→Proposed principles: moving over from Workshop with amendments suggested by NYB |
→Proposed findings of fact: commenting |
||
Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
==Proposed findings of fact== |
==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, so editing has been problematic from the start with a combination of vandal edits, edit warring, and concerns about POV. In November 2010, there was an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea_Party_movement#Finalization informal mediation] on content. At about the same time community sanctions were imposed, following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive219#Sanctions_on_Tea_Party_movement this discussion], which states that "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 the spirit. The article is currently fully protected. |
|||
1) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:Support: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
====Locus of dispute 2==== |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
2) Following a content disagreement on 18 Feb, North8000 made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATea_Party_movement&diff=538935769&oldid=538935030 a comment] that Xenophrenic and Goethean were tendentiously editing in favour of their POV. Goethean asked KillerChihuahua to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive_21#Hi.2C_could_you_help_investigate_a_potential_behavioral_issue.3F check their editing] was in line with policy. KillerChihuahua advised that the matter be dealt with in a low key; offering to speak with North8000. Following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:North8000#Tea_Party_Movement.2C_POV_pushing.2C_and_TE an inconclusive discussion] regarding evidence for tendentious editing, North8000 made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement&diff=539963293&oldid=539936276 a comment] that Goethean was "being rude as usual", KillerChihuahua gave North8000 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:North8000#Please_be_more_circumspect_in_your_comments a warning] for uncivil behaviour. At this point North8000 and Malke 2010 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement&diff=539977602&oldid=539974495 said] they felt KillerChihuahua was involved/siding with Goethean, so KillerChihuahua took the matter to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input|ANI]], stating that they had checked for tendentious editing by Goethean, found no problems, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=539991909&oldid=539991638 proposed topic bans for North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010], which were later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=540079198&oldid=540078467 extended] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=540105923&oldid=540105878 by others] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=540107391&oldid=540107312 to include other contributors]. North8000 proposed desysopping KillerChihuahua. A clear consensus was not emerging from discussions, so the matter came to ArbCom. |
|||
::: |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
:: |
|||
2) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
:Support: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
====Calls for sanctions on AN/I==== |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
2.1) Topic bans were proposed for {{user|Goethean}}, {{user|North8000}}, {{user|Arzel}}, {{user|Malke 2010}}, {{user|Xenophrenic}}, {{user|Thargor Orlando}}, {{user|Arthur Rubin}}, {{user|Collect}}, and {{user|Darkstar1st}}. A desysopping was proposed for {{user|KillerChihuahua}} |
|||
:# |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
:: |
|||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
:: |
|||
3) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:Support: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
====Goethean ==== |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
{{lu|Goethean}} |
|||
:# |
|||
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_20#The_tobacco_industry_and_the_Tea_Party 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input#Topic_ban_for_Goethean no consensus for a topic ban]. Goethean was blocked in 2006 and twice in 2010 for edit warring on other articles. |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
:: |
|||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
:: |
|||
4) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:Support: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
====North8000==== |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
{{lu|North8000}} |
|||
:# |
|||
4) North8000 has edited [[Tea Party movement]] since September 2010 and is the third main contributor 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input#Topic_ban_for_North8000 60% were in favour of a ban]. North8000 has no blocks. |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
:: |
:: |
||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
:: |
|||
5) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:Support: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
====Arzel==== |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
{{lu|Arzel}} |
|||
:# |
|||
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input#Topic_ban_for_Arzel 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. |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
:: |
|||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
:: |
|||
6) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:Support: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
====Malke 2010==== |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
{{lu|Malke 2010}} |
|||
:# |
|||
6) Malke 2010 has edited [[Tea Party movement]] since January 2010, and is the main 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input#Topic_ban_for_Malke_2010 no consensus for a topic ban by the community], and insufficient evidence provided in the case for applying sanctions. Malke 2010 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Workshop#Malke_2010 has apologised] to KillerChihuahua. Malke 2010 was blocked twice in 2009 and five times in 2010 for disruptive editing and personal attacks. |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
:: |
:: |
||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
:: |
|||
7) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:Support: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
====Xenophrenic==== |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
{{lu|Xenophrenic}} |
|||
:# |
|||
7) Xenophrenic has edited [[Tea Party movement]] since March 2010, and is the second main contributor with 397 edits - 63 of which have been reverts; 5 of which are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. Xenophrenic was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AXenophrenic 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input#Topic_ban_for_Xenophrenic 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. |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
:: |
|||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
:: |
|||
8) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:Support: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
====Arthur Rubin==== |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
{{lu|Arthur Rubin}} |
|||
:# |
|||
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input#Topic_ban_for_Arthur_Rubin no community support for a topic ban]. Arthur Rubin was blocked four times in 2008 and once in 2012 for edit warring. |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
:: |
|||
9) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
: |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:Support: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
====Darkstar1st==== |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
{{lu|Darkstar1st}} |
|||
:# |
|||
9) Darkstar1st has edited [[Tea Party movement]] since 2010, making 64 edits - 21 of which have been reverts. Darkstar1st has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADarkstar1st 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input#Topic_ban_for_Darkstar1st no community support for a topic ban]. |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
:# |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
:: |
|||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
:: |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
:: |
|||
10) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
====KillerChihuahua==== |
|||
:Support: |
|||
{{lu|KillerChihuahua}} |
|||
:# |
|||
10) KillerChihuahua has not edited [[Tea Party movement]], nor had meaningful previous contact with the main contributors, other than with Goethean. There was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input#DeSysop_KillerChihuahua no community support for a desysopping]. |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
:# |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::The whole desysop bit was utter nonsense. Killer Chihuahua did nothing to deserve that. [[User:Malke 2010|Malke 2010]] ([[User talk:Malke 2010|talk]]) 18:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::: |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
===Template=== |
|||
:: |
|||
11) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
====Concerns have been raised regarding the wording of the Community Sanctions==== |
|||
:Support: |
|||
11) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Workshop#The_Tea_party_Movement_article_is_in_very_bad_shape Concern has been raised] that the wording of the community sanctions, which says: "No editor may make more than one (1) revert '''on the same content''' per twenty-four (24) hour period", (my bold), makes assessment of edit warring difficult. Added to which, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Workshop#North8000_topic_banned 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. |
|||
:# |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:Oppose: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
:Abstain: |
|||
: |
:: |
||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:: |
|||
====Template==== |
|||
12) {text of proposed finding of fact} |
|||
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' |
|||
:: |
|||
:'''Comment by parties:''' |
|||
:: |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
|||
:: |
|||
:Comments: |
|||
::: |
::: |
||
Revision as of 16:35, 6 May 2013
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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.
Expression error: Unexpected mod operatorAbstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should 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 Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Neutral point of view
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Decorum
3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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 to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Sourcing
5) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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 aspire 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Involvement
9) The WP:INVOLVED section of the Admin 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." It is up to each admin to assess 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Seeking community input
10) 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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 community 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Role of the Arbitration Committee
12) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- 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, so editing has been problematic from the start with a combination of vandal edits, edit warring, and concerns about POV. In November 2010, there was an informal mediation on content. At about the same time community sanctions were imposed, following this discussion, which states that "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 the spirit. The article is currently fully protected.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Locus of dispute 2
2) Following a content disagreement on 18 Feb, North8000 made a comment that Xenophrenic and Goethean were tendentiously editing in favour of their POV. Goethean asked KillerChihuahua to check their editing was in line with policy. KillerChihuahua advised that the matter be dealt with in a low key; offering to speak with North8000. Following an inconclusive discussion regarding evidence for tendentious editing, North8000 made a comment that Goethean was "being rude as usual", KillerChihuahua gave North8000 a warning for uncivil behaviour. At this point North8000 and Malke 2010 said they felt KillerChihuahua was involved/siding with Goethean, so KillerChihuahua took the matter to ANI, stating that they had checked for tendentious editing by Goethean, found no problems, and proposed topic bans for North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010, which were later extended by others to include other contributors. North8000 proposed desysopping KillerChihuahua. A clear consensus was not emerging from discussions, so the matter came to ArbCom.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Goethean
User:Goethean ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
North8000
User:North8000 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4) North8000 has edited Tea Party movement since September 2010 and is the third main contributor 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Arzel
User:Arzel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Malke 2010
User:Malke 2010 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
6) Malke 2010 has edited Tea Party movement since January 2010, and is the main 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Xenophrenic
User:Xenophrenic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
7) Xenophrenic has edited Tea Party movement since March 2010, and is the second main 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Arthur Rubin
User:Arthur Rubin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Darkstar1st
User:Darkstar1st ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
KillerChihuahua
User:KillerChihuahua ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- The whole desysop bit was utter nonsense. Killer Chihuahua did nothing to deserve that. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Concerns have been raised regarding the wording of the Community Sanctions
11) Concern has been raised that the wording of the community sanctions, which says: "No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period", (my bold), makes assessment of edit warring difficult. Added to which, 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
12) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
10) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
11) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
12) {text of proposed remedy}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
13) {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:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Support:
- 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
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 until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
- Proposals which pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
- Proposals which do not pass
- {Failing principles}
- {Failing findings}
- {Failing remedies}
- {Failing enforcement provisions}
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
-