Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 81: Line 81:
I find Duke53's editing at Wikipedia to frequently be provocative and counterproductive. I feel that achieving NPOV takes creativity and willingness to compromise; Duke53 rarely exhibits willingness to compromise, and rarely employs his creativity for anything but pushing his particular POV. <small title="Click the F">...comments?</small> ~[[User:B Fizz|'''B''']]''[[User:B Fizz/F|<span style="color:darkblue; cursor:crosshair;">'''F'''</span>]][[User talk:B Fizz|izz]]'' 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I find Duke53's editing at Wikipedia to frequently be provocative and counterproductive. I feel that achieving NPOV takes creativity and willingness to compromise; Duke53 rarely exhibits willingness to compromise, and rarely employs his creativity for anything but pushing his particular POV. <small title="Click the F">...comments?</small> ~[[User:B Fizz|'''B''']]''[[User:B Fizz/F|<span style="color:darkblue; cursor:crosshair;">'''F'''</span>]][[User talk:B Fizz|izz]]'' 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


===Statement by {Party 4}===
===Statement by [[Storm Rider]]===
I am not a perfect editor and this particular editor is an easy one for me to go off on, which I have done often. He is wholly and completely dedicated to being unhelpful and disruptive. His entire edit history is one long example of exactly what he as been accused. I know it takes time, but it would be useful to go through all of his 3,772 edits in order to grasp the magnitude of his disruptiveness.

It is true that he is not a very active editor and has never been very active. An editor who begins in 2005 and only has 3,772 edits is evidence that he is not dedicated to this process. However, lack of edits is not a sufficient reason to delay action. His behavior has never changed; he is the same editor he started out as without any improvement. He is spiteful, vindictive, opinionated, and narrow-minded. Worse, he demands that his opinion is the only correct reference, position, context, and tone to use in articles within his interest.

I have long since believed that after a short probationary period to determine the ability of an editor, being a Wikipedia editor is a privilege and not a right. Duke should have long since lost this privilege. -<sup>[[user:Storm Rider|'''''<font color="01796F">Storm</font>''''']]</sup>[[User talk:Storm Rider#top|'''''<font color="1C39BB">Rider</font>''''']] 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


===Statement by {Party 5}===


=== Clerk notes ===
=== Clerk notes ===

Revision as of 07:46, 17 March 2011

Requests for arbitration



Duke53

Initiated by alanyst /talk/ at 07:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Alanyst

Duke53, an editor of 5+ years, has been a source of disruptive conflict in multiple subject areas for nearly all of his editing history. I ask the committee to examine his behavior.

Duke53 joined Wikipedia in late 2005. Spring 2006 saw his first conflict with an editor, and later conflicts erupted around such subjects as Duke University and its rivals, a natural history museum in New York state, and Mormonism. In each of these topic areas Duke53 holds a strong personal opinion and has treated editors who do not share his opinion, or who obstruct his efforts to make Wikipedia a platform for his views, as adversaries to be fought, ridiculed, or bullied. Read his talk page and userpage for a sampling of his behavior.

I am one of several long-time editors in the Mormonism topic area (being a Mormon myself) who has had conflict with Duke53 dating back several years. He has expressed special contempt for Mormons in general, and Mormon editors of Wikipedia in particular.

Dispute resolution has been attempted in various venues through the years: RfC twice, AN and similar noticeboards several times, and on sundry article and user talk pages. There has not been a recent RfC, and if this request is rejected it will probably be due to that fact. But I feel that arbitration is appropriate because of these factors:

  1. Experience from the first RfC, which expired without resolution partly because few outside opinions were given, shows it is hard to find neutral editors willing to attempt to resolve disputes involving religious topics or long-term chronic behavior.
  2. Duke53 rejects criticism of his behavior, so an RfC will not resolve the problem unless it gets enough input from neutral parties to form a consensus for community sanctions. It could end up being a waste of time like the first one.
  3. Duke53 has asserted that Mormon editors have conspired against editors critical of Mormonism in order to dominate the topic area. This is an effective counter to Mormon editors' complaints about him because sanctioning him would be feared as playing into the hands of the conspiracy. Such claims deserve to be examined by a neutral body so that either the clique be uncovered and dispersed, or else the accusation be refuted as an unmerited slur. An RfC on Duke53 is unlikely to accomplish this.

If this request is accepted, I will provide evidence for problematic behaviors including:

  • POV pushing, disruption to make a point, and battleground behavior
  • Willingness to violate BLP
  • Initiation and exacerbation of conflict
  • Vindictiveness
  • Biting newcomers
  • Refusal to compromise or accept correction
  • WP:COMPETENCE issues

alanyst /talk/ 08:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Why now? That's a fair question. This may in fact be long overdue, and I have contemplated whether to bring this to arbitration for a long time now. I held back because (a) arbitration can be a time sink, (b) I kept hoping a neutral party would intervene so it wouldn't just appear as a vendetta by Mormons against an anti-Mormon, and (c) I tried to give him every chance to change his ways. The final straw for me was to see him taunting an editor who has made every effort to respect the opposing POV and deal with him in good faith, to the point that the editor (BFizz) started to lose his cool. (See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.#Emma Hale Smith caption and Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.#Joseph Smith and adultery.) I felt it was time for the relentless bullying to stop, lest we lose an editor who has tried to reach across the divide. alanyst /talk/ 14:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Also, regarding the evidence: the Wikiquette alert is from December 2010, though confusingly it starts with quoted material (including timestamps) from 2007, making it appear at first glance as a stale dispute. alanyst /talk/ 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Duke53

I really don't have a whole lot of time to waste on this, but anybody who gets involved in this might take note of Alanyst's posting history. It is very evident that the one thing that is guaranteed to draw him to post at WP anymore is my participation in articles. It's almost as if he has cast himself as a modern day defender of the lds church here at Wikipedia. No matter how long his absences here are, if I post at an lds article he's sure to follow.

Next, you will also notice a bunch of familiar faces showing up to bolster his accusations: Bfizz, Routerone, Canadiandy (if he doesn't post under one of his alter egos, which are numerous) and Storm Rider. There is also a newer bunch from byu, who were quick to pick up the habit of meatpuppetry and swarming in their 'debut' at WP. They don't much like it when I mention 'swarming' or 'tag-teaming', but as my Grandmother used to say: "The proof is in the pudding" Duke53 | Talk 08:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by B Fizz

In all my online interactions I have never been singled out, taunted, criticized, and ridiculed by anyone as much as I have been by Duke53. Wikipedia behavioral guidelines suggest that we focus on the edit and not on the editor. Duke53 often focuses his fire on editors.

His common method of irritating me is by twisting my words: exaggerating them or applying them to something I obviously did not intend. A few examples:

Applying my reasoning in an absurd fashion

Additionally, rudely parodying my signature

Rudely parodying my old signature

There are more instances of similar behavior towards me that you can find in his edit history. I understand that sometimes it is appropriate to extend another editor's reasoning to a different domain in order to help them understand why you disagree with them, but if you inspect Duke53's edits, they appear (to me) to be confrontational assertions rather than an attempt to reach understanding.

I am not the only one Duke apparently despises; he appears to consider all 'tbms' as enemies that 'gang up' against him. He has exhibited similar behavior towards editors such as Canadiandy1, Routerone, and newcomers.

I find Duke53's editing at Wikipedia to frequently be provocative and counterproductive. I feel that achieving NPOV takes creativity and willingness to compromise; Duke53 rarely exhibits willingness to compromise, and rarely employs his creativity for anything but pushing his particular POV. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Storm Rider

I am not a perfect editor and this particular editor is an easy one for me to go off on, which I have done often. He is wholly and completely dedicated to being unhelpful and disruptive. His entire edit history is one long example of exactly what he as been accused. I know it takes time, but it would be useful to go through all of his 3,772 edits in order to grasp the magnitude of his disruptiveness.

It is true that he is not a very active editor and has never been very active. An editor who begins in 2005 and only has 3,772 edits is evidence that he is not dedicated to this process. However, lack of edits is not a sufficient reason to delay action. His behavior has never changed; he is the same editor he started out as without any improvement. He is spiteful, vindictive, opinionated, and narrow-minded. Worse, he demands that his opinion is the only correct reference, position, context, and tone to use in articles within his interest.

I have long since believed that after a short probationary period to determine the ability of an editor, being a Wikipedia editor is a privilege and not a right. Duke should have long since lost this privilege. -StormRider 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by {Party 5}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/1)

  • Accept John Vandenberg (chat) 10:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for alanyst - why now? Much of this evidence is old, although the userpage for deletion has just passed (February '11), much of ther material is 2006-07 (and early-mid 2010). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption at The Beatles article and talkpage

Initiated by LessHeard vanU (talk) at 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I am making a simple Request, that ArbCom determine who is being disruptive in the ongoing dispute regarding whether the band (or group...) should be titled The Beatles or the Beatles within sentences in the article. Are the editors who insist that the Manual of Style guideline should be followed disruptive in attempting changing the text in the article, or are the editors who maintain that the local consensus for capitalising the definitive article still remains disruptive in reverting any attempt. This is not in regard to the content dispute, which ArbCom cannot and will not address, but the actions of two groups of editors and a long running battle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is my intention, should it appear that the Request may succeed, to example further instances of the stalemated discussions and the edit warring on the article page – going back years. I will necessarily increase the list of parties. In response to SilkTork, this most recent series of actions and reverts is only the most recent incident. Either one party or the other is acting inappropriately in continuing the dispute, and I see no evidence the issue is going to reach consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens. Outside comments upon the disruption arising from the dispute? – there is none. Requests for outside comments upon the issue of capitalising the definitive article? – Perhaps, but even if there has been no RfC there has been an awful lot of discussion involving very many parties over the years and the result has been a calcification of opinions between two groups. I suggest that any "light" dispute resolution process will be equally stalemated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the archives and noted every discussion section regarding the issue – including a couple of straw polls, but no RfC. I suppose it is entirely possible to run a RfC in the very near future, requesting everybody read all of the linked previous discussions, and have the same names come up with the same reasons as previous, and possibly have one or two new accounts side with one group or another, and come to the same stalemate as has all the previous attempts (one group believing they have consensus via guideline, one group believing they keep the local consensus). I, or someone else, will then have to think up a new non content rationale to bring this disruptive and long term dispute to ArbCom – so hopefully the matter can be settled and everyone get back to writing the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Elen of the Roads. Can you point to where I have asked for a ruling on the content? I am asking for a ruling on the disruption engendered by parties over a content dispute. I would like to think that my point has been read and understood - even if still rejected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SilkTork

Too soon for ArbCom. There has been a discussion; an attempt to implement an action, which was reverted; and a request posted for further input less than an hour ago – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The Beatles. If the community is unable to resolve the matter, or there is clear evidence of inappropriate conduct, then ArbCom should get involved, but this is too early. SilkTork *YES! 22:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hans Adler

Obviously this dispute doesn't belong here. However, now that coin flipping has come up I feel forced to mention that the question of capitalising the mid-sentence article or not is answered uniformly for the encyclopedia by WP:MOS#Use of "The" mid-sentence and more specifically by MOS:MUSIC#Names (definite article).

The current practice at the article does not follow the general practice and in fact predates it. As far as I can tell all arguments for not bringing the article in line with the MOS are of the following types or very similar:

  • This has been brought up numerous times before and always failed.
  • There is a consensus not to change things, and disagreeing with it is disruptive.
  • The trademark uses a capital T. [Irrelevant because MOS and MOS:MUSIC cover precisely such cases.]

I am amazed that LHvU has the cheek to bring this here under the circumstances. A quick motion on whether local consensus at an article can override a style guideline for no valid reason at all might not be such a bad idea. (In my personal opinion the requirements for such overriding should be very low, but not zero.) Hans Adler 00:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steelbeard1

This has been discussed time and time again and the long standing consensus has been to refer to the band in question as "The Beatles" in running text as that is the name of that band as well as a registered trade mark owned by Apple Corps Ltd. The article's talk page is full of lengthy discussions in both the current page and on archived pages of which links can be found. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding statements saying that this qualifies as WP:LAME, if you look up the WP:LAME link, it is already listed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluewave

There has been a long-running argument about whether the band is correctly called The Beatles or the Beatles. For some time, there has been a consensus that reliable sources favour 'The', in contrast to some other bands like the Rolling Stones that don't. The article has been stable in using "The Beatles' for a similar length of time. The present discussion has been about whether a MOS preference for 'the' in band names overrides the previous consensus, even if the band's name actually is 'The Beatles'. Wrapped in Grey stated the case for adopting MOS (diff); I made the counter case – namely that matters of style don't trump matters of substance. (diff) This was debated with no consensus being reached. There was then a further debate about whether a lack of consensus should lead us to adopt MOS or to go with the older consensus! This debate didn't reach a consensus either.

The participants have largely been experienced editors of good-standing and I don't believe anyone has been wilfully disruptive, but I accept that the overall effect of this long-running and rather pointless dispute is disruptive, though it has largely been restricted to the talk page...I don't myself recall ever having edited the article regarding this matter. Yesterday, it did spill over into the article, with one editor clearly believing that he had a mandate to change all instances of 'The' to 'the' (mid sentence), while others, like me, felt there was certainly no consensus to take this action. Again, this was not a major piece of disruption by any individual or group but, equally, the dragging on of this issue is disruptive. There is no compromise position on 'the' versus 'The', so it will never be resolved by consensus. If we were in a pub, I'd suggest we spoof for it. Please somebody toss a coin.

I have just re-read LessHeard vanU who speaks of edit warring on the article page – going back years. I don't think I was aware of this. Perhaps I am mistaken in thinking this is essentially a talk page dispute. Bluewave (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect

This case is just over two weeks too early to be considered. WP usage does not require "The" to be capitalized – hence this is a purely trivial content dispute at best. It is interesting that the beatles did not even use "The" for their album "Beatles for Sale", the NYT does not use "The" [7] as one example, and this is one of the least worthwhile discussions ever held on WP. In my opinion. Collect (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

This is a longstanding but absolutely pointless dispute due squarely to the rigidity of people who insist on adhering to trademark formalities. (I note in passing that the Beatles authorized biography does not capitalize "the," nor do later works by Beatles expert and personal friend Mark Lewisohn.) In a few months the dispute will have lasted longer than the group's recording career. I'm tempted to suggest that LHvU be given a mild reprimand for wasting the Committee's time on asinine matters such as this, but the overblown dispute is amusing as an example of WP:LAME. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Wehwalt

Pure content dispute, even with recent trends to find "conduct" lurking in every content dispute. Suggest it be declined.

@Elen, the triviality of WP disputes compared with the harsh realities of real life apply to even the cases you accept. This is what you signed up for. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved GoodDay

This is certainly a candidate for WP:LAME. Howabout using THE BEATLES, per what's roughly on Starr's drums. Anyways, Lennon's having to explain the spelling of Beatles with an a, pales in comparison to this. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war has been listed at WP:LAME for over three years. Pretty soon somebody's going to try to capitalize the "T" in "Beatles" again. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like "the BeaTles"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the drum set, it's all in capital letters, with the T being longer & hanging below the other letters in BEATLES. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes me think of a song "You've got to hide your reverts away". GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andreasegde

The problem will always be that "The group called The Beatles once performed in Paris, but the Beatles who went there on holiday were McCartney and Lennon".--andreasegde (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/1)

  • Comment Can you please clarify where external community input has been sought? I see multiple discussions on the talk page listed, but don't see any of them reflecting a closed RfC or anything of the sort. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline while conversations have been going on for years, I don't see 1) the failure of escalating DR steps, or 2) gross user conduct violations that would justify skipping such steps. Medcom, anyone? Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Japan has just been wiped out by earthquake and tidal wave, and you guys are arguing about a capital T? Can't you just do rock/paper/scissors or something? Seriously, I cannot see how this can be anything but a content dispute, and a very simple one at that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline Not ruling on content. Get more involvement from the community. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statements, although my initial impression is that Jclemens and Elen have described the situation to a T. If we do accept the case, I shall supervise an official coin-flip to avoid edit-wars regarding whether we do or don't capitalize the casename. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But wouldn't pistols at 10 paces be more in tune with the tone of the dispute? Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline – it needs an RfC and broad community input. Preferably well-structured to give a clear-cut decision. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline – I feel like this kind of WP:LAME-worthy content dispute would have to go pretty far before we dealt with it. There are still avenues of DR to be tried. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; much can still be done to solve this before our intervention becomes justified. Certainly, a community consultation should take place as a first step. — Coren (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]