Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: SilkTork (Talk) and Newyorkbrad (Talk)from Aug 2013 AGK (Talk) & NuclearWarfare (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Preliminary thoughts by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I'm not involved in this dispute, but I am watching it. Here are some of my preliminary thoughts:

• I'm not seeing any evidence of KillerChihuahua abusing her admin tools.
• I'm not seeing any evidence of Arthur Rubin abusing his admin tools or admin position.
• North8000 probably needs to be extracted from the situation.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The 30,000' view

Here's what a thorough analysis will end up at:

1. The article was and is just chugging along in its sad state, it's state dominated by TE editing. No real news or big happenings there throughout this entire process.
2. A sequence of events caused KC and me to have a dustup on my talk page. Driven (probably) more by the dynamics of that dustup more than anything that happened at the article, KC launched and stoked the ANI. As vague AN and ANI's against people generally do, it turned into a mob violence / snake pit situation (including actions by people with all sorts of agendas) which KC did not intend. Lots of crazy stuff said there by people while being eaten or people trying to get people eaten, which must be understood and left in that context.
3. Nobody did anything bad enough to be topic banned, blocked or whacked in any big way. Maybe a few chidings or warnings are merited.
4. To their credit, it looks like SilkTork was the first to visibly figure the above out. Including the "time to shake hands and move on"
5. One good thing that the ArbCom case did was move it from the mob violence venue into one where the evidence will be carefully looked at and the above figured out.
6. If it could truly help the article a bit, that would also be a good thing.
7. Also to direct/recommend that AN / Ani's against people be required to be on specific actions.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

I think it's worth giving my views at this point, and what I am going to discuss with NYB, so everything is open, and points of contention can be raised at this stage, and guidance given to me on where to look for further clarity or information.

I'm still waiting on evidence that the conduct of some contributors warrants a topic ban. And I'm still waiting on KC's confirmation that they assessed the editing of goethean, as that seems to have been a cause of friction.

Other than those points, I will be discussing with NYB that as yet I am not seeing evidence that any of the contributors is violating policy in regards to editing the article. The article's topic is contentious, and editing is slow and difficult, but discussion, albeit tense at times, is taking place. The main contributors have the best of intentions, even though they have differing views about how information in the article should be presented. That they are all working together after two or more years on the article is an achievement in itself, and I don't think enough recognition is given to editors like these who are prepared to roll up their sleeves and slog it out over a prolonged period on a difficult topic. Credit must be given that they have managed to keep a lid on things for so long.

I think KC's intervention was well meaning, and the advice given here is excellent. I don't see any indication that KC was "involved".

What happened after KC's intervention was unfortunate, and things quickly got out of hand. Difficult to put a finger on why that happened, but a factor may be that frustration was coming to a head, and things were about to blow anyway. It may be worth looking closer at events surrounding the blow up to see if lessons can be learned. If anyone wants to reflect on their own contribution to what happened, and put forward what they have learned, and how they may word or do things differently in future they may be helpful. It is certainly not a requirement, but it may be useful.

People have said that the article is in a mess. Certainly at 50 kB it is quite long, and in places it is unclear why information is being provided. These sources - The Guardian, Britannica, The Independent, and infoplease, provide neutral, unbiased, summary information, and may be useful as guidelines as to the direction in which to develop the article. However, content advice is not part of ArbCom's role - I'm just offering those because I found them useful when doing background reading to the article.

I am a little concerned at the amount of reverting that is taking place on an article that is under revert restriction. There has been comment that the current restrictions need looking at. And there has been comment that the restrictions could be replaced by ArbCom restrictions. That has to be considered alongside concerns raised by those admins who enforce ArbCom restrictions, that each time an article is put under ArbCom restrictions it puts more pressure on them. And I also wonder if increasing or changing the restrictions is actually going to assist in improving the article. I'm inclined to think that what is needed is an editorial discussion moderated by an independent editor, or any form of mediation.

In short, I'm not seeing serious conduct issues that require sanctions. Indeed, I have some respect for those editors who have been working under difficult conditions to try and improve the article. I'm not seeing how changing or increasing restrictions is going to help matters, as frustration will remain, and will likely blow up at some later point. I think this is a content issue that mediation can help resolve, but I don't think it appropriate to make that an ArbCom ruling, as I think that is outside the remit of ArbCom; and, anyway, requesting mediation is something that any of the main contributors can do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Silk Tork, in light of the fact that mediation is not compulsory, RSN and DRN is where the disputes over sources, etc., would likely wind up, but those processes are often inconclusive, so there is a certain lack of incentive to make the effort.

If it were to be determined that there is no evidence of conduct meriting sanction, then perhaps an increased level of sanctions on the article should be put in place in order to at least enable disputes to be more efficiently funneled into the resolution mechanism channels.

I've posted a link to this discussion elsewhere, but I'm not sure whether you have read the thread Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_19#Worst_Article_EVER. You may simply not agree with my characterization of the editor interactions.

This thread represents what I see as an attempt by North to obstruct editors by appealing to the pretense of "local trivia", which he raises repeatedly and is echoed and supported by Malke, Arzel et. al. The term 'trivia' appears 25 times on the archived page.

I have presented a framework that I believe represents the structural issues of the topical matter, and those same issues are addressed to some degree by Xenophrenic and Goethean on the archived page. A few diffs from that page:

[1]

Here North admits that the TPM is not monolithic, but fails to see how this relates to the overall treatment of disparate groups associated with the decentralized "movement".[2]

Xenophrenic points out contradictions in North's assertions.[3]

Malke ehoes North and proposes they draw up an outline for a new article. If one assumes that such proposals are being made in good faith, then where is the outline? Related RFC's?[4]

Xenophrenic points out the tactic of making recourse to discounting any RS related to an event that occurs at the local level as not representative of the whole movement. Xenophrenic subsequently misinterprets Rjensens's related comment, but the important point here is that attorney general is not a local figure, yet he himself is commenting on a local incident because he deems it to reflect poorly on the movement as a whole.[5]

North calls for a deletion of that material, which is immediately responded to by Malke with "Agree", followed by Xenophrenic referencing dispute resolution policy.[6][7]

Goethean quotes a passage from RS illustrating the significance and validity of the material.[8]

At any rate, that discussion is illustrative of what I see as a form of passive obstructionism, with the "trivia" related rhetoric representing obscurantism. Assuming that such group level conduct were to be recognized as problematic vis-a-vis policy, it seems there is little in the way of remedial measures.Ubikwit (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Silk Tork's assessment, especially as regarding the level of frustration on the article. That's to be expected on articles like TPM. However, I must disagree with Ubikwit's interpretation of the diffs he's selected out of context and his conclusion that the editors at TPM are not amenable to mediation. On the contrary, the editors at TPM have a history of seeking mediation, most notably when dealing with Dylan Flaherty. [9] As far as declaring that the editors "lack incentive" to make use of noticeboards, the evidence seems to speak to the contrary. They've made frequent use of the RSN board. I believe most recently with the tobacco issue. RSN discussion on talk page [10]And several other trips to RSN[11][12][13][14][15][16]

The particular discussion Ubikwit is referring to about the 'worst article ever,' is not a new discussion on the state of the article. It's been repeated in various forms over dozens of threads. Ubikwit seems to be concluding that the editors "lack incentive." But how can he know that? IMHO it's best to read the whole discussion which has several threads. [17][18][19][20]. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If one ignores Ubikwit's continuously telling us "what it is / what to think about it" (which is pretty much opposite of the actual situation) and actually read that thread carefully (and notice how it ended up) it is representative. Speaking for myself, I did not create any outline (and have subsequently have only made sporadic attempts to fix the article) because I realized that it is hopeless until policies and guidelines are changed. (this in tandem with not wanting to engage in the only thing that really works at the article, TE) Most notably, on EVERY one of the disputed points in that thread, it ended up the way the Xenophrenic/Goethen wanted it, and it was NEVER the result of a decision on the talk page, it was ALWAYS decided by who was the most persistent with the "revert button". This is NOT to advocate action against either of them, it IS to deflate the inaccurate picture that is being painted by Ubikwit.North8000 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What I would hope is that with a focused discussion, mediated by an independent and experienced editor, the article will be improved. And that would be be better than having further sanctions imposed on it, which is clearly not in itself improving the article, merely muting and delaying disruption. I shouldn't think that anyone would put forward an objection to mediation of some form, so it shouldn't need to be compulsory. I would rather see sanctions lifted completely and the article improved, than for us to look at ways of channelling future dispute resolution.

The question of sanctions against users has not been decided. Mine is but one vote in the Committee. And views and opinions do vary widely within the Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Malke, I would be in agreement in encouraging mediation, but the mediation case you reference to the "politically assassinated" editor was in 2010!

If editors are of a mind that there is still an incentive in 2013 to pursue constructive solutions through mediation, then I wonder why you, North and the other people complaining about junk status and plotting to nuke the "90% junk... trivia", etc., didn't just move the conflagration to a venue where there was some adult supervision to assist you in resolving the issues with the "POV warriors" and improving the article?

By the way, the notable discussion related to the tobacco control article authored by a prominent UCSF prof and published in the UK is the following discussion, referenced on the evidence page here. Note that there is a group of editors that appears to be a group of TPM proponents that manage to violate just about every related policy that would be conceivably applicable to the source, each participant adopting one errant line of argument or another, sometimes shifting the basis of their opposition to the source in response to evidence provided by the majority supporting the source, but more often than not simply making cameo appearances in that discussion to lob a one off (or two-off) objection and then not responding to the participants that indicate where they are errant with respect to policy. More specifically, as per the following "cherry-picked" quotes, it would appear that there is evidence of a plurality of what must be considered at least minor infractions ranging from misrepresenting the source (WP:RS), misrepresenting policies related to the validity of the source (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE), and violation of general policies related to discussion WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA

Stanton Glantz might be an expert in the Tobacco industry, but where is he an expert with regards to the Tea Party? Arzel (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

...an incredibly stupid study that would attack Big Tobacco, the Koch's and the Tea Party all at once! This is clearly a WP:FRINGE study. Such idiocy would never make it into the true scientific journals which I have published. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It is getting attention for two reasons. One, the left loves to attack the Tea Party so anything which can equate the Tea Party with eviiil organizations like BIG Tobacoo or the Kooooochs is great for boogyman posturing. Throw in Al Gore and you have a trifecta of leftist dreams.Arzel (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, Binksternet, I am sorry that the facts hurt you so much… but there is no need to rely on fringe theories to base your beliefs.

...it is too bad (for the authors) that the authors were unable to get their crap study published back in October when it might have had the intended effect they wished. But thankfully, by 2014 the utter absurdity of the whole issue will be long forgotten.Arzel (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The they are writing with an explicit Point of View (tobacco-control) for that (tobacco-control advocacy) audience. I'm sure their peers in the tobacco-control advocacy world found this entirely reasonable. It doesn't seem NPOV or reliable for Wikipedia.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some editors are showing a real problem with this, yes. The issue for me, however, is the idea that since a source exists, we must use it. There's no doubt in my mind that this is a reliable source. I see no consensus at the page, however, that it should be used in this article, given the claims the reference makes and the relative lack of attention it's getting (likely because the claims made are so dubious). Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not peer-reviewed for content. There are a number of journals published by professional academic organizations I belong to which are almost entirely political. This seems an excellent example. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The entire journal appears to be a political journal published by a medical organization; even if peer-reviewed, it's the wrong type of "peer".— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I still disagree. It's a political (or policy) journal. (If it's a policy journal, rather than a political journal, the article isn't even within the stated topic of the journal.) The article is about political history, and there is no evidence that the publisher (a medical organization(, the editors, or the authors are experts in that field. The lead author is an expert on effects of smoking (and possibly second hand smoke; I haven't read through all the abstracts); there's little evidence he's an expert on political history.

We've dealt with this before, although I can't find specific references to discussions. "Experts" writing outside their field of expertice are not considered "experts" for the purpose of WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Glantz is an expert on the tobacco industry; his <redacted> comments about the Tea Party would require independent evidence of expertise. BMJ is an expert in medical matters; their expertise about the Tea Party (or recognizing expertise about the Tea Party) is in question. "Tobacco Control" is a (self-proclaimed) expert on "the nature and consequences of tobacco use worldwide" and "the activities of the tobacco industry and its allies".; their expertise about the Tea Party is problematic, as it's Glantz' assertion that the Tea Party is an ally of (an ally of an ally of ...) the tobacco industry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable publishers have been known to publish clearly unreliable journals...

…there are any number of scientific organizations which publish psuedo-scientific journals...— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a generally reliable source in regard the tobacco industry, but…

Why are they experts on the Tea Party because they think it's connected to the tobacco industry? It's a notable opinion...— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

One noteworthy comment by an uninvolved editor:

I'm alarmed at the way editors are trying to wriggle round this one. Articles in BMJ journals are reliable, end of story, pretty much. If you find a source of equivalent quality presenting an opposing view, use both. Itsmejudith (talk)

This is not fringe or pseudoscience. Reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Ubikwit (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue was more than source credentials. As I indicated during the fray, the source didn't say what they were putting in. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: At least one person said they stopped contributing to the article due to the atmosphere. It is plausible to consider that were there stronger sanctions in place, there might be better progress made on the article, as editors would no longer feel driven away. KillerChihuahua 19:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I think that seeing the possibility of progress on the article would make an immense difference. Since a while back I kicked back to sparodic involvement and no more large efforts just because it is has been so hopeless. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Deadlines optional?

I was under the impression that the workshop would be closed on the 27th, yet it is still active[21] Had I been aware that an extension had been granted, I would very probably spent some time and effort adding to this page. As it was, I believed the given date was set, and only logged in on the 3rd to see the Proposed decision, which I expected would be posted on the 3rd according to the schedule posted. Why was I not informed the Workshop would remain open, and when is the new date for the Proposed decision? Is the Workshop now closed? Is there a close date for the Workshop? If the date did not change, why have clerks not removed the intervening edits? Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua 18:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I see above SilkTork states he is " I'm still waiting on KC's confirmation that they assessed the editing of goethean, as that seems to have been a cause of friction." - when was I asked for this? I did not see this question, apologies. I can confirm I did look at the edits on the talk page, saw no disruption, and asked North8000 very civilly for his evidence - still on his talk page, section Tea Party Movement, POV pushing, and TE, content Hi, here to ask you about some allegations/accusations you made on Talk:Tea Party movement - would you please provide diffs of the objectionable behavior? You may do so here or on my talk page, thanks much! KillerChihuahua 16:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC). As has been fully confirmed, North not only declined to offer any evidence at all, he called doing so impossible; I advised him to either cease making unsupported accusations, or provide evidence. He ignored this advice, as evidence shows. Are there any further questions? KillerChihuahua 18:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello KC. IMHO there are some things in error in your post regarding me. What I'm saying was impossible (and a certain-to-fail task) would be to support a TE claim with only a few diffs, as TE is a long term pattern, generally a pattern through a large number of actions which do not necessarily individually violate policy. I discussed and asked a reasonable question on that dilemma which you would not address. And as I indicated, I had already been done on that topic, (I intended it only as a one-time "push" to cause a reduction in that behavior) and I made no further comments on it. About a week later I made a comment on a totally different topic, a comment on a nasty post of Geothean's towards Malke, and noted the policy/guideline violations of such. It was a comment (only) on that one post immediately preceding it, so the "diffs" / evidence would be (only) the comment just above mine which my comment was discussing, which I think was pretty clear. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

{lease post a diff of the "reasonable question" you asked, as I have no idea to what you are referring. KillerChihuahua 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello KC. Happy to:

• Feb 18 22:24 My LAST edit at the article regarding my my TE accusation [22]. So it was OVER before your very first post to me on Feb 19th.
• Feb 19, 19:04 Preface info for the question:[23]
• Feb 19, 20:42 (plus tweak edits) The question which you would not address: [24]
• Feb 19, 22:00 Me saying that I made my posts about the TE editing in a hope to improve the situation, and considered it to be over. [25].
• Feb 23 22:48 My comment many days later indicating that it indeed proven out to be dead, disengaged and over with. (no activity since Feb 18th) [26]

Just as I had considered this to be over with back then, I'm more than happy to shake hands and consider our dust-up and what got unleashed by it to be be over with. And move on hopefully even in a level above that, in a truly friendly manner. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So the question is "Are you saying one example of it happening (which I thought was obvious from the post), or one example that singly proves that the behavior is occurring?" - I was not saying that, no. I was saying that you needed to provide at least one diff, or stop making accusations. I said that several times; in fact I replied to this post which you feel went unanswered. My edit summary was was I unclear? Allow me to try again. and my post was "I don't know how clear I can make this. If you cannot make a case to someone else, you need to hush up about it. Otherwise you're just slinging around unsubstantiated allegations, which might rebound on you and will cause no sanctions against him."[27] - are you saying it is still unclear to you, or that you feel I "would not address" this? I feel I have addressed it thoroughly. I made the same point later on your page; "No diff = no "looking into", no actions. So either stop with the vague allegations, or post a diff. End of story, full stop."[28] I really cannot see how I can make it clearer that one diff may not prove anything, but you need to be able to provide at least one diff if you make an accusation. KillerChihuahua 23:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Distilling what I was asking about it was on how to resolve the conflict in what you were asking. Implicitly I was to be supporting my assertion, but by the nature of TE even a few diffs is a route to certain failure. (Even the 1 week sample/example of diffs on those two folks that I did at ANI took about 4 hours.) And you would not address that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork has already posted his preliminary thoughts on the case, and I am in the final stages of reviewing the evidence. We didn't quite hit the target date for a decision of yesterday, but we expect to have it up by this weekend. At this point, we have a good understanding of the general scope of the evidence and workshop proposals, and I don't think that fine-tuning the workshop proposals at this point is going to affect the outcome very much if at all. On the other hand, if there are any important points to be added, they can be posted here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Brad: No, I don't want to delay things even more. I just wish I had been aware the deadlines had been moved, that's all. If any of you have any questions please do let me know and I will do my best to answer them rapidly. KillerChihuahua 23:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification KC that you did examine the edits of goethean. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, I apologize for the delay. I did not see the question until today. KillerChihuahua 02:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in getting the PD up. I know that NYB is still looking into this, but that he is also quite busy. He was helping out on finishing up the PD on the Sexology case, for example, and he does also get involved in a number of other unseen, but important, activities.

Moderated discussion

If it would help, I'd be quite happy to moderate a discussion on the Tea Party movement talkpage, looking into resolving the content dispute. I would think the first stage would be to look into the amount of the content to see if all of it is needed or helpful. If there's interest in that, we could start that this week. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that that is an excellent idea. Resolving terminology, there is usually the content debate of the moment, and then there are the onbgoing thoughts and efforts regarding the overall state of the article. I think that the current debate is a very good example of the former. It is not vitriolic (maybe even less so due to recent scrutiny, but it isn't that far from typical. It's a little different regarding who is and isn't doing what, some folks most at the core of it have dialed back and others have emerged, but that is secondary if we're focusing on helping the situation). Unless you could help it go differently, it's on its way to be "settled" in the usual way. No real resolution on the talk page, and the talk thread fades away, and the result would get determined by whoever is most persistent with the "revert button" over many days or weeks. And moderating an addressing of what's in the overall article is an excellent idea. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

i am thrilled to have a new set/sets of eyes on this article. there is so much covered under the blanket term, the text is perhaps muddled. a disambig might could cover everything without painting all the groups in the same light, or routing each query to it's present article, such as the boston, the 65, 72, tobacco, rick santelli, moneybomb, koch bros funded groups/parties, grassroots, and individual articles such as teaparty.net, teaparty.wth, etc articles. thanks for everyone for elevating this issue although i regret we failed to arrive here using the tools/methods prefered. i should have done more to achieve that goal, my apologies to all. i sincerely hope we all will work together on other topics and have every confidence all comments/edits were made with a sincere desire to improve wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. Let's see how it goes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Sorry. I have to oppose that for now. IMHO, editors who have been brought to ArbCom deserve to have that resolved first; to know where they stand. Editors must be on equal footing in any discussion, and not feeling they must be extra careful in what they say because it might affect the outcome of the case. If we later have a moderated discussion, it might be better to have someone else moderate it. I say this because Xenophrenic has already claimed he is using your suggestions in his arguments regarding anti-immigration versus anti-illegal immigration. Apparently you suggested articles on Wikipedia and perhaps elsewhere? The impression he seems to be giving is that therefore we must go with them instead of reliable sources other editors have presented. And, please note that an entire section of discussion was hatted by someone as 'not productive.' I removed the hat. I don't have time to sort through diffs to find out who did it. But the anti-immigration/illegal immigration discussion is an excellent example of the problems on this article. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

*Takes clerk fez off* Could arbcom appoint three moderators for two months after the case closes or so to help guide the conversation forward? *Puts clerk fez back on* --Guerillero | My Talk 17:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke, the case you and i are making is so basic, so rooted in policy i am positive any arbcom member will see our points. i like Guerillero's idea as well, more eyes the better, yet if we are lucky enough to get one pair from this group it would be a great leap forward as following existing policy will improve the article, some guidance is perhaps all that is lacking. SilkTork commented on the length of the article which i think is a great step to improving it, simply remove trivia. i do see your point as well, however his idea appears to be the path of least resistance and a fast way to diffuse the conflict. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is Xenophrenic's comments where he incorporates the 'Arbcom' sources. [29] And IMHO any vote on the article talk page is moot if any editor involved in this Arbcom case objects. The case needs to be resolved first. Sorry, it's my head on the chopping block and I'll not sharpen the blade by dragging this out. And Guerillero makes an excellent suggestion, but I'd add that the editors being named here at ArbCom should have a say in who is chosen to moderate any discussion. If you really examine this whole thing, it got started because conservative editors commented that they perceived a lack of fairness. And it's the conservative editors who are being brought here. As far as having a say in choosing moderators, I'm not talking about choosing names, I'm talking about offering a wish list of the attributes we'd like to see in those moderators and then let ArbCom pick them. Also, I read Killer Chihuahua's comment to NewYorkBrad above and it seems to me she'd liked this to conclude, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke 2010, I think I understand. Roughly speaking, you are saying that the wrong people came under the spotlight at the Arbcom case, and that that needs to get cleared up first, and that you have some concern that SilkTork's initiative will delay that process. I guess that I agree with most of that, except that I didn't see SilkTork's initiative as adversely affecting the outcome at Arbcom and that it might actually be a trial balloon on where Arbcom is headed on this. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

My moderator suggestion is a guy just like EdJohnston (talk). Fair, impartial, reasonable, cuts to the core of the issue fast and sees what needs to be done to solve a problem, sees lots of edit wars, and doesn't have a dog in the fight. Better yet, let's get EdJohnston. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

what if Ed agreed to review the moderation by SilkTork, perhaps that would address all concerns and speed this along? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to indirectly say that you disapprove of SilkTork as moderator because he is somehow involved? It was his offer to moderate that initiated this thread.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Ubikwit, I'm not trying to say anything indirectly. I made my position and suggestions very plain in the comments above. My suggestion now is for you to re-read them and not read anything into them. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke, it seems to me that SilkTork made an offer to moderate mediate, not a general recommendation for moderation mediation. We did discuss mediation during the cases, as you recall. It just struck me as somewhat incongruous that you proposed an alternative admin under the circumstances.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, be nice. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit, please re-read Silk Torks's comments as well as my comments again. We're not talking about mediation. We're talking about a moderated discussion. Nobody here is opposed to a moderated discussion, including me. I think Silk Tork's comments are very plain. I think mine are as well. I don't know any plainer language to use. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel that discussion on this matter is best held at Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Moderated_discussion rather than this page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion involves editors named in this ArbCom case. Newyorkbrad said that while he didn't think adding to the workshop would change the outcome, we could bring up any additional things here if we felt it was necessary. This seems the place since my comments are speaking to the ArbCom issue. In addition, Xenophrenic's recent edit warring and disruption on the article talk page needs to be addressed here because now there is evidence of his tendentious editing as well as his incivility. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed decision

NYB is still occupied with other matters, though we have communicated today on this matter. I will start workshopping some proposed decisions over the next few days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Committee have had a few days to look over the draft now. I will transfer the bulk of it over to the PD page on Monday, giving them a few more days to look into it. There are some findings I'll leave behind - those on people who are not being sanctioned, for example. I understand there are some additional proposals that at least one Committee member would like to add, so the Workshop proposals are unlikely to the final ones. It is common for proposals to be added after the PD page has been opened. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)