Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence

We're paying attention
Thanks to those who have provided evidence to date; I want to assure you that at least some of the members of the Arbitration Committee have been reading as additions have been made. Risker (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Is this the main place to interact with Arbcom and other case participants? The fact that there are four talk pages - one for each arbitration page (Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)) seems unnecessarily fragmented. Could we integrate these into one talk page? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Steve, I understand your concern; at the same time, part of the reason for the fragmentation is that the talk pages should be most closely related to the page where the edits in question have taken place, because those pages are most likely to be watched. It's the committee's sad experience that these talk pages can become extremely unwieldy, particularly those associated with the evidence and proposed decision pages (the current Climate Change case has at least 10 archives at this point), so it is simpler to compartmentalize. Risker (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting us know, Risker. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, now that we've all added our statements, one of the issues we can talk about is how the case is conceptualized. Its relevant for us the parties to ascertain how Arbs view the matter of the case's conceptualization: What are its focus, its scope, and its boundaries? Obviously we the parties have differences in how the case is conceived. If the Arbs could please comment regarding their view of this case, that would help greatly. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I could suggest something, your evidence is lacking diffs that would allow us to verify your viewpoint. You may want to consider revising your presentation. Shell   babelfish 01:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Shell, from my point of view, the case is not a referendum on me going back five years. Hence though Steve Quinn has provided diffs going back that far, these exceed the scope of the current case and don't add anything substantive or relevant to events in the latter half of 2010. Could Arbs here please comment on the issue of these ancient battles as "evidence" and what relevance they have to the current case? In any case, anyone who has been editing for as long as I have (2002) has battles in their past, and all Steve has done is list some of them. (Or all of them).
 * I will do as you suggest and add a couple more diffs to my statement, but these will not be as superficially impressive as Steve's monsoon of diff links, and they will be constrained to the punishment and time articles - the only articles in which Steve, Jim and I intersected and had differences.
 * If there is an issue of validating my assertions versus those of the opposition, I'm certain that the Arbs aren't going to make assumptions simply based on their sheer volume of diff links - most of which simply link to comments by other editors, and don't substantiate their claims. Finally its not clear what their actual claim is. My claim is clear: they lost the argument at the time article (Talk:Time) and followed me to the punishment article (Talk:Punishment/Archive 1) to continue in an adversarial mode. Jim admits that he "checked [my] edit history," but I've yet to see Steve admit this. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the volume of diffs has little to nothing to do with it, but a complete lack of diffs is unhelpful when we're reviewing the evidence since we're unlikely to just take anyone's word for it. For example, it would help to give diffs (or perm links) to any discussions that would show why you feel you were followed and how things happened. We do look at the diffs provided closely, so someone giving diffs that don't fit their claims or bring up older unrelated issues will be noticed. As for older issues, the may be relevant as they apply to a pattern of behavior but certainly, unrelated issues that have been resolved aren't likely to affect things.  Since I haven't reviewed the context of the older diffs or looked at the evidence in depth, I can't speak to whether those older diffs indicate a pattern in your particular case. Shell   babelfish 02:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. In a certain way, I see this attempt to dig up old issues and present a "pattern" of "disruptive editing" as a kind of double-jeopardy. It is my view that cases in the past were settled in the past and should remain settled. Steve's premise seems to be that Arbcom did not serve its purpose in past cases involving me, and it somehow needs to fulfill its purpose now. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe User:Stevertigo is missing what is happening here. I could just provide evidence that Stevertigo's propensity for inserting WP:OR is what drew the attention of editors to three or four articles, pack it in, and "go home" (so to speak). This is the only issue that has been placed on the table by Stevertigo. So, why don't I just do that? Just think, I could be over at WikiProject Academics helping to improve some of the new articles. Or I could be authoring another article for the Mass spectrometry series that I have started. Instead, I have put that aside to see this through. I knew nothing about ArbCom before I entered my first statement in the request area.


 * I am here to shed light on, and help solve, a long term editing problem that has come to my attention. I believe this to be a worthy endeavor, and an endeavor worthy of ArbCom. These are my only reasons for participating in this forum. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think it adds anything constructive to suggest there is a "double jeopardy" issue here. ArbCom is not a criminal justice body, and it does not seek to punish people.  It seeks meaningful resolutions to conflicts among users.  If a conflict was not adequately resolved or if conflicts continue among users, shouldn't we seek different, more effective solutions?  As to drawing on evidence from th past, well how else can one illustrate that a problem thought to be resolved has not been resolved?  We need some point of reference.  The idea that "disruptive behavior" should be discouraged has by now been around for a while.  Let ArbCom decide based on evidence whether it applies here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the evidence
I'm going to be using this section to ask some questions about the evidence presented. If I've left a question about your evidence, please feel free to respond inline, as in a normal threaded discussion. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Stevertigo

 * 1) Regarding the assertion that "disruptive" is a euphemism for "trolling", do you have any specific evidence to support this interpretation? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill, at the core of the Disruptive editing (WP:DE) guideline, from its inception in Sep. 2006 to Dec. 2008, was a quote by Larry Sanger in which he said:
 * "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here."
 * This quote was the centerpiece of the guideline featured at the top of the initial draft, and, I think, remains its philosophical core, even though the quote itself has been removed from view.
 * DE is a guideline I have challenged in the recent past, in large part because of its usage in application to me during late 2009. I assert(ed) that the term "disruptive editing" did not apply to comments on talk pages, because we do not "edit" talk pages (rather we "comment" on them). In the course of this I discovered the Sanger quote and it became clear that the term "disruptive" was simply shorthand for what Sanger said plainly ("trolls, vandals and wiki-anarchists"). As a history note, Sanger left Wikipedia in some part due to comments like these, wherein afterward people grew to feel his attitude was divisive and unhelpful to the project. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the initial version of the guideline, I'm curious:
 * (a) Why would the Sanger quote would take precedence over the next, bolded sentence ("Users who persist in making unfounded or poorly-sourced edits in the face of opposition, who continually attempt to include original research, or who continually attempt to use Wikipedia to promote theories which are widely discredited may be blocked or banned from the project.") in examining the intent of those who created the guideline? In other words, why would "disruptive editing" not equally be considered a euphemism for "making unfounded or poorly-sourced edits" or "includ[ing] original research"?
 * (b) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Sanger quote did represent the creators' intent, why would the first category of users described by Sanger ("trolls") take precedence over the others ("vandals", "wiki-anarchists")? In other words, why would "disruptive editing" not equally be considered a euphemism for "wiki-anarchis[m]"?
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The very next version of that guideline doesn't have the bolded text, and leaves the quote isolated at the top. The introductory text itself changed substantially between its creation and the edit where the quote was removed. What are we to make of one version or the other? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: To answer more directly part b of your question, I took the term "trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists" to be kind of one unit - Sanger appeared to have considered them all in the same sort of lump. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am one of those who has edited DE, but far from the only and i haven't been active there for a long time. What matters is it was not written with any one individual in mind, and was written to address what many editors consider a real problem.  It is not a policy (for whatever this distinction is wroth) but a guideline, but it sure has stood any test of time and people refer to it - constructively - regularly.  SV can argue that his editing is not disruptive, which would be a fair, reasonabl, and appropriate argument to make.  But I do not think this is the place to start a campagin against a WP quideline on another page.  Whether or not ArbCom finds it useful in this case is of course up to ArbCom. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve, is there a reason why you are
 * nesting your own comments
 * and endlessly adding to them? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Various responses to comments by Steve Quinn

 * Originally posted below at Questions for Steve Quinn, moved here out of sequence by Steve Quinn


 * That was a partial diff for a talk page comment I edited a few times. The full diff is here. Note that that comment, along with the issues in which it had context, was covered under the Obama articles case. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)PS: Your characterization of the issue at that article is inaccurate. This is one of the problems with trying to dig up old issues that have no relevance to the current case.-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Originally posted below at Questions for Steve Quinn, moved here out of sequence by Steve Quinn


 * I appreciate the fact that youve parsed this fairly well. I am out of my depth when it comes to certain subjects, and interested parties there were fair in treating my suggestion. My issue was that 'dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist' is almost tautological considering there are other candidates not matter. But "matter" itself has almost paradoxically different definitions, among these being particles that are generated in Higgs-like fashion. A noted researcher referred to 'feebly interacting particles' when describing dark matter, and I took that to mean 'matter of some sort.' Note that "matter that is inferred to exist" isnt an article, as the main context for a topic should be, and I suggested theoretical substance as a proper context. In fact I stubbed that page for that purpose. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ''Originally posted below at Questions for Steve Quinn, moved here out of sequence by Steve Quinn


 * But the point of course is that there is a real-world *concept of 'theoretical substance(s),' and, lacking such an article, I stubbed one. If you can think of any other such substances, please add them. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 08:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Steve Quinn

 * 1) Regarding the "community imposed edit restriction of 1 revert per article per week" listed under "Remedies", are there instances during the dispute being considered here where Stevertigo exceeded this limit? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes:, , . Ucucha 02:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read these questions. However, I will be unable to respond for about 8 hours {from now}. I do look forward to responding. Steve Quinn (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am currently researching this question Steve Quinn (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill, I am not really clear on what you are asking. As of August 2, 2009 Stevertigo was free to exceed the 1RR (article per week) on any article that was not an Obama-related-article. Hence, up until the community imposed sanction of this most recent ANI, he could edit any other article, the same as any other editor, who was not under sanctions. Perhaps you could provide more clarity about what you are asking? Steve Quinn (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I need to apologize.
 * I did not add that the "general" sanction was superceded on August 2, 2010 to Obama-related-articles-only (on the Evidence page). I myself was confused by the general sanction being imposed, and not clear about this decision being superceded.
 * This came up at the ANI, and I was keeping track of a lot of stuff, all at the same time. Apparently I put this on the back burner. Also, I was thinking to deal with one issue at a time - as in - the ANI first, and then a request for Administrator Enforcement (if necessary) afterwards. By the time the ANI was decided I had moved on, working on other stuff related to this ArbCom, and maybe some other things. I never got back to it, and didn't think about it, until I answered the question, some hours ago. It was then I reviewed, once again, the section of the actual ArbCom document to see what the decision was regarding Stevertigo. When I read that section before, it was like a foriegn language that I did not understand - as in "What the heck is this collaspable box all about?" Also, somehow I came across the general sanction, first and then the ArbCom document. I'm telling you, when I saw that ArbCom document the first time, during the ANI, I had no idea what it was, or what it meant.
 * Hence, it was not until I answered your question, some hours ago, that I became really clear what the decision was. It made sense this time. Also, you will have to forgive me, because all these documents were foreign to me, including the ANI documents.
 * It was not until sometime during the ANI that understood ANIs, and these were often much smaller then this recent ANI that I had intiated. It was not until I became more heavily involved in ArbCom, searching through for ANI docments, and ArbCom documents, related to this case, that I understood how to read completed ArbCom documents. Even when I began entering evidence, I had no idea what I was doing except that I was attempting to follow the instructions at the top of the page. I still don't know what the other pages are about, except for the talk page, now. So you see - you are dealing with a rookie. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (It's amazing how stuff just dawns on me,as this just did). Also, apparently, I had already accepted that the superceded decision was valid before I saw your question. I don't know when. I think when no one was making a big deal out of the general 1RR restriction, and the fact that Stevertigo himeslf thought he was not under a general 1RR restriciton, had convinced me. It was not until some hours ago that I checked it out again in black and white. (I rhink that about covers it). Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Regarding this diff, listed under "Disregards WP:OR and WP:NFT, supported by talk page", has Stevertigo made any other statements similar to the one cited? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To me this diff clearly demonstrates his propensity for advocating inserting unsourced OR. Also, this diff presents his point of view of why he thinks his unsourced OR, or WP:MADEUP is valid. Stevertigo has brought this up . With the second diff, which is added to the first, he does demonstrate his assertions are from a well spring of knowledge. The question is, what is the location of this well spring? This tendency may also be notable, specifically for this case. This is not the first time he appears knowledgeable. There are currently two other diffs on the evidence page where he appears to be knowledgeable. In fact, what I will do now is open a section with the three diffs, that Stevertigo may elaborate further.
 * He has an argument for re-interpreting the term "Holocaust denial" on that article's talk page. For instance "holocaust" means something, and "denial" means something. Hence, "holocaust denial" means something else, or more, than its current, sourced, and conventionally accepted definition. I will supply one or two diffs, later. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Denial (under the broader term "denialism"). Also here he states that he has broadened the term, in the lede, ' A third edit involved the simple addition of "and others" to the line describing the Holocaust's and its targeted victims '. It is my understanding that as soon as he placed "and others" in the lede, he went into unsourced OR territory. Also in the third pargraph he re-invents the term "Holocaust Denial" into "Holocaust Denialism". This again appears to be another case of unsourced OR, and easy to overlook as simply a typo. But is it a typo? If it is not a typo, then what is happening here?
 * In another part, I don't know if "usually referred to as the Holocaust" or if it is "always referred to the Holocaust" is correct. Also, Stevertigo indicates that he thinks the "Holocaust denial" is not limited to only Jews - "But even if that were true, and I'm not so sure it is..." He also indicates that "the phrase in question was simply describing what the Holocaust itself was, hence the disinclusion of the Roma and others is inaccurate". This was countered with asking if he have any sources to back up his assertions . After this a protracted, and contentious talk page discussion ensues. Stevertigo argues endlessly with a number of other editors. This behavior was still present in a string of 2010 article talk pages, the only difference is the number of unsourced OR insertions, in the actual articles. In some articles this lasted longer than others. It was often a battle of unsourced OR v. WP:V in the actual articles. Also, his previous 3RR violations appear to be echoed in the future (2010) by a more slow motion type of editing conflict, in the articles themselves. (diffs to follow).  Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, relevant diffs which demonstrate that this behavior is still present in a string of 2010 articles can be found in the most recent ANI here.   Steve Quinn (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also this section and the next should support that assertion. If this is not sufficient please let me know and I will supply relevant diffs. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, getting back to the original question in this section from Krill - "Regarding this diff, listed under "Disregards WP:OR and WP:NFT, supported by talk page", has Stevertigo made any other statements similar to the one cited? Here is another similar statement:, and this kind of underscores it.
 * Here is another example, refering to the DE guideline, Stevertigo asks "...why do you think it was inappropriate to undermine the legitimacy of the guideline?" To me this certainly shows an obvious disregard for what has become a signifigant guideline, and I believe it was signifigant at the time of this comment. Afterall, this particular guideline helped to provide grounds for a two week block, as a sanction against Stevertigo, at the September 2009 ANI. Stevertigo made that comment after User:SteveMcCluskey "...reverted [Stevertigo's edit] which essentially undermined the legitimacy of the guideline, which User:Stevertigo added as a header without any discussion on the talk page" , and the rationale . Stevertigo also appears to "egg on" this editor, after the above "undermining" comment..
 * 1) Regarding the points listed under "Editing practices were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines and policies in between remedies and sanctions", is there anything relevant to these more recently than 2007? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Stevertigo's edit history has nothing between March 18, 2008 and December 10, 2008, between November 7, 2007 and March 14 2008, and between September 25, 2007 and November 7, 2007. I didn't notice this before. I don't know what to make of it. Should Stevertigo be asked if he edited during these gaps? If he did then someone may need to go to the help desk. Or not, I don't know. And I will directly answer your question soon. I am currently researching your question. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a later example: November 9, 2009. On the Wikipedia guideline page Disruptive editing Stevertigo creates a new box with content, for the very top of the page, entitled, "Editors note" . This appears to be one random day, and I have no idea what the motivation was. It was removed, being described as "personal opinion" and "soap box" . His personal opinions were invited to the talk page. Stevertigo reverts this edit, giving a different description, and creating a collaspable box for most of the content. . After five more edits, and about six minutes it is removed,, and he is asked to please discuss on the talk page. There is a talk page discussion. started by User:SteveMcCluskey with a new section entitled "Editor's note" . McCluskey states this box "essentially undermined the legitimacy of the guideline, which User:Stevertigo added as a header without any discussion on the talk page. Please discuss this to achieve consensus before restoring the disputed note." Stevertigo enters the conversation, on Talk, here , where he asks why is it inappropriate to undermine the guideline? He also appears to assert the "note" itself as a legitimate authority, which allows the box to placed there. This appears to be some sort of  circular argument. This indicates that, according to Stevertigo, the note, which he placed there supercedes consensus, because of what the note says. Not because of what any guideline or policy says. This discussion does continue. I will read it further, and see if I can add further insight. I can also add a couple more articles to help answer this question, with the same or less discussion, as you prefer.  Steve Quinn (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I am able to ascertain, Stevertigo establishes a section for debate on his terms . He essentially states that this guideline is based on two "subjective concepts" and is therefore invalid . He states further that if the guideline were based on an "objective concept" and a "subjective concept", instead, it would then be valid (same previous diff). In essence, he disputes the legitemacy of this guideline (see previous diff). Much of what he has written here, was in the previous "Editor's note". One of the problems is that this is much more appropriate for a talk page discussion, and not really appropriate as an entry into the guideline itself. However, what he means by "subjective concept" and "objective concept" I have no idea. But, I do not see anything referenced to guidelines, policies, or precedent regarding these concepts. Looking at this earlier diff, it appears that he is attempting to somehow get the contents of this "note" to be part of this guideline, which could be construed as motivation (I suppose). I really don't see any further discussion regarding this matter, beyond him establishing a section for debate.  Steve Quinn (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason I can't resist doing this. This is something different. This is a talk page where Stevertigo appears to be making valid points . I have supplied the last diff of Stevertigo's contributions. One editor he is talking to, Randy, appears to have a bias, but advocates reliable sources. I haven't looked at this article in depth, nor have I read the whole talk page discussion. But what I have read, Stevertigo is not neccessarily in the wrong. The article title itself, especially at this stage, is a POV topic. I looked at its most recent version, and the emphasis on basing it in reliable sources has paid off.  Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A September 2009 ANI resulted in Stevertigo being sanctioned for "Disruptive editing: Misuse of wikipedia as a battle ground, refusal to abide by policy". This is chronologically just prior to his edtis to the Disruptive editing guideline (above).
 * An involved process occured, which led up to the September--2009--ANI, which led to the sanctions. I will discuss this matter further, because it is very interesting how it starts, and what it leads to. Also, keep in mind this is relevant, because at least some of these behaviors were still employed just prior to the most recent ANI. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
 * I think it is no longer neccessary to get into this, in order to make my point (or points). I might just use relevant elements. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here again, is more recent situation - June, 2010. In the article "Dark matter" the lede is edited . Notice the first sentence before the edit is moved down. In its place is a description which essentially states that dark matter is percieved at the conceptual level, and the concept is observable physical mass. There is no way to know if this is how the general scientific consensus conceptualizes dark matter. No sources are added that support this assertion. But, it appears to be also irrelevant, because the lede is intended to begin by describing dark matter, because the topic of the aricle is "dark matter". It appears that the topic of the article is not about conceptualizing "dark matter". Also the word "concepulization" in this context appears to be vague. Here is the almost finished product - . Two days later more vague wording is added.
 * Furthermore, there is a problem stating " [dark matter exists]...in places where matter, or "visible matter, ... does not exist". The assertion is that the only type of matter that exists is matter which can be seen with the human eye. Two distinctions are meshed. This appears to be an attempt to reframe this article, or even "dark matter" into a point of view, rather than scientific consensus. With this assertion, the context is altered. Scientific consensus describes "Dark matter" as matter. Matter is not only equated with matter that is visilbe to the unaided human eye. In any case, dark matter is not described as something else, and to say so enters into the realm of unsourced OR.
 * Also, analysis of this sentence appears to be complicated. For example, after this new edit, the lede no longer states that "...dark matter is matter inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation..." This inference accounts for missing mass, which is postulated, to  affect the rotational speeds of galaxies, to account for gravitational lensing of background objects, etc. True it is inferred to exist (from evidence), but that does not mean it is only a concept, and that it is some orginally named, mysteriously unattributable, something. Evidence is gathered to suggest its existence, not its conceptualization. It appears to be a type of matter that does not interact with certain physical phenomena. The talk page discussion, regarding this edit, appears to begin on June 19, 2010.
 * One of the first statements pertaining to this new lede is "Besides being unnecessarily confusing, it seems to imply that dark matter is not matter, or that dark matter is only found in empty space. Comments? . The talk page discussion sufficiently and ably discusses the issues involved, and hopefully not long to read through. However, there is a talk page item that I wish to discuss. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As the talk page discussion takes off (June 19), the unsourced OR, or WP:MADEUP lede is reverted to the scientific description of dark matter. On the talk page, the scientific lede is challenged first, by claiming that matter and dark matter is tautological, which supports my above analysis. Furthermore, the challenge claims that use of the word "matter" is ambiguous, used in a blunt manner, is first not ("actually")dark, not invisible either, but of localized physical mass, and is a conceptualization. This argument appears to be a mix of POV and unsourced OR. Also, within a couple of sentences, it seems the localized physical mass descripiton is contradicted by "cosmological scales", as part of the challenge to the scientific lede. So what is really happening here?
 * Also regarding the part of the challenge pertaining to matter: in what way is matter actually ambiguos or blunt? Should we say, "dark that which has mass and occupies space"?
 * On the 23rd the reinstated scientific lede is overwritten, by another version of unsourced OR, by Stevertigo . And this is what is interesing. I have usually observed Stevertigo re-inserting the same set of words, or almost all the same words, over and over in the lede of different articles (, , . I have to two intermediate steps to show how he built the lede next: , , essentally reverted: , same words again:, same words again: )
 * In this particular instance, this lede was borne out of the ensuing talk page discussion, including the changes in the second paragraph . I don't know what elements were involved for something different this time. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the use of "dark" in "dark matter" is later explained on the talk page by another editor, as well caution against using whatever by another editor.
 * Originally, the talk page item I wanted to discuss is a link to a page entitled Theoretical substance - . This page seems to be a made up topic. True "theoretical substance" may come up in a conversation such as "That is a theoretical substance." But, it may not merit its own page for inclusion. The orginator of this page is User:Stevertigo. He has also done almost all of the editing (see edit history). Up until yesterday (Oct. 11) it was tagged as uncategorized, and it is now categorized.  This is also formerly linked to lede in the "dark matter" aritcle, a lede which is formerly unsourced OR or POV - . One of the redirects is Hypothetical substance, which appears to be an equally made up "title".  Steve Quinn (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other instances. For example, over at the Time article this year, the editing practices, which were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines and policies would be inserting unsourced, made-up material, into the lede, and then continually reverting WP:V material, to keep the unsourced material in the lede.
 * Stevertigo began his effort to change the lede on July 3, by inserting personally created WP:NONCE template . It was deleted at the end of this most recent ANI, which is why it no longer resembles a Wikipedia tag. He removed the tag, and then began rewriting the lede . I notice that he found fault with one issue. Maybe this is one rationale being employed for a continuous, slow motion, back and forth, between unsourced OR and material based on sources until early August. Also notice (see diff) that WP:NONCE is cited. Also, in this particular instance the first paragraph is actually, mostly, rewritten. In other instances (WP articles), I have noticed an insertion of unsourced OR, with the original lede positioned to follow the unsourced OR.
 * Employing WP:NONCE as a strategy appears to be similar to his strategy for describing the word "matter" as vague or blunt on the talk page of Dark matter. Hopefully, the inaccuracy of the rewritten lede in "Time" is apparent.
 * The talk page discussion also begins on July 3, appearing to have been initiated by Stevertigo,, because Jim Wade had reverted his edtis On the talk page, he cites WP:NONCE again, claiming it is a lede paragraph without a defintion, or that is settles for no agreed upon definition "rather than finding language that people can agree on". He overlooks the fact that this lede is one derived from reliable sources.
 * He appears to employ a fallacious type of reasoning. First, he apparently refers to the controversial nature of the defintion of this topic between scholars as some sort of rationale for changing the lede. Then, instead of dealing with that sentence in the lede, he instead finds the first sentence "problematic" without any particular rationale. However, by adding two sentences together this equals NONCE. Therefore, the first sentence needs to be changed, because the two sentences together equals NONCE. So, instead of supplying a tangible answer, which satifies the controversy, the focus is (confusingly) switched to the first sentence. He simply states that "time is not that", without showing why or how. He then produces his unsourced OR statement as proof that the first sentence in the lede is "problematic".
 * Jim Wade then replies . Regarding this situation, it is my belief, derived from the ensuing talk page discussion, that Stevertigo refers to this as finding "fatal flaws" in an argument. Reading Jim's response, I don't think this is what is happening. At one point Stevertigo states, "I don't understand why you can't just correct these minor issues yourself rather than make a bigger issue out of them than they actually are and rigorously wave your hands claiming them to be fatal flaws in my version" . With another editor involved (Yours Truly), and later in the discussion, Stevertigo claims that he has "...been able to find fatal flaws in every single proposed writing he (Jim Wade) has submitted. When it gets down to finding any fatal errors in my writing, he changes tactics and tries a red-herring argument focusing on items that I've already agreed to compromise on. "  (diff to follow). That appears to be an inaccurate assessment.  Steve Quinn (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Along with his psuedo-explanation, it appears Stevertigo placed his NONCE template, back on top of the lede (at 15:08}. Later that same day Jim Wade's response in this section (NONCE introductions) demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the subject. Furthermore, it demonstrates he was willing to take the time to give a detailed explanation of why the 2½ year old lede is appropriate for this article, and deftly summarize why Stevertigo's version does not work, and what issues Stevertigo did not address regarding his proposed lede(not neccessarily in that order).
 * On July 12, over the course of two and one half hours, and with over 20 edits in rapid succession, (all marked minor), another version of Stevertigo's unsourced OR is copy edited and placed in the of the lede, and subsequently reverted. This incomprehensible lede appears to be accurately described as "...polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese" and inadequate "...unsourceable philobabble..."  in the edit history. Later, I would describe it as "incomprehensible".
 * On the talk page that day, in the midst of the flurry of over twenty article edits, Stevertigo claimed there were no objections raised to his critisims in the above sections . This appears to be his rationale for adding his new, and "expanded", unsourced OR into the article. However, in the first place, his only psuedo-critism was original thought, and unsourced meanderings (July 7). It makes sense to ignore a piece like this because as unsourced OR there is no valid response to make. At the same time, please note that lack of response was percieved by Stevertigo to go ahead. This appears to be another form of disruption that the "mainstay custodians" will have to respond to. In essence, there appears to be little choice for editors concerned with editing according to guidlines and policies.
 * Although, as stated above, his insertion of unsourced OR was subsequently reverted, Stevertigo "undid [that] revert based on asshat ownership of article" . A slow motion edit conflict ensues, as can be seen in the edit history. It includes hiding vague, and failed verification templates.
 * Apparently, as the above situation was occuring (without my knowledge), I was busy choosing "Time" as the theme of the month, for August, for the Physics Portal . Hence, naturally, I was looking in on the "Time" article, every so often. What I saw on August 2 concerned me  , and so I became involved . On August 4 User:Modocc also showed up   . Steve Quinn (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that Stevertigo was determined to place his version into the lede, no matter what, ,.
 * Stevertigo has claimed to find "fatal errors" in Jim Wade's proposed versions in so many words, and on different occasions. This is not actually the case. His arguments appear to be ineffective For example, ,
 * Also, it may be that Stevertigo is highly motivated to rewrite a lede to his taste, but he appears equally motivated to "parse" (as he calls it) anybody's proposal, on the article's talk page . This propensity would be commendable, except that this process often becomes a vehicle to argue for his original ideas, and have them placed in an article. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another instance illustrating which were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines and policies is the Time in physics. Once again, as with the Dark matter and Time articles,  unsourced, made-up material, is inserted into the lede, and then material based on sources (WP:V) is continually reverted. This is done in order to keep the unsourced material in the lede. It appears that unsourced OR is first (recently) inserted on July 30, 2010 . He replaces the first couple of sentences in the lede with his own paragraph. Of particular note is the beginning of the second sentence, which appears to illusrate a POV: "However its full workings remain mysterious and not all understood (likely holographic and computational in nature..." Also of particular note is a phrase ending the last sentence of this paragraph: "...or else a transactional property that acts upon a physical object."  As with the "Time" article, including "Time"-talk-page discussion, Stevertigo appears to be attempting to mesh an amalgam of physics topics, into one sentence, or less.
 * Furthermore, it appears that he is attempting to mesh his unsourced ideas with sourced content that was already there. In addition, there appears to be specious logic employed with the first sentence, and it appears to be unsourced original ideas.
 * This new first paragraph was then tagged as or-section, which Stevertigo removed as "Unsubstantiated commentary" . Throughout eleven successive edits (marked minor), he copy edits his OR insertion, inexplicably removes a cleanup tag, adds a peculiar "cf." in parenthesis with various physics terms into the text, before the OR tag is restored . The problems with Stevertigo's edits are noted within the tag: "The assertion that time is real is either contentiously meaningless, or is POV opposing several scholarly authors. 2>What it "likely is" is completely unsubstantiated AND never discussed in the article - so it does not belong in the lede. 3> that it is an agent that "acts upon a physical object" is too speculative to not be at least attributed to some scholar, somewhere in the article. This appears to be nothing but POV original research". cn are added on August 1. And August 3 the paragraph is removed to the talk page, (by yours truly), and Stevertigo, essentially, reverts this edit , and another slow motion edting conflict continues.
 * Then User:DVdm, and User:Modocc also become invovlved (also August 3) . With four editors working to keep the lede in agreement with guidelines and policies, Stevertigo did not insert his version much more. On August 6 he once again added the NONCE tag, which was later removed that day. The last attempt at inserting the unsourced OR version  was on August 13 . A talk page discussion pertaining the above editing conflict took place at the same time.  Steve Quinn (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo has been successful at least once in writing Wikipedia to conform to his point of view. At 05:12, February 28, 2010 unsourced content is inserted in the lede of "Sin", amounting to a new third paragraph, which is still in the article today . At this point I am keying on the term "transcendental living". Notice this is linked to the article entitled "Heaven". At 05:26, February 28, the lede in "Heaven" is rewritten to read "In religion, Heaven is the English name for a transcendental realm wherein human beings who have transcended human living live in an afterlife. The term "heaven..." . Here the lede in "Heaven" is being used for his new entry into "Sin".
 * He edits this paragraph in "Sin" infrequently, off and on, until June 17.
 * Prior to adding this new paragraph in "Sin", he appears to have added his POV in the very first sentence of the lede . Also please note that in the lede are bulleted statements, one of which pertains to "Punishment". Stevertigo was engaged in an edit conflict in the article and in talk page discussions of "Punishment", beginning August 3 Between August 1 and August 3 he did 25 edits in succession[,  (all marked minor) before two other editors showed up, . I showed up on August 4 . He did not quit until the commencement of this most recent ANI (September 20).  [[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * DE guideline continued: The following actions appear to be personally directed at one single user, a contributor to the DE guideline, User:Slrubenstein. When Stevertigo first removes content from the guideline the comment in the edit history reads "[Remove] section added by [User:] Slrubenstein, which rests on a presumptive, proactive concept, wherein "disruptive editing" is taken to include even "discussion" on talk pages(first diff below). Furthermore, it appears at least the first part of the discussion (on the talk page) pertains to pinning responsibilty, for something, onto User:Slrubenstein. So it appears that Stevertigo is using a guideline talk page to as venue of personal attack against another editor. See diffs below.
 * 19:44 UTC: May 23 2010 - Content removed, actions aimed at one editor . Restored same day.
 * 19:51 UTC: May 23, 2010 Talk page: - Stevertigo states, that the September 2009 ANI "referendum on [his] editing, and claims of [his] disruptive editing," are motivations for his actions pertaining to this guideline. Also notice that in the next paragraph he specifically names User:Slrubenstein as the person who "inserted the related text". , Stevertigo again attributes fault to Slrubenstein, , claim of COI ,
 * Not without irony - applying the disruptive editing guideline, to revert the part that was removed from the disruptive editing guidelines, (possibly by a disruptive editor?)
 * June - Content mischaracterized and removed, restored.

Evidence presented by JimWae

 * 1) Regarding the diff labeled 2010-JUL-29 @15:45, are you asserting that the linked edit constitutes insertion of original research, or is it presented merely as context? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am remarking on this to indicate that one need not have checked Stevertigo's edit history to "follow" him to that article - by linking to another article & making WP:OR additions to that article, Stevertigo is increasing concern of others about editing he might be making anywhere on wikipedia. --JimWae (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Regarding the discussions on Talk:Time listed under "Stevertigo opposes providing reliable sources for his "conceptualizations"", are there any particular statements that would highlight your assertion? Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments
It may help the Arbitrators if you disclose who is helping you do your "research." Ucucha, I note, answered one of your questions for you above. Its obvious that you are not finding all of this interesting material on your own. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, chill out. I have seen similar type of responses before, from you. No one is teaming up with me against you. Also, no one is helping me with my research, although I wish that were possible. But, it is not possible. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you've cobbled together, digested, and accurately explained some seventy five diffs in just a couple days of your own research? Perhaps you are pulling these, interpretations included, from other sources, like prior Arbcom cases? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are being confrontational. Sorry, I won't be joining you. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo's behavior in this matter is inappropriate. I prefer that he no longer address me personally for the duration of this ArbCom case. His comments above indicate that this could be the opening salvos of an attempt to bog down another editor, on a talk page, to discourage productive editing. In addition, it appears that he has not decided, yet, to build his own case. Apparently, he would rather engage the other editor with unsubstantiated accuasations. Also, please note it appears to me that the first comment was placed inappropriately, in a section initiated for inquiries regarding evidence, by one of the active arbitrators, on the Arbitration Committee, Kirill.  Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This line of inquiry isn't helpful. If Steve Quinn is receiving assistance from other users, I think it would be in everyone's best interest for such information to be disclosed fully. If he isn't, there is no point in continuing this line of questioning. NW ( Talk ) 17:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well-spring
Three diffs which I have come across, demonstrate that User:Stevertigo's assertions are from a well-spring of knowledge. First, I am wondering if he wishes to expand on the knowledge imparted in each diff. Second, what is the point he is trying to make in each instance? Third, what is the location of this well-spring of knowledge in each instance? Fourth, are there other discussions, or articles that demonstrate this well-spring of knowledge, or tendency that he wishes to discuss?

Below are the three diffs. Hopefully no one will mind if a create a sub-section for each. Stevertigo, please feel free to change the sub-section titles at your discretion. Also, please feel free to add others. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Human



 * The first two of these were dealt with in the 'Obama articles' case. Context - Obama had been slandered in various ways in accord with a fallacy that asserted that Nazis were liberal socialists and therefore liberal socialists are Nazis. I was taking issue with a small number of Wikipedia articles that contained or else facilitated this fallacy. Again, these were covered, not without error, under the 'Obama articles' case.


 * The "human" article is recent, and may be relevant for this case. One of the main issues with the 'human' article is that it takes such a skeptical, detached, anthropological, tone that it failed to even indicate that humans are often considered "people." I succeeded, after proposing a rewrite (viewable here) that was quickly cut down, to add to the article the mere mention of the "person" concept. Notably, any general mention of creation myths have been utterly rejected from the lede.
 * The human article diff Steve Quinn links to was a sketch for a science section that someone proposed on the talk page: It was never expected to stand in its original state, particularly given the reflexively quick responses of other editors at that article. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 17:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical perspective
-unsigned by Steve Quinn - Steve Quinn (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to sign your posts Steve. Again, this is not a referendum on me or my editing going back eight years. This is the case that centers around the punishment article and what conflicts arose from that. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are not interested in this section, then feel free to either keep it, or remove it. Same with the other section above. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo, the arbitrators stated at the beginning of this case that it is about editors' total behavior (as is the usual procedure in arbitration). In this case, your editing and the problems some people are seeing in it appear to be the most important issue; the "Punishment" article is just one part of that. Ucucha 02:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia Arbitration is a lengthy, contentious process that represents the last step in our procedures for resolving complex or longstanding problems." . "...in which case I may be open to addressing any issues raised by other editors, rather than declining this case and waiting for someone else to file one." (Which probably would have happened) (Also "other editors" refer to issues brought up by other editors besides Stevertigo).  Steve Quinn (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "(...Please note, that as usual, we will look at editors total behavior as needed)" Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, at least, the scope of the case includes the question whether Stevertigo's editing practices, considered as a whole, are sufficient problematic to warrant a finding and a remedy against him. The committee will rarely, if ever, base sanctions primarily on edits that are more than a few months old, and certainly not on ones that were made eight years ago in the infancy of the site. Thus, the focus of the evidence should primarily be on relatively recent editing. That being said, if the point being made is that alleged problems have continued unabated over a long period of time despite various efforts to address them, that could potentially be a legitimate topic for evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for me, I am not here to see that (or if) anyone get sanctions. My intent is to turn over to some entity which has jurisdiction, percieved problems "that have continued unabated over a long period of time despite various efforts to address them". I am not interested in the value of old edits, or new edits, as they weigh against sanctions. I am attempting to present a whole picture. Once I have presented this whole picture to the ArbCom committee then I leave it in the hands of the ArbCom committee. If there is another part of this process that I can participate in later, besides sanctions, I would probably be interested. I suppose one reason for this "conclusion" is that ArbCom members know much more about these things than I do. Perhaps, it is a matter of qualification (as in not being qualified). Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad is the arbritration committee interested in establishing a reason, or a plausible reason for a pattern of editing over time? This could be a mitigating factor. Or is the ArbCom committee only interested in the pattern over time, without some underlying reason or plausible reason? Or is it only the ArbCom commitee's responsibilty to establish that there was, or wasn't an underlying reason? Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to underlying reasons, I think it would be too much work for me. So, I will most likely drop it. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Arbitration committee's first concern is to be fair. In that regard, its hard to see why they would accept your allegations or your premise on face value. The only thing relevant to me is your wikistalking. Does Arbcom acknowledge that Steve Quinn's and Jim Wae's wikistalking is relevant to the case? Does Arbcom think that I should be searching for a "pattern" of "disruptive behaviour" beyond the wikistalking I've already shown? I'm not interested noodling through Steve Quinn and Jim Wae's edit history. The topic is just not interesting.
 * Since Arbs want to keep the focus on recent edits, consider a recent edit of mine Steve and maybe you can tell me what about my edits to the War article would you change? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think the Arbitration committee's first concern is to be fair. That is all that matters to me. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The intent of "Historical perspective" section is to show what Wikipedia was like, and what it is like now. And maybe that Stevertigo is one of the (original) architects. Nothing more than that. Maybe "What Wikipedia was like"  would make a good article or essay. I think of it as an accomplishment, but maybe it is off topic, here.  Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is best that I don't critique your editing at this time, Stevertigo. Perhaps some other "less-involved" editors would be interested. However, thanks for the offer. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comments
Why is Steve Quinn removing comments I've made inline with his comments? This is a talk page, not a formal draft, and my comments are intended to add clarity and explanation to statements and conjectures by him and others. Note that another user, Ucucha, commented inline above and Steve Quinn did not remove that comment. Note that Steve Quinn even uses one of the links I provided - this one, first under the "Well Spring" section - even though he removed the comment itself which contained the link. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Arbcom
-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) How many Arbs are present, and reading this?
 * 2) What amount of activity is going on via closed communications (email, mailing list)?
 * 3) What is the ETA for when this discussion will move to the workshop pages?
 * 4) What is the estimated success/failure rate for catching all new additions, comments and developments on these pages?


 * There are twelve arbitrators active on this case. We do not generally track which arbitrators are reading any particular comment, for obvious reasons.
 * Little off-wiki discussion (under a dozen messages) has taken place at this time.
 * The drafting on the workshop has already begun. I anticipate we will transition to formal voting on a proposed decision by the end of the week.
 * We have reviewed all the material currently submitted, and anticipate no difficulties with continuing to do so for the remainder of the case.
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. When you write "we have reviewed all the material currently submitted" - I must note that this is certainly not true, as you yourself said you did not look at my edits to the War article as evidence. You gave the impression that you did not look at any evidence I submitted. And if you "do not generally keep track" of Arbs and what they read, you cannot say for certain that "we have reviewed all the material. But perhaps they have all indicated that they have read everything. ? It would be useful to see how many Arbs, besides you, are actually reading this. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will point out, again, that nobody has made any substantive allegations regarding the "War" article; Amble points to it as an example of you rewriting the lede, but that's not of any great significance in and of itself. We are not going to simply comb through thousands of your edits looking for some proverbial needle; if you have something in particular you would like us to consider, please provide specific diffs, and some indication of what they demonstrate. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, with regret, that we have reachd the situation I anticipated, in the last paragraph of my comment, here. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill, the problem with your approach is that you are failing to look at the whole picture, and yet you claim the ability to project a full picture of my editing, based just on some accusations. When I listed the War article as an example of my editing, it was to give Arbs an understanding of the good work that I routinely do, and to negate the negative image that adversarial parties try to convey through a monsoon of irrelevant diffs. Kirill, there is no way you could have gone through each of the accuser's 75 90 diffs and parsed them all thoughtfully. Looking at just a random sample I found that most were taken out of context, or simply linked to comments by other editors - not facts in themselves. In fact its not really possible for Steve Quinn to have amassed such a number of incriminating diffs on such short notice without parroting other sources and misrepresenting their content. It seems that you have been swayed not by the substance of the presented evidence, but by its mere form. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we do a lot more than just review diffs. For example, in this case I read all of the relevant talk page discussions on several articles pointed out in the evidence rather than simply rely on the diffs provided. So far the workshop proposals seem to appropriately reflect those issues. Shell  babelfish 22:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Questions (for you, and other Arbs can answer as well). Did you: -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree or disagree that my edits to the time article were successful in changing the article in a positive way?
 * 2) Agree or disagree that my edits to the human article were (to some degree) successful in changing the article in a positive way?
 * 3) Agree or disagree that Steve Quinn and Jim Wae came to the punishment article after following me there (cf. WP:harrassment)
 * 4) Agree or disagree that Steve Quinn and Jim Wae took a largely adversarial approach at that article?
 * 5) Have you already made up your mind about the case?
 * 6) What has been the most convincing "evidence" (besides simply the volume of diff links provided by SQ)?


 * 1) and 2 are basically the same thing.  Yes, the article improved after your edits, however this was not due to your edits or any input you gave, rather it was due to the number of editors who became involved to oppose your changes and stayed around to improve the article.  We have a rule against being disruptive simply to make a point.
 * 2) See 1.
 * 3) It is quite possible (even probable) that they followed you there after having seen your behavior elsewhere, however, I see no reason this couldn't have been as simple as being concerned about what they felt were serious issues with your editing rather than harassment.  In other words, there seems to be a reason, beyond simply trying to annoy or bother you, that they investigated your edits more thoroughly.  If you have any specific evidence that suggests they were there for other reasons, I haven't seen it.
 * No, I don't think that was the case, though I do think they pointed out the problems much more quickly having already been through the same issue once.
 * 1) Nope, I'm always open to seeing something that changes my mind. In this case, I have yet to see you provide any convincing explanation for your behavior or indicate that you understand the severity of the problem; either of those things might be cause to change my mind.  Right now, you don't really seem to have addressed the concerns brought up in evidence at all.
 * 2) For me, reading the entire conversations revolving around your lede changes (rather than anything actually provided on the evidence page) was the most persuasive.  Being able to follow the conversation in the context and order in which in happened rather than rely on isolated diffs gave a very clear picture of why other editors have concerns with your editing and discussion style. Shell   babelfish 23:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

All right then, let's compare leads: "Humans, known taxonomically as Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man"),[3][4] are the only extant species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family. However, in some cases "human" is used to refer to any member of the genus Homo. Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species on Earth. Mitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago.[5] With individuals widespread in every continent except Antarctica, humans are a cosmopolitan species. As of August 2010, the population of humans was estimated to be about 6.8 billion.[6] Like most higher primates, humans are social animals. However, humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families to nations. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society. Humans are noted for their desire to understand and influence their environment, seeking to explain and manipulate phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills, which are passed down culturally; humans are the only animal species known to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies."
 * 1) You are not correct about this one. At the human article, it was my content, taken directly from my versions, that another editor patched into the article. Yes, they selected certain parts to add, but it was my concepts which were added. At the time article, the final wording is largely taken verbatim from the AHD dicdef. Jim Wae opposed using this kind of dicdef, preferring a "time is what a clock reads" type intro, and it was my success at finally convincing him and others to use a general introduction along the lines of the AHD dicdef. So, in addition to not being correct in that these cases were the same, you got the essential substance wrong as well.
 * 2) You don't seem to understand that "concern about what they felt were serious issues with your editing" is harassment, when it is matched with the adversarial tactics of reverting wholesale any changes I made. They didn't have any actual interest in the topic of punishment itself and they issue of my editing was none of their concern. You make it sound like you think that DICK is actually "concern" and therefore a good thing.
 * 3) They did take an almost entirely adversarial tone at the article. You may not be able to tell from the talk page, but many of their comments came following article reverts. Combine a revert and an adversarial comment and you have edit warring.
 * 4) "I'm always open to seeing something that changes my mind." Good.
 * 5) Again when reading these discussions what is often missed is the context, and if the context is that some editor has followed me from another article and reverted wholesale any change I've just made, then you should pay attention to that fact as evidence. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Before your edits:

"The word human refers to either the human being or the biological human species.[1] In scientific terms, the human species is an animal of the genus homo, with common ancestors among the primates.[2][3] In human terms, the human being is transcendent of all animalia in the possession of a high degree of intellect, a capacity for language[4][5], and (unlike any known animal) higher forms of self-awareness, rationality, and sapience.[6][7][8] In the colloquial distinction of higher and lower organisms, human beings are the highest among known living organisms.[9] According to scientific explanation, human origins are attributable to evolution —in qualitative conjectures, all human aspects are credited to evolutionary development.[10] Most human beings however hold religious belief [11] in which context the credit for human origins and human capacity is given to a creator being, whom it is believed endowed humans with a spiritual nature that transcends scientific understanding.[12]"
 * Your edits:

"Humans, known taxonomically as Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man"),[3][4] are the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family. Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.[5] Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the hands for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other living species on Earth. Other higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality and sapience,[6][7][8] are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person".[9][10] Like most higher primates, humans are social animals. However, humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families to nations. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society. With individuals widespread in every continent except Antarctica, humans are a cosmopolitan species. As of August 2010, the population of humans was estimated to be about 6.8 billion.[11] Humans are noted for their desire to understand and influence their environment, seeking to explain and manipulate phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills, which are passed down culturally; humans are the only species known to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies. The study of humans is the scientific discipline of anthropology."
 * Current state:

The lede has been reorganized, but presents the same information as before your edits -- just in a different order. So frankly, little improvement for weeks of edit warring and reams of discussion. I completely disagree that "concern about what they felt were serious issues with your editing" isn't harassment at all. Contribution histories are available for anyone to see for just such a reason. It's normal and acceptable to look further into an editor's contribs if you have a concern that they may be behaving inappropriately. I did review the article histories as well, so I'm aware that there was also edit warring. However, this seems to be the norm at many articles where you've decided to improve the lede -- how is this case more "adversarial" than when you've behaved in the same manner? As for reading a full discussion losing context, surely you jest? Rather than simply read the diffs provided to me, I've gone to these talk pages, read weeks or even months of discussion, compared it with the editing going on at the article and even followed up by looking at the talk pages of users involved or other venues where the dispute spread. If you can think of a better way to get the full context of a situation, I'd be willing to listen, but it's the best method I've found so far. Shell  babelfish 23:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That was fast. Where is "higher intellect" "rationality" or "person" mentioned in the previous version? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it was fast because I've already done the legwork. So you believe that a few words is an acceptable improvement for several weeks work of edit warring and discussion? Shell   babelfish 00:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well keep in mind a couple things. First, that edit warring often requires other parties to participate. Second, in the human article case, there is some entrenchment going on. I think its probably natural, given that articles develop and become solidified to a certain degree that some entrenchment should occur. It could be that Wikipedia is getting to a stage where its articles are well-developed and therefore need protection in their most valuable state. Its a paradox - what entrenched editors defended as a pristine, unquestionable version was in fact not, but they were not entirely in the wrong to defend it. The text that I proposed of course was not perfect either and needed some work, so its good when I run into editors that can be constructive rather than entirely rejecting and dismissive as editors at that article appeared to be. I followed the BRD concept to the letter. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

SQ's interjection regarding WP:DE

 * Isn't the attempt to insert personal opinion into the DE guideline, just after the 2009 September ANI relevant? This matter is discussed in an above section. I mean that was never dealt with, by any remedies or sanctions. Also, wouldn't the problematic editing, which occured in 2010, up to the most recent ANI be also relevant? None of these were dealt with by remedies or sanctions. Of course evidence and diffs would have to be provided, but in that case, don't these become relevant? Just curious. I guess, that I think the attempt to single-handedly rewrite the DE guideline is signifigant, and should carry some weight. Jmho  Steve Quinn (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added more evidence, and diffs, pertaining to the DE guideline in two of the above sections Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another fabrication from Steve Quinn. I did not "attempt to insert personal opinion" into DE. I attempted to remove sections (added by Slrubenstein) which asserted that "disruptive editing" applied equally to talk pages. We have always distinguished "edits" to articles from "comments" on talk pages. Another issue with DE is that its based on a subjective concept ("disruptive") which itself appears to be nothing more than a more formalistic way of saying "trolling." If it were honest it would be called the "no trolling" guideline and at least then it would be clear. But "troll" and "trolling" are notably historical terms we used to use here quite often. When DE was formed, it featured a quote from then editor-in-chief Larry Sanger in which he said "show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists.." (yes, he apparently thought we were all the same). This is what "DE" was and what it to some degree remains: a formalistic term that points the finger at "trolls", whoever they are. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Does evidence that is presented here, on this talk page, also need to be presented on the main Evidence page, to be taken into account? I am thinking that this is not necessary. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * November 9, 2009. On the Wikipedia guideline page Disruptive editing Stevertigo creates a new box with content, for the very top of the page, entitled, "Editors note" . This appears to be one random day, and I have no idea what the motivation was. It was removed, being described as "personal opinion" and "soap box" . His personal opinions were invited to the talk page. Stevertigo reverts this edit, giving a different description, and creating a collaspable box for most of the content. . After five more edits, and about six minutes it is removed,, and he is asked to please discuss on the talk page. Also see here.
 * I don't see where any other editor has anything to do with this. No one else inserted, an Editor's Note box, with personal opinion into the DE guideline. I don't see any removal of material. All I see is insertion of material not sanctioned by consensus, i.e., single-handed. That's what I am talking about, with the diffs to back it up. It sounds like you are talking about something else, entirely. Do you have diffs to back up your assertions? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "personal opinion" and a disclaimer. I understand that other parties referred to the box as "personal opinion" and I don't fault you for repeating that claim. What's important here is that I generally followed the BRD cycle. It was reverted, and this was the event that started a discussion on the talk page - a short discussion, but part of BRD nonetheless.
 * Again, my main issue with that guideline is that it was being applied, through a misapplication of "disruptive editing," to comments, not "edits". -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you generally applied BRD as "BRRRRRD" or something in that direction, which, of course, is not the idea of BRD. Ucucha 03:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

About DE: it is a longstanding principle that talk pages are f=meant for the improvement of the article, only. Now, just as editors may disagree over whether an edit is an improvement, editors can disagree over whether talk is constructive. But the principle remains: talk pages are for use to improve articles. This has been a principle at Wp as long as I can remember. Users often warn others not to "soapbox" or use talk pages as a personal forum, I think we even have some template explaining this is not a chatroom, or we used to have one. The principle is old, and widely shared, and pointing out that edits to the talk page can be as disruptive as edits to the article page is nothing new or radical. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (cutting in) I agree to a point with what Slr is saying, and I appreciate it whenever he formulates his concepts with constructiveness and civility in mind. I understand that there are disruptive editors, who cause disruption by virtue of their comments. In the past we calle them "trolls," and to a large extent we ceased using that terminology. But the proper way to deal with them isn't to simply apply a label to them - its to interact with them and defeat the arguments they are promoting. If the disruption is sufficiently oblique and simplistic as to be called "disruption," then the arguments themselves should be simple to defeat.
 * (continued..) Note that my issues with DE began with our discussions at Talk:Holocaust denial, where all I did was ask a simple question (perhaps not so simple after all) 'is all Holocaust denial anti-Semitic in character?' to which Jayjg replied "I see you are up to your usual BS." You followed suit in a similar way, eventually applying the DE label. Its because of this apparent lack of civility toward me that I saw DE as being contrary to CIVIL (a higher principle than DE), and to some degree an excuse to violate higher principle when dealing with anyone labelled "disruptive". -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I have seen is a misapplication of BRD by Stevertigo. BRD does not mean insert POV or unsourced OR into the article's lede, and then engage in edit conflicts for weeks, or days, afterwards. These edit conflicts included weeks, or days, of endlessly arguing, on article talk pages, for the insertion of unsourced OR -- begun with following the "BRD cycle". Furthermore, I doubt I would ever have the temerity, or an ego of sufficient size, to single-handedly add to or rewrite a guideline or policy. It appears to me that there is a difference between temerity (TRD) and bold (BRD). Steve Quinn (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are doing here is adding your own unnecessary characterizations for what by any definition was a simple argument at a guideline page. Note that Slrubenstein and I talked about the guideline briefly and then, for reasons beyond the scope of this comment, we both left it alone. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Steve Quinn's comments are accurate and relevant. What we have here is a laughable (and pathetic) attempt by Stevertigo to rewrite history.  I invite members of ArbCom to read the Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing page - I submit only one edit diff; but the real evidence is the whole talk page and members of ArbCome might enjoy reading it if this ArbCom talk page is not evidence enough that Tigo is a disruptive editor.


 * First, Stevertigo added a lengthy comment to the top of the guideline, basically saying that all of this is someone's subjective view . Steve McClusky reverted immediately, pointing out that the only function of the note was to delegitimize a guideline.  Tigo knows he cannot convince the community to delete the guideline, so he tries to relable it as a personal essay.  it is not a personal essay, it is a guideline.  McClusky reverted him, Tigo tried baiting him on the talk page, and then Durova said that McClusky's revert was a good call, ending that discussion.


 * Then Stevertigo remove a huge portion of the guideline, claiming it is my "personal essay" . This is the same basic tactic as before - trying to delete a guidline not by going to AfD but by trying to relable it a personal essay.  Note that Stevertigo was not using BRD, he was not making a bold edit and inviting discussion.  He was removing a huge portion of the guideline, and dismissing it as my personal essay - if he were right, of course it would have no place in a guideline.  his calling it a personal essay was a rhetorical move to foreclose any discussion.  However, every other editor active at that guideline came down hard. If you look at the talk page, every other editor repeatedly criticizes Tigo's edits.  I rverted him, and he reverted back, and Crum375 reverted him.  Steve McClusky added that he was about to revert, but Crum beat him to it.  Then Slim Virgin added that she thought it was a useful section.


 * So Stevertigo's characterization of he and I having a productive conversation about it is pure fantasy on his part - at this point, I am more inclined to say it is his fantasy than a lie, but the motives are not the issue here, just that Stevertigo's account is widely at variance with what happened, and all you need to do is visit the talk page.


 * We did not both "leave it alone." McClusky reverted him, I reverted him, Crum375 reverted him, and he left.  Another fantasy.


 * What is clear is this: Stevertigo is a disruptive editor. His behavior on talk pages is not collaborative, on the contrary he pushes arguments in the direction of any trivial tangent imaginable stalling any actually constructive discussion.  He did not like the fact that we have a guideline that discourages this behavior, but instead of proposing that the guideline be deleted, or opening a discussion on making a major change to the guideline, he first added a note at the top of the guideline saying this was just a subjective view.  When someone removed that, he then deleted about a third or a quarter of the guideline saying in the edit summary if was my personal essay.  The reason he eventually left was because it became clear to him that th other editors would just revert his BS edits.  What do disruptive editors do when this happens?  They go look for some other article to disrupt.  nd eventually th trail leads to ArbCom.


 * But really, I have to say I think his labeling a guideline a personal essay, or just deleting from it anything that could possibly apply to him, really is among the sleasiest things I have seen at Wikipedia. And yes, I do acknowledge that this is my personal opinion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Slrubenstein. I came across only the first attempt to change the guidline in November of 2009, after the September 2009 ANI. In that ANI, the Disruptive Editing guideline helped to provide grounds for a two week block, as a sanction against Stevertigo . I see the second attempt took place in June of 2010. Also, the evidence appears to weigh in favor of Slrubenstein's comment. After that last attempt to change the guideline in June, Stevertigo did move into edit conflicts in a succession of articles. See dark matter in the middle of June 2010, time at the beginning of July 2010 (July 3) , time in physics July 30 ,  punishment in the beginning of August (August 3) , and human beginning on August 30 and into September. All of these were about engaging in edit conflict, including talk page discussions, to keep unsourced OR in the article, and most all the time in the lede. In human there were attempts to write other parts of the article .  Steve Quinn (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you violated CIVIL quite seriously during our discussions last year and that is why I investigated Disruptive editing - to see why someone as talented as yourself would violate CIVIL, all the while acting like a third-tier guideline like DE supported such violations. It does not. What I found at DE was two things: 1) that Sanger's quote "show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists" was the cornerstone of the guideline, and 2) that you yourself inserted the language that referred to even comments on talk pages as "disruptive editing." The first point establishes the fact that DE is to some some degree interchangeable with Sanger's comment "show the door to trolls," and the second explains why comments on talk pages may be mistakenly regarded as "editing." I appreciate your point that talk pages are reserved for improving the article, but your incivility towards me last year showed that you were deprecating a core policy (CIVIL) in favor of a non-essential guidline (DE), based in large part on passages you yourself wrote.

Steve Rubenstein wrote: "What is clear is this: Stevertigo is a disruptive editor." At the ANI he wrote something different: "Stevertigo is a troll.." See how DE and trolling are interchangeable, and both are applied subjectively either as an epithet or else a label of some unncessary kind.-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not confuse my personal opinion for WP policy or guidelines. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because one person used disruptive editor on one occasion, and troll on another occassion, does not necessarily mean the words are interchangable. At least it doesn't seem that way. It may be these can be applied in conversation subjectively, but establishing the DE guideline gives a description that can be refered to. Hence, the guideline is no longer subject to subjectivity, or being subjective. As a guideline it is an objective tool, just like any other guideline or policy. There is not much room for POV that might come up simply because I am offended. The editing, or editing behavior, should match the guideline (or policy) to be useful. Same thing with WP:CIVIL. Yet WP:CIVIL (policy) is distinct from the DE guideline. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * How is it that you appear so impartial with regard to plain comments, and yet you assert that just because of a couple run ins with me that I am a disruptive editor? I appreciate your points about DE and I think that, in a certain way its a necessary guideline. Every time its misused, however, that detracts from its necessity. I know what CIVIL is - I helped write it - and I don't see how it can be compared to DE. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, going back to your reaction to DE< does this make CIVIL your own "personal essay?" Surely you are not claiming some kind of ownership over CIVIL?  Surely you are not claiming that because you contributed to CIVIL that you have some greater insight into its meaning than other Wikipedians?  Isn't the content of any policy or guideline the product of multiple editors, and the active decision of editors not to change someone's edit as important as someone's edit, in defining what the policy or quideline is?  Isn't the meaning of CIVIL more a consequence of how it has been interpreted and used by myriad editors, rather than the opinion of any one editor who may have contributed to articulating it? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. This case has the problem that it seems to disregard or dismiss anything of good I've done for the project, and so it seems necessary to make note of a couple minor things, like co-writing CIVIL and starting those WP: shortcuts. That way the light can click on and the literate parties might say "hey, that helped the project out a bit." In contrast of courseis Steve Quinn's litany of diffs, which give all the appearance of misdeeds, even if the link goes nowhere. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely you understand that whatever strong feelings people posting evidence have towards you as an editor, ArbCom cases are not about judging any editor as whole editors or contributors. ArbCom is for identifying specific problems in behavior, and proposing specific remedies to any such problems.  By definition it will focus on what people consider problematic.  If you want a general discussion assessing your contributions on the whole, I guess you could use an RfC for that.  But you seem to misunderstand the purpose of ArbCom.  It is 'not ArbCom's task to intervene when people are doing good! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Arbcom (2)
-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What percent of the discussion have you read so far?
 * 2) What percent of the evidence have you read so far?
 * 3) Does being negated or contradicted make it such that you are more likely or less likely to be negative to the contradicting party?
 * 4) Do Arbs who read material quickly and move onto filling in the workshop page act as 'pioneers' in resolving a case? Do Arbs who act speedily and in haste have a greater say in the direction of a case resolution?


 * Stevertigo, this is getting a little silly. I have read all of the discussion, all of the evidence, and a good deal more than that since the time the case has opened. Compared to many other cases we have dealt with, this one is a "light read"; on our last case, we had as much additional material daily in its last few weeks than we have in this case in total. I do not believe there is any particular element of haste in proceeding to the workshop page at this time. As to being "negated or contradicted", there would be about five times as many editors sanctioned by this committee if arbitrators made that a determining factor in their actions toward editors; I can think of only a handful of editors who have participated in the arbitration process over the past two years who have not, at one point or another, "negated or contradicted" one or more arbitrator. Risker (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your answers. Note that it is in part due to my estimation of Arbcom workload that I kept my "evidence" short. Also its just not of interest to me to argue with every line of "evidence" critical of me. To some extent I have to just AGF that Arbcom is going to be fair and won't jump to conclusions based on a few diffs presented. I suppose the most important question I could as of Arbcom is 'how does Arbcom interpret the "evidence" I have presented?'-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * How does Arbcom interpret the evidence I have presented? - Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My evidence page
To the ArbCom members:

I have exceeded the limit of 100 diffs on my evidence page, and I am at about 1200 to 1240 words. Of course, I intend to review and copy edit this page, when I have a moment.

I know that I would like to add evidence pertaining to the Disruptive Editing guideline discussion (above). It would be a minimum amount of text with, what I think would be sufficient diffs. Although, there may be more than this available, pertaining to other articles, including various nuances that aren't quite edit conflicts, but merely insertions of unsourced OR, I think what I have is sufficient for this case. I mean, if I also include the DE guideline situation.

So, I guess my question is, given the assessed parameters of this case so far, should I cut down on my evidence page, now? Or, should I not exceed this limit (135 diffs, 1240 words)? Or would it be OK to add the evidence pertaining to the DE guideline, without being edited by a clerk?

Also, there are other alternatives. There is simply adding to the workshop area, and trimming the evidence page, or leaving that page as it is (after copy editing). I mean, I could add evidence pertaining to the DE guideline to the workshop area, and not the evidence page. Another option would be that I can cover the DE stuff on this talk page, with a few more diffs concerning June 2010. However, there is no telling what will show up between November 2009 and June 2010. I might be later inclined to add evidence concerning other articles. In any case, how should I proceed in this matter? Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to add the extra evidence (provided, of course, that it is of a reasonable length). Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Animal rights
I've been quietly following this case, and I observe that Steve Quinn has just added some evidence to section 3.3, about edits at Animal rights, where my name comes up in at least one of the edit summaries. Overall, I think that Steve Quinn's evidence is presented accurately. However, towards the end, he brings up the issue of some "citation needed" and similar tags. I feel that I need to point out that, in this case, I perceive the situation as more nuanced than how it is presented in the evidence. There was, in fact, some reasonable discussion on the talk page, to which Stevertigo contributed, about the value of better sourcing than was currently provided, and there was some resistance to engaging on the part of some of the other editors who disagreed with Stevertigo. Frankly, I don't think these distinctions, on balance, should really make any difference with respect to the outcome of this case, but I feel that I need to point them out in the interests of accuracy. If members of the Committee would like me to add specific evidence, I'll be happy to do so, so please just say so here. However, my hunch is that it would be simplest just not to assign too much importance to the diffs about "citation needed". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Appreciated. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As an observer of Arbcomm evidence and how that proceeds to the final decision, an evidence discussion pointing out how some of the observed conflicts have nuance to them would not be bad. That said if there are not many places where the observed conflict has potential to show such nuance, that would be something to know also.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'll be guided by whether anyone from the Committee asks for that. If so, I'm happy to provide it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope if any evidence is added to that effect I'll be alerted so I can add evidence too, because there was no resistance to providing better sourcing. The sourcing in the lead (which is what Stevertigo focused on) was academic, adequate, and indeed very standard for these ideas. He wanted to remove those sources and add his own opinions instead, which is invariably the issue with him. That was what the debate was about, which can be read here. He was repeatedly asked for sources. Examples:


 * Steve, you're removing a lead that's sourced to academics, and replacing it with your own opinion. This is exactly what you were asked not to do a few months ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009, and where several editors seemed to want to community-ban you for it. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ... Please also don't point to 58,000 hits on Google. Please actually cite a reliable source in the field. ... Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve, in order to have a productive dialogue on the subject, you're going to have do some research on the topic. You seem to be using common words quite differently than both the way they are normally used and the way the sources use them. This is why we need to stick closely to the sources. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article, including the lead, has to be sourced. We can't just add our own opinions of what AR is, and the sources have to be reliable, preferably academic as this is an academic subject. The current sources in the lead are a fair mix of different opinion; even where they are AR advocates, they come from different perspectives within AR. Stevertigo, if you want to add to the lead, you need to find comparably good sources. ... SlimVirgin talk contribs 10:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo - I'm just catching up on this discussion, but it seems to me that the issue is not whether another editor has read sources, but whether you have sources of equal or greater reliability. If you do, can you please clearly cite them on this page so that other editors can review them? If not, can you move on to something more productive for improving the article? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve, you fill this talk page with words, but what we need are sources. Unless you can produce reliable sources to back them up, your words are of little use on this site. Crum375 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Crum. Sources please. Bob98133 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 11:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you SlimVirgin for the clarification. Yours is the point I was trying to make when I brought up the placement of citation needed tags, a fact tag, etc. It had nothing to do with adding reliable sources, because those were already in place. Remaining consistent with his editing style, "[Stevertigo] wanted to remove those sources and add his own opinions instead."  Steve Quinn (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this stuff clear enough on the actual evidence page? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It could be clarified if it's needed. Stevertigo has just added the retired tag to his user page, so it may be a moot point. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if anything is unclear to the Arbitrators, I'll be happy to clarify. I think it's unlikely to materially change the conclusions that the Committee should draw, and I only think that the one line of Steve Quinn's evidence to which I referred, the one about the cite needed tags, is subject to some nuancing. The rest of what Steve Quinn presented about the Animal rights page appears to me to be entirely accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To Slrubenstein - I don't think it is clear enough, now that Typofish has appropriately indicated there is more to this than meets the "eye". However, according to what SlimVirgin has presented, this backs up the intended meaning of that line of evidence - on the evidence page. At the same time, SlimVirgin's evidence clearly indicates, to me, that Stevertigo was once again, simply being disruptive, by adding the tags and comment. Typofish has not offered anything to counter that. Also, I cannot see how Typofish could effectively counter that. I am not going search through the article's talk page looking for a statement, or evidence, that would counter this, mainly because I don't see any indication that this situation is any different than I have thus far presented it. In any case, I will firm up this line of evidence by linking (with a diff) to SlimVirgins account. Thanks for bringing this up, Slrubenstein. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve Quinn: it's Tryptofish, not Typofish. But, like the correct typology of my username, what we are discussing here is really, in the grand scheme of things, a small point. I'm pretty sure the Arbitrators can easily understand that, in real world situations with real world persons, there can be nuance, even if some of the complainants here would rather there be only black and white. I think it's fair to Stevertigo to point out a bit of nuance. That doesn't change the big picture. I agree with 99% of the evidence Steve Quinn provides about Animal rights, and I agree with the direction this arbitration is taking. What I am pointing out does not substantively alter any of that.


 * The relevant talk can be found at Talk:Animal rights/Archive 5. Towards the end of Stevertigo's involvement with the page, he added some "cite needed" tags, in the diffs that Steve Quinn provided in evidence. There actually were some reasonable issues about assumptions made in the page, without sourcing, that would have benefited from providing a bit more sourcing for the terminology that was used. Stevertigo was rather ineffective at communicating that point, and most other editors had long since lost interest in making the effort to understand what he was saying. I can provide more specifics if any Arbitrators want me to, but I'm not interested in arguing about this with non-Arbitrators. None of what I'm saying changes the overall conclusion that should be drawn from Steve Quinn's evidence, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Arbcom (3)
This is a repeat for the third time of a question I asked in a previous section: How does Arbcom interpret the evidence I have presented? - Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The committee looks at what you wrote, the diffs provided with in it, and sometimes the context of the diffs. They then use that information in conjuction with what everyone else has presented to vote on the Proposed Decision.  The proposed decision is developed similarly, but without an eye towards nuance, but to put up the range of actions that might be required.  Review the recently closed Climate Change case for one with lots and lots of proposed decision items, and how many were passed as findings and remedies in the case.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You may wish to clarify your question. I personally see a couple ways a person could parse that.  Rocks seems to have answered the interpretation that you are asking 'by what process does Arbcom interpret evidence by a particular user' whereas you could also be asking 'What conclusion(s) has Arbcom come to based on my evidence' or 'Does Arbcom conclude my evidence has basis in fact or dishonesty'.  A cynical person might think you are just fishing for a clue about if you are 'winning' but a someone who AGF would understand that you are concerned that you might not be getting your point across properly and would like the oppertunity to update your evidence before its too late to correct the misunderstanding. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The question stands. I don't know who you two are - the question was for Arbcom. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a general talk page, anyone can participate in discussions. The fact remains that the members of ArbCom have answered your question already by providing a detailed explanation of how they go about interpreting evidence. start at WP:Arbcom and follow the links. For ArbCom to be fair, they have to use the same process for interpreting your evidence as they apply to anyone else's evidence, so the answer to your question is, they interpret your evidence the same way they interpret any evidence. If you had aqctually worked on articles you would know how much effort goes into it. They have provided detailed explanations about how they interpret evidence, on their main pages. You should just read it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification
I just want to let the ArbCom members know that I contacted User:SteveMcCluskey (on his talk page) pertaining to the Disruptive Editing guideline evidence. It was a short time ago, and I recieved no reply. After Newyorkbrad's notification on my talk, I left a message for McCluskey that essentially says - "Nevermind" Steve Quinn (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)