Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Proposed decision

Findings of fact
I was wondering whether in the findings of fact section the accusation against for which this arbitration case was request in the first place, that I hounded and harassed Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys, doesn't need to be addressed?Tvx1 21:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe that's covered under Principle #4, "Criticism and casting aspersions". It doesn't rise to the level of persistent behaviour that warrants a formal admonishment, but unsubstantiated allegations such as these are not acceptable. – bradv  🍁  22:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I find that a little disappointing. I have demonstrated three separate instances where Tvx1 has quite clearly interfered with the consensus-building process. What more evidence do I need to present? At the end of the day, Tvx1 has made me feel as though he is harrassing me, even if that was not his intention. A few years ago, I introduced a proposal at WP:F1 to change the way articles are titled. When I sat down to write the proposal, my first question was not "how do I present this as being the best thing for the articles?", but rather "how do I present this in such a way that Tvx1 does not oppose it?".


 * The most contentious edits between us have been the format of the results matrix in WRC articles. Tvx1 introduced that format in another, unrelated article first where I opposed it. He then proposed it in the WRC articles, where he knew that I would opposed it. He has not proposed it in any other championship articles. Then, when WRC editors proposed a different format in the past few weeks, Tvx1 went back to proposing the original format&mdash;the one that he had sought to change in the first place&mdash;and insisted that all editors should be heard on all proposals before a consensus is formed? How is this anything but wikihounding? The definition is that it is when an editor tries to frustrate or hinder another. When Tvx1 starts inventing policies such as "all editors must be heard on all proposals", and changing his mind every time a consensus is being formed, it definitely feels like he's deliberately trying to frustrate me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the 2-way interaction ban would solve all of that going forward, wouldn't it? – bradv  🍁  02:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I looked at Tvx1's edits, and didn't see the pattern you were ascribing to them, unless you specifically assume that he is out to get you. It looked far more likely that you and he believed the worst in each other.
 * An interaction ban should fix that issue. WormTT(talk) 07:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I do think that a two-way IBAN would work, but at the same time I think that there are a few things that should be acknowledged:

First, most of our disputes have happened in rallying articles. WP:RALLY is a comparatively small WikiProject; there are only four editors who regularly participate in discussions, and that includes both myself and Tvx1. If Tvx1 intends to continue editing rallying articles (I certainly intend to), I'm concerned that we'd effectively be asking the other two editors to patrol that IBAN. When Tvx1 requested that all editors in the discussion offer their thoughts on proposals, those editors expressed frustration with the dispute between us.

Secondly, Tvx1's edit history shows that his only real interest in rallying articles is the formatting of specific tables. He does not do maintenance, such as filling in those tables, and he does not contribute any content to the rest of the article. Furthermore, some of his posts in discussions suggest that he does not have much understanding of the subject. I think that, as a show of good faith, he should either voluntarily leave rallying articles alone, or he should make more of an effort to contribute to the articles (I have asked this of him in the past, and he has either ignored me or refused). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Concerns about the practicality of the interaction ban
It now looks like an interaction ban is to be imposed on us and I must say that I'm disappointed by this. I'm also concerned that the implications and practicality of this sanction has not been properly thought through. At WP:F1, which has a considerable number of regulars and high volume of occasional editors, it shouldn't be a problem to respect this. At WT:RALLY this is not the case however. There there is only a handful of regular editors and an equally low volume of occasional contributors. The result of that is that it would be very difficult for us to edit an article without undoing one-another's edits in any sort of way. I thus genuinely fear that the I-BAN would effectively lock us out of editing in that WikiProject altogether.Tvx1 13:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that this is going to be awkward for both of you, and the implementation of this IBAN is going to make it difficult for both of you to contribute within this topic area. But this is the consequence of long-standing disruption between two editors, and it is one of the expected outcomes of this case. Having two editors at each other's throats for years in a small topic area disrupts the entire topic area and makes it less likely that others will contribute. The goal of this is to reduce the disruption, increase the congeniality in the topic area, and improve the productivity of the involved editors. If that forces both of you to back off a bit, that's a feature, not a bug. – bradv  🍁  17:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to the IBAN in principle. However, as I have pointed out, the small size of the WikiProject means that we would effectively be asking two editors to police the IBAN. I'm not sure it is fair to ask them to do that.


 * Secondly, I have suggested a course of action that could help. Tvx1 only seems interested in the format of tables. He could either leave the articles alone and trust that the editors are capable of making decisions without him or he can make more of an effort to contribute to the article the way that he does other articles. The past six months have seen three rallies postponed and one cut short due to COVID-19, one cancelled due to civil unrest, one cancelled due to bushfires and three events run successfully. If Tvx1 is as committed to the WikiProject as he claims to be, why hasn't he contributed anything here? Why hasn't he worked on the WRC-2, WRC-3 and J-WRC articles?


 * If the IBAN is going to work, then we both need to trust that the other is going to edit responsibly to minimise the possibility of further conflict&mdash;especially if we both intend to be working in the same WikiProject. As he has a) only been interested in the format of the tables for years and b) only showed any interest in rallying articles after I opposed the table format in another article, it's not hard to see why I think he has an agenda.


 * I cannot prove this next part, but here's what I think happened: I initially proposed changing Formula 1 championship articles from "20XX Formula One season" to "20XX Formula One World Championship". Tvx1 opposed it and the proposal was rejected. But a few weeks later, another editor asked me if I was still interested in doing it, so I tried again and this time I was successful. I think Tvx1 resents that I was able to make such a major change that he opposed, and so looked to rallying articles. I have spent the best part of a decade working on those, usually on my own. I think he deliberately proposed a table format that he knew I would oppose as payback for successfully making a change to Formula 1 articles that he disliked. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)