ZuluPapa5 has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [1] [2], [3], [4], comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [5], [6], [7] [8], and has engaged in systematic wiki-lawyering [9].
Proposed . I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in on this page. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
ZuluPapa5 ( talk · contribs) has edited disruptively and engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including edit warring ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]), systematic wikilawyering and tendentious debates ( [16] [17] [18] [19]), personal attacks, bad faith accusations, soapboxing, and comments that reinforced a battleground mentality ( [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], [25]).
Proposed as alternative. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming has engaged in disruptive behavior, including systematic misrepresentations of sources [26], [27], edit warring [28], [29], [30], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [31], [32].
Proposed. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in on this page. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming has been blocked twice for edit warring in the climate change area of wikipedia in both April 2008 and May 2010 [33]. FellGleaming recieved a severe warning through consensus [34] and a second warning or even ban was avoided through his withdrawing from the topic area. The second case that was poorly presented was closed as allowing further evidence [35]. Further evidence was not presented because he ceased operating in the topic area (he has now returned). If other editors are to be put under remedy 3 then leaving asside seriously problematic ediotors such as FellGleaming seems to be incongruous. Olap the Ogre ( talk) 13:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Any administrator can, on determination of the existence of an acrimonious editing environment, personally instruct any of the involved parties to cease editing an article and its associated talkpage for a specified period of time. Editors who do not follow these instructions can be subject to blocks.
I've been trying to think of ways to empower administrators without making them into what I like to term, "involved monsters". This is one way to do it, I think. Mandatory breaks for users who are involved in heated disputes might clear the air enough for less upset editors to try to collaborate. These breaks would be required to expire allowing the problem editors to return to, perhaps, a page that is in better shape. Arguments over whether an administrator is involved, biased, or favoring a particular faction or POV are made moot since the breaks are required to expire. If an "involved administrator" sends one "faction" away to give "ownership" to the other faction, this will only last until expiration of the break.
Oftentimes editors (myself included) cannot help themselves when a dispute erupts. Administrators rarely instruct people to not edit on a page due to acrimony.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) Admins can already do this sort of thing using discretionary sanctions. Roger Davies talk 22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that there is merit to this proposal, but I would not rate it as an issue that should hold up the final decision. It should probably be rephrased, as I think the term cool-down is a bit loaded at Wikipedia. I have used a similar technique with some success at AN3; I think that EdJohnston is very good at applying it at that board, though I do not know if he is interested in discretionary sanctions. - 2/0 ( cont.) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Due to the traditional restraint on considering questions of content, the Arbitration committee recognises its inability to deal with civil POV pushing. It encourages the community to develop new dispute resolution processes to overcome this limitation.
Please remember to sign all new proposals made. Alternatives to existing proposals are best posted above in a section discussing that proposal. Please keep all disucssion on-topic to the proposal and don't drift off-topic into discussing other proposals. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) This replaces the previous discussion.
--cot|Collapsing. To my mind, inconclusive on the evidence presented. Roger Davies talk 10:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)--
JohnWBarber has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [37], [38], [39], comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], and engaging in systematic wiki-lawyering while the case progressed [45], [46], [47], [48].
Proposed per arbitrator request. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in (and highlighted here) on this page. Hipocrite ( talk) 11:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
[49], [50], [51], [52] [53] Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm reading it the same way. I'm also trying to access archive 4 but I am getting an error that says it has to do with the software when I hit the history. Can anyone else? I am trying to find the section where he says he is "a victim of the abuse" or did research and also the comments at the Scjessey FoF Barber set up. Thanks for any help. -- CrohnieGal Talk 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that JWB's "baiting" claim against Tony Sidaway [54]was without merit and should be made a part of this FoF. Resp. to Crohnie: no, I'm not having a problem accessing Archive 4. ScottyBerg ( talk) 22:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that there is an FoF on this editor, can we take off the hat so that it can be seen? Editors may have more to add too since I know I wasn't finished with adding one more to what I added. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC) As per the discussion below I would like finish adding the difs I wanted to add prior to the hatting. [55], [56], [57], and [58]. Thank you for the advice below about adding this here. This is all I am going to say about this matter. I hope the arbitrators will look at the difs provided in this section and make there own decisions as to whether any of them are useful to add to the FoF on the PD page. (Notation: I tried adding the difs and and error message came up and I lost everything, so I tried to give them again.) Thanks again, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Initial response:
One final point, it's quite possible to discuss other editors and their behavior in an objective manner - your method of handling things and your tendency to personalize your comments are inappropriate. Shell babelfish 19:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't begrudge John W Barber's right to bring evidence, but I just want to make it plain that I vehemently deny attempting to provoke (bait) him. John, I apologise if my sincere actions ever gave you that impression. -- TS 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I rearranged my answers in numerical order below. Easier to keep track. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #1: [90] This was not edit warring. The consensus had been reached, although discussion had restarted. I don't recall if at this time there was a consensus to keep the lead essentially focused more on one definition of the term "The Gore Effect" or whether there was simply no consensus to change, but my edit was made to insist that discussion and consensus forming be respected. If you look at the edit history of the page, you'll find Jake doing the same thing at 15:57 June 22. [91] It isn't easy to follow the talk page discussions because they took place at length and were continued confusingly in a number of different talk sections, but the editors involved all knew that there was not a consensus to change the lead. I can demonstrate that with names of editors and diffs if necessary. KimDPetersen's edit, which I was reverting, was done as an end-run around the previous consensus and the ongoing discussion and was therefore disruptive; reverting it -- once -- was not. My revert was limited to Kim's changes in the lead, although Kim had reverted other changes I'd made in the article as well. (I thought he had every right to revert those changes, and if I wanted to change it back I should get consensus on the talk page. IIRC, I decided not to bother. The intent at all times was to avoid edit warring and make discussion the deciding factor. I suppose it would have been better to point out in the discussion that the change had been made without consensus as the matter was still under discussion, and that we needed to change it back if there was no new consensus to support Kim's change. That's what I would do in the future. Shell has criticized my behavior in the discussion on that page, and she makes some good points about that, which I'll address under the headings of those diffs. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #2: [92] This is not edit warring. This is classic WP:BRD: Bold: [93] Revert: [94] Discuss: [95] (links to entire discussion) I don't understand why this was included in the finding. Shell, am I missing something? If you look at the timestamps, I even started the discussion a minute before making the revert. I can't see any way that this comes close to edit warring. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (new timestamp)
Diff #3: Addressed above at 17:34, 2 Oct. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #4: [96] To KimDPetersen: That's not a contribution to a discussion. Please answer my questions and start being constructive. Well, his comment wasn't constructive. This statement (the entire diff) in fact was an earnest effort to be constructive. If I'm being a little curt it's because I was faced with dealing with editors who showed no interest in actually examining the issues at hand. In my opening comment in that thread, I linked to a part of WP:OR policy -- an exception to regular WP:OR strictures. The response from these editors was "Hey, your edit was original research." As if my link and explanation had never been shown to them. It could make a person a tad frustrated, couldn't it, arbitrators? KimDPeterson, who had reverted my edit, had the least to say about it (the comment immediately above mine in the diff): The main point is: Since at least 3 editors feel that it isn't obvious, then you must be able to provide references for it, otherwise you are doing WP:OR. It even sounds like gloating. Why is a little curtness on my part after all that stony lack of cooperation from those other editors, cited as some kind of "disruptive" behavior? Is it not understandable that I would be frustrated? Was the behavior of the other editors, who ignored my main points in that thread, itself reasonable? Shell, you say that this is an example of "disruption", which is defined as something impeding Wikipedia's normal processes, like coming to a consensus on article content. But editors who continually ignore the main points being made (so long as they're reasonable) are not showing any interest in the purpose of the talk page -- to improve the article. I'm going to say something about content here, but only for the purposes of showing my reasonable behavior and the unreasonable behavior I was met with (so arbitrators' agreement or disagreement with me on the content point is irrelevant): "The Gore Effect", as either a joke or cliche, is a thing made of words. Things made of words are often categorized in various ways. If we see a category that simple editorial judgment (on the order of WP:CALC) can show us is applicable, it is reasonable to suggest saying that in the article. The nature of a snowclone or phrasal template is that part of the phrase is changed while other parts stay the same compared to similar phrases (here: The Gore Effect, The Clinton Effect, The Blair Effect, The Pauli Effect, or frankly any other "Effect" with a name in front of it, preferably also with a "The"). It was therefore necessary, once bringing up the idea of a "phrasal template" to mention similar phrases (just as we couldn't mention that a phrase or word is a synonym of something else without stating what that thing is it's supposed to be like, if we were going to introduce the idaa of a synonym into an article.) The discussion shows that I was willing to drop "snowclone" and simply refer to phrasal templates (see my comment at 18:48, 23 June), per Arthur's objection. I was also willing to use other examples of phrasal templates, although I thought examples with other public political figures were best (see my comment at 21:51, 23 June). That's an effort at coming to a compromise. And my efforts were reasonable throughout. Guettarda ignored my argument on WP:CALC grounds; JakeInJoisey was similarly unresponsive; Arthur threw up various objections, but I might have reached an agreement with him. KimDPetersen at that point didn't discuss the merits of the situation at all. My response was not even uncivil. It was simply curt. Those editors are not wilting lilies, and any other editor who responded to me would have received my respectful attention, in which I would have shown respect to their arguments and to themselves and a willingness to compromise. And for this curtness, in these circumstances, I'm being sanctioned? Just look at KimDPetersen's completely unconstructive, uncooperative attitude and response as shown in the rest of the discussion, after which I soon decided I had had enough of this article:
When editors are not interested in listening, the editors trying to convince them are justified in getting frustrated and it's understandable that these editors can get a little curt. There should be a massive amount of this or it should be particularly hurtful for it to rise to the level that ArbCom needs to deal with it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 21:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #5: [98] and Diff #6: [99] These two diffs are from the same thread, here. [100] Shell states above:
Shell, anyone just relying on your description and on a quick look at the diffs, without looking at the (short) discussion for context or at the wider history would get a misleading impression about what was going on. You've almost thoroughly mischaracterized the nature and tone of the discussion. For more than a week, editors had been ignoring the fact that they didn't have consensus to change the lead and were trying to edit war their versions in. It was long evident that there was no consensus to change the lead. I told editors to go get consensus before trying to make a change they knew was controversial. Hipocrite started that thread immediately after this edit of mine, reverting to the status quo ante [101] (or as best I could figure out status quo ante among all the changes going on). Hipocrite stated that I had reverted to a version without any mention of the other, non-joke meaning of the phrase (which was false, it was in the last sentence of the lead, and I was fine with tweaking and expanding it). How could you not have seen Verbal's goading, WP:BATTLEGROUND statements? They were right above mine and were what I was responding to. How could you omit from your quotes of my statements the first thing I said, which was to correct Verbal's statement that I had reverted against consensus? You also ignore the very last thing I said in the final edit: Where are your compromise suggestions on the lead? I've been away from the article for a bit, did I miss where you offered them? (That was not some kind of snarky comment: There were about 1,000 edits to "Talk:The Gore Effect" in the previous two weeks and the talk page had ballooned to over 300K by this point, with several different discussions about the scope of the article, which is what this discussion about the lead was actually about.) You talk about "moving things forward" but the onus of suggesting a compromise -- and the most productive way forward. Fundamentally, though, the question had to be framed in terms of what we wanted the scope and focus of the article to be. I had already made my position clear on that in one of the many threads that discussed this point. No one offered a compromise suggestion in this section, perhaps because discussion was continuing elsewhere on the page. I wasn't obstructing compromise by being more obstinate -- I was reacting to goading, asking the goader to quit it and restating my desire to hear what kind of compromise Hipocrite, Verbal and the others would offer. That's all clear from looking at the thread. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 02:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #7: [102] Shell says above, you start off with a snarky but at least constructive discussion about sourcing but once again, can't resist needling another editor with Have your views evolved? Is that it?. The same kind of nasty remarks tend to pepper your comments, making your discussion much less effective and causing more tension in an already tense area. It's evident from looking at the thread at Talk:Fred Singer that the tension was caused by two editors, KimDPetersen and Guettarda, who were not just disagreeing with five other editors (SlimVirgin, ATren, Cla68, ScottyBerg and me), but who were using the flimsiest of arguments to keep a solidly sourced (and innocuous) quote out of the article while Kim had previously reverted in an edit war to keep in the article an attack on Singer coming from a source that BLP forbids. This discussion, on points made by KimdPetersen and Guettarda that were, frankly, silly in very obvious ways, went on for 35K by the time of my edit. It was argued that we needed confirmation that a WP:NEWSBLOG on the New York Times website was under the editorial control of the newspaper or it was unreliable, and that a blog by scientists that called a report whose lead author was Fred Singer "dishonest" was merely criticizing the report, not Fred Singer. Editor after editor expressed amazement: This is very disturbing. SlimVirgin talk contribs 14:48, 24 May ... It is this kind of inconsistency in applying policy that causes NPOV problems on these pages. ATren (talk) 15:10, 24 May ... Kim, are you advocating using RealClimate, a self-published advocacy site, as a source in this article, but not a NYTimes blog? Do I have that right? Cla68 (talk) 15:45, 24 May Now, none of these other editors did what I did, and you're right, it did not help the tone of the discussion. I went through the bother of going to the Times website to see what they had to say about editorial oversight in an effort to show Kim something that might prove to even him that the source was reliable. I think I made more progress in that regard than the other editors. But, like the other editors, I also became utterly frustrated with Kim's obstinancy in the face of normal readings of policy and, frankly, common sense (there is no good reason for the Times not to have full editorial control over the reporters' blogs on its website). I say mention all this to demonstrate just how difficult it was to deal with Kim here. It's also true that none of the other editors made a snarky comment like mine. You're right, I shouldn't have said it. In this case, I don't think it mattered much and I do think a little sneering is a relatively mild response compared with other common reactions in tense situations, like harsh incivility and personal attacks. If I had to do it over, I would not do it again. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 02:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #8: [103] Why is this diff in the Fof? -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #9: [ [104]] I regret the tone of my language here when I was reacting to what I consider Tony's repeated persaonal attack. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #10: [105] Where is the "nasty" language here? Why is this diff in the Fof? The harshest thing I say in it is at the end: This is very much the behavior of a disruptive editor rather than a reasonable one. I don't think Kim's behavior has been reasonable; it's been disruptive, and some of the diffs, seen in context, are my reactions to that disruption. 2/0 had a perfectly acceptable argument asking ArbCom to reject the remedy against Kim. I disagreed and posted a perfectly acceptable argument to the contrary. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #11:
[106] This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future Shell, how is this diff "not productive"? I thought I made an extremely important, productive point: Arbitration enforcement will be gamed, and I'm entitled to my opinion on that. How is it "nasty"? It certainly isn't needling anybody at all. I wanted to say it in a way that would get your attention (sure got it) You don't like it, I get that. Please tell me what's wrong with it, because I don't get that. --
JohnWBarber (
talk)
02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #12: [107] Shell objects to this sentence Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments? This, according to Shell, is an example of nasty remarks [...] causing more tension in an already tense area. The context shows otherwise. Here's a larger excerpt of that comment:
I'm collapsing this because it's long. I think I need to say it, but I don't think everybody should have to scroll so much to get past it. --
JohnWBarber (
talk)
01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Asking others about what behavior they might know of is not proof of a "vendetta". As a matter of fact, neither Scjessey nor Viriditas has any proof that there's been a vendetta against Scjessey. Last night, I suggested Scjessey actualy find some proof, but he's content to simply repeat the smear and Viriditas at 01:12 above simultaneously posts that it is only "alleged" and implies it exists. Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments? If I have a concern about an editor, Scjessey, and if I've already complained about that editor in the past in the proper forums, how is it improper if I complain again about the same editor after I run across him again and am attacked by him? So Shell, you took that quote from this immediate context in which I was responding to people telling me I was following a "vendetta", and you're using this as an example where it's quite possible to discuss other editors and their behavior in an objective manner - your method of handling things and your tendency to personalize your comments are inappropriate. Here's how "vendetta" first appeared in that thread (just follow the link and scroll up to find it):
Now here was my first reply (an excerpt):
So my first reaction was fine, even by your lights. But Scjessey didn't stop, and I thought Viriditas was joining in (I'm not so sure now that Viriditas meant to imply a vendetta [see 01:12, 12 Sept], although he was trying to denigrate AQFK's evidence by linking it with mine). Here is Scjessey's immediate reply (02:35, 12 September):
Shell, after literally dozens of personal attacks on this page and others -- attacks which you and other arbs as well as the clerks have largely ignored, and personal attacks against me right in the thread that this diff is a part of, "an objective manner" is, frankly, near impossible. I'm not "personalizing" a discussion in which I'm being attacked because it's already been "personalized", hasn't it? In this edit, in fact, I moved from responding to Scjessey's and Viriditas' "vendetta" comments toward productive presentation of evidence, showing Scjessey's comments more recently were inflammatory in just the same ways that they were when ArbCom sanctioned him a little over a year ago. By the way, Scjessey brought up "vendetta" two hours after Tony had brought it up on the same page. I had replied to Tony (17:25, 11 Sept) that the only vendetta I knew of was Scjessey's against me. I was (and am) able to point to diffs showing Scjessey holding a grudge against me. Despite my irritation with Scjessey, the only thing he can point to is me following policy regarding him. Now you point to this and other comments during a string of personal attacks against me as evidence showing how I'm "personalizing" discussions on a page about editors' conduct. Some of Scjessey's attacks on me are on the P.D. page right now, in the Fof you voted to support. I don't think my relatively mild comment in the midst of all of the above was contributing to a battleground atmosphere on this page. Sure, I don't think it was the best comment I might've made, but in context it isn't worth bothering about. (My responses to other evidence will be much briefer.) -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC) |
Diff #13: [108] There must've been some other vendetta you're talking about, Tony. C'mon, fork it over. I had just been attacked by Tony. Smeared. WP:NPA. The insinuation was that I had a "vendetta" going on. And your concern: That italics around "some" and C'mon, fork it over. is an example of "nasty" language "making [my] discussion much less effective and causing more tension". Shell, I think a more efficient way to reduce tension in discussions is not to have a personal attack in the first place and for others not to ignore them when they happen repeatedly. I agree that my response could have been better. I'll try harder to avoid sarcasm and snark the next time I'm attacked. But I don't think this diff, even in combination with others, is really important enough for an Fof. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"abuse of multiple accounts" There is no legitimate reason to include this in the finding. Shell, why did you include it and why don't you remove it? After I was blocked for "abuse of multiple accounts", the checkuser/blocking admin said the reason had to do with being "disruptive". [109] I asked the checkuser/admin why I was blocked rather than approached, because I hadn't done anything "abusive" -- at least anything that was beyond a technical violation and therefore not worth a block. The blocking admin, Versageek, replied I felt the nature of your comments certainly represented wiki-lawyering and in some cases the tone bordered on trolling. Also, it was clear you were an established user debating on a project page using an account with very few edits.. which suggested there was also violation of the (recently updated) WP:SOCK policy. [110]. I then asked where this disruption could be found and received no actual reply. [111] I then brought the matter to ArbCom, protesting (among other things) that I hadn't been disruptive. Here is the AfD. [112] Here is the DRV [113]. I also made some comments on Jake Wartenberg's talk page. Shell, your inclusion of "JohnWBarber was formerly known as Noroton ( talk · contribs) where he was repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts" seems to endorse the view that the multiple-accounts block was justified (by my "disruptive" behavior, something for which there is no proof and never has been any proof). This strengthens your case that I'm showing a pattern of "disruptive behavior" since the block was a year ago. I can understand why you'd want to try to strengthen a case which even you say is "rather difficult to quantify with diffs", but I think you're going to have to rely on the block from two years ago rather than a year ago. Versageek couldn't produce a diff in which I was "disruptive". Simply using multiple accounts is not, by itself "disruptive". Please find the "disruption" in the AfD or DRV or drop the allegation. Because it isn't at all over the top to say that you, Versageek, WP:AUSC and ArbCom itself are committing (or have committed) a personal attack by making
I realize this is complicated and I don't blame you for think you are deliberately trying to continue this personal attack, but ArbCom helped to create this mess. The very least ArbCom owes me is not to perpetuate it. --
JohnWBarber (
talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (added information --
JohnWBarber (
talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)) (tweaked language in second to last sentence -- to what I meant to say. --
JohnWBarber (
talk)
00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Tomorrow, I expect to go through the edits related to The Gore Effect and wrap up my comments here. If I'd had more time, I'd be done already.
Carcharoth, on the P.D. page, says his sole problem with the current proposal is mentioning the last block, which I appreciate. He says he has no problem with the rest, which I find odd, since I've pointed out very clearly on this page that some of the diffs appear to have no substance. It does me absolutely no good to confuse me and others about the relevance of these diffs (and I'm evidently not the only one confused by them), so it would do a lot of good for ArbCom members respond to my questions here. As for my other comments in defending myself, arbitrators either find them cogent or they don't, and I'd welcome feedback or questions about them.
Newyorkbrad says, there [...] is a sharp edge to many of JohnWBarber's comments in various venues that he ought to strive to significantly tone down. I agree, and I will. Five people on the P.D. page and other people who are not grinding axes have now been giving me the same message. That's led me to look into it and come to the same conclusion. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Risker said this recently on another page, [114] and I think it's a good principle here: In situations where the editor exhibits chronic low level combative issues, the diffs are but snapshots that must be read in the context of entire discussions, or even entire talk pages. Risker also said this: The objective of providing example diffs is not to summarize all that an editor does that is problematic. The problem here is that there are precious few examples after removing so many examples that don't show the behavior the Fof says they show. Not only do I contend that my transgressions are minor, I think they're also a small enough number that I don't think they merit an Arbcom sanction. They exist, they're real, and I take them seriously, but there really ought to be more of them to justify a sanction. (Risker has said on the P.D. page that my "tone and stridency has been problematic". I accept that criticism.) There's a principle at the Wikipedia:Administrators policy page: WP:NOTPERFECT, Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. I'm not an admin but the principle of "sustained or serious disruption" or "consistently or egregiously poor judgment" is a standard worth thinking about for an ArbCom decision. I think my conduct is closer to "occasional mistakes" than the rest. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite know where to put this but I think this finding of fact generally misses the mark. Is JWB perfect? No. But who among us is? Some may recall that I was involved in the investigation of JWB in October 2009, referenced above, during which I stated concern about what I saw as the JWB account being used inappropriately. Might have been wrong then, might not have been, it's difficult to say at this remove, but it's my view that JWB has amply demonstrated that he is here for the good of the project, and the issues he raises are important ones. His analysis and evidence are sound and worthy of review. This finding, and the associated remedy that would be based on it, if any, are shooting the messenger. None of these diffs rise to the level that merit more than a caution. There seems to be a fair bit of straining at gnats and swallowing camels when evaluating behaviors in this case. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The "Gore Effect" article was an unfortunate bit of trivia that quite a lot of editors got sucked into, or rather permitted themselves to be sucked.
Examining the diffs in this proposed finding I'm not surprised to find that 6 of 13 come from that article or its talk page. and that the article also features in the proposed findings of Mark Nutley, Hipocrite, Kim Dabelstein Petersen, as well as the original formulation of finding 6 on edit warring. For a very minor bit of American culture this subject seems to have had a disproportionately divisive effect on Wikipedians. It has been both a touchstone and a catalyst of the very acrimonious atmosphere surrounding articles on the fringe of the subject.
In part, the joke version originally created in December explains how it attracted notoriety while still in Mark Nutley's user space, but the deletion discussion did turn up some constructive suggestions and I wasn't surprised to see it survive the discussion. At that point the thing to do was walk away for a few months and see what community editing did with it. That exactly the opposite happened, with embattled factions warring over a plot "not tomb enough and continent to hide the slain," is a snapshot of the worst of Wikipedia. The suspicion, ridiculous to explain in the light of day, appears to have been that the article might somehow be used to push a point of view on Wikipedia. Whatever, the reaction caused much harm. To scientifically literate editors the article's parallel with the Pauli effect should not need to be explained, and the current version of the article is one that we can all be proud of in a small way. -- TS 13:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to do this but I suspect the arbitrators do. Could you just underline the following bit:
Just make sure that admins know it's not something you agonize over before applying sanctions (and then only if the user having been warned and advised fails to imrprove) and that the interminable discussion comes after the sanction is imposed. This is a pretty straightforward "no more fucking around" sanction, but in this case I think it might help to make it plain that it's a discretionary affair. -- TS 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Even if it fails [118] - then i consider it binding. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 23:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
ZuluPapa5 has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [1] [2], [3], [4], comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [5], [6], [7] [8], and has engaged in systematic wiki-lawyering [9].
Proposed . I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in on this page. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
ZuluPapa5 ( talk · contribs) has edited disruptively and engaged in a variety of uncivil and unseemly conduct, including edit warring ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]), systematic wikilawyering and tendentious debates ( [16] [17] [18] [19]), personal attacks, bad faith accusations, soapboxing, and comments that reinforced a battleground mentality ( [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], [25]).
Proposed as alternative. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 23:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming has engaged in disruptive behavior, including systematic misrepresentations of sources [26], [27], edit warring [28], [29], [30], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [31], [32].
Proposed. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in on this page. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming has been blocked twice for edit warring in the climate change area of wikipedia in both April 2008 and May 2010 [33]. FellGleaming recieved a severe warning through consensus [34] and a second warning or even ban was avoided through his withdrawing from the topic area. The second case that was poorly presented was closed as allowing further evidence [35]. Further evidence was not presented because he ceased operating in the topic area (he has now returned). If other editors are to be put under remedy 3 then leaving asside seriously problematic ediotors such as FellGleaming seems to be incongruous. Olap the Ogre ( talk) 13:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Any administrator can, on determination of the existence of an acrimonious editing environment, personally instruct any of the involved parties to cease editing an article and its associated talkpage for a specified period of time. Editors who do not follow these instructions can be subject to blocks.
I've been trying to think of ways to empower administrators without making them into what I like to term, "involved monsters". This is one way to do it, I think. Mandatory breaks for users who are involved in heated disputes might clear the air enough for less upset editors to try to collaborate. These breaks would be required to expire allowing the problem editors to return to, perhaps, a page that is in better shape. Arguments over whether an administrator is involved, biased, or favoring a particular faction or POV are made moot since the breaks are required to expire. If an "involved administrator" sends one "faction" away to give "ownership" to the other faction, this will only last until expiration of the break.
Oftentimes editors (myself included) cannot help themselves when a dispute erupts. Administrators rarely instruct people to not edit on a page due to acrimony.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) Admins can already do this sort of thing using discretionary sanctions. Roger Davies talk 22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that there is merit to this proposal, but I would not rate it as an issue that should hold up the final decision. It should probably be rephrased, as I think the term cool-down is a bit loaded at Wikipedia. I have used a similar technique with some success at AN3; I think that EdJohnston is very good at applying it at that board, though I do not know if he is interested in discretionary sanctions. - 2/0 ( cont.) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Due to the traditional restraint on considering questions of content, the Arbitration committee recognises its inability to deal with civil POV pushing. It encourages the community to develop new dispute resolution processes to overcome this limitation.
Please remember to sign all new proposals made. Alternatives to existing proposals are best posted above in a section discussing that proposal. Please keep all disucssion on-topic to the proposal and don't drift off-topic into discussing other proposals. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) This replaces the previous discussion.
--cot|Collapsing. To my mind, inconclusive on the evidence presented. Roger Davies talk 10:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)--
JohnWBarber has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [37], [38], [39], comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], and engaging in systematic wiki-lawyering while the case progressed [45], [46], [47], [48].
Proposed per arbitrator request. I will respond only to arbitrators, as I'm not getting involved in the systematic attempts to stonewall via back-and-forth obviously engaged in (and highlighted here) on this page. Hipocrite ( talk) 11:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
[49], [50], [51], [52] [53] Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm reading it the same way. I'm also trying to access archive 4 but I am getting an error that says it has to do with the software when I hit the history. Can anyone else? I am trying to find the section where he says he is "a victim of the abuse" or did research and also the comments at the Scjessey FoF Barber set up. Thanks for any help. -- CrohnieGal Talk 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that JWB's "baiting" claim against Tony Sidaway [54]was without merit and should be made a part of this FoF. Resp. to Crohnie: no, I'm not having a problem accessing Archive 4. ScottyBerg ( talk) 22:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that there is an FoF on this editor, can we take off the hat so that it can be seen? Editors may have more to add too since I know I wasn't finished with adding one more to what I added. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC) As per the discussion below I would like finish adding the difs I wanted to add prior to the hatting. [55], [56], [57], and [58]. Thank you for the advice below about adding this here. This is all I am going to say about this matter. I hope the arbitrators will look at the difs provided in this section and make there own decisions as to whether any of them are useful to add to the FoF on the PD page. (Notation: I tried adding the difs and and error message came up and I lost everything, so I tried to give them again.) Thanks again, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Initial response:
One final point, it's quite possible to discuss other editors and their behavior in an objective manner - your method of handling things and your tendency to personalize your comments are inappropriate. Shell babelfish 19:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't begrudge John W Barber's right to bring evidence, but I just want to make it plain that I vehemently deny attempting to provoke (bait) him. John, I apologise if my sincere actions ever gave you that impression. -- TS 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I rearranged my answers in numerical order below. Easier to keep track. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #1: [90] This was not edit warring. The consensus had been reached, although discussion had restarted. I don't recall if at this time there was a consensus to keep the lead essentially focused more on one definition of the term "The Gore Effect" or whether there was simply no consensus to change, but my edit was made to insist that discussion and consensus forming be respected. If you look at the edit history of the page, you'll find Jake doing the same thing at 15:57 June 22. [91] It isn't easy to follow the talk page discussions because they took place at length and were continued confusingly in a number of different talk sections, but the editors involved all knew that there was not a consensus to change the lead. I can demonstrate that with names of editors and diffs if necessary. KimDPetersen's edit, which I was reverting, was done as an end-run around the previous consensus and the ongoing discussion and was therefore disruptive; reverting it -- once -- was not. My revert was limited to Kim's changes in the lead, although Kim had reverted other changes I'd made in the article as well. (I thought he had every right to revert those changes, and if I wanted to change it back I should get consensus on the talk page. IIRC, I decided not to bother. The intent at all times was to avoid edit warring and make discussion the deciding factor. I suppose it would have been better to point out in the discussion that the change had been made without consensus as the matter was still under discussion, and that we needed to change it back if there was no new consensus to support Kim's change. That's what I would do in the future. Shell has criticized my behavior in the discussion on that page, and she makes some good points about that, which I'll address under the headings of those diffs. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #2: [92] This is not edit warring. This is classic WP:BRD: Bold: [93] Revert: [94] Discuss: [95] (links to entire discussion) I don't understand why this was included in the finding. Shell, am I missing something? If you look at the timestamps, I even started the discussion a minute before making the revert. I can't see any way that this comes close to edit warring. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (new timestamp)
Diff #3: Addressed above at 17:34, 2 Oct. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #4: [96] To KimDPetersen: That's not a contribution to a discussion. Please answer my questions and start being constructive. Well, his comment wasn't constructive. This statement (the entire diff) in fact was an earnest effort to be constructive. If I'm being a little curt it's because I was faced with dealing with editors who showed no interest in actually examining the issues at hand. In my opening comment in that thread, I linked to a part of WP:OR policy -- an exception to regular WP:OR strictures. The response from these editors was "Hey, your edit was original research." As if my link and explanation had never been shown to them. It could make a person a tad frustrated, couldn't it, arbitrators? KimDPeterson, who had reverted my edit, had the least to say about it (the comment immediately above mine in the diff): The main point is: Since at least 3 editors feel that it isn't obvious, then you must be able to provide references for it, otherwise you are doing WP:OR. It even sounds like gloating. Why is a little curtness on my part after all that stony lack of cooperation from those other editors, cited as some kind of "disruptive" behavior? Is it not understandable that I would be frustrated? Was the behavior of the other editors, who ignored my main points in that thread, itself reasonable? Shell, you say that this is an example of "disruption", which is defined as something impeding Wikipedia's normal processes, like coming to a consensus on article content. But editors who continually ignore the main points being made (so long as they're reasonable) are not showing any interest in the purpose of the talk page -- to improve the article. I'm going to say something about content here, but only for the purposes of showing my reasonable behavior and the unreasonable behavior I was met with (so arbitrators' agreement or disagreement with me on the content point is irrelevant): "The Gore Effect", as either a joke or cliche, is a thing made of words. Things made of words are often categorized in various ways. If we see a category that simple editorial judgment (on the order of WP:CALC) can show us is applicable, it is reasonable to suggest saying that in the article. The nature of a snowclone or phrasal template is that part of the phrase is changed while other parts stay the same compared to similar phrases (here: The Gore Effect, The Clinton Effect, The Blair Effect, The Pauli Effect, or frankly any other "Effect" with a name in front of it, preferably also with a "The"). It was therefore necessary, once bringing up the idea of a "phrasal template" to mention similar phrases (just as we couldn't mention that a phrase or word is a synonym of something else without stating what that thing is it's supposed to be like, if we were going to introduce the idaa of a synonym into an article.) The discussion shows that I was willing to drop "snowclone" and simply refer to phrasal templates (see my comment at 18:48, 23 June), per Arthur's objection. I was also willing to use other examples of phrasal templates, although I thought examples with other public political figures were best (see my comment at 21:51, 23 June). That's an effort at coming to a compromise. And my efforts were reasonable throughout. Guettarda ignored my argument on WP:CALC grounds; JakeInJoisey was similarly unresponsive; Arthur threw up various objections, but I might have reached an agreement with him. KimDPetersen at that point didn't discuss the merits of the situation at all. My response was not even uncivil. It was simply curt. Those editors are not wilting lilies, and any other editor who responded to me would have received my respectful attention, in which I would have shown respect to their arguments and to themselves and a willingness to compromise. And for this curtness, in these circumstances, I'm being sanctioned? Just look at KimDPetersen's completely unconstructive, uncooperative attitude and response as shown in the rest of the discussion, after which I soon decided I had had enough of this article:
When editors are not interested in listening, the editors trying to convince them are justified in getting frustrated and it's understandable that these editors can get a little curt. There should be a massive amount of this or it should be particularly hurtful for it to rise to the level that ArbCom needs to deal with it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 21:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #5: [98] and Diff #6: [99] These two diffs are from the same thread, here. [100] Shell states above:
Shell, anyone just relying on your description and on a quick look at the diffs, without looking at the (short) discussion for context or at the wider history would get a misleading impression about what was going on. You've almost thoroughly mischaracterized the nature and tone of the discussion. For more than a week, editors had been ignoring the fact that they didn't have consensus to change the lead and were trying to edit war their versions in. It was long evident that there was no consensus to change the lead. I told editors to go get consensus before trying to make a change they knew was controversial. Hipocrite started that thread immediately after this edit of mine, reverting to the status quo ante [101] (or as best I could figure out status quo ante among all the changes going on). Hipocrite stated that I had reverted to a version without any mention of the other, non-joke meaning of the phrase (which was false, it was in the last sentence of the lead, and I was fine with tweaking and expanding it). How could you not have seen Verbal's goading, WP:BATTLEGROUND statements? They were right above mine and were what I was responding to. How could you omit from your quotes of my statements the first thing I said, which was to correct Verbal's statement that I had reverted against consensus? You also ignore the very last thing I said in the final edit: Where are your compromise suggestions on the lead? I've been away from the article for a bit, did I miss where you offered them? (That was not some kind of snarky comment: There were about 1,000 edits to "Talk:The Gore Effect" in the previous two weeks and the talk page had ballooned to over 300K by this point, with several different discussions about the scope of the article, which is what this discussion about the lead was actually about.) You talk about "moving things forward" but the onus of suggesting a compromise -- and the most productive way forward. Fundamentally, though, the question had to be framed in terms of what we wanted the scope and focus of the article to be. I had already made my position clear on that in one of the many threads that discussed this point. No one offered a compromise suggestion in this section, perhaps because discussion was continuing elsewhere on the page. I wasn't obstructing compromise by being more obstinate -- I was reacting to goading, asking the goader to quit it and restating my desire to hear what kind of compromise Hipocrite, Verbal and the others would offer. That's all clear from looking at the thread. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 02:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #7: [102] Shell says above, you start off with a snarky but at least constructive discussion about sourcing but once again, can't resist needling another editor with Have your views evolved? Is that it?. The same kind of nasty remarks tend to pepper your comments, making your discussion much less effective and causing more tension in an already tense area. It's evident from looking at the thread at Talk:Fred Singer that the tension was caused by two editors, KimDPetersen and Guettarda, who were not just disagreeing with five other editors (SlimVirgin, ATren, Cla68, ScottyBerg and me), but who were using the flimsiest of arguments to keep a solidly sourced (and innocuous) quote out of the article while Kim had previously reverted in an edit war to keep in the article an attack on Singer coming from a source that BLP forbids. This discussion, on points made by KimdPetersen and Guettarda that were, frankly, silly in very obvious ways, went on for 35K by the time of my edit. It was argued that we needed confirmation that a WP:NEWSBLOG on the New York Times website was under the editorial control of the newspaper or it was unreliable, and that a blog by scientists that called a report whose lead author was Fred Singer "dishonest" was merely criticizing the report, not Fred Singer. Editor after editor expressed amazement: This is very disturbing. SlimVirgin talk contribs 14:48, 24 May ... It is this kind of inconsistency in applying policy that causes NPOV problems on these pages. ATren (talk) 15:10, 24 May ... Kim, are you advocating using RealClimate, a self-published advocacy site, as a source in this article, but not a NYTimes blog? Do I have that right? Cla68 (talk) 15:45, 24 May Now, none of these other editors did what I did, and you're right, it did not help the tone of the discussion. I went through the bother of going to the Times website to see what they had to say about editorial oversight in an effort to show Kim something that might prove to even him that the source was reliable. I think I made more progress in that regard than the other editors. But, like the other editors, I also became utterly frustrated with Kim's obstinancy in the face of normal readings of policy and, frankly, common sense (there is no good reason for the Times not to have full editorial control over the reporters' blogs on its website). I say mention all this to demonstrate just how difficult it was to deal with Kim here. It's also true that none of the other editors made a snarky comment like mine. You're right, I shouldn't have said it. In this case, I don't think it mattered much and I do think a little sneering is a relatively mild response compared with other common reactions in tense situations, like harsh incivility and personal attacks. If I had to do it over, I would not do it again. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 02:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #8: [103] Why is this diff in the Fof? -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #9: [ [104]] I regret the tone of my language here when I was reacting to what I consider Tony's repeated persaonal attack. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #10: [105] Where is the "nasty" language here? Why is this diff in the Fof? The harshest thing I say in it is at the end: This is very much the behavior of a disruptive editor rather than a reasonable one. I don't think Kim's behavior has been reasonable; it's been disruptive, and some of the diffs, seen in context, are my reactions to that disruption. 2/0 had a perfectly acceptable argument asking ArbCom to reject the remedy against Kim. I disagreed and posted a perfectly acceptable argument to the contrary. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #11:
[106] This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future Shell, how is this diff "not productive"? I thought I made an extremely important, productive point: Arbitration enforcement will be gamed, and I'm entitled to my opinion on that. How is it "nasty"? It certainly isn't needling anybody at all. I wanted to say it in a way that would get your attention (sure got it) You don't like it, I get that. Please tell me what's wrong with it, because I don't get that. --
JohnWBarber (
talk)
02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Diff #12: [107] Shell objects to this sentence Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments? This, according to Shell, is an example of nasty remarks [...] causing more tension in an already tense area. The context shows otherwise. Here's a larger excerpt of that comment:
I'm collapsing this because it's long. I think I need to say it, but I don't think everybody should have to scroll so much to get past it. --
JohnWBarber (
talk)
01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Asking others about what behavior they might know of is not proof of a "vendetta". As a matter of fact, neither Scjessey nor Viriditas has any proof that there's been a vendetta against Scjessey. Last night, I suggested Scjessey actualy find some proof, but he's content to simply repeat the smear and Viriditas at 01:12 above simultaneously posts that it is only "alleged" and implies it exists. Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments? If I have a concern about an editor, Scjessey, and if I've already complained about that editor in the past in the proper forums, how is it improper if I complain again about the same editor after I run across him again and am attacked by him? So Shell, you took that quote from this immediate context in which I was responding to people telling me I was following a "vendetta", and you're using this as an example where it's quite possible to discuss other editors and their behavior in an objective manner - your method of handling things and your tendency to personalize your comments are inappropriate. Here's how "vendetta" first appeared in that thread (just follow the link and scroll up to find it):
Now here was my first reply (an excerpt):
So my first reaction was fine, even by your lights. But Scjessey didn't stop, and I thought Viriditas was joining in (I'm not so sure now that Viriditas meant to imply a vendetta [see 01:12, 12 Sept], although he was trying to denigrate AQFK's evidence by linking it with mine). Here is Scjessey's immediate reply (02:35, 12 September):
Shell, after literally dozens of personal attacks on this page and others -- attacks which you and other arbs as well as the clerks have largely ignored, and personal attacks against me right in the thread that this diff is a part of, "an objective manner" is, frankly, near impossible. I'm not "personalizing" a discussion in which I'm being attacked because it's already been "personalized", hasn't it? In this edit, in fact, I moved from responding to Scjessey's and Viriditas' "vendetta" comments toward productive presentation of evidence, showing Scjessey's comments more recently were inflammatory in just the same ways that they were when ArbCom sanctioned him a little over a year ago. By the way, Scjessey brought up "vendetta" two hours after Tony had brought it up on the same page. I had replied to Tony (17:25, 11 Sept) that the only vendetta I knew of was Scjessey's against me. I was (and am) able to point to diffs showing Scjessey holding a grudge against me. Despite my irritation with Scjessey, the only thing he can point to is me following policy regarding him. Now you point to this and other comments during a string of personal attacks against me as evidence showing how I'm "personalizing" discussions on a page about editors' conduct. Some of Scjessey's attacks on me are on the P.D. page right now, in the Fof you voted to support. I don't think my relatively mild comment in the midst of all of the above was contributing to a battleground atmosphere on this page. Sure, I don't think it was the best comment I might've made, but in context it isn't worth bothering about. (My responses to other evidence will be much briefer.) -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 01:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC) |
Diff #13: [108] There must've been some other vendetta you're talking about, Tony. C'mon, fork it over. I had just been attacked by Tony. Smeared. WP:NPA. The insinuation was that I had a "vendetta" going on. And your concern: That italics around "some" and C'mon, fork it over. is an example of "nasty" language "making [my] discussion much less effective and causing more tension". Shell, I think a more efficient way to reduce tension in discussions is not to have a personal attack in the first place and for others not to ignore them when they happen repeatedly. I agree that my response could have been better. I'll try harder to avoid sarcasm and snark the next time I'm attacked. But I don't think this diff, even in combination with others, is really important enough for an Fof. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"abuse of multiple accounts" There is no legitimate reason to include this in the finding. Shell, why did you include it and why don't you remove it? After I was blocked for "abuse of multiple accounts", the checkuser/blocking admin said the reason had to do with being "disruptive". [109] I asked the checkuser/admin why I was blocked rather than approached, because I hadn't done anything "abusive" -- at least anything that was beyond a technical violation and therefore not worth a block. The blocking admin, Versageek, replied I felt the nature of your comments certainly represented wiki-lawyering and in some cases the tone bordered on trolling. Also, it was clear you were an established user debating on a project page using an account with very few edits.. which suggested there was also violation of the (recently updated) WP:SOCK policy. [110]. I then asked where this disruption could be found and received no actual reply. [111] I then brought the matter to ArbCom, protesting (among other things) that I hadn't been disruptive. Here is the AfD. [112] Here is the DRV [113]. I also made some comments on Jake Wartenberg's talk page. Shell, your inclusion of "JohnWBarber was formerly known as Noroton ( talk · contribs) where he was repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts" seems to endorse the view that the multiple-accounts block was justified (by my "disruptive" behavior, something for which there is no proof and never has been any proof). This strengthens your case that I'm showing a pattern of "disruptive behavior" since the block was a year ago. I can understand why you'd want to try to strengthen a case which even you say is "rather difficult to quantify with diffs", but I think you're going to have to rely on the block from two years ago rather than a year ago. Versageek couldn't produce a diff in which I was "disruptive". Simply using multiple accounts is not, by itself "disruptive". Please find the "disruption" in the AfD or DRV or drop the allegation. Because it isn't at all over the top to say that you, Versageek, WP:AUSC and ArbCom itself are committing (or have committed) a personal attack by making
I realize this is complicated and I don't blame you for think you are deliberately trying to continue this personal attack, but ArbCom helped to create this mess. The very least ArbCom owes me is not to perpetuate it. --
JohnWBarber (
talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (added information --
JohnWBarber (
talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)) (tweaked language in second to last sentence -- to what I meant to say. --
JohnWBarber (
talk)
00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Tomorrow, I expect to go through the edits related to The Gore Effect and wrap up my comments here. If I'd had more time, I'd be done already.
Carcharoth, on the P.D. page, says his sole problem with the current proposal is mentioning the last block, which I appreciate. He says he has no problem with the rest, which I find odd, since I've pointed out very clearly on this page that some of the diffs appear to have no substance. It does me absolutely no good to confuse me and others about the relevance of these diffs (and I'm evidently not the only one confused by them), so it would do a lot of good for ArbCom members respond to my questions here. As for my other comments in defending myself, arbitrators either find them cogent or they don't, and I'd welcome feedback or questions about them.
Newyorkbrad says, there [...] is a sharp edge to many of JohnWBarber's comments in various venues that he ought to strive to significantly tone down. I agree, and I will. Five people on the P.D. page and other people who are not grinding axes have now been giving me the same message. That's led me to look into it and come to the same conclusion. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Risker said this recently on another page, [114] and I think it's a good principle here: In situations where the editor exhibits chronic low level combative issues, the diffs are but snapshots that must be read in the context of entire discussions, or even entire talk pages. Risker also said this: The objective of providing example diffs is not to summarize all that an editor does that is problematic. The problem here is that there are precious few examples after removing so many examples that don't show the behavior the Fof says they show. Not only do I contend that my transgressions are minor, I think they're also a small enough number that I don't think they merit an Arbcom sanction. They exist, they're real, and I take them seriously, but there really ought to be more of them to justify a sanction. (Risker has said on the P.D. page that my "tone and stridency has been problematic". I accept that criticism.) There's a principle at the Wikipedia:Administrators policy page: WP:NOTPERFECT, Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. I'm not an admin but the principle of "sustained or serious disruption" or "consistently or egregiously poor judgment" is a standard worth thinking about for an ArbCom decision. I think my conduct is closer to "occasional mistakes" than the rest. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite know where to put this but I think this finding of fact generally misses the mark. Is JWB perfect? No. But who among us is? Some may recall that I was involved in the investigation of JWB in October 2009, referenced above, during which I stated concern about what I saw as the JWB account being used inappropriately. Might have been wrong then, might not have been, it's difficult to say at this remove, but it's my view that JWB has amply demonstrated that he is here for the good of the project, and the issues he raises are important ones. His analysis and evidence are sound and worthy of review. This finding, and the associated remedy that would be based on it, if any, are shooting the messenger. None of these diffs rise to the level that merit more than a caution. There seems to be a fair bit of straining at gnats and swallowing camels when evaluating behaviors in this case. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The "Gore Effect" article was an unfortunate bit of trivia that quite a lot of editors got sucked into, or rather permitted themselves to be sucked.
Examining the diffs in this proposed finding I'm not surprised to find that 6 of 13 come from that article or its talk page. and that the article also features in the proposed findings of Mark Nutley, Hipocrite, Kim Dabelstein Petersen, as well as the original formulation of finding 6 on edit warring. For a very minor bit of American culture this subject seems to have had a disproportionately divisive effect on Wikipedians. It has been both a touchstone and a catalyst of the very acrimonious atmosphere surrounding articles on the fringe of the subject.
In part, the joke version originally created in December explains how it attracted notoriety while still in Mark Nutley's user space, but the deletion discussion did turn up some constructive suggestions and I wasn't surprised to see it survive the discussion. At that point the thing to do was walk away for a few months and see what community editing did with it. That exactly the opposite happened, with embattled factions warring over a plot "not tomb enough and continent to hide the slain," is a snapshot of the worst of Wikipedia. The suspicion, ridiculous to explain in the light of day, appears to have been that the article might somehow be used to push a point of view on Wikipedia. Whatever, the reaction caused much harm. To scientifically literate editors the article's parallel with the Pauli effect should not need to be explained, and the current version of the article is one that we can all be proud of in a small way. -- TS 13:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to do this but I suspect the arbitrators do. Could you just underline the following bit:
Just make sure that admins know it's not something you agonize over before applying sanctions (and then only if the user having been warned and advised fails to imrprove) and that the interminable discussion comes after the sanction is imposed. This is a pretty straightforward "no more fucking around" sanction, but in this case I think it might help to make it plain that it's a discretionary affair. -- TS 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Even if it fails [118] - then i consider it binding. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 23:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)