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

See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics NE Ent 10:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

TPM issues

Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is getting nasty again. I was asked on 18 February to take a look by User:Goethean, who had been accused of poor behavior (specifically, WP:TE) and wanted a second opinion from an uninvolved admin (see here). I looked, couldn't find anything objectionable in his edits, so I asked the accusing editor to provide a diff here, but as you can see by following the link, I got reams of vague accusations but not a single diff. I hatted the accusatory accusations on the article talk page [1] (my first ever edit there) and advised the accusing editor, North8000, to either provide diffs, or cease the accusations (basically put up or shut up.) Then I added the TPM article to my watchlist. Sure enough, not a week later and North8000 is making uncivil comments and personal attacks on the talk page.[2] I posted on his talk pageasking him to be more civil and I added a reminder on the article talk page that the article is under probation and... well, take a look at Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Reminder and offer thoughts. So far (in only a couple of hours) North8000 has told me I'm involved, Arzel has insulted Goethean again and misrepresented him, and Malke 2010 has told me I'm Goethean's meatpuppet in order to enable Goethean to bully people - the exact phrasing was "you're here at the behest of goethean who apparently wants to bully editors he doesn't agree with. You, like goethean are failing to assume good faith"[3] Now, I'm thinking a week or two topic banning North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010 is called for, per WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA on an article on probation. Looking for community views on this, as I'm new to this probation area. Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua 02:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not true. I did not insult Goethean after your statement. Goethean said "But Wikipedia cannot take an overly credulous stance towards the origin stories of believers, any more than it can believe the Mormons, for example, when they say that the Lost Tribes of Israel are the American Indians. TLDR? Wikipedia needs to reflect the lamestream media's account of the TPM. — goethean 00:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)", which I pointed out to your double standard of what consists uncivil remarks and AGF. Also, when you provide a talk page notification on my page in the future, please link to the appropriate section so I don't have to search for the section. Arzel (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If you provide a link, readers can see the comment in context[4]. — goethean 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• User:Arzel does have a history of questioning the good faith of other editors and insults, such as here Casprings (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

and here. — goethean 14:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A good look at the article talk page and my talk page says an immense amount. I form opinions very slowly and carefully and based on 2 years of observation at the article I commented that 2 editors have kept that article in a bad state by TE. I made it (only) as an attempt to reduce such at the article by spotlighting it out rather than seeking sanctions against the individuals. (I could put together rock solid cases on these with hundreds of diffs, but I have reported only one individual in my entire wiki-life.) After immense observation it is also pretty clear that Goethean is particularly abrasive & rude there. Goethen then bypassed the admin who has been watching the article, and message boards and instead solicited two selected / particular admins (SlimVirgin and KillerChihuahua) to get involved. (I'm assuming that they were selected for a particular reason, neither has background at the article). Ostensibly this was to evaluate the TE comment. One (KillerChihuahua) jumped in. Despite a solid TE evaluation requiring looking at an immense history, they quickly said that the TE comment was baseless and instead came after me. (see my talk page) They said to either provide diffs or shut up. I indicated that TE would require an immense amount of diffs and that I'd be willing to start building such a case but was willing to leave it as what already transpired.

Then Goethean did something that I felt was really nasty. Malke brought up the idea of starting a new sub-artcle on economic issues. Goethean responded by baselessly invented bad motives and accusing Malke of them. I complained and asked to Goethean provide a basis for the accusation. Specifically I said: "Goethean, you are being rude as usual. And missing wp:agf by two levels. Baselessly inventing bad faith. How do you get "You don't like what the Wikipedia process has come up with here, so you are going to create a new article on the same topic, but exclude all of the negative material." out of Malke's idea for a sub-article on the economic issues?" KillerChihuahua ignored what Goethean did and the basis for my comment and instead came after me. KillerChihuahua is clearly not objective in this case. They are overlooking far more severe things by the person that selectively solicited their involvement, and came after me for some I think very merited and useful comments. I would welcome a thorough review of the last few days of talk at Tea Party Movement and the last few days of talk at my talk page. I think whether technically or in spirit KillerChihuahua is involved twice over on this and has clearly not been objective. Both on the initial dynamics with the person who solicited their involvement, and where their people dynamics with me (and the folks that challenged their objectivity) seem to clearly be dominating over objectivity. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe you have misread my uName. It's "Chihuahua" not "Chinchilla". Hope this helps to avoid confusion, as we have no User:KillerChinchilla. KillerChihuahua 03:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix. BTW, I think that it will take a large RFC to wikfy the article, and so there is no urgent need there. I would be happy to follow advice given by uninvolved parties regarding my involvement there during the next few weeks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. KillerChihuahua 03:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nota bene: I have now registered that as a doppelganger account. KillerChihuahua 05:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nota bene: I prefer the name "KillerChinchilla" :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, who is the admin "who has been watching the page" and who you think that I bypassed? — goethean 14:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I have never edited the Tea Party article, but after giving this matter a cursory inspection, and having had some extremely unpleasant previous interactions with Malke2010, I feel the need to point out a few facts. This is an editor with a substantially troubled history, with 8 blocks in a one year period in 2009-2010. Mentoring was not particularly helpful, as I recall, and in the end it was the dramatic falling off of the frequency in the past few years of Malke's edits that defused the tension that the editor's combative, confrontational polemics often caused. An accusation of lack of assumption of good faith, as they have just done on the Tea Party talk page, is one of the hallmarks of this editor, and Malke's edits to political articles such as this one are sometimes of questionable utility in terms of NPOV. I submit that it is time to discuss a topic ban for Malke2010 on all political articles. (Note: Also posted this on the Tea Party article Talk page, however, North8000 User:Fat&Happy has seen fit to remove it, terming it a "personal attack," which I hereby protest.) Jusdafax 04:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You must have misread the history, it was User:Fat&Happy who removed[5] your post and labeled it a personal attack, although North8000 did comment about it that "ad hominems / attacks have no place here" so he was also labeling it so. KillerChihuahua 04:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, and I have corrected the statement above and hereby extend appropriate apologies to North8000. However, that mistake led me to North's talk page and the interaction between you two. I would say that your requests for diffs are more than fair. I also support you bringing the matter here, and your take on this case. Jusdafax 04:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Having checked the diffs and briefly looked through the Talk page, it seems fairly plausible that Goethean is being targeted by an affinity group of TPM advocate editors with an obstructionist agenda. There would seem to be ample evidence of them ignoring more than one editor and attempting to exclude numerous RS.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; I listed North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010 above, and all have exhibited battleground behavior, and their response to warnings is to deflect and attack more. I really think a topic ban is in order. KillerChihuahua 04:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Killer, on all political articles or just this Tea Party one? The problem appears widespread. Jusdafax 05:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good point. I brought this here for the TPM article only, as that was all I had seen; let's see what others think about a political topic ban. It may be the best way forward; it would be a pity to article ban them and then have to do this entire discussion over again in a month or two. KillerChihuahua 05:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

But it would be overkill to topic ban without evidence of the problem actually being widespread. Gotta collect the evidence first I'm afraid.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• You want "evidence," eh? The problem, then, to focus on the larger political issues, is to define them per Ubikwit as "an affinity group of TPM (or, in the larger case what can loosely be called Right Wing) advocate editors with an obstructionist agenda." Now, since few people have the time and energy to pour through thousands of edits to get the dozens needed, let's do it like a barn raising... concerned parties take it one bit at a time to respond to your request as we build a case for this.

My contribution: Malke2010 has indeed previously "create(d) a new article on the same topic, but exclude(d) all of the negative material" before this: at the sub article they created at Karl Rove, where they took the most controversial material from Rove's career, then scrubbed out reliably sourced material or added in slanted material like the Moyers material. Virtually every edit there (look at the edit record) is designed to put a positive "spin" on Rove's years in the Bush White House. Additionally, the new sub-article is another "click" away from the reading public, and the controversies sanitized with a summary. So Goethean's objections to Malke's similar proposal for the Tea Party article are in fact quite apt, and North8000 is in fact out of line defending this transparent attempt at obstructionism. Standing by for the next diff. Jusdafax 07:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(moved to below)

• After reviewing additional evidence concerning North8000 and his inability to provide diffs for his claims when asked, I would support some kind of sanction. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I slowly and carefully came to my assessments about TE by those 2 editors (Xenophrenic and Goethean) at that article, and ongoing rudeness (mostly in the form of direct insults) primarily by Goethean. This was after at least two years of observations and looking at many hundred of posts. And a solid case for TE (by its definition) would involve an immense amount of posts. And it is not a violation of policy to note behavior without providing diffs.. As I said, I did in in the hopes that spotlighting those behaviors at the article would reduce them, not to fully build cases for sanctions of those editors. And I was and am content to leave it at that. If this assertion that "failure to provide diffs" is somehow wrong persists then I would need to start building those cases. It will be a big job due to the immense amount of material which resulted in and supports my conclusion but will be rock solid. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• After looking at their contributions, I think a broadly-construed topic ban on political-related articles can be made for the following 5 users:

• Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• All 5 show a battlefield mentality that is all too typical on political articles. I would prefer an indefinite ban, minimum of 6 months, to force then to show they can contribute positively in another area of Wikipedia. I also support two weeks per KillerChihuahua's suggestion, but I guarantee after 2 weeks they'll be right back to the usual behavior. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That is baseless and ridiculous to put me in the same category as the two folks who I noted. My arguments and efforts are towards neutral articles. And for folks who want to POV articles, someone who wants just a neutral quality article is the hardest to chase away, and they go after them the most. North8000 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

...someone who wants just a neutral quality article is the hardest to chase away, and they go after them the most.

Amen. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A "broadly-construed topic ban on political-related" is far to wide-reaching - I'm sure I can make an argument for every article on Wikipedia to fall under that umbrella. That said, I could see a benefit in a narrower topic ban (say "US conservative politics") for some of the participants. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I first came to the article nine days ago because of a RSN thread about the Tobacco Control journal, which I felt was eminently usable because it was scholarly. I saw that Collect, North8000 and Thargor Orlando were removing this source and the text based on it, text brought first by Ian.thomson then restored by Nomoskedacity, Ian.thomson and Goethean. After looking at the talk page and the article, I felt that Thargor Orlando was participating purely as a heavy for the obstructionist "affinity group", continually pointing out that consensus was against certain new suggestions. I saw that Arthur Rubin was the strongest in trying to knock the legs out from underneath the scholarly journal Tobacco Control, but questioning its scholarship on the article talk page and at the RSN discussion. Collect appeared to be participating solely to remove negative text that the obstructionist affinity group did not want: [6][7][8][9]. I saw Arzel as the most strident voice, calling the Tobacco Control paper "piece of crap study", an "incredibly stupid study" with "stupid correlation without causation". Arzel calling the paper "idiocy" but failing to show a scholarly rebuttal (or any rebuttal) showed me that Arzel was reacting by gut feeling rather than from WP policy. I agree that a six-month US right-wing politics topic ban would be useful for Arzel, Malke 2010, North8000 and Xenophrenic, but I don't think Goethean meets the definition of BATTLEGROUND—it's more a case of the (almost) lone voice of reason against the obstructionists. I would add Thargor Orlando, Arthur Rubin and Collect to the proposed topic ban. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  I've added them and notified them. KillerChihuahua 18:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  You probably should have notified me first so I didn't get surprised. I've had the page watchlisted for some time, but only edited the article three times, twice in the last week: once to uphold what I believe is the current consensus regarding the tobacco thing, and once to add an "under discussion" tag to the portion. I'm barely involved, actually support goethean's position in inclusion but recognize the consensus differential, and otherwise have no actual involvement in this and don't really want to be further involved at this point. Thargor Orlando(talk) 18:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Notified you before what? That a discussion was not yet happening on ANI? If I notified you first, as slow as I type, you'd come, see nothing, and think wtf? and miss the actual section. KillerChihuahua 18:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  That was to Binkster dragging me into this, not you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Bans

Topic bans have been proposed for the following; please give your views. The proposed topic ban is on United States politics ONLY; if you wish to support a different option please note it in the appropriate section(s) below, thanks. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Clarifying: Please specify which time you support: 2 weeks, 1 year, and 6 months have been suggested. KillerChihuahua 18:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Goethean

User:Goethean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Oppose. Goethean and I have edited a few of the same pages [10], but as you can see if you follow the links, we have almost always disagreed. We opposed each other on Human. We opposed each other on the DRV of Cat:Pseudoscientists, on Crockspot's Rfa (he was right that time), on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unguided evolution (he was dead wrong there); we opposed each other on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision, the only time I can find we agreed was on Cirt's Rfa, and I agreed with his rationale there. We even argued at Sam Spade's RFAR where I told him he was wrong about the amount of support for different versions of the lead So, we're not exactly close buddies. The only other time he was on my talk page was in 2006, when he thanked me for [some advice I'd given, one of three edits I'd ever made to his talk page - the other two were a question and the courtesy notice for this thread. I was surprised when he came to me, but I guess TPM is a toxic article and he knew from my handling of the Sarah Palin article probation and the Men's rights movement article probation that I'm not afraid of wading into toxic areas, and I don't play favorites or allow personal bias to interfere. I've examined his edits, and I see nothing to suggest sanctions are indicated in Goethean's case. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe not a topic ban, but a strict NPA restriction might be worthwhile. He can oppose people strongly without attacking them as he has at the Tea Party article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  You have a diff of a personal attack? KillerChihuahua 17:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  I think the Tea Party movement talk page is littered with them, but I know you disagree. I'm pointing it out for anyone else who wants to take a look, I don't think a topic ban itself is appropriate as it's not the editing that's the problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Issue a strong warning. Dial back on nastiness and TE as exhibited at the TPM article. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  As I asked you before, would you please provide diffs of the objectionable behavior? Thanks much! KillerChihuahua 17:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been forced to start working on it. Zillions coming. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Goethean has argued policy and reliable sources in the face of obstructionism. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support. I think this is only problematic now because of KillerChihuahua's misinterpretation of policy. I really don't see it as necessary, if he isn't encouraged. I strongly disagree with the assertion that he has argued policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Which policy did I misinterpret, please? KillerChihuahua 19:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I have seen no real argument based on actual edits that he is a problem. Where are the attacks on other editors? Where is the WP:Battle?Casprings (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No valid reasons for such a ban. Collect (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not an editor that should be topic banned for these edits. Has this proposal been properly though through? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Here is one thread from the TPM Talk page that demonstrates the sort of interaction and the respective dispositions of the involved editors [11].--Ubikwit (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for North8000

User:North8000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Support, for BATTLE, NPA, etc per evidence and reasoning given above. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Clarifying: Support 6 mo topic ban. KillerChihuahua 18:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely Baseless And nothing was even given above to merit this. KillerChihuahua is very involved on this. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Not really seeing that's useful- most people object to topic bans on themselves. It really isn't necessary to say so. One puppy's opinion. 17:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. North8000 too often removes reliably sourced text which casts the TPM in a negative light, and disputes the reliability of obviously reliable sources. This is WP:Tendentious editing. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Disagreements are not a valid reason for a topic ban. And that is all that has been presented. Collect (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Disagreeing about RS is not, in itself, a valid reason for a topic ban. This seems light. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support for his argumentative behavior at TPM as well as here. Under every proposed topic ban of one his cohorts, he says "Absolutely Baseless" so much that it seems to ring hollow. And some of his comments in reply to others in this thread are outright hostile to the point of frothing mad. That's a clear sign a break is needed. El duderino ^(abides) 03:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Too involved with the article in question and needs to leave off for 6 months per KillerChihuahua. In addition, the pointy attempt to desysop KC indicates a battleground mentality that cannot be tolerated in a collaborative enterprise like this project. I would support this ban for all political articles, after noting Binksternet's observation above. Jusdafax 04:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support absolutely - Same tactic as last time at Talk:Homophobia - editor disagrees with wording, becomes disruptive, and never provides any evidence for the diffs he wants. Spends more time chatting on talk pages than actually editing, and always chooses controversial subjects. Person is a disruption, not an editor ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Here is one thread from the TPM Talk page that demonstrates the sort of interaction and the respective dispositions of the involved editors [12].--Ubikwit (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Arzel

User:Arzel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Support, for BATTLE, NPA, etc per evidence and reasoning given above. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Clarifying: Support 6 mo topic ban. KillerChihuahua 18:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely baseless There is nothing given that even begin to merit this.North8000 (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• comment. Not only are there no diffs of unwarranted behavior for this editor, there are no diffs whatsoever.. I see that we now have an existing user. carry on  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  17:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  [13] - misrepresentation, NPA; POV pushing[14] which he explained on the talk page saying the NYT and MSNBC were not reliable sources for the TPM article[15] stating sarcastically that all media should be included if the NYT was - which, btw, was supported by Malke 2010[16] who said "Agree with Azrel. What some dimwit from either MSNBC or the NYTs thinks of the TPM is not relevant." and that's from the last few days; also see here on this page, [17] BATTLE, misrepresentation, quoting bits out of context. That's a start at it, anyway. KillerChihuahua 17:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support for battleground behavior. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support As noted above, User:Arzel does have a history of questioning the good faith of other editors and insults, such as hereand here. Moreover, he has demonstrated WP:BATTLE in several cases. Some examples include here, here and here. Arzel, is clearly a single purpose account with a political view to promote.Casprings (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support This user has long acted as if the basic rules of Wikipedia behavior do not apply to him. Pushback is long overdue. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We see an editorial disagreement being used as a reason for a topic ban. It ain't. Collect (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Any exchange with User:Arzel is more than mere disagreement because of his uncivil and anti-collabortaive approach. I've noticed as much from User:Collect and others, but Arzel s the most flagrant and seems to encourage others' battleground mentality. El duderino ^(abides) 20:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from U.S. political articles indefinitely. User:Arzel has long used wikipedia to push his arch-conservative activism while demeaning and patronizing others who dare to disagree with him. He often wars with reverts and edit summaries rather than engage others with talkpage discussion, and the latter only reluctantly and dismissively. His long-term antagonistic approach seems to be wearing other editors down to the point of not contributing to those articles. Evidence of his obstructionism can also be found at other articles e.g. Fox News Channel and Koch Industries as well as affiliated sub-articles which follow the povfork pattern mentioned above (i.e. to hide/diffuse criticism and controversies). And if you limit the ban to only conservative articles, I believe that he will continue his uncivil POV-pushing at other articles in the political spectrum. El duderino ^(abides) 20:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and from what I see here, consideration should be given to an indef block. Disturbing. Jusdafax 21:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and possibly an indefinite block as a longtime tendentious editor with whom I've had many years' experience. Full disclosure, I was asked to weigh in here, after I declined to cosponsor a possible uRFC on Arzel, but offered to weigh in if an appropriate venue were presented. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• I can support this. Mangoe (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban and indef block - I've had aggravating encounters with Arzel on political topics in the past, so I've been on the receiving end here, but I'm of the opinion that sanctions are unnecessary at this point. Let's drop this and make an attempt at WP:RFCC if so many members of the community are in agreement that intervention is necessary.   — C M B J   01:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would be supportive of that and would co-sponsor that. Casprings (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support As per KC, Binksternet, el duderino.

Topic ban for Malke 2010

User:Malke 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Support, for BATTLE, NPA, etc per evidence and reasoning given above. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Clarifying: Support 6 mo topic ban. KillerChihuahua 18:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Malke 2010. She's been at this nonsense for how many years now? I can't support a topic ban for the rest of the editors because I'm not familiar with their role, but I'm very familiar with Malke 2010 and her past promises to stop contributing to conflict in this topic area. I may support a topic ban for other editors if there is additional evidence to review. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC) (moved from above KillerChihuahua 17:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC) )
• Absolutely baseless Has made only a few edits in an entire year. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by Malke2010: Let me just add that if you go back and read my comments you will see that I handled what goethean said and let it go at that. North8000 jumped in and made an issue of it. Also, my previous comments where I listed what I thought were problem areas for the area were reasoned from my experience there and not at all Battle type behavior. Goethean came out with the less than civil comment which I ignored. It was simply how he interpreted what I'd written. That's his choice. That North8000 jumped in and used me to battle him was inappropriate. All in all I think my name was mentioned a dozen times after that, all without my participation. If you go back and check the history of the page, you'll see I don't edit there anymore, and a topic ban is hardly necessary. I have no quarrel with KillerChihuahua but her reasoning of what transpired seemed unfair at the time. North8000 should not have commented on what goethean said. I would support him apologizing. And certainly if goethean and KillerChihuahua are upset with any comment I've made, then I do apologize. Nobody is making any edits to the page anyway. It's on probation, it's an article that has long been lost. Editors have more less banned themselves in that regard. All a topic ban will do is put a negative mark on the editor's record. I say let the dust settle, everybody apologize and let it go.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Lack of diffs: I'd just like to add that there do not seem to be any diffs to support evidence of wrong behavior. And Fat&Happy thank you for removing that comment on the talk page. Much appreciated.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Not seeing it. If Malke 2010 deserves a topic ban then it is not about contributing to the Tea Party movement talk page or article in the last year. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose A ginormous stretch here to remotely suggest a topic ban! Collect (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic ban, this seems excessive, even out of line. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Here is one thread from the TPM Talk page that demonstrates the sort of interaction and the respective dispositions of the involved editors [18].--Ubikwit (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Xenophrenic

User:Xenophrenic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Oppose pending any evidence (diffs) - I have seen none, and cannot support sanctions with no evidence of wrongdoing. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Issue a strong warning. Dial back on extreme TE (and to a lesser extent, nastiness) as exhibited at the TPM article. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Do you have any diffs of TE or "nastiness", any NPA violations? Thanks - KillerChihuahua 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, hundreds are coming.North8000 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose No reasoning remotely suggesting a topic ban is warranted. Collect (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no reason presented for such a topic ban. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Thargor Orlando

User:Thargor Orlando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have no idea why I'm listed here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

See Binksternet's post above, in the main section. KillerChihuahua 18:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. Truly, if my handful of article edits and occasional talk page comments are that disruptive to the page, the article is completely lost. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Thargor Orlando was obstructionist in reverting well-cited negative text saying "there's clearly no consensus for this addition at the moment". At the talk page he said "we're not required to use any source that comes around, especially if it doesn't pass the smell test." He called the Tobacco Control paper "bad sourcing" without reading it. He then admitted it was reliable but not "appropriate for the article". He followed that with the obstructionist argument that there was a "complete lack of consensus for addition", "not seeing consensus for the addition", and "where are you seeing the consensus to add this?. He repeats himself: "I don't disagree with you that the source is reliable. I do disagree, at this point, that there's consensus for inclusion." Again, he argues "you lack the consensus". Referring to the consensus policy, he says "you're adding information against policy". He returns to the consensus argument: "unable to demonstrate consensus for inclusion". When the tide turns in favor of an Al Gore quote, Thargor complains "What do people have against consensus building on this topic?" (I would answer by saying that they are tired of obstructionist arguments!) Thargor Orlando displayed obstructionism: an unwillingness to talk about any element of the issue under discussion except to point out that consensus had not been reached. Of course, consensus was being reached by logical arguments and observations about sourcing and weight. Referring only to the lack of consensus is tendentious editing. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  The only disputes I have with this is the claim that I called the Tobacco Control paper bad sourcing. I did not: I argued that the claim being made, at the time, didn't make a ton of sense, and that the article has plenty of bad sourcing already. If expressing caution and calling for consensus building is wrong, I don't want to be right. As for tendentious editing, I think I'd have to have more than two edits over the last two weeks to have my editing at the Tea Party article be considered "tendentious." But that's just one guy's opinion. If the criteria for topic ban is "express an opinion people don't like," the net is going to have to be cast extremely wide. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure a wrongheaded opinion is grounds for a topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral Agree with Gamaliel; I see stubborness, IDHT, and he's wrong about policy, but I'm not seeing the kind of NPA and BATTLE which would lead me to support a topic ban. But I'm not seeing a strong collegiate attitude either. I'm staying neutral on this one. KillerChihuahua 19:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Along with the horde of proposals which are without strong and solid reasoning at all. Collect (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an archived discussion, and it's fine to link it here, but we generally don't merge archived discussions with active. KillerChihuahua 20:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, got it. A link is as good as a nod! Peaceray (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely baseless North8000 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an overreach. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Arthur Rubin

User:Arthur Rubin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Neutral, waiting on [[Binksternet to add his evidence. KillerChihuahua 19:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Oh my God! Absurd proposal utterly and entirely here. Collect (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely baselessNorth8000 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal is without legitimate foundation. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and slanderous process Unless one has the goods, one should leaving listing names to others.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Collect

User:Collect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have very few edits remotely connected to the topic at hand, so am more bemused than anything else by this truly weird proposal. In fact sine there is no rational basis for this proposal except to arouse my ire at best, I think the proposer made a ginormous error here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral, waiting on [[Binksternet] to add his evidence. KillerChihuahua 19:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose For the obvious reason that there is no acual reasoning behind this record number of "topic ban" proposals at all. None. Zero. Nada. Collect (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely baseless North8000 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose And the evidence to support such a serious action is where?....Capitalismojo (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Darkstar1st

User:Darkstar1st (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Neutral, waiting for Xenophrenic to add his evidence. KillerChihuahua 19:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's add every single person who ever has a disgreement then? Not. Collect (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

We need topic bans from ANI for people who propose sanctions without notifying subjects.--Staberinde (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So far as I know, the only one who was added without notification was Xenophrenic, added by Nathan Johnson, and I notified him. I think Nathan Johnson merely made a mistake, and do not think it warrants a topic ban. I also don't see how this comment is helpful. KillerChihuahua 20:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody had yet bothered to notify Darkstar1st then I posted my comment, I see that this has now been rectified.--Staberinde (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Well, even so, a failure to notify is a reason to notify, and remind the person who should have notified, not to topic ban. KillerChihuahua 20:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely baselessNorth8000 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

DeSysop KillerChihuahua

For heavy and biased involvement in ways that can harm Wikipedians. Proposing draconian sanctions while giving no basis. Mis-use of the imprimatur. As long as we're getting crazy, this is not any wilder than the other stuff proposed.North8000 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• A bit excessive. Perhaps just an topic ban on US Politics and related subjects. That's what I was going to place as an appropriate heading, but there were edit conflicts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, a topic ban for admin actions? Not even actions - I haven't even blocked anyone. I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning here. KillerChihuahua 18:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  A complete topic ban, including a ban on discussion, administrative actions, and discussion of adminstrative actions. Your bringing this "report" here reflects a battlefield mentality which would best be removed from Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  So you're saying that my bringing a complex behavioral issue on a contentious topic to ANI for community input, instead of say, blocking all the people I thought were violating NPA, is somehow a battlefield mentality? Is that right? KillerChihuahua 18:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is a joke, right? Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's in the same category as the other proposals. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think this is a clear example of "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently", translated into North8000 is frustrated with the actions of the editors being brought to scrutiny, so they proposed that the initial admin involved be subject to sanctions (notice the lack of differences when calling for a desysoping, yet many strong accusations). Can we use this as an example of North8000's use of battleground tactics?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No it is a reaction to what I described in the first line. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment ArbCom and Jimbo are the only ones who can desysop, not AN/I. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Well, Jimbo doesn't do much of that anymore. But you're right; if North8000 is serious, he should open an RFAR. KillerChihuahua 21:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• This poorly-considered proposal, seemingly an act of reckless desperation by North8000, is ironic proof that KillerChihuahua was correct in bringing this matter before the community. I would be asking Gamaliel's question as to whether this is a joke, except for other statements North has made here and elsewhere. Jusdafax 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question for North8000: please provide diffs showing how you (and anyone else discussed here) have improved the quality of the Tea Party movement article. The article is so poorly written and constructed, that one could conceivably argue that it violates just about every known policy and guideline, and that sanctioning the active editors who have led to its current state would be best for Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the article is a total total total wreck. That is exactly what my complaint was about and trying to affect. The article pushed into that state and blockaded from a fix by TE POV efforts. North8000 (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• North, I strongly suggest you withdraw this: it's outrageous, comes across as vindictive (whether it is intended that way or not), and is just plain silly. KC should be commended for seeking outside help on this dispute. Antandrus (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I admit is it overkill, but only almost as much as the the other ideas floated here. And it wasn't meant to be vindictive; my nature is the exact opposite of vindictive. But it was intended to add some perspective to the situation. They created this whole thing from two comments of mine that were entirely proper, and a close look at my talk page where it started IMHO indicates that they escalated it not because of the merits of the situation but IMHO in a battling mentality of them towards me. They wanted to say that what I did (making a comment about behavior without building the case with diffs etc) was wrong, and I would not agree with that and then they escalated it by launching this whole thing after the second comment which was valid and unrelated to the first. North8000 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

North800 this is the exact reason why you are not always taken seriously. I actually like you and feel you make fantastic contributions and your work with the projects is outstanding, but this just makes you look like you are holding a grudge and are being vindictive. I also believe you should retract this. It is going nowhere but making you look bad.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I have to agree with Antandrus and Amadscientist on this. I don't think KillerChihuahua should have brought this issue here, I think it's something that could have been worked out on the talk page with another admin or mediator. But calling for her to be desysoped is out of bounds. I suggest you retract that.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Malke, I'm an uninvolved admin who doesn't edit that article. There is nothing mediation could have done; there is nothing to mediate. As the #1 contributor to that article you surely know the only posts I have made there have been in the past month, and were on the talk page, and were strictly in the role of uninvolved admin. KillerChihuahua 05:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

KC, you are one of the two most involved people in this dispute. Involvement at the article is not a measure of that. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well there we have it, right from the horses mouth "well I admit is it overkill, but only as much as the other ideas floated here".Coffeepusher (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. KillerChihuahua 05:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but no more so than the other proposals. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

So, is North8000 saying they knew it was pointy when they started the section? NE Ent 13:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a matching (or lesser) degree of overkill as the others, for perspective. I hereby change all of them (including this one) to "Issue warning to ....." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested diffs and basis for North's comment: "extreme TE (and to a lesser extent, nastiness)" regarding Xenophrenic's behavior at the TPM article

OK, you forced me into it. Again, I just wanted to note the situation and get those two folks to dial back a notch, not to be forced into doing all of this. I am going to start listing them here. These will show that the comments regarding behavior were well-founded and for the good of the article. I arrived at this conclusion carefully and slowly from several hundred edits over several years. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Warring to put a NYT definition of the TPM article as including "anti-immigration" in and in as the first sentence in the "Agenda" section:

2/24/13 9:11 (Article page) Moving the "anti-immigration" claim statement to the top of the "Agenda" section: [19]

Correction: The neutral NYT definition was returned to its longstanding position by me after another editor boldly moved it to the bottom of the section and moved a non-RS opinion to the top. I hope that clears up your misconception. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not a "correction", you are confirming what I said, and making an argument for what you did. This one items by itself is no big deal. Even your overall actions there just need dialing back one notch. But now I am being force to establish that my TE statement was not out of line and as indicated that they were carefully drawn from hundreds of observations. Which involves listing hundreds of items, that being the first of them. Its not my choice, just what I'm getting forced into. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, North. You know I don't let you get away with misrepresenting stuff on article Talk pages, so what makes you think you can pull that here? Your accusation: Warring to put a NYT definition of the TPM article as including "anti-immigration" in - Is Wrong. I'm not warring to put it in; it's been there for ages, and it's been in the same location for ages, so I corrected you. Now you admit my edit "is no big deal", which begs the question: so why bring it up? It was a perfectly fine, warranted, productive edit, while you are supposed to be showing "extreme Tendentious Editing and nastiness". And no one is "forcing you into doing this", North, it's common courtesy (and required by policy) to back up your accusations about editor's behavior with diffs and evidence. Alternatively, if it's busting your balls to come up with just 1 (you claim you have hundreds!) actual example of extreme tendentious editing and nastiness, you can just withdraw the attacks until such time you have them.

• Working and and aggressive editing to remove a 1 sentence longstanding mention of Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event.

2/22/13 (Talk page) Several talk page posts (none claimed to individually be a behavior problem and so not itemized) in essence arguing to remove the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party sentence. In essence implying that if it can't be proven that it was a TPM event it can't be mentioned in the article.

2/21/13 (Talk page) Several talk page posts (none claimed to individually be a behavior problem and so not itemized) in essence arguing to remove the Ron Paul 2007 Tea Party sentence. In essence implying that if it can't be proven that it was a TPM event it can't be mentioned in the article.

2/18/19:50 (article page) Removed longstanding mention of Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event. Not in edit summary, it mentioned another longstanding item also removed. [20]

2/18/13 19:47 (article page) Removed "perhaps the first tea party event" preface from the Ron Paul's 2007 Tea Party event (presumably in prep for the deletion of the entire item which they subsequently did) [21]

Correction: Not in edit summary? Wrong. The summary clearly states, (rem moneybomb party; no indication in source of any relation to the "Tea Party movement"). Also wrong is your misrepresentation of the Talk page discussions on this matter, wherein others agree that it should be removed, and even produced new sources supporting its removal. And once again, you haven't indicated extreme tendentious editing and nastiness. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Efforts to work in the statement "a study by the journal "Tobacco Control" concluded that the movement was formed over time by non-profit organizations created by the tobacco industry and other corporate interests" which as it turned out was wrong and not in the source, it had helped (not formed) one or a few of the hundreds of TPM organizations (and thus not the movement)

2/14/31 19:27 (Article space.) Inserted this. [22]

Correction: Please, North. I understand that you can't find even one example to support your personal attacks, but providing a Diff from a completely different editor, on a matter I had no involvement with, and attributing it to me -- now you are just being absurd. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Adding "over five million" the the 3.9 % percentage difference in Romney/Obama vote. Not a big deal, but a part of the general TE tilting.

2/11/13 16:59 (Article space) Did this.

Correction: Wrong. "over five million"? Are you quoting another editor again? I never added that. I did correct the inaccurate percentage, and returned, not "added", the "nearly five million popular votes" wording that another editor had overwritten. How is that article improvement edit "a part of the general TE tilting" (whatever that is) again? And where is the "extreme tendentious editing and nastiness" you said you'd substantiate? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I just wanted to note the situation and get those two folks to dial back a notch, not to be forced into doing all of this. Well, there's about 7 days completed, approx 1,090 days to go. In the meantime, multiply the above by about 156 to get the picture I was referring to and the well founded reason for my statement and to see a part of the reason that the article got into the condition that it is in today. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

North, when you multiply ZERO by 156, you get ZERO. You made a very serious allegation of "extreme" tendentious editing and nastiness, and you were asked to "put up or shut up" (not my words). What do you give us? Four misrepresented nonsensical examples (one isn't me; two you now admit are "no big deal" after all; and one that is a content issue with no hint of nastiness or tendentiousness). Thanks for the drama and waste of time, North. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested diffs and basis for North's comments-in-question regarding Geothean's behavior at the TPM article

OK, you forced me into it. Again, I just wanted to note the situation and get those two folks to dial back a notch, not to be forced into doing all of this. I am going to start listing them here. These will show that the comments regarding behavior were well-founded and for the good of the article.I arrived at this conclusion carefully and slowly from I'm guessing 100-200 edits over several years. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Warring to put a NYT definition of the TPM article as including "anti-immigration" in and in as the first sentence in the "Agenda" section:

2/23/13, 16:24 (article page) Moving the "anti-immigration" claim to the top of the "agenda" section: [23]

2/23/13 5:32 (article page) Moving the "anti-immigration" claim to the top of the "agenda" section: [24]

2/21/13 19:12 (article page) Moving the "anti-immigration" claim to the top of the "agenda" section: [25]

• Rudness, inventing bad faith, attack on economic issues article idea. Response to Malke who merely suggested an economic issues sub-article: "You don't like what the Wikipedia process has come up with here, so you are going to create a new article on the same topic, but exclude all of the negative material."

2/23/13 19:21 (talk page) [26]

• Accusing Arzel of not being in the "reality based community" when Arzel said that a columnist's view (including "anti-immigration") should not be given the first sentence in the "Agenda" section. Also that that one view should be given primacy because there isn't room for other views.

2/23/12 19:17 (talk page) [27]

what he said was " The New York Times is considered a highly reliable source, at least by those in the reality-based community" as anyone can see who follows the link. A bit testy, but as a response to someone trying to claim the NYT is not a RS? You're not making much of a case. KillerChihuahua 18:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see my original comments about diffs. in our talk page conversation. Your last comment indicates a misunderstanding. I made a reasonable comment, oriented towards reducing a problem at the article, carefully drawn from hundreds of happennings. Nobody said anything about a case based on one comment, in fact I said the opposite. now I am being forced to start listing them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Deletion of the 2007 Ron Paul Tea Party event from the article

2/18/13 20:39 (article page) Deleted the 2007 Ron Paul Tea Party event from the article [28]

• Efforts to maximize (IMHO distort) the impression of Koch's involvement in the formation of the TPM. (Having some coverage of this is appropriate.) Efforts are to maximize it, overreach with statements (that helping an ancillary organization is equivalent to founding or funding the whole TPM, and duplicate it in other areas of the article.

2/18/13 12:46 (article page) Reinserted whole new section on this (there was already one in the article, this is an additional one) [29]

• Goethean's attack and insults, and false statement that I was misquoting policy: 'If North8000 continues to repeat his upside-down understand of Wikipedia policies as if it is fact, I will continue to explain to him how Wikipedia policy actually works. If you don't like the digression, then maybe you can help to alleviate his confusion." This had no other specifics as to why these attacks were applicable or what they were applicable to.

2/17/13 17:17 (talk) Said this [30]

Again, I just wanted to note the situation and get those two folks to dial back a notch, not to be forced into doing all of this. Well, there's about 7 days completed, approx 830 days to go. In the meantime, multiply the above by about 119 to get the picture I was referring to and the well founded reason for my statement.North8000 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Kick it up to ArbCom

With that many involved editors voting on each others' sanctions and hardly any uninvolved voices willing to go through the evidence (or lack thereof) here there's only one wikibody which signed up for this kind of sprawling dispute. 5.12.84.153 (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bit too soon for that. We send to ArbCom only what the community can't handle on it's own. Give it a few days; ArbCom is a bit premature. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 18:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Killer, I have to agree it's not the kind of thing ANI can handle, much too complicated. It needs arbcom. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC).

You may be right. But if the community can handle it, we should. I still think we ought to give it a little time. KillerChihuahua 19:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Killer. Too early to take to ArbCom, and I have seen evidence in the past 12 months that the community at ANI is able to handle some tough cases. Jusdafax 21:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Took it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and closed this thread, but NE Ent unclosed it; as people are still posting here I suppose that was a good call. KillerChihuahua 13:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • We can support sanction proposal, which is pretty much "roll our own" WP:AC/DS; which is possibly what AC would take a month to do if they accepted the case, anyway. NE Ent 14:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Shut this down

While sanctions may be needed for some above, I oppose all of these hastily formed proposals. This is reminiscent of a military tribunal where anyone caught in the vicinity gets lined up against the wall.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It IS pretty random, with huge nasty actions proposed with no real basis given. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Probably best easiest to give North8000 about a week's rest for disruption, lack of WP:AGF, creating needless drama, and actions contrary to the community nature of this project. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I made one general comment that TE (buy nobody in particular) had put the article in bad shape and the segued into saying that Goethen and Xenophrenic were inappropriately trying to war out the following sentence

"A fundraising event for Ron Paul dubbed "Boston TeaParty07" was held on December 16, 2007. This event included the throwing of boxes labeled "tea" and "IRS" among others, into the bay"

Claiming it did not belong in the article. And contrasted it with the previous trivia that they had warred into the article. Here is my post. [31] Yup folks that's it! I considered that an effort to stop such behavior, and that would have been then end of it except Goethean and KillerChihuahua escalated it. Then it was over again and later (on a totally different topic) I complained about a very nasty, assuming bad faith comment that Goethean made to an editor who had just made a sincere, viable suggestion and then KillerChihuahua brought this here. The drama and disruption, & lack of wp:agf and are not from me. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Geothean comment that I was responding to: [32]. And here was my response: [33] which triggered KillerChihuahua to start this ani. Yes folks, that's it. That is the baseless "basis" for this ani. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I would love for this (including questions about the behavior of everyone involved the behavior of everyone involved) to to to Arbcom, and on the principle of it if someone were to give me even one minute of "rest" that is where I want to take it. Even better is to realize how baseless this whole thing is and just drop it and try to move on. North8000 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Even from the sidelines, this is clearly getting very ugly, due to the massive amount of manure-flinging going on. The nine WP: POINTy topic ban proposals from both sides are hasty and thoughtless indeed, and so far, have caused nothing but disruption. IMHO, this thread should be closed before things really start getting bad. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 19:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support ANI is not the place to hash out such sweeping actions on the fly. Compile some evidence against the accused parties, hash out the appropriate ways to address it in some slower-paced community forum and, if necessary, put the final decision to a vote at AN.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I also agree with the "get over it" approach of just letting it well enough alone. Nothing seriously bad has happened at this point as far as I know so there is no compelling need for intervention.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• It reminds me of this scene in Life of Brian. Warden (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting someone drop a boulder on KC?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• A large foot stomping all of ANI would be good... Warden (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Either shut it down, or move the whole thing and questions about everybody to Arbcom. This is a mess built on upon nothing. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Complete evidence has yet to be presented, so this is premature. Gamaliel (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Not keen to comment here but: the discussion starting here [34] and going to the end of the talk page appears to be the genesis for this whole matter. Added: start with the post just above that mentions the TPM. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think this is a conversation that the community needs to have. It may be painful, but there are issues that have come to a head over the TPM article, and the time has come to take an honest look at the way the article has been edited, and the larger questions that this raises. Jusdafax 21:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless someone takes it to WP:RFAR; yes this is toxic, and it's normally contained on the TPM article. The toxicity is why I have brought this here. Closing with no resolution is doing Wikipedia no favors; we'll just have to come back to it another day. Concur with Jusdafax, above, that this needs looking into by the community (or ArbCom). KillerChihuahua 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• The list of proposed topic bans is excessive; this really looks like a larger problem. If it was just one person, but in this case... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The first section after the lede currently starts with "The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that calls awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, the United States of America." KC has a point. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Hiding something and stopping debate doesn't help.Casprings (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - the issue seems to be between KillerChihuahua and North8000. See North8000s talk page at the bottom starting with the third from the bottom entry regarding the Tea Party. Sounds like mediation of some sort is needed.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I normally don't chime in on these types of issues but to me this seems like a Witchhunt VViking_TalkEdits 00:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support And noting the aptness of Monty Python as being behind all of this drama-fest of editors running amok. And this noticeboard should be renamed the "Argument Clinic" in their honour. Collect (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose A few of the proposed bans are fitting. I do not understand why User:Little_green_rosetta proposes to stop this discussion yet admits "sanctions may be needed for some above" -- and I see no reason to call the proposals hasty, much of this has been brewing for years. El duderino ^(abides) 03:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposed sanctions against Arthur Rubin, Collect and KC (and probably a few others) are fucking ridiculous. The rest of this incident is tainted like rotten meat.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer  04:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• oppose This is a problem that has been going on for a long time, and which pops up in any article about American conservatism where there is any controversy. It's not just between two people. Mangoe (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep this open

The problem here is one of enforcement. The article on the Tea Party movement and its active editors are subject to immediate sanctions due to its article probation status. However, the current version of article probation is far too lenient and allows for tag-teaming and talk page disruption. While conduct issues are under discussion, a more important problem is one of article quality. This encyclopedia article has not improved in several years, and one might argue it has degenerated into poor prose, blatant advocacy, and unencyclopedic trivia. I would like to suggest and recommend that in addition to proposed probationary sanctions discussed above, that the article be sent to peer review and placed on track for article improvement (GA > FA) and that all future efforts should be focused towards this goal. The current version of this article is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia, and should either be reduced to a stub and rebooted from the beginning with help from United States government, political science, and sociology projects, or greatly trimmed to cut down on any disputed content. Editors under discussion have made the following contributions:[35]

507 (465/42)    Malke 2010      2010-01-28 19:05        2010-12-09 17:48
380 (369/11)	Xenophrenic	2010-03-15 22:29	2013-02-24 09:38
193 (185/8)	North8000	2010-09-01 00:19	2013-02-25 02:45
152 (152/0)	Arzel	        2010-04-18 00:02	2013-02-23 17:51
108 (96/12)	Arthur Rubin	2010-10-08 16:36	2013-02-22 03:09
94 (72/22)	Fat&Happy       2010-08-25 02:58        2012-08-26 19:48
64 (63/1)	Darkstar1st	2010-10-19 16:43	2013-02-18 12:28

There is no way that this article could ever meet GA criteria, let alone FA, so one wonders why we should continue to let these editors work on this article. The time has come for Wikipedia to say enough is enough and thank these editors for their efforts and to let them go their separate ways. We need to put our values in order. The quality of our content is far more important to our reputation than a group of editors advocating for a singular POV that is completely at odds with our content policies and guidelines. It's time for our probationary sanctions to be enforced and for the quality of our content to be respected and valued. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the article is a total wreck and needs to be started over. And maybe it would be best for ALL of the current active editors to agree to voluntarily stay away from the rebuild and let a couple of senior neutral uninvolved editors drive the boat on the rebuild. North8000 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Removed archive templates, no evidence there's a consensus to terminate conversation here. NE Ent 10:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add further sanctions for article probation on all articles under Tea Party movement

Per the Barrack Obama article probation, I would like to propose the same or similar probationary sanctions:

• Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
  • Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Tea Party pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 6 months in length (Obama articles have a one year block), or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
• Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.
• Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it's a good idea and will support it further down the road, but before any more sanctions get applied, it might be a good idea to look at this situation fully and recognize that North8000 and some of the other editors there are really at the end of their tether with frustration over how that page is managed by admins. There is one editor there in particular who is so tendentious he makes comments that let you know his edit is final and that's that. There's no sense of collegiate editing, no civility. Some of these editors have been allowed to keep these behaviors up with virtually no sanctioning. Their indiscretions are overlooked while a lesser indiscretion is punished because that editor is on the wrong side of the ideological argument. It's the truth, and certainly the reason I haven't edited there since December 2010. It's impossible to do so. That North8000 and some of the others have continued on with it has always amazed me. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Malke, my recollection is that the reason you stopped editing was because on December 4, you were threatened with an indefinite block by Gwen Gale for any subsequent edit on Wikipedia that could be perceived as disruptive.[36][37] Your last edit to the article was on December 9. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Viriditas, I have no quarrel with you, nor do I recollect any specific problem with you, so I ask that you please enlighten me on the reason for your hostility and while you're at it, can you show us a diff where I make a decision based on Gwen Gale's threats? If you review my block log you'll see Gwen blocked once before. I believe I continued editing. And the diffs you provided above involved the mentorship and you have no idea what was involved there nor is it appropriate for you to bring it up. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry that you perceive "hostility" where there is none. I only want to make it clear that I find your statement about your role here less than believable. Five days before you "left" the article after making more than 500 edits as the primary contributor, you were under the direct threat of an indefinite ban for any further disruption. That's some coincidence. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, there's quite a bit of hostility when someone makes a statement, "I only want to make it clear that I find your statement about your role here less than believable." Can you share what exactly your problem with me is? You seem very angry. I've not edited with you, I've not run across you, yet you seem to have an intimate knowledge of my comings and goings on Wikipedia. Please, tell me what exactly has you so angry? Any specific incident or comment you found offensive that would cause you to keep a grudge for what, 2 years?Malke 2010 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
            • • Viriditas, one more thing, can you show us a diff for that indefinite ban threat? What edit did I make at the TPM article that caused that? Can you show us? I know you can't, because what Gwen Gale was talking about was that since the mentorship appeared to be at an end, it meant I was subject to an indefinite ban if I got blocked. What Gwen didn't seem to want to believe was that an indefinite ban was always a possibility while I was in the mentorship. Is that why you seem to be pushing so hard to get me 'banned' from the TPM article when there is no reason for me to be banned? You're hoping it will lead to an indefinite ban from Wikipedia?Malke 2010 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure what you are talking about. I can only have reality-based discussions, sorry. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I figured it was time to tighten up the article probation here. I think everything indicates that at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes, that's a good idea, but looking at the foundation of the problems there can help stop the problem. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I'll note that this is yet another example of the toxic effects of the lack of a coherent civility policy; picking "winners" and "losers" from the current escalating spiral of mudslinging is not a useful exercise for the community. Authorizing admins to take decisive action is. NE Ent 10:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose When in doubt add more sanctions is fairly ludicrous as a solution for anything at all. On any topic. I would make the interesting suggestion that a CU be used to see if any actual socking has been done on that article, just in case such has occurred, but that is about as far as I would think is prudent. I would also suggest that the WP:BLP standards be applied by fiat to the article for any "contentious claims." Collect (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)