Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

Would you mind taking a look at the current discussion on the Seventeenth Amendment at the TPm talk page? There was also this tag posted, which seems inappropriate considering the number and quality of sources that support the statement.

Also, I have suggested that the discussion should be taking place at the moderated discussion page, but am meeting some resistance to that. The situation has not reached the state where exactly the same topical matter is being discussed in different forums in a disparate manner, but it would seem headed in that direction.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been more editing to the clause at issue, which is also being addressed immediately above, and given the fact that more than 24 hours have passed with two in support and none opposed (a couple of comments, somewhat unclear), I have restored the reverted edit, adding another source in light of citation tags that have appeared recently, and reworded slighty in a manner facilitating retention of the reference to "the Constitution" and clarifying that it is an interpretive methodology, not an interpretation per se. The clause reads

The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates a version of constitutional originalism for interpreting the United States Constitution

As it is not inconceivable that this edit, too, will meet with a clamorous response, I've decided to post this here in advance.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that edit. There has not been time for proper discussion. The edit should be reverted and a proper discussion opened on the talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first vote on the edit was made two days ago, and there had not been a single statement of opposition since then. Silk Tork has not been calling the votes on every edit that has been made, he has only delineated basic parameters for achieving consensus for edits. As far as I can tell, the criteria for consensus was met, and a third editor, one who didn't vote, has since stated that the edit is acceptable.

Discussion has taken place, and even at this stage, there are three editors that have voiced support for the edit, one opposed.

As the lead is supposed to summarize the article, it wouldn't be unusual if further modification was necessary after discussing edits relating to the Constitution and the TPm agenda. Perhaps the discussions related to that, of which there is one already started at the TPm Talk page regarding one somewhat narrow point/phrase. That discussion would fall under a broader discussion to be started soon. It should probably be incorporated into that broader discussion according to the progression of that, as the horizon of the Constitution is expansive.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been unclear. I oppose the recent rogue edit that started this mess, and also the version created by the subsequent edit. It needs to be returned to the last stable form and then a clear discussion started. North8000 (talk)

You participated in that discussion, responding here. after the suggestion to vote on restoring the quoted text. There was a vote in support entered preceding the above-diffed comment. I entered a vote subsequently that was followed by another comment, in response to which I cited an additional source for clarification.

I fail to see what was unclear about the straightforward discussion. Your comment may have been unclear, insofar as it states that you supported reverting the edit you have referred to as "rogue", whereas it did state that you opposed the edit under discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out what a confused mess the situation was. Including that there was discussion of edits / versions in place at the same time that people were changing the version in place. It needs to go back to the last stable version and then a clear discussion started. 10:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)North8000 (talk)

Well, you that is not what your comment said, and I repeat, you did not oppose the edit under discussion during a vote.

Although your participation in the discussion was limited, the time frames set by Silk Tork had been satisfied, to the best of my understanding, and it has recently been mentioned that we are under a time constraint here due to the reconvening of the Arbcom case in to weeks.

It does not seem to me to be excusable that editors are objecting to an edit after an edit has been made by following established procedure and in accordance the relevant guidelines.

One would think that under such conditions, editors would be compelled to participate in a more pro-active manner during discussions of topics that are found pertinent.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see previous comment. Your comment does not address it. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that edit as well. That's three "Oppose votes." My reason is that the source Ubikwit has cited doesn't even support what he said in the lede sentence of the article. He said that the Tea Party supports Constitutional originalism. The source says that "Tea Party activists" support constitutional originalism, not the entire Tea Party. Accordingly the claim is unsourced and should be reverted immediately by anyone authorized to do so. I have implored Ubikwit on the article Talk page to revert himself. Nine hours have passed with no response.

Also SilkTork, I want to bring to your attention an incident of Wikistalking (or Wikihounding). User:WLRoss has been very bitter ever since I started directing admin attention to his mountain of BLP violations at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations four years ago. (The title of the article suggests what a minefield it could be.) After TWO FREAKING YEARS of warfare, during which I became extremely frustrated because nobody was taking this seriously, User:FloNight and User:Nuclear Warfare (what an appropriate name) came in and stubbed the entire article. Ever since then, WLRoss has been following my contrib trail all over the English Wikipedia website like a bloodhound, joining the other side in whatever content dispute I became involved in.

He's Australian and he has never before shown any interest in American political articles. He has arrived at Tea Party movement because he knows I'm editing there and he can stir up some trouble for me. To put it very mildly and very briefly, his presence is not constructive. I raised this issue at WP:ANI at the end of April, and he eventually informed a veteran editor who was looking into the matter, "I stopped editing Tea Party as soon as it was brought up" on May 1.[1] Clearly he was just waiting for the heat to die down, and now he's back.[2] I am asking you, in your capacity as moderator of the TPM discussion, to ensure that this individual stays in his lane as he promised User:MONGO on May 1, and does not become engaged in the TPm discussion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are another late comer with an objection that should have been raised in the discussion beforehand. I'm not here to waste my time following the rules so that editors that don't agree with edits can ignore discussion of the substance of the content and then make unfounded objections subsequently.

Incidentally, I find the objection you have raised regarding the sourcing to be baseless. I have quoted basic passages from two references that support the text of the edit.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This exchange shows why the article is going to stay crap. There are literally dozens of books and hundreds of peer reviewed articles about the Tea Party Movement written by experts of American politics, yet these three editors are crusading to exclude all this literature and base it entirely on the movement's own statements. Here they even argue that statements have to be "about the party" and not about the activists - even though all sources acknowledge that the movement is loosely connected around a fuzzy set of ideas, and does not have a single official agenda.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a complete mis-statement of what has happened and been said. So far I have just said that the "discussion" was a confused and confusing mess because it was about the "in place" version which people kept changing. And "job 1" was clearly to get it to the last stable version so that a clear and rational discussion could occur. It also implicitly makes the false statement thaat all of the sources one thing and that that one thing is in conflict with the expressed agenda. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am going to have to object to the assertion that the version referred to as "stable" was stable. If you'll recall, the restored sentenced had been reverted 6 minutes after I made the edit revert , and so I proceeded to take up the Constitution in the main body of the article, as the lead is supposed to summarize that. After having several versions of the Constitution section revert-warred out, the article was locked.

Therefore, the characterization of that as "stable" is highly misleading. It had been contested since 9 April 2013.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the "constitution" part of the first sentence, "strict adherence to the United States Constitution" says it all, has been in for years (until a few days ago) and, I believe, was the result worked out in a long mediation process. And so what would you call the last stable version? That new POV mess has to go and we need to get back to the last stable version and then start a real discussion if someone wants to change it. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Begging your pardon, sir, but I did start a discussion, and you participated to only a very limited extent.

In fact, I'm somewhat baffled by the fact that you are trying to bring up a content dispute here, when you declined to address it in the proper venue.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the proper venue to discuss editor behaviours. Actioning an edit without proper discussion and especially one that changes the meaning of the original edit, which had been stable, is disruptive. Silk Tork usually always gives a final call for any opposition and then allows another 24 hours. In addition, my understanding is that Silk Tork is the moderator. Questions about edits either by seasoned editors to the page or by new editors, are to be brought to him. They are not to be reverted by us. And this is clearly a revert of not only the new editor's contribution but of the original, stable edit. Getting consensus for major changes is basic editing. Silk Tork has been very clear about enforcing blocks/bans for editors who violate these rules. This is clearly a violation. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Silk Tork: ". . .somebody who adds, removes or alters content without consensus and after being informed of the restrictions in place, will be sanctioned. Notify me, and I will deal with it. I will revert the edit and sanction the editor. Anyone can inform an editor of the restrictions in place, but only an independent admin or myself can carry out reverts and sanctions."

And, there is more to that passage

This is an article where we need people to be putting their proposals down on the talkpage and getting consensus. Who actually makes the edit after consensus has been done, doesn't matter. As long as that person actions the edit as agreed, and does not add their own twist as they are doing so. I am concerned there is not much time before ArbCom reconvenes, and I don't want edit wars to start up on the article between now and then(Silk Tork).

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have proposed that edits on the Lead are wound back to the last stable version, and that editing on the Lead is suspended until the main body is sorted out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Tork, I don't know exactly how to raise issue relating to the somewhat unusual edit in question, but a large collation of data I spent substantial time putting together has just been arbitrarily hatted, even as I received a message on my Talk page while working on the formatting and the like of another editor composing a response.

I consider it to be extremely disruptive, am I right in feeling that way?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]