Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The 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 voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Evidence presented by User:Kzollman
Marcosantezana has twice violated the 3RR
Marcosantezana has twice violated the 3RR.
- First [2], [3], [4], [5] for which he was warned.
- Second [6], [7], [8], [9] for which he was blocked.
Both times his last revert came slightly after 24 hour period, and was disguised in several edits made in close succession. I don't know if either of these were intended to obscure his violation or merely the way he edits.
Additionally, after I blocked him for the second 3RR violation, he twice evaded the block in order to continue the edit war: [10] and [11]. He was warned after the first, but evaded a second time 10 hours later. Both times the block was extended by User:TexasAndroid. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana believes that his expertise entitles him to violate policy
After I warned M about violating the 3RR he replied on my talk page:
- do you know how to read? then do it below. i've made my point very clear many times beyond what you can read below; and the last time i did not "revert" (how horrible!) but rather eliminated the problem with a new, neutral formulation. it's the others who are truly being obnoxious on top of being wrong and insisting in peddling misleading "scholastic" garbage. ................ wrong and short is not sufficient. it's simply wrong. ...
After I responded explaining that his correctness does not justify policy violations, he retorted:
- so in that case you either don't know how to read or don't want to read. in either case you are disqualified from sermoning anybody about being civil. since when it is civil to pontificate to others when you do not know what's been going on? take drugs if you need to feel better at *any* cost. sermoning others gratuituously lets you appear like a fool. warmest regards -- ;) 01:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
--best, kevin kzollman][ talk 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana does not engage in discussion, but merely declarations
As of this writting M had made 270 edits (many effective reversions) to Natural selection, he has made 61 edits to Talk:Natural selection. (Please note many of these are two or three edits on the same comment.) Most of these edits are not engaging in discussion but rather assertions at the obvious correctness of M's position. This is perhaps the most clear statement of M's opinion of discussion. Other examples of this include [12] and [13]. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Problems continue at other pages
Despite this action, M continues to edit war without engaging in discussion. March 29 through April 2 he made several edits to survival of the fittest. Another editor raised a concern with his edits on the talk page, to which M did not respond. An editor reverted some of his edits on April 3. M reinserted them without any comment on the talk page. His only comment (in the edit summary) was: "read carefully; do not replace with nonsense; needs tightening though". --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 05:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please note, one of the diffs provided above is included in Kim's list of incivil remarks below.--best, kevin kzollman][ talk 05:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- As of April 12, M has made 82 edits to Unit of selection. An appeal to him to discuss his edits has been made by several authors, but he has not responded. 62 edits have been made to Kin selection. Here M did engage in discussion in Feburary, but the most recent appeal (April 4) has not been answered. 25 edits have been made to Survival of the fittest, the unaswered appeal is linked above. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 02:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Edit wars continue on Unit of selection. [14] [15] --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 17:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- And at Natural selection [16] --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana violates WP:NPOV
When he did engage in a discussion on Kin selection, he pushes a particular view of Kin Selection (advocated by a philosopher of biology Elliot Sober). In this comment he says that Sober's view has not been challenged "coherently" by anyone. M may either be ignorant of challenges or willingly dismissing them as "incoherent". Importantly, he seems to indicate that he thinks things which don't specifically respond to Sober but contradict him shouldn't be included because Sober is obviously correct. Similarly here he dismisses published works by people who have not done their "homework". --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Evidence presented by User:KimvdLinde
I concur with the evidence given above. Additionally, I would like to add the folowing. KimvdLinde 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana acts as if he owns the articles he edits in violation with WP:OWN
Marcosantezana ( talk · contribs) deals with the pages he edits as if he is the only one who knows exactlty how those pages should be made and treats others as if they are stupid (see edit summaries): [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. This is clear from the general way he is approaching edits of other contributors, which he generally reedits see next point. Furthermore, he is not engaging in discussions at the talk page (see above). KimvdLinde 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana ignores Wikipedia:Consensus
I have tried to reach consensus on the lead section, and that was inserted by Slrubenstein [28]. User:Marcosantezana then reedits it always: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. He has been repeatedly invited to join the discussion (At his own talk page: [34] [35] [36], the NatSel talk page: [37] [38] [39], NatSel edit summaries [40] [41]), which he at occations does, altough not by discussing but using declarations (see above). KimvdLinde 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Pages affected
KimvdLinde 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is there not more edit warring?
I would like to stress here that the amount of edit warring at the moment is limited because several editors, including me, are waiting for the ArbCom case to conclude. Untill this case gets to a close, I am not editing the affected pages to avoid edit warring. KimvdLinde 17:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana is uncivil
I did not file this before, because I do not experience things quickly as uncivil, but from a more rational point, he is, often:
Posts: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], insult removal, [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] plus the remarks he made at the Kzollman talk page: [61]and [62].
Edit summaries: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79].
Evidence presented by User:Safay
Here are two examples where s/he reverts to sections s/he wrote that the community seems to agree don't belong: [80], [81] There is no discussion from Marco on the talk page about any of this. Safay 23:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The 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 voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Evidence presented by User:Kzollman
Marcosantezana has twice violated the 3RR
Marcosantezana has twice violated the 3RR.
- First [2], [3], [4], [5] for which he was warned.
- Second [6], [7], [8], [9] for which he was blocked.
Both times his last revert came slightly after 24 hour period, and was disguised in several edits made in close succession. I don't know if either of these were intended to obscure his violation or merely the way he edits.
Additionally, after I blocked him for the second 3RR violation, he twice evaded the block in order to continue the edit war: [10] and [11]. He was warned after the first, but evaded a second time 10 hours later. Both times the block was extended by User:TexasAndroid. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana believes that his expertise entitles him to violate policy
After I warned M about violating the 3RR he replied on my talk page:
- do you know how to read? then do it below. i've made my point very clear many times beyond what you can read below; and the last time i did not "revert" (how horrible!) but rather eliminated the problem with a new, neutral formulation. it's the others who are truly being obnoxious on top of being wrong and insisting in peddling misleading "scholastic" garbage. ................ wrong and short is not sufficient. it's simply wrong. ...
After I responded explaining that his correctness does not justify policy violations, he retorted:
- so in that case you either don't know how to read or don't want to read. in either case you are disqualified from sermoning anybody about being civil. since when it is civil to pontificate to others when you do not know what's been going on? take drugs if you need to feel better at *any* cost. sermoning others gratuituously lets you appear like a fool. warmest regards -- ;) 01:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
--best, kevin kzollman][ talk 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana does not engage in discussion, but merely declarations
As of this writting M had made 270 edits (many effective reversions) to Natural selection, he has made 61 edits to Talk:Natural selection. (Please note many of these are two or three edits on the same comment.) Most of these edits are not engaging in discussion but rather assertions at the obvious correctness of M's position. This is perhaps the most clear statement of M's opinion of discussion. Other examples of this include [12] and [13]. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 01:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Problems continue at other pages
Despite this action, M continues to edit war without engaging in discussion. March 29 through April 2 he made several edits to survival of the fittest. Another editor raised a concern with his edits on the talk page, to which M did not respond. An editor reverted some of his edits on April 3. M reinserted them without any comment on the talk page. His only comment (in the edit summary) was: "read carefully; do not replace with nonsense; needs tightening though". --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 05:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please note, one of the diffs provided above is included in Kim's list of incivil remarks below.--best, kevin kzollman][ talk 05:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- As of April 12, M has made 82 edits to Unit of selection. An appeal to him to discuss his edits has been made by several authors, but he has not responded. 62 edits have been made to Kin selection. Here M did engage in discussion in Feburary, but the most recent appeal (April 4) has not been answered. 25 edits have been made to Survival of the fittest, the unaswered appeal is linked above. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 02:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Edit wars continue on Unit of selection. [14] [15] --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 17:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- And at Natural selection [16] --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana violates WP:NPOV
When he did engage in a discussion on Kin selection, he pushes a particular view of Kin Selection (advocated by a philosopher of biology Elliot Sober). In this comment he says that Sober's view has not been challenged "coherently" by anyone. M may either be ignorant of challenges or willingly dismissing them as "incoherent". Importantly, he seems to indicate that he thinks things which don't specifically respond to Sober but contradict him shouldn't be included because Sober is obviously correct. Similarly here he dismisses published works by people who have not done their "homework". --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Evidence presented by User:KimvdLinde
I concur with the evidence given above. Additionally, I would like to add the folowing. KimvdLinde 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana acts as if he owns the articles he edits in violation with WP:OWN
Marcosantezana ( talk · contribs) deals with the pages he edits as if he is the only one who knows exactlty how those pages should be made and treats others as if they are stupid (see edit summaries): [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. This is clear from the general way he is approaching edits of other contributors, which he generally reedits see next point. Furthermore, he is not engaging in discussions at the talk page (see above). KimvdLinde 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana ignores Wikipedia:Consensus
I have tried to reach consensus on the lead section, and that was inserted by Slrubenstein [28]. User:Marcosantezana then reedits it always: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. He has been repeatedly invited to join the discussion (At his own talk page: [34] [35] [36], the NatSel talk page: [37] [38] [39], NatSel edit summaries [40] [41]), which he at occations does, altough not by discussing but using declarations (see above). KimvdLinde 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Pages affected
KimvdLinde 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is there not more edit warring?
I would like to stress here that the amount of edit warring at the moment is limited because several editors, including me, are waiting for the ArbCom case to conclude. Untill this case gets to a close, I am not editing the affected pages to avoid edit warring. KimvdLinde 17:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Marcosantezana is uncivil
I did not file this before, because I do not experience things quickly as uncivil, but from a more rational point, he is, often:
Posts: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], insult removal, [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] plus the remarks he made at the Kzollman talk page: [61]and [62].
Edit summaries: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79].
Evidence presented by User:Safay
Here are two examples where s/he reverts to sections s/he wrote that the community seems to agree don't belong: [80], [81] There is no discussion from Marco on the talk page about any of this. Safay 23:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)