Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Stevertigo

POV editing, BLP+speedy+subjective characterization = -NPOV, -CIVIL, -BOLD, +NINJA, +ATA

There are some assumptions and misconceptions about policy, process, and person, and those assumptive misconceptions need to be corrected, point by point.

• Barack_Obama/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama - Stevertigo started a working draft subpage of a "criticism of" article, to develop an NPOV article. Was nominiated for AFD (below) which was changed by User:Dank55 to speedy and deleted, closing AFD discussion.
  • Template:Barack_Obama/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama - Stevertigo created this template for transclusion of above draft on Talk:Barack Obama, for community visibility, access, and development.
• WP:AFD/Barack_Obama/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama - AFD discussion interrupted by spe
• WP:DRVL#Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama - a review of the change of an AFD in discussion to "speedy", nullifying the AFD discussion.
• WP:ANI#Stevertigo/Obama topic ban - an attempted topic ban, filed by Sceptre, which failed to find support
• WP:ANI#Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ - Stevertigo, reporting on disputes at the Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ (history) page. Example diff.
• WP:ANI#User:Tarc and User:Grsz11 on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15 - Stevertigo reports on the deletion of a comment, first by Tarc (diff), and repeated by others.
• WP:ANI#Moving WP:AN/I section #Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ by User:Grsz11 - Stevertigo files this report on Grsz11's impoper move of the WP:ANI##Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ thread from ANI bottom to near ANI top, including it with WP:ANI#Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ - a much older, unsuccessful, and nearly-closed thread.
  • Note: This thread too was for some reason deleted - can't yet find the diff/who did it was deleted by MiszaBot II. history).
    • This ANI thread is archived here. Adding archive link. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The above link does not point to the right thread. The correct link is here. -Stevertigo 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidents

Discussion comment deletions and possible wikistalking by Grsz, Sceptre, Wikidemon, and Tarc. Personal attacks characterizing my edits as "POV" "disruptive" and "trolling" are common. Grsz and Sceptre have used more uncivil language.

• WP:ATA - Sceptre, NPA "trolling"
• WP:ATA - characterized as "disruptive"
• WT:IAR - Sceptre, "DNFTT"
• WT:IAR Wikidemon - "close trolling discussion"
  • Note: The WT:IAR deletions removed other user comments. This is not the only case where Wikidemon claims powers to unilaterally "close" a thread.
• UT:Stevertigo - Grsz - "no. this is my comment and you have no right to change it. if you dont want it there, remove it all together but stop fucking with my comments"
  • Note: Grsz has found it perfectly acceptible to "f*** with [Stevertigo's] comments", but decries the renaming of an attack comment on the attacked user's own talk page.
• UT:Stevertigo - Wikidemon restores his unnecessary comment on Stevertigo's talk page.
• Obama-Ayers - Sceptre reverts major edits.
• Obama-Ayers - Stevertigo "moved Bill Ayers presidential election controversy to [[[Obama-Ayers association controversy]]: Ayers had no "presidential election" controversy, as he is was not running for such office. Note "Presidential," would be capitalized as such, but was not...[cutoff]...because such would draw attention to the problem with the (current) name"
• Obama/FAQ - Bobblehead reverted an edit that explained both sides of the site-wide and article debate surrounding the use of "criticism of" sections/articles.
• WP:ANI - Sceptre, archives the discussion early. This after Grsz had already moved the section from a new position to an old position, as part of the older "Stevertigo topic ban" thread (which was failing).

Assertions

1. People violated WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONS, and WP:AGF in enforcing a particular interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP., and employed processes (WP:PROC) to that effect. Philosophical, procedural, and process conflicts between these policies and processes need to be addressed and if possible rectified.
2. Violations of NPOV require correction, as determined by comments indicating a flawed interpretation or application of this policy.
3. Violations of CIVIL require reprimand, determined by diffs indicating WP:NINJA (ie. CIVIL, CONS, AGF) reverts and personal attacks (WP:NPA).
4. A conceptual conflict exists regarding the meaning of "consensus" as either A) a particular article/topic-local concept, wherin people claim to "enforce a consensus" ie a singular concept, (in this case "no criticism of.."), or B) a global Wikipedia concept, based on a philosophical ideal of community and collaboration; those of this view may claim that such above "enforcement" can and often does "nullify discussion andor consensus", and contradicts CONS, CIVIL, AGF).
5. References to non-existent policy, guidelines, or processes need to be corrected, and the underlying issues treated. Several parties referenced a "no criticism sections" essay (WP:NOCRIT), as policy, and claimed that BLP was controlling in all subarticles.
6. A number of users have cited problems with the Talk:Obama page. A number of these issues could be remedied by usage of an organized scheme. I outlined an overview at WP:OBT, and such schemes should be a requirement on heavy-traffic/high-controversy/high-trolling talk pages. IOW, the default wiki talk page format is obtuse in such situations, and we must employ more intelligent and dynamic methods for organizing talk; presorting, topical segregation, subpages+transclusion, etc. We have ample capability to use existing tools to make discussions more organized and therefor powerful.
7. The prohibitions at Wikipedia:Draft (~WP:SUB) are based on technical reasons, not NPOV, BLP, or FORK, as was claimed. It can be clarified that such draft subpages belong underneath the talk page, and their transclusion to the talk page is simple and not violating. Intervening parties should move them there rather than deleting them.

-Stevertigo 03:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dank55

I don't have anything to add to my initial statement at this time. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Wikidemon

Note - per request I am in process of condensing, refactoring, and moving some of this evidence to a subpage. I will post a notice here once finished. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Stability requires article patrol

Barack Obama, a twice-featured article,[1][2] has for the most part been stable, neutral, and encyclopedic,[3][4][5] despite ongoing long-term vandalism and sockpuppetry.[6][7]

Article probation was announced by User:Ncmvocalist on July 26, 2008, following adoption[8] and confirmation[9] at WP:AN/I, in response to administrators' difficulty dealing with sockpuppetry, disruption, vandalism, and incivility through the normal noticeboard process. Under article probation there have been well over 100 notices given and nearly 100 accounts blocked or banned as of April, 2009, for disruption, vandalism, trolling, sockpuppeting, etc. (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation#Log of sanctions)

3/9/09: WND article causes melt-down

Editing deteriorated abruptly after World Net Daily correspondent Aaron Klein published an exposé purporting censorship, ganging-up, and a pro-Obama bias, all based on a supposedly undercover investigation later found to be of dubious credibility,[10][11]. Edit rates jumped briefly from 8[12] to 90[13] per day, and talk activity from 30[14] to 500,[15] before subsiding to 15 article[16] /60 talk[17] edits per day as of 3/20, and 10 article[18] / 25 talk[19] as of 4/15.

On March 9-10 many redundant new threads accused Wikipedia and its editors of bias, censorship, bullying, shame, unfairness, whitewashing, cabal tactics, lack of negative information, and bad faith. There were many proposals to add criticism links and sections,[20][21][22], negative content,[23][24][25], and fringe material,[26][27][28][29][30][31] venting,[32][33][34] as well as racism, trolling, and vandalism.[35][36][37] The formerly short, tidy, and civil talk page (26,607 bytes)[38] was now a mess (319,883 bytes).[39]

Page patrol helped

I have compiled on a separate subpage a number of case studies of page patrol actions under article probation, mostly by non-admins.

[summary will go here]

The effort worked. here is a reconstruction of the Obama talk page on 21:20, 3/9/09, had there been no thread closures, reversions, or consolidation. Deletions in yellow, Template:Highlightgreen. In reality the mess would have been much worse - the green and yellow material would have spawned a lot more unhelpful discussion had it remained visible.

Feb - April, 2009: community responses

The following case studies are intended to illustrate the range of community response to unconstructive edits, and are not held out as a proportionate or comprehensive list.

Some responses do not work

note - the below is too long - I will condense and refactor for brevity - Wikidemon (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Newbie G7error (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posts complaint that Obama article "is so poorly written", there is "bickering", he/she does not want to participate because "too much hostility".[40] In so doing they pointed out two plausible content points that did not end up gaining approval.
   1. Scjessey responded sarcastically.[41] G7error responds "no wonder nobody wants to help out", Scjessey has proven the point that people are driven away by "sarcasm and criticism".[42] Scjessey gives a more straightforward but harsh reply[43] as do I.[44] Admin editor Mfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) asks for a more conciliatory, non-WP:BITE approach,[45] which I question as unproductive ("The article talk page is not the place to entertain complaints about other editors").[46]
   2. ChidofMidnight posts support for G7error, complains "...This article stinks... It's the result of bitey POV warriors taking over and attacking anyone who dares point out or correct problems... So there we are, stuck with a crappy embarassment of an article..."[47] I respond "cut it out", suggest closing the thread, and ask that any complaints about other editors be diected to AN/I or this artibration.[48] Mfield replies to me,[49] as does ChildofMidnight, who accuses me of "soap boxing and personal attack responses" and says I should remove my comment.[50] I respond, "stick to your own editing rather than trying to pick a fight here" and again ask to close the thread and handle disputes elsewhere, with any content proposal in a new section. I respond in detail to Mfield's meta points.
   3. ChildofMidnight reverted two of my comments as "soap boxing".[51] Durga Dido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempts to explain the situation to G7error,[52] and seems to get through.[53] Thinking my posts were lost in an edit conflict I re-post a rescued a version of one from the browser cache.[54] ChildofMidnight complains again about the article and tratement of G7error.[55] Guyzero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tells ChildofMidnight "Stop with the ad hom criticism.... Suggest your changes specifically without all of this baggage."[56]
   4. IP editor WP:SOAP interlude #1[57] politely quelled by Dayewalker[58][59]...
   5. Now noticing my two posts were deleted I repost the other in a new section.[60] Scjessey comments that ChildofMidnight "deliberately deleted" them and intimates that both G7error and ChildofMidnight might be sockpuppets.[61]
   6. IP WP:SOAP interlude #2[62] dismissed un-politely ("drive-by hysteria") by tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[63]
   7. ChildofMidnight accuses editors as a group of "bad faith, soap boxing and personal attacks", claims that "Scjessey and Wikidemon's improper actions have been discussed [here in this case] at Arbcom", and says I "shouldn't be here". "This entire section should be removed and you should be topic banned for your ongoing improper behavior here in violation of numerous guidelines....."[64] Queenofbattle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accuses Scjessey of WP:AGF and WP:OWN violations, suggests archiving the current discussion and lifting article probation.[65]
   8. IP interlude #3, vandalism ("OBAMA SUCKS OBAMA SUCKS OBAMA SUCKS")[66] reverted without comment by Tide rolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[67], again ("OBAMA SUCKS BALLS"))[68] reverted by QueenofBattle[69], and again[70] reverted by Fastily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), multiple warnings and then blocked by J.delanoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[71]
   9. Scjessey calls ChildofMidnight's accusations "bullshit" and accuses ChildofMidnight of wide ranging "POV-pushing, edit-warring, editing or deleting other people's comments, name-calling, meat puppetry, soap boxing and misrepresenting others....You just cannot come here and lecture people on soap boxing by... well... soap boxing! Administrators need to take long, hard look at your behavior and see how it stacks up with BryanFromPalatine, because you are definitely doing the same stuff he did." [72] Tarc asks ChildofMidnight not to delete my posts.[73] I ask again to archive the discussion, and say I will go to AN/I to find someone willing to close it because I feel uncomfortable doing so as a participant.[74] ChildofMidnight accuses me again of "a pattern of inappropriate behavior", proposes to delete my new posts[75] to which Scjessey answers "no".[76] Guyzero asks ChildofMidnight to "take your behavoir issue claims to the proper venue with diffs rather than make generalizations here".[77]
   10. Interlude #4, perennial question. "Is Obama Irish?"[78] Answer: no.[79]
   11. Childofmidnight deletes an entire thread (2RR).[80] Scjessey restores. Childofmidnight deletes again (3RR).[81] Tarc restores.[82]
   12. I make a request to AN/I to close the thread,[83] and a notice on the thread as to my request.[84] The AN/I thread goes nowhere. The next morning (US time) ChildofMidnight makes a new content proposal implied by the original post[85] and Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) closes the thread as unconstructive.[86]
   13. I apologize on G7error's talk page for the way he was treated[87] Scjessey later apologizes for being sarcastic (can't find diff). G7error chats on my talk page and makes a content proposal on the Obama talk page[88] that is discussed productively but does not lead to an article edit. I encourage G7error not to give up.[89] but there have been no edits since so they may be gone.
   14. In the meanwhile there were warnings given on the involved editors' talk pages. I warned ChildofMidnight for deleting my comments.[90] ChildofMidnight accuses me of trolling and misbehavior, and I respond.[91] ChildofMidnight warns me on my talk page not to soap box or make personal attacks[92] and accuses my notices on his page of being trolling and "disruption",[93] to which I respond.[94] ChildofMidnight deletes my response from their talk page.[95] Scjessey warns Childofmidnight not to delete talk page discussions,[96] which Childofmidnight rejects.[97]
   15. Observations - the original editor's post was a minor, correctable article probation violation. So why did this blow up to accusations of bad faith, deleting comments on the talk page, an unresolved AN/I request, and chasing away an admin. who was happy to help the newbie but unwilling to get involved in a one against four dispute among regular contributors to the Obama pages? We seem to have chased away a newbie editor who may or may not be legitimate - we'll never know. Without assigning blame, there are several key points at which this could have been de-escalated. #1 - Scjessey could have responded without sarcasm. #2 By siding with an editor others were trying to correct, and using the talk page to make harsh accusations ChildofMidnight invoked a conflict and ensured that the thread could not be productive. #3 Editors debated each other's behavior on the talk page (a probation violation) and raised the volume level when they should have taken concerns here, each other's talk pages, or to a noticeboard, or just turned the other cheek. #4 There is no clear guidance from the committee yet or under article probation how an involved editor, or patrolling administrator, should deal with a dispute like this once it begins. #5 No admins were available or willing to help. Mfield later said he/she stopped participating after the discussion got "hijacked" (need to find diffs).

The success of some is unclear

1. Highly tendentious editor Dalej78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) rejects harsh warning from Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("Please stop being so disruptive and keep your biases to yourself") during Aaron Klein incident with incivilities ("Wikipedia seems to attract fanatical leftists who will stop at nothing to intimidate and protect their dear leader PBHO")[98] and rejects article probation notice by Seicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with incivilities ("Wikipedia seems to be like the Nazi Regime of Facists to control information, you can't even question their partisan facts of their dear leader PBHO.)[99] Embarks on long-term campaign to remove questionable content comparing Obama's speaking style to Ronald Reagan, with aggressive edit summaries (e.g. "just liberal fantasy from a few partisan writers").[100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107] Warned of article probation.[108] Responds with screed "that Wikipedia is just another appendage of the wild, leftist, lame-stream media run amuk with liberal ideaologies and theories".[109] 72 hour blocked by Seicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and later 24 hour block[110] by CIreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under article probation / WP:3RR.[111][112] Observation: results mixed. Disruption not clearly avoided. Editor is SPA with suspicious editing pattern. No sign that prior blocks and warnings had any effect, but may have stopped editing.[113]
2. Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), prolific editor. I gave article probation notice and various cautions regarding edit warring and incivility in October '08; responded with complaint about supposed "censorship".[114] From February through April '09 repeatedly added questionably sourced minor and tangential details that all reflect negatively on Obama[115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125], with occasional edit warring.[126][127][128][129] - [130][131][132] - [133][134] Received misc. warnings during period,[135][136][137] some uncivil.("I thought you were a serious editor. I now realize you're just a nutjob who supports Ron Paul").[138] Responded with accusations about Wikipedia conspiracy ("proof that the administrators are abusing their authority to keep well sourced criticism of Obama out of the article")[139] In late March began edit warring in attempt to show Obama broke a campaign promise not to raise taxes ("Is wikipedia supposed to be based on reality or fairyland?")[140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151] leading to a block by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[152] ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) couseled Grundle2600 before and after the block in way that seemed to encourage edit warring and resentment: "I'm sorry to see you being harassed by POV pushing editors Grundle. Thanks for your good work on the encyclopedia. You ahve the patience of a saint."[[153]], making accusations on Grundle2600's talk page against the blocking administrator ("disgraceful"[154], "You are the one who should be blocked for your inappropriate action and your personal attack", "I'm sure the POV pushers will be out in force to back you up any minute now",[155][156] "clearly you are severely misguided and deluded about the role of administrators and how to conduct yourself properly as part of this community",[157] "Unfortunately there's pack of POV warriors and some admins who do their bidding. I enjoyed checking out the many interesting articles you created and I hope you'll continue...sometimes you have to deal with the slime."[158] etc.[159]) and attacking other editors who came to Grundle2600's page ("Grundle, do not respond to baiting comments like this. Grsz11 is here to get you in trouble and to get you blocked....he will argue that you're not here to improve the encyclopedia. Ignore him and remove the whole section after your block is expired.... Those article are loused up and getting rid of lice is no fun.")[160] After the block expired, continued to add derogatory trivia (travel restrictions to Antarctica)[161] (difficulty speaking "Austrian")[162] with specious justifications,[163] also added mug shot of Bill Gates to Microsoft article.[164]. Observation. Disruption was allowed to continue long-term without administrative warning or action; no systematic way to deal with it; no check on incivilities directed to, or by this editor. Eventual block may have slowed disruption. Other parties may have encouraged disruption. Unclear what outcome will be, or if editor has learned from the mixed messages.
3. Kordon Bleu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a WP:SPA with four edits, all to Obama-related talk page, promoting the citizenship birthplace conspiracy theory or other trivial WP:POV matters (bowed to King of Saudi Arabia, supposedly unpopular in Europe,[165] FAQ disavowing criticism section is a "lie"). No real harm to encyclopedia, but if the editor continues they may cause a problem (see Grundle2600 above) and if mishandled may trigger a dispute (see G7error above). Further, we must WP:AGF even though from our experience, accounts that begin in this way often turn out to be trolls or socks, and rarely become productive editors. So, what to do? We have article probation and this editor is violating it. The violation is unknowing if it is a legitimate newbie account. But it is also deliberate, in the sense that the editor knows they are criticizing other editors in process of promoting fringe material. The community reaction was as follows. I knew I was going to mention my role in that here, and ask Arbcom to review it, so I tried to do this in an exemplary way. Was this the best way to handle it?
   1. Discuss the inaccurate "unpopular in Europe" claim, which created some distracting talk forum-like heat and dispute but nothing unmanageable.[166]
   2. Revert the "birth certificate fraud" claim as a "rant" inappropriate to talk pages.[167]
   3. Have a nice little chat about Obama's possible bow to the King of Saudi Arabia.[168]
   4. Refactor and respond to claim that FAQ #9 is a "lie".[169]
   5. Leave[170] and log[171] article probation notice, with long note on editor's talk page trying to explain what the problem was and how they could contribute more productively.
   6. File WP:SPI against editor and three other accounts suspected of being socks.[172]

Stevertigo disrupted the encyclopedia

March 10: Criticism section proposal

Remember the date, 21:20, 10 March 2009? That is when, after no significant Obama participation for two years, Stevertigo jumped into the fray with a proposal to add a criticism/controversy section to the now-protected page.[[173]] In making his case he accused longtime editors (he called them "Obamaites") of whitewashing and "violating the spirit of Wikipedia" by "deleting, censoring, erasing...any controversial concepts", and being of "little substance".[174] The provocative post immediately incited a "me too" editor to complain of "an active corps of editors who are deft with POV edits that cast the president in a positive light"[175] then spun into a long discussion that did not find consensus for a criticism section(See here).

March 13: JUSTDONTLIKEIT

Days later Stevertigo announced that a criticism article was "inevitable"[176] even though people "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" - a new essay he created as a WP:FORK of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to complain that Obama page editors operated out of "bias, personal opinion, political motiviation, or otherwise irrational or unwiki concepts" and had "an unwillingness to be reasonable, and find consensus with other people".[177] The essay was nominated for deletion.[178] but was rescued by other editors.[179]

March 13: "Working version"

Soon, Stevertigo added a "working version" of a new "Criticism of Barack Obama" article into the Obama talk page,[180] and encouraged people to work on it there. An editor summarily closed the section.[181] Stevertigo reverted two days later, claiming the closure was "biased".[182] He then created a template "Criticism of Barack Obama" to hold the criticism, which he moved and redirected to a new Barack Obama sub-article,[183] then transcluded the template onto the talk page.[184]. I asked why he was using the talk page as a sandbox, and changed the transclusion to a simple reference to avoid messing up the talk page.[185] Stevertigo reverted, took umbrage to my calling his outline article a "skeleton", used his new essay to accuse me of editing out of bias, complained about "whitewashing", and announced that he was using the talk page as a sandbox because he "wants" it there.[186]

With that, I knew we had a problem to deal with under article probation - the same old thing as a few hundred in the past several months: snippy, abusive, insistent, ready to edit war against perceived bias / cabal, thinks other editors are out to get them. I changed the transclusion back to a link reference [187] gave him a WP:3RR / WP:CIVIL warning, and told him I would nominate the sub-page for speedy deletion unless he explained why a talk page and article sub page were the right place to create a sandbox article.[188]

Stevertigo did not respond so I nominated it for deletion[189] (I used WP:AfD rather than speedy because it had been speedied five times already; perhaps a thoughtful discussion might settle the issue). Hours later an admin speedied as an "attack page"[190] (debate here). When a non-admin attempted to close the AfD to note the speedy resolution[191] Stevertigo reverted,[192] in the process accusing the administrator of acting "on his own" and the closing editor of POV, partisanship, and censorship. An admin subsequently re-closed the AfD.[193]

March 15:DRV

A couple hours after deletion Ism schism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) filed a WP:DRV for the criticism sub-page [194] (discussion here). During the discussion Stevertigo got a revert war with several other editors over "Uncle Stevertigo's argument matrix", an oddly formatted section Stevertigo was attempting to insert to denigrate the arguments of other editors.[195][196][197] I !voted that the deletion was proper as a technical matter because the page was in the wrong place, but that we should not prevent people from creating a neutral one in their sandbox or prejudge the suitability of their efforts.[198] I suggested that to Stevertigo in the first place, and that is the outcome of the DRV.

March 15-17: Notices

Stevertigo received a number of notices from March 15-17, and was the subject of two March 16 AN/I reports (discussed in below sections). If Stevertigo was previously unaware of Wikipedia's rules, or that his behavior was under scrutiny, he was now on notice. My 17:03, 15 March 2009 warnings (see above) alerted Stevertigo to article probation and Civil. Sceptre left a formal Obama article probation notice on Stevertigo's talk page at 18:46 15 March 2009,[199]. Several other editors also left warnings, and attempted to engage him in conversation, on March 17. Particularly telling are these attempted to counsel calm.[200][201][202]. Stevertigo reacted petulantly, edit warring on his own talk page,[203][204] and deleting my comment to give me a "taste of my own medicine".[205]

March 16:Edit warring the Obama FAQ

Even after others' warned him of their objection, and despite active AN/I reports, Stevertigo continued his campaign against perceived Wikipedia censorship. His next step was to alter Obama talk paage FAQ#6, which explained why the article did not have a criticism section. The FAQs arose to deal with perennial proposals and edit warring, as a way of indicating long-term stable consensus on a number of issues, e.g. how to spell Obama's name, whether he is Muslim, calling him Black versus biracial, the article length, his birthplace, etc. One key issue, spelled out over several sections, is that the editors had decided to follow WP:CRIT and WP:CSECTION by integrating any relevant information of due weight and proper sourcing into the article rather than highlighting disparagement, criticisms, and controversy, in a dedicated section. The comment about criticism sections was inserted at the very creation of the FAQ on 26 March 2008[206] and has stood with only incremental change since. It is widely accepted and useful in explaining things to newly-arrived editors.

Stevertigo gamed FAQ#6 in two ways to support his proposed criticism article, then under DRV. First, he rewrote it so that instead of explaining that the community had decided against a criticism section, it now read that a criticism section was "under consideration".[207] Second, he made it apply to separate criticism articles like his,[[208]] not just the Obama page.

After another editor reverted to the consensus version,[209] Stevertigo revert warred,[210] claiming POV issues. Another editor reverted again,[211] then JustGettingItRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) jumped in on Stevertigo's side of the revert war,[212][213][214][215] then Stevertigo rejoined the edit war,[216][217][218] eventually resorting to tit-for-tat insults to call Scepter a "crazy POV teenage lunatic wikistalker".[219] The revert war Stevertigo initiated continued[220][221][222] until the FAQ page was edit protected.[223]

March 16-17:Two AN/I reports

At 03:19 16 March 2009 Scepter proposed a topic ban for Stevertigo on WP:AN/I[224] The immediate issue was edit warring on the DRV page. I considered a ban premature, and thought Stevertigo should be given warnings, counseling, discussion, and maybe a cup of tea... so long as he was responsive and was willing to engage rather than simply disrupt. At 00:10 17 March 2009 Stevertigo filed his own report of edit warring on the Obama FAQ,[225] although he did not stop edit warring while the AN/I report was pending. Stevertigo edit warred on AN/I over attempts to consolidate the two discussions. With that I changed my mind and declared that a ban was appropriate. Edit warring despite AN/I, on AN/I, can only be taken as deliberate incorrigible disruption.

March 17:SHOULDNOTEXIST

To support his edit warring at the DRV, Stevertigo added a new section to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions expressing his displeasure with editors who opposed his criticism article.[226] He linked to the new section in later versions of the "Uncle Stevertigo" matrix he was edit warring on in the DRV. Scepter reverted the essay changes as "trolling"[227], Stevertigo reverted again,[228]. I restored the essay to its prior state, as I indicated, to quell "disruption".[229]

March 17: Doing away with IAR

Stevertigo's next proposed to deprecate WP:IAR to historical status.[230] Some got the joke but others did not. No reasonable editor could seriously think consensus could arise from a simple post to demolish a 5 pillar. Although the exact meaning of his joke is unclear, he seemed to be repeating the World Net Daily gripe again that Wikipedia rules and rule-gaming by the cabal triumph over neutrality and common sense, resulting in not enough criticism of Obama.

Not everyone got the joke - one man's WP:POINT-y essay or policy joke is another man's trolling. It was not really a joke. Stevertigo was acting out across many articles, insulting other editors, and burning other people's energy, time, and goodwill in the process. He raised points about article probation, bias, etc., using his own deliberate provocation as a case in point when he could have just talked about it. There are plenty of forums here, but he chose to escalate it at every step, while simultaneously edit warring.

We cannot, and do not, afford editors however longstanding the luxury of disrupting the encyclopedia or vexing others when they do not get what they want. That is what Obama article probation is all about. We have means to resolve differences civilly, in a mature collaborative fashion that preserves the stability, quality, and pleasant environment of the encyclopedia. However fancy we get in the presentation of this case, Steve's days long effort is an unpleasant but not terribly extreme form of disruption and could easily have been dealt with at an administrative level. He was no worse than most of the 80+ accounts that were blocked or hundreds more that received warnings and then stopped causing trouble.

Sceptre deleted Stevertigo's IAR proposal as trolling,[231] an unhappy but correct term. Stevertigo reverted[232] and I removed the proposal again as disruptive trolling.[233]

Stevertigo continued to edit war meta-pages after bringing this case

Even after bringing this case, Stevertigo continued trying to change Wikipedia's rules in a way that would justify his side of this case, and edit warred against opposition to the changes. Sceptre, to a lesser degree, did the same. Evidence is on this subpage.

Response to ChildofMidnight evidence

There is absolutely no merit to the supposed evidence ChildofMidnight has cobbled together against me, and as far as I can tell little merit to any of Childofmidnight's comments here. Elsewhere I describe ChildofMidnight's disruption to the Obama articles. In fact, ChildofMidnight has edit warred, accused other editors of bad faith, and battled persistently on politics-related subjects more generally ever since joining the project on America's last presidential election day.[234] The vociferous accusations have been a smokescreen to hide ChildofMidnight's agenda-based editing.[235] behind a cloud of accusations.[236]

I have not been spared this treatment. From nearly the beginning, ChildofMidnight declared that I was a bad faith editor, wikigaming to prevent Wikipedia from presenting the truth about politics.[237] I don't think there is any plausible reading of ChildofMidnight's diffs that would impugn me, and they are a distraction from the real issues of this case. But least anyone think there is anything to them, I respond in detail on this subpage.

ChildofMidnight continues to harass the parties to this case

I have, until the above response, deliberately avoided using the evidence page to single out specific editors other than Stevertigo, who I addressed because his behavior is the initial topic of this case. Rather, I have illustrated how article probation and patrol work, in hopes that we may get a clarification on how best to proceed with them in the future. ChildofMidnight comes up often because that editor has been one of our most problematic disrupters, showing up in the wake of the Klein article to edit war both the talk page and the article page, incite and defend problem editors, and to actively foil the attempts of article patrollers to keep things stable. In my opinion ChildofMidnight is more problematic by an order of magnitude than Stevertigo. There are others as well, but I question how efficient it would be to deal with that as part of this case. Overall ChildofMidnight is an intelligent, capable, productive editor who is good for Wikipedia - yet has caused untold drama and consternation, and been immune to all attempts to keep order. ChildofMidnight would be far better for the project without the harassment and disruption. The editor has not listened to other editors on the subject, and seems to misconstrue the comments of all admins to date. Perhaps he/she will listen to ArbCom.

Childofmidnight's harassment of me and others has been going on for a long time and a complete report would be voluminous. There is some hint of it above. The following just occurred a few minutes ago. Administrators are avoiding dealing with it now that the matter is before ArbCom, which unfortunately has given ChildofMidnight free reign to do almost anything. I'll use the space to below to document anything further that happens from now on. I urge ArbCom to consider an interim injunction if this continues.

• COM tells Allstarecho on COM's talk page: "You haven't quite caught up to Wikidemon on the abusive reporting front"[238] (one of COM's many ways of causing trouble is by frequently repeating the falsity that I abuse process by filing "bogus" AN/I reports). I try to set the record straight on AN/I thread where that comment is discussed.[239] ChildofMidnight amps up personal attacks against me in response (repeats false accusation then accuses me of trolling, harassing, baiting, disruption, and lacking self control for responding to it).[240][241]
• After AN/I thread is closed, claims vindication and uses an AfD to accuse Allstarecho of harassment, Scjessey of "false and misleading" statements (also a dig at Allstarecho).[242][243]

Evidence presented by Grsz11

On Stevertigo

I presented some evidence in original statement and have nothing further to add at this time. If the Committee could define the scope of this case per the request at the Workshop, I may have more to add at that time. Grsz¹¹ 12:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve made controversial, disruptive edits to Wikipedia:Subpages. Upon his edits being reverted, he immediately filed an ANI report rather than discuss the issue on the talk page. This coincides with the disruption Steve caused earlier. He knows how to deal with issues here, and yet he chooses to be disruptive anyway. Grsz¹¹ 23:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight talk page behavior

I have little interest in being any more involved in this. I brought it up to CoM initially and it went from there. Here is the ANI section regarding ChildofMidnight's talk page behavior and personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Bobblehead

Stevertigo has unnecessarily fanned the flames

Stevertigo has unnecessarily fanned the flames of dispute on Obama related articles by escalating content disputes by repeatedly "running to the parents" on WP:AN/I without making any attempts to discuss the attempts on relevant discussion pages.

• This event is covered in Wikidemon's evidence above, but I'm repeating it here because it actually is a pretty good example of the "running to the parents" tendencies Stevertigo developed when he wasn't getting his way. After Stevertigo modified the answer to why a criticism section is not used in the Obama article,[244] my reversion,[245] his re-adding,[246] then PhGustaf's reversion,[247] he immediately went to AN/I without any attempt to discuss.[248]
• After Grz11 refactored Stevertigo's complaint about the edit sequence on the FAQ into an existing section related to Obama's article,[249] Stevertigo created a new AN/I section to complain about the refactoring without attempting to request Grz11 move the section back to its prior location either on Grz11's talk page, or the new location of the section,[250] except to claim the refactoring was done for POV purposes in an edit summary.[251]
• Following Stevertigo's addition of an "Uncle Stevertigo's argument matrix" to the Criticism of Barack Obama DRV[252] and several re-additions[253][254] after the section was removed by Tarc[255] and Grz11,[256] Stevertigo created a section on AN/I about the content dispute without even attempting to discuss the matter with Tarc and Grz11 on the DRV discussion page.[257]

Granted, the argument could be made that the other participants in the disputes could have used the discussion pages, but when one's edits are being reverted by multiple users it is generally a good indicator that there may be an issue with your addition and you should discuss the changes, per WP:BRD. It is certainly not acceptable to BRRRuntotheparents and complain that "Johnny is being mean to me". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by JustGettingItRight

Stevertigo did not edit Grsz11's comment, just edited the header left on his own talkpage

I'll leave it to the ArbCom to determine if this is or is not germane.

Diff

Evidence presented by Ali'i

Article probation has failed (to address the underlying issues)

The article probation outlined at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation has failed to stop the problems surrounding articles relating to Barack Obama. Although dozens of editors have been warned, blocked, or banned, the same problems keep coming up and the editing environment surrounding these articles remains hostile and unmanagable. The issues exist with editors across the entire political spectrum. Directly related articles such as Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Public image of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), tangential articles such as Weatherman (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15#Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama, and all of the too-numerous-to-list Administrators' noticeboard threads routinely devolve into incivil, shouting matching, often accompanied by name-calling, all in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

It is too damn hard to go through and pull out all of the diffs, because this issue is too wide and deep to make any sense of it. However, I think using common sense, it is obvious to anyone who looks at these articles and their talk pages that something isn't right and needs to be fixed.

Two quotes to highlight the issue: Stevertigo: "I understand how my opponents seriously hate my point-by-points though. I make them look stupid, and sometimes take some enjoyment in it." Tarc: "Grundle, you lost the AfD discussion, and by quite a margin at that." "My opponents"? "Lost" an articles for deletion discussion? Battlelines have been drawn. And these sweet nothings are just the tip of the iceberg. Obama related articles and discussions = clusterfuck.

Do. Something. Please.

--Ali'i 15:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tweaked per consideration on the workshop page. --Ali'i 16:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[Reserved by Ali'i]

TBD

Evidence presented by MastCell

The editing environment on Obama-related pages deserves a few paragraphs of explanation.

Editing environment: Sockpuppetry

Numerous sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs) have been identified on Obama-related pages. Most notably, the following accounts were identified and ultimately blocked ([258]):

• WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs)
• Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs)
• Curious bystander (talk · contribs)
• 300wackerdrive (talk · contribs)
• Marx0728 (talk · contribs)

While the pattern seems obvious in retrospect, these accounts created hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of circular, disruptive talk-page argumentation and edit-warring on Obama-related articles before being blocked. (I'm as responsible as any admin for not acting sooner). Human nature dictates that such events are a drain on goodwill and the ability to assume good faith of the next dozen agenda-driven accounts that show up.

Editing environment: "Investigative journalism"

In a well-publicized incident, a journalist recently wrote on WorldNetDaily that Obama articles were inappropriately "scrubbed" of various allegations ([259]). As supporting evidence, he presented the travails of a specific Wikipedia editor whose efforts to insert negative material into the Obama article were reverted. This story was rather eagerly picked up by several national news outlets.

The denouement is no doubt familiar to everyone; the editor victimized by censorship was in fact a colleague of the journalist who wrote the article. The journalist collaborated with his colleague to make the provocative edits, and then wrote a piece castigating the editors and admins who responded to the provocation.

I will refrain from any commentary on the appropriateness of these actions, or on the diligence of the national news outlets which picked up the story (see here for one gloss on the issue). I bring this incident up to further illustrate the atmosphere in which volunteer Wikipedia editors are expected to assume good faith, avoid biting newbies, and remain unfailingly civil while defending the verifiability and neutrality of the article and respecting the site's biographical policy. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by ChildofMidnight

A hostile editing environment exists on Obama related pages and some other political pages. Editors who have staked out a defensive position see themselves as protectors and have hunkered down to "defend" the pages. Anyone who dares to discuss problems or add any content that can in any way be construed as negative is met with fierce opposition. Talk page discussion is often hijacked by personal attacks, sarcastic statements, soap boxing, thread retitleing and aggresive thread collapsing. Warnings and templates are also aggresively passed out to anyone treading on their turf.

Dealing with inappropriate comments and behavior

There needs to be an effective means for reporting and addressing inappropriate behaviors. The battleground that's been created has fostered a heated partisan atmosphere. To restore a collegial editing atmosphere there needs to be an effective means of reporting violations so the focus can be returned to content and article improvements. As it stands now, there is an understandable reluctance from neutral parties to work on this article or to weigh into any conflicts because of the fierce response.

Examples

Baseball Bugs:

Removes a comment [260]

If you actually believe what you read in that rag, you should go back to your college and demand a refund for having produced an ignoranimous. [261]

Squawk! Another WND mindless-parrot heard from. [262] (very next comment, not by B-ball, but shows how that kind of comment erodes the discussion) This is fun. I'm really hoping Rush picks up the story; these drones are so mindless and so pathetic. The marching morons. 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) [263] We recommend that you go back to your fellow parrots at WND, and tell them we're tracking all of you down, which is why the page remains unprotected at this point - so you will all expose yourselves. [264]

There's a strategy in place, referenced on WP:ANI, to let as many of these lunatics as possible expose themselves here, so that the checkuser case can cast as broad a net as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[265]

Removes comment [266] and again after being reverted by a third party [267] and again [268]

Posts jokey comment that is an irrelevant distraction [269]

Another comment unrelated to article content and referring to some editors as "lunatics" [270] Another comment irrelevant to article.[271]

Wikidemon:

Removes a comment [272]

Files an ANI report and is advised to be respectful and civil to other editors [273].

Says, "...Obama has not been President for very long, and there are (despite what partisans would wish to say off Wikipedia) simply no scandals or controversies of a magnitude comparable to those involving Bush, and particularly Clinton... Wikidemon (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) And also some borderline refactoring of another editor's thread title [274]

Removes another editor's post [275]

Wikidemon refactor's another editor's section thread: [276] Here's the other's editor's comment [277] that seems quite reasonable. Other editor requests: Please quit conducting your own edit war over the heading of my comment. Feel free to start your own comment section and give it any title you choose...please stop. (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon replies "As I told you, changing talk headings is fine... [278] Then Wikidemon collapses the discussion thread [279].

Removes a comment [280], changes mind (since it was pointing out inappropriate hostility) and collapses it calling it uncivil [281]. Two edits later another dismissive and aggresive edit summary [282].

Snarky soapboxy lecture [283] Very very very long soapbox unrelated to article [284]. He reverted removal of it [285] accusing me of disruption despite clear edit summary that it was wp:soap and is now claiming on this page that his comment was in some way helpful. Apparently only Wikidemon gets to remove comments and only he's allowed to soapbox. Here's another long posting that disrupts a discussion of improvements needed in the article while W.D. launches into another lecture unrelated to article improvements.[286].

Engages in endless ANI threads against me [287] (collapsed at top of page). He refactors discussion [288] and continues adding new threads even after no wrongdoing on my part is found. Uses provocative thread titles to smear me like "BLP" even though there has never been a serious allegation that I have engaged in any BLP violating edits. Seems to be trying to intimidate me with these reports and let's face it, several editors who didn't share his political viewpoints have recently been banned or blocked.

Scjessey

Rant [289] Attack [290] Warned by me and an independent third party (after he insists his personal attacks are okay on my talk page) [291].

Refactored an AfD discussion (effectively ending discussion) and removed discussion of sources [292]. Later said the refactoring was a mistake, but continued to argue it was proper to remove discussion of sources [293] and [[294]]. I didn't revert the refactoring because I've tried to keep my distance, and I'm sure I'll be accused of acting improperly when I finally tried to put the sources discussed back in. I must have been working on an old article version and new comments got removed. (This type of knowingly false accusation against me is also troubling).

Sorry, but just because a conservative ideologue manufacturers a BS article for a fringe website claiming Wikipedia left-wing bias, it doesn't mean Featured Articles should be sprinkled with right-wing propaganda and/or labeled as "unbalanced" (a word redefined by FOX). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC) [295] (response to suggestion of NPOV tag to indicate dispute and need for better article balance)

Irrelevant bitey comment [296] Soapbox [297] Snarky soapbox [298] soapboxy rant [299] Soapbox [300]

After editor suggests being nice, Scjessey calls suggestion for a criticism article disruptive [301] More snarky commentary [302] Rants against criticism article [303].

Jumps on any suggestions for change [304] "Can you actually identify some "significant" opposition for me? I am unaware of anything that could be construed as "significant". Also opposes and attacks suggestion of disambiguation page so readers can find the articles they're looking for and to help cut down on attempted additions to main article of content that exists elswhere. Maligns good faith edits in his edit summaries [305] And another soap boxy rant against anyone not sharing his POV [306]. Attacks a good faith comment says, "Please stop using Wikipedia as an organ to vent your hate of the liberal majority." [307]

Like Wikidemon, he takes dispute to my talk page. Posts numerous warnings and templates against me. [308] I rarely have received any otherwise and try to be careful to abide by guidelines. [309]

Starts following me to other articles where he has no history of editing and reverting my edits. See article hitories at Salad [310] (edit summary says my change was bad faith), bacon related articles, New York Times and here at another article [311].

Makes these canvassing posts about my potential RfA nom [312], [313], [314].

Continues expanding endless ANI threads against me and says he wants me topic banned (the original argument I had acted improperly in editing was rejected by neutral parties). [315]. Uses attacking edit summaries for notices on his talk page[316] and [317]. Accuses me of being someone's sock [318] Accuses me of "lede rape" in edit summary [319] Accolades are okay to include in the opening paragraphs, but noting that there are critics violates all kinds of policies.

Most recently posts this comment on my talk page [320]. Around the same time he's also trying to delete one of my new article contributions, a List of Obama related articles (not in and of itself a problem, but taken all together his behavior is not helpful. If the article is to be deleted surely someone else could have proposed it).

Tarc:

Your vote is irrelevant. That a lunatic fringe of the blogpsphere is up in arms because they can't get their favorite Birther/Marxist conspiracy theories jammed into the Obama article is not notable in the slightest. Don't confuse the reverb of an echo chamber with actual notability/popularity. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC) [321]

I would respond that it is biased, unreliably sourced, fringe nutjobbery that has no place in an legitimate encyclopedia such as this. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) [322]

Highly antagonistic edit summary treating fringe viewpoints with nastiness. [323] Removes comment posted at the end of a discussion that someone archived [324] Snarky and aggressive comment [325]

Snarky and soapboxy "perhaps you need to pay more attention in class" lecture [326] More soapboxing [327] More snark [328]

Miscellaneous Removal of a posting of story related to article[329]

Also see large number of sections that are collapsed: [330]. Some of this is appropriate (in the case of a discussion not directly related to article), but when most discussions suggesting that notable criticisms and controversies need to be included or linked to get collapsed, it has a rather chilling effect.

Some editors also engage in long non-article related tirades against good faith editors [331].

Long threads discussing the "attackers" and making snarky jokes are left on the page, but criticisms and discussions where suggestions are made are archived.

Since the "defenders" feel there is not room in teh article for any controversies or criticisms no matter how notable, and won't allow a see also or other link, it's been an ongoing issue. I have made many suggestions about ways to handle notable controveries in a way that is fair and makes them accessible to readers and editors seeking them out.

Notable criticisms regarding the spending/ stimulus bill, foreign policy, and political appointments are worth including. Even the fringe stuff should be available to those interested in these subjects. There needs to be a way that people can find it. If there are articles on these subjects but they're not linked to anywhere in the article, what good does it do? So hopefully some sort of disambiguation page or portal can be linked to that will do a better job than the many categories and templates that are not terribly inviting and friendly for inexperienced readers and editors.

I'm tired of being labeled a fringe nut job for trying to include a variety of notable perspectives. I don't think I should have to say what my politics are or defend them, and it troubles me to see so many people feel the need to preface comments with "I don't agree with his politics, but I agree..." Trying to be inclusive and balanced doesn't reflect a political bias, it's about following and abiding our guidelines.

I have made some mistakes, I'm not perfect. At times I have tried to show support for struggling editors who are facing these same attacks. I try to show empathy and to emphasize the need to work on less controversial articles in order to have some fun and experience the fruitful side of collaborating.

Apart from good faith efforts to make occasional edits to some controversial articles, most of which were successful because they improved the articles, I haven't sought out any of these conflicts. The inappropriate behaviors by a close knit group of editors needs to stop. We shouldn't have "camps" and "teams" on Wikipedia. I'm happy to compromise and collaborate, and I hope that civility and a respect for our guidelines can be restored. I would like to see everyone involved abide by our guidelines and act in way that is respectful of fellow editors. Wikipedia should be fun. This requires collaboration and respect even for those with whom we disagree.

Evidence presented by Tarc

ChildofMidnight's "Evidence"

The recent "battleground" in the Obama articles (I was not involved in any way last fall) was created and wholly instigated by an off-wiki tabloid article and the ensuing legion of single-purpose accounts, random IPs, and meat-puppets. CoM's assertions that the battleground atmosphere was created by editors who "hunkered down" in defense is bunk. It is unfortunate that people like CoM who appear to have a similar ideology to the attackers involved themselves in the crossfire.

Perhaps it would have been more prudent for he and others to wait a bit while the uproar died down a bit, since as we eventually saw, some of their proposals had merit...e.g. focusing some of the criticisms into the Public image of Barack Obama article, getting Criticism of George W. Bush toned down and merged elsewhere. Unfortunately, several of them chose to exacerbate the situation and air their grievances right alongside the disruptors, making an already bad situation even worse.

As for CoM's diff evidence, much of it is taking things out of context. A few examples;

Response to "Your vote is irrelevant"

Yes, it most certainly was irrelevant, as several of these disruptive users were holding a straw poll on whether or not to create a "criticisms of..." article for Obama. Straw polls do not override policy.

Response to "pay more attention in class"

Here, CoM is being a bit deceptive, as the context of the discussion was the use of the Wikipedia in the classroom, and professors who caution against sourcing to it. Sarcastic at the end? Sure, but nothing disruptive as this user is insinuating.

Response to "soapbox"

How could participating in, and responding to, the comments of others a be labeled with this? WP:SOAP lays out 5 rather specific criteria, none which even remotely describe what I have posted on these various pages. Soapboxing is an apt description of those users who come on to an article talk page and opine on their opinions of "Wikipedia censorship and the like". We saw alot of that kind of stuff over a few days, much of which was either reverted or archived to limit disruption.

Snarkiness did not create or exacerbate the situation. Snarkiness was the result of and response to an endless stream of disruption spanning several days.

Evidence presented by Scjessey

Response to evidence presented by ChildofMidnight

I am not really familiar with this process so I had not initially intended to get involved; however, the so-called "evidence" of my "improper behavior" that ChildofMidnight has presented compels me to respond. I am not at all concerned with the presented diffs, as long as it is they that are considered, together with the circumstances and context associated with each. My only concern is the spin that accompanies these diffs, and I would hope that my edits would not be judged on the basis of the commentary that ChildofMidnight has used to misrepresent them. I am in broad agreement with Wikidemon's commentary on matters concerning the actions of this particular editor. I note with considerable amusement that much of CoM's "evidence" against me consists of my alleged "snarky soapboxing". ChildofMidnight is well capable of delivering same, as this diff clearly demonstrates.

Obama-related article probation

I am not familiar with the issue concerning Stevertigo that prompted this case in the beginning. I am, however, familiar with the article probation system that has been operating successfully on Obama-related articles. I believe it provides a perfectly acceptable mechanism for dealing with what I call the "normal internal issues" that one would expect in this group of articles. By that I mean vandalism, minor disruption and tendentiousness, sock and meat activity and related problems. My only concerns are as follows:

• It offers no mechanism for handling the "external issues" created by the off-wiki, manufactured controversies - such as that created with the publication of an article disparaging Wikipedia in WorldNetDaily (explored in the evidence presented by others).
• It lacks the ability to deal with a certain kind of agenda-based editing that involves multiple edits across a broad group of articles over a long period of time. Taken individually, the edits seem relatively harmless; however, a clear agenda emerges when these edits are considered as a group.

Apart from these two issues, which I think deserve special attention, I think the existing article probation is a satisfactory system for dealing with most problems that crop up in these articles.

Reserved for possible additional comments by Scjessey

I have no further statements to make at this time, but I wish to reserve the right to make additional statements in the future, if appropriate.

Evidence presented by {User name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.