Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:08, 2 September 2009

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by SarekOfVulcan

194x has edited disruptively on talkpages

As an IP editor, 194x insisted on placing text on Talk:DreamHost regarding how the page had scared him off from using DH's services, despite being reverted multiple times by editors on both sides of the dispute.

• first edit: reverted by Theserialcomma without comment.
• second edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "BTW if anybody goes ahead and deletes this section of mine again then you'll have a new warrior stepping upto the plate to participate in this little discussion of yours.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
• third edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "Feel free to remove this section and my remarks AGAIN which sparked this whole auto archiving discussion in the first place, I'll just put them right back up and then some.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
• next edit: included "archiving ... is an attempt to bury the evidence by the same people who have so far put a great deal of energy into making the entire article about Dreamhost seem like one big 'Ahhh all normal'."
• next edit: included "Oh do not attempt to act like you're just being an honest wikipedian out to improve the online encyclopedia.", reverted by Scjessey for soapboxing
• next edit: restored third edit, reverted by me for discussing subject rather than article.
• next edit: restored deleted comments, reverted by Theserialcomma.
• next edit: restored deleted comments, reverted in two chunks by Onorem for discussing subject and me for personal attacks. After a bit more of this, I semi-protected the talk page.

Later on, right after full protection on the article had expired, he stated "This article is not protected so anyone is free to edit it at his own discretion.... I won't allow this article to be turned into a nice free biased advertisement for dreamhost." Shortly after this comment, PhilKnight re-protected the article.

Recently, 194x advised me that 'it's also really welcoming to tell a newcomer on his 50th edit to "shut up"' The "newcomer" in question had made their first edit on July 26, 2008, and the edit to which I was responding was their 99th.

194x has engaged in personal attacks

On his talkpage, he told me and FisherQueen "you are the two most incompetent and insane admins that I know of on this site"

On his userpage, after a dispute, he stated: "I'm like engaged in this edit dispute with these total fucking morons over on the Bobby Fischer article and those fucking losers well they're obviously chess people and well how did they become this way? Perhaps Chess is dangerous and damaging"

Evidence presented by Scjessey

194x has disrupted the project

My evidence is related to 194's involvement with DreamHost, as I have not encountered this editor elsewhere. The following diffs (presented in date order), demonstrate 194's disruption with respect to the DreamHost article, and include examples of edit warring, tendentious editing and personal attacks. Note that the editor began with the IP 194.144.90.118, and then switched to the username referred to in this case:

• April 13, 2009 - Anonymous IP "194.144.90.118" leaves a bizarre talk page message about being "scared" to use the DreamHost service. The comment was removed by Theserialcomma, reposted by the IP, removed as soap boxing by Dayewalker, reposted (with mild threat added)... continues for a while, then forks into an existing argument about how auto archiving was setup to "bury evidence".
• April 15, 2009 - Makes a series of bad faith accusations and disparages the subject of the article.
• April 15, 2009 - Restores soap boxing again, and again, and again, and again (labels it "vandalism").
• April 18, 2009 - More assumptions of bad faith, COI accusations.

At this point, the talk page was semi-protected to prevent 194's disruption from continuing. The anonymous IP "194.144.90.118" gets around this by registering an account in the name of 194x144x90x118.

• April 30, 2009 - Now as a registered user, 194 makes bad faith assumptions and claims of COI, launches personal attack against an involved administrator.
• April 30, 2009 - Restores the rant, and again
• May 3, 2009 - "Demands" that I should be permanently blocked with rant full of baseless accusations and mock outrage.
• May 3, 2009 - Bizarre accusations, personal attacks.
• May 7, 2009 - Begins supporting inclusion of non-neutral information proposed by an SPA.
• May 10, 2009 - Makes more bad faith accusations, calls for the article to be deleted.
• May 11, 2009 - Again calls for article to be deleted.
• May 12, 2009 - Opposes proposal to shorten section that has WP:WEIGHT concerns.
• May 14, 2009 - Claims consensus for shorter talk page archive time is "bullying".
• May 14, 2009 - Increases auto archiving interval to 90 days, ignoring consensus and opinion of informal mediator.
• May 14, 2009 - Edit wars the auto archiving interval.
• May 19, 2009 - Accuses editors of wishing to turn the article into an advertisement, declares intention to edit war (which results in article protection being extended by the informal mediator).
• May 19, 2009 - Personal attacks, threatens involved administrator.
• May 21, 2009 - Continues to edit war the auto archiving interval, then declares the matter "closed".
• May 23, 2009 - Continues to edit war the auto archiving interval.
• May 24, 2009 - Accuses me of "personal attacks" because I identified an editor as an WP:SPA.
• May 24, 2009 - Takes argument to my talk page, calls for me to receive a permanent block.
• May 25, 2009 - Restores comments and attacks on my talk page.
• June 9, 2009 - Opposes proposed edit.
• June 10, 2009 - Makes accusations and subtle threat to involved admin.
• June 18, 2009 - Seeks "a collaboration" to get the DreamHost article deleted.
• June 27, 2009 - Opposes another proposed change, claiming "advertising".
• June 27, 2009 - Continues to suggest other editors want the article to look like an advertisement.
• June 28, 2009 - Continues to edit war the auto archiving interval.
• June 28, 2009 - Continues to edit war the auto archiving interval and reverts the actions of the archiving bot (borking the archive).
• June 29, 2009 - Continues to edit war the auto archiving interval and reverts the actions of the archiving bot.
• June 29, 2009 - Claims consensus for archiving settings (only an SPA agrees).
• June 29, 2009 - Falsely claims consensus, invents policy, accusations of disruption.
• June 29, 2009 - Continues to edit war auto archiving.
• June 29, 2009 - Threatens other editors.
• June 29, 2009 - False claims, accusations, demands for editors to be restricted.
• June 29, 2009 - Accuses other editors of "bot abuse". Another threat of "consequences".
• June 30, 2009 - First edit to article is to continue an edit war over "badge of shame" tags being waged by another editor.
• July 2, 2009 - Accuses me of bad faith editing, claims I am trying to include "advertising material".
• July 3, 2009 - Proposes article be locked until ArbCom "rids this article" of editors he disagrees with.
• July 3, 2009 - More personal attacks.
• July 8, 2009 - Edit wars article issues tags again.
• July 8, 2009 - Claims of COI against 2 editors.
• July 8, 2009 - Edit wars the "badge of shame" tags again.
• July 8, 2009 - More bad faith accusations, suggests uninvolved editors are "pro DreamHost" too.
• July 12, 2009 - Expects editors to assume IP spammers are editing in good faith.
• July 13, 2009 - Hypocrisy.
• July 13, 2009 - Again argues for a 90-day auto archiving period.
• July 14, 2009 - Another "I don't like it" based content proposal objection with no reason.
• July 19, 2009 - Another objection not based on policy.
• July 19, 2009 - Reverts article improvements with "no consensus" summary, no talk page discussion.
• July 20, 2009 - Responds to pleas to not revert with threats.
• July 20, 2009 - Incivility. Doesn't want to hear any "crap" about policy.
• July 20, 2009 - Goading with inappropriate sarcasm.
• July 20, 2009 - Goading administrators into performing a block, presumably for some sort of moral victory???
• August 3, 2009 - Threatens to "initiate a procedure that will lead to further editing restrictions being levied upon " because I made some content proposals.
• August 3, 2009 - Reverts article edit without explanation. And again, and again, and again.
• August 3, 2009 - Responds to standard 3RR warning with message "stuff it."
• August 3, 2009 - Performs same reverts again (as one edit) but adds edit summary threat of "last chance".
• August 6, 2009 - Responds to editing advice from the informal mediator (also an admin) with "rejected", and links to a diff explaining why.

Please note that some of the earlier diffs listed here duplicate those noted in the statement made by SarekOfVulcan. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to additional evidence presented by 194x

The "evidence" presented by 194x obviously deserves some sort of response. The bulk of it consists of statements I have made over an extended period of time that have been mischaracterized as personal attacks by 194. Many of these were responses to goading by 194, but some were responses to a known sock puppeteer who has waged a years-long personal vendetta against me (both on an off Misplaced Pages). These events culminated in me being briefly blocked. Since then, I have reformed my approach and adopted a less confrontational stance that relies on painstaking consensus-building, reasonable discourse and assumptions of good faith. Any and all accusations of bad faith and disruption on my part, following these events, are without merit. 194 also brings up a years-old claim of meat puppetry against me, which has nothing whatsoever to do with either this case or 194. I have already responded to this claim here, and I believe there is no need for me to say more on that matter.

I would also like to note that if 194 has a problem with my conduct, why has no effort been made to seek a resolution in the proper manner? I have received no notifications about Wikiquette alerts, Requests for Comment about my conduct, or even a thread on WP:ANI. In fact, there has been no attempt at dispute resolution of any kind. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sjakkalle

Disruption on Bobby Fischer and other chess related articles

Loci of the disputes

There are two separate underlying disputes, the first concerns Fischer's anti-semitism, in particular this paragraph in the Bobby Fischer article:

Fischer's library contained anti-Semitic and white supremacist literature such as Mein Kampf, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and The White Man's Bible and Nature's Eternal Religion by Ben Klassen, founder of the Church of the Creator. A notebook written by Fischer is filled with sentiments such as "8/24/99 Death to the Jews. Just kill the Motherfuckers!" and "12/13/99 It's time to start randomly killing Jews."

The paragraph is sourced to David and Alessandra DeLucia, The Uncensored Bobby Fischer, 2009. 194x144x90x118 objected to including the paragraph in the article. In and of itself this is not inappropriate behavior, although I disagree with it. However, the dispute included edit warring, personal attacks/incivility, and intimidation.

The second dispute concerns Bobby Fischer's claims and entitlements to the World Chess Championship, which generally is listed as lasting between 1972 when Fischer won the title from Boris Spassky, and 1975 when Fischer didn't accept the conditions of a match against challenger Anatoly Karpov, and forfeited the title. 194x144x90x118 has disputed the fact that Fischer's reign lasted from 1972 to 1975, and argued for his reign to last from 1972 until Fischer's death in 2008. Most reliable sources, as well as strong consensus on the chess WikiProject, is that Fischer's claim to the title from 1975 onwards is a WP:FRINGE view.

Edit warring

194x144x90x118 has removed the paragraph he objected to six times:

• 22:09 June 15
• 07:28 June 16
• 10:37 June 17
• 15:58 June 17
• 20:04 June 17
• 12:53 June 18

These edits were reverted by four separate users, Krakatoa (1st, 4th, and 5th diffs); Quale (2nd); Brittle heaven (3rd); and Philcha (6th).

Personal attacks

• 20:20 June 17. On his own talkpage a section entitled "Chess makes you stupid", where he refers to his opponents in his dispute as "ignorant", "total fucking morons", and "fucking losers".

Intimidation

• 10:58 June 18. Threatens User:Krakatoa to "Withdraw your support for your own edit on the bobby fischer article and never show yourself anywhere near it again.", or else face scrutiny of his work on Misplaced Pages.
• 12:56 June 18 Further intimidation against Krakatoa

Pushing a WP:FRINGE view

• 20:27 June 25 Objects to the Anatoly Karpov article calling him undisputed World Champion for 10 years, because Bobby Fischer claimed that he was still World Champion after FIDE (the international chess federation which organizes the World Championship) forfeited Fischer for refusal to play and declared Karpov world champion.
• 00:39 July 16. In spite of the strong consensus against it, 194x144x90x118 asserts as a fact in the World Chess Championship article that Bobby Fischer is classical World Champion until 2008. This July 16 edit is, at the very least, clearly against the consensus established at the Anatoly Karpov talkpage, and pushing a WP:FRINGE view in violation of the NPOV policy and undue weight. I would in fact go further and characterize the edit as outright misinformation.

In the talk page section, 194x144x90x118 has no support for his view, and users Krakatoa, Bubba73, Quale, Brittle heaven, and BashBrannigan are all opposed to it.

Icelandic nationalist POV-pushing

Apart from the DreamHost and Bobby Fischer disputes, 194x144x90x118 dived into a third dispute on July 27 regarding the European Union and Iceland.

Soapboxing

The first edits 194x144x90x118 entered the dispute with are two soapbox postings on the talkpages of Denmark and European Union

• 01:41 July 27 Posts on Denmark's talkpage about wanting to cover the "Danish abuse of Icelanders and Denmarks betrayal in joining the european union"
• 01:49 July 27 Posts on the European Union talkpage anti-EU rant: "The EU is simply disgusting and if Iceland joins it then I will renounce my Icelandic citizenship. The filthy greedy EU it wants our souls and the blood from our veins but it's not going to get it without a fight"

Both edits were reverted, and he was warned by User:Saddhiyama. A third soapbox posting on the European Union is:

• 13:56 August 2 "The people of Iceland will CRUSH!!! the pathetic European Union and end its nonsense once and for all."

Pushing for a criticism section

• 11:09 July 28 Request for a criticism section in light of the "negative nature" of the European Union. Calls the current article a "whitewash". The talk page section shows no support for 194x144x90x118 demand of a criticism section. Users Arnoutf, Sjakkalle (myself), TastyCakes, TFOWR, Boson, Blue-Haired Lawyer, Redking, JLogan, SSJ, and Ijanderson977 all oppose. Among the factors pointed out is that an FAQ for the EU-article already answers why consensus is against including a criticism section for this article.
• 21:27 July 28 Edits the FAQ to justify bringing up the topic of a criticism section again.
• 10:59 July 29 Second edit to FAQ to pave way for a criticism section.
• 17:50 July 29 Third edit to FAQ to pave way for a criticism section.
• 00:24 July 30 Fourth edit to FAQ to pave way for a criticism section.

The latter edits to the FAQ are in spite of a consensus not to make such alterations at the associated project-talkpage Misplaced Pages talk:European Union Frequently asked questions#Major changes?.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks still taking place

• 01:29 August 21, posted on his talkpage. Consists of more unfounded accusations, personal attacks and incivility against a mulitude of users.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

194x refuses to acknowledge concerns over his behavior

• 23:44 May 3 Responds to Dayewalker's warning about personal attacks by saying that Scjessey made personal attacks, instead of addressing his own behavior.
• 16:22 May 25 Responds warnings regarding a "disclaimer" on his talkpage, by calling Fisherqueen and SarekOfVulcan "the two most incompetent and insane admins that I know of on this site".
  • 18:30 July 4 194x insists that the above was not an attack.
• 09:26 June 30 Responds to a notice on the first arbitration request with "you're a goner"
• 23:10 August 2 Responds to a concern by PhilKnight by pulling out a link of places where he thinks Scjessey has acted inappropriately.
• 23:00 August 6 Rejects advise to edit in a consensus building manner, apparently due to some perceived slight.
• 13:34 August 11 Responds to this very Arbitration request by levying accusations of impropriety by Erik9 and myself based on usernames, and Fisherqueen.

Regarding my RFC and RFAr activities

The RFC and RFAr notices were not inappropriate

Regarding the alleged canvassing of the RFC and this RFAr, I will acknowledge that I informed users Krakatoa and Quale about both of them

• 08:42 July 21 posting on Krakatoa's talkpage concerning RFC.
• 08:42 July 21 posting on Quale's talkpage concerning RFC.
• 07:29 August 8 posting on Krakatoa's talkpage concerning arbitration.
• 07:31 August 8 posting on Quale's talkpage concerning arbitration.

It is my position that these notices were well within the bounds of the Misplaced Pages:Canvassing guideline.

• The wording in both the RFC and RFAr notices were neutral.
• Both editors had a legitimate interest in the dispute resolution process regarding 194x, having both been involved in disputes with him.
• RFCs and Arbitration cases are not decided by "votes", so the votestacking side is moot. (Although I will acknowledge that Krakatoa, Quale, and myself hold favorable opinions of each other although we have had amicable disagreements on certain issues.)
• Both postings were made onwiki, with full transparency.

My posting on Bobby Fischer RFC was combative, but was a comment on 194x's editing

194x has alleged that I made a personal attack on the Bobby Fischer RFC. I have made two posts there, and it is

• 09:08 July 17 this diff

which is clearly one my most combative posts I have ever posted on Misplaced Pages, where I referred to 194x as an "extreme pro-Fischer person", and accused him of "blatant POV pushing". I posted this in exasperation over

• 00:39 July 16 Bobby Fischer World Champion to 2008 edit.

That edit was the turning point which convinced me that 194x was not merely a good faith editor with strong views, prone to incivility like

• 20:20 June 17 this one,

but someone actively pushing to skew the Bobby Fischer coverage away from a NPOV, and that the entire Bobby Fischer RFC, initiated by 194x and entitled "Does the Krakatoa edit regarding Fischer's library have undue weight concerns?" was a waste of time, and where the "undue weight" concern was a rather hypocritical title, when 194x wanted to give equal weight to Fischer's claim to the world championship until 2008.

I do feel that my comment is on his activity on Bobby Fischer related articles, and not a personal attack, but I do regret the combative tone of my posting. I will also acknowledge that users SunCreator and Elmmapleoakpine expressed sympathy for 194x's view concerning the library early on in the RFC, before the relevance of the source cited became clear. I did not properly note that in my cited posting where I said "no support". (SunCreator is a productive editor and contributor to the chess articles, I recall no interactions with Elmmapleoakpine.)

Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have exercised total restraint from using admin powers during the dispute

In the August 21 diff, 194x says that I have gone on a rampage, and that I have a determination to strike back at him, evidence of "Serious administration issues".

I submit that I have not used my tools as administrator whatsoever in regards to this dispute. Indeed, I have twice stated that I would not use them here:

• 12:43 June 19 Posted on Krakatoa's talkpage, where I state that 194x's behavior is en route towards a ban, but that I won't use them to prevent any appearance of impropriety.
• 06:28 July 21 In my view on 194x's RFC, I reiterate my view that the behavior will lead to a ban at some point, but I state very clearly that as a clearly involved administrator, I will not be implementing any such ban.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {194x144x90x118}

I've been struck down with the swineflue for the time being and I never really had much of an urge to spend alot of time digging up diffs and participating in this sham.

If anyone is interested in reading something regarding my position regarding this matter then they can take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:194x144x90x118#Finding_it .

I also want to state that these two Oneand Twoimproprieties are not the least bit surprising.

As for what I would like to see done regarding matters is the following.

Sjakalle: I would appreciate it if the arbitration committee simply told the dude to relax, there has been no harm done really but it would be preferable if his obsession over me were to end.

Dayewalker: While he is an opposing side of mine on the Dreamhost article he has been within most limits regarding his editing of that article. However his wikistalking of me isn't really something that I think is appropriate and I ask that the committee attempt to put an end to that matter.

Scjessey: Is already under editing restrictions regarding the Obama related articles and I can't see it as appropriate in light of his history of editing that he be allowed to continue in editing the Dreamhost article, I therefor ask that he be indefinantly topic blocked from that article. 20 months of disruptive behavior, edits on request, attempted recruitment of meatpuppets isn't that quite enough?

Sarekofvulcan: Is a[REDACTED] administrator that's crusading for inclusion of advertisement material in the dreamhost article and has abused his admin status for the benefit of his beloved company. His conduct regarding the article probably isn't anywhere near as severe as user Scjessey's is so a topic ban probably isn't in order but an administrator that so coldbloodedly abused his status shouldn't have access to the admin tools.

Jehocman: I am not too familiar with this administrator in general but the Sock accusations that he made towards me and the threats that he made towards Judas278 lead me to believe that there is something lacking. I ask that the arbitration committee plead with this user to provide the apology to Judas278 that I previously asked him to give.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

11:06, 11 March 2009 Innapropriate sock claims "I believe the disgruntled drive-by tagger is probably a sock, since the account has a single purpose with a limited history, yet seems able to wikilawyer adeptly."

00:27, 3 April Personal attack by Scjessey "Have you no interested in edititing anything else on Wikipeda, other than this crusade of hate?"

16:31, 4 April 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Why don't you go and learn the rules and then come back and try to be a productive Wikipedian, rather than a disruptive SPA?"

20:31, 5 April 2009 "You are being deliberately obtuse and tendentious because you have a grudge against the company. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss this with you, because you have the red mist of DreamHost rage in your eyes" Personal attack by Scjessey.

01:02, 7 April 2009 Scjessey personal attack "You don't make good faith edits. All your edits are in bad faith, because your sole reason for editing here is to discredit DreamHost"

01:58, 7 April 2009 "Misplaced Pages is not your personal playground of hate."

02:29, 9 April 2009 "Also, since you are just a DreamHost-hating SPA, your "challenge" is essentially meaningless."

02:04, 4 May 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Sometimes the senseless outnumber the sensible - that's probably how Bush managed to twice get elected."

02:30, 4 May 2009 "I regard you very much as part of a coalition of the foolish,"

03:59, 20 April 2009 Personal attacks "You are way off base here. Your edits have the sole effect of attacking the company, whereas my edits are for the benefit of the Misplaced Pages project. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who has the conflict of interest."

04:14, 20 April 2009 Threats and personal attacks "If this were any other article I edit on, you would have been blocked long ago for being a disruptive SPA. You have escaped this long only because this is a low-trafficked, low-importance article. Now please stop your misrepresentations."

21:01, 27 May 2009 Personal attacks "If the banhammer doesn't fall upon you, I will simply be ignoring you from now on."

All of this can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:DreamHost&oldid=299280215 .

Further more I ask that the comittee take a look at the discussion that took place at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:DreamHost/Archive_1 but it shows that Scjessey attempted to recruit meatpuppets to the article and has been causing a disruption regarding it for a very long time.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've sorta recovered from the swineflue and I would appreciate more time to digg up diffs regarding these matters, the idea of mentoring doesn't sound like a bad one to me at all.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by GTBacchus

I've had very little to do with this. As I'll detail below, I gave a warning, some advice, and an assurance to 194x144x90x118 (whom it seems this case is primarily about). Later, he approached me to make good on that assurance. I should know better than to promise things on Misplaced Pages when I can't guarantee my availability to personally back up what I said. Life sometimes keeps me pretty busy offline. I accept responsibility for that, and for making claims that I was not available to back up.

194x144x90x118 has behaved combatively and uncivilly

The personal attacks of June are already anatomized in detail above. The section in question is User talk:194x144x90x118#Chess makes you stupid. I warned him, primarily for the opening post of that thread, here and here.

In particular, I told him, "The point is to be the editor who is discussion-oriented, collaboration-oriented, and the first to stop reverting when you realize there's a dispute." I haven't followed the dispute (or any dispute in which this editor has been involved) since then, but I'm confident that we wouldn't be here if he had taken that bit of advice to heart.

A good bit later, this editor approached me on my talk page. At first, I was confused by his posting, but we figured out what was going on. The relevant threads are User talk:GTBacchus#The fischer talkpage and User talk:194x144x90x118#Block me till I love you. He complained about disputes with other editors, and I pointed out that (a) Flagrant personal attacks are rather different from editing disputes in which each party accuses the other of ignoring important arguments, and (b) these content issues are ones he can deal with himself if he simply takes the advice I gave him in the first place.

By the time we got that far into the conversation, this case had already been filed, and here we are. I haven't seen any evidence that 194 understood or cared for my advice, but I can understand if he doesn't have much time for my ideas, when I didn't have much time for him.

Other editors have treated 194x144x90x118 combatively and uncivilly

When 194x144x90x118 approached me, he complained about 3 particular edits, made by Quale, Sjakkalle and Loosmark, none of whom is listed as being involved in this case. That seems curious.

I agree that the first two diffs about which he complained were uncivil. Nobody called him a "fucking moron", but those posts remain unhelpful, and unlikely to lead anywhere worth going. The third was Loosmark removing 194's post from his talk page. While that's not particularly helpful or friendly, it doesn't seem to me to be out of bounds. It seems to me to be an attempt at disengagement, which is better than reacting in anger or frustration.

I see that Sjakkalle has presented evidence, so I guess he's involved after all. I think it's great that he agrees that he's been combative in this matter. I like to think that our admins model best dispute resolution practices, but I know that in practice... that happens on lucky days. Sjakkalle acknowledges that he acted in frustration.

Sjakkalle: we all get to that point sometimes. Keep reminding yourself about best practices; it's all any of us can do. Soliciting neutral outside input regarding content is always better than talking about the other editor personally. If you keep your eyes on the prize and encourage others to do the same, the personal qualities of others can be made irrelevant, as they ought to be.

This is really all I know. I think it's a darn shame that this case is open, because it shows that our editors have failed to resolve the conflict by simply treating each other decently and working our best dispute resolution practices. I would recommend mentoring for 194, if he agrees to it. In such a situation, whoever is helping 194 would be in a position to monitor the behavior of other editors towards him. That would provide an opportunity to address everyone's behavior in real-time, which is much more effective than dissecting it months later.

Note to arbitrators

I recommended in my initial comments that everyone's behavior be examined. While I'm not intimately (or in any way) familiar with the content disputes in question, I'm certain that it takes (at least) two to tango. I don't know who has dropped the ball when. Anything more I can say would just be repetition of what's written at my rambling essay: User:GTBacchus/Dealing with conflict. Therefore, I'll leave it at that, and wish you all a good day. -GTBacchus 22:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional note

User:Sjakkalle left a note on my talk page after I posted the above. He argued there that mentoring is unlikely to succeed, on account of 194x not recognizing that his behavior has been "intolerable". I'm not going to change my statements here, nor will I engage in any blame game. I believe that assigning blame is one of the more useless activities our species engages in, and I'm not going to spend my time here arguing that point. I believe what I believe; if anyone wants me to talk philosophy with them, they have to buy me beer.

Obviously, nobody can mentor someone who won't be mentored. If 194x realizes that he'll be banned if he doesn't accept mentoring, then he'll either accept mentoring, or he'll be banned. If he doesn't accept mentoring, we'll hear that from him, and not from Sjakkalle. I never said mentoring was likely to happen, just that I recommend it.

If anyone thinks I'm "blaming" them for anything that some other editor did, I would simply emphasize that, No, I'm Not. I don't blame anyone for anything, ever. The concept is not part of my universe, because I believe that it is damaging and stupid. Again, if you want more, you're buying the beer.

To clarify, since I did say above that "it takes two to tango": This is not an assignment of blame. This is simply an observation that, when best DR practices are employed skillfully, we don't end up here. Nobody is being held morally culpable for doing what everyone here has done: namely, the best they've had to offer, in each particular time and context. You're all good people, doing your best to make this project succeed, and nobody will convince me otherwise.

My recommendations stand, subject (of course) to the willingness of the parties involved. I was asked to provide input here, on a case that I know next to nothing about, and I did so. Thank you for listening. -GTBacchus 13:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)amended, 14:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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

1. DeLucia 2009, pp. 290, 292.