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
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Suspend case

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 at 14:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Support:

1. Pages under discretionary sanctions include talkpages and articles being created in subpages. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Added clause to make this explicitally for all namespaces. -- Courcelles 01:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Reluctantly. I don't think that this discussion will truly solve any of the underlying issues here, which I believe comes from a number of editors blatantly flouting content and conduct policy and getting away with it. But I don't have the time to write the case proposal that I want (which would involve numerous, detailed additional FoFs) and if I am not willing to put up the legwork, then I cannot in good conscience oppose this proposal. NW ( Talk) 02:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. If this works, it would be the best solution, though if it does work it should have been tried prior to arbitration. Worm^TT( talk) 08:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Reluctantly as well, although I think this is an issue of our own making. Nonetheless if the community can make progress we shouldn't stand in the way of it, so formally putting it on hold should offer a greater chance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 13:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Happy to give time for the moderated discussion to work. If it doesn't, we will pick up where we left off with the proposed decision. AGK [•] 14:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Under all the circumstances this makes sense. Hopefully the wiki disputants on Tea Party movement can set at last aside partisanship and work together for common good, in a fashion that might set a good example for other forums of equally polarized partisan disputes such as, say, the United States Congress. I made a couple of minor copyedits ("to" --> "until"; "will be placed" --> "are placed"). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
8. okay, Also a small copyedit ("Pages related to" to "Pages relating to").   Roger Davies ^talk 11:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Motion for final decision

Proposed:

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Note the majority calculation above was correct at time of this motion, however since then there have been changes to the Arbitrators active on this case. Because this motion is separate to the proposed final decision listed below all votes made at the time of this motion still stand.

Support

1. Proposed. For the record, this was written in the original form by me, and has substantial contributions by Newyorkbrad (he wrote all of the background section, for example); comments from other arbitrators have also been built in. AGK [•] 10:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Re-confirming vote in light of changes to list of parties. AGK [•] 12:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. This is a comparatively novel step but is I think a solid solution to try out. Think is a decision that will definitely be worth reappraising at the end of the ban period to judge its efficacy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 12:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC) (Clarifying that I still support the motion with current language. 02:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)) reply

   SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply

   I've added myself to underline that this is not a punishment for bad behaviour, but a solution to cut through the Gordian Knot that is preventing progress at the article. We ask everyone who was recently significantly involved to step back for six months. This is not a big issue, and there is no shame being attached to those on the list. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) reply

3. I am unhappy with this motion. I do not think that anyone on the Committee feels differently. And I think the introduction to this motion, while broadly true, also doesn't quite come close enough to summarizing the situation. I think there definitely are some editors being sanctioned in this motion who absolutely need to be removed from this topic area. I was frankly shocked at how open some editors were at pushing their point of view. There ought to be some giant blinking red light telling them that they went too far when they started to refute academic sources based on their personal beliefs. Or after several months had clear never suggested any modifications to the article that did not align to their personal political views. At the same time, there are editors being swept up in this motion who do not need to be sanctioned. They haven't contributed to the negative atmosphere, they haven't broken any policies, they haven't even especially gotten involved with disputes; if anything, they were pushing the article in a direction of neutrality. And it's a dammed shame they are being swept up into this. But with the rest of the Committee's position being that the cause of this dispute was the talk page atmosphere, I don't think there is any fair way to remove parties if we are also going to say that there is no "finding of fault on the part of any or all of the named editors." I am worried that this motion will drive those editors off the project. I don't want it to, and I hope that it doesn't.

   This motion is much a failure on the part of the Committee as it is the part of the editors of this article. I think the drafting Arbitrators as well as everyone else could have gone through each party one by one and isolated where they went astray in not editing according to Wikipedia's policies. I tried that with one or two editors below, but without a full analysis from the rest of the Committee on each of the editors involved, that process is never going to work. And for whatever reason, that was not done in this case. I'm as much to blame as anyone for that, and I apologize.

   At the end of the day, I do not think that what I talk about in the above paragraph is likely to happen. This motion is a less bad option than dismissing the case and so I vote to support it. NW ( Talk) 12:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply

4. Will this motion resolve the dispute? Probably. Is it the best or fairest solution? Probably not. But there's a point at which the cost of the search for a better solution outweighs the benefits, and the length of the time this case has already taken suggests that we've hit that point. T. Canens ( talk) 02:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. I've been doing my best to avoid this, bury my head in the sand in the vague hope that a better solution will come along. I've not seen one that I think will work. This decision will mean that editors who have not been disruptive will be removed from the article. That is inherently unfair. However as the issue not with any specific editors, this comprehensive "tar everyone with the same brush" is the only solution that might actually work. Worm^TT( talk) 12:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Admitting a motion to be "a failure on the part of the Committee" is hardly a resounding recommendation for its adoption; we ought to do better, or not touch the matter at all.

   A motion through which the drafting arbitrator of a case seeks to sanction himself, on the other hand, is one of the more unusual (to put it kindly) displays I've seen in my years as an arbitrator; the gesture reminds me all too much of a certain incident involving clowns. Kirill  ^[talk] 12:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply

   If you are quoting NW, he speaks for himself. Anyway, the point is that there are many editors who do need to be removed if this article is to have any hope of progressing, but who couldn't justifiably be singled out in a finding of fact for misconduct. This situation (an intractable content dispute with minimal misconduct) is unprecedented, and warrant a novel approach; but you seem to treat it as a shortcut for writing a full PD, which is an unreasonable asssessment.

   I personally thought it was a refreshing thing for the drafter to do. We take ourselves far too seriously, I tend to think. AGK [•] 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply

2. I don't think there is such a beast as a non-fault-finding topic-ban. Before you tell someone "do not edit this article under threat of a one month block" there needs to be, even in an omnibus motion like this, the slightest shred of evidence of misconduct. (I note that the drafting of this motion has apparently already sorted through at least some of the parties, given the absence (rightfully) of KillerChihuahua.) I just cannot support handing out a fairly severe sanction on some of these parties; "ban them all" may be a solution, but it isn't the slightest bit fair. Courcelles 14:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. While I understand the rationale behind this approach, and I do appreciate that the artcle is unlikely to make progress with the present personae dramatis, I cannot support sanctions (not matter how they are dressed up) without at least cursory individual findings of fact.   Roger Davies ^talk 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. I was active on and following this case back in May before I went on a wikibreak over the summer (which was longer than intended). Via the arbitration mailing list I was aware of (and objected to) some of the subsequent developments, but did not have time to fully review matters. When I returned to activity a few days ago, I had initially decided to stay inactive on this case, but after reading through what has elapsed on the case pages in the interim, and reading through the opinions expressed on the proposed decision talk page and elsewhere, I have decided to return to active status on this case. I would not normally do this after voting has proceeded as far as it has, but in this case there is currently only one motion to vote on, and potentially a proposed decision to resume voting on. I'm opposing this motion because I agree with the opinions of Kirill, Courcelles and Roger above. Additionally, I don't think it is appropriate to include an arbitrator in such a motion. I think we need to try again to come up with findings of fact that reflect the editing history of the parties, and then apply appropriate remedies. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. I still believe that this motion would reflect a defensible, though obviously not optimal, disposition of the case; I do not agree with the criticisms that it would set a dangerous wide-ranging precedent or that it would be outside the Committee's dispute-resolution authority. However, as per my comments below, I am uncertain about the inclusion of a couple of specific editors as well as the duration of the proposed page-bans. More importantly, within the past couple of days, some of my colleagues have stated, both here and on our mailing list, that they believe they can complete the preparation of a more traditional decision including specific findings and remedies against specific editors who have behaved poorly. They are certainly entitled to try, even though it means the case will go on for.a longer time than it already has, and therefore I will oppose this motion at this time (although I wrote much of it), pending the results of their efforts. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• Additional note: I have just asked the clerks to notify the editors concerned that they have been named in this motion. Wikipedia:Notifications may well already have drawn their attention to this motion, but may not have. AGK [•] 12:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• I'm going to hold fire on voting until the newly added parties have had time to respond. It might be best if others did so too.   Roger Davies ^talk 13:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Per Roger. Worm^TT( talk) 13:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• As I've added myself, I'm withdrawing from the voting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• I'm divided on this one. While this topic and case are right messes, this motion is a sledgehammer, and hits several people unfairly. I've spent the morning looking, and there are a couple editors up there I can't find a darned shred of evidence against. I think i'd rather pick out the editors who have committed serious misconduct, topic ban those, and pass an instruction to AE to not be shy about handing out topic bans quicker than normal for new problems. Because there are people up there who should in no way be returning to this topic in merely six months. Courcelles 16:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• As the motion preamble explains, we are not merely faced with problems relating to editorial misconduct. We also face the difficulty of people who are simply incapable of writing an article together, and who will agree on nothing - even if they disagree in an entirely polite way. Perhaps a lot of it comes down to divergent political views (though perhaps not - we have not asked and would probably not want to know), but this isn't going to sort itself out through AE because AE only looks for abusive conduct. AGK [•] 23:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comments:

I haven't voted yet because like all the other arbitrators, I have terribly mixed feelings about the proposed motion. As one of the originally designated drafters in this case, I did my best to study the evidence as it came in and formulate individual findings of fact. To a greater extent than in almost any case we've dealt with in my six years on the Arbitration Committee, the evidence demonstrates that the editing environment on this article is in a disastrous state—but that we can't single out a particular editor or handful of editors and say that he or they are the problem and that topic-banning them would solve it. The traditional solution to these situations is discretionary sanctions (formerly "article probation")—but in this case we know that similar, community-based sanctions have been insufficient to solve the issues with this article. Nor did an extraordinary effort at mediated discussion, led by one of my fellow arbitrators, make progress. To either discuss the case without action would do nothing to resolve the current morass. To close it with a decision that simply replaces the current community-based sanctions regime with ArbCom-endorsed discretionary sanctions would be somewhat better, but it would shift some of the burden here from ourselves to the already-overburdened Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard and AE volunteer administrators.

For this reason, I am leaning toward supporting this motion (which I helped to draft), not out of enthusiasm but strictly as an "at wit's end," faute de mieux resolution to a situation that may be unfortunately impervious to resolution any other way. I hesitate to add my support partly out of concern about whether the list of parties included in the temporary page-ban may include some who should not be included, and partly because I think six months may be too long a time period for this sort of remedy. In the next 24 to 48 hours I will carefully review all the input we've received on this motion and the case for a final time, and then either cast my vote or make an alternative proposal. I would like to emphasize that if I do support this proposal or a variant, it will be entirely on the basis that we are not making findings of fault with respect to the editors mentioned. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
7. (Soapbox time: It occurs to me, as it does in most cases, that we are wasting our time even voting on these very simple statements. I don't think they are useful.) AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   I agree. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   These introductory principles can certainly seem mundane to those of us who live much of our wikilives on the arbitration pages and have read the same few sentences dozens of times. But we should bear in mind that readers of our decisions will include the parties to the case, other interested editors, and people from outside the project, none of whom may ever have seen a Wikipedia arbitration decision before. In that context, I think that reminding the consumers of our decision what it is that we all collectively doing here, before diving into the details of the specific dispute, often has a place. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Also, there is always a posibility that circumstances may change, even a little bit, in the future. These simple statements provide context for future readings of the cases. Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

8. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Linked "synthesized claims" and "original research"   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
7. AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

8. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Decorum

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
7. AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

8. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus building

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
7. (Minor copyedit for grammar: I changed "to competing" to "between competing".) AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

8. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sourcing

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Linked "five pillars"   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
7. There's a lot more that we could say here, but this is a decent summary. AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

8. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Talk pages

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Not sure about "aspire to" (which could probably go altogether) but that's a niggle,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Good. (Minor copyedit: I changed "aspire to" to "strive to", which seems to be what was meant, but either word could work.) AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

8. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tendentious editing

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
7. AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

8. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Article sanctions

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

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Not sure whether we really need this as a principle... T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Accurate Courcelles 22:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per Tim. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Don't think it's necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   I don't think this is necessary as it appears too vague. Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

3. Not necessary here. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Per my comment above. T. Canens ( talk) 18:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. I don't care either way. AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Involvement

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. With slight copyedits. T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Added first sentence for context (revert if undesired). Non-substantive copyedit to last sentence. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Copyedit "to assess for themselves" to "for assessing for themselves". Please revert if you disagree.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   You don't seem to have actually made that copyedit (which I agree is necessary), so I did it for you. As before, anybody who disagrees should please revert me. AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   No objection to the copyedit, although I think either usage sounds fine (at least to an American ear). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

7. We should probably have added to the end of this principle something about the fact that the community can make determinations of administrative involvement even when the administrator believes they have no such involvement, and that administrators are expected to honour such a determination of involvement. AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

8. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Seeking community input

10.1) 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 evidence; the greater the sanction, the greater the need for appropriate evidence.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. General support, but I would agree with striking the last part. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Second choice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The last line – no. The evidence required should be exactly enough as needed to convince editors of a problem, no more, no less. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Misread the last sentence as a restatement of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". NW is correct that the proposed sanction has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence required. The quality of evidence required for a short block should be no less than that required for an indefinite block. Conversely, calling for a 24 hour block without evidence is just as bad as calling for an indefinite block without evidence. It's the nature of the alleged misconduct; the more extraordinary the misconduct allegations are, the more evidence needed to substantiate those allegations. T. Canens ( talk) 18:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. I see the point of the last line, and I think it holds true in that our sanctions are based on the evidence of problematic behavior, however I can see the point that it could also be interpreted as 'eh, if it's a minor thing we don't care about how good the evidence is'. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Will propose alt. Courcelles 22:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Gone with alt version,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. I think this is okay, but 10.2 works more well. AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Generally support, though I would prefer "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" for the last sentence. Overall, prefer 10.2 Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

7. Prefer 10.2. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Sorry, my bad. I wasn't thinking of ArbCom sanctions - I was thinking of the AN/I discussions in which there were calls for topic bans and desysopping without appropriate evidence of wrong-doing. I think the last sentence should be along the lines of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but tuned to fit the circumstances in which there weren't extraordinary claims being made, but calls for sanctions, including a desysopping. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Seeking community input (2)

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.

Support:

1. 10.1 seems to allow low-quality evidence for minor sanctions, which is a fallacy. Courcelles 22:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   This works for me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

3. T. Canens ( talk) 15:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. NW ( Talk) 17:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. AGK [•] 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

7. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tag-team editing

11) Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies ( neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as revert restrictions or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Although it can often be difficult to distinguish between inappropriate tag-teaming, and legitimate editing by two or more editors who happen to share the same view on an issue. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Withdrawing support. This isn't needed for the decision and given the comments below and (some time ago) on the talkpage, let's just drop it. Of course, policy still frowns on what I've described elsewhere as "excessively coordinated editing," especially when gamed to avoid the consensus process for resolving a content dispute. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Courcelles 22:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. That second sentence is monstrously long, but this is okay. However, I've always thought of "tag-teams" as an abstract concept that gives little practical benefit when applied to all but the most egregious cases of co-ordinated editing. I don't think we should be promulgating this concept in our decisions, and I'd rather we formulate a better definition, but I accept this term is firmly embedded in Wikipedia's vocabulary and that my vote here will be a lonely one. AGK [•] 12:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Although I will stick with supporting the principle because it is correct in some circumstances, I agree (per my comment above) that the concept of "tag-teaming" is sometimes invoked unfairly. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

2. Voted without thinking too clearly about this one. AGK, Bishonen, Newyorkbrad and MastCell all make good points here. We don't need the principle, NW ( Talk) 03:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Per above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Per AGK. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. T. Canens ( talk) 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I can proposed a more nuanced wording, if desired, or we can just drop the principle, or we can leave it alone. What is everyone's preference? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

It's a minor point at best, so it's up to whatever you want to do. I have no particular preference either way. NW ( Talk) 01:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I would certainly prefer a little Bradspeak here, if you don't mind putting in the effort. Worm^TT( talk) 13:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Role of the Arbitration Committee

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

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. T. Canens ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Courcelles 22:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
7. AGK [•] 12:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

8. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sourcing and original research

13) Academic, peer-reviewed publications are among the highest quality sources available for use by Wikipedians. Articles need not necessarily be based wholly on such publications, and it is acceptable and encouraged for Wikipedians to present other sources in contradiction to a proffered source in an attempt to divine the current scholarly consensus regarding a particular topic. However, it is not appropriate to reject the inclusion of such material simply because one disagrees with the conclusions drawn by the publication's author(s).

Support:

1. NW ( Talk) 17:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. In reply to the below, while theoretically that could be a reason for not including a journal article, in this case Perrin (2011) is not a fringe/minority consideration of the TPM. AGK [•] 14:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per WTT; this comes too close to a content ruling for my liking. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Attempts to "divine the current scholarly consensus" are fraught with peril, especially in fast-moving, contemporary topics. It can only really be done in areas where review papers are produced, or where textbooks and other book-level academic publications are available, and even then it can be difficult. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Per Carcharoth. Courcelles 04:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Also per Carcharoth,   Roger Davies ^talk 04:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Although I do agree with the substance of this finding, it comes too close to judging on content in my opinion. Rather than directly oppose, I abstain Worm^TT( talk) 12:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

1. T. Canens ( talk) 05:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments:

This comment originated after I first saw Talk:Tea Party movement#Academic sources, and was bolstered by the evidence presented by User:ArtifexMayhem. Plenty of findings of fact can be drawn from those two links alone. NW ( Talk) 17:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure that the last sentence is 100% correct. For example, editors might decide not to use a given book as a source because while it is an academic, peer-reviewed publication, it expresses the view of a small minority on the subject. (Not saying that is what happened here, of course.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

That might be a misphrasing on my part, but I don't think what you say is in conflict with what I wrote. In your case, the editors would have made a decision that they think that Author A's points have been dismissed by the broader scholarly community, not that Author A's position is being dismissed because they disagree with A's conclusion. I would welcome a rewording though. NW ( Talk) 01:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Perhaps add something at the end along the lines of "unless there is a specific, legitimate reason to do so"? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't be opposed to that, though I'm not sure how much value it adds. As for the points raised by WTT and Kirill, I'm having trouble seeing how this is any more of a ruling on content than the NPOV principle above is. NW ( Talk) 18:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Locus of dispute 1

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. Various minor copyedits (revert in whole or part if undesired). Should the chronology (in either this paragraph or the next one) should also reference the mediation (see Collect's comments on talk)? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. AGK [•] 13:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

4. Courcelles 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. OK. T. Canens ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. NW ( Talk) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Locus of dispute 2

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. Copyedits throughout the paragraph, but none substantive, except slightly in the last sentence. (I'm sorry I didn't make these changes at the workshop.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 01:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Good. AGK [•] 13:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   This seems like a good summary to me. Worm^TT( talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

4. Courcelles 18:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. OK as a narrative. T. Canens ( talk) 10:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Per my comment on FOF10. T. Canens ( talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note, F10 is now F38. AGK [•] 21:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply

1. NW ( Talk) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Although this episode was the triggering point for the case, given the time that has elapsed (and the ongoing inability to reach consensus on the article content), it strikes me that this is less important now than it used to be. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Inadequacies of current community sanctions

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.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. I think these sort of sanctions in general cause a cobra effect—creating more reversions by multiple parties than the number of reverts would have been without them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. I can go along with this. NW ( Talk) 23:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

3. AGK [•] 09:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^[talk] 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Yeah, much harder to enforce than a standard 1RR, and more gameable, too. Courcelles 01:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 04:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Made some copyedits, feel free to revert if disagree. T. Canens ( talk) 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Goethean

4) Goethean ( talk · contribs) has revert warred at Tea Party movement (  | 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 ( [1], [2], [3]). 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 ( [4], [5]).

Support:

1. Proposed. We need to examine the conduct of this party, which the original finding did not do. AGK [•] 12:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Agree with AGK Worm^TT( talk) 13:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

2. Courcelles 15:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^[talk] 01:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7. NW ( Talk) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 04:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The diffs do not work for me. NW ( Talk) 17:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Fixed. T. Canens ( talk) 18:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Sorry for that, NW. Thank you, TC. AGK [•] 22:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Goethean caught my attention due to the acerbic nature of his comments, that the bulk of his editing had been to revert, and that his involvement is patchy, yet seemed to coincide with editing problems. I noted that he had not edited the article for a while, and it was stable, then he appeared to parachute into an edit war with this revert. My earlier examination of that revert was that, fair enough, it was one of a series of reverts made by Thargor Orlando, Ian.thomson, North8000, Nomoskedasticity, and Collect, from this original edit made by Ian.thomson. So my conclusion was that it would be inappropriate to single out Goethean from that edit war given that he didn't start it, and five others had been involved. What I overlooked on that examination, was that Ian.thomson's original edit had been made in response to this discussion on The tobacco industry and the Tea Party, which had been initiated by Goethean. In essence, the route to the dispute which has ended with this ArbCom case can be traced to that talkpage proposal by Goethean, and the manner in which it was received by other editors. However, by itself, that an editor sees some material which might be of relevance to an article, and raises it on the talkpage, is not sanctionable, and is what we encourage editors to do.

The Agenda editing appears to concern the NYT's quote, which was inserted by Xenophrenic in August 2012, and which remained stable until The Hal Apeno's edit on 21 Feb 2013. There were then two edits on the material before Goethean's; there is then discussion on that material in which Goethean takes part. Difficult to see from this why Goethean would be selected as being so problematic he is topic banned, but not the others. If the difs are being presented as part of general difficulties with editing on the article I could agree, but as evidence that Goethean is worse than the others, so much that he is singled out for topic banning, I'm not quite convinced. I would agree that in isolation his edits are not encouraging; however, taken in context, he is editing within the established pattern for the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The odd thing about some of these reverts to me is that the article oscillated from containing one description of the Tea Party based on (a component of) its official website, and other description from an outside source, with the implication that only one or the other was correct or could be used. The diffs here don't show (maybe there are others that are relevant) effort to utilize both sources as showing different or complimentary perspectives on the movement. Now, whether that translates into adverse conduct findings against editors, after the fact, is another question. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The perception/image of the Tea Party seems central to the dispute - that is the main bone of contention. However, I think the dispute is a little more nuanced than one side wanting to portray the Tea Party as swivel-eyed bigots and racists, and the other side wishing to portray the Tea Party as a grass-roots organisation reflecting the true spirit of America. While there are political debates on the talkpage, and the contributors may hold political views, the discussions do involve debate about sources and appropriate weight and coverage. Our WP:COI guideline does not prohibit people with political views from editing an article. Our guidelines and policies, however, do encourage editors to be aware of bias and to try and avoid it. Trawling back through the discussions, that awareness of bias is there, and that is the issue - each side sees itself as legitimately countering inappropriate bias. I don't think the editors are bad, but they have reached a state where they have found it difficult to edit together co-operatively in the right collegiate spirit. We are working on that in the moderated discussion, and progress is being made on the article. I am not sure, however, if effective progress is being made on the group working together in a collegiate spirit.

Something to consider, is perhaps suspending the case until the moderated discussion has either reached a satisfactory conclusion, or it has collapsed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

North8000

5) User:North8000 has acted in a manner that suggests a battleground mentality, for example proposing a desysop to make a point [6] [7], posting to a user talk page multiple times despite being asked not to, [8] and commenting on behaviour without evidence. [9]

Support:

Worm^TT( talk) 13:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

1. AGK [•] 16:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Courcelles 15:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7. NW ( Talk) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 04:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
9. The evidence captures some problematic behavior. I don't necessarily agree with the selection of specific diffs, but given support for the overall thrust of the finding I won't quibble. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

An supplementary finding to catch what is missing in 4.1. If someone else could write it that would be great; otherwise I will try to get it when I have the time. NW ( Talk) 18:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I've added a further finding on North8000, in addition to the first finding. It doesn't deal with BLP violations, so if any arbitrators believe a further finding is necessary, they should add it. Worm^TT( talk) 13:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it might be good to revise this to included different or updated evidence. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Malke 2010

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).

Support:

1. NW ( Talk) 18:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. AGK [•] 16:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Courcelles 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 04:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I received an e-mail request from Malke 2010 several months ago that I assist him with a matter unrelated to the case. I expect to address that unrelated issue when the case is over. Although I don't believe in any way that this rises to the level of a recusal situation, it may be best that I abstain from voting here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments:

A starting point. Would appreciate more. Malke has done plenty that has been just fine, especially in the moderated discussion, but there is also plenty of evidence of misbehavior. NW ( Talk) 18:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Removed "primary" in focuses, don't think that was entirely accurate. Courcelles 01:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Arthur Rubin

7) Arthur Rubin has repeatedly edit warred with other contributors to Tea Party movement ( [10], [11], [12], [13]) and has, on occasion and over a long period of time, edited combatively ( [14], [15]).

Support:

1. Proposed in addition to F8. AGK [•] 15:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

   Agreed (minor copyedit to correct username) Worm^TT( talk) 13:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Courcelles 15:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. May not be deserving of a remedy, but this is worthy of a finding for sure. NW ( Talk) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 04:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per my comment below, I don't see sufficient evidence of this as yet, either in the diffs presented or in anything else I saw on the evidence page. Open to reconsidering if someone points me to additional evidence. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Although Arthur Rubin's editing has been far from perfect, I see limited evidence of sanctionable misconduct by him in these diffs, and nothing else in the evidence is jumping off the screen at me either. (There's a reason why, although it's obvious many editors on Tea Party movement have not been working and playing well with others, it's been difficult to develop a conventional arbitration decision in this case.) Am I missing something? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply

KillerChihuahua

KillerChihuahua ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

8) KillerChihuahua has not edited Tea Party movement, nor had meaningful previous contact with the main contributors, other than with Goethean. There was no community support for a desysopping that was proposed during the initial administrators' noticeboard discussion.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. And indeed, she did nothing wrong. NW ( Talk) 18:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Support in the sense that I agree with what was written, but I'd be at least as amenable to dropping the paragraph. I don't want to vote oppose because it could be read as opposing the finding that there was no misconduct, which someone would say means we found there was misconduct. What we really need procedurally, but it would be absurd to implement, would be an alternative proposal of "no finding" (i.e., that there is no need for a paragraph in the decision about this editor). If that existed, my vote would be for the null finding as first choice and this as second choice. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

AGK [•] 15:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per T. Canens, there is no finding around KC necessary at all, as there was no misconduct. Courcelles 22:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Moved to oppose, per talk page. AGK [•] 20:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Moving here per my original comments, Courcelles, AGK, and the talkpage. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Per below. T. Canens ( talk) 10:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Unnecessary. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7. NW ( Talk) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Per Courcelles,   Roger Davies ^talk 04:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

That desysopping proposal is so ridiculous that I don't want to dignify it with a mention in an arbitration finding. T. Canens ( talk) 18:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Switched to oppose. T. Canens ( talk) 10:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Phoenix and Winslow

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. [16]. 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 ( [17]) and was banned from editing the Tea Party movement article for 1 week by User:SilkTork during the suspension of the case ( [18]). He has demonstrated a battleground nature in discussing related articles on Wikipedia ( [19]).

Support:

1. This is actually more than enough to go with, I think, so I'll support now. (Note: I did not propose this – NW did.) AGK [•] 22:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. There's more too, but I can't really figure out how to express my concerns with the below links in a reasonable fashion. I tried to make the finding a bit more fair to P&W, and have added edit warring and battleground points. NW ( Talk) 01:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 23:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 00:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 04:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Plenty more to include. Just from quick scans, I see " #Mother Jones Magazine as a reliable source" as problematic, also Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion/Archive_2 (at 23:34, 23 May 2013; 22:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (and following, for what looks like just either making something up to refute a source or complete failure to provide sources when challenged). NW ( Talk) 04:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Starting 13:22, 9 August 2013. NW ( Talk) 21:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure the talkpage challenge to the reliability of the Perrin article was beyond the pale, as the proposed finding suggests. My overall impression is of a knowledgeable editor whose strong feelings in this topic-area sometimes get the better of him. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Xenophrenic

10) Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs) has consistently failed to obey Wikipedia's conduct standards: by personalising his dispute with other editors ( [20], [21], [22]); edit warring over comments that negatively portray him – thereby further increasing tension ( [23], [24], [25]); and engaging in unnecessary mockery (e.g. of Collect's use of the signoff Cheers, [26], [27], [28], [29]).

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 23:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Courcelles 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Not really seeing it for [30], but the rest is broadly true. NW ( Talk) 19:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 04:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Collect

11) Collect ( talk · contribs) has been dismissive of other users' views (e.g. [31]) and needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants ( [32], [33], [34], [35]).

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 23:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Whether it's content or tone, it doesn't change that they were unnecessary and unhelpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. This doesn't cover the full range of misbehavior, but it's a start. NW ( Talk) 04:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
6. The dismissiveness in particular is well-founded on the diffs ("idiotic", "bosh and twaddle" etc).   Roger Davies ^talk 05:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I appreciate AGK's effort to develop more editor-specific proposals, but thus far I am not seeing this one. A couple of the cited diffs reflect a little bit of snark, but in several I perceive no misconduct at all. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply
3. I've looked at this one several times over several weeks, and ultimately, fail to see anything more than just a bit too much snark. Courcelles 01:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Yeah, I'm not seeing it either here. I think there is certainly a problem with the edits cited, but it's more with the content of the comments rather than their tone. NW ( Talk) 21:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Ubikwit

12) Ubikwit ( talk · contribs) has ignored sound arguments about article content ( [36]), and contributed to hostility at pages relating to the Tea Party movement article by making assumptions of bad faith ( [37], [38]) about and condescending ( [39]) to other disputants.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 23:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Courcelles 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. NW ( Talk) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per NYB. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not seeing misconduct in some of these diffs. It might be helpful if AGK responded to some of the points Ubikwit has made on the talkpage. (To be clear, I am not saying Ubikwit's editing has been problem-free.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Snowded

13) Snowded ( talk · contribs) has been disparaging toward ( [40], [41], [42]) and combative with ( [43]) other editors of the Tea Party movement article.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 11:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. T. Canens ( talk) 00:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I appreciate AGK's effort to develop updated editor-specific proposals, but I don't see sufficient evidence of misconduct by Snowded to support a finding against him. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Weak oppose. While there are jerky comments, I don't think they rise to the level of this finding or in comparison to other diffs for other FoF above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Some of those are simple spade-calling, others do not rise to deserving a finding. NW ( Talk) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

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

1) Tea Party movement and related articles at Category:Tea Party movement is placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. The existing Community sanctions are superseded.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. Second choice, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk)

Oppose:

1. Defining topic by category tends to lead to enforcement headaches. T. Canens ( talk) 17:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Categories are good for a great many things, defining the scope of DS is not one of them. Courcelles 22:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Prefer 1.1, not keen on using categories to group DS. Worm^TT( talk) 15:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

4. Prefer 1.1. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Discretionary sanctions

1.1) Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

Support:

1. T. Canens ( talk) 17:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Simplest. NW ( Talk) 18:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   I'll go with the advice of those who are experienced in upholding such sanctions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

3. First choice. Do we need to say anything about the transition from the community sanction to discretionary sanctions? (Are there any community sanctions in effect on specific editors beyond the overall 1RR limitation?) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Only choice. As has demonstrated recently in a roundabout way there's some serious flaws in the outdated system, so relying on it sounds like a bad idea. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 13:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 15:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

5. AGK [•] 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This needs language to indicate that the 1RR under the community sanctions is not vacated by this decision. Courcelles 22:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Do we really want to retain the...atypical...modified 1RR restriction? Or should we pass a standard 1RR instead? T. Canens ( talk) 15:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   We need to do something. This particular measure leaves the 1RR unresolved and in limbo. Courcelles 20:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   See proposed remedy 10. NW ( Talk) 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

@Newyorkbrad: The community sanctions were worded in such a way that they were more of a 1RR prohibition than anything else, I think. I believe that it is implied that those are not abrogated, but we can add a sentence to that effect if you feel it's important. NW ( Talk) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Edit restrictions

2) Goethean ( talk · contribs), North8000 ( talk · contribs), Arzel ( talk · contribs), Malke 2010 ( talk · contribs), Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs), and Darkstar1st ( talk · contribs) are advised and warned that making an edit on Tea Party movement and related articles at Category:Tea Party movement that could reasonably be construed as a revert may result in a topic ban and/or block by an uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Support:

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Should be broken into separate remedies for voting. I'm also not very convinced about the utility of 0RR restrictions. T. Canens ( talk) 17:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Per Tim. NW ( Talk) 18:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. 0RR ever is exceptionally restrictive, especially given that it can be difficult to determine sometimes whether a given edit is a "revert" or not (cf. any day's bickering on the 3RR noticeboard). In addition, there should at least be a carve-out for reverting obvious vandalism and BLP violations. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Procedural opposition: will vote on sub-divided proposals instead. AGK [•] 13:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Procedurally, per AGK. -- Courcelles 22:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Per AGK. Kirill  ^[talk] 02:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm unclear on why it is felt that a 0RR is more difficult to enforce than a 1RR or 3RR. I understand that a revert can sometimes be difficult to decide on if there are other unrelated changes occurring during an edit, but that principle holds true for 1RR and 3RR. I was bearing in mind that these editors had been proposed for topic bans, so that they would not be able to edit the article at all; restricting them to productive edits only seemed preferable to banning them completely from the article, when the question of them being able to revert vandalism would not even come into it. I was also aware that under the current 1RR, edit warring was occurring via tag team reverting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

It's not difficult to enforce; it's just that it may catch a lot more things outside the "core" of edit warring, given how broadly "revert" is defined. T. Canens ( talk) 15:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

As regards doing it as a group. There is some evidence that a number of the editors have edit warred on other articles; however, I was inclined to look at this in relation to the subject matter, and to feel that wider concerns regarding individual editors can be taken up by the community on those individuals if required. The subject matter being edited is contentious, and the article had got into a state whereby editing was difficult, so the frustrations were arising as part of the group dynamics - there is a sense that each was sparking off the others. Picking out individuals within a complex long running editing dispute is difficult, because recent infractions - which take the immediate focus - are based on interactions and events from the past, which are less obvious. Which counts for more - the editor who pushed the first domino, or the editor who pushed the last, or the editors in between who kept it all going? They are all related. Added to which, group sanctions have been used by ArbCom in the past, and they can be appealed individually. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Goethean restricted

3) Goethean ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit related to the Tea Party movement that could be reasonably construed as a revert. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Many of these contributors have spent quite long enough on this article; they've had their chance at improving it. Proposing R3.1. AGK [•] 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Not convinced of the utility of 0RR restrictions. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 04:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 3.1,   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Per Roger. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Goethean topic-banned

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.

Support:

1. Only choice. AGK [•] 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Courcelles 03:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Would prefer timed topic bans that expire, as dealing with a large batch of appeals at the end of February is not ideal. Some will say the 'right' things in their appeals, others may not. Would prefer they all expire together and discretionary sanctions apply thenceforth. But in practice, there is little difference, so supporting the topic bans as phrased (where I supported a corresponding finding). Carcharoth ( talk) 00:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

I could consider a group topic ban, but for the reasons I explain above I couldn't support picking out Goethean and saying he is worse than the others. Goethean was certainly part of the recent editing that led to this ArbCom case, but he wasn't the only one, and taken in context his edits were not problematic. That the tone of the talkpage discussions were acerbic is unfortunate, but perhaps due to the frustrations felt by editors on the article, especially over past disagreements. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. Agree with Silk here, and the moderated discussion has not changed my mind (for better or worse.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. I'm not inclined to support many indefinite topic-bans in this case (although I do note the provision allowing editors to request that the topic-bans be terminated in due course). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Edited to make the topic ban indefinite, to match other topic ban remedies, per mailing list discussion. T. Canens ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

North8000 (remedies)

North8000 restricted

4.1) North8000 ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit related to the Tea Party movement that could be reasonably construed as a revert. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Support:

1. Second choice. NW ( Talk) 17:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. In addition to the topic ban, which is time limited, not as an alternative. Courcelles 00:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. AGK [•] 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Not convinced of the utility of 0RR restrictions. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 4.2   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

North8000 topic-banned

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.

Support:

1. First choice. Tendentious editing, BLP violations (the "union thugs" diff is the one that stands out in my mind). I see no reason to let such an editor stick around what is clearly an emotionally charged topic area for them. NW ( Talk) 17:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. AGK [•] 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Per NW. If the decision is made to treat these as alternatives, then my vote on the restriction directly above should be taken as an oppose. Courcelles 00:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Per my comments on remedy 3.1. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

I didn't find appropriate evidence to support a view that North8000 was behaving in a manner worse than the others. This is a case of North8000 being seen to have pushed the last domino, so he gets the blame. But for the incidents leading up to that domino push, all the others were involved. The BLP violation claim is based on North8000's involvement in an edit disagreement from two years ago in which BLP issues have only recently been raised. Topic banning someone for BLP violations would require that the violations were deliberate and/or that they continued after being advised of the BLP concerns. I would be uncomfortable with the notion that we ban people for inadvertent mistakes, especially when there is no further evidence for that person making such errors. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

1. Agree with Silk on this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. I'm not inclined to support many indefinite topic-bans in this case (although I do note the provision allowing editors to request that the topic-bans be terminated in due course). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not sure I've seen enough to topic ban, but after reading I'm also not happy with opposing as it appears to be tacit approval of North8000's accusations. I'll have a think, but I'm tempted to propose an admonisment here. Worm^TT( talk) 15:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Arzel restricted

5) Arzel ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit related to the Tea Party movement that could be reasonably construed as a revert. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I do not think we need to sanction Arzel. AGK [•] 23:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. No finding = no remedy, and I haven't seen the kind of conduct in the evidence that would even justify a finding. Courcelles 00:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Per AGK and Courcelles. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Per above. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Malke 2010 restricted

6) Malke 2010 ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit related to the Tea Party movement that could be reasonably construed as a revert. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Support:

1. Second choice to 6.1 Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. First choice. Courcelles 04:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. NW ( Talk) 04:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 6.1). AGK [•] 22:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Not convinced of the utility of 0RR restrictions. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 6.1,   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Per my comment on the finding. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Malke 2010 topic-banned

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.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply
3. NW ( Talk) 18:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

   First choice. NW ( Talk) 04:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

6.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Per my comments on remedy 3.1. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I think the restriction is adequate in this case. Courcelles 04:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Per my comment on the finding. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Edited to make the appeal period six months to match other topic ban remedies; revert if disagree. T. Canens ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Xenophrenic restricted

7) Xenophrenic ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit related to the Tea Party movement that could be reasonably construed as a revert. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Inadequate. AGK [•] 22:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Same as AGK. Courcelles 16:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Not convinced of the utility of 0RR restrictions. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. NW ( Talk) 04:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 7.1   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

The proposed finding says "Xenophrenic is not named as a party, and there is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions"...and then we have a remedy proposing sanctions? Did I miss something? T. Canens ( talk) 18:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I had the same reaction. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The finding should have indicated that Xenophrenic's editing had contributed to the lack of effective progress on the article and so a revert restriction would be appropriate, but that - along with the other individuals - there was a lack of evidence (and community support) to suggest a stronger sanction such as a site or topic ban. Ideally, more eyes on the workshop version might have avoided some of the weaknesses of the PD and tightened up the copy-editing; however, the faults are mine, and are noted going forward, so the next case I'm involved in drafting should be cleaner. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Xenophrenic topic-banned

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.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 22:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Weak support. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Courcelles 16:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Per my comments on remedy 3.1. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. An indefinite topic ban is disproportionate here. I see a lot of snark and a decent amount of incivility, but this is a sledgehammer instead of a mallet. NW ( Talk) 19:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. I'm not inclined to support many indefinite topic-bans in this case (although I do note the provision allowing editors to request that the topic-bans be terminated in due course). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

• Edited to make the appeal period six months to match other topic ban remedies; revert if disagree. T. Canens ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect

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).

Support:

1. Proposed per diffs and behaviour given and illustrated at the new #Xenophrenic FOF. This is proposed in addition to the above, not as an alternative. AGK [•] 23:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Courcelles 16:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. In addition to the above. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7. NW ( Talk) 04:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
9. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Arthur Rubin restricted

8) Arthur Rubin ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit related to the Tea Party movement that could be reasonably construed as a revert. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. NW ( Talk) 04:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per my comments on the finding of fact (and subject to the caveat there). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Not convinced of the utility of 0RR restrictions. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. I don't think we need a remedy on this editor. Courcelles 04:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 8.1,   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
5. AGK [•] 11:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Arthur Rubin topic-banned

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.

Support:

1. Proposed. AGK [•] 15:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Per "At wits' end" principle. NW ( Talk) 04:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per my comments on the finding of fact (and subject to the caveat there). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Per my vote above. Courcelles 04:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Edited for uniformity with other topic ban remedies. Also made the appeal period 6 months to match the other remedies. Revert if disagree. T. Canens ( talk) 15:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Darkstar1st (remedies)

Darkstar1st restricted

9.1) Darkstar1st ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit related to the Tea Party movement that could be reasonably construed as a revert. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This user is barely active on the TPM article, so I am not of the view that findings are required pro tem. AGK [•] 23:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Per AGK, given Darkstar1st's recent lack of editing on this article, this doesn't seem to be needed now. If he returns to editing Tea party articles and behaves problematically, as with any other editor, discretionary sanctions will be available. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. No FOF, so no remedy. Courcelles 13:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Per above. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. NW ( Talk) 04:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Darkstar1st topic-banned

9.2) Darkstar1st ( 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.

Support:

1. First choice, per my comments on the Workshop (see also North8000). NW ( Talk) 18:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. As in R9.1. AGK [•] 23:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Same comment as 9.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Per above Courcelles 13:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Per above. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Community sanctions lifted

10) The current community sanctions are lifted.

Support:

1. An administrator is free to readd a modified form of 1RR using discretionary sanctions, as are we by remedy (would anyone like to propose one?), but I think this is necessary. NW ( Talk) 23:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Well, R1.1 "supersedes" the current community sanctions already...but I guess it doesn't hurt to be explicit. Fine with this or placing the entire topic under a standard 1RR. I'm not sure whether the modified 1RR is a good idea. T. Canens ( talk) 22:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. For the sake of being clear. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply
4. DS will be adequate. AGK [•] 22:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Would support standard 1RR, but not this. Courcelles 04:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I agree that if we are moving to ArbCom-imposed discretionary sanctions (DS) on this topic, as we should, then we need to make explicitly clear what becomes of the prior community-imposed 1RR restriction. I'd welcome some input (from arbs here, from others on the talkpage) about whether we should continue the 1RR or whether the availability of DS and the other remedies we are adopting make it unnecessary to keep it in place going forward. My inclination is to lift it, presumably for the same reasons NuclearWarfare is proposing, but let's see what others think. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Ubikwit topic-banned

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.

Support:

1. Proposed, per #Ubikwit FOF. AGK [•] 23:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Courcelles 01:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. I'm not inclined to support many indefinite topic-bans in this case (although I do note the provision allowing editors to request that the topic-bans be terminated in due course). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. NW ( Talk) 04:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Collect topic-banned

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.

Support:

1. Proposed per #Collect FOF. I'm proposing a six-month topic ban, rather than indefinite one, because I don't think Collect has misconducted himself as badly as the other parties, and because I think after a break he may be able to work constructively on this article; but I do unfortunately believe that a topic ban is nevertheless required. AGK [•] 23:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. NW ( Talk) 04:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. At least thus far, I don't see a sufficient basis for this. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Per my vote on the FoF. Courcelles 04:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Phoenix and Winslow topic-banned

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.

Support:

1. Proposed per new #Phoenix and Winslow FOF. AGK [•] 23:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. NW ( Talk) 04:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Courcelles 04:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Per my comments on remedy 3.1. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Snowded topic-banned

14) Snowded ( 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.

Support:

1. Proposed per new #Snowded FOF. AGK [•] 11:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

   Courcelles 04:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

4.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. At least thus far, I don't see a sufficient basis for this. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Per my oppose to the FoF. I think a interaction ban as proposed below however is a good option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. NW ( Talk) 04:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
4. On further reflection, a bit too strong. Courcelles 16:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Snowded–Phoenix and Winslow interaction ban

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).

Support:

1. Proposed per new #Snowded FOF (the diffs in which relate predominately to P&W) and per comments on arbwiki. AGK [•] 11:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
2. This seems sensible. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Prudent. Courcelles 14:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
6. T. Canens ( talk) 15:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. NW ( Talk) 04:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Standard Enforcement

0) 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, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

• Do we still need this? AGK [•] 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Clerk note: Because another enforcement provision is passing this this provision does not pass per procedure.

Enforcement of decision sanctions

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.

Support:

1. Allows for a DS in lieu of a block for violations. Remedies 3-9 and this provision together covers what was proposed in R2. The final sentence is taken from WP:ARBSAQ. T. Canens ( talk) 17:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Added "(where a consensus of uninvolved administrators will determine the result of the appeal)" for the AE appeal part, from WP:ARBRAN. Revert if disagree. T. Canens ( talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

2. This is good, and should be included in the standard enforcement provision. NW ( Talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. The combination of 1 and 2 is suitable in any case where we impose both discretionary sanctions as well as specific sanctions of our own. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 15:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. -- Courcelles 23:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
9. AGK [•] 11:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• Do we intend to specify after how many blocks does the minimum duration reach one year? Historically, we stipulated that "in any event, the fifth such block shall be of one year in duration" (or words to that effect), but this seems to leave the matter rather open to interpretation. AGK [•] 20:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it's okay to trust to administrator discretion in this area. Any disputes about severity of sanctions can be referred to AE or if necessary brought to us. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Enforcement of discretionary sanctions

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.

Support:

1. Goes with E1, just to leave no doubts about anything. Taken from WP:ARBSAQ. T. Canens ( talk) 17:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

   Worm^TT( talk) 15:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply
5. -- Courcelles 22:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply
6. AGK [•] 15:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill  ^[talk] 14:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply
8. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

General

• What is needed here to move this along (other than more voting, I suppose)? Do the FOFs need further input?   Roger Davies ^talk 05:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The FoFs on individuals appears to be problematic or unhelpful, and without a solid set of FoFs that members can work on, then proposals for sanctions don't get support. So, yes, a set of FoFs on those users who are to be sanctioned, indicating why, would be good. After studying the case, however, I couldn't pick out individuals who were particularly worse than others. Edits taken in isolation look bad, but when taken in context with the general pattern of editing on the article, and the behaviour of the others, they don't seem so bad. There is a comment by AGK that this set of editors have had long enough to sort out this article, and they haven't done a good job of it, so perhaps its time to let others try. If someone proposed a topic ban for the bunch of them, I would consider supporting that, and if some users do get caught up in that group topic ban somewhat unfairly, then that may be the price to pay to get this matter sorted, and editors working effectively on the topic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot. reply

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	9	0	0		·
2	Neutral point of view	9	0	0		·
3	Decorum	9	0	0		·
4	Consensus building	9	0	0		·
5	Sourcing	9	0	0		·
6	Talk pages	9	0	0		·
7	Tendentious editing	9	0	0		·
8	Article sanctions	3	4	2		Cannot pass
9	Involvement	9	0	0		·
10.1	Seeking community input	1	8	0		Cannot pass
10.2	Seeking community input (2)	8	0	0		·
11	Tag-team editing	3	6	0		Cannot pass
12	Role of the Arbitration Committee	9	0	0		·
13	Sourcing and original research	2	4	1		Cannot pass	David Fuchs, NYB
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute 1	8	0	1		·
2	Locus of dispute 2	8	0	1		·
3	Inadequacies of current community sanctions	9	0	0		·
4	Goethean	8	0	0		·	NYB
5	North8000	9	0	0		·
6	Malke 2010	8	0	1		·
7	Arthur Rubin	7	2	0		·
8	KillerChihuahua	1	8	0		Cannot pass
9	Phoenix and Winslow	8	0	0		·	NYB
10	Xenophrenic	9	0	0		·
11	Collect	6	3	0		·
12	Ubikwit	6	2	0		·	Newyorkbrad
13	Snowded	5	4	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Discretionary sanctions	1	6	0		Cannot pass	[1]
1.1	Discretionary sanctions	8	1	0		·	[1]
2	Edit restrictions	0	8	0		Cannot pass
3	Goethean restricted	2	6	0		Cannot pass	[2]Carcharoth, NYB
3.1	Goethean topic-banned	6	3	0		·	[2]
4.1	North8000 restricted	4	4	0		Cannot pass	[3]NYB
4.2	North8000 topic-banned	7	2	0		·	[3]
5	Arzel restricted	1	7	0		Cannot pass	NW
6	Malke 2010 restricted	4	4	1		Cannot pass	[4]
6.1	Malke 2010 topic-banned	7	1	1		·	[4]
7	Xenophrenic restricted	2	6	0		Cannot pass	[5]NYB
7.1	Xenophrenic topic-banned	7	2	0		·	[5]
7.2	Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect	9	0	0		·
8	Arthur Rubin restricted	3	6	0		Cannot pass	[6]
8.1	Arthur Rubin topic-banned	5	3	0		·	[6]David Fuchs
9.1	Darkstar1st restricted	1	8	0		Cannot pass
9.2	Darkstar1st topic-banned	2	7	0		Cannot pass
10	Community sanctions lifted	7	1	0		·	NYB
11	Ubikwit topic-banned	5	3	1		·
12	Collect topic-banned	6	3	0		·
13	Phoenix and Winslow topic-banned	8	0	0		·	NYB
14	Snowded topic-banned	4	5	0		Cannot pass
15	Snowded–Phoenix and Winslow interaction ban	8	0	1		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Standard Enforcement	0	0	0		Cannot pass	[7]
1	Enforcement of decision sanctions	9	0	0		·
2	Enforcement of discretionary sanctions	9	0	0		·

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. Looks like we are done here. T. Canens ( talk) 05:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
2. Yep,   Roger Davies ^talk 06:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
3. Courcelles 14:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
4. Starting the 24 hour clock: AGK [•] 20:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply
5. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Comments