Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by X! (talk | contribs) at 20:33, 8 January 2013 (→‎Henderson Knocked out Fedor: case rejected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
User:Doncram   8 January 2013 {{{votes}}}
User:Firsfron   7 January 2013 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

User:Doncram

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 05:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Doncram is a long-standing editor in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. He has created large swathes of content, but has frequently run up against other editors relating to both the content and how he reacts when the content is challenged. For example, Elen of the Roads comments in November 2011 that she had blocked him for three months to stop him transferring the content of another database into Wikipedia without any check being made on the quality of what was being imported (there were a lot of problems with the other database). All the time. Without stopping. And endlessly abusing both the guy who wrote the script that he used, and anyone who tried to clean up the mess. He has particular issues with Orlady, whom he accuses of running a "hate list", presumably User:Orlady/List. When Orlady quoted the consensus determination from an uninvolved admin, Doncram's response was "I disagree with Orlady's characterization of consensus in those previous discussions."

In June 2011, during the Archive224 discussion linked above, I became so frustrated at Doncram's repeatedly adding material from a database dump that contained material that blatantly didn't belong in the article, with talk page comments not addressing the issues, that I intentionally broke 3RR in the hopes that Doncram would be blocked for edit warring as well. In December, we got into another edit war on Charles Coker Wilson, where Doncram was changing a citation that I had added in a way that introduced incorrect information. His only contribution on the talkpage was An editor has exceeded wp:3RR in disputing a reference in this article. I expect it will be discussed at an administrator noticeboard, will return to editing here later. This got me a 1 week block, but Doncram got 6 months.

He has a habit of responding to articles that have been moved off his preferred title by reverting the move and then demanding that the other editor use the RM process, as seen in the history of Charles E. Bell.

Earlier today, Doncram began the process of opening an arbitration case, but failed to actually say what he was opening the case regarding. When Elkman commented that he wish[ed] you would have started your request for arbitration in your own user space, or that you would have posted something fully-formed there, instead of starting a skeleton case with a timestamp and then just walking away Doncram responded I think that statement amounts to a personal attack, it is meant in an uncivil mean way to denigrate me and to complain. This pretty much sums up why this has come to arbitration: Doncram overpersonalizes disputes, and he leaves unfinished things in the encyclopedia for other people to clean up. The community, despite imposing edit warring, disruptive editing, and personal attack blocks, has essentially failed to deal with the situation. Therefore, it's up to you.

Response to Roger Davies

See Architects of the National Park Service and its talkpage for evidence of his continuing to create articles with insufficient evidence that the items he listed actually belong there. Note Cbl62's recent edit summaries of these can be added back if sources found, but it's been 3 months since sourcing discussion began and still nothing to support these entries. Note particularly their exchange on Jan 4, where Doncram claims to have documentation supporting his position, but Cbl62 disagrees.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And multiply that by the sheer number of articles he creates to get a sense of the scope of the problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note this AfD, where he declares If this was userfied to my space, I would be inclined to return it to mainspace immediately, as it is an obviously valid, completely sourced article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ryan Vesey

Did you happen to notice what I was replying to with those comments? Just to note, an editor who seems to be actively seeking confrontation over any damn cause, has repeatedly interrupted and moved this article and Talk pages.. My initial move clearly identified Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) as the official guideline backing my move: Doncram's rationale for reverting me, 14 minutes later, was "Open a Requested move for a proper discussion, don't choose the most confrontational option every damn time, Sarek", rather than anything actually based in sourcing or policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Nyttend's statement

Doncram's Back in September or October, I may have relied upon a lesser snippet, within search results not allowing access to a full page, and it could have been misleading, or I might have simply erred in my editing. So what. shows another excellent reason for Arbcom to take this case. Doncram says things like this, and the rest of us get tagged as INVOLVED. Something not quite right here...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Vesey

While not named, I would consider myself sufficiently involved in this case. I'll be flying to school soon, so I'm hoping to get a short comment now, which I will expand later. I strongly urge Arbcom to take this case. The community cannot handle this without Arbcom as evidenced by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Doncram on Indic communities and the many subsections, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#Doncram and NPA.

Doncram is a very large part of this issue. Steps need to be taken to address some of these problems; however, I am not entirely sure what all of these steps might be. My first experience with Doncram was at List of Methodist churches where Doncram exhibited serious examples of ownership on both the article and the AfD. My points on this matter can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive778##Doncram at lists of various churches, but the level of incivility displayed by Doncram is high. My focus would be on the edit summary where Doncram called Nyttend an idiotic non-person. De-humanization is a really big deal. I have proposed a few solutions to help with this, one being a one revert restriction, and another being mentorship.

Doncram also has a serious problem with creating articles that are not ready for the mainspace. At the time of creation, List of Methodist churches looked like this. He also created the very poor List of Anglican churches and List of Congregational churches. This habit of creating half finished Wikipedia articles is disruptive. I suggested to Doncram that he volunteer to create all of his articles through AfC; however, he declined this in his response. Where he also claimed that "I don't think that my article creations are any problem. There is no problem with articles that I create, and simply having someone else review my articles would not satisfy the editors following me and contending". An editor who does not see any problems in the articles he creates should not be allowed to make the determination of whether an article is fit for the mainspace. I hope that ArbCom will impose a sanction requiring Doncram to create articles through the AfC process.

While Doncram is a large part of this issue, he is not the only part of this issue. I have come across a couple of glaring problems in Nyttend's edits related to Doncram where I believe he has lost objectivity. Nyttend recently had a large group of speedy deletions of redirects created by Doncram overturned in a deletion review. More recently, Nyttend was found to have incorrectly speedy deleted Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) under A3, and later under G12. (There was not unanimous agreement that the G12 was incorrect; however, it is impossible to say an A3 isn't correct but a G12 related to possibly infringing content that was introduced later is). In any case, I would like ArbCom to consider an interaction ban between Nyttend and Doncram, or at a minimum declare that Nyttend is considered involved and cannot use administrative tools in cases related to Doncram. Ryan Vesey 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekofVulcan, it's interesting that you should use Charles E. Bell as an example of improper behavior by Doncram. There, instead of responding to concerns, you responded to Doncram with "whoopee" modified to "WP:CIR". In another case, you move warred at User:Doncram/Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) and then move protected a perfectly acceptable article for the mainspace. These are both clear examples that disruption by Doncram isn't the only issue at hand. Administrators like Nyttend and yourself, consistently take action without discussing, that is in many cases improper. Ryan Vesey 07:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend, let me be clear that I am in no way "requesting your head". I have never been under the impression that your administrative actions in general were incorrect. Only that you seem to make some poor decisions when it comes to articles created by Doncram. You are certainly not watching this dispute from the sidelines. In the history of my interaction with Doncram, you have appeared in virtually every dispute. Doncram is certainly part of the issue, else you would make similar actions when articles are not created by Doncram, which I don't have evidence of you doing. My impression is that the communication issues from Doncram and the consistent disruptive behavior has caused you to create a special "this is how you deal with Doncram" method of using the admin tools. Once that method is created, it means you are involved, even if all of your involvement has been in an administrative capacity. You are also not effectively being made the subject of the case. This ArbCom case is to discuss the problems relating to Doncram and hopefully provide a solution to that. It would be nonsensical to address the Doncram issue without examining the role other editors have in that issue. Ryan Vesey 15:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elkman

It's late at night, so I don't have time to make a full statement.

I'll note that Doncram started a request for arbitration this afternoon, about 10 hours ago my time, but never posted more than the skeleton of the request. I really have no idea if I was going to be named in that request or not.

For background purposes: As part of my efforts at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, I downloaded a database of National Register properties from the National Park Service. I then wrote a PHP script on my Web server that would generate the infobox, {{Infobox NRHP}}, and some categories to be used as the start of an article. I've voiced my opinion over and over that this information does not make for a full article, and that an editor bears the responsibility for doing additional research, verifying that the National Register database is correct, and for adding more information to an article to make it a reasonably good stub. I've had several arguments with Doncram over these issues, and he's countered by suggesting that I have inaccuracies in my use of the database, that my tools don't get the year of construction correct, or that my tools don't know the difference between a builder and an architect. I've also frequently voiced the opinion that a newly created NRHP article should be at a decent stub level and should point out to a reader why a particular building, structure, or site is notable.

My own interactions with Doncram haven't quite pushed me to file a request for arbitration on my own. However, Doncram has had several ongoing disputes with other editors, such as Orlady and Nyttend, as well as others. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 53#My resignation letter, Dudemanfellabra (talk · contribs) announced that he was quitting the NRHP project in frustration. And, actually, I was largely inactive for several months in 2012 because of my own frustration. Doncram's behavior has come up in numerous discussions at WP:ANI, so even though the RFCs have been unproductive, his behavior has been discussed at great length, with huge walls of text. And, his block log speaks for itself.

Actually, I've made a semi-complete statement, but I may come up with more specific examples as this case progresses. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 06:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

There was an RFC in 2010 on Doncram. There are allegations of possible administrator behavior issues. ArbCom seems like the right venue to resolve things. I have to say that upon seeing Sarekofvulcan requesting arbitration my initial reaction was "ut oh". Sarek and I haven't had too many interactions, but my general impression is that he tends to shoot from the hip and that his administrative interventions sometimes make things worse. It might be a really good idea for Sarek to focus more on communication and less on action. Doncram was getting ready to file arbitraton and Sarek beat him to the docket. It might have been smarter to wait and see what Doncram had to say. Jehochman Talk 08:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The Doncram situation has festered for quite a long time and it seems as if only an ArbCom ruling can resolve it. I urge the committee to take this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the NRHP problems, recent AN/I threads have focused on Doncram's similar behavior patters in editing Indian caste-related articles. [1],[2], [3] That the same kinds of behavioral problems popped up in an entirely unrelated subject area, with another group of editors, is telling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nyttend

Unfortunately, I believe arbitration necessary; Doncram has been involved in numerous disputes with many users on completely unrelated subjects. Besides the numerous NRHP issues that Sarek links, the churches that Ryan links, and the interpersonal issues mentioned in Elkman's last paragraph (note that these issues prompted me to predict a future arbitration case in August 2011), we have numerous disputes on Indian castes (most recent), and the walls of text Elkman mentions are present in the top section of the current revision of Wikipedia:Bot requests as well as being the subject of an insightful comment from Uncle G — who, like others, points out that Doncram's made a "blatantly wrong" factual error, in response to which Doncram replies "So what". Are we to believe that Dennis Brown, Dudemanfellabra, Elkman, Orlady, Pigsonthewing, Sarek, Sitush, Uncle G, and I are all attempting to gang up on him on a combination of issues, or is Beyond my Ken correct to imply that Doncram is causing problems in multiple places? Dealing with some of these issues together was attempted in the "Doncram on Indic communities" section that Ryan links, but because commentators concentrated on one issue and started arguing with each other, Doncram's actions became a side issue, and Dennis Brown's proposed resolution for the combination of issues got derailed by the commentators who had been arguing with each other (Mathsci: "It seems that there are too many editors commenting with vested interests and agendas for any realistic outcome to occur here."), leaving no consensus at all what to do. Between the issues I've detailed, Doncram's repeated blocks by multiple administrators, and the sheer number of AN/ANI/AN3 discussions about his behavior, I believe that we have evidence that the community has been unable to resolve the issues. Finally, as far as the timeframe of filing — Doncram's creation of an empty request (and angry response to someone questioning an empty request) demonstrates that he had an opportunity.

I marvel that my head's being requested, seven months after a bureaucrat told me that there was no controversy surrounding my admin actions in general and six months after my admin rights were restored without difficulty. I've been watching this dispute mostly from the sidelines, and by far the biggest chunks of my involvement have been requesting action at noticeboards. If this were a situation in which I had lost all objectivity and in which Doncram should be invited to document the ways that I've been abusing the tools, I wouldn't have twice self-reverted my own deletion of the Old Union School page. Ryan's proposed interaction ban would effectively equate longstanding disruption with good-faith attempts to resolve the problem, and if it were extended to Sarek's recent moving of the page back into Doncram's userspace, it would bless the existence of pages created in violation of Elen's 2011 comments that Sarek links. People shouldn't effectively be made the subjects of a case unless they've gone through a lot of dispute resolution steps; this isn't at all the case for me, as I've not seen dispute-resolution discussions about it, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend is thoroughly based on a completely unrelated issue. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to respond to Ryan's latest comment — I don't remember noticing you in any of these discussions until the last couple of months, and this issue has been simmering since long before you registered; it wasn't new when the RFCU was filed in early 2010. I'm not complaining about some sort of intentional bias on your part: rather, I fear you've accidentally gotten into recentism. Go back and look at the old discussions (including the circumstances for my block log) and you'll see that I've only rarely taken part. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orlady

[Will be provided; I'm busy with other things at the moment] --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

User:Doncram: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0/6>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Awaiting statements. T. Canens (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also awaiting further statements. The ones posted so far are fine in terms of length, but please ensure subsequent statements don't get any longer than those posted already. Also, please keep the statements focused on why a case is needed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: could the parties please provide details of a (recent) arbitratable issue that the community has failed to resolve? If you have evidence of this, I'm all ears but failing to open an arbitration case isn't really sufficient.  Roger Davies talk 10:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still waiting for doncram's statement, but, at first glance, I believe that there may be issues worth examining; I have not made up my mind yet, but I'm inclined to think that we should accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would like to hear from doncram before deciding whether or not to accept. WormTT(talk) 15:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; the community has already tried and failed several times to resolve the issues. Ideally, I would prefer to see a statement from Doncram, but I shall take his previous attempt to file a case as indicative that he doesn't object to a case being opened (and, indeed, that he seeks one himself). — Coren (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward acceptance based on the ANI thread and the overall history, but awaiting Doncram's statement before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Firsfron

Initiated by Tal1962 (talk) at 04:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tal1962

My issues are not pertaining to making sure things are accurate or done within the wiki guidelines, but with the fact that Firsfron has been undoing EVERY contribution I have made to the Joan Crawford article regardless of whether or not everything I have added is at issue. Despite my asking him to stick to the suggested policies of using the talk page to settle any disagreements when it comes to what can and cannot be considered reliable or what is or is not sufficient information detailing reliable sources, and even going so far as to copy and paste them within our talks, he has stated he will undo things regardless.

This is upsetting because, except where I have at times forgotten to include page numbers, his comments are confusing. He claims I included a link to a fan website – I did not. He claims also that I failed to include ISBN numbers for books – again, I did not. So far, all books I have used as resources were either already included in the ref list prior to my using them, or added as per the ISBN#s on the back of each of the books (all of which I hold in my own collection).

His apparent refusal to use the talk pages BEFORE undoing things appears to me to go against the suggested methods as outlined by wiki. I did show him the courtesy of offering to work with him in that way, but his response was to say he would undo things regardless.

I have no issues when someone points out my mistakes – good for me and them. But to state that I need to learn the rules while ignoring them himself/herself seems to me to be absurd. While I may not be perfect as to formatting and always including complete information (page numbers), as it happens, many comments within the article remain insourced –yet he has failed to challenge these at all.

His seeming air or condescension is not in keeping with Wiki standards. As an administer, I believe that, regardless of my seeming lack of ability or alleged mistakes, it is incumbent upon him to exhibit patience and be willing to do what is best for the article as oppose to simply challenging/undoing everything, even when he is incorrect.

Example, I referenced a link to an article about Miss Crawford’s appearance on television in 1975, a time after which many assume she was no longer making ANY appearances. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mp0fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gdUEAAAAIBAJ&dq=joan%20crawford%20television&pg=858%2C6180927

This is not a link to a fan website, but rather an article which is the ONLY source I can find in writing thus far to back up my research that Crawford was, even if to a lesser degree, still very active after October of 1974.

I am not very concerned with the article itself so much as the admins manner of handling things.

Statement by Ryan Vesey

This needs a quick and easy procedural close. There is no level of dispute resolution that this discussion has reached. An absolute minimum amount of discussion has ocurred on Tal1962's talk page. No discussion has occurred on the article talk page. I don't know whether it can be considered a content or conduct dispute yet because discussion has not reached a point allowing that determination. I suggest that this be closed and that Tal1962 take discussion to the talk page. If a solution cannot be found at that venue, Dispute Resolution seems to be the place to go. Ryan Vesey 09:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Statement by Tom Lowery

I have a question - How can their be a discussion if no one will discuss the edits I make PRIOR to making them? While it may be true that arbitration was not yet required, the general attitude of Firsron (and to a lesser degree, Ryan, is in direct contrevention of standards as outlines in Wiki's policy. However, I will abide by the decline and the comments below and attempt to work in the manner suggest, using the talk page as an attempt to clear up the many issues this article has. HOWEVER, I am concerned that these arbitrary UNDOs are happening all over Wiki. What is the point of having guidelines if they are not to be followed? Thanks.Tal1962 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firsfron

Can someone please close this premature request for arbitration? I'll note that three different editors have reverted all of Tal1962's edits to Joan Crawford:

  • user:Pinkadelica on December 10th (with edit summary Reverted to revision 527083385 by Asarelah: Restoring sourced content.)
  • user:Firsfron on January 3rd (with edit summary revert unsourced additions)
  • user:Firsfron on January 6th (with edit summary revert to the last sourced version (new version includes incomplete citations to books without page numbers, ISBNs, dates, and bare URLs; this is a Good Article; additions need to be formatted and fully sourced)
  • user:Ryan Vesey on January 7th (with edit summary completely inappropriate)
  • user:Ryan Vesey immediately afterward, fully reverting Tal1962's edits (with edit summary Reverted to revision 531706894 by Firsfron: There's too much noise in these edits to separate the good from the bad, a heck of a lot of OR and synthesis is involved, talk page is that way).

Over the last month, editors working independently of one another have each removed all of Tal1962's sourceless and/or poorly-sourced additions to Joan Crawford, which although not a WP:BLP, has WP:BLP issues attached to it (due to the opposing claims made by Crawford's two living daughters).

All Tal1962 must do to keep the content is fully source the content s/he wants to include. This content has been removed again (not by me!) because it's a mixture of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and unsourced content, with the original sources carelessly left in, "verifying" content they do not actually verify. No one is going to add 54 [citation needed] tags to each of Tal1962's 54 edits to the article, which included poorly-sourced material, in part concerning several living persons, particularly when it appears to be sourced by the citations carelessly left in when the unsourced content was added. I offered twice to help Tal1962 with formatting, but I did insist that the editor provide citations with page numbers (because I can't provide them for the user, and I can't verify the content without page numbers). "I'd be glad to help you format the content correctly (that's easy), but you can't rely on other editors to add page numbers to incomplete citations... you must provide them." "I will be glad to assist you with formatting, but you must provide citations including page numbers for books." Tal1962 continued to add unsourced and undersourced material even after I moved on to other articles and CAT:SPEEDY clean-up. I'm happy to note that those all those additions have since been removed from the article by another careful editor.

I'm pleased that Ryan has opened a discussion about the content on the article's talk page, so that sorting of potential good content from poor can be done, but I note with sadness that Tal1962 is already leaving notes for poor Ryan on his talk page, reminding Ryan to "maintain a civil tone"(!)

The issue of proper sourcing of the unsourced additions can be worked out on the talk page, but it won't solve the issue of an editor who, after several years of editing, didn't know how to sign a talk page (and who hadn't even used a talk page since 2010), and who continues to claim that his/her unsourced content, including content about living individuals, must remain, and all other editors can do is add [citation needed] tags to it. "I AM conversant with how one is supposed to question unsourced information and, no offense intended at all, you are not following those guidelines when you simply UNDO what I have added."

Also, shame on Arb SilkTork for defending these types of edits about living people that do not contain adequate sourcing. According to SilkTork "Tal1962 has used sources". The source used in the linked example is: Variety issues of May 10, 1979 to 1989 (which isn't checkable, and thus fails verifiability); this series of edits also included unsourced additions such as [Rex] "Reed could not have witnessed anything as he was born in Texas in 1938 and did not meet Crawford until the 1960s." Mr. Reed is still living, and claims that Mr. Reed has not told the truth need sourcing. That sentence was sourced to nothing at all, and there are many other examples of that in Tal1962's edits. SilkTork needs to review WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis not mine).

One of the articles in question, Joan Crawford, is a Good Article, an article which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's idea of a well-written, neutral article. Given the recent news of a long-undetected hoax "Good Article", one would hope that all members of the Arbitration Committee would see the wisdom of removing potential WP:BLP concerns — partially sourced or completely unsourced — from a Good Article, per the relevant policy. SilkTork's comment that Tal1962 spent "4+ hours [of] work" ignores the fact that in 4+ hours of "work", even after being asked to provide sources, Tal1962 added content that cast aspersions on several living subjects, in several cases, without sources. I strongly urge SilkTork to refactor his/her comments in this case, as they are giving Tal1962 the impression that ArbCom supports the addition of poorly-sourced and unsourced material in articles, up to and including making aspersions on living individuals.

Finally, I'd like to add that I am welcoming to newcomers. I estimate I've welcomed over a thousand users to Wikipedia during the last nine years. Tal1962, however, is no longer a new user, and must abide by our policies, including souring of content about living individuals. I've told the user I will help the user format his/her citations, but the onus is on Tal1962 to provide reliable sources for the added content. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Tom Lowery

I am glad to see some response from Firsron. However, his tone is, once again, bordering on the verge of a seeming contest.

Firstly, I want to make clear that MY intention is not to take part in a contest of wills. My first statement was very clear - I take issue with the UNDOs. We are supposed to be EDITORS, not UNDOERS.

In direct reply to Firsron's comments:

1) I readily admitted that I was lacking some citations - however, when I added them, once again Firsron and Ryan undid them - completely. They did not ask about them on the talk page or even try to communicate with me about anything. In fact, Ryan wrote that something I wrote "hundreds is POV and likely false, section needs improved refs." "LIKELY false?" The whole issue of these two people undoing everything I wrote had to do with alleged lack of sources. Other than Ryan, who says it is likely false? And why is it that my references to THREE sources are false? How does he know this? And why didn't he proceed as SilkTork suggested and in fact, Ryan and Firsron insist that I proceed, by using the talk pages? I took and continue to take issue with these kinds of statements that, taken with all that has transpired in this period of undo wars, clearly show these two editors feel their edits are of my value than mine. Once again, it is not a contest. And I see no reason why I should not ask Ryan to maintain a civil position. Saying that my "claim" is unlikely is not evidence of any good will. AND, despite SilkTork's comments, the undos continue.

The question of adding 54 citation tags is a rather strange one. One can easily ask at the top of the whole article to improve it, or message me on my talk page to ask ME to explain and/or assist me to make it better. As SilkTork says, undos lead to bad feelings.

This so called violation Mommie Dearest is also making me scratch my head. Ryan claims what I wrote had no bearing on the book. If that is the case, what bearing does Lypsinka's drag show have on it? The FACT that I can provide substantive documentation what I wrote has been made clear by me on the page, and one can see from my former edit that I not only provided VERIFIABLE refs, I also fixed a glaring error which stated that Liz Smith claimed to be a witness to the goings on in MD. This is a bold faced inaccuracy, one I backed up with a link to an article by Ms. Smith herself.

In short (and I apologize for this being my third comment), this spirit of cooperation offered by Ryan and Firsron (who are two among 4/5 people who have undone anything in the past week or so) fades away by virtue of all the undoing and seeming refusal to reply to my concerns about Wiki procedures, which I clearly and deliberately outline to Firsron when he suggest I need to learn how to use Wiki. I may not be as conversant as he when it comes to certain things, but as SilkTork also says, there is more than one way of doing things.

I find it amazing that Firsron (and, by virtue of his undos, Ryan) appear not to care about what SilkTork has emphasized, which IS in keeping with what is written elsewhere on Wiki. Firsfron's revert approach IS inappropriate. My edits were NOT vandalistic, and are indeed a genuine attempt to add detail to the article. If firsron and Ryan really want to assist me, and to maintain good will, where are their talk comments prior to undoing EVERYTHING without question?

As to sources, this is a tricky subject. If you do not think the sources are adequate, say as much on my talk page and I will happily try to improve or add. In fact, I did, and was then undone because were, as Ryan said, too many ORs. The whole point of the various refs I added (perhaps not as well as I could have) was to show that JC's DOB was not a given. Ryan and Firsron may not have liked how I DID this, but they could have avoided all of this by saying as much and offering advice BEFORE the undos.

THAT is my issue and why I brought this to ARB.

Firsron claims that Italic textThe source used in the linked example is: Variety issues of May 10, 1979 to 1989 (which isn't checkable, and thus fails verifiability);Italic text That is incorrect. Every issue of Variety is on hand in at least two locations - NYC Performing Arts Library and The Academy Libary in LA. I could have added this information had I been asked.

Firsron also says (he is not without a point here) Italic textthis series of edits also included unsourced additions such as [Rex] "Reed could not have witnessed anything as he was born in Texas in 1938 and did not meet Crawford until the 1960s." Mr. Reed is still living, and claims that Mr. Reed has not told the truth need sourcing. That sentence was sourced to nothing at all,Italic text That is true. But then every time I use a magazine article to as a source, they undo it. RR WAS born in 1938 and WAS born in Texas. Again, if asked, I could easily have made a clearer point. My comment never stated Mr. Reed was not telling the truth. I contested the NOTION that he was there during that period. However, I do see how that can be misleading and, at best, needed clarity.

Italic textSilkTork needs to review WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis not mine).Italic text I fully agree. But again, many of my sources do NOT fall under this catagory. Obviously some did. UNDOs are not useful in this case. And the claim that people do not have time to cite or research these things is shocking. Why are we editing here? Outside of Wiki guidelines, where is it written that a book written by a friend of JCs is not a good source? Why is a magazine article written by Liz Smith a bad source?

SilkTork represents my sentiment when he wrote "In a collaborative, collegiate project we assist each other, and improve on what previous editors have done, rather than reject it. We work toward perfection, but we don't expect it."

One would hope that Firsron would see not only the wisdom of following ALL wiki guidelines, but also in not doing things such as undos or making comments claiming something someone has written is "unlikely." Their tone is very condescending and unhelpful.

Nevertheless, I did post comments about these things on the JC talk page in hopes of a civilized discourse. I am wary but willing to try.

I understand why the ArbCom feels I jumped the gun. I did read about the process very carefully, and I did talk to Firsron a bit but his reply was very confrontational, saying he will undo as he sees fit. It is difficult to accept help from someone who talks AT you as opposed to TO you.

Finally, I feel it only fair to point out that the moment Firsron's undos stopped, Ryan's began. If what I write here is to be attacked by numerous people, the very least they could do is talk first, undo only as a last resort. Tal1962 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Comment: Obviously waiting to hear from Firsfron but, in the meantime, Tal1962, could you please supply diffs to provide examples for each of the aspects you are concerned about. Thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a very brief look at this early this morning and shared some of SilkTork's concerns about the perhaps slightly confrontational approach of some of the interactions.diff Hopefully, it is well on the way to being resolved.[5] So, decline,  Roger Davies talk 20:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: Arbitration is the last stage of dispute resolution. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for alternate methods of trying to resolve any dispute before bringing the matter here. NW (Talk) 12:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. T. Canens (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Even without comment from Firsfron, I think it's fairly clear from the level of dispute resolution which has presently happened that this is not yet ready for arbitration. Tal1962, I see you haven't actually edited a talk page on Wikipedia since 2010, I suggest you attempt to discuss the changes you wish to make to the article at Talk:Joan Crawford, where other editors will be able to offer their opinions on the matter too. Beyond that, there's a lot of different methods of dispute resolution which you could try before we would consider arbitration. WormTT(talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per WTT. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Let's try and hash it out at other venues first, please. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as an arbitration case per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firsfron's revert approach to editing is inappropriate. Tal1962's edits were not vandalistic, and appear to be a genuine attempt to add detail to the article. Discussion is the way forward, and doing a total revert of another editor's 4+ hours work (over thirty individual edits) with an edit summary that they should start a discussion rather than starting a discussion oneself is likely to lead to conflict. Tal1962 has used sources, and reverting the edits because the cites are not fully formatted is not the correct way forward. In a collaborative, collegiate project we assist each other, and improve on what previous editors have done, rather than reject it. We work toward perfection, but we don't expect it. However, this is a minor incident, and is not at the level of formal dispute resolution - and certainly not ArbCom. Discussion has barely started, and I encourage both editors to continue to talk together to reach an appropriate solution. I am pleased that Firsfron has offered to assist Tal1962 in formatting citations, and I hope that this supportive, collaborative approach will continue. Decline as ArbCom case. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; this dispute is still solvable without involvement from the Committee. — Coren (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=532009714"