Revision as of 02:26, 25 September 2010

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Stevertigo 2

Originally titled "Stevertigo." Changed to "Stevertigo 2" and then to "Punishment" by filing party.

Restored to "Stevertigo 2", which is neutral and descriptive, whereas "Punishment" is POV Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is "Punishment" POV? And how exactly is this of your concern? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(Changed back to Stevertigo 2) pls don't change the title, as it's being linked to elsewhere; the Arbs or clerks will change it if they want to. - SlimVirgin

Initiated by Stevertigo (t | log | c) at 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JimWae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Various others from previous conflicts have expressed themselves as the ANI (link below)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Stevertigo (August 2005)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo (October 2005)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (August 2009)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo (September 2009)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing; see in particular Proposed sanctions, (September 2010)

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) 23:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

A note on the name change

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 04:40, 24 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)

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 end run around the current ANI, and should not be validated.

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

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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing. Hence, I request that Misplaced Pages: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)

Statement by 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)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/3)

• Awaiting statements. In itself, this does not appear to be a conventional request for arbitration, in that it is not clear what remedy the filing party is seeking to achieve. But my best reading is that Stevertigo is anticipating that a discussion of his editing will wind up on this page soon in any event and is seeking to bring things to a head, in which case I may be open to addressing any issues raised by other editors, rather than declining this case and waiting for someone else to file one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Leaning towards acceptance, assuming that the AN/I discussion doesn't resolve this to the community's satisfaction. Kirill  03:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Also leaning toward acceptance, especially as the request has been initiated by Stevertigo directly. Will await the result of the AN/I thread before deciding, although it currently appears as though there is no conclusion but a wide variety of proposals. Risker (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation 2

Initiated by — Keithbob • Talk • at 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Keithbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bigweeboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Littleolive oil
• Bigweeboy
• Jmh649
• Will Beback
• Edith Sirius Lee
• TimidGuy

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Mediation Request 1
• Mediation Request 2
• RfC 1
• RfC 2

Statement by User:Keithbob

Request for “periodic review” of editor conduct as stated in the TM Arb decision. The complex nature of the behavioral issues and topic requires that matters be addressed by the Committee, rather than additional community forums.

I have attempted to minimize my involvement in controversies and have generally stayed away from Transcendental Meditation. Since the close of TMM-ArbCom I have made only 12 edits to Transcendental Meditation (compared to 115 by Littleoliveoil and 95 by WillBeback) and only 27 Talk Page edits (compared to 330 by Will Beback)

However, I have observed sudden and disturbing changes in Transcendental Meditation and protracted controversies on the Talk Page as well as patterns of disruptive behavior. Such as this sweeping change made to the article by Jmh649, without consensus or agreement, during the second day of an RfC.

ArbCom review is needed:

• Protracted disputes on Transcendental Meditation, its RfC's and mediations.
• Inappropriate AE case that was incorrect in both procedure and conclusion.
• Ongoing patterns of disruptive behavior by Jmh649 and WillBeback and a hostile editing environment on Transcendental Meditation and related articles.

• Expressing superiority, ownership and the pushing of incorrect interpretations of policies and guidelines
  • “Misplaced Pages should be written by people independent of the subject at hand (see WP:COI and by those who contribute broadly to the encyclopedia.” Jmh649
  • “I edit boldly and will continue.” Jmh649
  • “If the community supports one version over another with the only people disagreeing with the changes being a group with ties either financially or personal to the topic at hand than yes we will go with the version supported by the wider community. One does not need consensus of all editors involved.”Jmh649
  • “There are millions of other articles on Misplaced Pages - it's not necessary for you to edit the MUM article.” WillBeback
  • “I see you haven't edited the article in a long time, which is appropriate.” WillBeback
  • “Given the ArbCom case, MUM faculty and other highly involved members of the TM movement need to pay close attention to the policies, especially when there's an issue of adding or keeping positive material, or deleting or arguing against negative material.” WillBeback
  • “Yes the three of you agree but you also all practice TM. Now please get some outside input.” Jmh649

• Response to Jmh649 ‘Proposed Enforcement’ at TMM-ArbCom1 decision states appeals of AE blocks may be made to ArbCom. Littleoliveoil's objection and TimidGuy's appeal to imposing administrator's UserPage and the Arbitration Request for Clarification filed by Littleoliveoil indicating that the AE did not follow TMM-ArbCom enforcement procedures do not preclude examination by the Committee. EdithSiriusLee's appeal to the imposing administrator and at AE also do not preclude editors, who were imporoperly sanctioned as a group, from their right to Committee review.
• Response to WillBeback--My noticeboards When the case opens I will rebutt his misleading statements and provide diffs for WillBeBack's TM-ArbCom violations.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jmh649

This has been discussed recently a number of times. Here by LittleOlive and here by Edith . The first was closed as being the wrong forum. The second was denied with discussion taking place here .

BTW only 6 edits have been made to Transcendental Meditation article in the last two weeks and 5 to the talk page ( all involving routine maintenance ). None of the last 50 edits have been a revert with edits from a number of the parties involved including KeithBob. I have not edited any article or talk page regarding TM for more than 500 edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Bigweeboy

As Keithbob stated in his initial request, the previous TM Arb decision outlined that there should be “periodic reviews” of editor conduct. As several months have elapsed since the TM Arb case was concluded, and in recent weeks there have been some "sudden and disturbing changes" in TM articles without consensus, and examples of disruptive behavior on the part of some editors, I feel that now would be a good time to have the first "periodic review" of the aforementioned involved editors conduct. --BwB (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be adding to this statement in the coming days, but also want to mention now the strong need for ARBCOM to review the AE appeal since it did not follow proper procedures. --BwB (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

Family commitments but will post soon.(olive (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

Statement by Will Beback

Keithbob has not made any personal efforts to resolve these conflicts. He hasn't started any RfCs, nor made any mediation requests, nor filed any AE complaints. While others have done so, he has not been a significant participant.

Keithbob does not name any specific policies or arbitration remedies that have been violated. Even if all of his evidence were true, his charges of "expressing superiority, ownership and the pushing of incorrect interpretations of policies and guidelines" are not grounds for re-opening the case or imposing new remedies. The talk page comments he cites are not uncivil and are not so wrong that any errors in interpretation require punishment. (Has anyone ever been punished for giving an incorrect interpretation of a guideline?)

Keithbob's evidence does not tell the whole story. He says that he has stepped back from the topic and gives a few figures to prove it. His figures are incomplete. There are several TM-related articles or talk pages to which he's been the greatest contributor in the past few months, including: Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi, John_Hagelin, Transcendental_Meditation_technique, Maharishi_School_of_the_Age_of_Enlightenment, and Maharishi_University_of_Management. There are at least several more in which the pro-TM editors, including Keithbob, have collectively made more edits than anyone else, such as Maharishi_Sthapatya_Veda, and Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi. However mere edit counts do not mean anything. When it comes to editing, I know that all of my edits have been within policy and Misplaced Pages's highest standards. Likewise, I do not see any policy violations by Jmh649. I cannot say the same for Keithbob's.

I have encountered a number of occasions, since the close of the ArbCom case, in which Keithbob directly violated the spirit or letter of the ArbCom decision, or standing Misplaced Pages policies. If the ArbCom decides to reopen this case I will collect and present that evidence. However I do not think that such a review is necessary or would be helpful at this time. The topic is being edited in an orderly and constructive fashion, and there has not been any significant edit warring.   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fladrif

It is curious that KBob would seek to commence a new TM ArbCom without giving notice to all the parties to the prior TM ArbCom.

It is equally curious that KBob would claim that other forms of dispute resolution has been tried when: (i) there has been no activity whatsoever in the two Meditations, one of which was denied, and the other put on hold until the RFCs could run their course; (ii) KBob is not a listed participant in either Mediation; and (iii) KBob took no part in the two RFC's. What is the urgency to bypass normal dispute resolution processes and procedures? If the RFC is finished, why not let the mediating admin know and then let the Mediation run its course?

Normal AE procedures are perfectly adequate to address all of the allegations made in this proposal. If editors are violating the terms of the TM ArbCom decision, as KBob asserts, then he should file a request at AE, not ask to commence a new ArbCom. Why didn't he do that in the first instance"? Why would that be an inadequate remedy if his claims are legitimate? As for the three sanctioned editors, two of them did pursue multiple requests to get their collective 1RR sanctions lifted, although the sanctions have been in place less than two months. Three uninvolved, neutral admins strongly concurred in the sanctions imposed, and the imposing Admin expressed even stronger support for the sanctions after being asked to reconsider. Additional uninvolved Admins have turned down the requests to lift those sanctions. No uninvolved admin (and not even any involved admin) has suggested that lifting the sanctions is appropriate. That those requests were denied does not mean that normal AE appeal procedures are inadequate or improper. A new ArbCom can hardly be justifed merely to address their unhappiness at having been sanctioned and their appeals denied.Fladrif (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved John Carter

There are references to certain topics getting "periodic review" by the Arbitration Committee above. I'd just like to say that maybe, with the recently increased number of arbitrators, maybe it might not be a bad idea to formalize such review to some degree. So, for instance, perhaps once a year per area if possible, arbitrators not actively assigned to "lead" active cases could review the content of a previous decision where such a statement is made and make statements about anything they see which they believe requires attention. Alternately, if there are respected non-arbitrators who are willing to do so and acceptable to the ArbCom, those individuals might do so and issue a report to the ArbCom.

But I do think that maybe, in at least some cases, putting some teeth in the statements of "periodic review" might make it less likely that follow-up arbitration cases get needed later. Anyway, just an idea, and apologies to NYB for not really acting in accord with his comments below. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:TimidGuy

Just found out that I can participate here even though I'm banned. Will try to post something tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/2)

• Comment I'd like to hear all parties thoughts on whether this rises to the level of requiring another arb case so soon after the last one. I'm leaning towards declining, but I'd like to hear thoughts of editors in the area. SirFozzie (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements, per SirFozzie. Any further statements urging us to take the case should please address why a new case would be more useful than addressing issues through arbitration enforcement of the existing remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)