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
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case Opened on 17:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed on 20:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Steve Quinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JimWae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Older

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo (August 2005)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo (October 2005)

More recent

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (August 2009)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009 (September 2009)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2010 (September 2010)
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-04/Time

Statement by Stevertigo[edit]

I am a 'controversial editor.' Or a "problematic editor." Or a "disruptive editor." That is, according to some people, that is what I am. According to them, even though I've been editing Wikipedia since 2002, and have contributed to the creation of numerous principles, policies, guidelines, and editoral positions, I am somehow in need of banning, or a monitor. The current issue is largely between Steve Quinn, Jim Wae and I, centered largely at the Punishment article. Before the punishment article, we three debated the introductory paragraphs of the Time article - an argument that I largely won (Time now has a general introductory sentence).

Steve and Jim appear to have been stalking me through my edit history, taking an interest in my editing and not necessarily the subject matter. This is the essential point - they did not arrive at the punishment article due to interest in that article, but the did so due to an undue interest in my editing. Thus their editing of that article suffered from a lack of cohesion that editors of actual interest would naturally have, hence I was opposed to certain edits they made to the article. This was our dispute. When I first edited the punishment article on 1 August, (diff) few people had touched the article in the months previous, and no one had commented on the talk page since October 2009. (See Talk:Punishment and Talk:Punishment/Archive 1).

Steve Quinn filed an ANI, at which other editors have chimed in - people whom I havent' had interactions with in months or years, and who still hold the grudge that previous cases did not find in their favor regarding me. To a fair eye, its clearly a case where bitter contestants are trying to finish what they started in years previous. To decide for yourself if my editing is "disruptive" (a euphemism for "trolling") see examples of my recent work.

My reasons for posting here are because matters of sanction and banning should be taken seriously, in a way that administrators at ANI simply cannot do.

Statement by Steve Quinn[edit]

The ANI discussion is in the process of sorting out, an appropriate sanction. Hence, I think this discussion is premature. At the same time, (At ANI) Steveritigo appeared to wish to change his methods of editing to be in agreement with guidelines and policies. Now, it seems he has changed his mind again. I implore Stevertigo, to go ahead and make the statement contained on his talk page. It will show people that he is serious about working with people, rather only serving his point of view. I can't speak for other people, but I think this would go a long way for patching things up with the community. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have to agree with Ken below. This appears to be an attempt to cirumvent the current ANI. And I agree with Georgewilliamherbert that any decision to take this case should be delayed until the current ANI is completed. I would prefer that the community make the decision, and it appears capable of doing so. The proposals for, and support for, a total block have aggreagated into an apparent, weighted, consensus. It is just a question of for how long, at this point. But, it is also a question of allowing the community to follow through. A discussion of this phase should begin to take place, along with some other issues that have not been addressed. That is if the community wishes to address these other issues. In any case, this next phase of the discussion should begin to take place. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JimWae[edit]

If I understand Stevertigo's request correctly, he is accusing me of harrassing/wiki-hounding him. I will acknowledge that I did check his edit history - after having to call for a topic RFC for his inserting content such as the following as the very first sentence in the Time article:

Time is the concept of the underlying physical mechanisms that macroscopically transform reality —in accord with dimensional constraints and orthographies at the smallest scales —such that the state of the present is realized directly from past states, and the future can be pictured by projection.

and

Time is a physical process and non-spatial dimension in which reality is macroscopically transformed in continuity from the past through the present and on to the future.[1] NB: the [1] had no such content

After getting nowhere with Stevertigo on Talk:Time where he tried to justify such outrageous edits and objected to using sources (which he still does), I think any conscientious editor would check the edit history of another editor who inserts such outrageous & mostly unintelligible original research content as the first sentence of articles. I then put an {{OR-section}} tag on Time in physics for his insertion into it as the very first sentence:

Time is a real phenomenon it and therefore has a basis in physical laws. However its full workings remain mysterious and not all understood (likely holographic and computational in nature), and though time is a key aspect within the study of physics and physical interactions, it has generally been treated as a single dimension within the geometry of a physical space, or else a transactional property that acts upon a physical object.

Please keep in mind that the above edits by Steve were all marked as minor, as he marked everything then. My editing of Punishment came about because that article was already on my watchlist. Punishment is a topic I studied in several Philosophy of Education classes and I have had several books that deal with it on my bookshelf for over 30 years now

Steve has commented several times that he thinks he won & I lost a debate at Time. Nothing Steve proposed was kept. I never proposed that the lede was perfect as it was. In fact, the lede was probably better in some respects (more concise, less redundant, and quite balanced) before changes were made in 2007 to accomodate Stevertigo's objections (now lost in the archives) going back several years. Other editors have already objected to Steve's characterization of the exchange as a win for Steve. I see his request here as a way to dilute the ongoing discussion about his behaviour. --JimWae (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/0/0)[edit]

• Awaiting statements. In itself, this does not appear to be a conventional request for arbitration, in that it is not clear what remedy the filing party is seeking to achieve. But my best reading is that Stevertigo is anticipating that a discussion of his editing will wind up on this page soon in any event and is seeking to bring things to a head, in which case I may be open to addressing any issues raised by other editors, rather than declining this case and waiting for someone else to file one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still monitoring the ANI discussion. Such discussions should have finite lives, so I anticipate voting to accept or not within a day or two. I've asked Stevertigo, on my talkpage, to clarify the nature and scope of the case he is seeking (although we would by no means by bound by his suggestion). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept as there seems to be little progress toward a resolution of the matter through other means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards acceptance, assuming that the AN/I discussion doesn't resolve this to the community's satisfaction. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, given the lack of resolution at AN/I. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also leaning toward acceptance, especially as the request has been initiated by Stevertigo directly. Will await the result of the AN/I thread before deciding, although it currently appears as though there is no conclusion but a wide variety of proposals. Risker (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Stevertigo: This [1] really is not okay. Please don't do that again. Risker (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Risker (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept This is rapidly degenerating between the parties. (edit to add: Please note, that as usual, we will look at editors total behavior as needed) SirFozzie (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept; — Coren ^(talk) 11:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept  Roger Davies ^talk 02:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept - KnightLago (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Verifiability, reliable sources, and original research[edit]

1) One of Wikipedia's founding principles is that all information in Wikipedia articles must conform to the policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research, which includes any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources. An editor who adds material to an article must be able to cite reliable published sources that directly support the material as presented.

Passed 11 to 0, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of sourcing[edit]

1A) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Passed 10 to 0, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

2) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Passed 11 to 0, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Violation of policy[edit]

3) Wikipedia's policies are complex, and occasional, inadvertent violations are entirely excusable; editors—even veteran ones—are not expected to be perfect. However, willful and deliberate defiance of core Wikipedia policy is generally incompatible with continued participation in the project.

Passed 10 to 0, with 1 abstention 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Recidivism[edit]

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to improve their behavior. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 11 to 0, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous sanctions[edit]

1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has been sanctioned in two prior arbitration proceedings, and additionally as the result of two separate community discussions:

1. In the Stevertigo case, he was found to have "violated the three revert rule and edited a protected page to conform to his version,... used his power as an administrator to unblock himself a number of times, [and] blocked one of the administrators who was blocking him", and stripped of his administrator status.
2. In the Obama articles case, he was found to have "engaged in edit-warring and... edit summary attacks", admonished, and placed under an editing restriction.
3. Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009, he was blocked for two weeks by Tznkai (talk · contribs), who cited "Disruptive editing: Misuse of wikipedia as a battle ground, refusal to abide by policy".
4. Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2010, he was placed under an editing restriction by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs), who concluded that "Stevertigo is subject to a community imposed edit restriction of 1 revert per article per week, with indefinite duration".

Passed 11 to 0, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's editing[edit]

2) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has engaged in sustained edit-warring on multiple high-profile articles, including "human" ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), "time" ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), and "punishment" ([13], [14]).

Passed 11 to 0, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's edit summaries[edit]

3) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has engaged in personal attacks via edit summaries ([15], [16], [17]).

Passed 9 to 0, with 2 abstentions 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's use of sources[edit]

4) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added material not directly supported by the sources provided ([18], [19]), or with no sources provided at all ([20], [21], [22], [23]).

Passed 11 to 0, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's approach[edit]

5) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) has adopted a battleground approach, characterized by repeated assumptions of bad faith ([24], [25]), in his interactions with other editors; and has engaged in disruption to illustrate a point ([26])..

Passed 11 to 0, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Stevertigo banned[edit]

1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 10 to 1, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo to be placed on probation[edit]

2) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined by the Arbitration Committee, effective on the completion of the ban imposed in remedy 1. He is prohibited from returning to Wikipedia until the terms of this probation have been set, regardless of whether any other ban remains in place.

Should Stevertigo wish to return to editing, he may contact the Arbitration Committee via email once six months have elapsed from the date of this decision. The Committee will then open a discussion regarding the terms of his probation; this discussion may include the involvement of the community at an appropriate venue. Should Stevertigo reject the terms offered by the Committee, he will be limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.

Passed 11 to 0, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo required to cite sources[edit]

3) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article.

Should Stevertigo fail to cite a published source, the added material may be removed by any editor. Reverts made to enforce this provision are to be treated as reversions of obvious vandalism for the purposes of revert limitations and editing restrictions.

Should Stevertigo cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

Passed 11 to 0, 20:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(enforcement provisions are provided in the Remedies, above)

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 23 October 2010, Fox blocked Stevertigo for 1 year to enforce remedy 1.[27]