Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input

TPM issues

Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is getting nasty again. I was asked on 18 February to take a look by User:Goethean, who had been accused of poor behavior (specifically, WP:TE) and wanted a second opinion from an uninvolved admin (see here). I looked, couldn't find anything objectionable in his edits, so I asked the accusing editor to provide a diff here, but as you can see by following the link, I got reams of vague accusations but not a single diff. I hatted the accusatory accusations on the article talk page [1] (my first ever edit there) and advised the accusing editor, North8000, to either provide diffs, or cease the accusations (basically put up or shut up.) Then I added the TPM article to my watchlist. Sure enough, not a week later and North8000 is making uncivil comments and personal attacks on the talk page.[2] I posted on his talk pageasking him to be more civil and I added a reminder on the article talk page that the article is under probation and... well, take a look at Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Reminder and offer thoughts. So far (in only a couple of hours) North8000 has told me I'm involved, Arzel has insulted Goethean again and misrepresented him, and Malke 2010 has told me I'm Goethean's meatpuppet in order to enable Goethean to bully people - the exact phrasing was "you're here at the behest of goethean who apparently wants to bully editors he doesn't agree with. You, like goethean are failing to assume good faith"[3] Now, I'm thinking a week or two topic banning North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010 is called for, per WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA on an article on probation. Looking for community views on this, as I'm new to this probation area. Thanks in advance. Killer Chihuahua 02:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. I did not insult Goethean after your statement. Goethean said "But Wikipedia cannot take an overly credulous stance towards the origin stories of believers, any more than it can believe the Mormons, for example, when they say that the Lost Tribes of Israel are the American Indians. TLDR? Wikipedia needs to reflect the lamestream media's account of the TPM. — goethean 00:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)", which I pointed out to your double standard of what consists uncivil remarks and AGF. Also, when you provide a talk page notification on my page in the future, please link to the appropriate section so I don't have to search for the section. Arzel (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide a link, readers can see the comment in context[4]. — goethean 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arzel does have a history of questioning the good faith of other editors and insults, such as here Casprings (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and here. — goethean 14:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good look at the article talk page and my talk page says an immense amount. I form opinions very slowly and carefully and based on 2 years of observation at the article I commented that 2 editors have kept that article in a bad state by TE. I made it (only) as an attempt to reduce such at the article by spotlighting it out rather than seeking sanctions against the individuals. (I could put together rock solid cases on these with hundreds of diffs, but I have reported only one individual in my entire wiki-life.) After immense observation it is also pretty clear that Goethean is particularly abrasive & rude there. Goethen then bypassed the admin who has been watching the article, and message boards and instead solicited two selected / particular admins (SlimVirgin and KillerChihuahua) to get involved. (I'm assuming that they were selected for a particular reason, neither has background at the article). Ostensibly this was to evaluate the TE comment. One (KillerChihuahua) jumped in. Despite a solid TE evaluation requiring looking at an immense history, they quickly said that the TE comment was baseless and instead came after me. (see my talk page) They said to either provide diffs or shut up. I indicated that TE would require an immense amount of diffs and that I'd be willing to start building such a case but was willing to leave it as what already transpired.

Then Goethean did something that I felt was really nasty. Malke brought up the idea of starting a new sub-artcle on economic issues. Goethean responded by baselessly invented bad motives and accusing Malke of them. I complained and asked to Goethean provide a basis for the accusation. Specifically I said: "Goethean, you are being rude as usual. And missing wp:agf by two levels. Baselessly inventing bad faith. How do you get "You don't like what the Wikipedia process has come up with here, so you are going to create a new article on the same topic, but exclude all of the negative material." out of Malke's idea for a sub-article on the economic issues?" KillerChihuahua ignored what Goethean did and the basis for my comment and instead came after me. KillerChihuahua is clearly not objective in this case. They are overlooking far more severe things by the person that selectively solicited their involvement, and came after me for some I think very merited and useful comments. I would welcome a thorough review of the last few days of talk at Tea Party Movement and the last few days of talk at my talk page. I think whether technically or in spirit KillerChihuahua is involved twice over on this and has clearly not been objective. Both on the initial dynamics with the person who solicited their involvement, and where their people dynamics with me (and the folks that challenged their objectivity) seem to clearly be dominating over objectivity. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have misread my uName. It's "Chihuahua" not "Chinchilla". Hope this helps to avoid confusion, as we have no User:KillerChinchilla. Killer Chihuahua 03:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll fix. BTW, I think that it will take a large RFC to wikfy the article, and so there is no urgent need there. I would be happy to follow advice given by uninvolved parties regarding my involvement there during the next few weeks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that. Killer Chihuahua 03:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: I have now registered that as a doppelganger account. Killer Chihuahua 05:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: I prefer the name "KillerChinchilla" :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, who is the admin "who has been watching the page" and who you think that I bypassed? — goethean 14:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have never edited the Tea Party article, but after giving this matter a cursory inspection, and having had some extremely unpleasant previous interactions with Malke2010, I feel the need to point out a few facts. This is an editor with a substantially troubled history, with 8 blocks in a one year period in 2009-2010. Mentoring was not particularly helpful, as I recall, and in the end it was the dramatic falling off of the frequency in the past few years of Malke's edits that defused the tension that the editor's combative, confrontational polemics often caused. An accusation of lack of assumption of good faith, as they have just done on the Tea Party talk page, is one of the hallmarks of this editor, and Malke's edits to political articles such as this one are sometimes of questionable utility in terms of NPOV. I submit that it is time to discuss a topic ban for Malke2010 on all political articles. (Note: Also posted this on the Tea Party article Talk page, however, ~~North8000~~ User:Fat&Happy has seen fit to remove it, terming it a "personal attack," which I hereby protest.) Jus da fax 04:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must have misread the history, it was User:Fat&Happy who removed[5] your post and labeled it a personal attack, although North8000 did comment about it that "ad hominems / attacks have no place here" so he was also labeling it so. Killer Chihuahua 04:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, and I have corrected the statement above and hereby extend appropriate apologies to North8000. However, that mistake led me to North's talk page and the interaction between you two. I would say that your requests for diffs are more than fair. I also support you bringing the matter here, and your take on this case. Jus da fax 04:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked the diffs and briefly looked through the Talk page, it seems fairly plausible that Goethean is being targeted by an affinity group of TPM advocate editors with an obstructionist agenda. There would seem to be ample evidence of them ignoring more than one editor and attempting to exclude numerous RS.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I listed North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010 above, and all have exhibited battleground behavior, and their response to warnings is to deflect and attack more. I really think a topic ban is in order. Killer Chihuahua 04:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killer, on all political articles or just this Tea Party one? The problem appears widespread. Jus da fax 05:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. I brought this here for the TPM article only, as that was all I had seen; let's see what others think about a political topic ban. It may be the best way forward; it would be a pity to article ban them and then have to do this entire discussion over again in a month or two. Killer Chihuahua 05:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be overkill to topic ban without evidence of the problem actually being widespread. Gotta collect the evidence first I'm afraid. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want "evidence," eh? The problem, then, to focus on the larger political issues, is to define them per Ubikwit as "an affinity group of TPM (or, in the larger case what can loosely be called Right Wing) advocate editors with an obstructionist agenda." Now, since few people have the time and energy to pour through thousands of edits to get the dozens needed, let's do it like a barn raising... concerned parties take it one bit at a time to respond to your request as we build a case for this.

My contribution: Malke2010 has indeed previously "create(d) a new article on the same topic, but exclude(d) all of the negative material" before this: at the sub article they created at Karl Rove, where they took the most controversial material from Rove's career, then scrubbed out reliably sourced material or added in slanted material like the Moyers material. Virtually every edit there (look at the edit record) is designed to put a positive "spin" on Rove's years in the Bush White House. Additionally, the new sub-article is another "click" away from the reading public, and the controversies sanitized with a summary. So Goethean's objections to Malke's similar proposal for the Tea Party article are in fact quite apt, and North8000 is in fact out of line defending this transparent attempt at obstructionism. Standing by for the next diff. Jus da fax 07:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to below)

After reviewing additional evidence concerning North8000 and his inability to provide diffs for his claims when asked, I would support some kind of sanction. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I slowly and carefully came to my assessments about TE by those 2 editors (Xenophrenic and Goethean) at that article, and ongoing rudeness (mostly in the form of direct insults) primarily by Goethean. This was after at least two years of observations and looking at many hundred of posts. And a solid case for TE (by its definition) would involve an immense amount of posts. And it is not a violation of policy to note behavior without providing diffs.. As I said, I did in in the hopes that spotlighting those behaviors at the article would reduce them, not to fully build cases for sanctions of those editors. And I was and am content to leave it at that. If this assertion that "failure to provide diffs" is somehow wrong persists then I would need to start building those cases. It will be a big job due to the immense amount of material which resulted in and supports my conclusion but will be rock solid. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at their contributions, I think a broadly-construed topic ban on political-related articles can be made for the following 5 users:

Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All 5 show a battlefield mentality that is all too typical on political articles. I would prefer an indefinite ban, minimum of 6 months, to force then to show they can contribute positively in another area of Wikipedia. I also support two weeks per KillerChihuahua's suggestion, but I guarantee after 2 weeks they'll be right back to the usual behavior. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is baseless and ridiculous to put me in the same category as the two folks who I noted. My arguments and efforts are towards neutral articles. And for folks who want to POV articles, someone who wants just a neutral quality article is the hardest to chase away, and they go after them the most. North8000 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...someone who wants just a neutral quality article is the hardest to chase away, and they go after them the most.

Amen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "broadly-construed topic ban on political-related" is far to wide-reaching - I'm sure I can make an argument for every article on Wikipedia to fall under that umbrella. That said, I could see a benefit in a narrower topic ban (say "US conservative politics") for some of the participants. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I first came to the article nine days ago because of a RSN thread about the Tobacco Control journal, which I felt was eminently usable because it was scholarly. I saw that Collect, North8000 and Thargor Orlando were removing this source and the text based on it, text brought first by Ian.thomson then restored by Nomoskedacity, Ian.thomson and Goethean. After looking at the talk page and the article, I felt that Thargor Orlando was participating purely as a heavy for the obstructionist "affinity group", continually pointing out that consensus was against certain new suggestions. I saw that Arthur Rubin was the strongest in trying to knock the legs out from underneath the scholarly journal Tobacco Control, but questioning its scholarship on the article talk page and at the RSN discussion. Collect appeared to be participating solely to remove negative text that the obstructionist affinity group did not want: [6][7][8][9]. I saw Arzel as the most strident voice, calling the Tobacco Control paper "piece of crap study", an "incredibly stupid study" with "stupid correlation without causation". Arzel calling the paper "idiocy" but failing to show a scholarly rebuttal (or any rebuttal) showed me that Arzel was reacting by gut feeling rather than from WP policy. I agree that a six-month US right-wing politics topic ban would be useful for Arzel, Malke 2010, North8000 and Xenophrenic, but I don't think Goethean meets the definition of BATTLEGROUND—it's more a case of the (almost) lone voice of reason against the obstructionists. I would add Thargor Orlando, Arthur Rubin and Collect to the proposed topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added them and notified them. Killer Chihuahua 18:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have notified me first so I didn't get surprised. I've had the page watchlisted for some time, but only edited the article three times, twice in the last week: once to uphold what I believe is the current consensus regarding the tobacco thing, and once to add an "under discussion" tag to the portion. I'm barely involved, actually support goethean's position in inclusion but recognize the consensus differential, and otherwise have no actual involvement in this and don't really want to be further involved at this point. Thargor Orlando(talk) 18:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notified you before what? That a discussion was not yet happening on ANI? If I notified you first, as slow as I type, you'd come, see nothing, and think wtf? and miss the actual section. Killer Chihuahua 18:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was to Binkster dragging me into this, not you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Topic Bans

Topic bans have been proposed for the following; please give your views. The proposed topic ban is on United States politics ONLY; if you wish to support a different option please note it in the appropriate section(s) below, thanks. Killer Chihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: Please specify which time you support: 2 weeks, 1 year, and 6 months have been suggested. Killer Chihuahua 18:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Goethean

Oppose. Goethean and I have edited a few of the same pages [10], but as you can see if you follow the links, we have almost always disagreed. We opposed each other on Human. We opposed each other on the DRV of Cat:Pseudoscientists, on Crockspot's Rfa (he was right that time), on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unguided evolution (he was dead wrong there); we opposed each other on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision, the only time I can find we agreed was on Cirt's Rfa, and I agreed with his rationale there. We even argued at Sam Spade's RFAR where I told him he was wrong about the amount of support for different versions of the lead So, we're not exactly close buddies. The only other time he was on my talk page was in 2006, when he thanked me for [some advice I'd given, one of three edits I'd ever made to his talk page - the other two were a question and the courtesy notice for this thread. I was surprised when he came to me, but I guess TPM is a toxic article and he knew from my handling of the Sarah Palin article probation and the Men's rights movement article probation that I'm not afraid of wading into toxic areas, and I don't play favorites or allow personal bias to interfere. I've examined his edits, and I see nothing to suggest sanctions are indicated in Goethean's case. Killer Chihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not a topic ban, but a strict NPA restriction might be worthwhile. He can oppose people strongly without attacking them as he has at the Tea Party article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have a diff of a personal attack? Killer Chihuahua 17:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Tea Party movement talk page is littered with them, but I know you disagree. I'm pointing it out for anyone else who wants to take a look, I don't think a topic ban itself is appropriate as it's not the editing that's the problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issue a strong warning. Dial back on nastiness and TE as exhibited at the TPM article. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I asked you before, would you please provide diffs of the objectionable behavior? Thanks much! Killer Chihuahua 17:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been forced to start working on it. Zillions coming. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Goethean has argued policy and reliable sources in the face of obstructionism. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I think this is only problematic now because of KillerChihuahua's misinterpretation of ~~policy~~ editors' actions. I really don't see it as necessary, if he isn't encouraged. I strongly disagree with the assertion that he (Goethean) has ever argued policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy did I misinterpret, please? Killer Chihuahua 19:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cite for Goethean arguing policy? I haven't seen it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense to me as an answer to my question. What does anyargument another editor makes have anything to do with my understanding of policy? Sorry, your post makes no sense to me. Puppy (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have seen no real argument based on actual edits that he is a problem. Where are the attacks on other editors? Where is the WP:Battle?Casprings (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No valid reasons for such a ban. Collect (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not an editor that should be topic banned for these edits. Has this proposal been properly though through? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Here is one thread from the TPM Talk page that demonstrates the sort of interaction and the respective dispositions of the involved editors [11].--Ubikwit (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, arguments for topic ban in this instance are not convincing, instead this is a constructive editor in a difficult area. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: The diff Ubikwit provides is a year old and does not reflect what is happening on the page right now. Here is a typical exchange that includes Goethean's attitude: [12] And note that Goethean lets the other editors know his source will become part of the article despite their protests. [13] Malke 2010 (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do look at that conversation. I post the abstract and a description of a peer-reviewed public policy journal article which is explicitly dedicated to the Tea Party, and User:North8000 responds:

The first items is about 6 levels below being a source and credibility. The second one has some real facts in it plus spun statements that don't follow from the facts listed.

I should have politely explained to him what an abstract is and what a peer-reviewed public policy journal is and why this article is clearly reliable and relevant. I — wrongly — allowed his immediate, knee-jerk, and seemingly partisan dismissal of an obviously reliable source to cloud my judgement. But his remarks are indefensible.

And the source is currently used in the article, after lengthy debate on the reliable sources noticeboard, in which Arthur Rubin's strained arguments against use of the source were met with incredulity. — goethean 17:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean, the point of the link is to show how you interact with others. Perhaps it would not have needed to go to a noticeboard before it made its way into the article if you had not made that statement. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Arthur Rubin's adamant opposition to the source was due to the way that I spoke to North8000? I thought that it was due to his strict adherence to Wikipedia policy. — goethean 18:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it seemed heavy handed to declare the source would be in the article when discussion had barely begun. Sometimes when we say things, especially in the heat of the moment, our perception of how it will come across and how the person you are addressing actually perceives it are often two very different things.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct, that statement was a stupid, sloppy, egotistical error on my part. However, perhaps I should be given a little leeway when dealing with mind-bogglingly inaccurate comments like North8000's linked above. — goethean 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give you that because I think North8000 is to you what Dylan was to me. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And here is a discussion that shows editors, including Goethean, working together despite a disruptive editor who was later banned from Wikipedia. (N.B. Goethean, I wasn't finished posting archive samples.) [14] Malke 2010 (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This shouldn't be here. But Goethean next time either respond or ignore an editor's comment rather than going to an admin straight off. Not an expert, just saying. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Ignore this comment? Three paragraphs in a new section dedicated to accusing two editors, sans evidence, of tendentious editing? Sorry, comments like that do not get ignored. And see WP:AOTE:

It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly.

That was eight days ago. I think that it is needless to say that User:North8000 has been asked repeatedly for evidence and has failed to provide a single diff. — goethean 22:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We both know how old the argument about the bbq grill gas line and the Ron Paul moneybomb/tea party rally is. Admin intervention has been needed on the talk page for a long time, but getting an admin over this kind of argument just makes you seem like the tendentious editor. Go around it. Ask for sources. Did he get them? No? Next. . .I remember when we were all putting up with Dylan and the endless mediation. I thought you were a very good editor. Very well read. The Tea Party hubris is long over. Nobody cares about bbq grill gas lines, and nobody remembers or cares about anything that happened with Ron Paul in 2007. Those bits have been in and out of that article dozens of times. Life is short. Let North8000 have the edit. God knows the article could use some lightening up on the byte count. And it might calm things down. Sometimes you have to be the better editor. You very often are. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment. However, I must disagree with you — the charge the North8000 leveled at Xenophrenic and myself is serious and in my opinion required a response. If I had made the same charge against North8000, I would probably be indefinitely blocked by now. — goethean 00:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you didn't have cause to be upset. You did. I would have been, too. But sometimes you have to give up power to get power. North8000 really just wants you to acknowledge his viewpoint. Believe me. It's that simple. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would like an acknowledgement or understanding that I sincerely want an article that is as quality and neutral as it can be. And (right or wrong) I sincerely, believe that the two folks I mentioned have been working against that goal. And my ONLY goal and was to change that situation by just a bit. I think that Goethean knows that it was just a nudge that way, not a "serious charge", but if not I am saying it now. With respect to myself, I quite confident how a thorough analysis and review will end up, but am not so confident that this mindless mess that has been unleashed will not do a lot of pointless and unnecessary harm to a lot of folks and a lot of relationships, and a whole lot of wasted time from lives that are too short. And that even includes concern for the people that I've been butting heads with...there are no really evil people at the TPM article. Since the TPM article will be pretty much hopeless for a long time (unless some dramatic solution is adopted) even efforts there are secondary at this point. That's why I proposing an idea that a bunch of the central folks come together to end this current conflagration. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Goethean has been consistently trying to apply Wikipedia policy, which superficially looks like tendentious editing, especially to people who don't want to follow policy. FurrySings (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for North8000

Support, for BATTLE, NPA, etc per evidence and reasoning given above. Killer Chihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: Support 6 mo topic ban. Killer Chihuahua 18:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Baseless And nothing was even given above to merit this. KillerChihuahua is very involved on this. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really seeing that's useful- most people object to topic bans on themselves. It really isn't necessary to say so. One puppy's opinion. 17:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Support. North8000 too often removes reliably sourced text which casts the TPM in a negative light, and disputes the reliability of obviously reliable sources. This is WP:Tendentious editing. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disagreements are not a valid reason for a topic ban. And that is all that has been presented. Collect (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disagreeing about RS is not, in itself, a valid reason for a topic ban. This seems light. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for his argumentative behavior at TPM as well as here. Under every proposed topic ban of one his cohorts, he says "Absolutely Baseless" so much that it seems to ring hollow. And some of his comments in reply to others in this thread are outright hostile to the point of frothing mad. That's a clear sign a break is needed. El duderino ^(abides) 03:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too involved with the article in question and needs to leave off for 6 months per KillerChihuahua. In addition, the pointy attempt to desysop KC indicates a battleground mentality that cannot be tolerated in a collaborative enterprise like this project. I would support this ban for all political articles, after noting Binksternet's observation above. Jus da fax 04:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely - Same tactic as last time at Talk:Homophobia - editor disagrees with wording, becomes disruptive, and never provides any evidence for the diffs he wants. Spends more time chatting on talk pages than actually editing, and always chooses controversial subjects. Person is a disruption, not an editor ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here is one thread from the TPM Talk page that demonstrates the sort of interaction and the respective dispositions of the involved editors [15].--Ubikwit (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the record, I don't think there is any reasonable basis for such a topic ban. Just a lot of trivial cherry-picking from people who are likely being hypocrites on the matter anyway. This is just hasty "Shit! I don't like this guy! Ban him!" voting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support After reading North8000's hostile reaction to KillerChihuahua's mild attempts at enforcement, and his pointy reaction to bringing this issue up for community involvement, I'm convinced this may unfortunately be necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ubikwit has chosen a diff that shows an old talk page discussion. Here is another talk page discussion from the archives that shows the editors cooperating despite a disruptive editor who was later banned from Wikipedia. [16]
Oppose North8000, the desysop bit is just wrong. Killer Chihuahua was just trying to leave a reminder not get run over.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. KC apparently didn't understand the history, but, even if (as I stated earlier) he had misinterpreted policy, that wouldn't be a reason for desysop. However, it's still the case that the argument against KC is good as the argument against other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for what policy you think I didn't understand, and any diff at all for the supposed case against me. Killer Chihuahua 15:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a warning or a short topic ban for battleground mentality. FurrySings (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support having looked at the talk pages it seems North has a clear battleground and civility problem. Pass a Method talk 22:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Arzel

Support, for BATTLE, NPA, etc per evidence and reasoning given above. Killer Chihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: Support 6 mo topic ban. Killer Chihuahua 18:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely baseless There is nothing given that even begin to merit this.North8000 (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment. ~~Not only are there no diffs of unwarranted behavior for this editor, there are no diffs whatsoever.~~. I see that we now have an existing user. carry on little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[17] - misrepresentation, NPA; POV pushing[18] which he explained on the talk page saying the NYT and MSNBC were not reliable sources for the TPM article[19] stating sarcastically that all media should be included if the NYT was - which, btw, was supported by Malke 2010[20] who said "Agree with Azrel. What some dimwit from either MSNBC or the NYTs thinks of the TPM is not relevant." and that's from the last few days; also see here on this page, [21] BATTLE, misrepresentation, quoting bits out of context. That's a start at it, anyway. Killer Chihuahua 17:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I find it very ironic that you completely misrepresent my comments and call my comments a misprepresentation. I would ask that you retract your statement claiming that I said that the NYT and MSNBC were not reliable soruces for the TPM article. If you really have something, then post it, but this is ridiculous. Arzel (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support for battleground behavior. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support As noted above, User:Arzel does have a history of questioning the good faith of other editors and insults, such as hereand here. Moreover, he has demonstrated WP:BATTLE in several cases. Some examples include here, here and here. Arzel, is clearly a single purpose account with a political view to promote.Casprings (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those that accuse others of WP:SPA's should check their own edit history first. Arzel (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented, whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position.

— goethean 20:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in US Politics. So what? One, I do have some other interests, such as my edits on the School of Advanced Military Studies. Second, I have tried to improve myself as an editor and embrace Wikipedia:Five pillars. For example, I have done alot of work on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 with the goal of it becoming an WP:FA. In other words, my goal has been a well written and neutral article. As such I started an FA review here. Here again, you questioned my good faith, here. Can you point out some edits where I have attacks you or questioned your good faith? While I agree it doesn't really help your argument, I would like to point out that the "you too" defense isn't true.Casprings (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that my edit history is more varied than yours and you accuse me of being a SPA. Arzel (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This user has long acted as if the basic rules of Wikipedia behavior do not apply to him. Pushback is long overdue. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We see an editorial disagreement being used as a reason for a topic ban. It ain't. Collect (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any exchange with User:Arzel is more than mere disagreement because of his uncivil and anti-collabortaive approach. I've noticed as much from User:Collect and others, but Arzel s the most flagrant and seems to encourage others' battleground mentality. El duderino ^(abides) 20:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban from U.S. political articles indefinitely. User:Arzel has long used wikipedia to push his arch-conservative activism while demeaning and patronizing others who dare to disagree with him. He often wars with reverts and edit summaries rather than engage others with talkpage discussion, and the latter only reluctantly and dismissively. His long-term antagonistic approach seems to be wearing other editors down to the point of not contributing to those articles. Evidence of his obstructionism can also be found at other articles e.g. Fox News Channel and Koch Industries as well as affiliated sub-articles which follow the povfork pattern mentioned above (i.e. to hide/diffuse criticism and controversies). And if you limit the ban to only conservative articles, I believe that he will continue his uncivil POV-pushing at other articles in the political spectrum. El duderino ^(abides) 20:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban, and from what I see here, consideration should be given to an indef block. Disturbing. Jus da fax 21:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban, and possibly an indefinite block as a longtime tendentious editor with whom I've had many years' experience. Full disclosure, I was asked to weigh in here, after I declined to cosponsor a possible uRFC on Arzel, but offered to weigh in if an appropriate venue were presented. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this. Mangoe (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose topic ban and indef block - I've had aggravating encounters with Arzel on political topics in the past, so I've been on the receiving end here, but I'm of the opinion that sanctions are unnecessary at this point. Let's drop this and make an attempt at WP:RFCC if so many members of the community are in agreement that intervention is necessary. — C M B J 01:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be supportive of that and would co-sponsor that. Casprings (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support As per KC, Binksternet, el duderino.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the record, I don't think there is any reasonable basis for such a topic ban. Just a lot of trivial cherry-picking from people who are likely being hypocrites on the matter anyway. This is just hasty "Shit! I don't like this guy! Ban him!" voting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, long history of battleground approach in this area. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Arzel made one comment. I don't think he was trying to engage in WP:Battle. Remember when you were a kid and your brother ran you over with the car and your Mom yelled at you for getting in the way? It was like that for him, IMHO.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KC. — goethean 01:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Arzel has been all over Wikipedia trying to push a right-wing agenda, and has been running roughshod over other editors for some time. FurrySings (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This topic is not the only one where Arzel has displayed a clear battleground mentality. He is also a VERY aggressive right-wing editor and i think this remedy may curb that. Pass a Method talk 22:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know that you are not always Trigger Happy. I find it very ironic that so many people think I am very right-wing. In real life, most people think I am pretty liberal. Says more about WP than anything else. Arzel (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have consistently seen Arzel edit war over conservative/political topics to support his own viewpoints, often with little useful discussion other than claims of bias. Beyond his consistent reverts on the Rape and Pregnancy article, he inserts his political views on its FA nomination, without making specific suggestions. If most people think Arzel is pretty liberal in real life, he must live a second life online, as his edit history could not possibly corroborate this statement. Reywas92^Talk 04:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Malke 2010

Support, for BATTLE, NPA, etc per evidence and reasoning given above. Killer Chihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: Support 6 mo topic ban. Killer Chihuahua 18:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban for Malke 2010. She's been at this nonsense for how many years now? I can't support a topic ban for the rest of the editors because I'm not familiar with their role, but I'm very familiar with Malke 2010 and her past promises to stop contributing to conflict in this topic area. I may support a topic ban for other editors if there is additional evidence to review. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC) (moved from above Killer Chihuahua 17:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC) )[reply]
Absolutely baseless Has made only a few edits in an entire year. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Malke2010: Let me just add that if you go back and read my comments you will see that I handled what goethean said and let it go at that. North8000 jumped in and made an issue of it. Also, my previous comments where I listed what I thought were problem areas for the area were reasoned from my experience there and not at all Battle type behavior. Goethean came out with the less than civil comment which I ignored. It was simply how he interpreted what I'd written. That's his choice. That North8000 jumped in and used me to battle him was inappropriate. All in all I think my name was mentioned a dozen times after that, all without my participation. If you go back and check the history of the page, you'll see I don't edit there anymore, and a topic ban is hardly necessary. I have no quarrel with KillerChihuahua but her reasoning of what transpired seemed unfair at the time. North8000 should not have commented on what goethean said. I would support him apologizing. And certainly if goethean and KillerChihuahua are upset with any comment I've made, then I do apologize. Nobody is making any edits to the page anyway. It's on probation, it's an article that has long been lost. Editors have more less banned themselves in that regard. All a topic ban will do is put a negative mark on the editor's record. I say let the dust settle, everybody apologize and let it go.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of diffs: I'd just like to add that there do not seem to be any diffs to support evidence of wrong behavior. And Fat&Happy thank you for removing that comment on the talk page. Much appreciated.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing it. If Malke 2010 deserves a topic ban then it is not about contributing to the Tea Party movement talk page or article in the last year. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A ginormous stretch here to remotely suggest a topic ban! Collect (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Topic ban, this seems excessive, even out of line. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here is one thread from the TPM Talk page that demonstrates the sort of interaction and the respective dispositions of the involved editors [22].--Ubikwit (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ubikwit, that thread is a year old. And trying to take that thread out of context and apply to this situation is akin to original research. As well, did the exchange get the page shut down? Did the exchange result in an edit war? Did anybody get blocked? Did anybody even attempt to make an edit or were they just discussing? Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ubikwit used a link to an old talk page discussion to support his claim. Anyone can go back and pick and choose editor discussions to support their claim. Here is a link to a past talk page discussion that shows the editors working together despite one disruptive editor who is now banned from Wikipedia. [23]
Oppose Mea culpa, I should not have commented at the end of the exchange between KillerChihuahua and North8000. I apologize for that to KillerChihuahua. And I don't think anybody here should get blocked/banned. The page needs ArbCom intervention. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Xenophrenic

Oppose pending any evidence (diffs) - I have seen none, and cannot support sanctions with no evidence of wrongdoing. Killer Chihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issue a strong warning. Dial back on extreme TE (and to a lesser extent, nastiness) as exhibited at the TPM article. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any diffs of TE or "nastiness", any NPA violations? Thanks - Killer Chihuahua 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hundreds are coming.North8000 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds? I'd settle for just 1 example of extreme tendentious editing and nastiness. It's been several days now. Alternatively, you could retract the charge and we can move on; it looks like you have enough on your plate already, and you know I won't let unsubstantiated stuff pass. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No reasoning remotely suggesting a topic ban is warranted. Collect (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason presented for such a topic ban. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Here is one thread from the TPM Talk page that demonstrates the sort of interaction and the respective dispositions of the involved editors [24].--Ubikwit (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ubikwit used a link to an old talk page discussion to support his claim. Anyone can go back and pick and choose editor discussions to support their claim. Here is a link to a past talk page discussion that shows the editors working together despite one disruptive editor who is now banned from Wikipedia. [25]
Oppose Xenophrenic wasn't even there. I wouldn't say he's tendentious. He's just determined. Nothing wrong with that. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Thargor Orlando

I have no idea why I'm listed here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Binksternet's post above, in the main section. Killer Chihuahua 18:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that. Truly, if my handful of article edits and occasional talk page comments are that disruptive to the page, the article is completely lost. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thargor Orlando was obstructionist in reverting well-cited negative text saying "there's clearly no consensus for this addition at the moment". At the talk page he said "we're not required to use any source that comes around, especially if it doesn't pass the smell test." He called the Tobacco Control paper "bad sourcing" without reading it. He then admitted it was reliable but not "appropriate for the article". He followed that with the obstructionist argument that there was a "complete lack of consensus for addition", "not seeing consensus for the addition", and "where are you seeing the consensus to add this?. He repeats himself: "I don't disagree with you that the source is reliable. I do disagree, at this point, that there's consensus for inclusion." Again, he argues "you lack the consensus". Referring to the consensus policy, he says "you're adding information against policy". He returns to the consensus argument: "unable to demonstrate consensus for inclusion". When the tide turns in favor of an Al Gore quote, Thargor complains "What do people have against consensus building on this topic?" (I would answer by saying that they are tired of obstructionist arguments!) Thargor Orlando displayed obstructionism: an unwillingness to talk about any element of the issue under discussion except to point out that consensus had not been reached. Of course, consensus was being reached by logical arguments and observations about sourcing and weight. Referring only to the lack of consensus is tendentious editing. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only disputes I have with this is the claim that I called the Tobacco Control paper bad sourcing. I did not: I argued that the claim being made, at the time, didn't make a ton of sense, and that the article has plenty of bad sourcing already. If expressing caution and calling for consensus building is wrong, I don't want to be right. As for tendentious editing, I think I'd have to have more than two edits over the last two weeks to have my editing at the Tea Party article be considered "tendentious." But that's just one guy's opinion. If the criteria for topic ban is "express an opinion people don't like," the net is going to have to be cast extremely wide. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a wrongheaded opinion is grounds for a topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Agree with Gamaliel; I see stubborness, IDHT, and he's wrong about policy, but I'm not seeing the kind of NPA and BATTLE which would lead me to support a topic ban. But I'm not seeing a strong collegiate attitude either. I'm staying neutral on this one. Killer Chihuahua 19:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Along with the horde of proposals which are without strong and solid reasoning at all. Collect (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an archived discussion, and it's fine to link it here, but we generally don't merge archived discussions with active. Killer Chihuahua 20:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it. A link is as good as a nod! Peaceray (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely baseless North8000 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an overreach. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He wasn't there. I can't figure out why his name is here. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Arthur Rubin

Neutral, waiting on [[Binksternet to add his evidence. changing to oppose as no diffs have been offered. Killer Chihuahua 19:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oh my God! Absurd proposal utterly and entirely here. Collect (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely baselessNorth8000 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This proposal is without legitimate foundation. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and slanderous process Unless one has the goods, one should leaving listing names to others.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He wasn't even there. btw Arthur, saw your sanctions things. IMHO based on hindsight KillerChihuahua wasn't focused on policy as much as she was trying to figure out why people were unloading on her when all she did was show up to give a reminder about the article being on probation. Not an admin, just saying. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I couldn't see anything wrong in his edit history. FurrySings (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Collect

I have very few edits remotely connected to the topic at hand, so am more bemused than anything else by this truly weird proposal. In fact sine there is no rational basis for this proposal except to arouse my ire at best, I think the proposer made a ginormous error here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, waiting on [[Binksternet] to add his evidence. Killer Chihuahua 19:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC) changing to oppose as no diffs have been offered. Killer Chihuahua 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the obvious reason that there is no acual reasoning behind this record number of "topic ban" proposals at all. None. Zero. Nada. Collect (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely baseless North8000 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And the evidence to support such a serious action is where?....Capitalismojo (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He wasn't there. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Darkstar1st

Neutral, waiting for Xenophrenic to add his evidence. Killer Chihuahua 19:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC) ~~changing to oppose as no diffs have been offered. Killer Chihuahua 19:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)~~ And right back to Neutral, because there is some evidence, which I found when I was searching for evidence on other editors. Killer Chihuahua 01:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's add every single person who ever has a disgreement then? Not. Collect (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need topic bans from ANI for people who propose sanctions without notifying subjects.--Staberinde (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, the only one who was added without notification was Xenophrenic, added by Nathan Johnson, and I notified him. I think Nathan Johnson merely made a mistake, and do not think it warrants a topic ban. I also don't see how this comment is helpful. Killer Chihuahua 20:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody had yet bothered to notify Darkstar1st then I posted my comment, I see that this has now been rectified.--Staberinde (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, even so, a failure to notify is a reason to notify, and remind the person who should have notified, not to topic ban. Killer Chihuahua 20:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely baselessNorth8000 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is unwarranted in this editor's case. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Capitalismojo said it best.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeSysop KillerChihuahua

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.North8000 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit excessive. Perhaps just an topic ban on US Politics and related subjects. That's what I was going to place as an appropriate heading, but there were edit conflicts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, a topic ban for admin actions? Not even actions - I haven't even blocked anyone. I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning here. Killer Chihuahua 18:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A complete topic ban, including a ban on discussion, administrative actions, and discussion of adminstrative actions. Your bringing this "report" here reflects a battlefield mentality which would best be removed from Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that my bringing a complex behavioral issue on a contentious topic to ANI for community input, instead of say, blocking all the people I thought were violating NPA, is somehow a battlefield mentality? Is that right? Killer Chihuahua 18:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke, right? Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the same category as the other proposals. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a clear example of "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently", translated into North8000 is frustrated with the actions of the editors being brought to scrutiny, so they proposed that the initial admin involved be subject to sanctions (notice the lack of differences when calling for a desysoping, yet many strong accusations). Can we use this as an example of North8000's use of battleground tactics?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is a reaction to what I described in the first line. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ArbCom and Jimbo are the only ones who can desysop, not AN/I. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jimbo doesn't do much of that anymore. But you're right; if North8000 is serious, he should open an RFAR. Killer Chihuahua 21:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This poorly-considered proposal, seemingly an act of reckless desperation by North8000, is ironic proof that KillerChihuahua was correct in bringing this matter before the community. I would be asking Gamaliel's question as to whether this is a joke, except for other statements North has made here and elsewhere. Jus da fax 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question for North8000: please provide diffs showing how you (and anyone else discussed here) have improved the quality of the Tea Party movement article. The article is so poorly written and constructed, that one could conceivably argue that it violates just about every known policy and guideline, and that sanctioning the active editors who have led to its current state would be best for Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the article is a total total total wreck. That is exactly what my complaint was about and trying to affect. The article pushed into that state and blockaded from a fix by TE POV efforts. North8000 (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North, I strongly suggest you withdraw this: it's outrageous, comes across as vindictive (whether it is intended that way or not), and is just plain silly. KC should be commended for seeking outside help on this dispute. Antandrus (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I admit is it overkill, but only almost as much as the the other ideas floated here. And it wasn't meant to be vindictive; my nature is the exact opposite of vindictive. But it was intended to add some perspective to the situation. They created this whole thing from two comments of mine that were entirely proper, and a close look at my talk page where it started IMHO indicates that they escalated it not because of the merits of the situation but IMHO in a battling mentality of them towards me. They wanted to say that what I did (making a comment about behavior without building the case with diffs etc) was wrong, and I would not agree with that and then they escalated it by launching this whole thing after the second comment which was valid and unrelated to the first. North8000 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North800 this is the exact reason why you are not always taken seriously. I actually like you and feel you make fantastic contributions and your work with the projects is outstanding, but this just makes you look like you are holding a grudge and are being vindictive. I also believe you should retract this. It is going nowhere but making you look bad.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, I have to agree with Antandrus and Amadscientist on this. I don't think KillerChihuahua should have brought this issue here, I think it's something that could have been worked out on the talk page with another admin or mediator. But calling for her to be desysoped is out of bounds. I suggest you retract that.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, I'm an uninvolved admin who doesn't edit that article. There is nothing mediation could have done; there is nothing to mediate. As the #1 contributor to that article you surely know the only posts I have made there have been in the past month, and were on the talk page, and were strictly in the role of uninvolved admin. Killer Chihuahua 05:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua, I understand what you're saying and I'm far more sympathetic since the desysop post. Also I wanted to mention that I can see where this thread here has really gotten out of control and it's not your fault. As to being the number one editor, the page statistics give me too much credit. I edited that page in the early days when it was much easier to do so. There were only a handful of editors who easy to work with and more or less seemed amenable to rearranging things and fixing links that were broken, replacing bad sources, etc. and adding new content. It was pretty thin in the early days. I'd never attempt that now. But as the number one editor there, on behalf of all the editors there I apologize for the desysop bit. You do not deserve that.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, Malke. Killer Chihuahua 21:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC, you are one of the two most involved people in this dispute. Involvement at the article is not a measure of that. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there we have it, right from the horses mouth "well I admit is it overkill, but only as much as the other ideas floated here".Coffeepusher (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Killer Chihuahua 05:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but no more so than the other proposals. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

So, is North8000 saying they knew it was pointy when they started the section? NE Ent 13:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a matching (or lesser) degree of overkill as the others, for perspective. I hereby change all of them (including this one) to "Issue warning to ....." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I think we just got a "yes" for NE Ent's question, North8000, knew both the policy and understood what s/he was doing. "Just a matching (or lesser) degree of overkill as the others, for perspective.". Again I think this is a micro-example of a larger editing pattern frequently adopted by North8000 as this entire thread shows. Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the less informed, North is currently under a self-imposed Homophobia talk page ban of his for similar behaviour. I would be interested to see if this new instance of battlefield mentality started directly after that last one ended? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 16:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it was no for "similar behaviour". It was something I said I'd happily do for a multitude of reasons, and NONE of them was for my behavior. Quit misrepresenting! North8000 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of begging the question, you should provide diffs of when this "similar behavior" first started. However since North's first edit to this article was in 2010, it is possible, however unlikely that this behavior started after his self-imposed exile from homophobia. If it has, then the proof of the pudding is in the eating. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Little Green Rosetta, I have had continuous sporadic involvement at the TPM. The only thing new is that recently, I decided that after 2 years of observation of thousands of items, I decided that I was on triply firm ground to note that this article has been dominated by TE, primarily by two editors. And even that became old news. I don't think that people understand what this is about. It is NOT about the TPM article. It is about a small battle between KC and me on my talk page which KC then launched here after I made a different well founded comment on rude behavior. It then became this fact-free dumb random mess that this has become, which I don't think that KC even intended. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Oppose any sanctions against KC at this time, pending evidence. I still think she has misinterpreted actions at least one, and possibly 3, editors, and I have received a report (by E-mail) of three actions which should be summarily reverted, with fish, but I haven't seen the diffs. I would suggest that a warning to be more careful when taking quasi-administrative actions would be in order, as would one against me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested diffs and basis for North's comment: "extreme TE (and to a lesser extent, nastiness)" regarding Xenophrenic's behavior at the TPM article

OK, you forced me into it. Again, I just wanted to note the situation and get those two folks to dial back a notch, not to be forced into doing all of this. I am going to start listing them here. These will show that the comments regarding behavior were well-founded and for the good of the article. I arrived at this conclusion carefully and slowly from several hundred edits over several years. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warring to put a NYT definition of the TPM article as including "anti-immigration" in and in as the first sentence in the "Agenda" section:

2/24/13 9:11 (Article page) Moving the "anti-immigration" claim statement to the top of the "Agenda" section: [26]

Working and and aggressive editing to remove a 1 sentence longstanding mention of Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event.

2/22/13 (Talk page) Several talk page posts (none claimed to individually be a behavior problem and so not itemized) in essence arguing to remove the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party sentence. In essence implying that if it can't be proven that it was a TPM event it can't be mentioned in the article.

2/21/13 (Talk page) Several talk page posts (none claimed to individually be a behavior problem and so not itemized) in essence arguing to remove the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party sentence. In essence implying that if it can't be proven that it was a TPM event it can't be mentioned in the article.

2/18/19:50 (article page) Removed longstanding mention of Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event. Not in edit summary, it mentioned another longstanding item also removed. [27]

2/18/13 19:47 (article page) Removed "perhaps the first tea party event" preface from the Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event (presumably in prep for the deletion of the entire item which they subsequently did) [28] North8000 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2/19/13 18:25 (talk page) Added new heading above existing material to imply that if it was candidate campaign-related is is not TPM [29]

2/19/13 18:08 (talk page) Working to get Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed from article. Deprecated section header, renamed section, rearranged talk page material by others, and +comment. [30]

2/18/13 21:51 (talk page) Deprecated 2 section headings over existing material (to non-headings), one of them on new referencing to support inclusion of Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party in article. Challenged the new reference and said the event should still be removed from the article [31]

2/18/13 (talk page, other) Several other edits to get mention of Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed. None individually problematic so not linked.

Efforts to work in the statement "a study by the journal "Tobacco Control" concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests" which as it turned out was wrong and not in the source, it had helped (not formed) one or a few of the hundreds of TPM organizations (and thus not the movement)

2/14/31 19:27 (Article space.) Inserted this. [32] North8000 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "over five million" the the 3.9 % percentage difference in Romney/Obama vote. Not a big deal, but a part of the general TE tilting.

2/11/13 16:59 (Article space) Did this. [33] North8000 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I just wanted to note the situation and get those two folks to dial back a notch, not to be forced into doing all of this. Well, there's about 7 days completed, approx 1,090 days to go. In the meantime, multiply the above by about 156 to get the picture I was referring to and the well founded reason for my statement and to see a part of the reason that the article got into the condition that it is in today. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC) (comment that the following was responding to has been moved by Xenophrenic)North8000 (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2 bad, 1 questionable, and one OK of the 4; the NYT column isn't an article, and the Tobacco Control source, whether or not reliable, did not say what you said it did. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(comment that the following was responding to has been moved by Xenophrenic)North8000 (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, just to clarify, you seem to be responding to two assertions that I didn't make. To clarify:

Those were your insertions or re-insertions of the noted material, not that you were necessarily the originator of it.
TE does not mean that every edit by itself is an "offense".

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC) (comment that the following was responding to has been moved by Xenophrenic)North8000 (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that there were (only) 156 more instances, I said that I was only 1/156th through the job, (the above just fully covers the Feb 19th - Feb 24th instances, and is a start on the Feb 11rh - Feb 18th instances) i.e. that the above represents 1/156th my observations which I used as a basis for my TE comment at the article. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a comparison, the person who made the above immense effort to get the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party removed from this article is the same person who made even larger efforts to get/keep the section on how somebody thinks that somebody from TPM damaged their BBQ grille in(currently in the article), how a low level TP'er said something bad in a Twitter comment (currently in the article) and a vague accusation that somebody thinks that someone from the thousands at a rally said something racist (currently in the article) and the "Ron Paul is an isolationist" inference in (yes, the guy who advocates trade with Cuba) and which is also currently in he article. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for the BBQ incident mention the Tea Party. The sources for the Ron Paul rally do not. User:Arthur Rubin is on record agreeing with me that the Ron Paul rally is not verifiably connected to the TPM. Your argument lacks merit, and continues to lack merit no matter how many times you repeat it. — goethean 16:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A gazillion things mention the TPM. The question is which of them become the few that get in the article, and (the issue here) by what process (vs. merits) did (e.g. the 4 items mentioned above) end up in the article. I think I'll stop there. My purpose here to go (only) to the point of establishing that my comment was reasonable, and if a 7 day sampler is considered to have met that minimal standard, then I currently have no need or desire to go farther. Hopefully folks can recognize an olive branch when they see one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a gazillion things mention the Tea Party, but the sources cited for the Ron Paul rally, the removal which you had an absolute hissy-fit over, do not.

I will be happy to drop the matter and move on when you admit that you have failed to substantiate your repeated accusations of tendentious editing against Xenophrenic and myself. — goethean 19:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The (alleged, it appears) BBQ incident is clearly an WP:UNDUE violation; if included, we should include all the news articles which state that TP protests were orderly and had no problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your desire to change the topic from North8000's failure to substantiate his allegations. — goethean 22:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the 1% sampler I gave already does that (of course I would expect you to claim otherwise) but I can continue if you wish. North8000 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I wish is for you stop making accusations that you are unable or unwilling to substantiate. I don't think that that's too much to ask. — goethean 02:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My olive branch here is only going far enough to meet the lower standard that what I said was not unreasonable. I could go lots farther, but maybe we could leave it at that, plus you and Xenophrenic just saying that I am wrong and leaving it at that. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So just to clarify, your position is that it was reasonable for you to make allegations of WP:TE against two editors, allegations which you cannot, or will not, substantiate. — goethean 20:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Duplicate comments from Xenophrenic removed from this section.

That's not a "correction", you are confirming what I said, and making an argument for what you did. This one items by itself is no big deal. Even your overall actions there just need dialing back one notch. But now I am being force to establish that my TE statement was not out of line and as indicated that they were carefully drawn from hundreds of observations. Which involves listing hundreds of items, that being the first of them. Its not my choice, just what I'm getting forced into. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be neutral, but it's not a NYT definition. There is no evidence presented that it was made subject to NYT editorial review for content, as opposed to for potentially libelous statements. It should be attributed to the author. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on whether it was there before; it shouldn't be there. If you can find a definition in a NYT article, it would be appropriate for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a news article, it's a guest column. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno's reasoning is wrong, but I believe him to be correct in this instance. For inclusion, we need some source for the connection, not necessarily a reliable one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I think it does show tendentioness. Your edit comments and explanations do not support a conclusion that it was not TE. Just because the edit could be supported by policy, doesn't mean it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You restored it, and the material you restored is clearly not in the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't Xerographica, it was Goethean. As far as I can tell, Xenophrenic wasn't involved in that section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you restored the material; here, I haven't looked at it, so I have no opinion whether it should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for diffs and basis for North's comment: "extreme TE (and to a lesser extent, nastiness)" regarding Xenophrenic's behavior

I've copied and responded to each of the above comments here, since North8000 has expressed that he doesn't want me addressing his allegations individually in the above section. - Xenophrenic

OK, you forced me into it. Again, I just wanted to note the situation and get those two folks to dial back a notch, not to be forced into doing all of this. I am going to start listing them here. These will show that the comments regarding behavior were well-founded and for the good of the article. I arrived at this conclusion carefully and slowly from several hundred edits over several years. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is forcing you into anything, North. It's actually Wikipedia policy that requires you to provide clear evidence when you make such serious accusations against your fellow editors. As of this timestamp, every example you've provided below shows only good faith and proper editing while failing to support your allegations of extreme tendentious editing and nastiness. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warring to put a NYT definition of the TPM article as including "anti-immigration" in and in as the first sentence in the "Agenda" section:

2/24/13 9:11 (Article page) Moving the "anti-immigration" claim statement to the top of the "Agenda" section: [34] North8000 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The neutral NYT definition was returned to its longstanding position by me after another editor boldly moved it to the bottom of the section and moved a non-RS opinion to the top. I hope that clears up your misconception. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "correction", you are confirming what I said, and making an argument for what you did. This one items by itself is no big deal. Even your overall actions there just need dialing back one notch. But now I am being force to establish that my TE statement was not out of line and as indicated that they were carefully drawn from hundreds of observations. Which involves listing hundreds of items, that being the first of them. Its not my choice, just what I'm getting forced into. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, North. You know I don't let you get away with misrepresenting stuff on article Talk pages, so what makes you think you can pull that here? Your accusation: Warring to put a NYT definition of the TPM article as including "anti-immigration" in - Is Wrong. I'm not warring to put it in; it's been there for ages, and it's been in the same location for ages, so I corrected you. Now you admit my edit "is no big deal", which begs the question: so why bring it up? It was a perfectly fine, warranted, productive edit, while you are supposed to be showing "extreme Tendentious Editing and nastiness". And no one is "forcing you into doing this", North, it's common courtesy (and required by policy) to back up your accusations about editor's behavior with diffs and evidence. Alternatively, if it's busting your balls to come up with just 1 (you claim you have hundreds!) actual example of extreme tendentious editing and nastiness, you can just withdraw the attacks until such time you have them.

It might be neutral, but it's not a NYT definition. There is no evidence presented that it was made subject to NYT editorial review for content, as opposed to for potentially libelous statements. It should be attributed to the author. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on whether it was there before; it shouldn't be there. If you can find a definition in a NYT article, it would be appropriate for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, it's a News article in the News (not opinion) section of a reliable News publication (NYT) by a veteran News reporter and award-winning Journalist (Al Hunt). If you want it more thoroughly attributed (it's already attributed to NYTimes), I have no problem with that, but that's a totally different issue not addressed in the Diff above. The Diff above is supposed to show extreme tendentious editing and nastiness, when instead it shows I merely reverted an edit that put a non-RS opinion of Ned Ryun's belief in place of a reliably sourced factual statement by a 35+ year veteran political news reporter and journalist. That's not extreme tendentious editing and nastiness; it is standard NPOV editing and proper application of weight. Again I ask, where is the extreme tendentious editing and nastiness in that edit? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a news article, it's a guest column. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Arthur, but totally irrelevant here. We can take up your opinion at WP:RSN if you'd like. But back to the example above, an editor moved an opinion piece from a TP supporter to the lead of the section with the edit summary: The agenda is defined by the people in the movement, their POV should be listed first. I think Wikipedia policy disagrees; an evaluation by a third party veteran news journalist who specializes in that field would take precedence over a self-serving opinion of a relatively unknown TPer. That was the basis of my edit. You can argue that I am wrong about Wikipedia policy, but you haven't indicated where there is any "tendentiousness and nastiness" in my good-faith edit. Could you do that, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working and and aggressive editing to remove a 1 sentence longstanding mention of Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event.

2/22/13 (Talk page) Several talk page posts (none claimed to individually be a behavior problem and so not itemized) in essence arguing to remove the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party sentence. In essence implying that if it can't be proven that it was a TPM event it can't be mentioned in the article.

2/21/13 (Talk page) Several talk page posts (none claimed to individually be a behavior problem and so not itemized) in essence arguing to remove the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party sentence. In essence implying that if it can't be proven that it was a TPM event it can't be mentioned in the article.

2/18/19:50 (article page) Removed longstanding mention of Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event. Not in edit summary, it mentioned another longstanding item also removed. [35]

2/18/13 19:47 (article page) Removed "perhaps the first tea party event" preface from the Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event (presumably in prep for the deletion of the entire item which they subsequently did) [36] North8000 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2/19/13 18:25 (talk page) Added new heading above existing material to imply that if it was candidate campaign-related is is not TPM [37]

2/19/13 18:08 (talk page) Working to get Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed from article. Deprecated section header, renamed section, rearranged talk page material by others, and +comment. [38]

2/18/13 21:51 (talk page) Deprecated 2 section headings over existing material (to non-headings), one of them on new referencing to support inclusion of Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party in article. Challenged the new reference and said the event should still be removed from the article [39]

2/18/13 (talk page, other) Several other edits to get mention of Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party event removed. None individually problematic so not linked. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Not in edit summary? Wrong. The summary clearly states, (rem moneybomb party; no indication in source of any relation to the "Tea Party movement"). Also wrong is your misrepresentation of the Talk page discussions on this matter, wherein others agree that it should be removed, and even produced new sources supporting its removal. And once again, you haven't indicated extreme tendentious editing and nastiness. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno's reasoning is wrong, but I believe him to be correct in this instance. For inclusion, we need some source for the connection, not necessarily a reliable one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the endorsement of my edit as 'correct', but that isn't the issue. North contends the Diff shows extreme tendentious editing and nastiness, when it was a perfectly good (and good faith), policy-compliant improvement to the article with no tendentiousness or nastiness. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I think it does show tendentioness. Your edit comments and explanations do not support a conclusion that it was not TE. Just because the edit could be supported by policy, doesn't mean it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you just said. I removed a paragraph because it was not related to the subject of the article. I explained my reasons on the Talk page, and other editors agreed with the removal. You also agreed. For good measure, I even raised the option of expanding the scope of the article if people really wanted to re-add such unrelated material, but no one has expressed interest in doing so. This is all proper Wikipedia article editing procedure. Since North can't cite any tendentiousness in what transpired, would you be so kind as to point it out? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to work in the statement "a study by the journal "Tobacco Control" concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests" which as it turned out was wrong and not in the source, it had helped (not formed) one or a few of the hundreds of TPM organizations (and thus not the movement)

2/14/31 19:27 (Article space.) Inserted this. [40] North8000 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Please, North. I understand that you can't find even one example to support your personal attacks, but providing a Diff from a completely different editor, on a matter I had no involvement with, and attributing it to me -- now you are just being absurd. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You restored it, and the material you restored is clearly not in the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? That is not my edit! Look at the bloody diff. That is not me. I restored nothing involving your "Tobacco Control" stuff. Oh, wait, I get it, you are confusing me with Xerographica again, right? (This is getting tedious, Arthur, seriously.) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't Xerographica, it was Goethean. As far as I can tell, Xenophrenic wasn't involved in that section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely uninvolved; thank you for clearing that up. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "over five million" the the 3.9 % percentage difference in Romney/Obama vote. Not a big deal, but a part of the general TE tilting.

2/11/13 16:59 (Article space) Did this. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Wrong. "over five million"? Are you quoting another editor again? I never added that. I did correct the inaccurate percentage, and returned, not "added", the "nearly five million popular votes" wording that another editor had overwritten. How is that article improvement edit "a part of the general TE tilting" (whatever that is) again? And where is the "extreme tendentious editing and nastiness" you said you'd substantiate? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you restored the material; here, I haven't looked at it, so I have no opinion whether it should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I restored the material. I do this routinely with vandals on a daily basis. The diff was supposed to show extreme tendentious editing and nastiness on my part, but it actually shows the opposite. This fact makes your admission that you didn't even look at the diff self-evident. What was the purpose of your comment? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I just wanted to note the situation and get those two folks to dial back a notch, not to be forced into doing all of this. Well, there's about 7 days completed, approx 1,090 days to go. In the meantime, multiply the above by about 156 to get the picture I was referring to and the well founded reason for my statement and to see a part of the reason that the article got into the condition that it is in today. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North, when you multiply ZERO by 156, you get ZERO. You made a very serious allegation of "extreme" tendentious editing and nastiness, and you were asked to "put up or shut up" (not my words). What do you give us? Four misrepresented nonsensical examples (one isn't me; two you now admit are "no big deal" after all; and one that is a content issue with no hint of nastiness or tendentiousness). Thanks for the drama and waste of time, North. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2 bad, 1 questionable, and one OK of the 4; the NYT column isn't an article, and the Tobacco Control source, whether or not reliable, did not say what you said it did. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, take a breather and then check again, please. I've said N_O_T_H_I_N_G about the Tobacco Control source. Your "isn't an article" argument is new, and has nothing to do with my edit in that diff, which is supposed to show extreme tendentiousness and nastiness. Again, North has presented 4 diffs of reasonable NPOV edits instead of what has been asked for. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 1 of the 3 edits mentioned (the 4th is not about X) is bad, and repeated after it has been explained why it was bad. I can AGF, but your comments here are making it more difficult. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we're down to a single edit now; progress. But no, Arthur, you did not explain why that edit was "bad"; you explained why you personally didn't like some content (and it's positioning) in an article. More importantly, you did not indicate where a single edit of mine displays extreme tendentious editing and nastiness. That edit, cited by North8000 as a supporting example of extreme tendentious editing and nastiness, did not address, nor have anything to do with, the new concerns you have expressed about it (which are presently being discussed on the article Talk page). I'm sorry if my comments are making it difficult for you, Arthur, but it is necessary to keep the discussion from straying from the issue of making unsubstantiated personal attacks into your personal content disputes. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic, just to clarify, you seem to be responding to two assertions that I didn't make. To clarify:

Those were your insertions or re-insertions of the noted material, not that you were necessarily the originator of it.
TE does not mean that every edit by itself is an "offense".

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North, I know what WP:Tendentious editing is, and I know what each of the 4 Diffs you've provided show. Just to clarify, you've provided 3 Diffs that show WP:NPOV-compliant edits from me instead of TE, and 1 Diff that shows an edit by a completely different editor, on content that I have NEVER touched. You have been asked to substantiate your false charge of extreme tendentious editing and nastiness. If it takes 156 Diffs for you to do so, then please do it -- but the 3 edits of mine you've cited so far not only do not show TE (or even hint at it), they show NPOV editing instead.

Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly.

I strongly suspect that your 156 cited edits are more likely to display WP:JDLI on your part instead of TE on my part. If you just went overboard in word choice during a moment of frustration over the condition of the article we've been working on, then retract the accusations and we'll pick up from there. However, if you honestly feel there is some merit to your accusations, I'm going to press you for the required clear evidence. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that there were (only) 156 more instances, I said that I was only 1/156th through the job, (the above just fully covers the Feb 19th - Feb 24th instances, and is a start on the Feb 11rh - Feb 18th instances) i.e. that the above represents 1/156th my observations which I used as a basis for my TE comment at the article. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a comparison, the person who made the above immense effort to get the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party removed from this article is the same person who made even larger efforts to get/keep the section on how somebody thinks that somebody from TPM damaged their BBQ grille in(currently in the article), how a low level TP'er said something bad in a Twitter comment (currently in the article) and a vague accusation that somebody thinks that someone from the thousands at a rally said something racist (currently in the article) and the "Ron Paul is an isolationist" inference in (yes, the guy who advocates trade with Cuba) and which is also currently in he article. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for the BBQ incident mention the Tea Party. The sources for the Ron Paul rally do not. User:Arthur Rubin is on record agreeing with me that the Ron Paul rally is not verifiably connected to the TPM. Your argument lacks merit, and continues to lack merit no matter how many times you repeat it. — goethean 16:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A gazillion things mention the TPM. The question is which of them become the few that get in the article, and (the issue here) by what process (vs. merits) did (e.g. the 4 items mentioned above) end up in the article. I think I'll stop there. My purpose here to go (only) to the point of establishing that my comment was reasonable, and if a 7 day sampler is considered to have met that minimal standard, then I currently have no need or desire to go farther. Hopefully folks can recognize an olive branch when they see one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have me confused with another editor, North. If you'll provide the diffs to support your latest remarks, I'll be happy to indicate the source of your confusion. Or was the lack of diffs intentional? Thus far, you've shown that I've edited the article, but failed to show where I've edited with any tendentiousness or nastiness as you first alleged. I think an olive branch falls short of remedying the false accusation thing. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]