Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or political dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Herein lies the crux of the problem on Tea Party movement. One side wants to edit in as much negative content as possible and keep out positive edits, while the other side wants to edit out negativity and load in more positive edits. These negotiations almost always involve the sources. The problem with a topic like TPM is that it's vague and so you don't often find, especially after all this time, reliable sources like the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, picking up these news bits. Instead, you get Joe's blog, or some dodgy journal masquerading as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. As an example, Goethean opened a thread about a journal/study that claimed the TPM, this amorphous entire movement, was actually started/funded long ago by the tobacco industry.

Apparently, this was a brand new claim and had not been picked up by the mainstream media as yet. When an editor questioned the source, Goethean informed the editor that his comments were "strictly partisan, had no relation to Wikipedia policy and could be ignored as irrelevant." And then he announced that the source was of the "highest order" and "will be used in this article." And what followed were several interminable threads about RS. The edit was made, it was reverted, etc. I don't even know if it's in or out at this point. It doesn't matter. What matters, IMHO, is that these round-robins about negative/positive content and sources, are the font from which animosity, personal attacks, battle, and incivility spring. At the end of the day, the encyclopedia suffers. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think that the tone of your remark belies the tendentious nature of the discussions over reliable sources, which really should not be so tendentious.

Neutrality does not mean that the content of an article is not going to present views that might offend the sensibilities of someone with an emotional attachment to the topic. Neutrality is defined in relation to sources, and the attempt by advocates to deprecate sources is one of the largest hindrances I have come across in trying to contribute content to this website.

Now then, where was I at before distraction took over?

Oh yeah, I was going to quote this passage from one of the above-referenced policies.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Dealing with repeated and persistent irrational opposition regarding sources is not a joke, as it prevents anything from getting done on the article that would actually reflect the state of what RS are saying.

It definitely is the case that RS/N should be used more in relation to such indirect content disputes, but the discussion related to the tobacco article there shows that even there making progress can be difficult.Ubikwit (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I said above. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutrality and sources

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

One would have to grant that the TPM article, in view of the decentralized character of the movement, presents certain problems with respect to harmonizing sources, which may relate to any of the respective various disparate constituent non-parts of the phantom whole in all of their burgeoning glory.

It may make for an interesting opportunity for word play, but I, for one, am not of a mind that it is not possible to address the TPM as a whole.--Ubikwit (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good-faith participation welcome

5) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, tagging articles for clean-up, initiating or participating in community deletion discussions, or performing of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

6) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Though not a party to this action and having minimal experience editing the article and participating in related discussions, I have gleaned a couple of insights.

First, due to the fragmented nature of the TPM, it is inevitable that there is going to be a fair amount of piecemeal editing related to one aspect or another of the activities or the like of one group or another affiliated with "the movement".

That in itself seems to be a cause of friction against with editors that want to present a united front for "the movement".

This, in turn, point to the main division relating to the topic disputes that drive a good deal of the tendentious editing. That is, namely, the so-called "astro-turf" vs authentic divide.

In the single section of the article I engaged in editing, I recall that there appeared to be an attempt to misappropriate a source related to an [Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Racism.2C_Resignation_of_NPR_CEO_Vivian_Schiller NPR controversy]. In that case, there was an incident in which the CEO resigned because of statements made by an executive heading the fund raising department in a sting set up by (TPM?) activists.

There were editors that wanted to represent the source solely as a source for casting aspersions on the "liberal" media by the mea cupa resignation of the CEO, while deprecating the statements made by the fund raiser that triggered the resignation. It seemed obvious to me that the statement of the fund raiser were relevant context, yet most of the editors had not even done the homework of examining the sources. In the end people recognized the claims I was making (which basically expanded on or supported claims made by Gothean or Xenophreninc earlier), after which what I suppose was a consensus was reached not to include anything from that source at all.

It seems to me that perhaps something about that incident should be described on the article, as it appears to have received a fair amount of attention in the media. However, because the statements of the fund raiser problematized the possibility of presenting the incident with the sort of high-impact POV that was apparently being sought, everything was nixed, leaving something of a hole in the article, certainly not informing the reading public.

Most of the tendentious interaction I've seen has been on the Talk page, and much of it relates to sources and the application thereof in the above-described context.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article sanctions

7) Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fanning the flames

8) While wider community participation can help resolve disputes and issues, participating editors are expected to remain civil, to assume good faith, and to avoid disruption to prove a point to avoid further inflaming the issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We can disagree as to which editors may have violated this. It would also be a good suggestion that participating editors accurately interpret what has been said and done, and to note that unjust attacks may also further inflame the issues, even if done civilly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Administrators

9) Administrators are expected to lead by example. An administrator is expected to know the policies and guidelines and any action taken by them may be influential on other editors, who trust the administrator to know what is and is not appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disruption by administrators

10) Disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be faced with sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, including the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrator responsiveness

11) Administrators are expected to be responsive and "respond promptly and civilly to queries", and be prepared to provide evidence in the form of diffs, and be open to discussion, when they call for sanctions on other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seeking community input

12) In cases where there are longstanding complex behavioral and content issues, an uninvolved editor may seek community assistance via posting at WP:ANI. ANI is for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." Such requests for community input, if they are made in a spirit of good faith and neutrally presented, are permitted and should not be discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

ANI is all of the above. The problem is picking the right battle to bring there. North8000 was being disruptive and KC should have blocked him. ANI does not stop disruption in the moment. Blocks do that. It would have been better to save going to ANI for an interminable dispute, which happen often enough. This might well have brought out rational editors suggesting ArbCom. Certainly the desysop bit wouldn't have happened, but that's not KC's fault. I've never seen editors come out so fast and post such vitriol so furiously. Their posts offered virtually nothing in the way of constructively managing problems at TPM. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the chaotic, hostile reaction shows my judgment was correct, rather than the reverse, in choosing to take this to a wider audience. Had it been merely North8000, it would not have spiraled out of control so fast - and I note below you call for sanctions on Goethean and Xenophrenic, which would hardly be the case if you thought North8000 were the sole issue. As he is not the sole issue, I contend my decision to take this to ANI was the appropriate decision. KillerChihuahua 20:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were definitely right to close that thread and come here. I wonder if it was a full moon that night. I still think a block was in order. Next time, remember you have that special admin Twinkle app. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I think so too. As far as remembering to use my "special admin Twinkle app" (cute!) remember that there are 1,354 results for for "admin abuse" on prefix:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - which doesn't even include other phrasing, such as "investigate admin for misuse of block" or "this admin abused their tools" etc. Most of those are because admins remembered they had "special admin Twinkle". It is often best to be slow and sure, rather than quick to block. KillerChihuahua 20:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Tea Party movement article

1) The Tea party movement article and related articles have been subject to edit warring, partisan editing, and generally incivil behavior. This has at times spilled out into noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There was discussion that the scope of this case should include US politics rather than just the Tea party movement. But I don't think that is what you mean by "related articles". Do you mean the articles mentioned by Viriditas? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that this is an issue which is particular to articles in Category:Tea Party movement, or that it is present in US politics articles, but only in Tea Party movement does the behaviour become serious enough for possible ArbCom sanctions? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think it would be helpful to name the related articles, because I am not aware of what is related beyond Tea Party rallies. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I mean at least that. Unfortunately, due to space and time constraints, I was unable to do so, but I believe it would be fairly easy to document similar issues on all articles included in Category:Tea Party movement. I think the remedy should include the category; it will make determining whether an article comes under DS very simple. Should you feel that is too broad, then I would think some care will need to be taken to determine the scope. KillerChihuahua 15:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that US politics in general at this time tends towards strong opinion and partisan editing. I would not say that all US politics articles are currently in need of DS, although a good case could be made for several. I would have to say many, but not all, TPM articles have serious behavior which would indicate a need for sanctions - and I think that 1) the category makes it easy to determine which articles without in-depth analysis of each and every article and 2) if we choose some, then there is likelihood the behavior will spill onto currently not-so-problematic, related articles, much as Abortion issues leak over into the Fetus article. I'm Goldilocks here - I think all US politics would be too broad a topic for sanctions, I think naming a few articles would be too narrow; I think the TPM category might be just right. If we name specific articles, I will probably ask for an extension so I can examine all the articles in question in greater detail. KillerChihuahua 18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)But what articles would that be? I'm not familiar with Tea Party rallies except that 3 years ago it was voted to keep separate from TPM. I don't believe they have issues over there. I'm not familiar with any other tea party articles other than Jenny Beth Martin, Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund which don't appear controversial, or even edited much. The thread on your talk page about Single Payer healthcare, is that what you're talking about? Malke 2010 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in Category:Tea Party movement. Click on the category for a list. Or look at the categories in any given article to see if that category is present, and if the category is there, then it is in that category. KillerChihuahua 18:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it has its own category! Malke 2010 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

North8000

2) North8000 has engaged in incivility and personal attacks on Talk:Tea Party movement. He has shown battleground behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You might want to split this one into two parts and treat each part separately. KillerChihuahua 10:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has no basis. This is centered around two accurate useful comments. Please see the evidence. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Darkstar1st

3) Darkstar1st has engaged in incivility on Talk:Tea Party movement and in edit summaries. He has shown battleground behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You might want to split this one into two parts and treat each part separately. KillerChihuahua 10:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one edit to the article since August 2012, which was reverted, am I really battling? The incivility claims are from 2011 when I attempted to remove grossly offensive terms from the article, which remain still. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring tends to show in article edits; battleground behavior shows more in talk and other page posts. You intentionally started a section with a heading of words you find objectionable, and you did it again in your evidence section here. You could have titled the section on the TPM talk page as "Objectionable content" and you could have titled your evidence section here as "Talk page headings" - but you didn't. You actually chose to use words you, yourself, find offensive - not just offensive, but "grossly offensive". You were trying to get a rise out of people, you were intentionally using offensive words. You were picking a fight, and that's battleground to a T. And it wasn't just then, it is, as we can see on the evidence page, here and now. KillerChihuahua 09:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless. Darkstar has probably the most gentle wording style of any of the editors there. Their style (very very brief wording) is unique which can get misread. Even when they are "hanging tough" they are not uncivil. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Malke 2010

4) Malke 2010 has engaged in incivility and failed to assume good faith on Talk:Tea Party movement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My one comment to KillerChihuahua on the talk page was an ill-timed reaction to both North8000 and KC using my name in their argument. I have taken several opportunities at ANI and ArbCom to apologize to her. Granted, it's hard to assume good faith when your name is being bandied about. However, had I investigated further I would have seen that the real issue was about something that had occurred at an earlier date, and had nothing to do with me. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take this as a lesson learned, and not attack editors out of hand in the future. KillerChihuahua 08:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would like to call attention to the recent apparently arbitrary blanket reversions by Malke in the "Agenda" section of the TPm article. I have asked her and Arzel, whom also reverted the same content once before Snowed mentioned "tag teaming" on the Talk page, for their policy-based rationales regarding claims that my edits were WP:OR, violated WP:DUE etc., and have received no response from either.

SilkTork has noted that Malke is the main contributor to the article, and I'm beginning to wonder whether Wikipedia:OWN#Single-editor_ownership or Wikipedia:OWN#Multiple-editor_ownership might be apply to the situation with this article.

Note that the edits Malke has reverted today included passages from a source that she herself used first, but which she is basically seeking to restrict to a one sentence paraphrase, excluding the substantial amount of relevant material I pulled out of it. This is the version of the section that was blanket reverted today Agenda

She has also made a comment in the early stages of the moderated discussion to reduce content of the article [1], but not offering a policy-based rationale or even mentioning specific material. She accuesd me of making a personal attack for commenting that

Malke states above that the article should "not stay mired in excessive details", which I assume means that, as in the case of the Agenda section, she wants to minimize the content so that the article presents only information that serves the purpose of advocacy as opposed to providing encyclopedic coverage of the topic.

I admit that the comment was improper, but it was made after reverts by Malke and Arzel to the same content with no responses to Talk page queries and I was a little frustrated and a rather sleep-deprived.

Malke has continuously--up to and including today--refused to engage in discussion on the Talk page regarding the edits at hand, which are based on excellent sources by legal scholars. I do not think that Malke has demonstrated a willingness to collaborate on those edits in a collegial manner. The moderated discussion is getting off to a slow start, as it is app apparent that Arbcom has multiple cases pending, and perhaps she is trying to prevent edits to the article until that discussion takes place, but I don't believe we have been requested to stop editing the article in the interim. Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin is involved

5) Arthur Rubin is involved as an active editor of Tea party movement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not active, really, unless the standards for being "active" have devolved considerably. Involved, yes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my evidence, and wonder, how is a little more than an edit every other day not active? If it were only two or three a week? Only one a week? It looks active to me. I don't know where your line of demarcation is, but this is not even borderline to me. One edit a week is still "currently editing" and you're doing considerably more than that. KillerChihuahua 08:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin has violated POINT

6) Arthur Rubin has disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point; has failed to respond to requests for rationale and evidence while continuing to assert sanctions on another editor were called for.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The "disruption" due to my actions was minimal. It would have done quite well without me. I admit to violating WP:POINT, as did most editors in the ANI thread/subpage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather sweeping accusation. Are you certain it is "most" and not merely "some"? I only counted two, out of a total of at least 34 editors (some commented before it was moved to the subpage),[2] who I think violated POINT. Yet you contend more than half violated POINT? If you do think so, why did you offer no evidence to support that allegation? Why do you not propose the persons be found to have violated POINT as a proposed finding of fact? I think you're painting with a very broad brush there, and I see no reason to think that most parties were not genuinely trying to offer input and resolve the issues. I grant you that, as Malke states elsewhere on this page, it was a case of "editors come out so fast and post such vitriol so furiously" yet I do not believe there was intentional disruption of Wikipedia by most of these. Some were cases of a battlefield mindset, others very probably due to frustration at a long running problem on the article. I believe many editors were genuinely trying to resolve the problem. KillerChihuahua 04:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC, you were trying to resolve the issue and maybe a few others. Most of those people commenting had never even edited TPM. That aside, Arthur should not have added to the desysop post. As I recall, he said he had an e/c and did not know that would be there. There's no reason not to believe him so I give him the benefit of the doubt. The issue was not about you and any posts to suggest you were acting in bad faith should have been redacted by the editors involved. IMHO, there was no proof of bad faith behavior by you. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said one of those sentences backwards, but as I got the rest right I trust everyone knew it was a typo. Fixed from "I see no reason to think most were" to "I see no reason to think most were not". Apologies for any confusion. KillerChihuahua 08:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, in the post where he said he had an edit conflict, he said he'd been planning to start a section to call for sanctions on me.[3] He added to the started section (North8000 calling for my desysoping) instead. The edit conflict exonerates nothing. I don't doubt it; I do believe Rubin when he stated that he'd been planning to start a section calling for sanctions against me, especially as he promptly doubled-down on the call.[4] KillerChihuahua 08:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't read that section thoroughly at the time. The thread title was still banging around my head. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking everything said in that random mob-violence snake-pit situation (the ANI) by those while they were being eaten as being only in that context, and not having any meaning outside of that context. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin previously admonished

7) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, closed 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC), Arthur Rubin was "admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Precedent set by C68-FM-SV#FeloniousMonk, and I presume other cases, to note prior instances of remedies by ArbCom in the case of an administrator. KillerChihuahua 08:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no basis. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin hasn't accused of misusing his admin tools, so I fail to see how this is relevant. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While past admonishments and or sanctions oftentimes do show evidences of problematic behavior, the evidence that Arthur Rubin has abused his tools or position in this situation are exceptionally weak at best.--MONGO 19:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua is uninvolved

8) KillerChihuahua is an uninvolved admin, and has been acting in that capacity regarding the Tea party movement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see that KC is involved. I have a question for KC, though, which may be underlying what North is concerned about. When approached for advice, KC gave an excellent response. The comments there underline an important principle about dealing with incivility: ignoring someone's tone of voice or temporary fit of pique may be more beneficial than confronting it. However, having given that advice, KC was still requested to follow up. The request was to look into if goethean's editing was tendentious. What KC did was to ask North8000 to stop making that accusation or provide difs. My question is: did KC look into if goethean's editing was tendentious? And if so, did KC feel that North8000's comments were totally unjustified, and that the tone of voice was unjustified when compared to goethean's tone of voice. I think this is important, as it appears to me that North felt unfairly picked on, as it probably appeared to North that what they were doing was no different to what goethean was doing - such as here, and so perhaps felt that KC was taking sides. I suspect that is what North means by "involved". An explanation that the matter was investigated as requested, and a fair and accurate judgement that North's behaviour was incivil and disproportionate compared to goethean's, would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I realized if this isn't a finding of fact, I might be considered involved due to this case. A ruling on this is necessary for me moving forward; I must know how the committee views this, and I prefer to know pre-emptively. KillerChihuahua 20:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the catalyst for the conflagration was the dustup between you and me on my talk page, IMHO you were involved on that. You may have been uninvolved at the article but it is really only a sidebar to the catalyst for the conflagration. I used "catalyst" in it's technical sense. Once the fuse is lit, AN and ANI's on vague behavioral charges tend to turn into random mob violence situations all on their own. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, I was involved in being an uninvolved admin? There was no "dustup." There was me telling you to stop accusing others with no diffs, and telling you to stop the personal attacks, and there was you arguing. That's not a "dustup" that's a poor choice on your part. I have already explained[5][6] to you that I am not involved just because I warned you about behavior. An admin is specifically not involved if all they do is act in an administrative capacity. You can repeat your belief until the cows come home, but it won't hold water. I quote from the policy page: One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'. KillerChihuahua 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a dustup between you and me happened which was quite separate from anything at the article. I think that you made 3-4 errors early in the process, I tried engaging you in discussion on some of those, you refused to do so. Despite the fact that I disengaged on both the talk page and the article on that topic and it went stale, what was your basis for going to ANI based on one comment in an unrelated area? IMHO the dominant force in the course of events was a dustup between you and me on my talk page, not anything that happened at the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree rather thoroughly on this. I think the only error I might have made was the one Malke 2010 pointed out, in that it might have been simpler just to block you rather than to go to ANI. I certainly don't recall you "trying to engage" me. KillerChihuahua 12:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the errors made were:

1. Immediately declaring that Goethean had not been doing Tendentious editing, that self-check ostensibly being the reason tat they approached you on this. Tendentiousness takes a huge amount of work to check out, how could you have done that immediately?
2. Erroneously implying that my commenting on behavior without supplying DIFFS (not without basis, but specifically without DIFFS) was improper behavior. And despite the fact that a specific case was the immediate item under discussion. Is one supposed to provide diffs to the current discussion?
3. Created an impossible / certain-to-fail situation for me, knowing that it takes an immense amount of history to establish Tendentiousness, and knowing that trying to show it with a few diffs is a recipe for certain failure, you said I needed to do that.
4. Refusing to answer my very reasonable question on the above dilemma, instead just saying that you "have spoken"
5. (arguable) I would think that you would know by now that vague behavior-related topic at AN and ANI nearly always turn into chaotic mob-violence, so taking it there in a vague fashion was an arguably an error.
6. With the original topic having gone disengaged and stale, going to ANI on the basis of a single comment on an unrelated topic, my comment about a nasty comment that Goethen made.
7. At the ANI, immediately defending Goethean against any action, while "stoking it" regarding me

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Didn't do that. I asked for diffs, so I could determine whether he had. You refused to provide even a single diff.
2. I don't know what you think the error is here. If you want to complain about disruption (or any misbehavior) to an admin, you need to provide at least one diff.
3. I am sorry you found it impossible to provide even the one single diff I asked for. However, that was your lookout when you made the accusation.
4. What question?
5. ANI sometimes a drama-fest. It is still the appropriate place for an admin to seek input on a complex problem.
6. Yes, the original accusations by you were a little stale. It is too bad you started up with them again, and then accused me of being involved due to my trying to get a diff from you, and warning you, earlier.
7. Really? That's not how I'd characterize what I did at ANI.

I think we'd best let this drop at this point, and let the Arbs decide. KillerChihuahua 15:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your insistence on difs is inconsistent. When Xenophrenic added me to your ANI to topic ban me you asked for difs, which have yet to be provided, wouldn't that be the greater violation of not diffing? North didn't even bring charges against Goethean. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC, you could be seen as involved since you have not included Goethean and Xenophrenic. Please see evidence page re: Goethean. You moderated a dispute after Goethean contacted you. I looked that over. That seemed fine. But now, you don't seem to be seeing Goethean's incivility, WP:BATTLE, and WP:Own, Nor Xenophrenic's. Goethean has even admitted on ANI that his comment at the opening of a thread was wrong. It's not his first comment of that nature. Can you really interpret Goethean's comments to editors as civil? Can you really leave off a close examination of Goethean's comments and Xenophrenic's editing and still be an "uninvolved admin?" Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be KC showing bias, not KC being involved. It's still good grounds for removal from taking administrative and quasi-administrative actions on the topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be me not finding evidence against them. If I don't find evidence, I'm not going to call for sanctions, and that is in no way bias. I am insulted and offended that you have so characterized my evidence here. I note Malke 2010 has called for sanctions on G and X and no one else- yet I do not accuse her of bias, thereby insulting her. I would appreciate it if you could manage at least on this case page not to malign my ethics without strong evidence - and this is not only not strong evidence, it is not evidence at all. I have myself given extensive evidence that Goethean and I have virtully never agreed[7] and I have had no reason until now to do a similar study of my interactions with Xeno but I would not be surprised to find a similar non-history. And Rubin, I'd think you'd be about done calling for sanctions and measures against me. Don't you think you've done yourself enough damage? KillerChihuahua 18:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I was merely pointing out that not including Goethean and Xenophrenic could be seen as involvement, i.e., showing a bias. That's why I pointed out Goethean's violations of WP:CIVIL. They are clearly there. I was being a devils advocate. I was not suggesting sanctions. My solution for all the editors would be to eject anybody who has been active consistently for one year. Editors don't know when to quit. I left because I didn't see a way to fix the article. Most of the editors there now have been active on that article, consistently, for 3 years. That's way too long. That's why that article is having problems. Not the admin. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying you were being biased, Malke, I was saying no one should accuse you of being biased because you only added a couple of editors - which is what AR is doing to me. Using you as an example is all. Apologies if I was unclear and confused things. KillerChihuahua 19:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'kay, no problem. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you need to hush up about it...puppy has spoken; puppy is done, [8] this appears to be the beginning of things going bad. KC is demanding difs concerning a talk page post by North hours later, yet a week later has yet to demand difs from Xenophrenic who was seeking a topic ban for me at KC's ANI. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Cherry picking is not helpful. Full quote: ":I don't know how clear I can make this. If you cannot make a case to someone else, you need to hush up about it. Otherwise you're just slinging around unsubstantiated allegations, which might rebound on you and will cause no sanctions against him. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. " and this was after I asked for a diff two times and you he failed to provide one. It was not that I was refusing to consider evidence; it was that you he failed utterly to give any. KillerChihuahua 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are confused, you have never ask me for a dif. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is more confusing is why you insist on a dif here, and not from Xenophrenic which was actually part of an ANI, not just some idle talk page dustup. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many replies at once, I was thinking of North8000 of course. I have corrected this. And I did ask for diffs from Xeno. That was also a different situation. Multiple people were offering diffs and views; I was not by myself investigating one lone editor making personal attacks and accusations. KillerChihuahua 19:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple people were offering diffs and views, incorrect, not a single dif was offered before or after you ask. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Around 40 people offered different views and many of them posted diffs. I don't think you're looking at the same page I am. KillerChihuahua 20:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps not, could you post the difs of my behavior submitted at your ANI here? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the confusion. I said diffs and views and you thought it was all about you. It wasn't. There were sections for at least half a dozen editors. The diffs of your behavior are on the evidence page here. And now I'm going to ask you to cease this off topic line of discussion here; this has nothing to do with whether I was or was not involved. KillerChihuahua 20:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thought an ANI you started and i was added to not by you but never diffed was all about me, perhaps you are confused again? this convo has been helpful as it established you require difs from some, but not others, which is what started the ANI, now here. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what it has established. We'll have to just disagree on that one. KillerChihuahua 21:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you started the ANI about North providing no difs, Xenophrenic added me without difs, you ask for the difs then oppose my topic ban when none provided, yet take no action against Xenophrenic? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am taking no action against anyone for merely listing someone who edited the article for sanctions on that ANI thread. None of them. I am bringing here the people whom I had already decided were the problems on that article, which was not resolved at ANI. I added you when I saw some of your edits while searching the history. But no one was added here by me for proposing sanctions on active editors on the article, on an ANI thread. There is absolute consistency here. The only person I listed here due to their actions on ANI (and talk pages) is Arthur Rubin, who did something else. Now, I'm done with this dead horse. This has nothing to do whatsoever with whether I am involved. KillerChihuahua 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, you started an ANI because North failed to provide difs concerning a talk page discussion, yet you did nothing when an editor made a baseless charge asking for a topic ban in an ANI case, continuity non existit. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to say that is not why I started that thread for it to sink in? You are in error. You have mistaken my intent and reason. You are, in short, wrong. I'm done here. KillerChihuahua 22:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the opening sentence of the ANI: ...I asked the accusing editor to provide a diff...[9]. cherry-picking not applicable, i post the quote with ellipses to save space here with the hope those interested will see the context after clicking the link. feel free to post the entire quote if you feel i am in error. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And fairy tales begin once upon a time, but that is not why the prince slays the dragon. I not only feel you are in error, I've told you that you're dead wrong several times now, and yet you persist. Are you calling me a liar? You're edging into badgering now. IDHT wears pretty thin after the first 3 or 4 times. KillerChihuahua 03:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...vague accusations but not a single diff..., ...either provide diffs, or cease the accusations..., difs were the focus of your ANI wording, no matter your intent, which appears to be selective as you did not tell other editors making far more serious allegations the same. North was on a talk page, Xenophrenic was in your ANI. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KC, Responding on those 7 items:

1. By the same day that you said you were going to look at it (Feb 19th) you already said to Goethean that it that it appeared that my coments were motivated by a content dispute rather than concern about TE editing.
2. I didn't want to complain about anything to an admin. I only wanted to note the behavior at the article talk page in an effort to try to reduce that behavior. It was over at that point.
3. You completely missed or misheard the point. I said that it was impossible to show TE editing with one or a few diffs, such requires hundreds of observations.
4. Answering your question, My question that you wouldn't answer was that, acknowledging #3, what did you want me to do
5. (nothing further)
6. I didn't start them up again. It was over. Then Goethean made a very nasty comment on a totally different topic and I noted that such nastiness was against guidelines. Then you want after me for saying that.
7. You immediately proposed topic bans, and immediately defended Goethean against bans. Later that mob violence situation ensued, probably more than anyone intended.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, several of your point items are wrong, and none of them make me involved. You're really beating a dead horse here. KillerChihuahua 20:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I not would call happenings at the core of this whole case thing to be a dead horse, but I think we both finished saying what we wanted to say. Except that if you think that I'm wrong on any matters of fact you should provide specifics. Of course a few items (such as #5 & #7) must be acknowledged as matters of opinion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't see how KC is involved. It sounds to me like one (or more?) editors simply disagree with their admin actions. That doesn't make them involved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The Tea Party movement is placed under discretionary sanctions

1) Articles relating to the area of the Tea Party movement are placed under discretionary sanctions. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, they may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, including page protection. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

This remedy supersedes the limited sanctions that were put in place by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think something that the Committee will need to decide is if it is the topic itself that is problematic, or certain editors. Or both. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Whatever is in place on The Troubles would likely be effective for the Tea Party movement and related articles. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TROUBLES is under standard discretionary sanctions, which is what I am proposing here. See here. KillerChihuahua 20:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ST: It is something to decide, but it's not necessarily a two-choice decision. There is always the possibility it is both. The topic is a problem, and there are problem editors editing the topic. KillerChihuahua 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have a somewhat novel--perhaps--proposal that doesn't fit under any of the categories in this section, so I'm going to beg your pardons and be so presumptuous as to post this here.

It seems to me that a reasonable amount of evidence (albeit somewhat lacking in particular diffs) has been provided that should compel the committee, upon examination of the discussions at hand, that there are a plurality of editors acting in a collusional manner constituting a group characterized by a shared disposition toward the topical matter of the article (what I've referred to as an "affinity group") that violates various policies.

The collusion is motivated by a desire to prevent editing of the article by editors not sharing the to an article that would result in representing positions found in RS that counter the POV of the particular narrative that the group of editors, an editing practice/behavior I've characterized as obstructionism.

The solution I propose is that any group of editors found to have acted in such a manner--and in this case I would include North8000, Malke, Arthur Rubin, and Arzel in the group--should be banned for a nominal amount of time, such as a month, during which the editors whose edits they were obstructing have a chance to rework the article into better form.

Naturally, after the nominal ban period has expired the no-longer-banned editors could rejoin the editing practice as normal.

I think that such a sanctionary regime provides impetus for reasonable, source-based cooperation--if not collaboration--as well as provides ample deterrent force insofar as being banned as a group for a month would allow for substantial input by the obstructed editors during the interim. And in the case of topic areas with Arbcom sanctions, that would represent a substantial barrier to unreasonable POV advocacy.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you infer "collusion" and a secret "affinity group" acting to promote POV editing. Having suggested this hitherto unknown group actually exists, you propose to a "nominal" topic ban on its members. This is indeed a novel approach. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "a group characterized by a shared disposition toward the topical matter of the article" includes no inference about a secret or conspiratorial dimension to the group of editors I listed, but thanks for the drama. A number of individuals acting in a similar manner in view of shared interests does not need to have had signed a charter or take an oath to be considered to constitute a group by an outside observer.--Ubikwit (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything wrong with "a number of individuals acting in a similar manner in view of shared interests" which should lead to restrictions? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't violating policy, no. Perhaps it is in respect of policy where the line between source-based, GF collaboration and something more akin to tacit collusive interaction between editors, which is based on shared values and perceptions and results in subverting policy insofar as it relates to some sort of group-think autopilot support of a POV, has to be drawn by those assessing the behavior at issue.

When more than one individual is fervently intent on supporting a POV on a given article relating to a controversial topic, it would seem that they are on a course that is almost inevitably going to lead to their violating one policy or another.Ubikwit (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that any implication of "collusion" by anybody is a baseless personal attack. Regarding working "in concert" or towards the same ends a look at the disputes and how they have ended up clearly shows that the dominant editing force in determining the article content on these has been Xenophrenic, backed up by Goethean at key moments. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the committee decides that the topic itself is problematic, then place them under discretionary sanctions would be wise. The admins at AE do a much better job handling difficult disputes than AN/I which has a Lord of the Flies mentality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors encouraged

2) All involved editors in the Tea party movement topic area are encouraged to try to collaborate and work constructively instead of accusing others of misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

North8000 topic banned

3) North8000 is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have looked at North8000's edits on the article and I'm not seeing an obvious reason for a topic ban. I see North8000 doing a lot of reverting, but this doesn't appear to move into edit wars. Is this based on comments made on the talkpage? There's over two years worth of comments there, and much of it appears to be an attempt to get discussion going on how to improve the article (but I've not examined the full two years worth). In the comment that initiated this case, North8000 wasn't diplomatic with his use of words. But that appears to be the case for many people involved in this case. And we have various users issuing threats and assuming bad faith. I'm not sure anyone is coming out of this looking good. However, for a topic ban, I think we need some evidence of long term disruption, not one incident which blew up out of control. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, my assumption of all users is that they are here to assist the project, so I'm not that interested in dif which support my assumption, I would be more interested in difs which support a view that North8000 has been disruptive in the topic area and so needs topic banning. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC, there's not huge community support there. 60%? And a number of people appear to be reacting to the blow up, rather than the history of North8000's involvement in the topic area. I'm wondering if there is anything more serious here than a group of people blowing up. And also, if this can be resolved by people examining their behaviour, realising what mistakes they themselves made, apologising, and then moving on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked again, because what I missed is the tag teaming, and also - of course - the revert restriction on the article. I think 18 Feb is a representative sample:

• (cur | prev) 23:23, 18 February 2013‎ Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (165,368 bytes) (+836)‎ . . (Add content tag; much of this is subject to edit wars, without any credible discussion.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 21:39, 18 February 2013‎ Goethean (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,532 bytes) (-577)‎ . . (Undid revision 538927416 by North8000 (talk) please do not violate WP:OR. the source never mentions the TPM. a secondary source needs to connect this event to the Tea Party Movement.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 21:34, 18 February 2013‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (165,109 bytes) (+577)‎ . . (Undid revision 538921568 by Xenophrenic (talk) Material is obviously relevant.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:56, 18 February 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,532 bytes) (+131)‎ . . (a little more relevant than other talking heads; +ref) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:50, 18 February 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,401 bytes) (-577)‎ . . (rem moneybomb party; no indication in source of any relation to the "Tea Party movement") (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:47, 18 February 2013‎ Xenophrenic (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,978 bytes) (+3,793)‎ . . (ret sourced content on Koch funding & org support (no cmt yet on suggested move to 'History' section); ret McAllister sentence; rem unsupported "first event" wording) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:20, 18 February 2013‎ North8000 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (161,185 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Commentaries on origin: +"organizations within" . The movement is not an entity) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 16:00, 18 February 2013‎ Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (161,163 bytes) (-3,143)‎ . . (Undid revision 538869884 by Goethean (talk) yes, it is (or should be) covered in history, as there is no claim that Koch-related groups _presented_ support the TPM) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 13:46, 18 February 2013‎ Goethean (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (164,306 bytes) (+3,143)‎ . . (Undid revision 538868096 by Darkstar1st (talk)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 13:28, 18 February 2013‎ Darkstar1st (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (161,163 bytes) (-3,143)‎ . . (→‎Influence of Koch Industries: removed redundant section already covered in history) (undo)

and that does give me a snap-shot of the "battle" that is taking place. What it doesn't tell us, of course, is whose position is "correct". Is the article being filled with negative trivia picked from scandal sheets to discredit the Tea Party? Or is the article being picked clean of any possible negative comments in order to present the Tea Party in a more favourable light? I tend to find in such disputes that as long as editors are prepared to discuss, that a middle path can be found. An article can sometimes benefit from having editors with differing views. And I do note that discussion has been taking place. What I think we would need, in order to consider a topic ban for any of the editors, is signs of disrupting the process of working toward consensus. Signs of an editor (or group of editors) forcing their view in an unreasonable manner, being excessively obstructive, ignoring consensus, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Malke. That looks like there is an awareness that there are differences of opinion in how to develop the article, but that the parties are willing to discuss in a tense but civil manner those differences, and agree to disagree at times, and agree that both sides have the best interests of the article at heart.

When there is a controversial topic, there are going to be tense discussions, and at times these may spill out into incivil remarks. What we do is impose sanctions when incivility starts to get out of hand. The difficulty is in judging when it has got out of hand. It is a perennial problem on Wikipedia, and one for which we have no adequate solution. The question here is, apart from the blow up following KC's involvement, has there been sufficient incivility to sanction anyone, or to impose extra conditions on the article? I would like to see evidence of that, and I'm not seeing it yet. I'm not saying it's not there, but that I'm not yet seeing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

3 and 4 are "pick one". This is my second choice. KillerChihuahua 09:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is absolutely NO basis for this. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ST: Clearly I should not have spent so much of my evidence space on AR, leaving none for N8. That said, editors are regularly topic banned for personal attacks and creating a hostile atmosphere - battleground behavior is prohibited. And this is one of the worst cases I've seen. KillerChihuahua 18:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, North8000 often takes a mediator role on TPM. My recollection is that from the beginning of his participation there he has tried to negotiate less negativity. If you like I could point you to some archive threads so you don't have to scroll through three years of talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ST: You may wish to examine the level of community support for this from the ANI thread as well. KillerChihuahua 19:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, the only time I've seen North8000 disruptive is that incident on the TPM talk page that lead to the ANI and here. I will go back and search out the archives. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) SilkTork, there were repeated NPA violations prior to the "blow up"; that's why I took it to ANI to begin with. And I don't see North8000 resolving this by examining their behaviour, realising what mistakes they themselves made, apologising, and then moving on - I see him commenting on my proposed finding of fact above that his unsubstantiated attacks were "two accurate useful comments" - I fail to see him acknowledging in any way his culpability here. Then of course he did double down by proposing my desysopping for being the admin who responded to Goethean's request. Had he responded as you suggest, this would probably have been done with a month ago, never gone to ANI and not here. While I applaud your optimism, I see no solid evidence that it is grounded in anything solid. I see continuing evidence that he has a battleground mindset and is firm in his conviction that he was, and is, in the right. KillerChihuahua 14:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But where are the diffs? I'm reading threads but can't find this. Where should I be looking? Malke 2010 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Tork, I'm working on getting diffs for your question. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Tork, here are two diffs which I think say a lot about the situation. North makes a comment in a long discussion [10]and Goethean responds with his view of apparently why they'll never agree and ends with the suggestion that his view is the Wikipedia view or rather the view that is acceptable on Wikipedia: [11] Malke 2010 (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here again, North explains an earlier comment he made: North explains to Goethean what he meant earlier in the discussion [12] and Goethean responds [13] Malke 2010 (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here: Goethean opens a new thread about it: [14] North responds [15]Goethean says [16] Malke 2010 (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see much, if any, tag-teaming in the example above in the Arbs section. My revert was based more on the edit summaries than on the texts of the edits, but, it was more in opposition to G's unreasonable edit summary than in support of D. (and I know this is 25 minutes late...) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silktort, given your remarks[17], I would be very interested in knowing whether you think that North8000's comment[18], which started the current dispute, was constructive, and what you would have advised the accused parties to do in response to his accusations. Thanks. — goethean 14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could have ignored it. Or, you could have handled it the way I handled this: [19]. I simply assumed good faith and explained and clarified what I meant.[20] Malke 2010 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• SilkTork, the diffs of Goethean's comments appear to show a consistent, long-term incivility to the other editors who simply go around it, or when they do respond they assume good faith. At times his comments appear to taunt or bait others as when he wrote, "When all you have is a hammer," rather than simply saying, "I've found an RS that should settle the matter." It would seem that if North8000 is to be banned or sanctioned for one outburst, which was a response to another Goethean comment, [21], then clearly Goethean needs to be banned or sanctioned as well. Even now, in his question to you he's blaming North8000 for getting the whole thing started, yet Goethean was the one who sought an admin instead of responding to North, or simply disengaging. And I apologize for this late entry and understand if it is removed. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yet Goethean was the one who sought an admin instead of responding to North, or simply disengaging.

I really wonder how you imagine that I could have constructively responded to that freely-flowing stream of personal attacks and evidence-lacking accusations. The very fact that you can find fault with my consulting with two uninvolved admins in response to North8000's series of evidenceless (and meritless) accusations should tell readers exactly where you stand on this issue. You are heavily involved, and you have no objectivity on the subject. You are just arguing for one side. — goethean 18:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I explained what you could have done. Is it better to say, "When all you have is a hammer," or is it better to say, "I've found an RS that should settle the matter,"? Or, as I said, you could have disengaged. And we've discussed this at ANI. You admitted your comment about the source "will be in the article" was the wrong thing to say. You always have choices about how you respond. And disengaging is one of them. I told you before, you make these comments to people without regard for how they will take it. When an editor appears clearly upset by something you've said, or by behaviours you've engaged in, then either disengage or simply apologize and explain that his reaction is not what you sought. That's how I imagine you could have constructively responded. This is my best "Moonriddengirl advice." And now, we should not be here. If you like, you can comment on my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that no matter who says what, in your opinion it is always my fault. — goethean 18:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it very clear that in my opinion your comments to others are at the root of the problem, as well as how they've responded to you. In my opinion, North8000 should have been blocked for his disruption. You should have been warned of WP:CIVIL and reminded the article is on probation. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean, at the time it based on years of observation. And "calling it out" was intended only to reduce the problem at the article. Subsequently I was forced into getting diffs regarding this and IMHO it has been shown to be both merited and evidenced. To be direct, you have done less TE stuff than Xenophrenic, but your comments often tend to be more abrasive than theirs. As you may have noted with my last olive branch, although I am often very direct /blunt when trying to improve the situaiotn, but harbor no ill will. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you still think that your comment was constructive. — goethean 18:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What it was was calling out the behavior in the hopes that merely doing so / putting a spotlight on it would reduce the problem, plus making the "this has to stop" type comment. So I would call it leaning on you and Xenophrenic for a constructive purpose. And it was 100% behavior focused, nothing abrasive towards th individuals. But it does not meet the highest level of "constructive" which is e.g. criticism blended with compliments. etc. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely NO basis for any such action. Nothing has been shown, just vague impugning of me. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Silk Tork, I believe that you are searching for a sort of egregious behavior that has probably not been the motive force that resulting in the ANI case that quickly manifested the unwieldy dimension that landed it here. KC has provided a couple of diffs representing personal attacks. North's behavior may not be seen to represent egregious incivility, but he has been prominent in several of the instances that I have seen of legitimate sources being suppressed by an appeal to a non-consensus based claim that resorts to attempts to undermine the credibility of one or another aspect of the source in an illegitimate manner. I have encountered precisely the same sort of behavior on other topics with a completely different set of editors.

In short, the behavior at issue is generally speaking of a more subtle manifestation of battleground mentality in the form of passive obstructionism as opposed to aggressive anti-social outbursts, and it is manifest in the group dynamic as much as in the conduct of individual editors.

If I had more time, I would make the effort to explicate an instance or two further, but I have provided a couple of diffs to threads where such behavior can be seen, I believe.

Silk Tork, I would say that it is a combination of the topic of the TPM itself as well as the conduct of editors in relation to the problematic nature of the topic.

I would seriously hope that you take into consideration my proposal of a novel sanctions regime even on an experimental basis, as this problem is not unique to this topic.

North has repeatedly argued that the article is in bad shape, and that is an incontrovertible fact. However, I find North's comportment as an editor to have contributed to that status.

If I had time--which I don't--I would try to flesh out a workable framework for this article, first and foremost, taking into the consideration the

1)fragmentary character of the TPM, and

2) the Astro-turf - authentic bifurcation

that seem to be topical aspects that perpetuate the state of suspended animation of a disjointed and unintelligible article.

Even topic bans of a week for the editors I've suggested would give Gothean and Xenophrenic a chance to try to rework the article in a manner that might prove productive after the ban expired and the other editors re-engaged.Ubikwit (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would exacerbate not help the problem as Xenophrenic and Goethean have already dominated the results in the article of every disputed item. Havign an outside uninvolved non-political editor take a few weeks to go thought the article while the regulars all sit back would be a much better idea. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 topic banned (2)

4) North8000 is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, indefinitely. He may apply to have the ban lifted after a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

3 and 4 are "pick one". This is my first choice; I beleive it will encourage editing in other areas of Wikipeida, and picking up some much needed experience working with others. KillerChihuahua 09:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is absolutely NO basis for this. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Darkstar1st topic banned

5) Darkstar1st is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm seeing revert editing and negative comments on the talkpage, but I'm not seeing significant problems. The question of whether the reverts are keeping out inappropriate content, or suppressing legitimate content, is open to editorial debate.

The more I look into this case, the more uncomfortable I am becoming at the general level of reverts taking place by the main editors on an article which has a revert restriction. But I'm still not sure if the problem is the users editing the article, or the topic itself. If it is the topic itself, then topic-banning the current editors may just be shifting the problem onto the next batch of editors. If it is the topic, then the current restrictions are not working well enough to overcome problems. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

5 and 6 are "pick one". This is my second choice. KillerChihuahua 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely NO basis for this. North8000 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Darkstar1st topic banned (2)

6) Darkstar1st is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, indefinitely. He may apply to have the ban lifted after a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

5 and 6 are "pick one". This is my first choice; I believe it will encourage editing in other areas of Wikipedia, and picking up some much needed experience working with others. KillerChihuahua 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually this was your 3rd choice as you opposed the topic ban Xenophrenic called for after he failed to provide diffs. [22] (KC was originally neutral in the ANI waiting for Xenophrenic to support his allegation. Minutes after i noted the inconsistency here, KC amended her response to support) Darkstar1st (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i do not plan to make any more edits to the tea party article or talk page. yesterday i brought a source about teaparty.net supporting the starbucks boycott because the starbucks CEO is opposed to gay marriage, the source was rejected as insignificant and unreliable.[23] We already say that the Tea Party opposes same sex marriage., was the reason it was rejected. I also agree most of the problem here is combining hundreds of groups into a "movement", which none claim individually to belong. OWS makes no mention of members who attempted to blow up a bridge Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge (they even pushed the detonator) and even deleted the OWS/Cleveland chapter article, yet if a dog barks it is included on the TP article, i give up and am moving on to topics like Camp Chapman attack. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely NO basis for this. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin reminded

7) Arthur Rubin is reminded that as an administrator, he must be responsive to requests for information, especially when he has called for sanctions or other administrative actions against another editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

7 and 8 are probably "pick one". KillerChihuahua 23:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Arthur Rubin admonished

8) Arthur Rubin is admonished for calling for sanctions against an uninvolved administrator on an article which he actively edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

7 and 8 are probably "pick one". KillerChihuahua 23:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Even assuming that Arthur Rubin was wrong, no one should be admonished for good faith mistakes. Editors should be allowed to voice their opinions without fear of admonishment simply for having an opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin topic banned

9) Arthur Rubin is topic banned from the Tea party movement, broadly construed, including talk pages, for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What is the basis for this? I can understand that some kind of response and closure would be helpful for Arthur Rubin's involvement in the ANI discussion, but is his editing in the topic area problematic? I don't think there's evidence for that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Schulz evidence consists of a link to this discussion on RSN. Rubin took part in that discussion, but I'm afraid you're going to have to explain to me why his taking part in a discussion on a source means he should be topic banned. I'm clearly missing something, because both you and Schulz are seeing something there, so it would help to have some guidance on what it is you folks are seeing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have a stab at it: Rubin has doubts about the suitability of a source, and you and others feel that his doubts are not reasonable, and that he is deliberately attempting to suppress a legitimate source in order to bias the Tea Party article. I think the Committee might need more evidence. If there are more occasions in which Rubin can be seen to be unreasonably blocking legitimate material, or has been introducing bias in the article either by direct editing or supporting inappropriate ideas on the talkpage, that would be worth looking at. But one discussion in which he feels a source is not the right fit, is unlikely to be sufficient by itself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely looking for evidence. I'm working through people's contributions and the article history, and the talkpage archives, and reading statements. This takes time, so any assistance with finding the facts would be much appreciated. We're all part-time volunteers, and Committee members are no more blessed with extra spare time and energy than any other volunteer! I'm not sure NYB has finished looking at the evidence yet. We said we'd look at it and discuss our thoughts this week, but I know that he has been absorbed by some internal Committee matters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Rubin was actively editing throughout this case; I believe his POINTy BATTLE call for sanctions was due to his involvement with the article. I can see no other plausible reason for his aggressive and inappropriate behavior. I don't anticipate this passing, but offer it as a possible remedy as I think it might be helpful to have him removed from the article during its first months of probation. I have not been encouraged by his attitude during this case to believe that he regrets his actions and plans to not allow his personal interest in an article cloud his judgment. This is regrettable in any editor, but doubly so in an administrator. KillerChihuahua 20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ST: as I said, I don't see this one passing. I put it forward for consideration because it appears to me that Rubin is enabling problem editors. If the committee feels that is not grounds for such a remedy, then that's perfectly acceptable to me. KillerChihuahua 18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to also consider the evidence given by Stephan Schulz, and the observations by MastCell on the evidence talk page. KillerChihuahua 19:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This workshop page is due to close today. The evidence page is already closed. I'm not sure whether you're asking me to find and post more evidence here, or simply politely saying this isn't going to happen. KillerChihuahua 14:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like SilkTork is asking for help in locating evidence to support the proposed ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely NO basis for this. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I can't say I've followed this case or the topic area closely, but regarding Arthur... in my interactions elsewhere, I've found him to be an opinionated but generally conscientious editor. I can recall times we've agreed and times we've disagreed, but he's been reasonable either way. When it was pointed out that Tobacco Control is in fact peer-reviewed, he did back off his statement to the contrary. As is probably evident from my comments on the Evidence talkpage, I'm much more concerned by editors who continue repeating false statements even after they've been shown to be false. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know; thank you for taking the time to add that. KillerChihuahua 22:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is somewhat similar to MastCell's. I've not followed the case too closely and I've had interactions with Arthur Rubin, some positive and some negative. Although we've had some disagreements in the past, I've never felt like Arthur Rubin was being disingenuous or not editing in good faith. Further, I don't see any evidence to support this sanction. Indeed, Arthur Rubin is attribute to Wikipedia and should be thanked for his contributions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tea Party movement#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. KillerChihuahua 20:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

The Tea party Movement article is in very bad shape

1) The Tea party Movement article is in very bad shape.

The article is in bad shape and contains large amounts of trivia that is in there for effect rather than to inform. This is the case with most Wikipedia articles on topics which cover a real world "conflict". While the "fault" primarily lies with Wikipedia policies which either fail to help guide these situations, or which are too easily mis-used in situations such as this, other actions can help the situation. Two factors have made the course of the TPM article somewhat different. One is the the 1RR restriction which tends to reward tendentious editing, and in fact, the results of disputes at the article have been largely determined by tendentiousness than resolution in discussions. The second is that the TPM is a phenomena, not an entity, leaving it open to very creative interpretations of what is and isn't germane.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"the 1RR restriction ... tends to reward tendentious editing" and "an active POV-warrior can add multiple contentious statements, and the "reverting" editor might only be able to remove one". Are there examples of this? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think, perhaps Viriditas may be correct that this particular 1RR restriction rewards tendentious editing more than the standard one. However, I, personally, think the standard 1RR would make it worse, as an active POV-warrior can add multiple contentious statements, and the "reverting" editor might only be able to remove one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a problem with Wikipedia policies. The policies are meant to be flexible to fit unforeseen situations. The problem seems to be with editors who want to interpret the policies to their advantage to win an argument/battle, or to block an editor from making an edit they don't agree with. And that is an enduring problem on TPM. And I'm not speaking to the 1RR, I'm responding to policy in general. As for 1RR, the need for it speaks to the larger issues which 1RR can't resolve. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we're partially agreeing. But I think that one big hole is on the topic of inclusion/exclusion. The net effect that degree of relevance is easily excluded from the conversation, and also that the others are still too easily mis-quoted as saying that verifiability is a force for inclusion rather than (just) a requirement for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(to SilkTork). I don't have a specific example. Hypothetically, if editor X adds contentious material A and B and removes contentious material C and D, in an article subject to standard 1RR restrictions, and, editor Y removes A, and editor Z makes a edit in a different section of the article, then Y could not remove B or restore C or D without violating 1RR. It makes it even more critical in making POV edits, to do them quickly, so that they cannot easily be reverted; and in reverting to do so summarily without thought, to avoid being prevented (by 1RR) from making other constructive reverts and partial reverts. Perhaps if 0RR/self is added (you may not revert any edit which restores an edit you previously made), together with this 1RR restriction, it might help stabilize the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That math of what you are both saying is very true and I think that the possibility that you are describing exists. However, my observation is the the main way that the 1RR has rewarded TE editing is by making edit wars longer term and less visible. Despite warnings against slow motion edit wars, there has been zero scrutiny or enforcement on that point. Thus, anyone who is willing to conduct slow motion edit wars always wins. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would suggest that in addition to any obviously irrelevant trivial content (of which there would appear to be an ample supply), what can be referred to as trivia in one context can be meaningful in another. In this case, the decentralized nature of the TPM means that the discussion of it easily becomes fragmented, and it is a formidable task to craft a coherent narrative out of the activities and utterances emanating from the agglomeration of groups that often betray contradictory stances to one another.

The problem with the affinity group editors is that they are aware of this, and take advantage of that to illicitly block inclusion of sources on the basis of the logical fallacy that because a given source doesn't support a position held by one entity associated with the TPM it can't be used in the article.

To editors attempting to present the fractured nature of the TPM, such so-called trivia are key pieces of information to serve that purpose insofar as such content demonstrates a lack of cohesion and agreement.

On the other hand, to editors trying to present the TPM as some sort of coherent united front, that is undesirable, and this is one source of the content dispute that results in behavior issues appearing in the form of the partisan group dynamic as well as individual personal attacks, most evident with respect to the handling of sources.

The same 'coherent united front' argument holds for those arguing against inclusion of material related to the so-called 'Astro-turf' aspects, with a shift in the locus of meaning to the opposition between characterizations as grass-roots vs. corporate funded.Ubikwit (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have consistently argued against trivia and for broader level information. So I was in favor of including coverage of the astroturf assertions, as such. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content results in disputed areas have largely been determined by tendentious editing rather than the results of discussions

2) Content results in disputed areas have largely been determined by TE rather than the results of discussions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stated reason for approaching KC

3) Goethean's stated reason for approaching KC was for KC to review whether or not Goethean has engaged in tendentious editing as alleged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Error in immediate dismissal of tendentious editing concern

4) TE editing is a pattern established over a long period of time, and investigating requires a review of such. KC erred in (on Feb 19th, on the same day that they first said they'd look into it) immediately dismissing TE as being a concern; far too quickly to have investigated it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Error in requiring the near-impossible from North

5)Tendentious editing can only be shown by the combination of an immense number of instances. Any attempt to show TE by one or a few diffs is invalid and a recipe for certain failure. So KC was in error or unreasonable in requiring this of North.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Error in refusing to answer reasonable question

6) North asked KC a question regarding resolving the dilemma posed by finding #5. KC erred by refusing to address or respond to the reasonable point of the question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Error in implying that a comment about behavior without proof in diffs was improper behavior

7) KC implied that North's action complaining about behavior was improper because it did not include diffs. It was in error to imply this; such is common and accepted practice in Wikipedia; other forms of basis are often given. Doubly so in view of the dilemma described in finding #5. Triply so in that North had said it was a one time comment (i.e. over with) only to try to improve the situation at the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Error in opening a general ANI with proposed broad sanctions

8) KC had discussed only two actions by North, a few comments ending Feb 18th on TE editing which had passed into old news, and an arguably valid policy comment on a nasty comment made by Goethean. With only these as a basis, it was in error to open an ani requesting broad and severe sanctions against North while immediately defending Goethean against possible sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reviewing / transferring this to a venue (Arbcom) which operates on evidence and careful analysis of evidence is itself an important outcome

9) Reviewing / transferring this to a venue (Arbcom) which operates on evidence and careful analysis of evidence is itself an important outcome

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Above-described errors by KC to be noted

1) Above-described errors by KC to be noted. Just noting them is sufficient input to KC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General warning against TE and slow motion edit wars

2) A general warning to be issued for the TPM article against TE and slow motion edit wars. The results on disputes are to be decided by proper processes (talk, RFC's etc.) not by TE and slow motion edit wars. The warning will include a recommendation that admins give this aspect a higher level of scrutiny and analysis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Topic bans must include Goethean andXenophrenic

Good link, if one reads it carefully, on sees that it refutes what you said and implied about me. And having to go back 2 years to find even something that weak (that needs ginning up here to make it sound bad) says even more. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]