Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Failure to abide by civility rules and assume good faith
I would like to demonstrate that Yorkshirian does not have respect for our policies regarding civility, assuming good faith and working collaboratively. This has been a problem over the long term. He personally attacks anyone he perceives as having opposing views and flies off the handle in this manner in response to attempts to discuss content. It has proved impossible to bring this poor conduct under control.


 * January 2008 - Yorkshirian attacked me for my perceived location in an edit summary. As a first stage of trying to bring this to his attention and clear the air I contacted him.  This received no reply, so I assumed he had taken my comment on board. Later Yorkshirian ignored discussions taking place on the Yorkshire article and removed large chunks of material several times.   Assuming he had not seen the article talk page I left a note on his talk page directing him there.  He chose to ignore this and the talk page, so I left a note explaining the situation and directed him to some policies to read relating to these issues. I made clear in this message my desire to diffuse any hostility  and move on.   This message was deleted by Yorkshirian as "a joke".


 * April 2008 - Refers to established editors as "troll" and acting in "bad faith"


 * May 2008 - In a discussion about academic sources, Yorkshirian refers to me and the sources I provide as "anarchists" and mocks me by imitiating my supposed child-like speech.


 * May 2008 - Refers to established editor as "troll" again


 * June 2008 - Refers to good faith contributions as vandalism several times


 * June 2008 - Refers to TFD nomination following this consensus-building discussion as "bad faith nomination"


 * June 2008 - Reverts good-faith additions without any edit summary or explanation


 * June 2008 - In the filing of this ArbCom case Yorkshirian, having not read the submission rules, ignores the clerks request to trim his submission  and then attacks them when they are trying to help him present his case.

Treating civility as a bargaining chip
Since I am not directly involved in this dispute, but have been instead trying to help with the dispute resolution process, I will limit my statements to things I have directly observed. I have no comment on the content dispute.

My main problem with Yorkshirian's handling of the dispute is that he has at least once attempted to treat civility as a bargaining chip, and I have had to inform him that civility is not optional. This occurred in the RFC, but I'm given to understand it has also happened elsewhere with different editors involved in the discussion. Here are the relevant diffs:


 * Yorkshirian's reply to the RFC in which he essentially said "I'm willing to try being civil if you are".
 * My response stating that civility is not optional. Note that I had some comments directed to the other parties as well.

Tempers flaring
For a while, it appeared that Yorkshirian and Jza, MRSC, etc., had come to some sort of an understanding that would allow them all to get back to constructive editing, and so I stopped watching the RFC for a while. Later, I was informed that discussion was continuing at the RFC in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian, pointing out that Yorkshirian had gone back to making edits with summaries that were seen as uncivil and against the spirit (if not the letter) of the tentative "cease-fire" that they had all arrived at weeks before.

At this point, it's probably easier for me to direct ArbCom to the entire set of threads on the RFC talk page starting with this thread. The thread contains relevant diffs to further actions by Yorkshirian seen as abuse by the other editors. In my opinion, it means there was not a satisfactory change in behavior on his part, but as I am not qualified to comment on the content discussion, I also cannot render judgment about whether Yorkshirian's claims of vandalism are sound. That is why I chose to escalate the issue to ArbCom rather than take it to WP:ANI or WP:ECCN.

I do want to point out that I felt it necessary to caution MRSC, Jza, Cameron, et al., to be aware of their own attitudes through the dispute (see this diff). I had started seeing evidence that they were in danger of simply dismissing Yorkshirian's comments and edit summaries out of hand as being in bad faith, when I perceived some validity in some of his statements, and a (possibly half-hearted) attempt to discuss the issue according to consensus guidelines. My statement here was not so much to tell the editors that they were doing anything wrong, but to help them be aware that it's all too easy to fall into the same trap in disputes like this one. In short, I saw tempers flaring and wanted to try to keep things in check. That said, I did not issue any warnings or take any further action, other than to bring the issue to ArbCom. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hostile encounter
I first encountered Yorkshirian at Talk:Second_city_of_the_United_Kingdom, which speaks for itself.

I next encountered Talk:Beverley, where User:Keith D (an administrator) was struggling to convince Yorkshirian that he was breaching editorial norms (i.e. a consensus) regarding the use of infoboxes. Keith D approached me with this diff following some edit warring with Yorkshirian. A breif and civil discussion took place, before Yorkshirian started abusing individuals as per their geographic locale. Yorkshirian starts to edit war, and purposefully misappropriate guidelines. Some evidence:


 * : Edit summary refers to Jza84 as contributing in "bath faith"


 * : Edit summary refers to me as a "troll"


 * : Hostile talk page comment to KeithD ("KeithD has decided to deface") and me ("Some random person from Lancashire, Jza84") [a dispute about an image]


 * : Edit summary refers to good faith edits as "boring" and "vandalism"


 * : Confrontational exchange (a dispute about an infobox, which appears to have started because of a misunderstanding on Yorkshirian's part)

Here's how I responded, and this how he reacted. Pay particular note that I state his comments do "nothing but harm Wikipedia and harm your reputation". I also state "I am not from Lancashire, but consider that last message a personal attack on Lancastrians". He calls me a "troll" and amongst other combattative language, says I have "no right". There is also some mimicary of the notices about conduct I gave him.

Then, once 5 users opposed him, this happened (thanks to me staying cool). Let's read:

Yorkshirian, 2 April 2008

What happens next?
I next bump into Yorkshirian at Talk:Yorkshire. User:Harkey Lodger was struggling convincing Yorkshirian that his additions were not WP:NPOV (per here) and User:MRSC was concerned about the "traditional extent" of Yorkshire and some issues relating to WP:PLACE. I passed comment and reverted some material (I also had the courtesy to declare it here) which lead to another cycle of events:


 * More abuse from Yorkshirian about my apparent "Lancastrian bias" and "distructive edits" outlined by exchanges at Talk:Yorkshire, and mine and MRSC's disapproval at User_talk:Yorkshirian/Archive_2 and User_talk:Yorkshirian/Archive_2.
 * Serious Wikiquette incident Wikiquette_alerts/archive44 (NOTE: please do read this thread <- )
 * RfC initiated at Requests for comment/Yorkshirian.

Request for comment
Requests for comment/Yorkshirian documents Yorkshirian's conduct from thereon.


 * At Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian we see Yorkshirian declare "I am unconditionally willing to try and change my abrasive way of talking to a lighter one for the sake of civility" . The aforementioned diff also shows that Yorkshirian does have the cognitive ability to know the difference between right-and-wrong, and acknowledges his comments as "strongly worded".
 * Yorkshirian claims that MRSC and I had behaved inproperly, but nobody endorsed that view.

Where we are today
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Yorkshirian documents Yorkshirian's conduct following the RfC. It's an escalation of previous cycles of bullying, ownership, assuming bad faith, abuse and a total unwillingness to co-operate. Yorkshirian has a total lack of respect. I don't need to spin this, the evidence is there already and speaks for itself.

Misquoting and falsely summarising others
I concur with the evidence presented above. My main objections to Yorkshirian's conduct, as exemplified in the preceding evidence, are his inability to see NPOV on articles where Yorkshire is concerned and a habit of falsely summarising other peoples edits as statements of their opinions. Sometimes these are presented in quotes, as though the statement had actually been made by the other editor.





He does not display the ability to comprehend the difference between an opinion and a verifiable statement of fact, as also evidenced above by other editors, and shows a naive  belief in the reliability of some cherry picked factoids. The use, by Yorkshirian, of edit summaries to make personal attacks has had a negative effect beyond what appears on the page. It is notoriously difficult to prove a negative, yet I am willing to admit that I for one have been put off making contributions to some Wikipedia articles because I fear a humiliating, untrue and bullying riposte in an edit summary. The unseen damage to Wikipedia of this type of conduct being allowed to continue must be considered. I am monitoring this case and wondering whether "the game is worth the candle". How many others are?

Yorkshirian can be intransigent and uncivil in content discussions
The particular edits I think show incivility are in green and I have placed a short summary at the end.

I encountered Yorkshirian in early 2008 in a dispute over the use of this map of Britain, which Yorkshirian, based on this map, which had been in use since 2005 and which was drawn about a hundred years ago. On 23 Dec 2007 Yorkshirian updated various articles with the new version of this map.

User:Deacon of Pndapetzim then removed the map from these articles with an edit summary saying "remove inaccurate map": see e.g. and. Deacon also posted this note to the image talk page. Yorkshirian readded all the maps, with an edit summary of "re-instate blanked map, create with historic sources":. and added comment to the image talk page.

I had already created this map, based on more recent sources. I posted a note on Yorkshirian's talk page suggesting it be used instead. He responded on my talk page, and I posted to suggest a centralized discussion, which then took place at Talk:Mercia. After some discussion I changed the maps to a revised version of my map, feeling that there was consensus for the change. Yorkshirian reverted me without comment just on the Northumbria article. I reverted, citing consensus. Later he reverted the changes on multiple articles with a summary for most of them of "remove crap, amateur map per majority concensus on Talk:Mercia". His reverts can be seen here. His statement in that edit summary is incorrect; the consensus was clearly against him at Talk:Mercia.

At the advice of another editor I then tried an RfC, which can be seen here, with the result here. There was still a consensus for the change. Yorkshirian reverted a couple of times but was reverted by me and by User:Angusmclellan. Yorkshirian then posted this message suggesting that his version of the map be used on Northumbria. I agreed, feeling that he was wrong and that consensus was against him, but also suspecting that it would be very difficult to dissuade him on that particular article.

I would summarize the interactions by saying that he greeted attempts to negotiate with intransigence and occasional rudeness (e.g. "remove crap, amateur map"); he ignored consensus until repeatedly reverted; and he prevented a change to the map in the Northumbria article which would have improved it, by persisting against consensus until I gave up and accepted his compromise. Mike Christie (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Ddstretch
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Yorkshirian given a warning for his personal attacks and uncivil behaviour

 * The neutrally-worded message from Jza84 to myself on my talk page.
 * Contributions by Yorkshirian and discussions reviewed:
 * Talk:Association of British Counties, (additional comment made)
 * in The Yorkshire WikiProject Yorkshire
 * TfD nomination, using "Bad faith nomination", (additional comment)
 * Message from uninvolved user
 * The RfC, and
 * It's talk page
 * The warning I issued, and A notice I placed
 * Yorkshirian's response (repeated personal attacks, and new ones against myself and Jza84.)

Yorkshirian is blocked and then makes allegations against myself
The block notice, appeals, and responses
 * In the first appeal, Yorkshirian:
 * confuses a ban with a block;
 * claims that I did not follow correct procedure (I had pointed out the edits but not in the form of diffs.) It is clear from previous evidence provided by others that Yorkshirian is aware of his personal attacks, since he tried to make it a bargaining tool (evidence as provided by KieferSkunk), and, he was pointed to comments here. Yorkshirian had also responded to other comments on the TfD page after I had commented on his use of "bad faith nomination", but before I had blocked him, so it is a reasonable assumption that he did know about his behaviour (gaming the system?);
 * claims that I said he had engaged in harrassment. Previous diffs of my messages make no mention of "harrassment".
 * claims I have discriminated against him, and that I am a "completey inexperienced admin (only gaining powers last week) and is apparently not familiar with any of our policies, in light of that his mistake can be forgiven once the block is lifted.", which contains four sub-claims, three of which are false at the time they were made. Of these: I was not "completely inexperienced"; I had not gained "powers only last week", if one looks at the date Yorkshirian made that claim; and it was untrue that "I was not familiar with any of our policies" (note the use of "any".). My RfA nomination and decision shows their falsity. If believed, they would have had the effect of undermining my position.
 * During his second appeal, a further allegation arises against myself and Jza84: "DDStretch's only rationale is apparently that he likes Jza and not me, which is not how policy words." which, if believed would have undermined me, Jza84, and alleged some conspiracy on the part of us on the basis of no evidence.

The block is lifted to allow the arbitration process to proceed
Sam Blacketer communicated with me via email, and I agreed that in order to allow Yorkshirian to take part in the arbitration process, the block could be lifted so long as Yorkshirian agreed to various restrictions. here.

Unsupported allegations etc in Yorkshirian's untrimmed statement at the opening of Arbcom procedings
Untrimmed statement by Yorkshirian

Yorkshirian states: ""I feel Jza also used underhand tactics which violated both policy (WP:CANVAS) and the spirit of Wikipedia, by attempting to get a friend of his to ban me. The admin inquestion, DDStretch has only become an admin recently and was apparently unaware of WP:Blocking_policy; and so I was unblocked."
 * He repeats the allegations that I was unware of the blocking policy. However, nowhere in Blocking Policy does it say that diffs need to be provided (see section 5 in particular) Reasonable warnings had been given, as argued before.
 * He falsely claims that the reason he was unblocked was that I had imposed an inappropriate block, when the real reason is clearly given in Sam Blacketer's messages: Yorkshirian was unblocked to allow this Arbcom case to proceed.
 * He repeats allegations of a conspiracy on the part of Jza84 and myself, countered previously.
 * There are obvious problems in the remainder of Yorkshirian's untrimmed statement. e.g.,
 * inflammatory language (talk about "fatwa", talk about '"his fantasy "Republic of Manchester"") and
 * making unsupported allegations, such as stating "Jza holds fringe views in regards to the former administrative entity Greater Manchester" when my experience is that Jza84 has always paid particular attention to what reliable sources say about current administrative divisions in the UK, and limits his edits to what they say.
 * Furthermore, he states, about Jza84: "MightyWarrior describes him as a "hot headed reactor"." in the last paragraph of the first section of his response. This is highly misleading and is effectively highly uncivil towards MightyWarrior. What MightyWarrior did say was "This also 'hot-headed reaction' is not exactly what might I expect from a prospective administrator", which does not use the phrasing that Yorkshirian claims was used–phrasing that suggests that MightyWarrior was alleging this was a kind of consistent behavioural trait of Jza84, instead of being just a comment about one specific instance of behaviour.
 * Finally, Yorkshirian in his first appeal against the block I had imposed, claimed that once the block was lifted, the mistake could be forgiven: his first appeal, with the sentence "This user is a completey inexperienced admin (only gaining powers last week) and is apparently not familiar with any of our policies, in light of that his mistake can be forgiven once the block is lifted." You will note that the block was lifted, and yet Yorkshirian in this untrimmed statement repeated unsubstantiated allegations about my conduct, which does not appear to be consistent with his assurance that my "mistake can be forgiven once the block is lifted.".

Further new evidence involving other areas of editing
It has been drawn to my attention that a number of articles concerning various Dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church in England are involved in a slow-motion edit war over their name, with Yorkshirian as one of the two editors involved. Editing histories of Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, Diocese of Leeds, and Diocese of Middlesbrough, though there may be others. In the cases I have mentioned here, the edit-warring by repeated and reverted article names has lost the editing histories of the articles. Additional information can be seen on Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle (both sections currently present there), User talk:Yorkshirian, the other user's talk page: User talk:Benkenobi18, and my talk page: User talk:Ddstretch, where I was asked to intervene and where it has Yorkshirian's responses to my messages. DDStretch   (talk)  17:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jeremy
The paragraph below is in response to Arcayne's statement re the Robin Hood dispute. I originally put ti on the wrong page (sorry). I wanted to make clear that he wasn't arguing an insupportable position. Jeremy (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a party to the Robin Hood dispute, which was turning into an edit war when Yorkshirian was blocked. I got pretty impatient with Yorkshirian myself due to his reluctance (not total refusal) to engage in discussion rather than just reverting edits. However I'm uneasy about this episode being used to help justify his blocking. His position was in fact an arguable one, its just that he didn't argue it very well and wasn't tolerant of other views....and so forth. I got the impression he was very young. Knowing nothing about the dispute apart from this page, Yorkshirians own page, and the Robin Hood dispute, I would be against any long-term blockage or limitation of subjects he could make edits on. Jeremy (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (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.