Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare ( Talk) & AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Kirill Lokshin ( Talk) & SirFozzie ( Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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 evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Giving 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 refactor 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.
The current issue is largely between Steve Quinn, Jim Wae and I, centered largely at the Punishment article ( Talk:Punishment/Archive 1#Lede issues). 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) (discussion starts at Talk:Time#Nonce introduction). Note that 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 and Jim appear to have been stalking me through my edit history, following me from the time article to the punishment article, and then taking a stand against my editing as if they had previously edited the article.
Timeline: After an initial battle at that article, I left it alone in the state that Jim and Steve wanted it. I notified Steve Quinn several times on his talk page of problems with his version, and he said that his participation at that article was ended. After waiting for some time, I edited the article again, and JimWae and came back to the article. Because I had made an effort to include the previous changes in my edited version Jim and I edited collaboratively for most of a day. Steve came by to add some commentary on the talk page. When I took issue with one of Jim's changes, Steve lost his temper and reverted the article back to a previous version. Instead of edit warring, I made an audio recording (right box, or File:Spoken version of the article Punishment.ogg) of his chosen version and posted it on the talk page. I hoped that spoken audio would make the problems with their writing clearer. Steve Quinn then filed an ANI (though judging by its length, he may have been working on it at the time I posted the audio file, right). While I have been occupied with matters at the ANI, and now this RFAR, other editors have since been working with Steve and Jim at the punishment article.
Steve and Jim appear to have been harassing me via 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 they 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.
Note, Steve Quinn and Jim Wae both have claimed at the ANI that I did not use sources and that their writing was superior simply because it did. I have edited the lead sections of hundreds of articles, always writing with focus on the definition - as given by a dictionary or other definitive source. Even if the writing does not persist or stand over the long term, its usually an incremental improvement that guides subsequent edits. I do use sources, but I do not parrot them. Among Wikipedia's paradoxes is the issue that that writing for Wikipedia requires us to be creative and original, and not simply plagiarists. So though certain writing may be well sourced, it may be the case that such writing lacks coherence (and sometimes even competence). Sometimes we find that writing from sources shows a kind of parroting - copied phrasings from published sources without coherent focus. And parroted writing, though it may be sourced, is often unsatisfactory for reasons just as legitimate as rules against non-sourcing. When Jim and Steve edited the punishment article, their "sourced" writing was cobbled together with parroted sections that did not add up to a coherent introduction (See my breakdown at Talk:Punishment#Disassembly.2Fpoint_by_point_critique).
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 (for example [1] article). My reasons for posting here are because matters of sanction and banning should be taken seriously. Recalling a time when Jimbo alone reserved the right to ban people, it appears as if delegating this capacity to the open field of administrators was an error.
Keep in mind the context for the above edits was the human article - where my previous attempts to make changes to that article were negated by a wall of science-oriented editors with a fixation on writing taxonomically about human beings, such that not even the word "person" was mentioned. This is a continuing problem - human beings are not just a species and there are limits to the success one can have if writing that way. Only one editor was reasonable and tried to integrate some of what I wrote into the lede of the article. But it took writing an entire page - what looked much like a rewrite - to see even this small change happen. - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 20:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Mediation was requested for the "time" dispute at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-04/Time. The request was presented on August 4. No medcab mediator picked up the dispute until 24 September, when I returned from a wikibreak and started to clear the MedCab backlog. I volunteered to take the time dispute, but was informed that one party would not participate unless other parties also agreed to participate, and one of the other parties believed that the discussion had died 6 or 7 weeks prior.
I closed the MedCab case as the parties did not agree to mediate (one considered the dispute dated). It is a shame that there are not enough editors aware of MedCab to step up and clear these backlogs when they arise. This evidence for historical information only - I have not, and will not do any research into the underlying anything unless the MedCab case is reopened. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Over the years, prior remedies appear to have had little impact on this editor's contrary, and problematic editing. Now in October 2010, these disruptive editing patterns are still problematic. It is my hope and intention that the ArbCom committee read the remedies listed, and use this lens when viewing the editing behaviors. The evidence presented is designed to be emblematic, rather than complete. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In this Remedies section it is demonstrated the problematic editing spans years. Some prior remedies have resulted in sanctions:
In other words, the remedies have not made enough of an impact to alter an overall problematic editing style. The editing practices are described below:
November 15, 2009. A new made-up box, containing POV material that includes specious claims and commentary, is placed atop the WP:Disruptive editing guideline page [148]. "personal opinion" and "soap box" and is removed [149]. Box re-inserted, it's a "warning" [150], removed again [151].
"undermined legitimacy of guideline" [152], What's inappropriate about that? [153]. Dismissive response [154]. Constructive feedback for Stevertigo [155]. Feedback trivialized, and dismissed, by changing the context for the word "format" - to construe it as a forum for what he wants to discuss [156]. No one joins the discussion. Next...
On 2010-Jul-03 Stevertigo inserted his NONCE template into the Time article.
On 2010-JUL-12 he inserted as the very first sentence of Time: (marked minor)
On 2010-JULY-29 he appropriated a ref that did not support the view that "time is a physical process" or that "it macroscopically transforms reality"
On 2010-JUL-29 @15:45 Stevertigo added a link to Time in physics to the lede sentence of Time
---
On 2010-JUL-30 @00:00 Stevertigo made his first edit to Time in physics
On 2010-JUL-30 @00:35, after he linked Time to Time in physics, I made my first edit to Time in physics, adding {{or-section|date=July 2010}}, which Stevertigo promptly removed, then he made a series of edits to read
I then restored the OR tag
---
On 2010-AUG-01 I started an RFC at Talk:Time so that other people would contribute their input on the dispute.
On 2010-AUG-01 he changed the lede of Time to refer to a paradigm. Stevertigo does not mention Paradigm, where he again added unsourced verbiage as the first sentence of the lede [172], and where others who were taking part in the RFC on Time reverted him [173] [174].
---
On 2010-Aug 1 Stevertigo made his first ever edit to the Punishment article, a change to the first sentence, again marked minor and continued editing uninterrupted until 2010-Aug-03
On 2010-AUG-03 I made my first edit to the Punishment article, inserting {{unreferenced|date=August 2010}} which I then restored to {{unreferenced|date=January 2008}}
At this point, other editors became involved, reverting Stevertigo's changes
By 2010-AUG-08 Stevertigo had made more changes to the lede - repeatedly re-inserting "destructive", and again removing tags indicating content was unreferenced OR.
His subsequent posts on Talk:Time#RFC on "Time is a... process" focussed on whether "physical paradigm" or "physical phenomenon" would be more acceptable - when neither of those had any sources either. Nevertheless. he chose to change to "paradigm".
Stevertigo contends I wikihounded him to the Punishment article. I will acknowledge that I checked his edit history - as I think any conscientious editor would after encountering such repeated insertion of WP:OR. Other editors got involved in the Time article after I had called for an RFC there on 2010-AUG-01. I believe it to be quite appropriate for other editors to check an edit history when an RFC reveals recalcitrant insertion of WP:OR into wp articles. People did not check his edit history because they were losing arguments, involved in revert-wars, or had anything against Stevertigo. They checked his edit history & reverted his edits on other articles because they became concerned about of his blatant employment of WP:MADEUP.
It is my recollection, however, that in my case, Punishment was already on my watchlist. While I cannot prove this, I can produce jpgs of the Philosophy of Education books I have owned for over 30 years. I have added (to the Punishment article) a ref from those sources, from text not available on-line. -- JimWae ( talk) 06:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Stevertigo has published several essays in wikipedia space which nobody else has worked on. These essays frequently present arguments at odds with WP:V. He has also created numerous shortcuts (& one template [since deleted]) for these non-consensus essays.
Stevertigo (S) introduced a new lead for the Human article, with references, that is shown in this version and reproduced with its references below. I have analyzed the references below. I realize this may steer into having the Committee rule on content, but there are some very clear instances of abuse of sources, and I believe they illustrate one of the issues with Stevertigo's editing. (I have underlined my comments for clarity.)
Stevertigo is a dedicated and intelligent editor who performs much useful work and has done so for a commendable number of years. He also has some idiosyncracies that cause difficulty for other editors, and it often seems frustratingly difficult to get a point through to him.
The sections below are intended to show specific examples in which it has been unreasonably difficult to resolve issues with Stevertigo through discussion, specifically in the use of edit summaries, the minor edit flag, and insertion of unsourced and sometimes nonsensical material into the lead of the article on dark matter.
SV began marking almost all edits as minor by August 2006 [175], having apparently checked the option to mark edits as minor by default. He seems to have stopped on or around 2010-Sep-8 [176] after having been repeatedly requested to stop doing this over several years.
Many page moves made as minor edits. A few more recent examples are given here. Some are uncontested: Submission (psychology), Mithraic mysteries. Many other moves marked as minor were contested or reverted: Repulsion, Floor, Discrimination against the disabled, Manner of articulation, Intelligence (information gathering), Dominion, Containment.
SV often makes series of edits to established articles, with inadequate summaries. These often include more or less complete re-writes of the lede. Example: War.
Several editors have politely asked SV to make more consistent use of edit summaries over the years, but the response has often been dismissive or occasionally hostile.
Edits at dark matter are illustrative. The first of his recent edits was 2010-Jun-15 [211]. The issues with these edits verge on content questions for this particular article, but more importantly illustrate a pattern that shows up again and again in many articles. The main problem here is that SV tries to rewrite the lead based on his own thoughts of the moment, without following sources; and often a sentence or phrase appears to be just a nexus of related words. He's willing to discuss, but it takes a lot of time from other editors to keep OR out of the article.
A big part of the reason why it's so difficult and so frustrating to resolve issues with Stevertigo through discussion is that he is usually dismissive of others' concerns. He's willing to discuss, but discussions go nowhere because he's not willing to consider changes to his behavior, even when the arb clerks are asking him to observe proper use of the case pages.
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare ( Talk) & AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Kirill Lokshin ( Talk) & SirFozzie ( Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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 evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Giving 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 refactor 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.
The current issue is largely between Steve Quinn, Jim Wae and I, centered largely at the Punishment article ( Talk:Punishment/Archive 1#Lede issues). 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) (discussion starts at Talk:Time#Nonce introduction). Note that 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 and Jim appear to have been stalking me through my edit history, following me from the time article to the punishment article, and then taking a stand against my editing as if they had previously edited the article.
Timeline: After an initial battle at that article, I left it alone in the state that Jim and Steve wanted it. I notified Steve Quinn several times on his talk page of problems with his version, and he said that his participation at that article was ended. After waiting for some time, I edited the article again, and JimWae and came back to the article. Because I had made an effort to include the previous changes in my edited version Jim and I edited collaboratively for most of a day. Steve came by to add some commentary on the talk page. When I took issue with one of Jim's changes, Steve lost his temper and reverted the article back to a previous version. Instead of edit warring, I made an audio recording (right box, or File:Spoken version of the article Punishment.ogg) of his chosen version and posted it on the talk page. I hoped that spoken audio would make the problems with their writing clearer. Steve Quinn then filed an ANI (though judging by its length, he may have been working on it at the time I posted the audio file, right). While I have been occupied with matters at the ANI, and now this RFAR, other editors have since been working with Steve and Jim at the punishment article.
Steve and Jim appear to have been harassing me via 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 they 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.
Note, Steve Quinn and Jim Wae both have claimed at the ANI that I did not use sources and that their writing was superior simply because it did. I have edited the lead sections of hundreds of articles, always writing with focus on the definition - as given by a dictionary or other definitive source. Even if the writing does not persist or stand over the long term, its usually an incremental improvement that guides subsequent edits. I do use sources, but I do not parrot them. Among Wikipedia's paradoxes is the issue that that writing for Wikipedia requires us to be creative and original, and not simply plagiarists. So though certain writing may be well sourced, it may be the case that such writing lacks coherence (and sometimes even competence). Sometimes we find that writing from sources shows a kind of parroting - copied phrasings from published sources without coherent focus. And parroted writing, though it may be sourced, is often unsatisfactory for reasons just as legitimate as rules against non-sourcing. When Jim and Steve edited the punishment article, their "sourced" writing was cobbled together with parroted sections that did not add up to a coherent introduction (See my breakdown at Talk:Punishment#Disassembly.2Fpoint_by_point_critique).
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 (for example [1] article). My reasons for posting here are because matters of sanction and banning should be taken seriously. Recalling a time when Jimbo alone reserved the right to ban people, it appears as if delegating this capacity to the open field of administrators was an error.
Keep in mind the context for the above edits was the human article - where my previous attempts to make changes to that article were negated by a wall of science-oriented editors with a fixation on writing taxonomically about human beings, such that not even the word "person" was mentioned. This is a continuing problem - human beings are not just a species and there are limits to the success one can have if writing that way. Only one editor was reasonable and tried to integrate some of what I wrote into the lede of the article. But it took writing an entire page - what looked much like a rewrite - to see even this small change happen. - Stevertigo ( t | log | c) 20:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Mediation was requested for the "time" dispute at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-04/Time. The request was presented on August 4. No medcab mediator picked up the dispute until 24 September, when I returned from a wikibreak and started to clear the MedCab backlog. I volunteered to take the time dispute, but was informed that one party would not participate unless other parties also agreed to participate, and one of the other parties believed that the discussion had died 6 or 7 weeks prior.
I closed the MedCab case as the parties did not agree to mediate (one considered the dispute dated). It is a shame that there are not enough editors aware of MedCab to step up and clear these backlogs when they arise. This evidence for historical information only - I have not, and will not do any research into the underlying anything unless the MedCab case is reopened. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Over the years, prior remedies appear to have had little impact on this editor's contrary, and problematic editing. Now in October 2010, these disruptive editing patterns are still problematic. It is my hope and intention that the ArbCom committee read the remedies listed, and use this lens when viewing the editing behaviors. The evidence presented is designed to be emblematic, rather than complete. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In this Remedies section it is demonstrated the problematic editing spans years. Some prior remedies have resulted in sanctions:
In other words, the remedies have not made enough of an impact to alter an overall problematic editing style. The editing practices are described below:
November 15, 2009. A new made-up box, containing POV material that includes specious claims and commentary, is placed atop the WP:Disruptive editing guideline page [148]. "personal opinion" and "soap box" and is removed [149]. Box re-inserted, it's a "warning" [150], removed again [151].
"undermined legitimacy of guideline" [152], What's inappropriate about that? [153]. Dismissive response [154]. Constructive feedback for Stevertigo [155]. Feedback trivialized, and dismissed, by changing the context for the word "format" - to construe it as a forum for what he wants to discuss [156]. No one joins the discussion. Next...
On 2010-Jul-03 Stevertigo inserted his NONCE template into the Time article.
On 2010-JUL-12 he inserted as the very first sentence of Time: (marked minor)
On 2010-JULY-29 he appropriated a ref that did not support the view that "time is a physical process" or that "it macroscopically transforms reality"
On 2010-JUL-29 @15:45 Stevertigo added a link to Time in physics to the lede sentence of Time
---
On 2010-JUL-30 @00:00 Stevertigo made his first edit to Time in physics
On 2010-JUL-30 @00:35, after he linked Time to Time in physics, I made my first edit to Time in physics, adding {{or-section|date=July 2010}}, which Stevertigo promptly removed, then he made a series of edits to read
I then restored the OR tag
---
On 2010-AUG-01 I started an RFC at Talk:Time so that other people would contribute their input on the dispute.
On 2010-AUG-01 he changed the lede of Time to refer to a paradigm. Stevertigo does not mention Paradigm, where he again added unsourced verbiage as the first sentence of the lede [172], and where others who were taking part in the RFC on Time reverted him [173] [174].
---
On 2010-Aug 1 Stevertigo made his first ever edit to the Punishment article, a change to the first sentence, again marked minor and continued editing uninterrupted until 2010-Aug-03
On 2010-AUG-03 I made my first edit to the Punishment article, inserting {{unreferenced|date=August 2010}} which I then restored to {{unreferenced|date=January 2008}}
At this point, other editors became involved, reverting Stevertigo's changes
By 2010-AUG-08 Stevertigo had made more changes to the lede - repeatedly re-inserting "destructive", and again removing tags indicating content was unreferenced OR.
His subsequent posts on Talk:Time#RFC on "Time is a... process" focussed on whether "physical paradigm" or "physical phenomenon" would be more acceptable - when neither of those had any sources either. Nevertheless. he chose to change to "paradigm".
Stevertigo contends I wikihounded him to the Punishment article. I will acknowledge that I checked his edit history - as I think any conscientious editor would after encountering such repeated insertion of WP:OR. Other editors got involved in the Time article after I had called for an RFC there on 2010-AUG-01. I believe it to be quite appropriate for other editors to check an edit history when an RFC reveals recalcitrant insertion of WP:OR into wp articles. People did not check his edit history because they were losing arguments, involved in revert-wars, or had anything against Stevertigo. They checked his edit history & reverted his edits on other articles because they became concerned about of his blatant employment of WP:MADEUP.
It is my recollection, however, that in my case, Punishment was already on my watchlist. While I cannot prove this, I can produce jpgs of the Philosophy of Education books I have owned for over 30 years. I have added (to the Punishment article) a ref from those sources, from text not available on-line. -- JimWae ( talk) 06:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Stevertigo has published several essays in wikipedia space which nobody else has worked on. These essays frequently present arguments at odds with WP:V. He has also created numerous shortcuts (& one template [since deleted]) for these non-consensus essays.
Stevertigo (S) introduced a new lead for the Human article, with references, that is shown in this version and reproduced with its references below. I have analyzed the references below. I realize this may steer into having the Committee rule on content, but there are some very clear instances of abuse of sources, and I believe they illustrate one of the issues with Stevertigo's editing. (I have underlined my comments for clarity.)
Stevertigo is a dedicated and intelligent editor who performs much useful work and has done so for a commendable number of years. He also has some idiosyncracies that cause difficulty for other editors, and it often seems frustratingly difficult to get a point through to him.
The sections below are intended to show specific examples in which it has been unreasonably difficult to resolve issues with Stevertigo through discussion, specifically in the use of edit summaries, the minor edit flag, and insertion of unsourced and sometimes nonsensical material into the lead of the article on dark matter.
SV began marking almost all edits as minor by August 2006 [175], having apparently checked the option to mark edits as minor by default. He seems to have stopped on or around 2010-Sep-8 [176] after having been repeatedly requested to stop doing this over several years.
Many page moves made as minor edits. A few more recent examples are given here. Some are uncontested: Submission (psychology), Mithraic mysteries. Many other moves marked as minor were contested or reverted: Repulsion, Floor, Discrimination against the disabled, Manner of articulation, Intelligence (information gathering), Dominion, Containment.
SV often makes series of edits to established articles, with inadequate summaries. These often include more or less complete re-writes of the lede. Example: War.
Several editors have politely asked SV to make more consistent use of edit summaries over the years, but the response has often been dismissive or occasionally hostile.
Edits at dark matter are illustrative. The first of his recent edits was 2010-Jun-15 [211]. The issues with these edits verge on content questions for this particular article, but more importantly illustrate a pattern that shows up again and again in many articles. The main problem here is that SV tries to rewrite the lead based on his own thoughts of the moment, without following sources; and often a sentence or phrase appears to be just a nexus of related words. He's willing to discuss, but it takes a lot of time from other editors to keep OR out of the article.
A big part of the reason why it's so difficult and so frustrating to resolve issues with Stevertigo through discussion is that he is usually dismissive of others' concerns. He's willing to discuss, but discussions go nowhere because he's not willing to consider changes to his behavior, even when the arb clerks are asking him to observe proper use of the case pages.
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.