Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Kirill Lokshin (Talk) & SirFozzie (Talk)

Original comments

Statement by Stevertigo

I am a 'controversial editor.' Or a "problematic editor." Or a "disruptive editor." That is, according to some people, that is what I am. According to them, even though I've been editing Wikipedia since 2002, and have contributed to the creation of numerous principles, policies, guidelines, and editoral positions, I am somehow in need of banning, or a monitor. The current issue is largely between Steve Quinn, Jim Wae and I, centered largely at the Punishment article. Before the punishment article, we three debated the introductory paragraphs of the Time article - an argument that I largely won (Time now has a general introductory sentence).

Steve and Jim appear to have been stalking me through my edit history, taking an interest in my editing and not necessarily the subject matter. This is the essential point - they did not arrive at the punishment article due to interest in that article, but the did so due to an undue interest in my editing. Thus their editing of that article suffered from a lack of cohesion that editors of actual interest would naturally have, hence I was opposed to certain edits they made to the article. This was our dispute. When I first edited the punishment article on 1 August, (diff) few people had touched the article in the months previous, and no one had commented on the talk page since October 2009. (See Talk:Punishment and Talk:Punishment/Archive 1).

Steve Quinn filed an ANI, at which other editors have chimed in - people whom I havent' had interactions with in months or years, and who still hold the grudge that previous cases did not find in their favor regarding me. To a fair eye, its clearly a case where bitter contestants are trying to finish what they started in years previous. To decide for yourself if my editing is "disruptive" (a euphemism for "trolling") see examples of my recent work.

My reasons for posting here are because matters of sanction and banning should be taken seriously, in a way that administrators at ANI simply cannot do.

Reply to Steve Quinn

Steve Quinn wrote: "I implore Stevertigo, to go ahead and make the statement contained on his talk page." Im not clear on what you mean here by "make the statement." I do not retract my statement on the ANI in which I gave a general apology to anyone whom I may have crossed in the course of normal editing.

But by your taking the issue to ANI, it became clear that there is a more general problem that people who know little or nothing about our own dispute, or me specifically, chime in to voice support for something like a block or community ban. (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_sanctions). For example User:Beyond my Ken, who appears to have never even heard of me before, recommends "support indef block or community ban" solely on the basis of another user's comments - those of Slrubenstein. (Slrubenstein would do well to recall the torrent of slanders he unleashed on me last year). BMK even cites a completely unrelated vandal edit as an example of editing that needs to be countered. This is the kind of nonsense that we deal with at ANI.

The point is, this case is going to have to be constrained to the facts, and the facts between you and I deal with our run-ins at time and punishment. I appreciate the good work you do, and appreciate your criticism. But this issue between us has to be settled in a sane and orderly manner. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Steve Quinn 2

SQ wrote: "Also it appears that Stevertigo's general apology is not sincere. It appears to me that he made some sort of apology, while at the same time filing a request for arbritration here." - My apology was sincere and remains as such. The reason I filed the RFAR was because things appeared to be getting out of hand at the ANI, and I think of that as a systemic problem. At no time should an 8-year veteran editor such as myself have his status on the island revoked because of a few critical editors, because of past controversies, or because of hearsay and third-hand knowledge from uninvolved editors.

Given that you have been able to work with other editors like Maunus on the Punishment article, accepting their criticism of your work (just as I am able to accept such criticism), that is more than enough evidence for me that you are sincere in extending your hand. I would be willing to cancel both the ANI and RFAR. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A note on the name changes

As the filer of this case, I recommend naming this thread something neutral, rather than with a title that gives the appearance of a referendum. The name "Punishment" makes it clear that the issues are localized at that article - which is true, as Steve Quinn filed his ANI due to disputes we had at that article (see Talk:Punishment and Talk:Punishment/Archive 1). Issues of personal behaviour can of course still be discussed, but using a neutral title "Punishment" is less prejudiced toward some generic character criticism. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have requested of Arbcom that this case be renamed to something neutral and non-prejudicial. Naming it after me gives the impression that the issue and scope of the case is me and my actions, when in fact there's a straightforward article dispute at the core of this RFAR. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Slrubenstein

I don't see what you or SlimVirgin or any other of these old ghosts have to do with the current RFAR. Keep in mind that the issue with WP:DE (you're using one of my shortcuts, BTW) is that "DE" is a more polite way of calling someone a "troll." Back in the old days people used to call people "trolls" and accuse them of "trolling" all day long. Around 2005 it became out of vogue, in part because people realized it was pejorative and violated CIVIL. My issue with DE is that its in large part just a quasi-formalistic way of calling someone a "troll."

Slrubenstein wrote: "I remember one case where there was an ambiguous insinuation of anti-Semitism by him, but the key words are ambiguous and insinuate. Virtually everything Stevertigo does is ambiguous and insinuation, even content edits." - I don't understand what you are either saying or else insinuating here. How did ever I make "an ambiguous insinuation of anti-Semitism"?-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jim Wae

First of all, after weeks of back and forth debate with Jim at the time article, I must say it was refreshing to have worked with him at the punishment article, at least for a day. This was before Steve Quinn (in just a few hours) got upset with my critique reverted to an older version, and started the ANI. (Although SQ posted the ANI after I posted the spoken audio file, its likely he started writing the ANI before I posted the audio). Hence I found it not just possible to work with JimWae, but productive also, as several intermediate versions exist wherein he and I are collaborating with each other to improve the article, each of us compromising a little bit here and there.

Jim refers to this as a version of the time article which he feels is strong. I disagree, as it starts off with a dualistic treatment rather than an actual definition. It is these types of introductory passages, and particularly ones which start off with disclaimers or caveats, that I find to be problematic. Though there are fewer and fewer of them to be found, I found these kinds of introductions in various articles within the field of philosophy or in words that have a dual existence as being of exact and variant meaning at the same time (for example, Matter). Such introductions at the least have to start with a treatment of the word itself as the subject, and then move on toward how its meaning varies. Saying in the first sentence that "[subject] has various meanings" is, IMHO, the wrong way to start an article on any subject. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Georgewilliamherbert

At the very least, I appreciate the idea that you can be fair and impartial in ascertaining certain matters regarding the ANI. Clearly we are moving past the ANI, as its 1) all to easy to game the ANI with disgruntled past opponents and its 2) quite a change toward the negative that ANI's can sanction people all the way up to a permanent ban, just on the basis of a casual tally. (Recall a time when Jimbo alone reserved the right to ban people). Hence we must regard Arbcom as a more formal and fair process than ANI can be - one not based in the inuendo and sniping that ANI's can have. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Casliber

I urge arbcom to take the case. The allegations at the incident page linked to above strike at the very heart of what we are supposed to be achieving here, which is a reliably sourced encylopedia, and hence need to be proven or disproven either way. It is not a content dispute but review of editor behaviour. Addendum - to Brad, at either extreme, there is sanctionable behaviour - either a long-standing editor who is undermining reliable sourcing and inserting OR, or some form of hounding or victimisation at the other extreme -and there is a high probability of sanctions of some sort if the evidence points heavily one way or the other. This needs an independent body to adjudicate, and is not merely a matter of conflict resolution. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to GWH

Yes, a consensus decision would be nice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_sanctions, but I can't see it happening looking at the spread of opinion thus far. A community ban would obviously render this request moot, though I think Stevertigo would then make it an appeal I guess. I think a ruling here will be more defintiive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I also ask that the ArbCom take this case. Stevertigo adds original research extensively to articles; indeed I don't think I've seen him do anything else. It's more than just adding personal opinion; it's often nonsense, what another editor called postmodernist babble. It has been going on since at least 2003, and his editing style has not changed in the intervening years. These links give a very accurate flavour of it: here is his version of "Semitism" in February 2003, and here is his description of science in September 2010. He not only adds his own views to articles, often removing reliable sources in favour of it, but when reverted, reverts back, then argues about it for days, sometimes weeks, on talk pages. Community or ArbCom intervention is needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that my support for an ArbCom case doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to see admin action, so long as it was clear and decisive. I believe enough evidence was presented at AN/I in September 2009 and again this month, as well as here on this page, to justify a long, if not indefinite, block. Jim Wae's examples from Time are very typical, as is Stevertigo's creation of Template:Nonce that he wanted to post to the top of articles. If an admin would step up to take action we could avoid a case. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

The community was, at the time this Arbcom request was filed, in the process of sorting out a block, ban, or topic ban. This appears to be an attempt to preempt the community finding.

I don't know if that was the actual intent, but I would like to request that Arbcom at least consider witholding judgement for a bit and let the community decide if we're going to sanction or not. If yes, and if there's an appeal (or if the sanction is seen as insufficient) then Arbcom is the next step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

General reply to several people - Yes, I am still investigating. My call / request for further uninvolved admins to participate in that on ANI seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as I suspect many don't want to get involved in this particular one. But lack of further opinions doesn't invalidate my doing a review. Singular uninvolved admins make such reviews routinely (and normally... other than WP:AE it's almost always singular).

Specific reply to Casliber above - I think it's fair to describe the circumstances non-judgementally as one editor who feels he's being persecuted and appealing away from the community to Arbcom for help, versus a moderate group of active editors who feel he's operating in good faith but disruptively or with other issues, who are in part appealing to Arbcom for help. Both sides are sufficiently aggrieved that they're seeking active responses of one sort or another. I see no middle ground that both sides would agree to in the responses on ANI, Steve's talk page, here, or article talk pages.

This would seem to pretty much make an Arbcom appeal of any admin or community sanction automatic. But there's a difference between "I predict that anything done will be appealed" and "I don't think the community (or admins) should act".

I don't believe Steve filed this with the disruptive intention to preempt any community finding. But that is a side effect of what he asked for here, if taken most expansively. I don't believe that we should respond necessarily by forcing a community resolution of anything that is preemptively taken to Arbcom - in some cases the community is deadlocked, or the case does cry out for direct Arbcom handling to defuse hostile behavior. But I don't believe that's true here, and I don't think we should simply walk away and punt to Arbcom just on Steve's procedural say-so.

I don't believe we're in a situation where no community consensus is possible. Steve Quinn summarized the "voting numbers" results on ANI; reviewing / closing admins are well advised to look beyond "the vote results" in a situation like this, but those do factor in. I pointed out some issues with the raw "voting numbers" in terms of who showed up to comment, prior involvement, etc. Those factors are all in play. But none of them preclude something coming from it.

It appears that Arbcom members who have commented have left the door open for a community response; if they said forcefully that they wanted to take up a case and preempt the community, I would respect that. But I don't think that we're there. I suspect they'll get this all reformatted as an appeal for whatever happens in the next couple of days. But we're not there yet.

If someone has a cogent argument against my finishing a review and doing something, I haven't finished anything yet or done anything yet. I welcome input, even if that input is "No, stand down and let Arbcom take it". But I don't see that input yet, so I am going forwards.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea leaves seem to be shifting to "Arbcom going to accept", I am stepping back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Steve Quinn

The ANI discussion is in the process of sorting out, an appropriate sanction. Hence, I think this discussion is premature. At the same time, (At ANI) Steveritigo appeared to wish to change his methods of editing to be in agreement with guidelines and policies. Now, it seems he has changed his mind again. I implore Stevertigo, to go ahead and make the statement contained on his talk page. It will show people that he is serious about working with people, rather only serving his point of view. I can't speak for other people, but I think this would go a long way for patching things up with the community. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I have to agree with Ken below. This appears to be an attempt to cirumvent the current ANI. And I agree with Georgewilliamherbert that any decision to take this case should be delayed until the current ANI is completed. I would prefer that the community make the decision, and it appears capable of doing so. The proposals for, and support for, a total block have aggreagated into an apparent, weighted, consensus. It is just a question of for how long, at this point. But, it is also a question of allowing the community to follow through. A discussion of this phase should begin to take place, along with some other issues that have not been addressed. That is if the community wishes to address these other issues. In any case, this next phase of the discussion should begin to take place. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

( About this case) It appears that Steveritigo is attempting to take control of this arbritration case as evidenced by striking out (above) confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried. (Please see edit history). In addition, his assertitons have not been confirmed nor backed up. The above dispute resolution is relevant, and within scope here and in the current ANI that is ongoing.

Next, the following statement is evidenced by the current ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing:

At this arbriation hearing - my assertion is that Stevertigo is misrepresenting the obvious causes which brought about the ANI in the first place. By misrepresenting the obvious causes, he misrepresents the support for corrective action by a number of other editors who are actively participating in this ANI discussioin. This support and desire for corrective action is a result of Stevertigo's refusal to embrace editing according Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Stevertigo has a tendency to abruptly insert WP:OR into an article, on any random day. This is then reverted for the original WP:V edit. This is then followed by Stevertigo reverting that edit back to the WP:OR. This usually touches off an edit war. The edit war (slow motion or otherwise) is WP:OR vs. WP:V. The WP:V is supported, and retained by a group of editors. Steveritigo, alone, keeps inserting the WP:OR. This has happened across a good number of articles. Also, the talk pages beome a place where editors can get stuck, as they explain over and over, in different ways that WP:OR cannot be accepted according to guidelines and policies. As the discussion ensues, Stevertigo rationalizes placing his WP:OR into the article again, which again is replaced with WP:V material. This process can go on for weeks. In any case, the evidence for this is at the current ANI. I request the Admins involved with this arbritation case read through the entire Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing. Hence, I request that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing be entered into evidence for this arbritration case. To the admins - please feel free to contact me on my talk page at any time.----- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Also it appears that Stevertigo's general apology is not sincere. It appears to me that he made some sort of apology, while at the same time filing a request for arbritration here. The point is he is misrepresenting the issues here. How can an apology in one venue be sincere, while misrepresnting the issues in another venue? As an aside, one of the overarching issues is that Stevertigo appears to see himself as not accountable to any Wikipedia community. By this I mean seeing himself as not accountable to a small group of editors and not accountable to the community at large. And this has been going on since 2002 by his own admission in the ANI thread (see his opening statement there). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My reccomendation

After re-reading WP:AP, and WP:RFARB/G I reccomend the committee of arbitrators take this case. My reccomendation is based on the fact that the larger community's dispute with Stevertigo has gone on for months and years. Before this ANI, this case appeared to be impossible and interminable. However, the recent ANI appears to have provided a focus to uncover underlying issues and causes. Many users, from over the years, appear to be genuinely frustrated. I look forward to having the issues clarified for the sake of the Community-at-large. Furthermore, I look forward to finally establishing the case's history, from one central group who can become intimate with the facts. In addition, uncovering the details of this case will have many intrinsic benefits. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A personal update

I believe Georgewilliamherbert is still conducting an investigation, even though few uninvolved admins have shown up. I am guessing that he will reach a decision about what the next step is to be. It is just a matter of him responding when he is ready. I think he should be given all the time he needs. There is a weighted consensus, which he acknowledged along with secondary sanctions. Since, I have not had a lot of exprience with ANI's and ArbComs, I have to trust other's experinece in these matters - such as Georgewilliamherbert. Also, personally, I don't see a lot of unfocused activity at the ANI, and I don't see any activity that is hampering the ANI. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

ArbCom should defer to the community discussion at AN/I and avoid validating this endrun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators should also be aware of the potential chilling effect their statements here may have on the AN/I discussion coming to fruition. (Cf. this comment on another, unrelated AN/I sanction discussion) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo has made statements in a number of places indicating that he is intent on this case (and, indeed the discussion at AN/I) being sharply circumscribed to deal only with the Punishment article. I hardly suppose I need to say this, but if ArbCom decides to take this case, I believe they need to look at the editor's behavior overall, and not focus on a specific instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on Stevertigo's comments on the AN/I discussion – where it is quite obvious that he's got an extremely bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and refuses to recognize that what began as a discussion about a single article has become an examination of his overall editing behavior – in which, while there has yet to be a consensus, many editors have suggested that some kind of sanction is necessary, I've changed my mind about this case. I believe that the AN/I discussion is now too convoluted, with too many different suggested courses of action (and too much muddying of the waters by Stevertigo's comments), that it will be very hard for a consensus to be reached anytime soon, especially since there's been little response to Georgewilliamherbert's call for discussion by univiolved admins; so, given all that, I now feel that the best course of action will be for a more focused inquiry to look into the problem. I therefore reverse course and urge ArbCom to take this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Tarc's analysis, below, is the nub of the matter; I made a similar observation in my first comment in the AN/I discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Slrubenstein

I am not sure on what grounds ArbCom can take the case, unless we promote WP:DE to an enforcable policy (which, by the way, I am ALL in favor of). Stevertigo seldom stoops to personal attacks. I remember one case where there was an ambiguous insinuation of anti-Semitism by him, but the key words are ambiguous and insinuate. Virtually everything Stevertigo does is ambiguous and insinuation, even content edits. I believe he consistently violates NPOV, V, and NOR, but I am not sure what ArbCom's brief is regarding these "content" policies.

There is an overwhelming consensus at AN/I that there is something really wrong with the way Stevertigo edits; the only dispute is what is the remedy. And a sizable majority want an indef. block. I interpret Stevertigo coming here as an endrun against AN/I

Based on his statement above, it seems like his main defense is that he has been dcrewing around with WP since 2002 so that makes it alright. I find this pretty funny, because at AN/I when I provided evidence of his screwing around at WP since 2002, his response was "that was before the Iraq war" meaning that was so long ago it shouldn't count. So which is it? That he has been screwing around since 2002 excuses his behavior? Or his behavior from 2002, 2003, 2004 shouldn't count because it is so long ago? The fact that he takes two mutually contradictory stances here and at AN/I is absolutely typical of his manor of interacting with other editors. First he says one thing, and when you point out what is wrong, he says the complete opposite. Trying to have an intelligent conversation with him is like trying to wash your face with marshmallow fluff. I have never seen him edit in a collaborative way; I have never seen him do source-based research (that is to say, "research," aside from quoting the dictionary or other WP articles), I have never seen him make a lasting contribution to any article. In most cases whatever edits he makes just requires knowledgable and well-informed editors to do some rewrite later on.

Stevertigo's MO is this: he makes a bizarre edit which I can only interpret as pushing his own point of view, which vaguely has something to do with Chritianity or some neo-Christian religion bobbing around in the liquidy parts of his brain, and that only he understands. When well-informed people explain why he is wrong, he starts mimicking them on the talk page, which gives the impression to any newcomer that he knows what he is talking about. Once everyone is on to his game, he switches to another article where no one is prepared for him. Thus - as he accurately says he has been doing - he has used WP as his own little blog since 2002.

I personally do not think this is an appropriate use of WP which is why I would like to see the community support for a ban enforced. If ArbCom wants to take the case, well, okay, just be prepared to hunt for a needle in a cistern full of marshmalloow fluff. If you are fortunate, LONG before you find the needle, you will realize that the problem is not the needle but all that marshmallow fluff! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

One of "your" shortcuts? Excuse me? You own it? Should I pay a fee for using it? I thought no one owned anything at WP (except arguably their user pages). What else at WP belongs to you? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JimWae

If I understand Stevertigo's request correctly, he is accusing me of harrassing/wiki-hounding him. I will acknowledge that I did check his edit history - after having to call for a topic RFC for his inserting content such as the following as the very first sentence in the Time article:

Time is the concept of the underlying physical mechanisms that macroscopically transform reality —in accord with dimensional constraints and orthographies at the smallest scales —such that the state of the present is realized directly from past states, and the future can be pictured by projection.

and

Time is a physical process and non-spatial dimension in which reality is macroscopically transformed in continuity from the past through the present and on to the future.[1] NB: the [1] had no such content

After getting nowhere with Stevertigo on Talk:Time where he tried to justify such outrageous edits and objected to using sources (which he still does), I think any conscientious editor would check the edit history of another editor who inserts such outrageous & mostly unintelligible original research content as the first sentence of articles. I then put an {{OR-section}} tag on Time in physics for his insertion into it as the very first sentence:

Time is a real phenomenon it and therefore has a basis in physical laws. However its full workings remain mysterious and not all understood (likely holographic and computational in nature), and though time is a key aspect within the study of physics and physical interactions, it has generally been treated as a single dimension within the geometry of a physical space, or else a transactional property that acts upon a physical object.

Please keep in mind that the above edits by Steve were all marked as minor, as he marked everything then. My editing of Punishment came about because that article was already on my watchlist. Punishment is a topic I studied in several Philosophy of Education classes and I have had several books that deal with it on my bookshelf for over 30 years now

Steve has commented several times that he thinks he won & I lost a debate at Time. Nothing Steve proposed was kept. I never proposed that the lede was perfect as it was. In fact, the lede was probably better in some respects (more concise, less redundant, and quite balanced) before changes were made in 2007 to accomodate Stevertigo's objections (now lost in the archives) going back several years. Other editors have already objected to Steve's characterization of the exchange as a win for Steve. I see his request here as a way to dilute the ongoing discussion about his behaviour. --JimWae (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement of uninvolved 67.119.2.101

Arbcom should accept, for reasons given by Casliber, and also per Newyorkbrad's observation that an ANI ban would be appealed here anyway. Georgewilliamherbert's remarks in the ANI thread's uninvolved admin section are also cogent. ANI is not doing a good job handling this so far. Its timescale is too compressed, and it has too little formal structure, for the type of evidence-gathering and presentation needed to get a trustworthy outcome in a dispute like this. The criticism of Stevertigo is coming mostly from those who had past disputes with him or are having them now, and Steve Quinn in my opinion is (in good faith) being a little too aggressive in shaping the discussion. And for whatever reasons, Stevertigo is doing an utterly inept job of defending himself. So there is something of a pile-on by ANI onlookers looking mostly at the arguments of the critics, resulting in an unusually bloodthirsty crowd (compare this to threads about various far more disruptive editors than Stevertigo, who are at ANI repeatedly but have enough supporters to still be left running around loose). I've tried investigating Stevertigo's editing and the past DR a little more neutrally,[1][2] but that kind of thing is quite time-consuming, so the slower pace of an arb case evidence page is much better suited for such examination.

The most convincing argument for a long-term site ban is Slrubenstein's:

... But if we let him go this time, in a few [m]onths he will settle on some other article - maybe he will come up with his own theory about the etymology for Yom Kippur. Now, how many of you have this article on your watchlist? How many of you will notice it? Probably me and just a few others. And we will bring it up at AN/I and a different group of admins will read over the account of the conflict and say "Well, this seems mild, let's give him another chance." Folks, we have a policy against disruptive editors. Let's use it here.[3]

We've all seen that happen before with other problematic editors. The advantage of arbitration is it allows compiling all the documentation of such repeated disruption into one place. Arbcom can then weigh the evidence and claims and enact appropriate remedies. This is much harder at ANI.

I confess to a sentiment that it's unseemly to boot someone who was around so early in Wikipedia's history through a comparatively sparse ANI thread. There aren't that many of those editors still around (there weren't that many active in those days to begin with). I'd regret losing that much more of Wikipedia's cultural memory, so I think this case is worth a little more trouble than some others are. Stevertigo is under some arb restrictions from the Obama case and as far as I know hasn't run afoul of them (although that's by staying away from the affected articles, so the restrictions may have just moved his antics rather than cured them). He has edited 800+ distinct articles since the amended Obama restrictions in August 2009, and AFAIK the problem editing is in a relative handful of those.

I do believe Stevertigo's heart is with the project even if his editing practices are sometimes in cloud-cuckoo-land. I could never say that of various other editors who have somehow survived these processes and are still busily messing up the encyclopedia. Maybe Slrubenstein is right and Stevertigo really is hopeless, but absent a more formal assessment, I like to think it possible for Stevertigo to continue to participate at some level−through some combination of counselling from arbcom, mentorship from another editor (Maunus has volunteered), editing restrictions, probation, general purpose LART, or whatever.

67.119.2.101 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Proxied per request. AGK 23:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ucucha

I am somewhat involved here, as I interacted with Stevertigo on the Human article, which spilled over to my talk page (User talk:Ucucha/Archive22#Human). There are problems with his editing even without his idiocyncratic stances on many content issues: misuse of sources (for example, ref. 1 in [4]) and unfounded accusations (see the linked thread on my talk page).

Something should be done about these problems. The most desirable outcome is that Stevertigo takes the concerns on board and avoids these problems in the future. I'm afraid I can't see that as likely, given that this same problem has been going on for years. Perhaps some consensus for action can be distilled out of the ANI thread; if not, an arbitration case will be necessary. Ucucha 02:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

The crux of the matter here is that we have an "old hand" who is still operating in a Wikipedia-in-2003 mindset. WP:OWN is for article-space disagreements; this is like a meta-ownership problem, where Steve thinks that having a hand in creating some of the present-day Wikipedia structures somehow allows him greater latitude to do what he wants to. It is evident right here in this case request("you're using one of my shortcuts, BTW"), the "I've been an editor for 8 years" bit on the current AN/I, and at last year's Obama article case, the "I invented ArbCom" defense. And if you think the warring over the naming of this case above was an isolated incident, refer back to the Obama arbcom and this section, where Steve was asked several times to stop replying within other users' sections and essentially refused. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I closed the ANI thread as "no action" without prejudice. It seems like arbitration would be a more productive venue for discussing the voluminous evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: discussion has resumed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2010. An administrator seems willing to place a 4 month ban followed by 1RR restriction. Jehochman ^Talk 07:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My review of the evidence left me with an impression that some participants have confused copy editing and summarizing with original research. For instance, this diff was cited as adding original research, but it looks much more like routine copy editing, and may actually have been an improvement to the article. In addition, it looked like at least one or two participants in the discussion were carrying on past disputes. I'm not saying that all the accusations were false, just that they bear closer scrutiny before we run a long tenured contributor out of town. WP:ANI is particularly bad at resolving nuanced cases or those involving lengthy evidence. There is too much risk that unobjective, damning statements from early participants may result in a pile of drive-by comments by editors who have not dug through the diffs themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved roux

Reagrding Steve's comment

"The current issue is between Steve Quinn, JimWae and I (Stevertigo). Hence citing old RFC's from 2009 and even 2005 is improper and out of the scope of the current issues. Attempts to generalize the current issues to criticisms of personal character, or to matters ancient are unjustified.-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 7:57 pm, 24 September 2010, last Friday (5 days ago) (UTC−4)"

Wrong. The issue is Stevertigo's editing behaviour for eight years. His attempts to frame it to a narrow scope are yet more wikilawyering. → ROUX ₪ 07:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional developments

Community edit restriction on Stevertigo

I have just closed the ANI subpage and enacted the lowest common denominator consensus community proposed edit restriction - an indefinite 1RR / week / article edit restriction on Stevertigo. There was essentially universal support for that edit restriction in the discussion.

Diff here including archiving the main discussion subpage.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)