Revision as of 22:04, 26 May 2013

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
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 ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk 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 active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

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.

Proposed motions

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

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

Support:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 22:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
8. (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)

   I agree. SilkTork 15:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

   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 Misplaced Pages 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)

   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(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

9. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutral point of view

2) All Misplaced Pages 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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 22:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Linked "synthesized claims" and "original research"  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
8. AGK 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Decorum

3) Misplaced Pages 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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 22:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
8. AGK 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 22:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
8. (Minor copyedit for grammar: I changed "to competing" to "between competing".) AGK 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sourcing

5) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages 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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Linked "five pillars"  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
8. There's a lot more that we could say here, but this is a decent summary. AGK 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Not sure about "aspire to" (which could probably go altogether) but that's a niggle,  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
8. 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)
9. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 22:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
8. AGK 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Oppose:

1. Per Tim. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Don't think it's necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
3. I don't think this is necessary as it appears too vague. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

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

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. With slight copyedits. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Added first sentence for context (revert if undesired). Non-substantive copyedit to last sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 22:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Copyedit "to assess for themselves" to "for assessing for themselves". Please revert if you disagree.  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

   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)

   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)

8. 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)
9. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

2. 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)

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)
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)
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 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Will propose alt. Courcelles 22:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Gone with alt version,  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
6. I think this is okay, but 10.2 works more well. AGK 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
7. Generally support, though I would prefer "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" for the last sentence. Overall, prefer 10.2 Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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 08:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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)
2. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
3. This works for me. SilkTork 08:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
4. T. Canens (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
5. NW (Talk) 17:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
7. AGK 12:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
4. 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)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 22:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages's vocabulary and that my vote here will be a lonely one. AGK 12:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

   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)

Abstain:

Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

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

Support:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. NW (Talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 22:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 07:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
8. AGK 12:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Worm(talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. 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)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
4. AGK 13:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Worm(talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
7. OK. T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
8.  Roger Davies 05:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. 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)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Good. AGK 13:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
5. This seems like a good summary to me. Worm(talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 18:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies 05:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Comments:

Calls for sanctions on AN/I

2.1) Topic bans were proposed for Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Arzel (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), and Darkstar1st (talk · contribs). A desysopping was proposed for KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)

Support:

SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Is this duplicative of 2? The only thing additional I see is express mention of a couple of names that were hidden in the diffs in 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't particularly needed. As I'm the only one who has voted on this, can it be removed at this stage? SilkTork 08:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You could strike it, I guess. Perhaps other arbs feel the need to be explicit with the time table but I think the summary above more than covers the necessary points. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Goethean

Goethean (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

3) Goethean has edited Tea Party movement since 2010, making 43 edits - 24 of which have been reverts. Goethean has edited the talk page 191 times. After a break for nearly a year, talkpage involvement restarted in Feb in 2013 with a tense discussion on The tobacco industry and the Tea Party, some difs from which were used in evidence to indicate uncivil behaviour. In the community discussion there was no consensus for a topic ban. Goethean was blocked in 2006 and twice in 2010 for edit warring on other articles.

Support:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer F3.1. AGK 12:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not certain about these findings on the users. Whilst factual, they don't really tell us anything about the sort of edits made. In some cases, the information isn't relevant to this article. Past blocks have past, some are almost half as old as Misplaced Pages, things have changed and I'm not happy about holding really old "crimes" against a person. I'll have a bit of a think about what the solution would be. Worm(talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Goethean (alt)

3.1) Goethean (talk · contribs) has revert warred at Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In February 2013, Goethean edit warred with two other parties about the agenda of the Tea Party movement (, , ). 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 (, ).

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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

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

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 11:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 15:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

North8000

North8000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

4.1) North8000 has edited Tea Party movement since September 2010 and is the third leading contributor to the article with 195 edits - 38 of which were reverts; of those, 10 are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. North8000 is the main contributor to the talkpage with 1374 edits. In the topic ban discussion 60% were in favour of a ban. North8000 has no blocks.

Support:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Yes, but this is a factual account that doesn't get across the degree of BLP violations or tendentious editing on the talk page. More is necessary NW (Talk) 18:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, but I'm not sure what the point of mentioning numbers is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The numbers were to bring attention to the amount and proportion of revert editing that each of the main parties to this case had been involved in. The revert editing, combined with lengthy talkpage opposition to edits, has been the main cause of frustration on the article leading to the incident which brought the case to ArbCom. It was intended as evidence for my suggestion that imposing a restriction on revert editing on those parties might reduce or remove some of the friction and frustration. My feeling is that we either remove the main cause of the frustration, or we remove the editors themselves. While some of the editors had engaged in few reverts, such as Malke 2010, so a topic ban would not be appropriate for them, each had engaged in sufficient problematic revert activity to make a revert ban plausible and worth trying. As things have turned out a revert ban is being seen as not practical, so the evidence of the revert activity, isolated from that revert ban proposal, does look unnecessary. SilkTork 09:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

4.2) Placeholder

Support:

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)

Arzel

Arzel (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

5) Arzel has edited Tea Party movement since April 2010, and is a significant contributor with 158 edits - 63 of which have been reverts. Arzel has edited the talkpage 270 times. There was community support for a topic ban. Arzel's edits in other articles have been questioned, but insufficient evidence has been provided that conduct on editing Tea Party movement warrants sanctions. Arzel was blocked in 2008 and 2010 for edit warring on other articles.

Support:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support as factual, although for this (and the other FoF) I'm not sure ancient history by wikistandards (blocks in 2008 or 2009, for instance) need to be mentioned. Unless they're directly relevant (the same blocks for the same actions in the same topic, etc.) it feels like bringing up the past where it's not needed. If the editors' actions are problematic *now*, then the evidence of such *now* is what matters. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Agree that some of the evidence is old or not directly related. I was gathering information on the workshop page to help give me a picture of relevant activity by the involved editors. Some of this need not have come across to the PD page, though as background I thought it may be interesting to be aware that a number of the editors involved in this case have previously been sanctioned for problematic editing either on this or other articles. Of course, without further evidence, it would be inappropriate to put forward a case that it's the editors themselves that are the problem rather than the topic they are editing, so by itself such information may not be helpful. I may go through and remove the older information. SilkTork 10:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Malke 2010

Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

6) Malke 2010 has edited Tea Party movement since January 2010, and is the most active contributor with 512 edits - 13 of which are reverts; of which, 3 are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. Malke 2010 has made 1129 edits to the talkpage. There was no consensus for a topic ban by the community, and insufficient evidence provided in the case for applying sanctions. Malke 2010 has apologised to KillerChihuahua. Malke 2010 was blocked twice in 2009 and five times in 2010 for disruptive editing and personal attacks.

Support:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Xenophrenic

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

7) Xenophrenic has edited Tea Party movement since March 2010, and is the second leading contributor with 397 edits - 63 of which have been reverts; 5 of which are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. Xenophrenic was blocked in 2011 for breaking community sanctions on Tea Party movement, and was blocked twice in 2007 and once in 2013 for edit warring on other articles. Xenophrenic has made 573 edits to the talkpage. There was no community support for a topic ban, Xenophrenic is not named as a party, and there is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions.

Support:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Arthur Rubin

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

8) Arthur Rubin has edited Tea Party movement since 2010 and is a significant contributor with 131 edits - 50 of which have been reverts; of those, 8 are identified as self-reverts. Arthur Rubin has made 298 edits to the talkpage. There was no community support for a topic ban. Arthur Rubin was blocked four times in 2008 and once in 2012 for edit warring.

Support:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. With same notes as above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Darkstar1st

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

9) Darkstar1st has edited Tea Party movement since 2010, making 64 edits - 21 of which have been reverts. Darkstar1st has been blocked twice in 2011 for breaking community sanctions on Tea Party movement, and was blocked in twice in 2010, once in 2011, and once in 2012 for edit warring on other articles; and once in 2011 for personal attacks. Darkstar1st has made 333 edits to the talkpage. Evidence for combative and pointy behaviour mainly relates to 2011. There was no community support for a topic ban.

Support:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

KillerChihuahua

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

10) 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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. And indeed, she did nothing wrong. NW (Talk) 18:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Worm(talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
5. 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)

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)

Abstain:

1. 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)

Comments:

Inadequacies of current community sanctions

11) 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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. 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 13:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
3. I can go along with this. NW (Talk) 23:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Worm(talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
5. AGK 09:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Template

12) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. 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)
2. NW (Talk) 18:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
4. Prefer 1.1, not keen on using categories to group DS. Worm(talk) 15:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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)
2. Simplest. NW (Talk) 18:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. I'll go with the advice of those who are experienced in upholding such sanctions. SilkTork 07:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
4. 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)
5. 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 13:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Worm(talk) 15:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

   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)

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

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

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)

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:

1. SilkTork 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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)
2. Per Tim. NW (Talk) 18:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
4. Procedural opposition: will vote on sub-divided proposals instead. AGK 13:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Procedurally, per AGK. --Courcelles 22:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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 09:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 09:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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 17:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Abstain:

Comments:

Goethean topic-banned

3.1) Goethean (talk · contribs) is prohibited for one year from making any edit relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at the ordinary venue (currently requests for amendment) after six months.

Support:

1. Only choice. AGK 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. 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 11:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

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)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

North8000 topic-banned

4.2) North8000 (talk · contribs) is 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)

Oppose:

1. 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 09:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Agree with Silk on this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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(talk) 15:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

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:

Oppose:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

Oppose:

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)

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

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 22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Darkstar1st topic-banned

9.2) Darkstar1st (talk · contribs) is 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)

Oppose:

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)
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)
3. For the sake of being clear. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

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

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)

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

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)

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)

   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)

2. This is good, and should be included in the standard enforcement provision. NW (Talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
4. Worm(talk) 15:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
6. --Courcelles 23:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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)
2. NW (Talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Worm(talk) 15:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
6. --Courcelles 22:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

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

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 09:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close

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 • email) 09:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC) by SilkTork.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Misplaced Pages	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	4	3	2		1
9	Involvement	9	0	0		·
10.1	Seeking community input	2	7	0		Cannot pass
10.2	Seeking community input (2)	8	0	0		·
11	Tag-team editing	8	1	0		·
12	Role of the Arbitration Committee	9	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute 1	8	0	0		·
2	Locus of dispute 2	7	0	1		·
3	Goethean	2	1	0		4
3.1	Goethean (alt)	1	0	0		5
4.1	North8000	3	0	0		3
5	Arzel	2	0	0		4
6	Malke 2010	2	0	0		4
7	Xenophrenic	2	0	0		4
8	Arthur Rubin	2	0	0		4
9	Darkstar1st	2	0	0		4
10	KillerChihuahua	5	1	1		1
11	Inadequacies of current community sanctions	5	0	0		1
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Discretionary sanctions	2	4	0		4
1.1	Discretionary sanctions	6	1	0		·
2	Edit restrictions	1	5	0		5
3	Goethean restricted	1	1	0		5
3.1	Goethean topic-banned	1	1	0		5
4.1	North8000 restricted	2	0	0		4
4.2	North8000 topic-banned	1	2	0		5
5	Arzel restricted	0	0	0		6
6	Malke 2010 restricted	0	0	0		6
7	Xenophrenic restricted	0	0	0		6
8	Arthur Rubin restricted	0	0	0		6
9.1	Darkstar1st restricted	0	0	0		6
9.2	Darkstar1st topic-banned	1	0	0		5
10	Community sanctions lifted	3	1	0		3
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Standard Enforcement	0	0	0		Cannot pass
1	Enforcement of decision sanctions	6	0	0		·
2	Enforcement of discretionary sanctions	6	0	0		·

Notes

1. ^ Newyorkbrad voted support for both R1 and R1.1, with 1.1 as his first preference. One support vote for 1 should be ignored unless 1.1 does not pass.
2. ^ NW voted support for both R4.1 and R4.2, with 4.2 as his first preference. One support vote from 4.1 should be ignored unless 4.2 does not pass.
3. Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012. Note: If E1 or E2 pass this provision does not pass, per procedure.

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

Oppose

Comments