Revision as of 00:53, 26 February 2013

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Tea Party movement

Initiated by KillerChihuahua at 05:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notification)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Linked above

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User_talk:North8000#Tea_Party_Movement.2C_POV_pushing.2C_and_TE
• User_talk:North8000#Please_be_more_circumspect_in_your_comments
• Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Reminder
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input

Statement by KillerChihuahua

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

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

• Roger, I'm not in a dispute. I'm an uninvolved admin sending up a flare. The issue is one of several editors exhibiting severe battleground behavior, and making the TPM article too toxic for others to edit. The article is under community probation, but that hasn't worked at all. I think the behavior of Arzel, Malke 2010, and especially North8000 need examination; I believe they are holding the article hostage to their views and attacking and accusing anyone with whom they disagree. Goethean asked me to take a look; I tried to caution and warn the editors who were exhibiting the poor behavior but the reaction was so hostile and accusatory that I took it to ANI, where it got even worse. They reject any editors and any sources which do not promote the Tea Party movement, to the point that the New York Times and MSNBC were dismissed as non-RS - rather snidely, too - by Arzel and Malke 2010. KillerChihuahua 06:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Adding, I have five total edits to the article talk page; Feb 19, 23, 24; all in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. None to the article. KillerChihuahua 06:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Arthur Rubin was added to this case because he asked for sanctions against me in this topic area - "A complete topic ban, including a ban on discussion, administrative actions, and discussion of adminstrative actions. Your bringing this "report" here reflects a battlefield mentality which would best be removed from Misplaced Pages.". If he's asking for sanctions, seems appropriate to add him to this case so his evidence can be considered. KillerChihuahua 12:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Risker, the discussion is linked in my first sentence, at "is on community article probation." - apologies if that was unclear. I got that link from the Talk:Tea Party movement page. I haven't been able to find any probation page such as we set up for Sarah Palin here, or Men's rights movement here; I don't know if there is one. There is an editonotice here. KillerChihuahua 12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  You might want to note the final line in the editnotice, that "Violations can be reported at WP:ANI. " - which is precisely what Arthur Rubin wants to sanction me for, oddly enough. KillerChihuahua 12:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: While I sympathise with those who wish to leave this at ANI, in the short time between posting there and filing here, there have been calls to topic ban 9 editors, a call to desysop me, several editors calling for the issue to be sent to ArbCom, 7 supports and 5 opposes (one of them mine) to "shut this down". IOW, it went off the rails really fast, and that's why I brought it here. KillerChihuahua 13:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Update: NE Ent has unclosed the ANI sub-page thread, and there is activity there. KillerChihuahua 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• (This is in response to Rexx's statement, but to the Arbs): I would prefer Arbcom accept this case; I think there have been serious problems with the behavior of some of those who have been active at TPM, and I also know the differences between community probation and ArbCom sanctions. Most of you know I enforced probation on Sarah Palin and now on Men's rights movement. It was done well; a much stronger consensus at ANI and a subpage with a chart to track who had been notified (not warned, we use notification) and a place to record sanctions. The TPM has no such page; but worse, it has no admins willing to babysit the article - until me, and you see what has happened here. I'm facing not just accusations of "involved" from the parties I've warned, there is an admin calling for me to be sanctioned for even trying to help on this toxic cesspit. On probation since 2010, I have found zero instances of anything being done about problems there. It's like the editnotice was added, and then things went on as before. If the article is under Arb probation, it can be seen at AE, which is always watched. In the past I have argued against that on some articles, but in this case, I think it might be warranted. I do think some of the editors on TPM should be looked at by Arbcom, but of course if you choose not to, please at least do pass a motion or two so other admins and myself can set up a better probation and enforce it. KillerChihuahua 18:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by CMBJ

While I'm not an involved party here, I urge the Commitee to decline this case because it is premature; the community has not exhausted its ability to resolve issues with these users.   — C M B J   06:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

I am also not a party to this matter, as I have never edited the article, though I had a number of comments to make at the now closed ANI thread. One of those statements was to the effect that I did not think the time was ripe to take this matter here. For clarity, I want to make it clear that I now agree with the filing administrator's decision to request this case be taken up by ArbCom. I urge you to take on this issue, as in my view it is of the utmost importance.

Statement by Arthur Rubin

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

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

@ RexxS. I disagree. Whether or not KC has improperly taken sides, his interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Viriditas

In contrast to the opinion put forward by CMBJ, I believe this filing is not premature, as the recent discussion on ANI (linked above) has shown that the community is unable (and/or unwilling) to resolve conduct (and content) disputes and to enforce the article probation that has been in place since late 2010. As incredible as it sounds, there is a consensus among the involved parties that article improvement cannot occur (and has failed to occur for several years) and that efforts to work things out on the talk page have stalled. If this isn't a case for arbcom, I don't know what is. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

Hasty filing; ANI only started 920 pm Saturday, ArbCom opened 1230 am Monday? Recommend declining case per further community input. NE Ent 10:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Risker Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive219#Sanctions_on_Tea_Party_movement NE Ent 12:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

Article probation does not seem to be working here, judging from the hostile reaction to KillerChihuahua. To an uninvolved observer the responses to her posting on the talk page of TPM seem quite disproportionate. Perhaps there are underlying issues of WP:OWN which might be just one symptom of a toxic editing atmosphere. Article probation has worked on Men's rights movement, but in that case a fair number of neutral observers, including administrators, keep matters in check; that article was initially targeted by activists/advocates on off-wiki sites. Perhaps, like Mass killings under communist regimes, this article (or related articles) could benefit from discretionary sanctions. The discussions at WP:ANI regarding the TPM article have been chaotic, with various attempts to prevent any kind of administrative action related to article probation. When neutral administrators are attacked like that, something is wrong. Without naming names, it does look like just a few individuals, several of whom have yet to comment. Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

North8000's comments below, which show no assumptions of good faith, are an illustration of the problems here. He has crossed a line by writing in such embattled terms about an uninvolved administrator. Mathsci (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cavarrone

Let's give a week to the community to deal with that, then, if no clear outcome is possible, restart this one. Cavarrone (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Amadscientist

I feel it should be noted that KillerChihuahua has closed that subpage taking this out of the hands of the community for arbcom to deal with. I do not support that or this filing. It seems to be too early and I feel the communuty was dealing with this properly. In a way I see this as going to Mom when the outcome with Dad didn't go as expected. Also a little confused why KC repeats that they are uninvolved, yet have listed themselves as an involved party for this filing.

Is one day long enough to claim that the community was unable to resolve this? I respect Viriditas, but this doesn't seem to be exactly accurate. I would have thought that this should have been kept open or simply closed as not going anywhere, yet...it did seem to be going somewhere, just not for every issue that KC brought up. I mean, a topic ban was proposed for several editors when, in fact, the article probation was very limited. Perhaps arbcom will simply consider the suggestion I made at the end of that thread to tighten Article probation santions broadly construed. I support NE Ent's recommendations.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Reject speedily. ASAP. Stat. Post haste. Read the weird AN/I postings and note the desire of some to shout "Off With Their Heads!" over what is obviously a content dispute which is never something ArbCom deals with or ought to deal with. A quick rejection is in fact a message - that using silly proposals is not something the committee thinks is a valid basis for a real case. I concur with Arthur Rubin here. Collect (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Goethean: Your first wording appeared far more accurate with regard to your edits and intent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I welcome anyone actually reading my edits and talk page comments. Your characterization of them is absurd from any neutral perspective. For example: has me stating that a journal whose express interest is to oppose the tobacco industry (It is important for tobacco control advocates in the USA and internationally, to anticipate and counter Tea Party opposition to tobacco control policies and ensure that policymakers, the media and the public understand the longstanding connection between the tobacco industry, the Tea Party and its associated organisations. seems an eensy indication that the journal might lack objectivity, and a clear claim of "guilt by association" in the first place), is not necessarily a reliable source connecting all sorts of groups by association to the "tobacco industry." That is a legitimate issue for discussion, but to assert own advocacy of some of the positions shared by the most flagrant offenders is sufficiently far afield as to warrant inquiry of such a poster. And I am proud to assert that following policies and guidelines is a "meaningless platitude" to you. I consider such a post, in fact, to be uncollegial and contrary to any rational basis for reaching consensus if one can simply assert "the other editor should be banned because he disagrees on content." Cheers -- but your own words show where the problem lies. Collect (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I read your post and stand by my own post. I have now been online for over three decades, and please accept my assurance that (having read well over five million messages, and reviewed over 50,000 image files) I have some minimal experince in this field. Draconian solutions are exceedingly rarely beneficial. That you find this a "platitude" is unfortunate. I think mandatory 20 year sentences for possession of a small amount of LSD is absurd. I think $500 parking tickets which destroy poor people economically are absurd. All "platitudes". We have intersected on about 2% of the articles I have edited. I recollect no specific editing disagreement with you which would reasonably result in your posts. Feel free to post diffs on my talk page of edits which you find egregious. Cheers.Collect (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

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

• If this is about the current shit-storm, that is basically 98% a two person dispute, me and KillerChihuahua. And it is generally NOT at the TPM article. The article was and is in its average state. A look at two threads on my talk page tells 80% of the story and the solicitation thread at KC's talk page another 5% of it. Another 5% would be analysis of the (lack of) any specific basis for opening the ANI thread. KillerChihuahua, without basis, quickly dismissed the validity of the TE concern (the review which was ostensibly the reason Goethean was soliciting people) got into a battling mentality, incorrectly used their imprimatur in their battle, and baselessy escalated it into the shit-storm. With Geothean (via soliciting) probably being the largest in the other 2% involvement. So the list is flawed. And the idea of having one of the two involved disputants formulate it is also not a good idea, although I commend KC for closing the ani and bringing it here. Possibly a mediation between the two of us would be even a better idea.

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

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

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

Statement by Ubikwit

I've posted this link to a thread from the TPM Talk page on ANI page as I think it encapsulates--if not in a dramatic manner--a sort of collaborative obstructionism in which a group of editors would seem to be engaged. The scope would seem to be somewhat expansive in light of the response the case garnered in such a short period, so maybe it is too cumbersome for ANI. At any rate, the above statement by North8000 should be evaluated against this thread, which demonstrates the sort of interaction and the respective dispositions of three of the above-listed involved editors as well as Xenophrenic .--Ubikwit (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Malke 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole exchange is here:

first comment by Malke 2010

reply by North8000

reply by Malke 2010

link given by Goethean

reply by Malke 2010

reply by Goethean

reply by Malke 2010

reply by North8000

Statement by Goethean

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

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

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

Statement by RexxS

This issue probably doesn't need a case to decide. If my analysis is correct, there is in fact only one question that ArbCom needs to decide: "Has KillerChihuahua been acting as an uninvolved admin in a dispute over a page subject to probation?"

I've looked at the pages referred to above and I am convinced that she has. If ArbCom agrees with me on that, then it simply needs to state that it will support KC (and any other uninvolved admin) in discharging that role - and perhaps admonish those misguided individuals who have attempted to pervert those actions. Anything less will create a chilling effect on admins who voluntarily put themselves through stress and hassle purely to keep Misplaced Pages running. Is it any wonder that the pool of active admins willing to take on such jobs is continually shrinking? --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Gamaliel

The hysterical overreaction to KillerChihuahua's very mild attempts at rule enforcement and community involvement demonstrate quite clearly that some sort of intervention is needed at this article. Article ownership and incivility, not to mention outright hostility, are rampant. Someone, the community, arbcom, whoever, needs to step in to curb the battleground mentality of political-minded editors, some of whom have been unchecked for years. To those who are disputing the need for action (most loudly perhaps Collect, who neglects to mention his own editing on that article, his own advocacy of some of the positions shared by the most flagrant offenders, and the fact that he's well known on various noticeboards for advocating against any suggestion of community or administrative action in pretty much any case), they should be required to specifically lay out what they would do instead, besides absolutely nothing or reciting meaningless platitudes. A wide topic ban on political articles would be an effective way to eliminate this battleground mentality. Those editors could contribute to Misplaced Pages in less contentious ways besides editing political articles, and if they were single issue accounts dedicated to only politics, then they should be banned anyway, and Misplaced Pages has lost nothing and gained much. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Collect You claim my position is "the other editor should be banned because he disagrees on content", but I obviously said no such thing, and if you had any interest in collegiality as you claim to have, you would withdraw such a ridiculous claim. I simply want to enforce existing rules regarding civility, battleground behavior, etc. You claim to be in favor of "following policies and guidelines" but you have consistently advocated against even the most minor enforcement actions in regards to those policies. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I have been involved with some of the wrangling over U.S. politics articles over the past months, particularly during the election season, and do not see any benefit to the project in accepting a case on the Tea Party Movement at this point in time. The ANI filing by KC is a sterling example of everything wrong with that noticeboard or, more accuraely, everything wrong with how certain editors use it. People were voting for broad topic bans on U.S. politics articles without any meaningful inquiry into the topic area or the editors in question. Basically it was, and is, little more than an emotionally-driven lynching by editors who are mostly biased in one respect or another. I think an arbitration case will find plenty of misconduct on all sides, quite probably also finding fault with KC's conduct, and that we will have a lot of restrictions and sanctions passed on a whole lot of editors from all sides during the case or in the aftermath should discretionary sanctions be imposed on "edits relating to the Tea Party Movement broadly construed" as is a likely outcome. However, the effect will only be a stifling of activity on this topic and U.S. politics in general for as long as the Tea Party remains a relevant movement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Tea Party movement: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/4>-Tea_Party_movement-2013-02-25T06:04:00.000Z">

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

• Comment: @KC. Could you briefly summarise the actual dispute here please?  Roger Davies 06:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)"> ">
• Could someone please provide a link to the discussion that resulted in the article probation? Thanks. Risker (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Holding off on voting for a day or two to see if any progress is made at ANI. Will evaluate at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• @KC: When this was brought up on the mailing list last night, I wrote, "We could probably write the proposed decision for such a case now: discretionary sanctions, ban, ban, topic ban, topic ban, admonishment." Do you think that ArbCom replacing community article probation with discretionary sanctions for the area by motion would be a helpful step? That would allow the case to return to ArbCom for closer inspection only if it fails. NW (Talk) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)