Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence

Evidence presented by User:Robert McClenon
The disputes between User:Mclarenfan17, formerly known as User:Prisonermonkeys, and User:Tvx1, go back to 2017. The July 2019 dispute illustrates that both editors can be aggressive, but unfortunately Mclarenfan17 is the more aggressive, and engaged in persistent battleground conduct, and, unlike Tvx1, was self-righteous. It is unfortunate that the volume of the exchange that I have linked is so long, but that is what these editors, in particular Mclarenfan17, have been arguing about for a few years.

December 2019 Dispute
This dispute was filed by another editor. User:Mclarenfan17 was added to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_183#2020_Formula_One_World_Championship

July 2019 Dispute
This dispute was filed by User:Mclarenfan17: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_179#Talk:2019_World_Rally_Championship However, Mclarenfan17 said that conduct issues had to be addressed first. This was filed at WP:ANI, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Harrassment_by_an_editor See also comments on my talk page, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_26#DRN_discussion

February 2019 Through April 2019 Dispute
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally/Archive_3 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_171#2019_World_Rally_Championship, which I closed with instructions to the filing party to open a new account, which is User:Mclarenfan17. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#Refusing_to_acknowledge_a_consensus, at WP:ANI, which was opened by Mclarenfan17 and was closed without resolution

July 2018 Dispute
This dispute was filed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_167#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#2014_and_2015_teams_and_drivers_tables This shows that unpleasantness between User:Tvx1 and User:Prisonermonkeys, later known as User:Mclarenfan17, goes back to 2018, with various sorts of complaints of bad faith. During this period, Prisonermonkeys, who had lost their password, was editing from IP addresses.

November 2017 Dispute
This dispute was filed by and was inconclusive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_158#Talk:2017_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship#Order_of_Toro_Rosso_drivers

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2018_World_Rally_Championship

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_World_Rally_Championship

See also User talk:Prisonermonkeys, which shows disputes with User:Tvx1 going back to 2017.

Evidence presented by Tvx1
Now that this arbitration case has been accepted, I would like to present some evidence that the situation is more complicated than just me and Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys not getting along. Through the years they have been involved in a number of disputes with a many different users. The recurring pattern is that they tend to start making things personal once they feel they're not going to get a consensus in their favor.

Here is a selection of diffs from the recent history showing such behavior against numerous users:
 * Klõpps ,
 * Me, ,
 * Fecotank ,
 * Pelmeen10 ,
 * Unnamelessness ,
 * Sabbatino
 * Pyrope, 14
 * Speedy Question Mark,.

This has unfortunately not been limited to WP:MOTOR. Here is an example of a tedious discussion involving this user from WP:FILM. is diff from another discussion regarding that article showing direct engagement to an other user.

I would really want to suggest that now that we have an open full case, the other regulars of the Wikiprojects we are most active at are invited to give their opinions on their interactions with is in order to provide a more clear view of the situation.Tvx1 22:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Rebuttal to "Tvx1 abuses the ANI process"
Diffs 19,20 and 22 do not even deal with ANI. To address diff 20 directly though, I did not apply different standard there. I apply one clear Wikipedia rule:WP:3RR equally to both editors. Mclarenfan17 broke the rule (despite having been about edit warring, the other user didn't. Hence why the former was reported and the latter. I really don't understand how they can turn WP:3RR being applied equally to the both of them into "being held to different standards".

With regards to the accusation based on diff 21, the person that replied there actually was not an admin. Nevertheless, they with regards to McLarenfan17's behavior and even  against them. Thus given that this person is nor has been an admin, I certainly did not ask for anyone to change their mind. I merely asked for an admin to actually to a look because concerns were being raise by multiple parties and even a section being proposed.

With regards to the accusation based on diff 22, I actually to actually explain my true intentions. They were not what I'm accused of here. With regards to diff 24, I didn't claim at all that my block history couldn't or shouldn't be reviewed. I've been open about it and wish to do keep doing so. Anyone is free to review what they wish. I don't even know why I would even consider trying to prevent anything of the sorts.

In summary, the accusation that I reported them at WP:ANI "all the time" is simply not true and I have already stated that in my preliminary statement. I have only initiated a limited number of ANI reports against them through the years and not all for "every lengthy discussion" that has taken place between us. These are facts that can be easily verified.Tvx1 20:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Rebuttal to "Tvx1 deliberately drags discussions out to force WP:NOCONSENSUS"
I really don't understand why this accusation against me was made again, nor even why I'm singled out there. The discussion that is being referred to here, featured five participants in total. One of them was McLarenfan17. The other four (including myself) all independently disagreed with their stance. Another user reviewed the discussion and, a conclusion that was reiterated by that editor in their preliminary statement for this case. Not only was this not a case of "no consensus" it was a case of a clear consensus against the filer. With five users stating that they were wrong, they still didn't accept it and even went as far as editing,. So again, I really don't understand why I keep being singled out here.Tvx1 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by SSSB
I'm not sure how useful this will be but in a recent discussion Mclarenfan17 chose to ignore Tvx1's opinion becuase Mclarenfan17 felt Tvx1 was harrasing him. SSSB (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC) This is the diff for the first instance: This then quickly escalted into an arguement (see successive diffs) between the mclarenfan and tvx1 with occasional input from as to if the above had any basis, until I said this: After which they seemed to be able to have a normal discussion. Again not sure how relevant this is but... SSSB (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport
 * Special:Diff/927327362
 * Special:Diff/927962960

Examples of Tvx1's behaviour
I started this request because I believe Tvx1 has engaged in a campaign of wiki-hounding. His actions in editing a selection of articles appear to be aimed at frustrating my experience of Wikipedia. In the words of an admin who blocked him, Tvx1 has displayed “repeated wikilawyering/deliberate misinterpretation of policy to the point of threatening/harassing other editors”, which they reiterated to me. He often denies wrongdoing, claims he has been targeted by bad-faith accusations and resorts to wikilawyering. The problem is that this keeps happening – even in this very thread as he tries to turn the committee’s attention away from his behaviour to focus on mine. In a previous attempt to resolve the situation, I proposed that both he and I agree to a mutual topic ban, where each would nominate a topic the other would be banned from editing as a show of good faith. Tvx1 agreed to this, but proposed multiple topics, many of which he does not edit to begin with. In my view, there was no need for this except to harass me.

Tvx1 abuses the ANI process
I believe that Tvx1 abuses the ANI process. Every time that we have a lengthy disagreement, he refers me to ANI. I believe that he does this to try and punish me for disagreeing with him. He has referred me several times, but admins have found these reports to be without merit. Tvx1 claims to be acting in the interests of the article, but has openly acknowledged that he judges editors by different standards. In one particularly notable case an admin decided against sanctions, which prompted Tvx1 to lobby directly to that admin to change their decision. As the admin had made up their mind, this was effectively a new ANI report, but Tvx1 did not go through the proper process of informing me. When this was pointed out to him, he could not see how he could have been in the wrong. He only stopped this practice when other editors pointed out that he was obviously trying to get me blocked. Tvx1 has different standards for editors. When he has referred me to ANI in the past, he has implored admins to take my block history into consideration, claiming that I have not learned from them. However, I have not been blocked in over four years, which shows that I have learned. When the subject of his block history is raised, he is quick to explain it away and suggest it should not be reviewed, even though it is only a few months old.

Tvx1 abuses the consensus-building process
Like many editors, Tvx1 has a range of subjects that he likes to edit articles for. And like many editors, he has a range of articles that he likes to edit within those subject areas. However, when the subject is rallying, his edit history shows that his main interest is in building and maintaining a consensus for table formats. This is a very specific practice and one that does not extend to the other articles he edits. Some of his edits also reveal a lack of knowledge about the subject, which makes me wonder if he has an ulterior motive. In an RFC from 2019, editors were discussing multiple proposals for a new table format. This came after a lengthy period of negotiation, including DRN discussions. Tvx1 claimed that although a consensus for a new table format might be reached, there was no consensus that the new table format was required. This effectively ruined months of painstaking work. In a recent example, an editor started a discussion reviewing the format of another table. This had been discussed at length several times in the past, prompting Tvx1 to raise WP:STICK. I am aware that WP:STICK is an essay, not a policy, but I have only ever seen it used to shut down discussions that have gone on for too long. However, it was Tvx1 himself who had opened those previous discussions, but in this case he raised WP:STICK almost immediately. Significantly, the decision to start the discussion meant that editors were evenly split on their preferred format, making the discussion justified. This appeared to be an attempt to stop the discussion from forming a new consensus. A new table format was negotiated by editors and implemented, but Tvx1 has taken to reverting it claiming that the discussion has not run its course. He has previously stated that a consensus must be respected no matter how slender the margin of support. In the discussion, he has said that all table formats should be reviewed, but did not supply any alternatives. His only contribution was to say that he did not see the value of the new format as if this somehow overrode the decision of other editors. When the discussion did not continue, he insisted that all editors involved in the discussion should comment on any proposals before a consensus could be formed even though there is no policy that supports this. He also argued that I could not claim that a consensus had been formed, even though he was exercising this very same power to claim that there was no consensus yet

Tvx1 deliberately drags discussions out to force WP:NOCONSENSUS
In several discussions, Tvx1 has deliberately dragged the process out to prevent a consensus from being formed. Earlier this year, he made a specific claim about a source, and was asked to provide reliable and verifiable sources to support it. He spent the next six weeks either avoiding the request or claiming that he did not need to supply sources. When presented with sources that contradicted his claim, he either ignored them or cherry-picked parts of them to try to make his argument. He eventually got a source which partially proved his claim – which was not available at the time he made it – and attempted to argue that he had meant something different all along. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Rebuttal of Tvx1's claims
Unfortunately, Tvx1’s rebuttal is precisely what I have come to expect from him when he is defending himself: deny any wrongdoing while trying to shift the blame and blatantly misrepresenting things. He cites the No Time to Die discussion as proof of my attitude, but he neglected to mention that the other editor involved had been asked several times by different users, myself included to be civil in his interactions. The editor was uncivil to others and showed a complete disdain for policies including WP:CIVIL, such as refusing to assume good faith. Meanwhile, Tvx1 is asking you to disregard evidence that I have presented because it did not specifically relate to an ANI, even though he is trying to introduce evidence from a WikiProject unrelated to the one being discussed here. This is no different to his attempt to get my four-year old block history reviewed, but dismisses his own block history, as discussed above. It’s a case of “one rule for Tvx1, one rule for everyone else”. In a recent discussion, he insisted on waiting for every editor involved in the discussion to comment before moving forward. When asked, he said that because I had insisted on this in a previous discussion, we should do it in the current discussion, even though the previous discussion moved on without waiting for other editors. Every discussion with Tvx1 is like this: consensus discussions boil down to a binary choice between Tvx1’s preference and everything else. There is no collaboration and no compromise. Consensus discussions quickly devolve into two sides emerging and both repeating their arguments over and over until one side gives up in frustration and the other side – Tvx1’s preference – is adopted by default.

Tvx1 claims to have no understanding of why this arbitration case is necessary. The answer is that I feel wiki-hounded by him. The definition of wiki-hounding is “the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work […] with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor”. This is evident in the previously-cited attempt to restart an ANI. In that instance, an administrator reviewed the ANI and felt that no action was needed. When I saw that, I took that to mean that the ANI was closed and that there was no further need to monitor the discussion. Tvx1 then tried to re-open the discussion, which he now cites as being because of new evidence, but he never posted a notification on my talk page. This was pointed out to him, but he could not comprehend how he had done anything wrong. To me, this seemed like a fairly transparent attempt to circumvent the ANI rules and get me blocked. This fits the definition of wiki-hounding. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.