Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:12, 7 June 2009

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Semi-protection

Remedy 14 - Articles semi-protected - appears to go directly against the Protection policy where it says "Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents anonymous and newly registered users from participating in discussions. A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time." I think this is a very bad idea both as Arbcom should not be rewriting policy and because we should not be preventing new and unregistered users from at least joining discussions on talk pages. Semi protection has never been necessary for the talk page of George W. Bush and even Sarah Palin at it's height of popularity only had the talk page semi-protected for a few hours. It sets the worst example if Arbcom are going to impose such protection on the community. Davewild (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages policy is based on what works to fix problems, then we (Wikipedians) need to modify policy as needed when a new situation warrants a different approach. That said, I could not vote for the remedy with the idea that all articles associated with Obama would have permanent semi-protection of the article and talk page. Rather, it needs to be seen as a short term remedy that is reevaluated intermittently to see if an alternative approach would work. I support a modification of the wording to make it clear that this is not a permanent solution in the sense that it must be continued past the point that other alternatives would be effective. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Davewild's point is correct though. There is no reason to blanket semi-protect all talk pages with a decision here. The decision should rather allow admins to protect both articles and talk pages where needed without imposing it preemptively on all affected articles as the current wording of remedy #14 reads. I suggest a different wording, along the lines of:

14) In case of constant disruption, articles relating directly to Barack Obama may be permanently semi-protected, to be interpreted narrowly. To allow anonymous editors to participate, talk pages of such articles should not be permanently semi-protected unless no other approach can be effective to stop constant disruption.

I think it's important to not pass a remedy that effectively bans anonymous editing from those articles. Regards SoWhy 10:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here, the Arbcom should not make a precedent for arbitrary semi-protection. Moreover, the remedy is incredibly evasive, and would certainly trigger wheel-wars in its application. It's almost a sacred principle that protection is not to be used without cause, both for pages and talk pages. A remedy to lower the bar for semi-protection, and make it longer than normally, may be appropriate; but all of them indefinite permanent, without criteria other than being directly related to the article Barack Obama ? I don't see sufficient evidence (or, quite strangely as most of their role is to justify remedies, findings of fact) that could support such a move (and I'm familiar enough with this case). Cenarium (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm quite sympathetic to the spirit in which Wizardman offered remedy 14, I do not think that the remedy is needed or advisable at this time (this is based on my own impression from familiarity with the issues at hand, but also on my reading of the findings of fact as proposed, which I don't see as substantiating a need for this remedy). My argument here also applies to the more time-specific version in 14.1.

I've been keeping an eye on some of the Obama articles and have enforced article probation so I certainly understand the problem, but to date it has not risen to the level whereby lengthy semi-protection (particularly for talk pages) is a step we need to take. In spite of some significant flare-ups, article probation seems to work fairly well (at least in my view), and drive-by comments by SPAs on talk pages are generally dealt with in short order and with relatively little disruption. The original roots of this case were in real-world complaints that the main Obama article was biased and that editing suggestions about how to remove that bias were ignored. I am not sympathetic to that particular argument as expressed by WorldNetDaily, but in that context (not to mention in the general context of open editing on Misplaced Pages) it seems particularly advisable to avoid shutting out new accounts from editing or even commenting on article talk pages. Many of those accounts/editors will be here for disruption, but others might come with legitimate complaints and positive suggestions about how to improve articles. If Talk:Barack Obama and related pages were being absolutely bombarded with SPAs to the point that article improvement was impossible then I'd feel differently, but that's not at all where we're at.

Having said that, Casliber's alternative (14.2) seems reasonable to me since it leaves semi-protection up to the discretion of admins on a case-by-case basis, and as such basically operates in the spirit of the already existing article probation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

An even milder alternative would be to say that although semi-protection of talk pages is not common, it may be used at the discretion of administrators on various Obama pages during periods of heavy traffic, vandalism, etc. That way Arbcom does not endorse or reject it, it just acknowledges that it can be done. In the absence of semi-protection, and even with semi-protection in the case of trouble coming from established accounts, Arbcom needs to recognize as legitimate some of the steps that were taken to manage bad process moves and bad contributions on the talk page rather than holding them out as talk page violations. Either that or propose some new means. It seems to be trying to have it both ways, holding that some edits were themselves behavioral violations, yet for talk page watchers to undo those violations was edit warring. Letting them stand is not a good option either, that basically abdicates article probation and allows the disruption to get worse. At the risk of airing my own grievance here, I'm particularly taken aback that some members of Arbcom deem my removing copyvios to be a talk page violation, and wonder if they have actually reviewed the evidence on the subject. Do we really want the Obama talk page to be 350K long with 100 mostly redundant threads, and contain two complete and one partial cut-and-paste of the World Net Daily article, while it's being edited 500 times per day, mostly by SPA accounts? If not somebody has to manage the talk page. That somebody is going to make occasional mistakes and questionable judgment calls, and be subject to a lot of criticism, even if they get it 99% right. It's not reasonable that people taking on that role open themselves up to sanctions. Wikidemon (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment on proceedings

Travesty in motion: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Proposed decision. Misplaced Pages's arbcom is in the process of dishing out heavy punishments to two good faith editors who have faced the wall of incivility and NPOV violating POV pushers camped out on the Obama articles. Despite many good faith efforts to discuss the issue and present alternatives for resolving it, Wizardman and the other Arbcoms appear ready to reinforce and encourage the incivility, obstruction, wikilawyering, and harassment carried out by those calling themselves "defenders" and "patrollers" on these pages. This is a dark time for Misplaced Pages when bias is encouraged and the censors are rewarded for their efforts. This endorsement of Wikidemon's harassment including 15 posts, 15, on my talk page on May 24, his refactoring of comments, his harassment of good faith editors is unacceptable. This is a truly shameful and disgraceful display. NPOV is a core policy and Arbcom is shitting on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Scjessey and myself seem to be particularly victimised here. Sceptre 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove the wiggle room in "Consensus can change"

Honestly, just think about it:

Consensus can change

10) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Misplaced Pages's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over the course of months or years in an attempt to shift consensus.

No, no, no. The same point should be brought up when there is significant new evidence. That's the way content building works, or at least one of the necessary ways. Change the language before this thing is settled or you're going to open up a can of worms for months (years?) into the future. Believe me. I ran into exactly this problem on the Obama page. And if you disagree with my point, think it over again. I think this statement simply wasn't thought through well enough. Obviously, the determination on whether significant new evidence has been brought forward is a matter of consensus on the talk page.

Proposed change: add the italicized words to the last sentence: "However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over the course of months or years in an attempt to shift consensus, unless significant new information is brought forward.

The "significant new information" may be thought to create a different point -- but it may not be read that way. I think I'm proposing something that clarifies what was really meant by this, or rather, closing up a whole that some weaselly editors will try to squeeze through in the future. And believe me, that's just the thing that has happened on the Obama pages. -- Noroton (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole case is becoming a clusterfuck. I mean, how can you take AC seriously when they propose the same remedies for an ex-admin who was desysopped for edit warring and someone trying to enforce BLP? Sceptre 20:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, that doesnt make sense. You are comparing someones past sins with someones current good behaviour.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo was five years ago.
• ANI "Sceptre_block_evasion" was one year ago. Your block log is longer and more varied than Stevertigo.
• Scjessey has also edit warred, during this case, here. Also there is a history of this. 1, and 2 (also discussed here), 3 In that last case, his reverts are claiming that mentioning Joe the Plumber on Public image of Barack Obama is a BLP violation.(see talk) Obama is WP:WELLKNOWN, so provided that a change is well-documented and isnt irrelevant, it isnt a BLP violation. Consensus may determine that something like this should be moved from one page to another, however the BLP exception shouldn't be used to justify edit-warring on changes like that.

If you have a specific instance of BLP enforcement in mind, please raise it and we can discuss the merits of it. John Vandenberg 12:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Principle 6 tips the scales too heavily toward protection, against fair criticism

This is one of the most watched articles about THE most powerful human being on the planet. Will you please take a step back and get a little perspective here? Quote (from "Principles"):

Biographies of living people

6) Editors must take particular care when adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all our content policies, especially: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Articles must use high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately.

This is a bio article on a PUBLIC FIGURE who can do one helluva lot more harm to US than WE can ever do to HIM. While there's nothing actually wrong with your standard boilerplate here, it wrongly emphasises the relationship Misplaced Pages has to this subject. This finding will be used by weaselly editors to remove fair criticism from the article. It's not like that hasn't happened before.

What you need is a corresponding point to balance this off. Either that or add to this point. Please reread WP:WELLKNOWN. Something like this language from that passage at WP:BLP should be added:

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative

For crying out loud, people, at least attempt to keep in mind that you need to look neutral. -- Noroton (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The principles encourages strict adherence to content policies without targeting particular views. The portion involving removing poorly sourced information explicitly applies to the full spectrum of views. It appear neutral in this light. --Vassyana (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it encourages strict adherence to certain parts of certain content policies, and overemphasis on certain parts is counterproductive, particularly when other parts of content policies are more at risk in the article. The danger to the Obama page isn't exactly that BLP violations will be inserted into it (or, if inserted, that they'll stay more than a few minutes). It's often been said that articles on the most famous living persons, with all their fans watching their page, have the least problem with BLP violations. WP:BLP recognizes the wall separating Church from Encyclopedia in the WP:WELLKNOWN passage, and with so many Obama worshippers on Misplaced Pages, it's worth noting it. Have you noticed, Vassyana, that Obama supporters do control that article? No one disputes that. Being in control, they don't need to be further encouraged to use WP:BLP policy as a club to protect the idol against criticism. It's worth noting in the proposal that the point made in WP:WELLKNOWN is also part of Misplaced Pages policy. -- Noroton (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact on Wikidemon don't go far enough

Regarding this:

10) Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, teaming with Sceptre in removing comments, including adding comments back on a user talk page removed by the user.

And this:

10.1) Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) violated talk page guidelines in removing sections of text and/or archiving them.

I can't believe the comments some of you are making:

• Wizardman: While talk page guidelines say generally not to remove comments, the state of the Obama talk page and the WorldNetDaily circumstances, as well as the comments themselves, make these diffs acceptable to me.

• Coren: I'm not sure that guideline warrants a FoF unless it was oft repeated behavior; there are cases where a quiet deescalation might be appropriate. — Coren (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon doesn't just do this on the Obama talk page, he does it on any page he's got an Obama-related dispute going on. He engaged in abusive archiving at the WP:IAR talk page, as well, for which he was politely rebuked there and on his talk page (see bottom of this version of Wikidemon's talk page ; and this version gives the full discussion at Talk:IAR ). This incident happened in March, after this case was brought to Arbcom. Anyone who's familiar with Wikidemon's edits should recall other, similar incidents. So it is not just the Obama talk page where Wikidemon has this problem, and the particular circumstances there aren't the locus of the problem with Wikidemon's behavior. Wikidemon is arrogant about this, as you can see from his discussion of it. If you rap him too lightly on the knuckles for it, you'll be ineffective.

Removing or archiving other editors' comments on a talk page have been tactics Wikidemon has used in his efforts to escalate disputes in order to get the other party angry enough to commit a violation of a WP behavior policy -- which Wikidemon then rushes to AN/I or AN to complain about. This isn't rational discussion meant to reach a consensus: It's using the talk page of a politically charged article to conduct a WP:BATTLE imported from the political arena. It doesn't matter to Wikidemon whether he's engaging in his tactics on the Obama talk page or the WP:IAR talk page, so it should also be irrelevant to you where he is doing it. If the diffs I've just provided aren't convincing enough, I'll go hunt up some more. -- Noroton (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we please strike Noroton's vendetta-driven attack above, or else add Noroton to the case in view of a topic ban and stay-away order? I've been one of the most diligent editors in quieting disruption on the Obama articles, and for that I've gotten more than my share of stalkers, harassers, sockpuppet saboteurs, etc. Noroton is one of the harassers. He was historically one of the worst offenders on the Obama pages, far worse than Stevertigo and ChildofMidnight. The accusation that I and other editors are acting in bad faith to deliberately provoke an emotional response from editors to get them blocked and banned in order to further our political agenda (and its corollaries, that editors are not responsible for their own misbehavior and that it's all the fault of the cabal that controls the Obama article) are copied straight from the playbook of BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his farm of sockpuppets, who targeted me for a series of bogus reports on WP:AN/I and elsewhere. Noroton blew his lid at some point and got blocked for a week then three, then came back vowing to undo me. Since then he's mostly avoided me and the Obama articles voluntarily, other than a few harassment incidents, which is why he has so far not been at issue here. But if he is back we ought to do something.

To answer the substance of Noroton's lobbying against me, Arbcom hasn't addressed the context behind proposal 10. My reversions to Stevertigo's bizarre WP:IAR proposal, made during the World Net Daily fiasco, were a reasonable check on an editor who seemed to me to be sliding from minor disruption to a full-scale campaign of disrupting the entire encycloepedia to prove a fringe conspiracy WP:POINT about Obama. If I did not remove the proposal, who would have? Someone should have. Abusive process like proposing to deprecate IAR out of unhappiness with Obama needs to be shut down, not followed for the sake of process. 10.1 is a complete nonstarter, and based on a ridiculous set of diffs provided by ChildofMidnight. The diffs show that I reverted a redundant post from an indeffed editor, a bad faith personal attack, archived a non-sequitur IP soapbox, and deleted a copyright violation, also during the World Net Daily blow-up. Again, all of those should have been removed, archived, or consolidated - if not me, who? Wikidemon (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon's abuse is well documented. I have no idea why Arbcom has chosen to ignore it. Here's a diff where he refactors my response to his ANI report against me for a second time . This is one example of his unacceptable behavior. Wikidemon's pattern of disruption needs to be addressed by this committee and should not be allowed to continue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(posted out of sequence)One of the proposed sanctions here is that ChildofMidnight and I avoid each other - I'm trying to start that now, and think ChildofMidnight would do well to get an early start on that too. Regarding the diff ChildofMidnight provides above, ChildofMidnight tried in that AN/I report, as he did many times before and since, to derail reports of his own misbehavior by launching attacks on other editors. In that particular case he got the Barney Frank article edit protected by edit warring, and began accusing other editors of homophobia. One of the regulars on the Barney Frank article filed an AN/I report that, as usual, got sidetracked in by this. I tried to separate the report on ChildofMidnight's edit warring and incivility, from his inevitable counter-claims against other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikidemon:

• I've been one of the most diligent editors in quieting disruption
• other than a few stalking/harassment incidents If anyone needed evidence of Wikidemon's habit of exaggerating in a dispute, that person should thank Wikidemon for providing it right here.
• he's disrupting the Arbcom procedings here compare with Wikidemon's conduct on the IAR talk page. Wikidemon's opponents are always "disruptive", which is why their comments need to be removed from talk pages or boxed in blue for the archives. He's not battling, you see, he's just "patrolling". Whether it's at IAR talk, or Talk:Barack Obama or Talk:Proposed decision. Arbitrators, do you think you're setting Wikidemon on the right path with the sanctions so far proposed for him, or is this editor going to be weighing down the project with constant battling? Think of it as a question, and not a rhetorical one. Discuss amongst yourselves.
• The bad faith accusation that I and other editors are deliberately provoking a bad response from editors to get them blocked and banned in order to further a political agenda (and its corollaries, that they are not responsible for their own misbehavior and that a cabal controls the Obama article) are copied straight from the playbook of BryanFromPalatine Honestly, I think I was making that accusation before Bryan and his sock army. I think he copied that from me.
• BryanFromPalatine and his farm of sockpuppets, who targeted me for a series of bogus reports on WP:AN/I and elsewhere. And I think he copied that from Wikidemon, who was targeting opponents with bogus reports earlier and more often. I think we're straying from the point by mentioning Bryan, but I just wanted to defend myself. (And if anyone cares enough to suspect I may be some kind of sockpuppet of Bryan or any account editing the Obama pages, they should look into that and lay it to rest)
• and its corollaries, that they are not responsible for their own misbehavior No, I've never said that. I recommended that one anti-Obama editor be blocked at one point. I'm not excusing anyone's behavior, including my own. I do think reacting to goading is something that should be taken into account, but it isn't an excuse, especially after a while. This is an example of Wikidemon's tactic of exaggerating.
• if not me, who? Someone uninvolved, that's who. Which is why I suggest Arbcom make that a remedy. -- Noroton (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we please shut this one down? Noroton seems to think of himself as my nemesis. I don't approach Misplaced Pages in that way, and could care less whether BryanFromPalentine was meatpuppeting Noroton or vice-versa. When you try to help the project deal with disruption you come across editors being disruptive, that's a truism. However, Noroton's revenge / stalking threats from last October do creep me out, and every time he acts on them it is unpleasant. I really don't want to waste any more time dealing with this nonsense. Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting to see who's sticking with the subject here and who isn't? Anyone concerned for Wikidemon's welfare might want to check just what I said on my talk page about Wikidemon back then, and just what I said I'd do. I threatened to ... take him to Arbcom (I backed off because the idea of wallowing in this stinking mess any longer was too much even for an unpleasant creep like me). At the start of this case, I offered to join Wikidemon in the hot seat, but Arbcom rejected me as a martyr. I guess I wasn't creepy enough. When you try to help the project deal with disruption -- amazing how so much of the "disruption" just happens to come from one's political opponents. -- Noroton (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You must stop acting on that threat. Misplaced Pages is not for stalking or vendettas. Your actions on the Obama pages were as I have said worse than any of the parties now here. No evidence has been gathered on that because you were doing fairly well avoiding the subject that got you in trouble. But having declared during your melt-down that you would continue to come after me in every forum until I was stopped, every time you back up that threat it is a problem. Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

But this case is partly about you not avoiding the subjects that have gotten you into trouble, isn't it? If, say, you were to stop "patrolling" against your political opponents, the project would be better off. Arbcom should officially take away your hall-monitor badge since you show no signs of stopping your "patrolling" and (as this talk page shows) seem to see nothing wrong with what you're doing. As for my "vendetta", if I happen to notice that you're again abusing editors the way you abused me, I'll comment on the new situation in the appropriate forum and stick to the subject, although I notice that the person here who most wants to get away from the subject of this talk page and regurgitate off-topic subject matter is you. Sorry, Wikidemon, you don't get to shut me up, much as that frustrates you. And just because I bring up a point, you don't effectively refute it simply by saying I'm the one who brought it up. -- Noroton (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

@CoM and the "I have no idea why Arbcom has chosen to ignore " statement. Did you consider the idea that they did consider it, and rejected the notion? You passionately believe that you are the aggrieved party in all this, but that belief has apparently not gained any traction. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

@Noroton, the talk page here really isn't the place for evidence presentations, this sort of stuff should have been done in the Evidence section. May be too late to do it now, since voting is almost done and all, I dunno. That's a question for the clerk. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the proposals and providing a few diffs to back up what I say. I think the arbs are capable of handling that. I came in late because I consider the whole subject of the Obama article a gangrenous, stinking, flies-buzzing-around-it mess at one end of my poor, beloved Misplaced Pages, and I don't really like dealing with it. It's been good for me to stay away from this subject, but also good for Misplaced Pages if I contribute a few thoughts about the problem here. Lucky Misplaced Pages that I should be both so wise and eleemysonary. -- Noroton (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy 2 needs an important addition

Regarding this:

Reminder of talk page decorum

2) The Arbitration Committee, in recognizing the traffic and difficulty of handling the Barack Obama talk page, as well as per talk page guidelines, finds the removal of soapboxing and off-topic discussion acceptable and encourages its continuation.

Since, as I've shown above, removing comments from the talk page has been used not just for constructive purposes but for destructive battling, you should make a simple but important change to this proposal: forbid involved parties from removing the comments. Leave removal of comments to some uninvolved admin. Another idea would be to have people remove comments only when they agree with the underlying point but believe it's soapboxing or off-topic. Simply endorsing removal will only fan the flames. Really, haven't you all seen the many, many, many complaints from people on one side that their comments have been removed by people on the other side? Removal by someone not seen to be on anyone's side -- preferably someone who can say "I've removed comments from both sides" would snuff out those particular flames pretty fast.

As a general point: The comments of the arbitrators on the proposed-decision page indicate a lack of understanding about the fundamental disconnect between Misplaced Pages's conception (reflected in policies, guidelines and practices) of how articles should be discussed and improved in general (which generally works) and how articles on contentious topics where a lot of editors have deep disagreements are naturally pushed into battlegrounds. You can't hold an outdoor symposium in the middle of a hurricane. You need a shelter for that with walls thick enough so that people don't have to shout and shut windows so the research doesn't get blown around. More exact rules on how decisions will be made would mean less fighting over whether a decision has been made and less heartache for the losing side (which will otherwise get angrier, contributing to the battleground atmosphere). Quick enforcement of those rules, and civility rules, by watchful, neutral admins would give a sense that the forum is a level-enough field and a place where disagreeing editors can concentrate on rationally discussing opposing points (if editors think that battling is the way things get decided, the temptation to battle increases). Keep in mind that the more you promote the feeling among the losing side that they've been treated fairly, the less likely it is for editors on that side to battle in the future; as for the winning side of the content disputing, you need to hold them to strict account on behavioral issues, or their arrogance is going to grow like a weed.

You can sanction various editors today, but certain subjects will always attract more editors with similar difficulties tomorrow. More important than sanctions on individual editors is providing a supportive framework to shelter reasonable discussion. If you do a good job with that on this article, it may prove to be an example of a reform which might gain enough support to be adopted by the community in handling other battlegrounds on inherently contentious articles. Fundamentally, the trick is to encourage editors toward reasonable discussion and away from emotional battling, and that should be addressed at the "front end" -- the rules an editor is faced with before editing the talk page or the article page, and not the "back end" of sanctioning in a months-long arbitration case after a year-long crime spree. -- Noroton (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Noroton is right that this case will not resolve much if it does not provide a guide for the ongoing management of the articles. With a few exceptions none of the sanctioned behavior examined here was particularly severe, and the parties to this case are a tiny subset (and by far, not the worst) among those who caused trouble on the Obama-related articles. Disruption and political dispute are facts of life here on Misplaced Pages. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that even an entirely new slate of editors would quickly encounter the same problems as the parties to the case. Applying a neutrality test is not going to work though, nor is a requirement that only admins manage the talk page. In the first case, the vast majority of disruption to the Obama articles is in the form of edits and editors who disparage Obama, and the World Net Daily incident was all about fringe theories and disparaging Obama. Most of the regular article patrollers have reverted vandalism and soapboxing that seems to support Obama, but that's a small fraction of the overall disruption, probably well under 5%. That's probably a truism everywhere - that most threats to the integrity of a BLP article come from editors who wish to disparage the subject. Regarding the second, very few admins have stepped in to help the Obama pages, certainly not enough for the around-the-clock watching that has to be done as in the March 9-10 period where there were 500 edits per day on the talk page. Admins who do take action often get accused of taking sides, so the perception of neutrality is very hard to maintain. Anyway, I think the answer is more process-oriented. What kind of talk page comments can or should be archived, deleted, retitled, or moved, how should it be done, when are disputed talk page cleanup actions within the range of discretion or simple mistakes rather than behavioral violations, and how should editors respond if they disagree with a particular action? Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy #5

I think this is way too punitive for what the FoF shows is minimal misconduct. And as I have pointed out several times, the remedy would leave me unable to maintain article quality for Doctor Who articles because, to be frank, in those areas multiple reversions per week is standard fare to maintain quality. There is also the point that Stevertigo, who was desysopped for edit warring, is getting the same sanction I am. If 1RR/week is the "first level" of sanctions, then it's strange to see a second AC-aware offense get another first warning. The diffs in the FoF either make leaps of faith, or characterise the prevention as disruption as misbehaviour. Seriously, do we have to entertain a proposal to make IAR historical? And what's so attacking about my "edit summary attack"; the word "fuck"? I'll accept an admonishment, but 1RR/week is way too punitive for what the FoF shows. Sceptre 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of Sceptre's POV attacks preserved in the edit history . He and Wikidemon should be topic banned so good faith editors who dont' engage in this kind of disruptive activity can edit in a collaborative and collegial environment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I choose not to participate here. But can we please not use this talk page for advocating sanctions against specific editors or re-arguing the case? Isn't that what the workshop and evidence pages are for, respectively? Wikidemon (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators rarely read the Workshop. Sceptre 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, there are plenty of good conservative people. John McCain's not a bad bloke. David Cameron isn't either. That statement isn't aimed toward them. It's aimed towards the idiots who think FOX is "Fair and balanced" and honestly believe that FL-16 sent a Democratic delegate to Congress for the late 90s/early 00s. Sceptre 00:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)