is not an ophthalmologist. Both of them can fit you for glasses. But only one can actually write the prescription for the glasses. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And how does that idle speculation have bearing on the reliability of Tobacco Control for Tea Party Movement? — goethean 19:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's just that the credibility of throw-aways isn't better than a basic fact-checked newspaper, and they may actually be less than that depending on the newspaper. Part of the problem on the TPm has always been––and we're all guilty of it everywhere on Wikipedia––is that when we find something that supports what we think is true, we want to use it as a source and we smooth over the obvious difficulties. Like the grassroots versus astroturf bit. There's some grassroots but there's a lot of astroturf. I think nowadays only Xenophrenic and I agree on that. Everybody else seems to think it's all grassroots or all astroturf. There's some grassroots with Keli Carender. Beyond that, there's enough astroturf to carpet Kansas. I do have RS for that. Chris Matthews said that during the midterms back in 2010. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Tobacco Control is not a throwaway journal, so I don't see the point of completely ungrounded speculation to the contrary. MastCell ^Talk 01:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(to Goethean, above). Please read what I said. I said there is no evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer. There is strong evidence that it causes emphysema, other lung diseases, and generally increased morbidity; just not cancer, in spite of early bad research (I was going to say "faked", but I don't recall whether it was faked or willful ignorance of proper techniques) that found the connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin, above you said, What that article said about the TPm is probably not reliable, and has nothing to do with the text that Ubikit and Xeno were trying to edit-war into the article.' If by "Xeno" you meant me, you are mistaken. Please strike my name from your comment. I have never attempted to put any Tobacco Control content into a Tea Party article, nor have I ever argued on the Talk page to have it added (nor would I, as I've never even read those sources). I have no comment as to the reliability of the Tobacco Control sources, and also no comment as to whether our Wikipedia article on Second Hand Smoke contributing to lung cancer is in error. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Corrected, with strikeout. It's wasn't just Goethean, but I'm not sure who it was. It was more than 1000 edits back, and I can't find the specific edits. @Malke 2010:? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Arthur I just looked over those threads and I don't see Xen. I did find a link to this article in Tobacco Control: [22]. Read the methodology and you'll see among their methods were Google and the Way Back Machine. Would you see that methodology in the New England Journal of Medicine? This is clearly a throwaway journal. I wouldn't say you can't use it, but I wouldn't claim it's as reliable and deserves the 'peer review, scholarly' stamp like NEJM. I'd say it was more opinion. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the kind of argumentation that we are seeing here, I'm really hoping that the arbitrators are paying attention to this conversation. — goethean 14:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So there are a number of different guideline-based reasons for excluding the material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Malke's idle speculation that it is "a throwaway journal" and your bizarre conjectures (Tobacco Control is unreliable because its self-description seem to assume mainstream beliefs regarding the health effects of second hand smoke in public places), based on conspiracy-based opinions which contradict well-sourced material in the Second Hand Smoke article are not "guideline based reasons". — goethean 15:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You can label it as idle speculation, but editors at Wikipedia are expected to look at sources. I never said you can't use the source. I said I wouldn't make the 'scholarly/peer review' claim that you're making as if Tobacco Control is the same as the New England Journal of Medicine. It's not. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your argument against the use of the source reads as follows:

Read the methodology and you'll see among their methods were Google and the Way Back Machine. Would you see that methodology in the New England Journal of Medicine? This is clearly a throwaway journal.

I'm not even sure that that rises to the level of idle speculation. — goethean 15:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That comment seems to rise to this level, so I'm finished trying to explain. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Tobacco Control is not a throwaway journal. It's published by the BMJ group; it accepts only 23% of submissions; and it has an impact factor of 4.111, which is respectable for a specialty journal and in fact makes it the top tobacco-related scholarly journal in existence ([23]). If you think this is a "throwaway journal", then I don't think you understand the term. Your personal disapproval of the methodology of a single study published there does not make it a "throwaway journal" - yet that's the only basis you've given for your claim.

Even leaving aside those objective realities, there was a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at RS/N that this journal and article are reliable sources - a consensus which has been resoundingly ignored by the regular denizens of Tea Party movement. This disregard for both Wikipedia sourcing guidelines and uninvolved editorial input has unfortunately come to typify the Tea Party movement article. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about any of the others, but I'm not part of any of that. My only comments about this have been here. I've clearly stated I think he can use the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You denied that the journal is "scholarly/peer reviewed", when in fact, it is both scholarly and peer-reviewed. You stated that Tobacco Control is "clearly a throwaway journal" when, in fact, it is not a throwaway journal. I recognize that you weren't involved in earlier discussions, but you're echoing the same incorrect and misguided ideas about how we evaluate sources. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with Goethean using this article as a source. I've never said otherwise. I've not denied that Tobacco Control is scholary/peer reviewed. Throwaways do have peer review. I said there were levels of peer review. I said I wouldn't make the scholarly/peer review claim AS IF it were the NEJM. My comments are not echoing anything or anyone. Here in this thread is the first time I've commented anywhere on Wikipedia regarding this subject. I have no problem with Goethean using this source in the Tea Party movement article. And your persistence in mischaracterizing what I've said just disrupts the thread. I'm disengaging now as I find your comments once again offensive, like your comment here. Failing to assume good faith by denigrating and dismissing the hard work of editors on the moderated discussion doesn't sound like something an admin on Wikipedia should or would say. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic FOF

So, of the 4 diffs and items noted with the FOF regarding me three were not even at the article, and the only one that was at the article is that I leaned on two folks for TE editing without spending the 12 hours to prove the case. (as I later did) Another was a friendly communication and expression of confidence in them (regarding an unrelated article) with someone who was supposedly acting as an admin on this while telling me not to post on their talk page. And the premise for excluding the person with the largest role in this mess was that this is only about the article (and involvement in such), not the ensuing mess. Why not just use a dart board to make up FOF's? North8000 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Plus one comment mentioned BLP violations. Only one even alleged one one was even mentioned, it was that there was a BLP item buried in a large block of text written by somebody else which I reverted a mass deletion of years ago.North8000 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The finding of fact is not "off-topic" because your edits cited in it all relate to the Tea Party movement dispute. AGK [•] 10:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the diff about the talk page was about review of a completely different and unrelated article. And my other point was that the FOF regarding "(un)involvement" in essence decided that the only only venue that mattered was the article itself. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

North8000, please stop making personal attacks against other editors. — goethean 17:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop mis-labelling things as "personal attacks" which aren't North8000 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop insisting that you have proven that I have engaged in tendentious editing. You have proven nothing and I have never engaged in tendentious editing. You have engaged in at least as much POV and tendentious editing as anyone else on this page. Your insistence on repeating this accusation in every post that you make on this page constitutes a harassing series of personal attacks. You are lying and I will not let you get away with it. STOP IT NOW — goethean 18:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did provide an immense amount of evidence. It was mostly regarding Xenophrenic (who as I said originally, was doing the most.) Again, I am saying it recently only to confirm that my "leaning on"/assertion at the time was valid. Otherwise, it is old, obsolete news. I oppose any sanctions against anyone beyond a warning. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your accusations are not and never have been valid. They are not justified, and you violate Wikipedia WP:CIVIL policy every time that you engage in unsubstantiated accusations. I will personally hold you to account every time that you engage in unsubstantiated accusations against me. It seems that you hope that I will let it go and allow you to write this history. I will not. I will correct the record every time that you make these unsubstantiated, unjustified accusations against me. NORTH8000: STOP MAKING UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS. — goethean 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We're going in circles now. Peace. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This thread is closed. Do not continue or edit it. Thank you, AGK [•] 21:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Snowded

I generally respect you, and suggest you also do not belong here. However mu "complete bosh and twaddle" was a res[pnse to your jocular post, not that you replied with a jocular post. The post which I called "bosh" was:

If there was a scholarly article that made the claim that George Gnarph was a space alien then there would almost certainly be one which said the opposite. We reflect the balance of sources so its more than legitimate to ask for on that refutes a properly sourced statement if it is to be rejected.

Which, I suggest, is indeed "bosh." Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_23 . I trust Snowded will acknowledge his error here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

At the time I read it as a direct response to my comment Collect. If I was wrong to do so then happy to apologise. Otherwise it looks like Arbcom will have to topic ban more or less 75% + of editors working on controversial articles if they want to be consistent.  :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 06:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As noted above on this page it certainly looks like a case of "God will know his own" as a type of "decision" by this committee. I consider some of the FoFs risible and not likely to redound to the benefit of the reputation of those proposing such. I have now been online well over thirty years, and fear that some arbs may not have that level of experience in this world. And of course I gladly accept your apology for any misunderstanding indeed. Collect (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If I remember aright it was the Franciscan's who took most of the auto-da-fé decisions in respect of the Albigensian Crusade so it may be a feature of pious intent! Agree on lack of experience; generally engagement in controversial articles is not conducive to progress in Wikipedia admin & arbcom elections. The lack of experience is clearly showing at the moment and in effect they are looking to flag up a warning to any experienced editor to just keep out of anything that might ever get to Armcom. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

question for Arbs

Can the desysop bit be removed from KillerChihuahua's FOF? This was never a real issue. There was no ivote. No one wanted it. The ANI complaint was not about her. I'm not familiar with what the handbook says on this, but it seems entirely unnecessary. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

North8000 wanted it. Here, let him explain why in his own words:

For heavy and biased involvement in ways that can harm Wikipedians. Proposing draconian sanctions while giving no basis. Mis-use of the imprimatur. As long as we're getting crazy, this is not any wilder than the other stuff proposed.[24][25][26]

— goethean 19:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The wording of this finding is moot as the finding is no longer passing anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking there was no need to "memorialize" it by even having it there. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but take my word for it, proposals that don't pass are quickly forgotten. The arbitrators have enough work finishing up this long-pending case without going back to copyedit proposals that are being dropped. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't want any sanctions against anybody except warning or admonishment type ones. Doubly so for that one that one was (only) in the context of from inside the bonfire and only in the context given in my post noted above. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Thanks Brad. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Arthur Rubin has repeatedly edit warred with other contributors to Tea Party movement"

I'm confused and concerned with the Finding of Fact that "Arthur Rubin has repeatedly edit warred with other contributors to Tea Party movement". Only 5 4 diffs are presented and they span a five month period (February 17, 2013 to July 16, 2013). Are we really saying that 5 4 reverts over the course of 5 months is sanction-worthy? Heck, that's not even block-worthy. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I would like an explanation from ArbCom about this FoF. This seems to set a dangerous precedent that all Wikipedia editors need to be made aware of. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but I am asking for an explanation from ArbCom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@ArbCom: This isn't going away, guys. Unless I'm missing something, you can't justifiably sanction someone for edit-warring for performing fewer than 1 revert per month. This is a wholesale departure from existing Wikipedia policy and culture. If this is allowed to proceed, there are literally thousands of editors who will be at risk at being sanctioned on the flimsiest of reasons. This is an issue far bigger than this case and will require the whole community's input if this is allowed to proceed. Please reconsider this FoF.

BTW, I see that someone realized that one of the diffs was a duplicate.[27] I've amended my original post as a result. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Remedies on Phoenix and Winslow

I believe the remedy that Phoenix and Winslow has had a battlefield attitude on other articles (with a link to one comment he made at the Barack Obama article talkpage) to be misplaced. I cannot say for sure what his full activities have been on the Tea Party related pages, but as far as his work on other pages such as the Franklin child prostition article, it was through his determination that that article was cleaned up and the fringe nonsense was eliminated. The quote arbcom cites in the proposed remedy for Phoenix and Winslow having a battlefield mentality is simply ridiculous. The Barack Obama article is one of the most POV featured articles on this website and is a disgrace to Wikipedia. I've had dozens of non editors tell me that they can't call Wikipedia an encyclopedia when (yes fanboy) article such as the one on Barack Obama is present. P&W probably deserves a credit actually for having the guts to speak plainly about what a piece of crap the Barack Obama article is. In such cases as the one cited as well as the Franklin child prostitution article we need editors like P&W to stand up and say it as it is...you don't turn around and whimper "battlefield mentality" just because someone has the guts to speak plainly.--MONGO 11:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom members, please think this through before voting

AQFK has pointed out that Arthur Rubin is facing a topic ban for five reverts, spread over a five-month timespan. That's an average of just one revert a month. Most of these new FOFs and Remedies raise the personal conduct bar very, very high. Most active Wikipedia editors, particularly on the political articles, are not pole vaulters when it comes to satisfying such high conduct standards — especially since they're in a high-risk environment on some articles, getting baited into editwars and into making unpleasant remarks by the trolls, the POV-pushers, and other types of tendentious or disruptive warriors. People who edit political articles, and don't have an average of one revert per month (or significantly more), are exceedingly rare. And that excludes the real POV-pushers. I'm talking about a typical, garden variety Wikipedia editor in the articles on current politics.

Perhaps the goal of some ArbCom members here is to accelerate the exodus of experienced Wikipedia editors and admins, and turn this place into a ghost town. I'd welcome any defense AGK might offer for the pathetically weak foundation on which he's building such towering FOFs and such brutally disproportionate Remedies for several editors. For example, I just saw the interaction ban Remedy that AGK posted regarding Snowded. For the half of it that puts an interaction ban against Snowded, it's very well supported by three (or four, depending on how you count them) diffs showing Snowded making acerbic comments to or about me. However, there's absolutely zero evidence cited on any Arbwiki page to support an interaction ban against me.

MONGO makes a good point regarding the Barack Obama article. If a majority of ArbCom members really does feel that the Obama biography is "related" to Tea Party movement, and that my editing history there is relevant in this proceeding, then let's take a good look at that editing environment. The article is guarded by a battalion of editors who will never allow anything remotely resembling criticism to be edited into the article mainspace for more than a few minutes. Now review their block logs and User Talk pages. Multiple blocks for editwarring and incivility.[28][29] Multiple complaints on their User Talk pages about their lack of civility.[30][31] The Arbitration Enforcement board has become a home away from home for one of them.[32] Editwarring on another article that's the subject of AE.[33]

Now compare the level of criticism in the Obama biography to the level of criticism in the Wikipedia biographies of other 21st century heads of state in the Western democracies — such as George W.Bush and Tony Blair. There is no shortage of well-founded criticism directed at Obama from notable, level-headed people and eminently reliable sources — left-wing, right-wing and everything in between — but not one word of it in the Obama biography, unlike so many other analogous biographies which are loaded with criticism, controversy and more criticism. I became very frustrated when dealing with this group of editors, when they continued to revert the addition of even the most notable criticisms and immediately shot down (with expressions of contempt) any such proposal on the Talk page, and for that I apologize.

But that article is a disgrace. I thought Featured Articles were supposed to embody WP:NPOV. That one certainly does not. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it appears the Obama article is an example of how a Wikipedia BLP should read. I first came to Wikipedia just because I wanted to know what school Karl Rove had attended after seeing a televised interview. I didn't know much at all about American politics. What I found in his BLP seemed over the top including a section called fictional portrayals. The image was present at the time, not at all flattering, very mean-spirited. It has since been deleted from Wikipedia. That section in his BLP is gone also. There were editors at the time who wanted to call him an atheist, and load up the lede with suggestions that he was a criminal, etc. All sorts of things that read more like an attack page.

A BLP should never have items like that. Look at how Obama has been caricatured by some fringers. The more offensive ones have likely never seen the light of day on Wikipedia and should not. Also, the trivia gets to the point of the ridiculous. Do we really want to know that after Obama read "The Little Engine That Could" to a group of kindergartners they thought he'd botched it on the coda and that it's sourced with a 'scholarly source? That's how ridiculous these things can get.

The problem is POV editing and that's what has got the TPm in trouble. Too much of the trivia, too much desire to portray in a negative light. And conversely, too much desire to explain away real negativity. As for example, do you see anything in that article about the Tea Partiers on Social Security and Medicare like I'd wanted way back when? Of course not. They want smaller government and to do away with government entitlements, but they're getting those entitlements! The most obvious dichotomy and it's not in the article. Either it's being kept out successfully or the other side was too focused on gas grills to notice. It goes both ways. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We can go way, way down the rabbit hole like this, but for any major political figure, group etc. there is bound to be some very well-founded criticism because everybody makes mistakes and at that level, mistakes are enormously magnified. That goes for Barack Obama, the Tea Party, whatever. I'm not talking about Obama's birth certificate here. I'm talking about how he went to war in Libya without congressional approval. Even Bush didn't go that far. And then the handling of the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, the bad loans to Solyndra and other green energy companies, the gunwalking scandal and the death of a Border Patrol agent, etc., etc. The subject of the article makes mistakes, there are major repercussions, people die, billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted, and the subject's opponents turn it into a political football. Sometimes it results in losing the next election. I think there's a place for well-founded criticism (as opposed to screwball conspiracy theories and mudslinging) in every article about political subjects. But the guardians of the Obama article do not. There's very little indication that anyone has ever criticized Obama in that article at all, and there never has been. That's POV editing. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is apparently the spark that started the storm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Inciting incident here. The majority of those named in this case, were not even part of that, nor did they cause it. For me, I had not edited the article in 2 years nor posted on the talk for a year before this incident. Some of the others may have commented more recently than that, but they were not part of that incident. I may have missed it in the vast number of comments/evidence/etc, that have been posted here and on the ANI, but if not, then this is the first time this inciting discussion has been referenced in this case.

• This is where Goethean asks KillerChihuahua to help sort things. KC then goes to North's talk page here. I had no way of knowing all this had transpired and was simmering under the surface. This is the first time I've seen this and that may be the case for some of the others named here. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What the talk page shows is that the whole issue was OVER, OLD news, and KC was in battling, not admin mode, (it also shows I kept attempting to disengage) and then used a completely unrelated post as a basis for lighting the ANI bonfire, IMHO as a continuation of that battle. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just tracing back through the diffs, if I've found the beginnings,

I see the continuing thread here.

And then later KC comes back and opens another thread with a diff here.

And this is the diff she references in that comment.

It then escalates there and ends with the ANI warning.

In the meantime, while all that is going on,

the two of you are also battling on the TPm talk page here. Is that correct?

Malke 2010 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well first, the diffs & links that you provided are and excellent compilation of the very core of what evolved a routine discussion into a bonfire and then the arbcom case. And so anybody who wants to really understand what happened can read those and know. But IMHO one point one point in your summary was incorrect. The diffs/links show that only one person was battling there, it was KC. I was trying to disengage and move on. I don't know how the clear reality of this situation can have been missed so far. It is available for all to see forever. North8000 (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• In her reminder, KC addresses both you and me. The comment to you seemed harsh especially as she'd not addressed Goethean about his comments which do seem like battle. It does seem she's only seeing one side. Of course, you could have disengaged at any time, but I can see where you were trying to get her to understand what you were saying. I guess it really isn't a battle as much as it was not hearing you. When I commented it seemed to me it was one-sided. And not knowing she'd been there before and seeing that Goethean had not commented back to you, I thought he must have gone to get her to intervene. That's why I said she was there at his behest. There's no fixing it now. I went back over the archives and noticed that nobody had intervened along the way. Especially with some of the reverts versus the talk page, etc. The last time I remember an admin commenting was the time in 2010 when we got Balloonman to comment on the New Yorker article. I indented your comment to keep things easier to read. Hope you don't mind. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You guys are really pushing the idea that everything was fine at Tea Party movement until KillerChihuahua got involved and "sparked the storm" or "started the bonfire" or whatever. That narrative seems woefully divorced from reality. The editing environment was so poor that that article was placed on probation three years ago, and it's only festered since. If I look at the state of the talkpage immediately before KillerChihuahua made her first appearance, I see tendentious editing, battleground behavior, complete disregard for this site's sourcing guidelines, and blatant misuse of policy. It just happens that, for once, an admin noticed those behaviors and attempted to address them. MastCell ^Talk 04:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mast Cell, why is it you always parachute into conversations you're not a part of with a provocative statement like you're doing now. And as you did here and multiple other Arb pages? I would agree there is tendentious editing, personal attacks, battleground behaviours, etc. But do you see that your type of comments right now are the very thing that contributed that sort of editing environment? And since you're so keen on this case, and seem so familiar with the article, may I ask, what did you do about the problems there over those 3 years you mention? Nothing?

Then do please let editors here sort things without your stirring the pot. Nobody's blaming KC for anything. They wound each other up. It happens on Wikipedia. And did you factor into North's frustrations the comments he'd endured over time from Goethean? Did you factor in that perhaps KC felt the problem had settled and was a bit irritated to see North was being provocative? I think that's exactly what she thought. She wanted to stop his behaviours. He wanted her to listen and wouldn't stop commenting. That's it. That's what got it started. And if you really give a fair assessment to the comments North and KC made to each other, North could and should have disengaged or better yet, never commented to Goethean in the first place. That didn't happen. KC could and should have blocked North. That didn't happen.

And if we're really going to get at the root, has anyone addressed Goethean's frustrations with the situation? Have you, with all your commenting? No. Neither has anybody else. In fact, they've hatted his comments. They're here to sort this but nobody's really addressing any of the interpersonal editor problems at the root of this case. Do you see an interaction ban in the works for North and Goethean? Yet, most definitely there should be one. It's not possible for those two to not wind each other up. You've not once attempted to understand anything anybody's said. And I don't see how your comments any where on any of these pages have been a help to anyone. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mastcell, nobody made the claim that "everything was fine at Tea Party movement" The claim and the reality is that it was routinely chugging along in the same sad state of all contentious Wikipedia articles that reflect a real world contest. My statement was and is that it was the Goethean-KC sequence of actions that turned that "routine sad state" into a raging bonfire. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And no admins came to help KC on the ANI. She was all on her own over there. And there had to be some watching that fire and they did nothing. I went looking for a few that I knew well enough to ask but couldn't find any editing at that hour. But we've no shortage of admins commenting now. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User:KillerChihuahua deserves a barnstar for what she attempted to do on that page. I wish she had been successful. A number of you needed to be topic banned then and a number of you need to be topic banned now. Yes, Malke and North, I am speaking about you. NW (Talk) 23:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

NW, you've made yourself abundantly clear about topic bans from the beginning and before any evidence was presented. I'd like to point out again I was not part of the incident that brought KC to that page. I'd not been active on TPm for over 2 years. I'd only made limited comments on the talk page each time one year apart and no more. You have no evidence against me but Viriditas' imaginings and references to 3 year old ANI threads where I was blocked for behaviours totally unrelated to the TPm.

And KC's evidence shows links to comments out of context. When the comments are put in context, they obviously aren't battles or accusations of meat puppetry or any of that. And she conveniently fails to put up Goethean's comments from those same threads which are evidence of battle and would have given context. The FOF's don't at all show a problem for me on the TPm. You and AGK just don't like me and that's not a reason to topic ban someone. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Malke 2010:, re. "Just don't like me": If you continue to deliberately assume bad faith about NW, me, or any other user, I will report you to a clerk so that appropriate administrative action (up to and including blocking) can be taken. AGK [•] 10:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

page break for convenience

I think if the entirety of the evidence section were discarded and findings based just off behavior on this talk page there would be more than enough to topic ban at least a few editors. Perhaps it is a matter of subcultural perspective but as an academic I'm commonly astonished at the tone and content of the messages here. Even just the above, "Mast Cell, why is it you always parachute into conversations you're not a part of[...]" is eyebrow raising, as though this is some private club from which other editors and respected administrators are unwelcome. N^oformation ^Talk 02:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually what this is, is a very serious case against the named editors who are put in the unenviable position of having to defend themselves. That's not a very pleasant position nor is it one without stress especially given this case started 6 months ago. It does not help when editors who are not a part of this process parachute in and drop antagonistic comments like yours above and here and here.

Unfortunately, while editors outside the case are still subject to Wikipedia policies, they are not subject to the same scrutiny and consequences of this process as the named editors. Like MastCell, you did not participate in the moderated discussion. You've not been under pressure for 6 months concerned about your reputation on Wikipedia. No, instead you've got the luxury of parachuting in at will to give your unsolicited POV analysis of comments made by the named editors and you do so without any experience of the article or the talk page editing milieu.

Unbelievably, some editors have arrived here with complaints about the named editors on other articles as if this is a drop-in complaints department. They've even posted links to their RfC/U's and ANI's and the articles they desired to protect. Some have landed at the moderated discussion just in time to sink consensus. And some went straight for the TPm article just to provoke edit-wars. Unfortunately, some editors on Wikipedia enjoy causing grief for others and we're told Don't feed the trolls. And I got the phrase 'parachute in' from a comment SilkTork made on the PD page. I thought it an apt description. It suits so well. Please from now on, do not respond to any of my comments. Do not quote my comments, do not name me anywhere either here or on Wikipedia. If you've a complaint, go to ANI. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Malke 2010: I don't believe at all that's what NW meant in that diff. He was referring to the stereotypical decision of ArbCom in these cases to ban some editors, admonish other editors and place the topic under discretionary sanctions. In fact, if I read his post correctly, he's suggesting that no editor be banned and no editor be admonished at this time. Instead, he's saying that discretionary sanctions be applied and that it should only be returned to ArbCom if the sanctions failed to address the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, and he's not commented as I've mentioned this before on his talk, I do apologize to him and I shall strike that bit from my comment. I've no experience of ArbCom cases other than this one and as such have no way of knowing the processes. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Very thoughtful of you. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No one needs solicitation to edit here. This page is open to interested parties for comment, not only for parties to the case. Additionally, it is poor form for a party for the case to hat an uninvolved editor's comment as you did here, and to insert a section break above a sublevel comment as you did here. N^oformation ^Talk 07:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AGK and NuclearWarfare, regarding my "don't like" comment. It seemed to be true as I'd been seeing the comments made by both of you over time and found them disheartening. As there had been no clarification from either of you when I made specific requests for comment, it is those things combined that gave me that impression. As you can appreciate, I don't know any of you and there's been no contact or interaction with the Arbs other than a few comments on the talk pages. You can appreciate that any comment from an Arb makes a far greater impression than that from any other editor. I'm sure you can also appreciate the stress of this protracted case. But I should have commented on the comment not on you both as editors and for that I do apologize. Please be assured I won't do it again. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Findings of fact and associated remedies

User:AGK has taken some heat from all quarters recently as the lead drafter on the PD page. You guys actually volunteer to do this stuff? On the bright side, AGK has managed to do what two months of moderated discussion struggled to do by generating widespread agreement among normally disagreeing parties. Unfortunately, what we agree on is that there are problems with the FoFs and Remedies. To paraphrase an old negotiator's adage, "if everyone involved is upset, it means you must be doing something right." Some things are not right, however. As I noted above, there is an inaccurate allegation of "single-purpose account contributing" on the Proposed Decision page which still has not been corrected. In fact, my concerns about it haven't even been acknowledged, so apparently it was overlooked. Furthermore, that allegation is embedded in a proposal for an indefinite Tea Party topic ban against me (Remedy #7.1) — a proposal thus far completely unaccompanied by any Findings of Fact to justify it. User:David Fuchs, User:Courcelles, User:Kirill Lokshin and User:Timotheus Canens have signed their names in support of this "remedy without a finding or problem", so I'm pinging them to see if perhaps they could explain the reasoning behind the "remedy" and their support. Alternatively, if they only added their names as "me too" support based on a good faith expectation and assumption that AGK had already vetted the evidence for the Committee, please let me know and I'll redirect my questions back to AGK.

I see there has been a lot of 1-to-1 lobbying going on at several Arbiter's personal Talk pages, and also private email communications between several "Named Parties" and Arbs. I'll continue to keep all my case-related communications here in an open, centralized location, probably to my detriment — I've never been adept at the off-venue social networking and wheel greasing. My concern is that issues I've raised and questions I've asked here on this busy page have been missed by the individuals for whom they were intended. I've seen similar and more recent requests about FoF inaccuracies promptly acted upon already, so I must assume my request was lost amid all the bickering here. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I will remove the accusation in question, although please note it was made as part of my voting comment and not within the finding itself. As for off-site communication, I continue to ask that messages sent to me elsewhere or off-wiki be redirected here instead – as do, I think, most other arbitrators. AGK [•] 11:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A probably final comment

I've stayed our of the comments while arbcom went through the process and I haven't engaged in any lobbying not do I intend to. I also waited until voting was over to see what happened. However I have been editing for many years and have seen a lot in that time. So my reflections:

1. The level of differentiation between findings and sanctions indicates little more than a sweep up of everyone involved and ban the lot attitude. In effect the original idea but in a more draconian way including more people. That smacks of a if you don't accept what we say then it will get worse mentality which is not what I would expect of Arbcom.
2. Calling a spade a spade (to use a phrase from one member in my own findings of fact) is now a dangerous thing in Wikipedia. In fact getting engaged in any article which might end up in front of arbcom is probably something an experienced editor will now learn to avoid. That is bad for Wikipedia
3. In my case we have a finding of fact which is barely passing that will result in a indefinite ban that can only be appealed after six months? Please. In my early days here I was combative and continuously engaged on the Ayn Rand article. As I remember it I was allowed to continue on the talk page but not edit the actual article for three months I learnt a lot from that, accepted the finding and almost took up the invitation from the drafting arbcom member to apply to be an admin following several interesting discussions. Here in contrast proportionality seems absent, the drafting of both findings and sanctions lacks subtlety and to a large degree mature judgement. I make those points not seeking some lesser penalty by the way, my main point and concern is the chilling effect of this overall approach on any engagement in any controversial topic.

In any community if you join it you accept its rules or you leave. I originally came here so I could understand how this place worked as a complex adaptive system. That has been hugely valuable. But this ruling and the kill everyone the Lord will know his own approach is another indicator that the behaviour control aspect of wikipedia has now gone into a potentially destructive mode. From an academic perspective it is interesting as a constraint based control system always has this danger but I had hoped (and still hope) that Wikipedia would avoid it. So if all of this passes I will not be appealing to arbcom to lift a sanction in six months.

I spend a lot of time every day patrolling pages on both political sites and also in Philosophy articles. Many of those turn to controversy and from this ruling it looks like Arbcom (or a majority, honour to some) just wants controversy to go away. Life isn't like that and I think it may be time for me to disengage although the experience and the material gathered will be useful. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not find your first two arguments convincing. The only relevant question to ask in connection with each finding is, "does it make an incorrect allegation?" – to which the answer is plainly no, in every case. As for the third argument, I am disinclined to give you or any other sanctioned party another chance simply because it's far too late for that. I really do hope you bring an appeal next year, though. AGK [•] 11:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly on the findings of fact not all the other arbs agree with you so the answer is plainly not a no in each case(5-4 on my count). You have not addressed the issue of proportionality in any way applying the same sanction to those actively engaged as to those of us with peripheral participation. I have absolutely no intention of appealing to you next year or at any other time against what I consider a set of actions and decisions that display a lack of maturity and judgement. It is I think time to move on, complete that article on wikipedia I have been meaning to write for a long time. If a majority of the ruling body of this community can come to these sort of decisions in this way then it has significant governance issues. I will enjoy writing about them but my engagement here is I think about to end ----Snowded ^TALK 15:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Before the completely unwarranted interaction ban against me (unsupported by even one iota of evidence) takes effect, I will say this: I am in 100% agreement with everything Snowded has said in this thread. Evidently the only way to get any real answers out of AGK or NW that actually address our concerns will be to confront them immediately if they decide to run for re-election to the Arbitration Committee. Perhaps the most bizarre and ridiculous result here was NW voting against sanctions for the worst offenders, but in favor of sanctions for nearly every other editor. It was like handing down prison sentences for a group of defendants with speeding tickets, and dismissing the charges against another group of defendants who robbed a bank and were caught on security cameras from three different angles.

I will again note that the overwhelming evidence of Wikistalking against WLRoss has not been acted upon, and that no ArbCom member has even started to attempt to explain this. He'll be back in front of you, just like Apostle12, after engaging in more months or years of misconduct.

Here are the lessons I'm taking away from this proceeding. The first three were written by Snowded.

1. "Sweep up everyone involved and ban the lot."
2. "If you don't accept what we say then it will get worse [for you]."
3. "Kill everyone the Lord will know his own."
4. "Never, ever become involved in any article that the Arbitration Committee is reviewing, because you will be topic banned." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding #4, that was true from the beginning. KillerChihuahua made that plain at the start that if you participated there (and I believe she posted a comment on the talk page), editors could be at risk for being drawn into the case. And it was noted several times by other editors. It's like wading into the ocean. There are sharks. The lifeguards can only post the warnings, they can't stop you going into the ocean. Therefore, you can't really complain when a shark acts like a shark. Everybody here put themselves in harms way. (Please note, no comparison of Arbs to sharks is implied or intended.) Malke 2010 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is KillerChihuahua's comment. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat less than gratifying proceedings produced some questionable results

This being the first--and perhaps last--Arbcom proceedings I've participated in, one stark observation I have made is that individuals that disengaged from the article and talk page discussion after the case began were able to avoid being scrutinized, not even garnering an FoF in the case of Arzel, who'd made some blatant violations of policy typical of those responsible for the case being brought in the first place.

Considering that there was a substantial amount of time and effort put into the Moderated discussion, as demonstrated by the substantial volume of text, it would have been appreciated to see a more thorough undertaking with respect to the FoF.

In the case of AGK's FoF against me, though I disagree with them insofar as they are not "factual", they did facilitate the examination of peripheral factors and expose the blatant overlooking of the violations of Arzel that resulted in no FoF, which represents nothing short of gross negligence in the drafting (or not drafting, as the case may be) of the FoF. It bears noting that AGK neglected to respond to the query by NYB on the PD page related to said findings.

In this respect, I think one contradictory aspect of policy and the enforcement thereof can be seen in the groundless dismissal of academically published reliable sources by Arzel as "worst reliable of all", on the one hand, and my being called to account for violating WP:AGF, on the other hand for challenging the blatant violations of WP:RS and WP:NPOV inherent in the above-mentioned statements.

If there is lax enforcement of basic content related policies, as evinced in the above-mentioned statements, it is unreasonable to accuse someone of violating a conduct related policy such as WP:AGF when engaging with (civil?) POV pushers blatantly violating sourcing policies. In fact, it is ludicrous to expect an educated adult to engage with such editors in a manner assuming that they are acting in good faith with respect to sourcing when clearly they aren't. Furthermore, it's a fall pretense to call for sanctions against someone in a case like this based on an overblown accusation of misconduct. As Snowed has said, many of the accusations in the FoF wouldn't be found sanctionable at ANI, so it is hard to see how they justify an indefinite topic ban here.

Some of the above-mentioned lobbying claims may have merit. I addressed Courcelles on his talk page after seeing and exchange with Malke that led me to believe he was demonstrating bias in his capacity as an arbitrator. He responded that the FoF in response to which he was voting had been vetted in advance, but that still didn't account for why he would vote on my FoF before Malke's, considering that it had been up for much longer.

I stand by my original assertions relating to affinity group editing here on Wikipedia, and it seems to be a substantial impediment to those seeking to contribute to improving content created in relation to controversial topics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I did respond privately to Newyorkbrad, as I am sure he can verify if you wish to ask him. AGK [•] 11:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know, but he asked you to respond here, and I thought these were open proceedings.

It is one thing for you to make an FoF alleging poor decorum, which could admit of a degree of subjective, impression-based judgment, but it is quite another for you to make an allegation that I "ignored sound arguments about article content ".

I understand that you are an undergraduate studying law, correct? Well, if this were a court of law, your allegation would require evidence, evidence of the sort of which you have provided only in error, based on a comment of which you misconstrued the meaning in a discussion the context of which you apparently failed to comprehend. But this was pointed out above more than a week ago, followed by the comment by NYB, and the "private" reply.

The above-described allegation is a false allegation, and I repeat, you have produced nothing to substantiate such a claim (at least publicly), which amounts to a prejudicial allegation made on the basis of refuted evidence.

Lastly, in your reply above to Snowed, you comment that the relevant issue is whether or not any of the allegations are incorrect, but you have failed to respond to a challenge to the facticity of an FoF against me that was raised in similar terms. There is a bit of confusion, perhaps, in that I referred to the "conduct" based rationale used for your finding, accusing me of deliberately ignoring sound arguments.

If this were a WP:COMPETENCE issue, I suppose that there would have to be a policy on arbitrators drafting FoFs (is there?) against which I could challenge your FoF and thus your competence to serve as an arbitrator. That is a harsh charge to make against you, but arbitration is not supposed to be an arbitrary process.

Moreover, I am confident that I could easily defend myself against any logically inconsistent claims you might try to bring with response to content, so in fact, your allegation comes close to revealing that perhaps you disagree with my political stance in relation to the topical matter of this controversial subject.

If that is not the case, then why could't (or wouldn't) you defend your allegation in public by, say, producing a separate comment from another discussion?

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggest time limit on topic bans

I'm glad the case is over and I thank the Arbs for their thoughtful deliberations. My suggestion is that the topic bans be time-limited to 6 months for all, with an actual end date given. Please, no indef bans for anybody. If I'm not mistaken, the original proposed decision had limited bans. It would be a much appreciated gesture, I'm sure, and might make this remedy more easily accepted by everybody. Having this case well and truly over for all would be a welcome relief. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Question for Arbs

What exactly constitutes "Related to the Tea Party movement?" Does this mean all articles with the name "Tea Party" in the title? Does it include BLP's of congressmen/senators supported by the Tea Party? Does it include primaries/mid-term general elections? Please clarify. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the results here, it will most likely include all articles containing the letters "T," "E," or "A." </sarcasm> In all seriousness, there was an FOF against me describing my edit to the Talk page of the Barack Obama biography as "related" to the Tea Party movement. So in all seriousness, it will probably include all articles related to U.S. politics since 2008, due to general consensus that the Tea Party movement was founded in January-February 2009. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Question for Callanecc or an Arb, and please don't anybody else answer unless you're Callancecc or an Arb, thanks

Could you please post a list of the articles that editors are banned from editing? That would be enormously helpful in avoiding misadventures with Admin twinkle apps. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are topic banned by this decision, it is your responsibility to ensure you comply with the ban, not ours. We therefore do not intend to produce an exhaustive list of articles from which you are banned. AGK [•] 00:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this topic is that certain editors think (or at least state) that any conservative Republican organization is associated with the TPm. I wouldn't mind if they were prohibited from editing articles about such organizations, but a rational person wouldn't believe there was a connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I see we're going to need to submit at least three requests for clarification or modification.

1. If an article is not obviously related to the TPm, the topic-banned users should not be blocked without a warning as to that particular article or article set.
2. A request that reverting (Wikipedia-wide) banned editors be exempt from the topic ban. (Allowing reverts of topic-banned editors would create absurd results.)
3. If a topic-banned editor claims that another topic-banned editor is in violation of the ban, and the article in question is not related to the TPm, then the first editor may be blocked.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Question for arbs (2)

As our favorite blocked IP from Michigan frequents TPm articles, and articles about the Kochs, who might be considered related, would it be a violation for me to revert that editor? If it is, I will no longer be able to use the "rollback all" tool which I recently discovered, leaving more damage in Wikipedia. I think I also need to know what is related to the TPm; according to one of the soon-to-be-topic-banned editors, the Tobacco industry is related to the TPm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The permitted exceptions to topic bans are prescribed here. AGK [•] 00:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Question for Arbs (3)

Is it possible to change the indef bans to 6 months bans? Malke 2010 (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. AGK [•] 00:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)