The situation: Editor A is pushing for greater prominence and more favorable presentation of a minoritarian point of view (let's say scientific racism, for the sake of argument) as his sole contribution to Wikipedia. Other editors of the articles in question feel that Editor A is arguing for undue weight, and that giving undue weight to such a view discredits Wikipedia as a serious, respectable reference work.
The wrinkle: Editor A is persistent in advocating for his perspective. His tone remains unfailingly calm and polite. On the other hand, the responding editors, frustrated by what they view as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, grow increasingly and publicly irritated, and eventually snap at Editor A in accusatory and uncivil language.
The case: The situation is brought before ArbCom. One "side" argues that Editor A should be sanctioned for tendentious, agenda-driven editing. The other "side" argues that the responding editors should be warned or sanctioned for incivility and "tag-teaming".
The question: How do you approach this case?
Alternate wrinkle
Alternate wrinkle: An uninvolved admin steps in and sanctions the responding editors for incivility and "tag-teaming", invoking pre-existing discretionary sanctions. Because of current ArbCom caselaw, this administrative action cannot be reversed as a practical matter by other admins. The case is appealed to ArbCom; again, one "side" supports the sanctions and praises the uninvolved admin for her impartiality, while the sanctioned editors argue that they were provoked by longstanding and unaddressed tendentious editing, and that Editor A is the more substantial hindrance to the project. How do you approach this case?
