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
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case Opened on 23:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Case suspended by motion at 14:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Case unsuspended at 22:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Case Closed on 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 18:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 21:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page should not be edited. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of remedies to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

Requests for comment[edit]

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

Statement by KillerChihuahua[edit]

• Note: I've never filed an ArbCom case before so if I screw up, it's purely accidental - just let me know and I'll fix it, thanks - KillerChihuahua 05:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is on community article probation. I was asked on 18 February to take a look by User:Goethean, who had been accused of poor behavior (specifically, WP:TE) and wanted a second opinion from an uninvolved admin (see here). I looked, couldn't find anything objectionable in his edits, so I asked the accusing editor to provide a diff here, but as you can see by following the link, I got reams of vague accusations but not a single diff. I hatted the accusatory accusations on the article talk page [1] (my first ever edit there) and advised the accusing editor, North8000, to either provide diffs, or cease the accusations (basically put up or shut up.) Then I added the TPM article to my watchlist. Less than a week later North8000 was making uncivil comments and personal attacks on article talk page.[2] I posted on his talk page asking him to be more civil and I added a reminder on the article talk page that the article is under probation and in only a couple of hours North8000 told me I'm involved, Arzel insulted Goethean again and misrepresented him, and Malke 2010 basically told me I'm Goethean's meatpuppet in order to enable Goethean to bully people - the exact phrasing was "you're here at the behest of goethean who apparently wants to bully editors he doesn't agree with. You, like goethean are failing to assume good faith"[3] There have been repeated instances of BATTLE and NPA from North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010. The environment is toxic. I took this situation to ANI (as Tea Party movement; looking for community input) , now at the sub-page HERE. So far, there have been multiple views on a number of editors, several editors have added to the "Proposed topic ban" lists (several with no evidence at all), and including North8000 calling for my desysopping, and Arthur Rubin calling for me being topic banned for BATTLE because I brought the issue to ANI. I think this one is going to to take an ArbCom case to make any headway.

Statement by North8000[edit]

There is an important lack of clarity and important flaws in the listing of participants in the formation of this, but if the current fact-free shit-storm at ani were to go even one inch further it should go to Arbcom (or possibly to mediation). (So "kill it all immediately" is also a good choice.) A thorough analysis (vs. the fact free mess that is occurring now) of what has occurred will show that I did ZERO wrong; if anything against me continues even an inch further I demand that thorough analysis. Any AN/ANI that is on a vague complaint (with contemplated sanctions) turns into fact-free disaster, and this one certainly has. POV warriors do not view POV warriors from the opposite side as their main targets. Persons who carefully, credibly and persistently work to bring the article to the neutral center are far harder to get rid of and the main threat to their POV agenda. A good way to spot fact-free ones is posts to the effect of "this just shows how bad North is" instead of "North did this: (insert specific)" I'm one of those and some of the most infamous of them (mostly not from this article) have showed up at the ANI with basis-free negative "assessments" of me as a part of their battle. And I am confident how any actual careful analysis (with the best hope of achieving that being Arbcom) will end up. However, beyond that, here is is where the clarity is needed.

• If this is about the current shit-storm, that is basically 98% a two person dispute, me and KillerChihuahua. (looks like it may be over now) And it is generally NOT at or about the TPM article. The article was and is chugging along in its average state of going nowhere. A look at two threads on my talk page (User_talk:North8000#Tea Party Movement, POV pushing, and TE and the one after it) tells 80% of the story and the solicitation thread at KC's talk page another 5% of it. Another 5% would be analysis of the (lack of) any specific basis for opening the ANI thread. A thorough analysis (vs. the fact free mess that is occurring now) of what has occurred will show that I did ZERO wrong; if anything against me continues even an inch further I demand that thorough analysis. KillerChihuahua, without basis, quickly dismissed the validity of the TE concern (the review which was ostensibly the reason Goethean was soliciting people) got into a battling mentality, incorrectly used their imprimatur in their battle, and baselessy escalated it into the shit-storm. With Geothean (via soliciting) probably being the largest in the other 2% involvement. So the list is flawed. And the idea of having one of the two involved disputants formulate it is also not a good idea, although I commend KC for closing the ani and bringing it here. Possibly a mediation between the two of us would be even a better idea. (but it looks like it may be over now)

• If we are talking about the tussles at the article in recent times, (e.g. 1-2 years) the list is also malformed. Malke (who has been absent for a long time) should not be on it. And Xenophreninc, who has, by a lion's share, been the most involved should be on it. And KillerChihuahua was not involved until recently.

• The most productive thing for Arb Com to take up is the overall intractable mess and strife at that article. The inevitable proximate finding will be that Xenophrenic primarily and Geothean secondarilyy have dominated the article via TE and prevented its Wikification. (And maybe that I said "this article is a total disaster" too many times.) But I consider even that to be an effect, not a cause. But for the root cause this article is merely a poster child. It is flaws in policies and the system that been the ultimate cause of practically ALL of Wikipedia's articles on contentious topics being unstable, strife-ridden junky articles. Any findings that would come out of tackling this one as a "poster child" would do immense good for Wikipedia.

BTW, in case anybody is wondering, my RW politics is libertarian, not conservative, and which is in conflict with conservationism on about 1/2 of issues. More importantly, that is irrelevant; we check those hats at the door when we edit wikipedia. A careful review of my discussion at the TPM article will confirm this successful separation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@KC you may be half right, so I should clarify. The TPM article was and is just chugging along in its usual normal sad state. IMO your ANI post was a volley as a result of a dispute between you and me which then picked up a life of its own as a mindless fact-free shit storm. The dispute is mostly right here User_talk:North8000#Tea Party Movement, POV pushing, and TE and speaks for itself. Since as it shows I had already repeatedly disengaged, and it takes at least one to have a dispute, if you say that there is not currently a dispute between us then there no longer is one. So all that's left is the fact-free basis-free shitstorm which arose from it. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On of the few things that can / would help on articles that have long term difficulties (until we can fix the policies the enable those problems) is for a person to objectively make an extensive long term analysis and form conclusions. If an issue is spotted, but not where it merits disciplinary action against any individual, just pointing out what has been happening at the article that can tend to reduce those problems. Oh wait!......that's me, and that's what I did.....so conservatively that I took two years to make sure (and I bet it will be the best thing that happened to that article in years) .......and look what happened. What a great system. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this gets accepted, step 1 should be a thorough analysis, then a discussion, and then decisions. I am seeing comments here which are trying to skip the earlier steps and guess at or imply the final steps, which defeats the purpose of the Arbcom process. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arzel[edit]

My primary comment to clear up a false statement that KC has continued to make against me. KC's statement They reject any editors and any sources which do not promote the Tea Party movement, to the point that the New York Times and MSNBC were dismissed as non-RS - rather snidely, too - by Arzel and Malke 2010. KillerChihuahua 06:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC) is simply false. I never said that the NYT or MSNBC were non-RS sources.

My part in this endevour began because an editor added to the TPM agenda the agenda/defintion from the point of view of a person outside of the movement. I simply moved that sentence to later in the section with the reasoning that the movement should define itself first. I then made the following comment.

"It is written as an opinion of the writer. Who says that this writer gets to define the Tea Party? Why doesn't it belong in the media section? It is formed from a media outlet, what makes the NYT special in this regard? Why not include ALL of the media opinions in the definition? Arzel (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)"

I would ask that KC provide a link where I said that the NYT and MSNBC were non-RS. I did not remove the information, and I am getting a little sick of this crap.

Additionally, I fail to see how questioning whether the actual movement should have first say in their agenda is problematic. Arzel (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malke 2010[edit]

The AN/I case has been reopened. The AN/I thread was less than 24 hours old and I'd like to see it continue before coming here. I think posting here right now is premature. If the situation changes and this is the venue then I will come back and make a statement and include whatever diffs are necessary.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me start off by saying I did not call KillerChihuahua a meat puppet. [4] Nor did I question the NYTs as a reliable source. My comment about the MSNBC and the NYTs was based on the objection to the NYTs opinion piece. In the past, I have always relied on the news coverage by the NYTs because they have very strict fact checking and they are reliable. But the opinion pages are not RS.

As to my comment that KillerChihuahua refers to, when I read the exchange between North8000 and KillerChihuahua, it came across to me that KC wasn’t listening to North8000. While I felt KillerChihuahua made some good points, it seemed to me that the two of them were winding each other up. And her comments seemed biased towards Goethean which only made things worse with Arzel then commenting. I think North8000 reacted the way he did, and Arzel then commented as well, because KillerChihuahua seemed to them and myself, too, to be excusing Goethean’s last comment to me which was the one North8000 was reacting to. (Here is the diff with both Goethean's comment to me, my response to him, and North8000s comment: [5]. As I made clear on the AN, I'm not defending North8000s reply. I thought the exchange was over and was not at all happy with his comment.)

That made KillerChihuahua seem not uninvolved as she was claiming, but rather very much involved. And I reacted to what seemed to me to be unfair advantage for Goethean. I’ve been on Wikipedia long enough to know accusing someone of meat puppetry is not welcome and certainly never tell that to an admin.

And so my comment came in the context of defending North8000 for what I perceived to be a lack of fairness, but certainly not meat puppetry. As it turned out, KillerChihuahua and North8000 had already had an exchange on his talk page. She never came to my talk page with any concerns of meat puppetry or anything else.

I felt the AN/I was premature as cooler heads could have prevailed. North8000 is not an unreasonable editor and I’m certain that had they both just stopped commenting, things would have picked up on a far better note the following day.

I don’t edit the Tea Party Movement anymore. Specifically, I became disenchanted after numerous run-ins with Will Beback and Dylan Flaherty, both now banned from editing Wikipedia. If the page is in a sad state now, it wasn’t always like that. As Xenophrenic, who was editing back in 2010 with me and several others could tell you, we had a far more collegial atmosphere in comparison. Once the aforementioned editors appeared, sometime in the fall of 2010, things changed dramatically. A few editors left immediately as the atmosphere was stiffled by the presence of a dominating administrator who made changes at will with virtually no discussion. I could not see the point in continuing especially after some of the encounters with Dylan Flaherty on my talk page that went beyond the pale to the point where he was banned from my talk page (but not blocked which seemed very unfair to me at the time.) In the end, it was more baggage than seemed reasonable to be carrying for a voluntary editor. And since then I've restricted myself to random edits and writing and editing legal articles.

I think North8000 was simply frustrated, being a more conservative editor, by the other-side-of-the-aisle bias that exists on Wikipedia. He was looking for KillerChihuahua to acknowledge that Goethean had made an uncivil comment but instead she defended it. Fireworks ensued. If I've offended her or Goethean in any way, I certainly apologize as I did on the AN/I. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole exchange is here:

[6] first comment by Malke 2010

[7] reply by North8000

[8] reply by Malke 2010

[9] link given by Goethean

[10] reply by Malke 2010

[11] reply by Goethean

[12] reply by Malke 2010

[13] reply by North8000

@Count Iblis - You make an excellent point. The TPM talk page revolves around content disputes that fall along idealogical lines. I can go back and find diffs for you to arguments but as a quick example, one side wanted to show that the TPM came about as a 'response' to the election of Obama, while the other side claimed it was grassroots and all about the money. Arguments over petty, silly 'news' items such as an incident in Maryland where a man claimed his outdoor barbecue grill was sabotaged by tea party members because he was an Obama supporter. Xenophrenic fought like crazy for that and anytime it got deleted, he put it right back.

You can ban all the the editors there right now and a new group will come in and do the same. I like your analogy to the school teacher keeping the students focused on the work. This is why I believe ArbCom control of the article like it has over The Troubles articles, will turn that page around. I could be naive about this, but I've edited a bit on The Troubles and things got sorted out between editors and without the incivility that occurs now on the TPM talk page.

These are my recollections since I've not been editing there in a long time as an active editor and I've not gone back to sort the archives but as I recall, the problem with the Tea Party Movement is that it was put on probation and then ignored by admins. There was an admin editing there, Will Beback, and the other admins would not reign him in. Will Beback really unsettled that page, as did his co-editor Dylan Flaherty. It was after Dylan started editing warring, and full disclosure everybody there did some of that including me, that the page got put on probation. Dylan is the one who really got things rolling in that direction with the page getting locked several times. After the article got put on probation, it got ignored by the admins because Will Beback was there. If ArbCom had been in control of things, all that disruption would not have happened, and I really believe editors would have settled down and focused on really establishing a collegial talk page to sort things out.

As it is now, it is mired in incivility and obstruction. And there are editors there now whose behavior is just on the edge of true consequences for the things they say and do. They dance right on the edge of 3RR and personal attacks. And that behavior is the source of the obstructionism. And when an admin shows up, what is he to do? Even if he can see the editor is sailing close to the wind, all he can say to the other editor is, "I can't find any violation."

Typical exchange on the origins of the tea party.[14] Goethean also informs the other editors this study will be in the article, despite their protests. [15] Behavior disputes: [16]

Here is an example of cooperation and positive comments despite Dylan Flaherty. This is also with the help of the mediation cabal, which I believe I suggested. [17] As I recall, it may have been derailed by Dylan in the final stages. My point though is that these same editors are able to work together on this page, and civily, if there is some oversight.

Statement by Goethean[edit]

My goal at Tea Party Movement has been to help ensure accuracy, neutrality and the use of reliable sources. There were lots of edit wars and battleground tactics at the article before I arrived, during the time that I edited the article, and edit wars have continued after I disengaged from the article a few days ago.

On 18 Feb, User:Xenophrenic and I were accused by User:North8000 of tendentious editing. The reason that User:North8000 provided as evidence of my (alleged) tendentious editing is that I removed a reference to a 2007 Ron Paul rally as the origin of the Tea Party Movement. No sources have been offered which explicitly connect that rally to the Tea Party Movement, which is generally thought to have originated in 2009. Arthur Rubin, who very often takes the side of User:North8000, seems to agree with me that the rally does not refer to the same tea party as the article covers.

In response to User:North8000's accusation, I contacted two high-profile and completely uninvolved admins, User:SlimVirgin and User:KillerChihuahua, with whom I had had a long disagreement at the Human article several years ago ('05 - '06), and with whom I have had very little contact since. I contacted them because I was genuinely interested in discovering whether I had violated policy, and I figured that two admins who had no connection to the article would be the best people to help me answer that question. — goethean 16:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin[edit]

I quite agree with all parties that the article is in sad shape. However, it appears there is significant disagreement as to which parts are inappropriate or inadequately covered, but, until recently, discussions have generally been civil. I see few, if any, violations of WP:BATTLEFIELD, but there may be some WP:TAGTEAM edits (which, as far as I know, are completely uncoordinated, and almost certainly in good faith.) In terms of my specific edits, my impression is that there is an effort to add anything negative about any person connected to any organization in the TPm, whether or not relevant, even to the person. I've made some effort to remove material I consider undue, from unreliable sources (until I see consensus that the sources are reliable), misquoted, or irrelevant. As for the NYT and MSNBC being "unreliable", I would like to see specific diffs, but at least one of the NYT references was to an editorial, which is not reliable for statements of "fact", only for notable opinions.

I'll supply some diffs, later, if there is anything potentially indicating I've done something wrong other than stating that KC has misinterpreted policies, guidelines, and individual edits, and suggesting, at ANI, a topic ban at ANI, only because there is as much evidence for one against KC as against some of the other proposed editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration, I don't think KC has misinterpreted policies. He has misinterpreted actions by a number of editors, and possibly misinterpreted consensus as not to note that thee two editors North8000 mentioned, as well as others, were edit warring against consensus in a couple cases (although, in the Ron Paul case, they seem to be correct, but for the wrong reason). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ RexxS. I disagree. Whether or not KC has improperly taken sides, his interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines editors' actions is wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Question: There are comments on the Arbitrator section proposing suspending any sanctions until there is progress at ANI. I can't find the ANI section. I also can't find, in Talk:Tea Party movement, a summary of the active content disputes, unless it's in the (ignored) section which I started. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the subpage of ANI is still there, but not linked. Discussion is still occurring there, but, I don't know if all the parties are aware of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Followup. I'm afraid I over-reacted. Still, I don't see how an unbiased analysis could produce any conclusion but that Goethean sometimes "discussed" policy, but was never willing to follow it unless it agreed with his attempts to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There are a few editors who have been WP:TE from time to time, but among those active recently, only G was unwilling to follow consensus once established. I have doubts about North8000 being WP:CIVIL. Most of the other editors named are on the edge of the matter (on the TPm, anyway), and have few, if any, violations. I do apologize for saying KC should be banned from the subject; it's clear she doesn't understand what's happening, but that is not a reason for a topic ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Timotheus Canens' vote takes the tally to a net four to accept, and starts the 24 hour minimum clock to opening a case. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have volunteered to be the lead clerk with Callanecc (talk · contribs) as a trainee. Do any of the parties object to this? --Guerillero | My Talk 01:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party movement: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/0/0>[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Comment: @KC. Could you briefly summarise the actual dispute here please?  Roger Davies ^talk 06:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Could someone please provide a link to the discussion that resulted in the article probation? Thanks. Risker (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to those who ensured the necessary links were present and clear. I agree with my colleague Timotheus that simply shuttling this off to discretionary sanctions and arbitration enforcement is simply shifting the burden from a committee of 15 to a tiny handful of admins, of which only one would be ultimately responsible for a decision; this is not fair to either those whose behaviour is reviewed nor to the few administrators who are willing to carry out AE. Community sanctions have already been tried; are they sufficient? Are they working at all? If not, I am inclined to accept this case. Risker (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept. Risker (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Holding off on voting for a day or two to see if any progress is made at ANI. Will evaluate at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I've waited a week rather than a day, but I don't see much progress being made. My instinct is that this case might wind up being resolved as some people have already predicted, but except in the clearest situations, I'd prefer to open a case to examine the evidence rather than adopt a remedy based on my instincts. If the case is accepted, all parties are reminded that the focus will be on user misconduct and what remedies would best assist out goal of creating a reliable, neutral encyclopeida, and not on the underlying real-world political disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• @KC: When this was brought up on the mailing list last night, I wrote, "We could probably write the proposed decision for such a case now: discretionary sanctions, ban, ban, topic ban, topic ban, admonishment." Do you think that ArbCom replacing community article probation with discretionary sanctions for the area by motion would be a helpful step? That would allow the case to return to ArbCom for closer inspection only if it fails. NW (Talk) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. NW (Talk) 00:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• One of the things I criticized as an AE admin is the Committee's relatively recent tendency to slap discretionary sanctions on a topic and call it a day, leaving the bulk of the work of actually figuring out who's deserving of sanctions to the less-well-equipped AE admins. It would be hypocritical for me to support a simple DS motion here. If we are going to do something here, I would accept a full case. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By less well equipped, do you mean not having direct access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have the luxury of time. We have months in which we can systematically review someone's conduct. A thread at AE generally lasts a few days. T. Canens (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is haste built into AE decisions, or can the admins there decide to take more time to consider a matter? I am aware that outside of AE if a matter is considered serious and complex enough, a RfC is initiated, and those typically take 30 days. Is the haste because of potential ongoing disruption to articles under discretionary sanctions? Outside of AE, I am aware that if a matter is complex enough to require time to consider, that an article is locked down until the matter is resolved. I am not an AE admin so these are genuine questions - if it is felt that AE admins are operating in a restricted manner compared to non-AE admins, I think it's something we should be seriously looking into, because we would want to be enabling AE admins rather than restricting them, or over-burdening them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not built in, but 1) like most sanctions of the non-arbcom variety, people tend to bring up the "preventative not punitive" mantra if the sanction is separated from the misconduct for too long, and 2) if you let an AE thread drag on for too long, it tends to get filled with assorted walls of text, most of which are of questionable relevance, but all of which have to be read. As a result, you'll get very, very few admins who would be willing to look at it. Moreover, it's really a massive undertaking to review a lengthy and bitter dispute with dozens of diffs as a single admin, well beyond what we could reasonably expect from our administrators. I tried doing it once, and it was not pretty at all; the second time an equally massive thread in the topic area popped up, we passed the buck back to ArbCom. In the end, it is this Committee's responsibility to resolve intractable user conduct disputes, not say "hey admins, here's some shiny new tools, now go resolve the dispute for us". T. Canens (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, we are supposed to let the Community handle things if we can. I'm still inclined to give discretionary sanctions a shot and if it doesn't work, we can take on a case then. Sandstein's idea seems like an interesting one. I've thought about it before, and I can see it working if the community is fine with us using this case as a test vehicle. NW (Talk) 16:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions has nothing to do with the Community. It is, and has always been, a Committee process. Simply passing discretionary sanctions does nothing to return the dispute to the community; it merely shifts the actual, hard work to the few admins working at AE. T. Canens (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think discretionary sanctions is passing the issue back to the community, I think it's the Committee's attempt at reaching a solution. There is a limit to what the Committee can do. We can return the issue back to the community/decline; we can ban; we can give warnings of various sorts; and we can issue sanctions which are then enforced by the community - which would mean someone who takes an interest in the case, the user, or in the topic, or who, as part of their volunteer work, are willing to keep an eye on ArbCom sanctions and enforce them as required. I would feel a little uncomfortable about not utilising sanctions because of a concern that such sanctions would overburden those who have volunteered to enforce them - that would then limit what options are available to us: we would be limited to either ban, warn or decline. Sanctions are an important part of what ArbCom does. If there is a concern that sanctions are now getting difficult to enforce, perhaps we can have a RfC on this to find a way of making it less burdensome. I'm not sure that it should influence our decision in how to deal with this particular case request. I think we should keep active all options until the matter has been more thoroughly discussed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept as a case. I would be open to a motion authorizing DS in the topic area for the duration of the case. T. Canens (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept in some form. I'm not exactly against the idea of just turning the DS knob and seeing what needs doing in three months, but something, and I'd slightly lean towards that being a case (shunting this towards AE is suboptimal), is needed here, as the topic area is just not working. Courcelles 06:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. I've been researching the dispute at greater length, and I don't think I can stand by my earlier reading of this as a low-level dispute. This dispute has been raging for quite some time, and the imposition of community-based general sanctions in 2010. Nothing I've read since this request has been filed convinces me that further community review is likely to lead to a tempering of this dispute, nor do I think the community can easily tackle this dispute (without the investment of a disproportionate amount of editorial time). My original comments on this request are here. AGK [•] 18:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer to keep this case narrow in scope, and have us only examine the Tea Party movement. Omnibus cases are difficult to resolve and more difficult to conduct; and a case concerning "U.S. politics" would so broad in scope that it'd certainly be an "omnibus" case. I suggest to my colleagues that problematic editing on pages will only be arbitrated if they are brought to us as part of a separate request for arbitration. AGK [•] 19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still waiting for something to be resolved at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input, though I suspect, as someone has hinted above, that when a problem is referred to ArbCom, the community might lose interest and motivation in attempting to resolve it. I'm interested to see that, as well as topic bans being proposed for what appears to be the cast list for a Cecil B. DeMille film, that increased sanctions are being proposed. As community sanctions are listed on the same page as ArbCom sanctions, I'd be interested to hear what in effect would be the difference between the community imposing further sanctions and ArbCom doing it. Whichever way it goes, somebody will have to make an assessment and then carry out the appropriate sanction. If the concern is that existing community sanctions are not working on this topic because some individuals are not respecting that and/or because the situation is more complex than can be decided under pressure, but that making them ArbCom sanctions would simply be shifting the problem to another group of individuals who would also be unable to make the appropriate assessments, are the Committee being pushed in the direction of handing out topic/site bans - either now by gut-instinct motion, or in three months time after examining the contribution history of that Cecil B. DeMille cast list?

I am concerned at the response to KillerChihuahua's attempt to sort out a problem, and, whatever else comes out of this, I'd like to see that users who respond inappropriately to reasonable attempts by uninvolved volunteers (admins or otherwise) to resolve problems are reminded that such behaviour is counter to the Wikipedia spirit, and erodes the project. It is a wearisome, unpleasant and thankless task resolving conflicts - those of us who attempt it do get tired of it. We need to support those who still have the energy, interest and dedication to help resolve problems - otherwise, as with AE admins burning out because they are being asked to deal with too many sanctions, so we'll see dispute resolution volunteers giving up, and then the warriors will take over the encyclopedia.

If the community discussion doesn't go anywhere, then I think we need to take this case and look carefully at the conduct of a number of people. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept. The community discussion has clearly stalled. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CartoonDiablo, I'm not sure where it would be "better" to comment, nor am I sure whose solution would be "better" - there are people who believe that only ArbCom can solve this situation because some users have ignored an admin attempting to remind them of a community sanction, and so an ArbCom enforced sanction is needed. I am hesitant to turn too quickly toward ArbCom, as I feel that each time a community resolvable situation is given up to ArbCom, the community loses some of the belief that the community can resolve issues. While some members of the community still believe that the problem can be resolved without ArbCom, I will support and applaud and encourage that - in the same way that I want to support and applaud and encourage admins like KillerChihuahua who attempt to resolve problems. We are a collaborative community who have together formed our rules and procedures, and we have created a community to be proud of. Working collaboratively we have created this encyclopedia, and we handle on a day to day basis complex issues. Let's hold our heads up, and let's not lose faith in ourselves. Certainly we need a body for truly intractable issues, or simply where the community have exhausted attempts at resolution. I'm not sure, yet, though, that the community are exhausted, and I for one am willing to wait. ArbCom will be here if needed. But I'd rather not rush into that yet. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had a skim read through the relevent pages and I believe that a case is necessary here. Accept Worm^TT(talk) 14:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, it seems a full case is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Interim decision: Suspend case[edit]

1) The Tea Party movement case is suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to attempt to resolve the conflict regarding the Tea Party movement article. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. The Committee will reconvene on 1 July 2013 to determine if the conflict has been resolved; and if not, what further steps the Committee should take.

Passed 8 to 0, 14:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Interim decision: Reinstate case[edit]

Further to the above, the Arbitration Committee reinstated proceedings for this case on 2 July 2013.

Announced on 22:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on "synthesized claims", or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus building[edit]

4) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

5) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

6) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should strive to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing[edit]

7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Involvement[edit]

9) Administrators are expected not to use administrator tools in disputes in which they are involved. The administrator policy states: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Administrators are responsible for assessing for themselves the nature of any possible involvement, and to ensure they are not being influenced by prior personal interactions with any of the editors or personal views regarding the subject-matter.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeking community input (2)[edit]

10.2) Wider community participation in dispute resolution can help resolve disputes; however, care should be taken by everyone to remain neutral and to carefully examine the issues in good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute. Calls for sanctions should be based on quality evidence.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

12) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Locus of dispute 1[edit]

1) This case addresses concerns related to the editing of the Tea Party movement article. The article was created in January 2010 as a split from Tea Party protests. The topic is sensitive, high-profile, and attracts polarising views. Editing of the article has been problematic from the start including a combination of vandal edits, edit-warring, and concerns about POV. In November 2010, there was an informal mediation on article content. At about the same time, community sanctions were imposed, following this discussion. The community sanction states that on this article, "no editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period". Concerns about the length and quality of the article, as well as debate about wording and content, have been raised on the talkpage since 2010, and discussions now fill 21 archives. Reverts regularly take place, creating a slow-moving edit-war that may meet the wording of the community sanction, but not its spirit. The article is currently fully protected.

Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Locus of dispute 2[edit]

2) Following a content disagreement on 18 February, North8000 commented that Xenophrenic and Goethean were editing tendentiously in favour of their point of view. Goethean asked administrator KillerChihuahua to evaluate whether his own editing was in line with policy. KillerChihuahua advised that the matter should be dealt with in a low-key fashion, offering to discuss it with North8000. Following an inconclusive discussion regarding evidence of tendentious editing, North8000 commented that Goethean was "being rude as usual". KillerChihuahua warned North8000against uncivil behaviour. At this point, North8000 and Malke 2010 opined that KillerChihuahua was involved in the dispute and siding with Goethean. KillerChihuahua then took the matter to ANI, stating that she had checked for tendentious editing by Goethean and found no problems. She proposed topic-bans for North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010. During this discussion, other editors proposed topic-bans for some additional contributors. Also during the discussion, North8000 proposed that KillerChihuahua should be desysopped. Although some of these suggestions received much more support than others, there was no clear consensus as to how to proceed, and the matter was accepted for arbitration.

Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Inadequacies of current community sanctions[edit]

3) The community sanctions provides that "No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period" (emphasis added). Concern has been raised that the wording of the community sanctions makes assessment of edit warring difficult. In addition, there are instances where several different editors revert the same material, so while no single editor is reverting more than once, the combined effort results in an edit war.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Goethean[edit]

4) Goethean (talk · contribs) has revert warred at Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In February 2013, Goethean edit warred with two other parties about the agenda of the Tea Party movement ([18], [19], [20]). Some of these reverts were made despite ongoing attempts to discuss the issue on the talk page; others were made with no attempt to engage in the wider community effort to rewrite the article or to hold a meaningful discussion on the talk page of the movement agenda. Goethean has also engaged in protracted reverting in order to retain sections of the article that reflect negatively on the movement ([21], [22]).

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

North8000[edit]

5) User:North8000 has acted in a manner that suggests a battleground mentality, for example proposing a desysop to make a point[23][24], posting to a user talk page multiple times despite being asked not to,[25] and commenting on behaviour without evidence.[26]

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Malke 2010[edit]

6) One of Malke 2010's focuses on Wikipedia has been modern American politics. In this topic area, he has treated Wikipedia as a battleground (see KillerChihuahua's evidence) and has a history of acting uncivilly (Viriditas' evidence). Malke 2010 has sought to disinclude sources authored by academics on the grounds that their research is flawed (see generally Archive 22).

Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin[edit]

7) Arthur Rubin has repeatedly edit warred with other contributors to Tea Party movement ([27], [28], [29], [30]) and has, on occasion and over a long period of time, edited combatively ([31], [32]).

Passed 7 to 2, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow[edit]

9) Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) has attempted to block the inclusion of a peer-reviewed publication because he disagrees with the publication's conclusion.[33]. Although he has attempted to work constructively with other editors, Phoenix and Winslow has contributed to an edit war in an attempt to impose his preferred wording ([34]) and was banned from editing the Tea Party movement article for 1 week by User:SilkTork during the suspension of the case ([35]). He has demonstrated a battleground nature in discussing related articles on Wikipedia ([36]).

Passed 8 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic[edit]

10) Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) has consistently failed to obey Wikipedia's conduct standards: by personalising his dispute with other editors ([37], [38], [39]); edit warring over comments that negatively portray him – thereby further increasing tension ([40], [41], [42]); and engaging in unnecessary mockery (e.g. of Collect's use of the signoff Cheers, [43], [44], [45], [46]).

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect[edit]

11) Collect (talk · contribs) has been dismissive of other users' views (e.g. [47]) and needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants ([48], [49], [50], [51]).

Passed 6 to 3, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit[edit]

12) Ubikwit (talk · contribs) has ignored sound arguments about article content ([52]), and contributed to hostility at pages relating to the Tea Party movement article by making assumptions of bad faith ([53], [54]) about and condescending ([55]) to other disputants.

Passed 6 to 2, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Snowded[edit]

13) Snowded (talk · contribs) has been disparaging toward ([56], [57], [58]) and combative with ([59]) other editors of the Tea Party movement article.

Passed 5 to 4, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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.

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

Passed 8 to 1, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Amended 7 to 1 by motion, at 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Goethean topic-banned[edit]

3.1) Goethean (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Passed 6 to 3, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

North8000 topic-banned[edit]

4.2) North8000 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Passed 7 to 2, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Suspended for one year by motion at 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC). If not reimposed within one year at WP:ARCA, the remedy will expire.

Malke 2010 topic-banned[edit]

6.1) Malke 2010 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Passed 7 to 1, with 1 abstention 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic topic-banned[edit]

7.1) Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Passed 7 to 2, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Suspended (see wording here) by motion, 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There having been no enforcement actions taken this remedy is vacated by the same motion, 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect[edit]

7.2) Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Suspended (see wording here) by motion, 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There having been no enforcement actions taken this remedy is vacated by the same motion, 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin topic-banned[edit]

8.1) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Passed 5 to 3, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Community sanctions lifted[edit]

10) The current community sanctions are lifted.

Passed 7 to 1, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit topic-banned[edit]

11) Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Passed 5 to 3, with 1 abstention 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect topic-banned[edit]

12) Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Passed 6 to 3, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow topic-banned[edit]

13) Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Passed 8 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Snowded–Phoenix and Winslow interaction ban[edit]

15) Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstentions 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement of decision sanctions[edit]

1) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement (where a consensus of uninvolved administrators will determine the result of the appeal), or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. As an alternative to blocking under this paragraph, the uninvolved administrator may impose a discretionary sanction, which shall be in addition to any sanction imposed in this decision.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement of discretionary sanctions[edit]

2) Should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

August 2014 (Arthur Rubin)[edit]

Original discussion

Remedy 8.1 (Arthur Rubin topic banned) in the Tea Party movement case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow Wikipedia's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by the ban. Such reinstatement may be appealed via the normal appeals process for arbitration enforcement actions. At one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements were successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted permanently.

The following restriction is enacted: Arthur Rubin is restricted indefinitely to one revert per page per week in the area of the Tea Party movement. Enforcement of this restriction shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Tea Party movement case and any enforcement actions shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed after no less than one year from the date of passage of this motion, and if unsuccessful no less than one year following the decline of that or any subsequent appeal.

Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this case to date shall remain in force unaffected.

Passed by motion, 9 to 0 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014 (Xenophrenic)[edit]

Remedy 7.1 ("Xenophrenic topic-banned") and Remedy 7.2 ("Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect") of the Tea Party movement decision are suspended. These remedies may be enforced under the relevant enforcement provision, but effective the passage of this motion they shall only be enforced for edits by Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) that, in the enforcing administrator's judgement, would have been considered disruptive for some other reason than that they breached the remedy had it not been suspended.

Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to a consensus view of uninvolved administrators. If no such enforcement action is taken (or all such actions are taken and successfully appealed) by 01 January 2015, on that date the remedies will become formally vacated by this motion, and the case pages then amended by the clerks in the usual way. If an appeal of such enforcement action is pending on 01 January 2015, the remedies will become formally vacated only if the appeal is successful. If enforcement action is taken and an appeal is rejected, the remedies shall become unsuspended and a request for their amendment may not be re-submitted to the committee until six months have elapsed from the passage of this motion.

Passed by motion, 07:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There having been no enforcement actions taken this motion formally vacates the remedies, 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

North8000 restrictions: Motion (August 2020)[edit]

North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was restricted by motion in December 2016 (Motion regarding North80000). Recognizing North8000's productive contributions and renewed voluntary commitments, the restrictions are suspended for one year, during which time the restrictions may be re-imposed (individually or entirely) upon request to WP:ARCA if warranted. Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period.

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) blocked for a week for violating his topic ban per a WP:AE request.  Sandstein  13:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]