Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Archive 6

New Version The Tea Party movement doesn't have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the movement, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group in the movement to set its own priorities and goals. Sometimes these goals may even be in conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the movement against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within. Despite the disparate nature of the many individual groups, a few defining principles and core ideologies have been embraced by a large majority of the movement. Most political observers agree the Tea Party is largely motivated by the conservative principles of constitutionally limited government, free market economy and fiscal responsibility.^[1]

The Tea Party is a conservative movement, but it has avoided involvement with conservative social, religious and family-values issues. National Tea Party organizations like the Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, and FreedomWorks are focused on economic issues, but they support immigration reform if it includes securing the borders first. Other Tea Party groups like Glenn Beck's 9/12 Tea Parties, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot groups focus more on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools and unlawful immigration.^[2][3][4]

The Tea Party movement generally focuses on government reform. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases. To this end, Tea Party groups have protested TARP, stimulus programs, cap and trade emissions trading, health care reform and perceived attacks by the federal government on their First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. Tea Party groups have also supported right-to-work legislation and tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. After President Obama's reelection in 2012, the movement again shifted its focus. The Tea party led efforts to challenge the constitutionality of the federal health care law in the courts, and also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21.^[5][6] They have protested the IRS for controversial treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names.

The movement places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda, and supports an originalist view. Several amendments have been targeted by some groups for full or partial repeal, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. There has also been support for a proposed Repeal Amendment, enabling a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending.^[7]

The Contract from America was a legislative agenda created by Ryan Hecker, a conservative activist. He launched a website which encouraged people to offer possible planks for the Tea Party platform. Hecker worked with Dick Armey of FreedomWorks in crafting the suggestions into ten agenda items which include: "identify the constitutionality of every new law, reject cap and trade legislation, demand a balanced federal budget, simplify the tax code, assess constitutionality of federal agencies, limit growth in annual federal spending, repeal Obamacare, new energy policy that supports exploration, reduce earmarks, and reduce federal taxes."^[8][9]

Please offer support or oppose for this version but please also include your rationale for your vote.

• Support - it combines elements from several recent versions. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Grade level of 17 (post college) and readability of 18 make this, IMO, a very difficult proposal to remedy. The extensive detail seems to increase the problem here. Collect (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive detail about the subject ("Agenda") is a good thing. Extensive detail about just one aspect of the subject (i.e.; Is the constitutionalism "originalist", "popular", neither, a unique blend of both, etc., etc., etc.,) is not so good. I've found that I can increase the readability score of the whole section simply by adding more information. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, we can fix that during the next phase. North8000 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. Agenda section should be thorough. Perfection is the enemy of progress. Let's put it in and evolve it from there. One big problem to fix in the next phase would be calling it simply a conservative movement. (if we're using labels, it should include libertarian). We could also tighten up the wording in the next phase. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am 100% certain that with the arrival of new editors and the return of others, this has absolutely zero chance of making it into the mainspace. Readability suffers so we have lost Collect, and there are others who have always been here and will never go for it anyway. I anticipate five "Oppose" votes. Nevertheless, my opinion is that it is an improvement over the version that's already in the mainspace, because it contains more details and it's presented in a fair and accurate way. And I recognize that Malke has done some excellent work here. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think this is ok. I didn't like the quote that had been in previous versions. This is better. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While this includes the first two paragraphs of Xenophrenic's 12d, that material has been worked on continually, resulting in Version 15, to which Xenophrenic has recently made further revisions and expressed approval. Considering that a formal vote has never been called on version 15, that version deserves consideration.

This version, 12g, would seem to have the primary objective of eliminating the Schmidt quote, but if that is the case, then an argument as to whether that is desirable or not could be more effectively examined under the moderation of Silk Tork after selecting a version for the starting point that includes the quote. I see no convincing rationale for excluding the quote beforehand while several editors have expressed support for including it.

The descriptions of perceived divisiveness of social issues in the original text of Xenophrenic is not only much more informative but a more accurate refection of what the sources explicitly state. That should be restored.

The other material from Schmidt and Foley should be restored.

Meanwhile, I do not agree that the IRS material is an agenda item. Furthermore, the material on the Contract for America seems unbalanced, listing every point in the CfA but not discussing the fact that it flopped with the Republican Party, nor its relation to the Contract with America and the subsequent Pledge to America. In other words, the paragraph seems more promotional than informative of the overall circumstances and present status of the Contract from America. The sentence regarding the role of Dick Armey may represent an improvement in describing that specific point, but I'll defer to Xenophrenic and TE on that. Moreover, the question of why he is not mentioned as a co-author of the Contract with America, from which the Contract for America takes its name (which is stated in RS), would also seem to be an omission in the light of the weight accorded to other aspects.

In sum, I see a potential improvement in one sentence and the addition of a related sentence that may be accurate (sourcing); otherwise, version 15 is far superior.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:20, 3 July 2013 and 14:18, 3 July 2013(UTC)

• Present While I don't have a preferred version which I've authored and lack the audacity to use such a thing as rationale for opposition to this consensus-driven proposal -- I see no reason to vote on any proposal until SilkTork reasserts his goals and desired methods to achieve 'em on this moderated talkpage. †TE†Talk 04:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I must admit that I, too, was a bit taken aback to find yet another version proposed, and a vote immediately called as well. On the other hand, if there is "audacity", it would seem to lie in that act, not in meeting the call for responses including the corresponding rationale.

Furthermore, the above comment includes a reference to a "consensus driven proposal", but it is unclear whether that is meant to assert that 12g is the only such proposal. Accordingly, it bears pointing out that Version 15 has evolved through several previous versions including input from multiple authors.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have reason to believe this thread has been corrupted by out-of-place additions lacking a proper timestamp and placement of chronological order. I would rather not spend time looking back hours into this page's history to make sure I'm not being deceived. I have nothing else to say as time could've been better spent not addressing this fundamental no-no for wikipedians. †TE†Talk 05:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in light of the comment you left on my Talk page, I've added to the time stamp in my above-posted "oppose" vote with respect to material expanding on my rationale therefor.

Since no one has responded directly to the content of my rationale, it would seem that the material added could be considered as part of the same edit. There certainly was no intent to deceive on my part.

Maybe you'd care to point me to the policy regarding the "fundamental no-no for wikipedians"?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the original proposal by North8000. The one you opposed, and TE supported. The proposal was to get Malke's condensed verion of Xeno's V12d into the article mainspace, to replace the execrable crap that was there, but only as a starting point for further improvement. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scatological descriptions are not helpful.

There are two issues with the presumptions embedded in your reply, both of which are problematic.

First, the "starting point for improvement" was to be a text subjected to discussion of objectionable wording and the like here on the moderated discussion page before being finalized for placement on the article in mainspace.

Second, the problem with all the versions that attempted to omit the first two paragraphs of 12d is that you can't discuss something that is not there in a "starting point for improvement" text, because you already agreed to a text without it as the starting point. Therefore, I could not support any such version. In the meantime, Xenophrenic and I improved his original 12d and arrived at version 15 as it stands today.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the two of you now in the position of "15 or nothing"? Collect (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Scatological descriptions are not helpful. In this specific case, it was accurate. In the case of the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section, it was also accurate. But now the sanitation department has had its way with them. It the future, I think references to "garbage" would suffice for these other sections that need work.

• ... you can't discuss something that is not there in a "starting point for improvement" text ... I think we can. Just start talking about it if you'd like. If you want something that is not there, you simply start a discussion about putting it in there; and if you get consensus for it, we could put it in there.

• In the meantime, Xenophrenic and I improved his original 12d and arrived at version 15 as it stands today. Good for you. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. On the other hand, you could just work it into that /Agenda of the Tea Party movement spin-off article I was working on, because that would be brilliant.

• We've just demonstrated that we can act quickly and effectively as a team when we choose to do so, Ubikwit. So do it, or do nothing. If there isn't any progress on that by the end of the day, I'd like to go back to those three minor improvements I've had tabled for three months, and start discussing those. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we all intend that "going in as a starting point" means open to changes in all respects, and that it will need some changes. In fact, we should specifically say that. IMO About 3/4 of the recent versions are good enough for that. Let's get this baby moving! North8000 (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Malke's latest V12g proposal has a 4-2 "vote." That's a weak majority and weak consensus by Wikipedia standards. Ubikwit has offered some argument in opposition but I fail to see how it's supported by policy. I am not sure whether we can proceed at this point. Ubikwit has gone on a Wikibreak (see User:Ubikwit), so it's very unlikely he'll proceed any time soon with his V15 proposal. The "agenda" section has been through at least 22 different versions (V1-V15, plus V12b-V12g), and I feel we've done enough to improve it for the time being. There are other areas of the article that need attention and have been waiting a long time for it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rush to meet the WP:DEADLINE. The goal is to reach consensus - and that does not appear to be reached here. I have an proposal-in-progress on my UT page which I invited Malke to view - I suppose others should as well. It puts some elements which seem placed at random into what I consider a more rational order vis-à-vis the "conservative libertarian dichotomy" clearly present in the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, IMHO you the person who is the most skilled here at writing things succinctly and well. But you keep coming up with versions that are lacking content / too short for this all-important section. But since the selection will be a starting point for making changes, I also support yours. Any of the recent versions by you, Xenophrenic or Malke IMHO would be a good starting point, each with flaws that should get fixed in the following phase. Let's get this baby moving! North8000 (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit I've edited the existing V12d in the mainspace, adding a few Wikilinks and changing "conservative movement" to "part conservative and part libertarian" per concerns raised by North8000. These are the minor tweaks that are, or should be, allowed without discussion here. Please let me know if you approve. Regarding Malke's V12g above, one or two more "Support votes" would mean consensus strong enough to action the edit, and one or two more "Oppose votes" would kill it. Right now, I see it hovering in a weak consensus limbo until some more people weigh in. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's really not my edit. I took Ubikwit's version, and Xenophrenic's version and put them into a word file. I put Ubikwit's first paragraph first, then the rest is Xenophrenic's version. I eliminated the blockquote because it didn't make sense to keep it. First, who is Schmidt? Why would the reader care about what he has to say? He's not notable. And the quote doesn't support any of the content. Plus it's obscure. So far, no editor has been able to paraphrase it. For the last paragraph, I included the details about the Contract for America because editors had earlier expressed a desire to eliminate the Contract for America section all together. That's really the only contribution I made. I thought this version was the best of all worlds and would be supported unanimously, allowing the process to move forward. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt is a law professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, and he's one of the few academics I've seen cross this page who has written in an informative and truly unbiased way about the TPm. He's not notable yet but in my opinion, perhaps he should be. My personal opinion is that Ronald Formisano wrote a hit piece disguised as peer-reviewed academic research; his fawning op-eds for Obama and the Democrats betray him. Skocpol and Perrin (who is discussed on the main article Talk page) are substantially less biased, but I still detect a little bit of bias there. Elizabeth Price Foley is that most rare of creatures: an academic who's actually a little biased in favor of the Tea Party. Schmidt, Zietlow and Zernike write with no detectable bias. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know all about Schmidt. I'm the one who came up with his article when I attempted to rewrite the edit Ubikwit placed in the main article without any discussion and/or consensus. (I'm referring to the first time Ubikwit made the edit without consensus/discussion, and not this most recent time where he did the same thing again without consensus and discussion.) Whether or not he's notable is not my only point. The quoteblock does not fit in any of the versions. It's awkward in a section that is talking about the agenda in general. As I said, it's not like someone famous is being quoted and that quote speaks directly to the content, highlights it. Instead, the Schmidt quote makes no sense. If what Schmidt has to say is so vital, then simply paraphrase it with a cite. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, you've raised a good point about the akwardness of the blockquote (and the other quote as well, which just rather hangs there unconnected to the text before or after it). I've paraphrased the salient points, and removed the quotes, as you've suggested. I did much the same as you did, by taking your recent version and combining it in a file with the previous popular version. Then I went through and tried to address each of the concerns expressed about both versions. I re-added the IRS protests after I found a source; I'm not sure it qualifies as a widely-held agenda point yet, but it certainly has recently become a focal point concern, so I re-added one sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

’’Version 17’’, (version 12d revised for readability)

Overall readability scores 14/30

The Tea Party doesn't have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the Tea Party against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within.^[10]

The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. National Tea Party organizations, such as the Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, have expressed concern that engaging in social issues would be divisive.^[10] Instead, they have sought to have activists focus their efforts away from social issues and focus on economic and limited government issues.^[11][12] Still, many groups like Glenn Beck's 9/12 Tea Parties, TeaParty.org, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot Organizations do act on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools, and illegal immigration.^[13][11][14]

The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases. To this end, Tea Party groups have protested TARP, stimulus programs, cap and trade, health care reform and perceived attacks by the federal government on their 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendment rights. Tea Party groups have also voiced support for right-to-work legislation as well as tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants.^[15][16] They have formed SuperPacs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates. After setbacks in the 2012 elections, the movement again shifted its focus. With repeal off the table, the Tea party now leads efforts to nullify federal health care law.^[5][17] It has also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21.^[5][18] They have protested the IRS for controversial treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names.^[19]

Even though the groups have a wide range of different goals, the Tea Party places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda.^[20][21][22] It urges the return of government as intended by the Founding Fathers. It also seeks to teach its view of the Constitution and other founding documents.^[10] Scholars have described its interpretation variously as originalist, popular, or a unique combination of the two.^[23] Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter.^[24][25] Several constitutional amendments have been targeted by some in the movement for full or partial repeal, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. There has also been support for a proposed Repeal Amendment, which would enable a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending.^[7]

One attempt at forming a list of what Tea Partiers wanted Congress to do resulted in the Contract from America. It was a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Hecker with the assistance of Dick Armey of FreedomWorks. Armey had co-written the previous Contract with America released by the Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections. One thousand agenda ideas that had been submitted were narrowed down to twenty-one non-social issues. Participants then voted in an online campaign in which they were asked to select their favorite policy planks. The results were released as a ten-point Tea Party platform.^[8][9] The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party, but it was not broadly embraced by GOP leadership, which released its own 'Pledge to America'.^[9]

• Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. --Phoenix and Winslow

Good plan. I'd like to introduce this to the Agenda section if there are no significant objections. It addresses several problems with the text that was boldly introduced to the main article (and also rates better on the Grade/Readability meter as well). I've removed the blockquote from the above version (without prejudice - it can be reconsidered later). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we await an admin here per Snowded's request -- did you sign on to the continuation below? Meanwhile, no edits at this point appear to have "uncontested consensus" behind them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That includes the present edit actioned by P&W. Rather than revert it outright per WP:BRD, I was hoping to avoid that and retain much of our constructive work with the above content. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic - After an extended weekend drunken debauchery, I can't even remember what problems you had with the 12 series. There was an oppose vote pointing to your objections as stated above at that time, I subsequently mentioned them as being minor fixes in a response to P&W. Maybe we start there? †TE†Talk 22:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above content IS the "12 series", after everyone's objections were addressed. Do either of you have any further objections to the content proposed above? (Glad to hear you had fun, by the way -- as did I. But I'm a physical wreck at the moment because of it...) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, perhaps the lead-in from Ubikwit deceived to me: "I've further copy edited the version posted by Xenophrenic, and renumbered it, divorcing it from the "12" series." As I recall, there were significantly more objections for any version other than the one actioned by P&W (the shorter version of Xen). I would like to discuss your objections to the live version, and see if we can't tweak it a bit. I'm glad we have all had a little time away from this process. Hopefully we're coming back reinvigorated and refocused on seeing tangible results. †TE†Talk 22:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't let the "divorcing" word deceive you -- he basically said he took the most advanced "12" version, and gave it a new number after some copy-editing. Many of the same objections still exist, plus new ones about content that either isn't cited, or goes contrary to sources. The content on immigration is wrong (as well as redundantly mentioned), TP Express mention is unsourced (and likely inaccurate), the evolution of their focus isn't mentioned, the relationship between the Constitution and the "originalist" description is misapplied, the "Contract" text doesn't adhere to the cited sources, etc. I'll mark you down as "no objections" to the above version, but that isn't engraved in stone, of course. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This entire sub-section is no bueno. Version 15 was disruptive when introduced, IMO. As was any version which significantly deviated from the overwhelming consensus shown after being asked for preferred versions by SilkTork. Our esteemed moderator even clarified (seeing the direction of the vote):

Let's find an acceptable working version (perhaps 12), and then look at the issues in that version, and make it better - if that means paring it down, and parking the contract and foreign policy sections for later, that's OK. But the first stage is to find a version that most people agree is the best one to be working on. And then we look at the issues arising from that. Does that make sense? Let's find an acceptable working version (perhaps 12), and then look at the issues in that version, and make it better - if that means paring it down, and parking the contract and foreign policy sections for later, that's OK. But the first stage is to find a version that most people agree is the best one to be working on. And then we look at the issues arising from that. Does that make sense?

Yes it does, Silk. At least it did for me. Why am I mentioning this? Because, while preparing my comments on the re-posting of Version 15, I've noticed more has been done to it than just removal of one "blockquote from the above version (without prejudice - it can be reconsidered later)." It's been significantly altered (and improved), more inline with the current consensus version.

In light of this, I'll ask the OP -- Why would you present this as Version 15, with a quote from another editor in response to Version 15 (from a week ago)? This certainly doesn't seem to be constructive. It could be construed as a way to deceive fellow editors. Possibly an attempt to ridicule and marginalize others. I'm legitimately pissed off. Seriously, WTF!?! †TE†Talk 03:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your SilkTork quotation (which is incomplete) was from days before several more advanced versions were proposed from multiple editors (and even before the version boldly pasted into the main article). There was much collaborative back-and-forth between Ubikwit and Collect as improvements were made (along with new proposals). You'll recall SilkTork said, "I'd like an indication now which two of the versions (I think the viable versions run from 7 through to 13) people feel they can live with, and is better than what is currently in the article. The process will be to indicate first and second preference. No need for additional comments at this stage. I'll assess which version is favourite, and then ask what specific objections people have to that version. Depending on the result of that discussion the outcome will be to either insert the chosen version, work on amending it, or continue to search for another version." That you find disruptive anything that was improved after version 12 (when SilkTork first asked) is curious.

Yes, the "version 15" has been modified. Many, many times. Yes, it has been significantly altered and improved. You act like that was a secret or something. No secret, no deception, TE; see my comment to Malke, for example: Malke, you've raised a good point about the akwardness of the blockquote (and the other quote as well, which just rather hangs there unconnected to the text before or after it). I've paraphrased the salient points, and removed the quotes, as you've suggested. I did much the same as you did, by taking your recent version and combining it in a file with the previous popular version. Then I went through and tried to address each of the concerns expressed about both versions. I re-added the IRS protests after I found a source; I'm not sure it qualifies as a widely-held agenda point yet, but it certainly has recently become a focal point concern, so I re-added one sentence.

• Why would you present this as Version 15, with a quote from another editor in response to Version 15 (from a week ago)? --TE

Because that's what another editor suggested should be done, 5 days earlier, back before my holiday departure. You seriously asked that? As for your "ridicule", "marginalize" and "pissed off" comments, I can't make heads nor tails out of what you just said. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid distraction by deflection, I'll post SilkTork's comment as it appeared, when it appeared. Now we can keep our focus.

• 16:22, July 8, 2013 - Xenophrenic resurrected section ’’Version 15’’, (version 12d revised for readability) "from the grave" (Archive 4).
• 16:33, July 8, 2013 - Xenophrenic reposts a comment about Version 15, added by P&W on 08:24, July 3, 2013, directly under the resurrection of Version 15, presumably in response.
• 19:21, July 8, 2013 - Xenophrenic responds to comment by Malke added 17:55, July 5, 2013 (referring to the awkwardness of Ubikwit's use of quotes in Version 15), directly above Xenophrenic's newly added section containing the resurrection of Version 15. It would appear at this time Xenophrenic is pointing to his significant alterations to Ubikwit's Version 15 (which curiously enough, still carries the name of Version 15).

People can draw their own conclusions. Perhaps, if the OP had taken these actions in reverse order and denoted his new proposal (15a without the reposted section title and lead-in from Ubikwit), there wouldn't be much of an issue. But alas, that was not the case. Goes to illustrate more of the dysfunction caused by bad decorum. †TE†Talk 10:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have linked to just one of SilkTork's comments - an older one. The discussion didn't stop there, nor did the suggested improvements to various proposed versions. If you'll look at the last half of of the discussions in Archive 5, you'll see that there were two significantly different versions each with 5 nods of approval. Now we have problematic text that was actioned into the main article over objections (see: bad decorum), and our moderator has withdrawn before addressing that issue. If "there wouldn't be much of an issue" if the most recent text was renumbered, and didn't have old remnant comments from Ubikwit still attached to it (I thought I had cropped that out ... I admittedly missed some), then I suggest we rewind and start from that point. I'll change the number, alter the section title, and crop out the last of the old comments by other editors. If we're going to spend this much energy arguing with each other, we should at least direct it at content improvement, and not at whether the text should be labeled 15 or 15a. On a side note, I'm encouraged that there have been no objections so far. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's SilkTork's final comment before withdrawing. Moving on, I'll support your corrections applied to the appearance of this thread. Might have done a couple things differently myself, though. Either way, it brings us to a better position for cleaning up the dialogue. On your proposed additions to the Agenda section -- Much is redundant. It would help greatly to delete the walls of green for more concise discussion. Personally, I have a good idea of your objections to the current text, but we need to make this moderated talkpage more friendly to newcomers. Thanks in advance. †TE†Talk 22:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear as to what green text you are suggesting needs deletion. Any redundant text (appearing in both my proposal and P&W's proposal) should appear in the Agenda section, since there appears to be wide agreement for it. Any non-redundant text (corrections, copy-edited wording for readability, encyclopedic content) should also appear in the Agenda section. Do you have any objections with any of that green text appearing in the Agenda section? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought it would easier for everyone to understand your proposed additions if we removed all the redundancies which are currently present in the article. I'll do my best to speak on the OP's behalf.

With redundancy discarded, the OP would like to:

1) Remove: "Tea Party groups have also supported right to work laws, and immigration reform that includes border security."

Replacement: Tea Party groups have also voiced support for right to work legislation as well as tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants.

 Done - I don't think Marco Rubio's role in the Gang of Eight makes for Tea Party support. OP introduced refs [1] [2] to the opposite effect. †TE†Talk 23:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2) Add nullification.

Remove: "Prior to the June 2012 Supreme Court decision on the new health care law, the Tea Party led efforts to challenge the new law in the courts."

Replacement: After being signed into law, the Tea Party led efforts to challenge Obamacare in the Supreme Court and legislatively at both state and federal levels.

 Done †TE†Talk 23:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3) Introduce OR/SYN that Tea Party (in some form) supports a Living Constitution, in addition to an originalist interpretation.

• Oppose - Misunderstanding by OP of popular constitutionalism as used by legal scholars. †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4) Introduce the pedestrian understanding of constitutional originalism by sociologists: Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter.

• Oppose - You don't call a plumber to tell you why the furnace is acting up. †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5) Add Dick Armey and Freedom Works to the Contract from America text.

• No vote - Probable merge with and partial rewrite to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Contract_from_America. †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6) Add a lead (of sorts) to Agenda: The Tea Party doesn't have a single uniform agenda. The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as a strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the Tea Party against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within.

• Support †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Xenophrenic (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Undone. According to the new moderated discussion rules, agreed upon by an overwhelming 6-1 majority of active editors, concensus could not be claimed for this edit because there weren't four "votes" in favor. The fact of the matter is that it's a stealthy way to change the Agenda section to V17, when V17 didn't have consensus. Accordingly, I have reverted per WP:BRD. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"concensus could not be claimed" --P&W

Consensus wasn't claimed. Edits were made to improve the article, just like the other recent edits. There was also no "stealth" involved; the intended edits were described and announced here, then discussed, and objections were solicited beforehand. And finally, you didn't "revert per WP:BRD". Did you have actual concerns about the content in the Agenda section? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren't any remaining reasonable objections, I plan to reinstate the article improvements. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it. Limited discussion to specific proposals to the existing text within Agenda. †TE†Talk 21:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Malke and P&W's versions both have this sentence in their proposed paragraph on Contract from America, which I don't object to adding if we intend to scrap the present subsection on that same topic:

The top ten included "identify the constitutionality of every new law, reject cap and trade legislation, demand a balanced federal budget, simplify the tax code, assess constitutionality of federal agencies, limit growth in annual federal spending, repeal Obamacare, new energy policy that supports exploration, reduce earmarks, and reduce federal taxes."

Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep the list, but we do need a merge for reduced redundancy. †TE†Talk 21:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just went ahead with the merge. If you'd like, we can start discussion on adding Dick Armey and Freedomworks to the text. †TE†Talk 23:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

V17 is a non-starter and I'm Opposed to it, mainly because it's just too long. This is an encyclopedia, and it's supposed to be written in summary style. Furthermore, the following shouldn't be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice: "Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter." Claiming that Tea Party members don't have a "commitment to the test," or that they are "selective and inconsistent," is someone's opinion. And I suspect that after careful analysis it would turn out to be a minority viewpoint per WP:WEIGHT. I suggest all this time and effort should be directed into /Agenda of the Tea Party movement, a new spin-off article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer as the previous 5 versions. Good enough to go in as a starting point for further work. With the understanding that it needs changes which we can handle then. (Including later fixing the travesty "Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent." If someone advocates blacks' right to vote and cites the constitution, but fails to advocate the right to bear arms in the same speech, do you put that "inconsistent" statement in their article?) Would not replace the subsections which would be handled separately. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: "It's just too long" - not really, it's 5 paragraphs just like P&W's proposed version, and both are close to the same length, with the above version being far more readable. In fact, I can see that section getting longer as the movement takes on more issues, and as its priorities continue to evolve.

re: Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter.

Two objections have been raised about that text. The first, is that it is opinion, rather than reliably sourced fact. This is incorrect; the sources do not say they are opining, and the sources (the Oxford University published book, and the peer-reviewed academic paper) are indeed reliable. Also, equally reliable sources calling that text into question have not been produced. Further objections along those lines would be better handled at WP:RSN.

The second objection, as I understand it, is that the text is inaccurate or false. The "right to vote/right to bear arms" example doesn't exemplify the reasoning behind the "inconsistent" description being used here. Here is some of the source content supporting the

It can further be found in the TPM’s recurring cultural theme of returning to the ideals of the Constitution. Like the Tea Party name, this theme is selectively nostalgic [...] Support for Constitutional principles is not absolute. TPM supporters were twice as likely than others to favor a constitutional amendment banning flag burning; many also support efforts to overturn citizenship as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. That TPM supporters simultaneously want to honor the founders’ Constitution and alter that same document highlights the political flexibility of the cultural symbols they draw on. The TPM supporters’ inconsistent views of the Constitution suggests that their nostalgic embrace of the document is animated more by a network of cultural associations than a thorough commitment to the original text. (Perrin, Pgs. 7-8)

They are doing what every political endeavor does: using history as a source of inspiration and social identity. Just like other political actors, past and present, Tea Partiers stretch the limits of the Constitution, use it selectively, and push for amendments. Tea Partiers have argued for measures such as restrictions on birthright citizenship, abridgements of freedom of religion for Muslim-Americans, and suspension of protections in the Bill of Rights for suspected terrorists. Some parts of the Constitution are lauded over others. (Skocpol/Williamson, Pgs. 50-51)

The "inconsistency" is not so much that they do advocate one part while not advocating another part of the Constitution (although they do that, too), but more that they advocate adherance to the constitution while at the same time advocating amending or repealing. Did I incorrectly word what the sources are saying, or is the contention that the sources are just wrong? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC) (I note that North8000 is travelling, and says we can fix this later, but I thought I'd at least try to get a clearer picture of the objection.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it misleading POV wording, including if a source said it. Again, we can fix this after it's in. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A source" didn't say it, many sources have. Here's another one:

The Tea Partiers' view of the Constitution was commonly described as "originalism," a fidelity to the exact words of the document as they were written in 1787 that has adherents at major universities and, in Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, on the U.S. Supreme Court. And some Tea Paqrtiers' version of the Constitution sounded just like that. But many others were learning subjective interpretations of the Constitution that went beyond the primary source, and beyond what legal scholars or Americans would recognize—even using a dictionary—in reading the original document. (Zernike; Boiling Mad, Pgs. 67-68)

And another one in this academic, peer reviewed paper contrasting conservative originalism with progressive living constitutionalism (cited in no fewer than 33 academic journals and papers):

It serves as a critical counterweight to the distorted history pedaled by many conservative politicians and activists, including the members of the Tea Party. These activists seek to portray themselves as the true defenders of the Constitution, but they are selective in their defense and in their vision. They incorrectly portray the powers of the federal government established by the original Constitution as exceedingly limited, which ignores both the language of the Constitution and the crucial fact that it was adopted in response to the flawed Articles of Confederation, which failed to establish a strong national government. In addition to distorting the original Constitution, Tea Partiers often pretend as if the Constitution were never amended and therefore simply ignore the expansion of individual rights and federal power accomplished by those amendments. When selective amnesia fails, they call for jettisoning portions of the Constitution they dislike, including the guarantee of citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment to all who are born in the United States. Indeed, Justice Scalia jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon last year in suggesting that the Seventeenth Amendment was a bad idea, which is simultaneously remarkable and somewhat beside the point for a sitting Justice, whose oath is to defend the Constitution—even the parts he may not like. Put simply, the rise of the Tea Party has led to a national debate over the meaning of the Constitution, which has recently focused on the constitutionality of health care reform. The distortions, selective reading of the Constitution, and calls for constitutional amendments by Tea Partiers demand a response from progressives, and Amar‘s work outlines a devastating one. But there is a further lesson in here for progressives who remain uncertain about the wisdom of embracing the Constitution. If the Tea Partiers have to fiddle so much with the actual Constitution in order to claim that it supports their positions, doesn‘t that in itself constitute excellent proof that the real Constitution is not nearly as conservative as the Tea Partiers would like? (James E. Ryan; Virginia Law Review, Pgs. 19-20

So, to recap, here's the proposed text based on many reliable sources: "Reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so more as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter."

In where -- Perceptions? †TE†Talk 14:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any opposition to Proposal #6? Seems the least contentious of the remainders. †TE†Talk 16:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it over, as well as some other improvements to which no objections were raised. On your #3 comment above, the Originalist/Popular combo was sourced to Zietlow. (And as for linking "Popular" to "Living", the source indicates they are the same.) (See: While originalists believe that the constitution has a fixed meaning, popular constitutionalism is the purest example of the “living constitutionalism” that originalists decry. [...] The first issue that divides the two camps is the question of whether provisions of the constitution have a single fixed meaning. Originalists believe that a single fixed meaning exists and is discernible by examining the text and the intent of the framers or the original public meaning of the text. By contrast, popular constitutionalism accepts the possibility that the text has multiple meanings, and that the meaning of the text may change through the process of construction by the political branches. To that extent, popular constitutionalism is premised on the existence of a living constitution, a concept that is antithetical to most originalists. To be sure, originalists’ criticism of living constitutionalism is aimed primarily at judges, not at political actors. Nonetheless, the fixation thesis is a central tenet of originalism, and popular constitutionalism is arguably diametrically opposed to that thesis.) Please let me know if it's still an issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is still your OR/SYN, or just plain bad comprehension. Diametrical opposition to the Living Constitution does NOT preclude Tea Party (originalists) from engaging in popular constitutionalism. That was the entire point of Popular Originalism? The Tea Party Movement and Constitutional Theory. TPM put the constitution at the forefront of their agenda. Used their interpretation of the constitution as rationale for their political goals. And since the living constitution crowd, (liberals who certainly are NOT originalists) pitched their tent at popular constitutionalism long ago -- Zietlow coined the phrase "popular originalism." She was NOT pretending they are living constitutionalists. Not in the least. Your wikilink is incorrect. And quote mining only impresses the easily impressionable. †TE†Talk 06:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't do OR/SYN (that's what reliable sources are for), I'm going to go with "bad comprehension [sic]". Some of the TP does claim a certain flavor of originalist constitutionalism (but that's also disputed), and it's true that conservatives favor that approach while progressives tend to favor living constitutionalism (liberals probably not as much) -- but that doesn't have anything to do with the wikilink. When I was adding the reliably sourced text, I noticed Wikipedia had an article on Originalist constitutionalism, but not Popular constitutionalism, so I used that link based on what I had read in Zietlow's paper (quoted above). I'm not a Constitutional scholar, so I've removed that wikilink after your explanation. From what I've read so far, Originalism may be diametrically opposed to Living Constitutionalism, but the TPers aren't necessarily so. What's a quote mine? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Any opposition to Proposal #6? Seems the least contentious of the remainders. †TE†Talk 11:14 am, 12 July 2013, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

"I moved it over, as well as some other improvements to which no objections were raised." - Xenophrenic

That's funny. Because to the casual observer it would appear you moved your entire proposal over to TPM (word for word, except the last paragraph where you just added your preferred text [Dick Armey and FreedomWorks stuff])... ignoring my attempts to discuss the finer points while I was justifiably preserving the consensus version (even after I was kind enough to action some of your proposals while you refused to participate)... and in doing so, proclaiming you received "no objections" which is laughable at best (both in this thread and archives)... Oh, but I see you hid your contentious sociologist quote in the text and kept a couple footnotes that P&W used to placate another editors' desire for blockquotes. How kind of you. Thanks for totally not displaying OWNership issues. †TE†Talk 07:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your casual observation is mostly correct. I did move most of my proposal over (less any objections) after several days, just as I said I intended to do. The incorrect parts: I never ignored any attempts to discuss; I've been fully engaged; I've never refused to participate in anything. "preserving the consensus version" ... now that's funny. :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom case has re-opened. The moderated discussion has not achieved what I hoped it would, and I apologise to everyone for my part in that failure - but would also like to thank everyone who took part and made some positive improvements to the article: there have been steps forward, and the article is in a better shape now than what it was when we started. As the case has reopened and the discussion has not been fully successful, and as I will be away from home all next week with uncertain internet access, I am withdrawing from the discussion as of now. It is highly likely that some people are going to be topic banned, and that a number of those involved in the discussion are going to be among those who are topic banned. As such it is uncertain what the best course of action would be in regards to the discussion: if it continues without a moderator, or a new moderator should be sought, or if it should be closed down completely, and discussion returned to the main talkpage. It may be best to await the outcome of the case before making any firm decisions, though I leave that in your hands. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regret your decision on this. I would ask you contact one of the neutral parties you might know to see who would be willing to act as shepherd at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, thank you for the excellent job that you have done. The challenge is due to the policy weaknesses that leave all contentious articles articles in this state. The article was chugging along in such a sad routine state when someone asked someone to light a bonfire, and they listened. So there are 2 people to blame for the bonfire (who have evaded scrutiny) and nobody to really blame for the article state. We'll see if Arbcom figures that out. North8000 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SilkTork, for your service here. Please don't describe this effort as a "failure." As you said, there have been "some positive improvements to the article," despite the enormous obstacles, and that's been due to the diligent work and patience of a significant number of people, particularly you. I couldn't agree more with North's assessment that the contents of the policy toolbox need to be supplemented, and sharpened. When facing a thicket of negative trivia, placed in an article by people who loathe the subject of the article, the best tool is a chainsaw; and any policy restraining the immediate use of that chainsaw very badly needs to be actively reviewed with an eye toward revision. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Silk Tork. You were very generous with your time. The article has progessed and is much improved, thanks to your efforts. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sort of vote -- who wishes to muddle on as best we can? (Option 1) Or to invoke Lis alibi pendens and suspend this effort (Option 2)? Collect (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since SilkTork provided the rules, and disagreed with some of the editors about interpretations, I don't think I could vote to continue option 1 without specifying the rules. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose we we posit that Option 1 has: 1. Absolutely no mention of another editor by name in any critical context, period, including the implicit use of "you" to make critical comments about an editor in any post. (basically a "civility rule). 2. No "consensus" shall be claimed without a plurality of four !votes for any proposal. 3. "Drive-by" !votes are to be discouraged. (ones with no constructive discussion to be weighed minimally - but not discouraging constructive suggestions from added editors) 4. Any non-involved admin shall interpret these rules and be allowed to enforce them as though they had been posited in arbitration through AE. 5. If and only if this option is selected, we shall then decide on procedural matters including the questions of whether we deal with existing sections or deal with a general overview of the topic, etc. (such as the "plan A" suggestions) Collect (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there is a clear consensus to proceed, I have asked at WP:AN for a moderator to abide by the posited rules and to proceed to get this job done. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes:

• Yes The article will go on regardless of what we decide. And anyone who is willing and able with work on it will. So I guess that you are asking whether or not to continue with this semi-organized effort. That is how I interpreted the question. Not sure yet on those details. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes We should proceed immediately. Same rules, with the clarification above by Collect regarding the occasional drive-by editor. We just need a new moderator. And for heaven's sake people, the discussion of my three little improvements has been put on hold for three months so can we start there first please? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The 'civility rule' above is a particularly fine idea. The intense personalization of discussion can be highly discouraging. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes I'd be fine with continuing on. We need to find another moderator. I don't know how best to find one. Perhaps a general notice at ANI, if such a thing is allowed?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think AN might be more appropriate than ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes but It will beed to be moderated but its not going to work if we get lengthy posts, multiple propositions and an attitude based on vote stacking rather than consensus. So I'd suggest that we need moderation even to formulate the votes and all of that needs to wait for the ArbCom case to be resolved. We all know its going to change then anyway----Snowded ^TALK 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArbCom only deals with behavior, and makes absolutely no content decisions. Thus I am taking your !vote to be part of a clear consensus to ask for a moderator. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do know that Collect, but their judgement on behaviour is likely to change the nature of participation and thus the context of moderation. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as the behaviour is under control for the duration of a moderated discussion, do you think that a later ArbCom decision would reverse a reasonable consensus? I would trust that is not your position, of course. If we wait ofr a behavior decision first, we will lose a full month or more, IMO. Collect (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - ...on some of your (Option 1) rules, it appears we've already disregarded Rule #5. Rule #1 is standard Civility/NPA policy. Don't comment on editors, period. It's a shame that such a basic rule needs reiteration. Rule #2 - Instead, let's stick with Wikipedia policy, and not introduce numbers in any way, shape or form to the determination of WP:CONSENSUS. Quite simply: when a proposal is made and objections are raised, the objections need to be addressed. Gathering 4 like-minded editors to say "Me too" is not how consensus is achieved. Same applies to Rule #3. Of course not all objections can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties when achieving consensus, but any proposal that is actioned while ignoring legitimate concerns is not an act of consensus. To the more general question of whether or not we can continue to be productive, I don't see any reason why not. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IOW you would agree to abide by the posited rules? If you wish to veto this entire process here, then do so - but as for the rest of us, we really want to get the job done. Now do you object to the posited rules or not? Collect (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your summary of the rules as you've stated them in your request for a moderator at WP:AN, it doesn't appear we disagree all that much. To quote you, "The primary criteria here are that the moderator ensure that WP:CONSENSUS be followed..." My objection was over your apparent deviation from that when you redefined consensus as tied to an arbitrary number of "!votes". Did I misunderstand you? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You managed to dispute every single rule to which everyone else assented. I decline to stay here for the weeks of wrangling which are implicit in your cavils. I have posted my opinion at the bottom of this page. The Wikipedia Bar Association seems to have a new member. I also suggest you read up on the role of mistletoe in Norse mythology. Collect (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. Scroll up just a little and you can verify for yourself. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes but - Let us remember human nature is such that while one can do their best to abide by Rule 1, we can't just go around speaking to eachother like robots. Some degree of informality is inevitable. †TE†Talk 23:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of thick-skin is a good thing, too. More than once I've had my sarcasm or attempts at humor completely misconstrued, so I try to use extra care now. No amount of care will suffice, however, when an editor has already prejudged anything you might say as an attack or affront, even before you've clicked "Save page". Xenophrenic (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one reads this page one realizes that things have gotten much better. Instead of there being a battle, we now have just a truck that is stuck in the mud and collectively we can't figure out how to get it moving. Let's create a framework that will do that and get somebody who will oversee it. I think that the following would help:

• BRD with teeth on the "D" would be a good plan.
• Decide smaller pieces at a time, not entire sections
• Decide that each questioned section/item must get decided on. The status quo does not rule (absent a supermajority), it becomes merely one of the choices of what will go in.
• Fix the math problem that occurs when there are three or more choices. Encourage editors to weigh in on every choice, not just pick a favorite
• Other than the above, use the normal methods in other areas
• Agree that outlandish behavior needs to get smacked. Also agree that the process of ginning up / spinning up minor issues to try to get people smacked should stop.
• I could handle the gnome organizing work if folks want on a trial basis. 1 week trial then 1 month trial. But we need an admin to oversee / enforce the above.

North8000 (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting plan - but we need to decide on whether we go on at all first. Collect (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article will go on regardless of what we decide. So I guess that you are asking whether or not to continue with this semi-organized effort? North8000 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]