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:

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:

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:

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]

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:

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]

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]

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:

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),[1] 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.[2] 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.[3] 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]

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]

Comment by others:

KillerChihuahua is uninvolved

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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[4][5] 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]

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:

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]

Comment by others:

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:

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]

Comment by others:

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:

Comment by parties:

5 and 6 are "pick one". This is my second choice. KillerChihuahua 20:25, 25 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]

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:

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:

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]

Comment by others:

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

Template

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:

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]

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

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 and Xenophrenic

5) Improvement of the article must come first. Topic bans are not punitive. They are meant to prevent disruption. Any imposition of topic bans must include the editors actively contributing on a regular basis to the problems on the article. As a special sanction for Tea Party movement, no editor can remain active for more than one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The problem is that the same editors are there all the time, voicing the same complaints and editing in the same way, with no improvement to the article. I stopped by after a year and found the same arguments as usual but noticed Goethean's civility had seriously deteriorated. I discussed one of his comments with him on the ANI. He admitted his comment was wrong but blamed North8000. Banning one editor will not improve the article. Some editors have been regular, nearly daily, contributors for almost three years. This includes Goethean and Xenophrenic. Not just North8000. And Goethean's and Xenophrenic's arguments and edit wars today are the same ones they had back in 2010. Goethean violates WP:PA and exhibits tendency towards WP:OWN. Xenophrenic violates WP:TE. The same sections, the same edits. Over and over. In the meantime, the article has not improved and working together to improve it doesn't seem to factor into talk page discussions. Banning one editor won't solve that. North8000 does not edit in a vacuum. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see insufficient justification for this remedy. KillerChihuahua 08:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this case is seeking sanctions only against those attempting to remove/minimize negative and trivial text according to weight, yet more active editors who have sought and succeeded to include negative material are absent here, why? since article is rated C, does that mean there needs to be more negative trivia, what was left out? i can think of no example of a negative passage has been successfully removed to date ex: neo-Klansmen and knuckle-dragging hillbillies (how does a verbal attack inform readers about the TP?), They are predominantly white, (the only movement in WP described as such, although the majority could be described the same), even less liked than Muslims and atheists, (is this not offensive to those groups?). Darkstar1st (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstar1st, you are a party to this case. You may make any proposals you feel are indicated. If you think there are editors for whom sanctions would be appropriate remedies, who are not listed, by all means list them. I listed those I felt were appropriate, Malke 2010 listed those she thought were appropriate, and you may list those you think are appropriate. Your "why?" question can only be answered by you. KillerChihuahua 12:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims of neutrality ring a little hollow seeing as when I tried to add an article from a peer-reviewed public policy journal to the article, Arthur Rubin used every tendentious argument he could think up in order to remove the source. He was of course joined in this effort bu North8000 and Malke2010. And of course this journal said nothing about Klansmen or racism, it simply use good sources to analyze the financial sources of the organizations that funded the movement. — goethean 13:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

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:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Talk:TPm subthread on creating a subarticle on the fiscal issues

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Looking in detail at the first evidence field presented by Goethean under 2/23, at Talk:TPM; (No offense intended, but I will replace "Goethean" by "G", "Malke2010" by "M", "North8000" by "N", and "Arthur Rubin" by "AR" in my comments. I will not change quotes from other editors.)

• [6]

  G's analysis: Malke2010 suggests "new article about the fiscal issues".

  AR's comment: Malke2010 suggests subarticle on about the fiscal issues, stating that "the new article wouldn't resemble the kluge that exists right now." That's not the usual reason for a WP:SPINOFF, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to create an NPOV subarticle of a POV article.

• [7]

  G's analysis: Goethean links to WP:POVFORK.

  AR's comment: Yep; links, without explaining potential relevance.

• [8]

  G's analysis: Malke2010 says it would not be not a fork.

  AR's comment: Accurate, but Malke2010's statement would also be accurate. It would be a WP:SPINOFF, assuming she would then replace the comments in the main article with an NPOV summary. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

• .[9]

  G's analysis: Goethean says that proposed new article would be the textbook definition of a POV fork.

  AR's comment: G can accurately view his own statements, but it represents the textbook definition of a WP:SPINOFF.

• [10]

  G's analysis: Malke2010 says it would not be a fork.

  AR's comment: See above

• [11]

  G's analysis: North8000 says Goethean violated WP:AGF.

  AR's comment: I don't fully agree with N, but it's a reasonable hypothesis. G may merely be ignorant of WP:SPINOFF, although he states he has read WP:POVFORK.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• [12]

  As I said in my evidence, I've suggested a sub-article on fiscal policies of the TPM before. It's not a new suggestion and I've never intended nor suggested an editor should write a sub-article as a means to advance POV. I made a clarifying reply to Goethean that made it very clear what my intentions were.

- Malke 2010 (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: