Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Kirill Lokshin (Talk) & SirFozzie (Talk)

We're paying attention

Thanks to those who have provided evidence to date; I want to assure you that at least some of the members of the Arbitration Committee have been reading as additions have been made. Risker (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is this the main place to interact with Arbcom and other case participants? The fact that there are four talk pages - one for each arbitration page (Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)) seems unnecessarily fragmented. Could we integrate these into one talk page? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Steve, I understand your concern; at the same time, part of the reason for the fragmentation is that the talk pages should be most closely related to the page where the edits in question have taken place, because those pages are most likely to be watched. It's the committee's sad experience that these talk pages can become extremely unwieldy, particularly those associated with the evidence and proposed decision pages (the current Climate Change case has at least 10 archives at this point), so it is simpler to compartmentalize. Risker (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, Risker. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, now that we've all added our statements, one of the issues we can talk about is how the case is conceptualized. Its relevant for us the parties to ascertain how Arbs view the matter of the case's conceptualization: What are its focus, its scope, and its boundaries? Obviously we the parties have differences in how the case is conceived. If the Arbs could please comment regarding their view of this case, that would help greatly. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If I could suggest something, your evidence is lacking diffs that would allow us to verify your viewpoint. You may want to consider revising your presentation. Shell ^babelfish 01:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Shell, from my point of view, the case is not a referendum on me going back five years. Hence though Steve Quinn has provided diffs going back that far, these exceed the scope of the current case and don't add anything substantive or relevant to events in the latter half of 2010. Could Arbs here please comment on the issue of these ancient battles as "evidence" and what relevance they have to the current case? In any case, anyone who has been editing for as long as I have (2002) has battles in their past, and all Steve has done is list some of them. (Or all of them).

I will do as you suggest and add a couple more diffs to my statement, but these will not be as superficially impressive as Steve's monsoon of diff links, and they will be constrained to the punishment and time articles - the only articles in which Steve, Jim and I intersected and had differences.

If there is an issue of validating my assertions versus those of the opposition, I'm certain that the Arbs aren't going to make assumptions simply based on their sheer volume of diff links - most of which simply link to comments by other editors, and don't substantiate their claims. Finally its not clear what their actual claim is. My claim is clear: they lost the argument at the time article (Talk:Time#Nonce introduction) and followed me to the punishment article (Talk:Punishment/Archive 1#Lede issues) to continue in an adversarial mode. Jim admits that he "checked [my] edit history," but I've yet to see Steve admit this. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the volume of diffs has little to nothing to do with it, but a complete lack of diffs is unhelpful when we're reviewing the evidence since we're unlikely to just take anyone's word for it. For example, it would help to give diffs (or perm links) to any discussions that would show why you feel you were followed and how things happened. We do look at the diffs provided closely, so someone giving diffs that don't fit their claims or bring up older unrelated issues will be noticed. As for older issues, the may be relevant as they apply to a pattern of behavior but certainly, unrelated issues that have been resolved aren't likely to affect things. Since I haven't reviewed the context of the older diffs or looked at the evidence in depth, I can't speak to whether those older diffs indicate a pattern in your particular case. Shell ^babelfish 02:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. In a certain way, I see this attempt to dig up old issues and present a "pattern" of "disruptive editing" as a kind of double-jeopardy. It is my view that cases in the past were settled in the past and should remain settled. Steve's premise seems to be that Arbcom did not serve its purpose in past cases involving me, and it somehow needs to fulfill its purpose now. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe User:Stevertigo is missing what is happening here. I could just provide evidence that Stevertigo's propensity for inserting WP:OR is what drew the attention of editors to three or four articles, pack it in, and "go home" (so to speak). This is the only issue that has been placed on the table by Stevertigo. So, why don't I just do that? Just think, I could be over at WikiProject Academics helping to improve some of the new articles. Or I could be authoring another article for the Mass spectrometry series that I have started. Instead, I have put that aside to see this through. I knew nothing about ArbCom before I entered my first statement in the request area.

I am here to shed light on, and help solve, a long term editing problem that has come to my attention. I believe this to be a worthy endeavor, and an endeavor worthy of ArbCom. These are my only reasons for participating in this forum. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it adds anything constructive to suggest there is a "double jeopardy" issue here. ArbCom is not a criminal justice body, and it does not seek to punish people. It seeks meaningful resolutions to conflicts among users. If a conflict was not adequately resolved or if conflicts continue among users, shouldn't we seek different, more effective solutions? As to drawing on evidence from th past, well how else can one illustrate that a problem thought to be resolved has not been resolved? We need some point of reference. The idea that "disruptive behavior" should be discouraged has by now been around for a while. Let ArbCom decide based on evidence whether it applies here. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the evidence

I'm going to be using this section to ask some questions about the evidence presented. If I've left a question about your evidence, please feel free to respond inline, as in a normal threaded discussion. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Stevertigo

1. Regarding the assertion that "disruptive" is a euphemism for "trolling", do you have any specific evidence to support this interpretation? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirill, at the core of the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (WP:DE) guideline, from its inception in Sep. 2006 to Dec. 2008, was a quote by Larry Sanger in which he said:

"Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here."

This quote was the centerpiece of the guideline featured at the top of the initial draft, and, I think, remains its philosophical core, even though the quote itself has been removed from view.

DE is a guideline I have challenged in the recent past, in large part because of its usage in application to me during late 2009. I assert(ed) that the term "disruptive editing" did not apply to comments on talk pages, because we do not "edit" talk pages (rather we "comment" on them). In the course of this I discovered the Sanger quote and it became clear that the term "disruptive" was simply shorthand for what Sanger said plainly ("trolls, vandals and wiki-anarchists"). As a history note, Sanger left Wikipedia in some part due to comments like these, wherein afterward people grew to feel his attitude was divisive and unhelpful to the project. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the initial version of the guideline, I'm curious:

(a) Why would the Sanger quote would take precedence over the next, bolded sentence ("Users who persist in making unfounded or poorly-sourced edits in the face of opposition, who continually attempt to include original research, or who continually attempt to use Wikipedia to promote theories which are widely discredited may be blocked or banned from the project.") in examining the intent of those who created the guideline? In other words, why would "disruptive editing" not equally be considered a euphemism for "making unfounded or poorly-sourced edits" or "includ[ing] original research"?

(b) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Sanger quote did represent the creators' intent, why would the first category of users described by Sanger ("trolls") take precedence over the others ("vandals", "wiki-anarchists")? In other words, why would "disruptive editing" not equally be considered a euphemism for "wiki-anarchis[m]"?

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The very next version of that guideline [1] doesn't have the bolded text, and leaves the quote isolated at the top. The introductory text itself changed substantially between its creation and the edit where the quote was removed. What are we to make of one version or the other? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: To answer more directly part b of your question, I took the term "trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists" to be kind of one unit - Sanger appeared to have considered them all in the same sort of lump. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am one of those who has edited DE, but far from the only and i haven't been active there for a long time. What matters is it was not written with any one individual in mind, and was written to address what many editors consider a real problem. It is not a policy (for whatever this distinction is wroth) but a guideline, but it sure has stood any test of time and people refer to it - constructively - regularly. SV can argue that his editing is not disruptive, which would be a fair, reasonabl, and appropriate argument to make. But I do not think this is the place to start a campagin against a WP quideline on another page. Whether or not ArbCom finds it useful in this case is of course up to ArbCom. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Various responses to comments by Steve Quinn

Originally posted below at Questions for Steve Quinn, moved here out of sequence by Steve Quinn

• That was a partial diff for a talk page comment I edited a few times. The full diff is here. Note that that comment, along with the issues in which it had context, was covered under the Obama articles case. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)PS: Your characterization of the issue at that article is inaccurate. This is one of the problems with trying to dig up old issues that have no relevance to the current case.-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Originally posted below at Questions for Steve Quinn, moved here out of sequence by Steve Quinn

• I appreciate the fact that youve parsed this fairly well. I am out of my depth when it comes to certain subjects, and interested parties there were fair in treating my suggestion. My issue was that 'dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist' is almost tautological considering there are other candidates not matter. But "matter" itself has almost paradoxically different definitions, among these being particles that are generated in Higgs-like fashion. A noted researcher referred to 'feebly interacting particles' when describing dark matter, and I took that to mean 'matter of some sort.' Note that "matter that is inferred to exist" isnt an article, as the main context for a topic should be, and I suggested theoretical substance as a proper context. In fact I stubbed that page for that purpose. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Originally posted below at Questions for Steve Quinn, moved here out of sequence by Steve Quinn

• But the point of course is that there is a real-world *concept of 'theoretical substance(s),' and, lacking such an article, I stubbed one. If you can think of any other such substances, please add them. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 08:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Steve Quinn

1. Regarding the "community imposed edit restriction of 1 revert per article per week" listed under "Remedies", are there instances during the dispute being considered here where Stevertigo exceeded this limit? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   Yes: [2], [3], [4]. Ucucha 02:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   I have read these questions. However, I will be unable to respond for about 8 hours {from now}. I do look forward to responding. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   I am currently researching this question---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   Kirill , I am not really clear on what you are asking. As of August 2, 2009 Stevertigo was free to exceed the 1RR (article per week) on any article that was not an Obama-related-article. Hence, up until the community imposed sanction of this most recent ANI, he could edit any other article, the same as any other editor, who was not under sanctions. Perhaps you could provide more clarity about what you are asking? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   I guess I need to apologize.

   I did not add that the "general" sanction was superceded on August 2, 2010 to Obama-related-articles-only (on the Evidence page). I myself was confused by the general sanction being imposed, and not clear about this decision being superceded.

   This came up at the ANI, and I was keeping track of a lot of stuff, all at the same time. Apparently I put this on the back burner. Also, I was thinking to deal with one issue at a time - as in - the ANI first, and then a request for Administrator Enforcement (if necessary) afterwards. By the time the ANI was decided I had moved on, working on other stuff related to this ArbCom, and maybe some other things. I never got back to it, and didn't think about it, until I answered the question, some hours ago. It was then I reviewed, once again, the section of the actual ArbCom document to see what the decision was regarding Stevertigo. When I read that section before, it was like a foriegn language that I did not understand - as in "What the heck is this collaspable box all about?" Also, somehow I came across the general sanction, first and then the ArbCom document. I'm telling you, when I saw that ArbCom document the first time, during the ANI, I had no idea what it was, or what it meant.

   Hence, it was not until I answered your question, some hours ago, that I became really clear what the decision was. It made sense this time. Also, you will have to forgive me, because all these documents were foreign to me, including the ANI documents.

   It was not until sometime during the ANI that understood ANIs, and these were often much smaller then this recent ANI that I had intiated. It was not until I became more heavily involved in ArbCom, searching through for ANI docments, and ArbCom documents, related to this case, that I understood how to read completed ArbCom documents. Even when I began entering evidence, I had no idea what I was doing except that I was attempting to follow the instructions at the top of the page. I still don't know what the other pages are about, except for the talk page, now. So you see - you are dealing with a rookie. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

   (It's amazing how stuff just dawns on me,as this just did). Also, apparently, I had already accepted that the superceded decision was valid before I saw your question. I don't know when. I think when no one was making a big deal out of the general 1RR restriction, and the fact that Stevertigo himeslf thought he was not under a general 1RR restriciton, had convinced me. It was not until some hours ago that I checked it out again in black and white. (I rhink that about covers it). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

2. Regarding this diff, listed under "Disregards WP:OR and WP:NFT, supported by talk page", has Stevertigo made any other statements similar to the one cited? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   To me this diff [5] clearly demonstrates his propensity for advocating inserting unsourced OR. Also, this diff presents his point of view of why he thinks his unsourced OR, or WP:MADEUP is valid. Stevertigo has brought this up [6]. With the second diff, which is added to the first, he does demonstrate his assertions are from a well spring of knowledge. The question is, what is the location of this well spring? This tendency may also be notable, specifically for this case. This is not the first time he appears knowledgeable. There are currently two other diffs on the evidence page where he appears to be knowledgeable. In fact, what I will do now is open a section with the three diffs, that Stevertigo may elaborate further.

   He has an argument for re-interpreting the term "Holocaust denial" on that article's talk page. For instance "holocaust" means something, and "denial" means something. Hence, "holocaust denial" means something else, or more, than its current, sourced, and conventionally accepted definition. I will supply one or two diffs, later.----Steve Quinn (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

   Denial [7] (under the broader term "denialism"). Also here he states that he has broadened the term, in the lede, ' A third edit involved the simple addition of "and others" to the line describing the Holocaust's and its targeted victims '. It is my understanding that as soon as he placed "and others" in the lede, he went into unsourced OR territory. Also in the third pargraph he re-invents the term "Holocaust Denial" into "Holocaust Denialism". This again appears to be another case of unsourced OR, and easy to overlook as simply a typo. But is it a typo? If it is not a typo, then what is happening here?

   In another part, I don't know if "usually referred to as the Holocaust" or if it is "always referred to the Holocaust" is correct. Also, Stevertigo indicates that he thinks the "Holocaust denial" is not limited to only Jews - "But even if that were true, and I'm not so sure it is..." He also indicates that "the phrase in question was simply describing what the Holocaust itself was, hence the disinclusion of the Roma and others is inaccurate". This was countered with asking if he have any sources to back up his assertions [8]. After this a protracted, and contentious talk page discussion ensues. Stevertigo argues endlessly with a number of other editors. This behavior was still present in a string of 2010 article talk pages, the only difference is the number of unsourced OR insertions, in the actual articles. In some articles this lasted longer than others. It was often a battle of unsourced OR v. WP:V in the actual articles. Also, his previous 3RR violations appear to be echoed in the future (2010) by a more slow motion type of editing conflict, in the articles themselves. (diffs to follow). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, relevant diffs which demonstrate that this behavior is still present in a string of 2010 articles can be found in the most recent ANI here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

   Also this section and the next should support that assertion. If this is not sufficient please let me know and I will supply relevant diffs. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

   OK, getting back to the original question in this section from Krill - "Regarding this diff, listed under "Disregards WP:OR and WP:NFT, supported by talk page", has Stevertigo made any other statements similar to the one cited? Here is another similar statement: [9], and this kind of underscores it [10].

3. Regarding the points listed under "Editing practices were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines and policies in between remedies and sanctions", is there anything relevant to these more recently than 2007? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   User:Stevertigo's edit history has nothing between March 18, 2008 and December 10, 2008, between November 7, 2007 and March 14 2008, and between September 25, 2007 and November 7, 2007. I didn't notice this before. I don't know what to make of it. Should Stevertigo be asked if he edited during these gaps? If he did then someone may need to go to the help desk. Or not, I don't know. And I will directly answer your question soon. I am currently researching your question. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   Here is a later example: November 9, 2009. On the Wikipedia guideline page Wikipedia:Disruptive editing Stevertigo creates a new box with content, for the very top of the page, entitled, "Editors note" [11]. This appears to be one random day, and I have no idea what the motivation was. It was removed, being described as "personal opinion" and "soap box" [12]. His personal opinions were invited to the talk page. Stevertigo reverts this edit, giving a different description, and creating a collaspable box for most of the content. [13]. After five more edits, and about six minutes it is removed, [14], and he is asked to please discuss on the talk page. There is a talk page discussion. started by User:SteveMcCluskey with a new section entitled "Editor's note" [15]. McCluskey states this box "essentially undermined the legitimacy of the guideline, which User:Stevertigo added as a header without any discussion on the talk page. Please discuss this to achieve consensus before restoring the disputed note." Stevertigo enters the conversation, on Talk, here [16], where he asks why is it inappropriate to undermine the guideline? He also appears to assert the "note" itself as a legitimate authority, which allows the box to placed there. This appears to be some sort of circular argument. This discussion does continue. I will read it further, and see if I can add further insight. I can also add a couple more articles to help answer this question, with the same or less discussion, as you prefer. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   From what I am able to ascertain, Stevertigo establishes a section for debate on his terms. He essentially states that this guideline is based on two "subjective concepts" and is therefore invalid. He states further that if the guideline were based on an "objective concept" and a "subjective concept", instead, it would then be valid. Much of what he has written here, was in the previous "Editor's note". What he means by "subjective concept" and "objective concept" I have no idea. But, I do not see anything referenced to guidelines, policies, or precedent regarding these concepts. Looking at this earlier diff [17], it appears that he is attempting to somehow get the contents of this "note" to be part of this guideline, which could be construed as motivation (I suppose). I really don't see any further discussion regarding this matter, beyond him establishing a section for debate. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

   For some reason I can't resist doing this. This is something different. This is a talk page where Stevertigo appears to be making valid points [18]. I have supplied the last diff of Stevertigo's contributions. One editor he is talking to, Randy, appears to have a bias, but advocates reliable sources. I haven't looked at this article in depth, nor have I read the whole talk page discussion. But what I have read, Stevertigo is not neccessarily in the wrong. The article title itself, especially at this stage, is a POV topic. I looked at its most recent version, and the emphasis on basing it in reliable sources has paid off. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

   A September 2009 ANI resulted in Stevertigo being sanctioned for "Disruptive editing: Misuse of wikipedia as a battle ground, refusal to abide by policy". This is chronologically just prior to his edtis to the Disruptive editing guideline (above).

   An involved process occured, which led up to the September--2009--ANI, which led to the sanctions. I will discuss this matter further, because it is very interesting how it starts, and what it leads to. Also, keep in mind this is relevant, because at least some of these behaviors were still employed just prior to the most recent ANI. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

   I think it is no longer neccessary to get into this, in order to make my point (or points). I might just use relevant elements.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

   Here again, is more recent situation - June, 2010. In the article "Dark matter" the lede is edited [19]. Notice the first sentence before the edit is moved down. In its place is a description which essentially states that dark matter is percieved at the conceptual level, and the concept is observable physical mass. There is no way to know if this is how the general scientific consensus conceptualizes dark matter. No sources are added that support this assertion. But, it appears to be also irrelevant, because the lede is intended to begin by describing dark matter, because the topic of the aricle is "dark matter". It appears that the topic of the article is not about conceptualizing "dark matter". Also the word "concepulization" in this context appears to be vague. Here is the almost finished product - [20]. Two days later more vague wording is added [21].

   Furthermore, there is a problem stating " [dark matter exists]...in places where matter, or "visible matter, ... does not exist". The assertion is that the only type of matter that exists is matter which can be seen with the human eye. Two distinctions are meshed. This appears to be an attempt to reframe this article, or even "dark matter" into a point of view, rather than scientific consensus. With this assertion, the context is altered. Scientific consensus describes "Dark matter" as matter. Matter is not only equated with matter that is visilbe to the unaided human eye. In any case, dark matter is not described as something else, and to say so enters into the realm of unsourced OR.

   Also, analysis of this sentence appears to be complicated. For example, after this new edit, the lede no longer states that "...dark matter is matter inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation..." This inference accounts for missing mass, which is postulated, to affect the rotational speeds of galaxies, to account for gravitational lensing of background objects, etc. True it is inferred to exist (from evidence), but that does not mean it is only a concept, and that it is some orginally named, mysteriously unattributable, something. Evidence is gathered to suggest its existence, not its conceptualization. It appears to be a type of matter that does not interact with certain physical phenomena. The talk page discussion, regarding this edit, appears to begin on June 19, 2010.

   One of the first statements pertaining to this new lede is "Besides being unnecessarily confusing, it seems to imply that dark matter is not matter, or that dark matter is only found in empty space. Comments? [22]. The talk page discussion sufficiently and ably discusses the issues involved, and hopefully not long to read through. However, there is a talk page item that I wish to discuss. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

   As the talk page discussion takes off (June 19), the unsourced OR, or WP:MADEUP lede is reverted to the scientific description of dark matter. On the talk page, the scientific lede is challenged first, by claiming that matter and dark matter is tautological, which supports my above analysis. Furthermore, the challenge ([23]) claims that use of the word "matter" is ambiguous, used in a blunt manner, is first not ("actually")dark, not invisible either, but of localized physical mass, and is a conceptualization. This argument appears to be a mix of POV and unsourced OR. Also, within a couple of sentences, it seems the localized physical mass descripiton is contradicted by "cosmological scales", as part of the challenge to the scientific lede. So what is really happening here?

   Also regarding the part of the challenge pertaining to matter: in what way is matter actually ambiguos or blunt? Should we say, "dark that which has mass and occupies space"?

   On the 23rd the reinstated scientific lede is overwritten, by another version of unsourced OR, by Stevertigo [24]. And this is what is interesing. I have usually observed Stevertigo re-inserting the same set of words, or almost all the same words, over and over in the lede of different articles ( [25], [26], [27]. I have to two intermediate steps to show how he built the lede next: [28], [29], essentally reverted: [30], same words again:[31], same words again: [32] )

   In this particular instance, this lede was borne out of the ensuing talk page discussion, including the changes in the second paragraph [33]. I don't know what elements were involved for something different this time. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

   Also, the use of "dark" in "dark matter" is later explained on the talk page by another editor [34], as well caution against using whatever by another editor [35].

   Originally, the talk page item I wanted to discuss is a link to a page entitled Theoretical substance - [36]. This page seems to be a made up topic. True "theoretical substance" may come up in a conversation such as "That is a theoretical substance." But, it may not merit its own page for inclusion. The orginator of this page is User:Stevertigo. He has also done almost all of the editing (see edit history). Up until yesterday (Oct. 11) it was tagged as uncategorized, and it is now categorized. This is also formerly linked to lede in the "dark matter" aritcle, a lede which is formerly unsourced OR or POV - [37]. One of the redirects is Hypothetical substance , which appears to be an equally made up "title". ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

   There are other instances. For example, over at the Time article this year, the editing practices, which were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines and policies would be inserting unsourced, made-up material, into the lede, and then continually reverting WP:V material, to keep the unsourced material in the lede.

   Stevertigo began his effort to change the lede on July 3, by inserting personally created WP:NONCE template [38]. It was deleted at the end of this most recent ANI, which is why it no longer resembles a Wikipedia tag. He removed the tag, and then began rewriting the lede [39]. I notice that he found fault with one issue. Maybe this is one rationale being employed for a continuous, slow motion, back and forth, between unsourced OR and material based on sources until early August. Also notice (see diff) that WP:NONCE is cited. Also, in this particular instance the first paragraph is actually, mostly, rewritten. In other instances (WP articles), I have noticed an insertion of unsourced OR, with the original lede positioned to follow the unsourced OR.

   Employing WP:NONCE as a strategy appears to be similar to his strategy for describing the word "matter" as vague or blunt on the talk page of Dark matter. Hopefully, the inaccuracy of the rewritten lede in "Time" is apparent.

   The talk page discussion also begins on July 3, appearing to have been initiated by Stevertigo[40], [41], because Jim Wade had reverted his edtis [42] On the talk page, he cites WP:NONCE again, claiming it is a lede paragraph without a defintion, or that is settles for no agreed upon definition "rather than finding language that people can agree on". He overlooks the fact that this lede is one derived from reliable sources.

   He appears to employ a fallacious type of reasoning. First, he apparently refers to the controversial nature of the defintion of this topic between scholars as some sort of rationale for changing the lede. Then, instead of dealing with that sentence in the lede, he instead finds the first sentence "problematic" without any particular rationale. However, by adding two sentences together this equals NONCE. Therefore, the first sentence needs to be changed, because the two sentences together equals NONCE. So, instead of supplying a tangible answer, which satifies the controversy, the focus is (confusingly) switched to the first sentence. He simply states that "time is not that", without showing why or how. He then produces his unsourced OR statement as proof that the first sentence in the lede is "problematic".

   Jim Wade then replies [43]. Regarding this situation, it is my belief, derived from the ensuing talk page discussion, that Stevertigo refers to this as finding "fatal flaws" in an argument. Reading Jim's response, I don't think this is what is happening. At one point Stevertigo states, "I don't understand why you can't just correct these minor issues yourself rather than make a bigger issue out of them than they actually are and rigorously wave your hands claiming them to be fatal flaws in my version" [44]. With another editor involved (Yours Truly), and later in the discussion, Stevertigo claims that he has "...been able to find fatal flaws in every single proposed writing he (Jim Wade) has submitted. When it gets down to finding any fatal errors in my writing, he changes tactics and tries a red-herring argument focusing on items that I've already agreed to compromise on. " [45] (diff to follow). That appears to be an inaccurate assessment. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

   Along with his psuedo-explanation, it appears Stevertigo placed his NONCE template, back on top of the lede (at 15:08}. Later that same day Jim Wade's response in this section (NONCE introductions) demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the subject. Furthermore, it demonstrates he was willing to take the time to give a detailed explanation of why the 2½ year old lede is appropriate for this article, and deftly summarize why Stevertigo's version does not work, and what issues Stevertigo did not address regarding his proposed lede(not neccessarily in that order).

   On July 12, over the course of two and one half hours, and with over 20 edits in rapid succession, (all marked minor), another version of Stevertigo's unsourced OR is copy edited and placed in the of the lede[46], and subsequently reverted. This incomprehensible lede appears to be accurately described as "...polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese" and inadequate "...unsourceable philobabble..." in the edit history. Later, I would describe it as "incomprehensible".

   On the talk page that day, in the midst of the flurry of over twenty article edits, Stevertigo claimed there were no objections raised to his critisims in the above sections [47]. This appears to be his rationale for adding his new, and "expanded", unsourced OR into the article. However, in the first place, his only psuedo-critism was original thought, and unsourced meanderings (July 7)[48]. It makes sense to ignore a piece like this because as unsourced OR there is no valid response to make. At the same time, please note that lack of response was percieved by Stevertigo to go ahead. This appears to be another form of disruption that the "mainstay custodians" will have to respond to. In essence, there appears to be little choice for editors concerned with editing according to guidlines and policies.

   Although, as stated above, his insertion of unsourced OR was subsequently reverted, Stevertigo "undid [that] revert based on asshat ownership of article" [49]. A slow motion edit conflict ensues, as can be seen in the edit history. It includes hiding {{vague}}, and {{failed verification}} templates [50].

   Apparently, as the above situation was occuring (without my knowledge), I was busy choosing "Time" as the theme of the month, for August, for the Physics Portal [51]. Hence, naturally, I was looking in on the "Time" article, every so often. What I saw on August 2 concerned me [52], and so I became involved [53]. On August 4 User:Modocc also showed up [54]. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

   It appears that Stevertigo was determined to place his version into the lede, no matter what [55], [56], [57].

   Stevertigo has claimed to find "fatal errors" in Jim Wade's proposed versions in so many words, and on different occasions[58]. This is not actually the case. His arguments appear to be ineffective For example, [59], [60]

   Also, it may be that Stevertigo is highly motivated to rewrite a lede to his taste, but he appears equally motivated to "parse" (as he calls it) anybody's proposal, on the article's talk page [61]. This propensity would be commendable, except that this process often becomes a vehicle to argue for his original ideas, and have them placed in an article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

   Another instance illustrating which were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines and policies is the Time in physics. Once again, as with the Dark matter and Time articles, unsourced, made-up material, is inserted into the lede, and then material based on sources (WP:V) is continually reverted. This is done in order to keep the unsourced material in the lede. It appears that unsourced OR is first (recently) inserted on July 30, 2010 [62]. He replaces the first couple of sentences in the lede with his own paragraph. Of particular note is the beginning of the second sentence, which appears to illusrate a POV: "However its full workings remain mysterious and not all understood (likely holographic and computational in nature..." Also of particular note is a phrase ending the last sentence of this paragraph: "...or else a transactional property that acts upon a physical object." As with the "Time" article, including "Time"-talk-page discussion, Stevertigo appears to be attempting to mesh an amalgam of physics topics, into one sentence, or less.

   Furthermore, it appears that he is attempting to mesh his unsourced ideas with sourced content that was already there. In addition, there appears to be specious logic employed with the first sentence, and it appears to be unsourced original ideas.

   This new first paragraph was then tagged as {{or-section}}, which Stevertigo removed as "Unsubstantiated commentary" [63]. Throughout eleven successive edits (marked minor), he copy edits his OR insertion, inexplicably removes a cleanup tag, adds a peculiar "cf." in parenthesis with various physics terms into the text, before the OR tag is restored title=Time_in_physics&diff=prev&oldid=376307540. The problems with Stevertigo's edits are noted within the tag: "The assertion that time is real is either contentiously meaningless, or is POV opposing several scholarly authors. 2>What it "likely is" is completely unsubstantiated AND never discussed in the article - so it does not belong in the lede. 3> that it is an agent that "acts upon a physical object" is too speculative to not be at least attributed to some scholar, somewhere in the article. This appears to be nothing but POV original research"[64]. {{cn}} are added on August 1. And August 3 the paragraph is removed to the talk page, (by yours truly) [65], and Stevertigo, essentially, reverts this edit [66], and another slow motion edting conflict continues.

   Then User:DVdm, and User:Modocc also become invovlved (also August 3) [67]. With four editors working to keep the lede in agreement with guidelines and policies, Stevertigo did not insert his version much more. On August 6 he once again added the NONCE tag [68], which was later removed that day. The last attempt at inserting the unsourced OR version was on August 13 [69]. A talk page discussion pertaining the above editing conflict took place at the same time. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by JimWae

1. Regarding the diff labeled 2010-JUL-29 @15:45, are you asserting that the linked edit constitutes insertion of original research, or is it presented merely as context? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am remarking on this to indicate that one need not have checked Stevertigo's edit history to "follow" him to that article - by linking to another article & making WP:OR additions to that article, Stevertigo is increasing concern of others about editing he might be making anywhere on wikipedia. --JimWae (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Regarding the discussions on Talk:Time listed under "Stevertigo opposes providing reliable sources for his "conceptualizations"", are there any particular statements that would highlight your assertion? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It may help the Arbitrators if you disclose who is helping you do your "research." Ucucha, I note, answered one of your questions for you above. Its obvious that you are not finding all of this interesting material on your own. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Steve, chill out. I have seen similar type of responses before, from you. No one is teaming up with me against you. Also, no one is helping me with my research, although I wish that were possible. But, it is not possible. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Are you saying that you've cobbled together, digested, and accurately explained some seventy five diffs in just a couple days of your own research? Perhaps you are pulling these, interpretations included, from other sources, like prior Arbcom cases? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC) It appears that you are being confrontational. Sorry, I won't be joining you.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Stevertigo's behavior in this matter is inappropriate. I prefer that he no longer address me personally for the duration of this ArbCom case. His comments above indicate that this could be the opening salvos of an attempt to bog down another editor, on a talk page, to discourage productive editing. In addition, it appears that he has not decided, yet, to build his own case. Apparently, he would rather engage the other editor with unsubstantiated accuasations. Also, please note it appears to me that the first comment was placed inappropriately, in a section initiated for inquiries regarding evidence, by one of the active arbitrators, on the Arbitration Committee, Kirill. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This line of inquiry isn't helpful. If Steve Quinn is receiving assistance from other users, I think it would be in everyone's best interest for such information to be disclosed fully. If he isn't, there is no point in continuing this line of questioning. NW (Talk) 17:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well-spring

Three diffs which I have come across, demonstrate that User:Stevertigo's assertions are from a well-spring of knowledge. First, I am wondering if he wishes to expand on the knowledge imparted in each diff. Second, what is the point he is trying to make in each instance? Third, what is the location of this well-spring of knowledge in each instance? Fourth, are there other discussions, or articles that demonstrate this well-spring of knowledge, or tendency that he wishes to discuss?

Below are the three diffs. Hopefully no one will mind if a create a sub-section for each. Stevertigo, please feel free to change the sub-section titles at your discretion. Also, please feel free to add others. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

National Socialism

[70]

Reductio ad Hitlerum

[71]

Human

[72]

The first two of these were dealt with in the 'Obama articles' case. Context - Obama had been slandered in various ways in accord with a fallacy that asserted that Nazis were liberal socialists and therefore liberal socialists are Nazis. I was taking issue with a small number of Wikipedia articles that contained or else facilitated this fallacy. Again, these were covered, not without error, under the 'Obama articles' case.

The "human" article is recent, and may be relevant for this case. One of the main issues with the 'human' article is that it takes such a skeptical, detached, anthropological, tone that it failed to even indicate that humans are often considered "people." I succeeded, after proposing a rewrite (viewable here) that was quickly cut down, to add to the article the mere mention of the "person" concept. Notably, any general mention of creation myths have been utterly rejected from the lede.

The human article diff Steve Quinn links to was a sketch for a science section that someone proposed on the talk page: It was never expected to stand in its original state, particularly given the reflexively quick responses of other editors at that article. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 17:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical perspective

-unsigned by Steve Quinn - ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your posts Steve. Again, this is not a referendum on me or my editing going back eight years. This is the case that centers around the punishment article and what conflicts arose from that. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are not interested in this section, then feel free to either keep it, or remove it. Same with the other section above. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo, the arbitrators stated at the beginning of this case that it is about editors' total behavior (as is the usual procedure in arbitration). In this case, your editing and the problems some people are seeing in it appear to be the most important issue; the "Punishment" article is just one part of that. Ucucha 02:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Arbitration is a lengthy, contentious process that represents the last step in our procedures for resolving complex or longstanding problems." [73]. "...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." (Which probably would have happened) (Also "other editors" refer to issues brought up by other editors besides Stevertigo). [74] ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"(...Please note, that as usual, we will look at editors total behavior as needed)"[75]---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, at least, the scope of the case includes the question whether Stevertigo's editing practices, considered as a whole, are sufficient problematic to warrant a finding and a remedy against him. The committee will rarely, if ever, base sanctions primarily on edits that are more than a few months old, and certainly not on ones that were made eight years ago in the infancy of the site. Thus, the focus of the evidence should primarily be on relatively recent editing. That being said, if the point being made is that alleged problems have continued unabated over a long period of time despite various efforts to address them, that could potentially be a legitimate topic for evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As for me, I am not here to see that (or if) anyone get sanctions. My intent is to turn over to some entity which has jurisdiction, percieved problems "that have continued unabated over a long period of time despite various efforts to address them". I am not interested in the value of old edits, or new edits, as they weigh against sanctions. I am attempting to present a whole picture. Once I have presented this whole picture to the ArbCom committee then I leave it in the hands of the ArbCom committee. If there is another part of this process that I can participate in later, besides sanctions, I would probably be interested. I suppose one reason for this "conclusion" is that ArbCom members know much more about these things than I do. Perhaps, it is a matter of qualification (as in not being qualified). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is the arbritration committee interested in establishing a reason, or a plausible reason for a pattern of editing over time? This could be a mitigating factor. Or is the ArbCom committee only interested in the pattern over time, without some underlying reason or plausible reason? Or is it only the ArbCom commitee's responsibilty to establish that there was, or wasn't an underlying reason?---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In regards to underlying reasons, I think it would be too much work for me. So, I will most likely drop it.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the Arbitration committee's first concern is to be fair. In that regard, its hard to see why they would accept your allegations or your premise on face value. The only thing relevant to me is your wikistalking. Does Arbcom acknowledge that Steve Quinn's and Jim Wae's wikistalking is relevant to the case? Does Arbcom think that I should be searching for a "pattern" of "disruptive behaviour" beyond the wikistalking I've already shown? I'm not interested noodling through Steve Quinn and Jim Wae's edit history. The topic is just not interesting.

Since Arbs want to keep the focus on recent edits, consider a recent edit of mine Steve and maybe you can tell me what about my edits to the War article would you change? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think the Arbitration committee's first concern is to be fair. That is all that matters to me. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The intent of "Historical perspective" section is to show what Wikipedia was like, and what it is like now. And maybe that Stevertigo is one of the (original) architects. Nothing more than that. Maybe "What Wikipedia was like" would make a good article or essay. I think of it as an accomplishment, but maybe it is off topic, here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best that I don't critique your editing at this time, Stevertigo. Perhaps some other "less-involved" editors would be interested. However, thanks for the offer. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comments

Why is Steve Quinn removing comments I've made inline with his comments? This is a talk page, not a formal draft, and my comments are intended to add clarity and explanation to statements and conjectures by him and others. Note that another user, Ucucha, commented inline above and Steve Quinn did not remove that comment. Note that Steve Quinn even uses one of the links I provided - this one, first under the "Well Spring" section - even though he removed the comment itself which contained the link. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Arbcom

1. How many Arbs are present, and reading this?
2. What amount of activity is going on via closed communications (email, mailing list)?
3. What is the ETA for when this discussion will move to the workshop pages?
4. What is the estimated success/failure rate for catching all new additions, comments and developments on these pages?

-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

1. There are twelve arbitrators active on this case. We do not generally track which arbitrators are reading any particular comment, for obvious reasons.
2. Little off-wiki discussion (under a dozen messages) has taken place at this time.
3. The drafting on the workshop has already begun. I anticipate we will transition to formal voting on a proposed decision by the end of the week.
4. We have reviewed all the material currently submitted, and anticipate no difficulties with continuing to do so for the remainder of the case.

Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. When you write "we have reviewed all the material currently submitted" - I must note that this is certainly not true, as you yourself said you did not look at my edits to the War article as evidence. You gave the impression that you did not look at any evidence I submitted. And if you "do not generally keep track" of Arbs and what they read, you cannot say for certain that "we have reviewed all the material. But perhaps they have all indicated that they have read everything. ? It would be useful to see how many Arbs, besides you, are actually reading this. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)