Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence

Word Limit Request
I have not yet begun to prepare a statement in evidence in this dispute and so do not know how long my statement will be. I would like to be able to describe my efforts to mediate content disputes involving the parties without having to trim my statement. I therefore request permission to include a statement that may link to more than 500 words. (If the word limit only applies to my own words and not to the words of others that I will be referring to, then I don't need an extension. If the word limit applies to words that I will be including, then I do need permission to include what may be more than 500 words.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable request. Extension requests are usually decided by the drafters, so pinging Bradv and Worm That Turned. (Not that they wouldn't have seen this soon anyway, but just in case they haven't watchlisted the newly created case pages yet.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't anticipate being too concerned with word limits on this page, and I appreciate you not wanting to sacrifice clarity or context in order to meet them. Go ahead. – bradv  🍁  04:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm generally quite flexible on the limits, so I third the Brads... WormTT(talk) 07:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Word limit query
This is my first time doing this, so please bear with me if I am about to ask a silly question. The instructions for submitting evidence state the following:
 * The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.

Is that 1000 words in total or 1000 words per sub-section? While I don't anticipate going over 1000 words in total, I do intend to document multiple examples of several behaviours extending back years and so it is plausible that I may go over 1000 words. The sub-sections will be helpful in breaking that up and should aid the reader.

I am not asking permission to submit more than 1000 words yet. I plan to write a draft of what I will submit and check the word count before a) requesting permission for more than 1000 words or b) submitting as needed. It would help to know if that is 1000 words in total or 1000 words per sub-sectiom before I begin, please. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's 1000 total. There is some flexibility but the idea is that walls of text don't accurately convey information and it's more important to get the point across succinctly WormTT(talk) 09:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for clarifying that. You say that "walls of text don't accurately convey information", so would you recommend that I submit my evidence in bullet point form, or would a series of short paragraphs (I'm thinking one per sub-heading) be better? I'm leaning towards the latter, but one of the reasons I came to Arbitration was because multiple attempts at dispute resolution have failed. I don't want this to end the same way, and I definitely don't want that to happen because I chose the wrong format. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I prefer short paragraphs, but just remember you are trying to explain to an audience who knows Wikipedia well, just not the dispute in particular WormTT(talk) 13:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks again. Is there some mechanism where arbitrators can ask for further information? When I opened the request, several people noted that they weren't familiar with some of the details of the subject. I want to be succinct, of course, but there may be points where I need to provide some explanation. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Apologies for the delay. Yes, on the workshop page, evidence can be analysed further, with questions asked. WormTT(talk) 12:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing participation of an editor
I do not like having to do this, but before the Arbitration process goes further, I feel that there is an issue that needs to be raised: I do not think it is appropriate for Robert McClenon to be involved in it. Several months ago and on the advice of an administrator, I started an ANI report that raised the subject of Tvx1's behaviour. Robert McClenon, who had previously overseen a DRN involving myself and Tvx1, posted the following:
 * ''"It appears that one editor, User:Tvx1, apologizes for their past conduct and is willing to discuss content. The other, User:Mclarenfan17, wants me to read their Too long to read statement first. I won't be working on this dispute anyway, but I don't think that another volunteer is likely to be able to resolve the content as it is, with one editor demanding that conduct be addressed. I don't plan to be involved further."

I was, to say the least, disappointed by this. Yes, the ANI report was long, but I had carefully and meticulously detailed months of behaviour from Tvx1. I did it that way because I felt that if I was too brief, it would be too easy for Tvx1 to talk his way out of it as he had in the past. As has been explained to me, DRN is for content disputes and ANI is for conduct disputes. Had Robert McClenon taken the time to read the ANI, he would have seen that it was based on conduct, not content. From my perspective, he had apparently looked at the people involved in the ANI and assumed it was a response to or a continuation of a recent DRN. When I asked him to take a closer look at the ANI, he refused. He is a DRN volunteer, and while that may not be a particularly senior or important or powerful position, his words nevertheless carry weight when he speaks in his role as a DRN volunteer.

In short, I was disappointed by Robert McClenon's comments because I felt like I was being dismissed, but he still saw fit to pass judgement on the ANI report. It is especially disappointing considering that many of the behaviours that I outlined in that ANI report form the basis of my complaint to Arbitration. At the time I felt that the ANI report was the best opportunity to resolve the issue, and I think that it failed to have any meaningful outcome because of Robert McClenon's attitude of "well, that's too much work for me, but I'll still judge it anyway". This entire Arbitration process could have been avoided if Robert McClenon could have been bothered to read the ANI report.

During the initial discussion of this Arbitration request, I was asked why I had not followed the dispute resolution process more vigorously. The answer is that I do not have any confidence in the dispute resolution process because of Robert McClenon's attitude in that ANI discussion. How can I when someone who is in a position to oversee the dispute resolution process has the attitude of "I can't be bothered to read that"? As such, I do not think it is appropriate for him to participate in this process (though I see that he already has) because I do not trust him to read anything that is written. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Pretty much anyone can participate in an arbcom case, and I don't see any compelling reason to ban Robert McClennon from doing so in this case. To be clear, Robert McClenon has no special authority in the arbitration process and is not involved in overseeing it in any way. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I meant to reply to this comment earlier. I am a little puzzled by the suggestion that an editor can be excluded from a case as a witness on account of bias, because it is the responsibility of the judges to take bias or neutrality or non-neutrality into account in evaluating the statements of witnesses.  It is appropriate for an editor to recuse from acting as an arbitrator or clerk in a case if they are biased.  It is appropriate, and their duty, for the arbitrators to assess any bias on the part of witnesses.


 * I will note that Mclarenfan17 had initially filed a dispute request at DRN but included conduct allegations in the DRN statement, and objected to my collapse of the conduct issues. I told Mclarenfan17 that if they wanted conduct considered, they should file that at ANI, because DRN is not a conduct forum.  They tried to discuss the case with me on my talk page.  They then objected to Tvx1 interfering in a private discussion, although my talk page is not private, and I had not offered any expectation of privacy.  Besides, it is inappropriate for a party to a dispute to initiate or try to initiate a side conversation with someone who is trying to be a neutral mediator.


 * I tried to be neutral while I was mediating the disputes at DRN. I acknowledge that I am no longer neutral.  I think that the efforts of Mclarenfan17 to influence me improperly have influenced me adversely, but that is only my opinion.  I appreciate User:Beeblebrox allowing me to present evidence as a witness.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I was not trying to influence you. I was seeking clarification. I go to DRN and I am told "DRN is for content disputes; this is a conduct dispute, so you need to go to ANI". I then go to ANI and I am told "ANI is for conduct disputes; this is a content dispute, so you need to go to DRN". There seems to be no forum for resolving content disputes that morph into conduct disputes because both ANI and DRN tell me to resolve the other one first.


 * Moreover, there seems to be no recognition on your part as the effect of your actions. Can you not see how I lost confidence in the dispute resolution process? You left me with the distinct impression that you could not be bothered to read anything that I had written, but you still saw fit to offer an opinion that would influence the outcome. You also pointed out that Tvx1 had apologised for his actions, so from my point of view, you had pre-judged it. I felt&mdash;and still do&mdash;that you were willing to listen to Tvx1, but not me. And the most that you are willing to concede is an acknowledgement that you are no longer neutral. In my view&mdash;and yes, I am biased&mdash;that was a complete failure to carry out your duties as a DRN volunteer. I don't expect you to just side with me, but I don't think it's too much to ask that you show the common courtesy of reading what someone writes. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Follow-Up Comments
It isn't entirely clear to me what User:Mclarenfan17 is asking of me or of the ArbCom. Are they asking the ArbCom to add my name as a party to the case so that they can make the case that I mishandled the July 2019 dispute as a DRN volunteer? I will admit that I didn't handle that dispute very well. I have excusing reasons that I will not cite, but that I had noted in passing.

I will note that no Wikipedian has an obligation to read a long statement. They have an obligation to read relevant material if they are trying to understand the context of a dispute or an issue or an area of concern. I didn't mediate that dispute.

Does Mclarenfan17 want to put me on trial also? If so, please let me know that I am a party and that my past conduct will be examined. Are they asking the ArbCom to exclude my evidence because it is biased? My evidence consists mostly of a record of interactions between other editors that could be entered by anyone.

I will also note that Mclarenfan17 was apparently trying to conduct a private conversation with me about Tvx1 on my talk page, because they took issue with Tvx1 interrupting the conversation. It does appear that they were trying to influence me, or at least to provide me with less-than-public information, or something. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I mostly wanted to put this out there because I wasn't sure if it could or would affect the arbitration case&mdash;because like I said, I didn't have a whole lot of confidence in the dispute resolution process. I came to Arbitration because this issue with Tvx1 is tiresome and I want it to be resolved. I didn't want it to fall apart like every other attempt. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

December 2019 dispute
User:Robert McClenon included in his evidence a DRN discussion that I opened in December and I'd just like to give my two cents regarding that situation. This dispute was primarily between myself and User:SSSB, though User:Mclarenfan17 was an active participant in the discussion on the side of SSSB. When filing the dispute I mistakenly failed to include Mclarenfan17 as an involved party, only listing myself and SSSB. Robert McClenon's only involvement in this DRN was to correct my mistake and tag Mclarenfan17. In doing so he said, I have added a user who has been taking part in the discussion and who is always involved in these auto racing discussions. Mclarenfan17 responded to this by saying, I don't know what Robert McClenon means when he says "I am always involved in" discussions like this, however it appears to imply that if there is a dispute on a motorsport article, I must have something to do with it. I think that was quite clearly NOT Robert McClenon's intention, and again he was simply ensuring that all involved parties were tagged in the DRN. I think Mclarenfan17 sometimes sees personal attacks that aren't there and uses this as an excuse to needlessly escalate minor content disputes into fights, which is a trait I admittedly recognize in myself as well.

Please chime in if I missed anything regarding the referenced dispute.

P.S. I've never been involved in anything ArbCom-related so I apologize if this is the wrong place for me to post this. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My thoughts regarding this. Whilst I agree that it may not have Robert McClenon's intention I must say that I interpreted his comment (particulary the always involved in these auto racing discussions.) the same way that Mclarenfan17 did. SSSB (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Lazer-kitty, User:SSSB - I'll interpret that as a reasonable suggestion that I should have been more diplomatic. Okay.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Positive experience with one of the named respondents - relevant?
Without being aware of this case at the time, I had very positive interaction relatively recently with one of the named parties, in connection with a technical problem on a page related to motorsport. Is this relevant or is the committee only interested in hearing about problematic behaviour and/or interraction between the two editors? (Please ping me if a statement from me on this matter is desired). --kingboyk (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Feel free to post it if you feel strongly on the matter. Arbitration is generally a matter of last resort, and while positive interactions may not make it into the final decision, positive evidence should be considered and viewed, if only to remind the editors in question that they're not "all bad" - even if this process makes it out like they are <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting permission to break word limit
I would like to request permission to go over the 1000 word limit, please. I have spent 1000 words outlining my case, and I cannot trim this down as I have used it to outline an extensive pattern of behaviour from an editor. However, I would also like to offer a rebuttal of said editor's claims and to do this, I need to go over 1000 words. I would therefore like permission to exceed the word limit by up to 500 words, please. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, but please try to keep it below the additional 500. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * thank you. I have restored the edits that took me over 1000 words. It should be around (but not over) 1500 now. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)