" 

  
 ==Edits since the article has been unlocked== 
 Not encouraging.  

 *An edit ""boldly"" removing sourced information regarding perceptions of the Tea Party. I am assuming this was done under the impression that if information is in the lead it does not have to be in the article. That is a misunderstanding of how articles are constructed - see WP:Lead. I had indicated earlier that ""The lead should be a summary of what is in the main article, so there will be duplication of information"". Following the edit removing that information, the main body of the article now does not contain key information regarding perceptions of the Tea Party; and there is material summarised in the lead that is not mentioned in the main body. These are basic errors that should not be taking place at this stage as we move toward improving the article. Please, nobody make any ""bold"" edits. Removing sourced material should not happen without a discussion here. To underscore the importance of this, Phoenix and Winslow is topic-banned from the article for one week for removing sourced content without first getting consensus. I will reinstate the information. If people are uncomfortable with the wording in the lead and the main body being so similar, that is a copy-editing solution in which the wording is altered, but the information remains. 

 *There has been a revert with the instruction ""Please take it to talk"". A significant part of the problem with this article has been the reverting. The approach to be taken is to approach the editor responsible for the questionable edit, and discus the matter with them first. If unable to resolve the matter, get a wider consensus on this talkpage. Nobody should be reverting unless the edit is clear and obvious vandalism or BLP violation, or there is consensus for the revert.  Reverting because of disagreement over content should not be taking place, and any instances of that happening, the reverter will be sanctioned. 

 *There is a complaint on my talkpage regarding two edits by North, both of which are marked ""Please revert me if you do not agree"". If you are unsure about an edit, do not make it - come here for consensus first. Do not ask people to revert on an article with a revert restriction. This is tantamount to a honey trap. Reverting as a standard mode of editing needs to stop on this article. We should be aiming for an editing approach that does not involve reverting at all. I have looked at both edits. The first is acceptable as North was correcting a clear error. Such edits are encouraged. The second edit alters information without first having checked the source. We don't do that in any article. We don't guess. We don't make assumptions. We check our facts. A basic editing error. That is unacceptable in any article. It is particularly bad on this one. For making a revert without consensus. And for altering information without consensus. North8000 is also topic banned from this article for one week. 

 I am not comfortable that in less than 48 hours of the article being unlocked there have been such poor examples of editing. I don't wish to put a chill effect on this article. But I do want to send out the message that if your editing skills and judgement are not up to the job you should not edit this article. If your contributions to this article are more negative than positive, then you need to either stay away voluntarily, or you will be forced to stay away. In just over two weeks ArbCom will reconvene to decide what is to happen regarding this article and those editors involved in editing it. I really want this article to be in good shape and making progress. If that means cutting out some editors along the way, then so be it. Time is running out. Let's get some quality editing done please. No more reverting. No more making assumptions. No more ""bold"" edits that remove sourced content. No more making political statements. If you are more interested in grandstanding your political views, then this article is not for you. There is some serious encyclopaedic work that needs to be done in the next two weeks. I'd like to see folks focus on that. ' ' "