Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) at 15:47, 16 January 2015 (→‎Infobox nationality of people from the UK: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: decline). 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
Infobox nationality of people from the UK   10 January 2015 {{{votes}}}
Articles related to Roman Catholicism and/or homosexuality   14 January 2015 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Infobox nationality of people from the UK

Initiated by Martin Hogbin (talk) at 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Long and fruitless discusssion on talk pages.Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell#Nationality and most of WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom

Statement by Martin Hogbin

This case concerns the infobox nationalities given in a number of biographies of people from the British Isles. Affected articles include James Clerk Maxwell (The only biography in which I have been involved), Humphry Davy and others.

Please note that this is not about descriptive terms used about a subject. There has been no argument about the first line of the James Clerk Maxwell article for example, 'James Clerk Maxwell...was a Scottish mathematical physicist'.

One group if editors would like to put the name of the constituent country of the UK to which the subject is most closely related (for example 'Scottish'), the other would like to put the de jure nationality of 'British'.

The problem is that the editors who are using Wikipedia to promote the concept of nationalities of constituent countries of independent nations such as 'Scottish', and 'Cornish' have, over a period of several years, driven away dissenting editors using improper tactics. This is an insidious corruption of the purpose of Wikipedia.

Recent tactics have included:

Claiming a long-standing consensus where none exists for using the consitituent country and the nationality[1], [2], [3], [4] [5]

The consensus is claimed to be in one of the following places.

Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom The essay is a distillation of the outcome of previous discussions which can found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2007-2008 archive: British nationality, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2007-2008 archive: British nationality

On examination ofthe relevant talk pages no consensus is found.

Incivility [6] [7],

[8],

Pressing for topic bans for anyone who persistently disagrees

GoodDay_-_topic_ban_request This editor got a 2-year! topic ban just for disagreeing with them.

Proposed_topic_ban_of_Martin_Hogbin

Accusing editors who disagree of anything that they can think of

Trolling [9] See also edit comment.

Sock puppetry and other things. [10], [11]

Imperialism [12]

Racism [13]

Attempts at 'eliminating any assertion of Scottish identity', [14] and [15]

'Cultural blindness', [16]

Being a, 'nationalist POV-pusher',[17]

Refusal to even consider any form of neutral compromise

As the argument over British/Scottish could not be resolved, I proposed the simple NPOV compromise solution that we do not show any nationality at all in the infobox.

This was dismissed out of hand by the editors who insisted that me must have a 'Nationality' field in the infobox and that it must be 'Scottish'. See the section here

I even suggested that we remove the 'Citizenship' field (which everyone agrees should be 'British') just because it displays the word 'British'.

Attempting to prevent the matter being brought to the attention of Arbcom

[18]

Attempted 'Outing'

[19]

Statement by FDCWint

Martin Hogbin points out that I have accused him of Sock Puppetry - given that the input and behaviour of the wandering anon IP participating in this discussion has been to either support MH's position, or to add comments into his talk page in support, I actually stand by this. Without a clear understanding of who this anonymous IP is, or represents, I don't see how this can be proven or not.

As Adam says, this is a content dispute - whilst Martin portrays this as being unable to reach an agreement or consensus, the truth is that he has simply tried one after another version of removing "Scottish" from the page in content. His 'compromise' which he described as NPOV, is that the entry be removed altogether - so, in essence, it can say "British" or nothing at all. As a Scottish person who does not consider himself British, I find this deeply offensive; although I am perfectly aware that there are many Scots who do not feel this way. National identity within the UK is a highly contentious issue. The disputed essay in it's current form makes helpful suggestions for a Wikipedian to navigate this, and tries to provide some pointers; in contrast, simply asserting that UK government publications say 'British', therefore, that is the one true version of facts (as Martin has done repeatedly throughout this dispute) is an overtly offensive position to those of us who are Scottish, not British.

Just to be clear that this is not a fringe issue - the 2011 Census showed that only a very small minority of people in the UK consider themselves as "British only". In Scotland, 62% of people chose Scottish as their sole identity with 8% choosing British only and a further 18% ticking both. [20]

Martin's proposed solution imposes a national identity on a population where the vast majority people do not agree with this label. FDCWint (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FF-UK

The Infobox_Scientist, with the nationality shown as Scottish, was added to the James Clerk Maxwell article eight years ago by a Canadian editor, User:Je_at_uwo, as part of a major edit, see the diff. It is unreasonable to suggest that this had anything to do with "editors who are using Wikipedia to promote the concept of nationalities of constituent countries of independent nations such as 'Scottish', and 'Cornish' have, over a period of several years, driven away dissenting editors using improper tactics". I have not added any content to the JCM article, but see my role (as a JCM enthusiast) simply to patrol the article and endeavor to revert vandalism and inappropriate editing. The article achieved GA status in late August, but two months later Martin Hogbin rolled up and embarked on his campaign with the insulting edit comment "Ther is no nationality 'Scottish'" (sic) diff. Five weeks, and many contributions from three other editors later, I pointed out to Martin Hogbin that during that time no other editor had supported him and suggested it was time to desist, diff. A few hours after that an unsigned talk edit from an anonymous IP appeared offering the first support for Martin Hogbin's position, this was the first of over 160 anonymous contributions on various pages at which Martin Hogbin conducted his forum shopping, there is more detail on this in the statement below from Ncmvocalist.

Martin Hogbin has not actually provided any valid sources for his claims that there is no Scottish nationality, only evidence that there is British nationality, which, of course, is not something which any other editor has contested. By contrast many sources have been provided in support of the facts that Scotland IS a nation, and that there is official recognition of Scottish nationality. These sources are gathered together in the Talk section: Sources, Sources, Sources

Martin Hogbin complains of being offered 'incivility', but fails to appreciate that he has been consistently insulting to Scottish people by denying the existence of their nation and nationality.

I speak as an Englishman, not a Scot, and I have no personal problem with being identified with the United Kingdom, as is evidenced by my user name. FF-UK (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adam Cuerden

This is a content dispute - and one that Martin is on the minority side of, but wants Arbcom to force his side to win. He has so far (This might be slightly out of order):

Part II:

Part III:

  • Threatened arbcom because his supposed compromise was rejected ([23] et al)
  • Opened Arbcom case.

Stop the presses: Part IV?:

This sounds very much like a statement of intention to spread this to other articles.


Quite simply, he's been forumshopping for weeks now, and has been struck down everywhere he went. What he wants is completely out of scope of Arbcom, but I think he does need topic banned. There's no other person opening threads on this subject except him at the moment; he is the cause of 100% of the problem.

I'm not surprised he went to Arbcom with this - he clearly wasn't going to take no for an answer - but this is completely out of Arbcom's remit. The problematic behaviour here is him jumping into the hornet's nest that is UK nationalities, and then refusing to drop the stick when people rejected his suggestions.

It's probably worth saying that his claimed attacks are taken quite a bit out of context. For example, it was stated his excessive forumshopping was troll-like. The nationalist claim was in response to him claiming the only reason to support Scottish was that you were a separatist. "Racist" was used in the phrase ""Given "British" is read as "English" by a majority of people, it's downright misleading. And, intentionally or not, racist." - Choosing one word - and removing the context that gives it a much milder, nuanced meaning - and then using that to attack people is not acting in good faith.

Statement by John

I agree with Adam. I was involved in this as an editor, and I apologise for any minor incivility I exhibited in any of the month of discussions. As Adam has said, Martin and an IP wanted to overturn a long-standing and hard-won consensus. He has been a bit relentless and has forum-shopped hard, and it worries me if he truly doesn't see how inflammatory it can be to try so forcefully and single-handedly to argue a nationalistic point in the way he has done here. --John (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SagaciousPhil

Statement by Daicaregos

Martin Hobgin's views have not gained consensus elswhere. This latest attempt to achieve his goal of choosing people's nationalities using his own narrow definition should not have been brought here, which is clearly inappropriate. I see no incivility above and, even if there were, this is not the place to raise it. None of the diffs quoted relate to my edits and I have not been uncivil. I have never edited James Clerk Maxwell or Humphry Davy, or made any comment on their talk pages. Unless it can be shown that my behaviour merits being named as involved, I see no point in commenting further. Daicaregos (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I appear to have been included here because an actual involved party asked to be excluded, so there was space for one more (diff). Thanks a bunch! Daicaregos (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Brit Lukeno94

With regards to the content, the only time we don't use "British" as the nationality is when a more specific term is needed; this is mostly restricted to sports people. The reason that English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish is used on sports articles is because, in a lot of places, the countries compete separately, so using British would be nonsensical. For other articles, calling them English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish would be equivalent to calling someone a Texan, or a Californian, rather than an American. In fact, it's a tad dafter, since US states have more freedom of government than most of the parts of the UK. Regardless of this, ArbCom is not a place where you have content disputes settled, and I personally don't see why on earth you've rushed to ArbCom; ArbCom is a last resort, and this seems far more like a first resort to me, with no real attempt at a wider community discussion. Equally, I find citing the topic ban of GoodDay to be a tad daft; that user agreed themselves, voluntarily, to the topic ban. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved AndyTheGrump

This is, as Adam Cuerden notes above a content dispute, with Martin Hogbin in the minority position. The simple facts of the matter are that 'nationality' within the UK is a complex topic, and not one which can be solved by pseudo-legalistic assertions that 'all UK subjects have British nationality' [25] and that any other definition (notably self-definition) is therefore incorrect. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a court of law, and has no business whatsoever imposing a particular definition of nationality on the subjects of its articles, just for the convenience of infobox-obsessives and people who have difficulty dealing with messy realities. If such messy realities make filling in infoboxes difficult and contentious, I would have to suggest that the problem lies in the obsession that some contributors have with infoboxes in the first place - and an rapidly coming around to the position that it might be best to abolish them entirely for biographies. Meanwhile, since that is clearly outside ArbCom's scope, I would suggest that Martin Hogbin be told to accept what appears to be a consensus over this matter, and to stop wasting peoples' time with endlessly-rehashed arguments that clearly aren't going to win anyone over. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such needs to reflect reality - a reality where nationality in the UK context is fluid, contextual, and not amenable to rulemongering for mere convenience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by NE Ent

Decline. This isn't even really a content "dispute," it's a I don't like it! filing over a mostly settled matter. NE Ent 12:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ncmvocalist

Background noted at ANI plus a bit more for completeness

This dispute started when Martin Hogbin made a bold edit on 26 Oct to replace the nationality field in the infobox in the article from "Scottish" to "British", and removing the citizenship field altogether. At the same exact moment [26], he raised the matter on the talk page saying he will "try" to make the same change on another article, and that if it is reverted, he will start a RfC to get site-wide consistency. That is, he reasonably expected this edit was likely to be contested, and it was reverted [27] about two hours later. This was the start of an exhaustive discussion for several users. On 1 Dec, Martin Hogbin then reinstated his edit stating "There seems to be a fairly clear consensus now." It is doubtful that there was a consensus based on the status of the discussion at that time seen here (showing all of the edits made to the talk page since 26 Oct until 1 Dec). It is probably more accurate to say this was the commencement of the exhaustingly lame edit-war. A dynamic IP user has also aided Martin, using the accounts 109.152.250.125; 86.145.98.85; 109.152.249.9; 86.180.32.141; 109.152.248.204; 86.129.126.155; 86.180.33.175; 86.163.109.109 and 86.180.33.60.

To be clear, the lame edit war of 20+ reversions consisted of Martin Hogbin (on 1 Dec), an IP address user, dave souza [28], FF-UK [29], Martin Hogbin [30], Hertz [31], IP [32], FF-UK [33], CFindlay12 [34], IP [35], Martin Hogbin [36], IP [37], IP [38], FF-UK [39], Martin Hogbin [40], FF-UK [41], Martin Hogbin [42] John [43], Gill110951 [44], John [45], IP user again [46], then [47] Sagaciousphil. A bit to his credit, John subsequently filed a semi-protect RFPP, though the article was full-protected for 1 week and the responding administrator correctly noted that semi-protection "would not stop the back and forth of the autoconfirmed editors".

I had looked into the dispute at Talk:James Clerk Maxwell when the involuntary topic ban was being discussed at the ANI regarding Martin Hogbin. I thought Martin Hogbin and another editor, User:FF-UK should voluntarily disengage by ceasing editing there at all (including talk pages) in the form a of a mutual binding restriction, even if there was no consensus for an involuntary restriction. A reasonable suggestion was also made by FF-UK that same voluntary measure should apply to a dynamic IP user (109.152.250.125; 86.145.98.85; 109.152.249.9; 86.180.32.141; 109.152.248.204; 86.129.126.155; 86.180.33.175; 86.163.109.109 and 86.180.33.60), who advocated along the lines that Martin Hogbin except without a fixed user account. Unfortunately though, the voluntary measure fell through as can be seen at the ANI. Still, I thought the following was of concern at the start of the New Year:

Talk page participation (Talk:James Clerk Maxwell)
  • Martin Hogbin first edited the talk page on 26 Oct 2014 and as of today, has made 111 edits to the talk page and inserted 62,526 bytes to the talk page.
  • Dynamic IP first edited the talk page in Dec 2014, and as of today in total: made 49 edits to the talk page and inserted 34,158 bytes to the talk page.
  • FF-UK first edited the talk page on 27 Oct 2014, and as of today, has made 66 edits to the talk page and inserted 73,609 bytes to the talk page.
  • It appears that 121 users (every other person who has ever discussed matters on the talk page, including contentions/issues with the article) appear to have managed to participate in less than 20 edits and inserted less than 6,500 bytes since the talk page was created in 2002.
  • Given the above, is it proportionate that these three users above have added that much text solely in relation to: should the "nationality" field in the infobox of the article be changed from "Scottish" to "British" (or to none), and should the "citizenship" field should be changed from "British" to none? Is it surprising that nobody wants to spend any time on it or to go anywhere near such a discussion?
Article (James Clerk Maxwell)
  • Edit count shows: Martin Hogbin (6 edits), FF-UK (5 edits) and dynamic IP user (## edits) - all edits revert-warring over the infobox on the question I described above.

I understand this debate is being raised again and again across various forums and in relation to other articles, but I have not really followed it in any useful amount of detail to assess how disproportionate, excessive, or repetitive it has been. If it's anything like the above, which I would not be surprised by, that suggests a problem - an almost Abd-like problem.

Yes, administrative action really ought to be easy based on all of the above (including the bits I noted in the collapsed background) I would have thought, but I'm not really sure it's actually being taken effectively. Again, maybe that's because of the sheer amount of text that needs to be reviewed as it exhausts anyone who goes near it which might be part of it. I can't help but read each of the subsections in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added some background in the collapsed box above. If the matters raised are of concern which require administrative intervention or a specific form of dispute resolution other than a case, it would be good if arbs did ask for such action to be taken by the relevant persons. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Infobox nationality of people from the UK: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/12/0/0>

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

  • There are two aspects to this. Firstly there is a content dispute (what the infoboxes should say), which as has been correctly pointed out is outside the committee's remit. The second aspect is the behavioural one, and while this is potentially something the committee could deal with I'm not seeing that earlier steps in the dispute resolution process have been exhausted. What has been tried since the topic ban proposal for Martin ended without consensus? I'm leaning very strongly towards declining this, but I'll see what other opinions are offered first. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline. Something does need to be done here, as the three editors noted by Ncmvocalist are preventing the resolution of a content dispute, however at this point that something is not an arbitration case. I do urge the community, particularly the three editors concerned, to do what they can to resolve this dispute short of arbitration as this will bring the maximum benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards decline, the content dispute will not be settled here. I echo Thryduulf's question above about what has been tried to resolve the behavioural issues of this issue. Courcelles 01:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by George Ho (talk) at 01:18, 14 January 2015 (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 George Ho

When I looked at many protection requests on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, I fear that the dispute has been ongoing, which led to several full protections. I contacted Esoglou and Roscelese about the dispute, but neither party is willing to compromise. In fact, Esoglou has been accusatory in his talk, and Roscelese has been reluctant to contact Esoglou and considered him troublesome. I advised them to file a request for arbitration or mediation, but they have yet to do so. Actually, mediation would have been ineffective because of Roscelese and Esoglou's long-term animosities toward each other. I checked other articles that they have been working on. There have been edit warrings, but I can came up only "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" as a place of dispute. Roscelese mentioned some abortion-related article, but I guess she meant Catholics for Choice. My only concern is the "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" article, which has suffered from endless content disputes and is currently fully protected the fourth or fifth time. I don't know what is going on between two editors. However, when I contacted Esoglou, somehow I found him less trustworthy than I hoped for. Maybe I'm taking Roscelese's side, but there is yet to be an evidence of Esoglou's misconduct. Perhaps all parties involved should explain the whole dispute. I am filing this request in hopes for stability of the article (and other related articles). George Ho (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Responding to Esoglou's statement

Esoglou gave Roscelese a message with a picture of some model, which is now deleted in Commons. I can't say whether the model was naked or not, but Roscelese took it as an insult. Esoglou has denied that he hurt Roscelese, but Roscelese claimed that this started a long-term animosity. She told me in her talk page. --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Gaijin42

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but Roscelese and Esoglou's animosities might have gone way back. See Catholics for Choice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Master of Puppets?

I almost forgot; Master of Puppets has been semi-inactive since December 2014. I wonder if his statement may impact an arbitrator's decision. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Esoglou

The dispute is about content. At present the precise point of dispute is Roscelese's insistence that the document "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons", known also by its incipit as Homosexualitatis problema, "said that, as homosexual sexual activity is the result of deliberate choice, it is not therefore made inculpable by natural orientation". Roscelese says that this claim is based on the document itself and on two secondary sources. I have explained here the baselessness of her interpretation of these sources. On the talk page of the article I have repeatedly tried to engage her in a conversation about her interpretation. Others too have tried to get her to see that she is mistaken, the most recent being User:Gaijin42 here.

George Ho speaks of "Roscelese and Esoglou's long-term animosities toward each other". I disagree with Roscelese's presentation of certain matters, and with her constant reverting (without discussion on the talk page) to her own text in spite of attempts to preserve more objective statements or to offer modifications aimed at meeting her objections. But I feel no animosity towards her. Unfortunately, her strong animosity towards me shows in her edit summaries and in various other places, most recently here. Esoglou (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see I have made a mistake, for which I apologize. Above, I copied exactly Roscelese's latest version, but I did not realize that it was different from the claim that she had repeatedly reverted to for so long, when her claim was that the document declared that homosexual tendency never attenuates culpability for homosexual activity (what the document denies is that the tendency "always and totally" removes culpability). This is what I was speaking against. Although the culpability of my mistake may perhaps be attenuated by the fact that the latest version seemed to me just another in the series of reverts, with no indication in the edit summary or on the talk page that it was different, I am confessedly at fault for not having noticed the change. It is good to have this evidence of some flexibility. If we discussed the matter together, we could surely agree that what the document says is that the tendency does not make homosexual activity totally inculpable and, moreover, that the document does not say, as claimed, that the activity is always the result of "deliberate choice", but only that some degree of freedom remains. It would be much simpler if Roscelese would only agree to have the article quote the primary source, instead of insisting on some interpretation of it. The cited secondary source's interpretation is that, the stronger the tendency, the greater the reduction of culpability. Again, I apologize for my mistake. Esoglou (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Ho, User:Binksternet, User:Gaijin42, User:Dominus Vobisdu, User:Marauder40, I have commented here on the image that I saw as a humorous comment on attempts to tie me up from editing. Those who saw it as in no way humorous considered it grounds enough to actually tie me up. And some want me punished for it again. Esoglou (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful to those who have interacted with Roscelese on the talk page of the article and have, it seems, solved the three problems that I selected for attention, but that Roscelese refused to discuss. We now have an agreed text on Jeannine Deckers; the claim that Homosexualitatis problema, which was apparently drafted in English, was published first in that language and only later in other languages has been corrected; and now Gaijin42 seems to be on the verge of solving the remaining problem of the claim that the same document denies the possibility that there may be cases of reduction of culpability because of orientation. And yet there are those who blame me for not having accepted submissively whatever Roscelese kept reverting to without discussing it, and who say that ensuring accurate reporting of what the Catholic Church actually said is "pushing the official position", while distorting what it said is "appropriately representing" LGBT concerns, or who say that the document itself, as officially published by the Catholic Church itself and so a self-published source, is an unreliable source for what the document says. Esoglou (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roscelese

I'm going to make my statement brief, since, as I've pointed out in diffs compiled on my talk, Esoglou has a history of creepy and homophobic behavior towards me and is evidently behaving the way he does in order to get me to talk to him, rather than respecting my stated intent not to do so, which he views as "playing hard to get." Esoglou has a long history of disruption in a range of topic areas where he feels his religious beliefs to be in conflict with some aspects of the topic, and is incapable of editing neutrally or respecting the sources in those areas. He has been topic-banned three times. A productive outcome would be his withdrawal, voluntary or not, from any potentially "controversial" areas relating to religion (as Dominus said, it's possible he could be productive were this temptation removed). If ArbCom taking the case is needed for this to happen, I'm all for it, but I'd also be content if it were enough of a wake-up call for him to leave both me and these articles alone without being forced to. Were that the case, I'm not sure sanctions would be necessary, as users other than Esoglou, including myself, have been perfectly capable of reaching compromise and consensus through discussion. I think the article talk page shows clearly that productive discussion both wrt what content to include and wrt how to phrase things is and has been going on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elizium23

It is worth noting three things. First, contrary to what Esoglou claims above, the dispute is about POV and personalities. Second, when I say "the dispute" I mean the ongoing feud between Roscelese and Esoglou, not merely in the cited article today. This feud stretches back for years over many articles, mostly in the topics of Catholicism, homosexuality, and abortion. I feel that proposing sanctions for merely Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism will not succeed if the goal is to settle the matter between these two editors. Third, neither of these two are alone. They each have allies who agree with them and back up their edits. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I am an ally of Esoglou. I routinely oppose Roscelese in articles touching these topics.

Now for Roscelese's view. Similar to Esoglou, she perceives systemic bias, in this instance the bias she opposes is that against the LGBT movement and individuals, as well as the pro-choice movement. I am not sure how much bias there can be against those things, except from a small minority of editors. I don't even think Esoglou shows unhealthy bias against these things, just that he happens to agree with the Catholic Church's position on them. Roscelese's mission seems to be to represent LGBT and pro-choice views as favorable, at the expense of WP:NPOV policies. Edit-warring tenaciously is a hallmark of her tactics. In any given article, you can count on Roscelese's POV to begin glistening in the text, because she routinely reverts Esoglou and he is more willing to discuss than to revert her reverts (of course he does do this as well, but when it's a matter of quantity and persistence, Roscelese always wins out.) She is exceedingly good at WP:Wikilawyering to prove her points. She routinely appeals to WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV when it suits her and she needs to delete or rework some section to her liking. Admittedly, she is often right, and because she is craftier and more tenacious than her opponents, almost always gets her way. Recently, I was introduced to an applicable term, "brinker". Roscelese's behavior matches this description well. Her cold, condescending attitude, toward people she does not like or agree with, makes for difficulty in resolving disputes.

In summary, this deadlock between them may be good for the project, or at least it is better than simply allowing only one of them to run roughshod over all these topic articles. Each of them provides the perfect counterbalance to the other's POV. If Roscelese's POV didn't constantly win out in article space, I would not be frustrated. If Esoglou's did, we might also have an NPOV problem, but for the aforementioned systemic bias that I contend exists against conservatism and against the Catholic Church. I feel that it is in the long run detrimental to both of these editors, who could be spending fruitful time improving articles, rather than locking horns in dispute. The dispute is detrimental to the morale of Wikipedia, which depends on collegial editing and cooperation. Roscelese has unilaterally disconnected herself from this goal, in refusing to discuss with Esoglou, but insisting on interacting with him in article space. I agree that sanctions need to be in place, but I implore you to apply them evenly on both sides, or these topics will begin to have even more serious NPOV problems if one faction is given free rein. Elizium23 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I think the dispute between Roscelese and Esoglou has been covered adequately by other editors. My bigger concern, as an admin active on this and other homosexuality-related articles, is the possibility/probability of tag-teaming and/or sockpuppetry. One editor, User:Padresfan94, became active on this article recently, and if their actions are not actually tag-teaming with Esoglou, they are indistinguishable from this behaviour.

I noted, at User_talk:Padresfan94#Just_to_make_things_clear... that I believed their action to be stalking, which is very clear from their edit-history. At that time, their edits shared 7 articles with Roscelese; they had directly followed her to four of them to revert her (having never edited them before), whilst on the others they exhibit simple reversion of her edits. I would point out that Padresfan94's account was created only 12 days before the (at that time inevitable) indefinite block of User:Badmintonhist for the harassment of Roscelese. There is of course no proof of a relationship between the two, and Checkuser would be useless now, but WP:DUCK is clearly indicated here; why would a "brand new" editor suddenly gravitate towards another and start reverting her edits? I think we can safely assume a link here - and even in the unlikely even there is none, WP:STALK is clearly being violated.

If nothing else comes fron this, User:Padresfan94 needs both a topic ban and a (one-way) interaction ban from following Roscelese. There are other problematic editors here, but this would at least be a start. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Master of Puppets

Statement by Padresfan94

Roscelese has been an ideologically driven edit warrior on this topic. She constantly toes the line on 3RR (occasionally crossing it) and has gotten herself blocked because of her actions on this article, and other similar ones. She reverts minor, sometimes grammatical corrections by editors she perceives to be of a different POV and then refuses to participate in talk page discussions.

Everyone else here, including the people that I have some times disagreed, is capable of compromise except her. She has been blocked 6 times already, if she keeps editing like this she will continue to be blocked. She needs to be backed off of Catholic articles for a while.Padresfan94 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Black Kite
  • If you had been following this discussion more closely you would have noted the times that Esoglau and I have disagreed with each other, calling out edits "indistinguishable" borders on irresponsible.
  • It is incredibly unfair to accuse me of sock puppetry and then say "of course, the evidence wouldn't prove that untrue, but trust me, it's true". If you think I'm a sock puppet of that guy then file an investigation and stop dragging my name through the mud. Put up or shut up.
  • I am more than happy to enter into some sort of an editing interaction ban with Rosclese, provided that the street goes both ways. You yourself admitted that he followed me to the Cordileone article. Why should that keep happening? I'd be happy never needing to put up with Roscelese again, but not at the cost of her following me around. Padresfan94 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CambridgeBayWeather

Given that I protected the article once back in August 2014 I'm not sure that I'm really involved. However, seeing it has been fully protected 8 times in 6 months something needs doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

This is a behavior issue rather than a content one. Esoglou works to wear down his ideological opponents by continual argument, picked up again and again where previous discussion was unfruitful. Esoglou is here to push the official position of the Catholic Church hierarchy, meeting the WP:NOTHERE standard, while Roscelese is merely interested in bringing up LGBT concerns where they are not appropriately represented. Esoglou uses a variety of tactics to try and quote Catholic texts straight rather than describing them through the eyes of reliable observers. Roscelese tries to emphasize third party sources. Then, like a hound, Padresfan94 swings through with the obvious and sole intent to frustrate Roscelese. If Esoglou and Padresfan94 were removed from the equation, I disagree with the expressed concern that Roscelese would push the ideological pendulum so far left as to unbalance the articles involved, which is 109 of them. Her work elsewhere shows a strong understanding of what is neutral. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rope bondage image used by Esoglou in apparent humor, which was taken very differently by Roscelese, was deleted at Commons under one name, but uploaded again under another name. I saw the first version in Roscelese's talk page history after noticing her angry edit summary "get the fuck off my talk page" on my watchlist, so I can attest that this second version is the same; the model's name, Dani, has been taken out of the file name, but it's still Dani that is shown bound in ropes. When I saw that note from Esoglou I was affronted, and I understood Roscelese's reaction. I thought that it was demeaning, sexist, belittling and disrespectful. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc

I'll say more later on when I have some more time to look at the possibility of other DR methods, but given the number of times the article has been fully protected it would seem that regular admin intervention hasn't been successful in managing this issue, so an arbitration case might be helpful in trying to resolve the issue. I'm also of the opinion that discretionary sanctions will be helpful in this area (and wished I had them when I protected the article), possibly even more broadly in the Roman Catholicism or Christianity area (see also this AE request, which is only related through Christianity). As I said, more later. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)

  • @Thryduulf: I think something like imposing discretionary sanction on this and closely related articles for 6 months to see if that solves the problem and if not a full case can be heard then might work. I'd be hesitant to impose broad DS in a completely new area (unlike Acupuncture) in a summary proceeding. I don't think an IBAN would work by itself and would need to be accompanied by an article or topic ban of some sort. However I don't think removing only these two editors will have the desired effect given that there are other parties involved in the edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Black Kite has shown that at least one other editor likely requires sanctions against them to resolve this issue (and the sort of thing Black Kite is talking is what's sometimes difficult to pin down at AE) I think a full case is likely needed here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu

Actually, I was going to keep out of this until I read User:Esoglou's "apology" above, specifically the line "It would be much simpler if User:Roscelese would only agree to have the article quote the primary source, instead of insisting on some interpretation of it."

I bump into User:Esoglou once every six months or so, and the problem is always the same: a penchant for propagating religious apologetics and whitewashing issues related to his church based on appeal to extremely and intentionally ambiguous primary church documents without the benefit of secondary independent scholarly sources.

I have warned him repeatedly that WP is not the place to practice apologetics and PR spinning, and, though he seems to agree for a short while, he quickly falls back into his old habits.

Furthermore, I have begun to have serious doubts about his good faith, especially when he tried to "enlist" me on his side of this pissing contest without my permission, which I also warned him against on the article talk page.

Based on a strong element of WP:NOTHERE (because he is primarily here to practice religious apologetics), as well as his battlefield approach to editing religious articles, his persistent reliance on primary sources and his persistent uncivil behavior towards his fellow editors (which is getting worse, not better), I believe that a topic ban is in order pertaining to all religious subjects and subjects controversial in religion, particularly abortion, birth control, homosexuality, marriage and divorce, broadly construed. I believe that User:Esoglou is capable of editing productively in areas that do not touch upon his personal religious beliefs.

As for User:Roscelese, I also encounter her from time to time. Though we have had our disagreements, and still do, they are resolved civilly and with appeal to and in accordance with out policies and guidelines. She is always willing to listen and discuss, and goes far beyond the call of duty in this area, and even sometimes beyond the call of reason, in my opinion. I understand her frustration with User:Esoglou, especially since they appear to have more frequent interaction with each other than I do with either.

Also, agree with User:Black Kite about User:Padresfan94. I also suspect that this user is a sock of a banned user that has a vendetta against User:Roscelese. This should be investigated.
I am deeply troubled and disappointed by the photo User:Esoglou left on User:Roscelese's talk page. At best, it was in exceedingly poor taste and grossly uncivil. Whatever possessed him to leave a picture of a lesbian bondage scene on the page of a lesbian editor with whom he cannot be said to be on cordial terms is beyond my power of comprehension. It is too serious to dismiss as an awkward attempt at humor, and, in spite of AGF, I have great difficulty viewing this as anything other than a sign of overt antipathy toward a fellow editor, and a gross breach of WP:NPA. How would User:Esoglou respond if someone left a picture of a Catholic priest fondling a pre-teen altar boy on his talk page? I, for one, would be highly offended, and would fail to see any "humor" in it.
It also bothers me that he has been previously banned for tendentious editing in an area that he was too personally involved in. This points to a long-term problem with this editor, and decreases my faith in his ability to edit neutrally on topics related to his personal religious beliefs.
In response to User:Marauder40's comment below about how "User:Esoglou asks that the equivalent of the official Vatican newspaper source be used", that is precisely the problem. We should be using reliable INDEPENDENT secondary sources, not self-serving self-published sources. Church documents are written in a opaque, vague and intentionally ambiguous "secret code" which makes them impossible to interpret at face value. Independent scholarly analysis is required, not self-serving spin doctoring. As for simply using quotes from church documents without any commentary by reliable independent secondary sources, that would violate WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. That would also turn the article into a non-encyclopedic quote farm.

Statement by Bbb23

I semi-protected the article on August 17, 2014, for a month. According to the log (I have no independent memory of this), it was because of a an edit warring/content dispute and "probable sock puppetry - IP hopping". I have nothing else to add unless an arbitrator has a question for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Contaldo80

Statement by Uninvolved User:Robert McClenon

Looking over the history of the disputes about this article, I can see that there have been article talk page discussions that have gone around and around since late 2013 without resolution. There is antagonism between some editors, but they have in general been dancing around the edges of what is clearly blockable, avoiding actual WP:3RR and avoiding clear personal attacks, but also avoiding collaboration. I agree with the comment that neither lightweight mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard or formal mediation are likely to work, and see no point in sending the parties off for failed mediation. At the same time, the conduct issues in this case fall just barely short of the usual threshold for the ArbCom to accept a full case; there haven't been enough WP:ANI threads for the usual acceptance of arbitration. However, the new arbitration committee has introduced a useful approach to persistent conduct disputes that do not rise to the previous threshold for a formal arbitration case: a procedural accept in order to impose arbitration discretionary sanctions. I suggest that the ArbCom implement do a procedural accept in order to impose discretionary sanctions on the topic area of Homosexuality and Catholicism. Any further disruptive editing, such as reversion without discussion, can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that, if the ArbCom decides to take a full case with an evidentiary phase, I would ask the ArbCom to impose discretionary sanctions at the start, rather than waiting until the final decision. Discretionary sanctions are a better way of handling edit wars than repeated full protection (which will always necessarily be of what some editor sees as the "wrong" version. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thryduulf has referred to four types of restrictions. I was proposing (b), a narrow restriction on Homosexuality and Catholicism, either by motion or at the outset of a case. Whether a broader restriction on the intersection between sexuality and religion is needed can be decided by a full case if a full case is accepted. I agree that any interaction ban should be dependent on an evidentiary case. Any topic bans should be either the result of a full evidentiary case or imposed by Arbitration Enforcement. Since it appears that the ArbCom is likely to accept a full case, I ask them to impose narrow discretionary sanctions at the start of the case, rather than allowing the current slow-motion edit wars to continue and require periodic page protection. Discretionary sanctions are less troublesome than repeated full protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

There do appear to be reasonable issues pertaining to user conduct and/or maybe appropriate use of sources involved here, and the issue of homosexuality and Catholicism, and to a greater or lesser extent other churches as well, is a rather thorny one which has led to multiple rather hot "discussions." Of course, given its size, I think the Roman Catholic church is probably the easiest target, with the most sources of all sorts dealing with it. It makes sense to me to take this case. There do seem to be some issues relating to conduct and interpretation of guidelines involved, and it might also be useful to allow for imposition of discretionary sanctions by motion in the broad topic area as well for almost certain further contentious discussions in this topic area. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@arbs: definitely support a and b as proposed by Thryduulf below. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Gaijin42

I was brought into this dispute last August via a posting at RS/N. The exact same content dispute has been going on since then, with the page being fully protected multiple times.

I am not sure that behavior at this point has risen to the level that requires the Arbs to directly intercede, but there is definitely a problem that is endemic to the topic. I am somewhat surprised that there aren't already DS applied to this topic considering how political/controversial the nexus is, and suggest that applying DS via motion may cut the Gordian Knot.

There are a few issues I see at the article. (primarily content disputes, compounded by their methods of dispute resolution

1) In my opinion the main disputants in the topic Roscelese and Esogluou are both talking past each other, trying to adamantly convince the other one of their position, and not really listening to each other's statements and trying to compromise. This extends to ignoring the multiple other uninvolved editors who have come in, and given fairly consistent opinions, which may rise to the level of WP:DE via WP:IDHT. As with many content disputes they are so deeply involved with each other, and every nuance that the outside opinions get washed out by the excessively lengthy posts between the two of them. Esoglou does appear to be reading the comments of uninvoled, and taking them into account, but most of that accounting involves them saying "See, X agrees with me". (For the most part they are right, but it could be better handled).

2) (mainly) Roscelese has a consistent problem with trying to get the Church's statement to say something the source does not say. The core issue is trying to speak in absolutes (never, always, etc) when the document itself is very wishy-washy (may, sometimes, some cases, etc). This dispute about the literally the exact same sentence in the article has been going on for months. Its coming to the point that either there is willfull misrepresentation of the source to spin the article, or a WP:CIR reading comprehension issue.

3) The Edit warring and pointed tagging/editing of the article (From at least July '14 until now).

Subsequent to this posting Roscelese has engaged in some conversation that indicates they are looking to compromise and take into account the feedback from other editors. If that can move forward then this particular edit war dispute may go away, which further reduces the need for a full case. I would still recommend DS applied for future issues.
In the statements above I have seen allegations against Esoglou regarding harassment, bias/npov, or homophobia. I have not seen any of that behavior, but my interaction on the topic and between these editors has been limited to this specific content dispute. Its possible that such behavior is real, but has been limited to other discussions, but I think allegations of that level require diffs clearly showing the problem. In my interactions with Esogluou he has been rather heavy handed in the "gotcha" style of arguing/discussion, but I have not seen any other issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf The narrow DS on catholicism and homosexuality at a minimum seems appropriate (and would also cover another recent flareup at Salvatore_J._Cordileone#Political_activity). The broader "religion" DS might also be beneficial as it would cover other controversial areas like Westboro Baptist Church. IBan could be beneficial in general, but seems problematic as related to this ongoing dispute - would they both be allowed to participate, but just not comment to/about each other?. I don't see behavior by either party as rising to the level of topic ban worthy, but remain open to being persuaded by diffs. I would think bans would require a full case to be evaluated rather than just motions though. Roscelese has posted some diffs on her talk in her conversation with George Ho and Mop which do show some problematic behavior by Esogluou I was not aware of, but I think those fall more into the iban realm than the topic ban realm. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Salvatore dispute is more visible from this lengthy RS/N discussion, also involving R & E. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#Los_Angeles_Times_as_RS_for_statement_about_event Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho Based on the filename, I am guessing that the photo was either this one, or one from this series. (Note the description "photomodel Dani" which matches the other filename. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rope_bondage-020914-2896-24.jpg That does seem wildly inappropriate, and perhaps evidence towards the IBan, but I am not sure of its relevance to the topic (and hence a topic ban etc) unless the prior chain of conversation can be followed for context. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus Vobisdu In general, we prefer secondaries to primaries. I agree absolutely. But in this case what we are trying to describe is "What is the official statement from the Vatican about X". If there are discrepancies between the official statement and secondaries about what the official statement is, the official statement should win. (We have a similar policy about when there are discrepancies between the text of a law and secondary descriptions of the law, but I can't find the link at the moment) see self-reply below

This is a specific letter, signed by a specific small group of people and therefore covered by WP:BLPGROUP. (and the current pope is singled out as a signatory/presenter) While it is certainly valid (even mandatory) to include analysis or responses from notable secondary sources, for the specific of "What did the letter say" we should not rely on "the opposition (Eg, LGBT groups who are protesting the Church's position)" to accurately repeat things and not spin it. R's summary versions of the letter have repeatedly failed to accurately describe the contents of the letter.

MOS:LAW (So not a policy, but still) "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority." This is a very analagous situation imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Marauder40

I disagree with people that say that Esoglou is here for Catholic apologetics. There is a difference between preaching what the Church says and making sure that the article reflects the official Church viewpoint. If an article is about Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism it should accurately reflect what the official view of the Roman Catholic church is. Other viewpoints are appropriate but if the Church officially says X and some RS says Y and another says Z, all can be presented but it doesn't negate the fact that the Church actually says X. In a parallel, almost every time Pope Francis speaks you have 5 newspapers come out and say he said one thing, 5 more newspapers come out and say he said a different thing and then usually an official Vatican newspaper comes out and says the correct interpretation of what he says is something else. In most cases in here Esoglou asks that the equivalent of the official Vatican newspaper source be used and Roscelese would ask that whichever source more closely resembles what she wants the article to say be used. I have had arguments with Roscelese in the past on other articles related to this where she will do things like claim that NO Catholic newspaper article can be used as a reliable source, but will then accept a Catholic news source if it backs up what she is trying to say. There is also a tendency she has that if you even allude to the fact that she may be biased she will do everything in her power to have you banned, but then she (and other editors) have no problem making remarks about Esoglou being biased. I think the number of people that have interaction bans with her is a very telling thing about her editing style. She is very dismissive of anyone that disagrees with her. Any time people bring up the fact that she should discuss things with Esoglou she brings up things that happened two years ago between them (which Esoglou has apologized for as an attempt at humor that was misunderstood) instead of addressing things that are happening now. This is definitely not a one-sided problem.Marauder40 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Georgo Ho's statement

I saw the picture, it was not a naked picture. According to Esoglou he meant the picture as an attempt at humor, to signify that HE felt tied up. The same picture has been used in another article at around the same time and was being commented on in multiple places on WP at the time. It wasn't like he searched the archives just to find it. Was it inappropriate, probably. Was it something that should apply now two years later, not really. Marauder40 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=642777875"