Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
What you got here is an attempt by EtienneDolet to abuse ArbCom to win a content dispute, specifically on [[Vladimir Putin]] (which as [[User:Maunus]] has pointed out a week or two ago has been over taken by [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] editors such as ED) by going after his opponents. Now, if you do want to see tag-teaming then you can look at the edits by EtienneDolet, User:Athenean and User:Tridek Sep on that article, along with User:SaintAviator.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC) |
What you got here is an attempt by EtienneDolet to abuse ArbCom to win a content dispute, specifically on [[Vladimir Putin]] (which as [[User:Maunus]] has pointed out a week or two ago has been over taken by [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] editors such as ED) by going after his opponents. Now, if you do want to see tag-teaming then you can look at the edits by EtienneDolet, User:Athenean and User:Tridek Sep on that article, along with User:SaintAviator.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
I should also point out that EtienneDolet has tried to engage in WP:OUTING in his comment above (which I removed). There's no reason to do that except to intimidate others and such actions should be subject to immediate block.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 20:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
Revision as of 20:10, 27 February 2016
Requests for arbitration
Longstanding POV and behaviour dispute at veganism
Initiated by Martin Hogbin at 15:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sammy1339 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by Martin Hogbin
Since before I started editing the article in October 2012, two users, Viriditas and SlimVirgin (later joined by Sammy1339) have been dominating the page. Their edits were well sourced but came almost exclusively from extreme vegan or animal rights authors. Back in 2007 it was delisted as a GA because of pro-vegan concerns[7]. These have never been properly addressed since. Anyone who argued against them was treated harshly and told that they are only giving their personal opinion [8] or that their sources are unreliable. SlimVirgin has often asserted that most other editors are pushing their own POV [9]. Throughout the history of the page at least 12 editors have specifically raised the question of pro-vegan bias and the lack of criticism [10], [11] and some have pointed out that dissenting editors were being driven away by the atmosphere on the talk page [12] and that one regular editor was showing signs of page ownership[13].
After I arrived and tried to present a less pro-vegan POV I was greeted with personal attacks [14], threats [15], spurious accusations[16] and finally a claim on ANI [17] that my editing (of the talk page) was disruptive. In fact, the only difference between myself and most other 12 editors who have tried to make the same point as me is that I was more persistent in trying to get the page to present a more mainstream view of the subject. Rather than edit warring I have consistently tried to resolve disputes by civil discussion[18] and by using the standard dispute resolution methods such as an RfC. The result of the ANI was that, on the bizarre basis that 'Martin's edits there [on the talk page] outnumber his edits to the actual article by almost a factor 10', Drmies, acting I suggest somewhat in haste, handed me a year long topic ban.
Recently an editor who presented sources criticising veganism [19] had their sources summarally dismissed [20].
- I have removed my replies to those below at the request of the Arbcom clerks. I would just like to make clear that this case is not aimed specifically at my topic ban or Drmies, but at the long-term tactics used by some editors on the Veganism and associated articles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Viriditas
Statement by SlimVirgin
Statement by Sammy1339
I think Drmies' action was a measured response to the concerns brought up by several editors in this AN thread concerning Martin's behavior on the talk pages of several articles. The ominous prediction made by Viriditas here is also troubling. However, I have previously suggested mediation to resolve the content dispute at Talk:Veganism, and I don't object to opening this case instead. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing the comments below which focus on the article's POV, I'd like to modify my statement to say that, if this turns into a content dispute, I would rather have it via WP:M than here. I am responsible for very little of the content of the article, and I would have written it very differently - in fact one of my first suggestions was about restructuring it. However, whether or not the whole article is biased, Martin has never raised concrete suggestions for fixing this, and has instead created a series of distractions on the talk page. (The one exception that proves the rule is this recent edit, which introduces as "criticism of veganism" a source written by a vegan, which says that veganism is morally obligatory for everyone in nearly all actual cases. He later implied he hadn't read it.[21]) I would like to have a discussion based on sources instead of just opinions and feelings. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- In response to this comment above by Martin Hogbin: I would like to dispute the POV allegation and I would like to dispute it constructively, elsewhere, with reference to details instead of broad accusations. It seems as if this case is destined to be a dispute about content, and I would like to have a fact-based, source-based conversation about whatever substantive changes Martin would like to propose. To give just the most recent and acrimonious example of the sort of non-conversation we have been having:
- On 28 June, Martin makes this edit:[22].
- On talk, Martin argues that animals are not "really" commodities; this is just vegan rhetoric:[23].
- After much discussion, this thread ends on 7 July with a unanimous consensus against his opinion, which is not supported by any sources at all.
- On 12 July, Martin proposes an RfC which raises numerous issues, but offers no suggestion of how to fix them. It is closed as "pointless".
- On 13 January, Martin raises the "commodity status" issue again in this thread, arguing it is "specialist vegan rhetoric".
- On 17 January, Martin opens this RfC. The discussion ends up spanning multiple threads and hundreds of posts. Martin also soapboxes about the issue elsewhere in an effort to influence the RfC:[24][25].
- On 25 January, Martin frivolously nominates a related article for deletion.
- As Martin ironically notes in this diff, the term is not actually used much by vegan or animal rights organizations, who use stronger language like "exploitation". Many of the "no" votes in the RfC come from vegans who prefer this stronger language. Yet Martin continues to insist that this neutral and benign description of what (ethical) veganism opposes, which is supported by secondary sources, is "rhetoric". He does not provide any source to back up this view.
- If there are POV issues worth discussing, I'm happy to discuss them in the appropriate place (I suggest formal mediation) but so far there has not been discussion of substance. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- In response to Snow Rise who has brought up issues of my alleged misbehavior on carnism and psychology of eating meat: I would like to point out that the former dispute has been resolved by large cuts, against my opinions, and I let it go, and I don't recall having ever edited the latter article. I will also point out that in these disputes, invariably, one side has sources and the other only opinions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise: I compromised very extensively on carnism, on many occasions, but I did insist that the article be based on RS. Your arguments, in particular, involved appeals to your personal expertise and a large body of evo-psych literature which was promised but never materialized.[26] I did my very best to address your opinion-based concerns. I reiterate that the dispute there appears to be settled. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Drmies
Numbers are secondary. The metric of Hogbin's TP edits contributions outweighing article contributions by 10 is only part of the rationale. Hogbin's total contributions to the article are a low 1100 bytes, for 296 talk page edits (3.71 article bytes/TP edit), compared to Viriditas's 7800 bytes/275 TP edits (28 bytes/TP edit): Hogbin's productivity is negligible.
But this talk of numbers skips over the letters: the metric is item c., and a. and b. precede c.; if no a., then no b. or c. That Hogbin's appearance on various talk pages, and Talk:Veganism in particular, is deemed disruptive is amply supported in the AN thread. I don't know Hogbin, and never edited Veganism or its TP. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hammersoft, the evidence of disruption is presented in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#Martin_Hogbin; I determined consensus. Below, in the hatted section, are some examples.
- Resolute, plenty of editors agreed that Hogbin's contributions were disruptive--that progression was stymied by endless article talk page filibustering, especially on Talk:Veganism: Hogbin made tons of TP edits, and consensus was that it impeded article progress. ([Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#Comments_from_Martin_Hogbin|Here's three editors]] saying so. I wonder if everyone read over the entire discussion.) GoodDay's comment gave me pause, but their comment was rather general and did not seem to point at specific behavior in the areas signaled as problematic. And look at comments by Gandydancer and Coretheapple: consensus is clearly that Hogbin's edits are disruptive.
- Resolue, not absurd. Your restatement is incorrect: my position is simply that the editor was interested in hindering progress and was loath to a. doing the kinds of things that get one in trouble in article space (like edit warring) and b. actually finding the appropriate sourcing to make article edits. For instance, accusations of cherry-picking were made without evidence, as in "However may sources there may be supporting this view, there is no indication of how many sources have taken an opposing or neutral view". But Hogbin gave no indication that "opposing" or "neutral" sources exist: he hadn't found such sources. (Note the conflation between "neutral" as in "neutral source" and "neutral" on whether a vegan diet is beneficial or not. This slippage is exhibited throughout; anything citing evidence that supports vegan claims is POV and not-neutral.)
There are ways to work on article neutrality (you are convinced it's not neutral, I have no opinion), but I see no evidence that Hogbin tried anything other than making minor article edits and major talk page filibusters. If this case becomes about the article and supposed POV, fine, but I as yet see no reason to consider Hogbin as a lone crusader against pro-vegan promotional evil. Besides, Hogbin wasn't banned from editing the talk page--he was banned from abusing the talk page, and set to a limit.
- Masem, no, not "simply." Kindly read the whole discussion, the whole close, the whole litany here. And don't make me some party in some kind of veganism-pushing conspiracy. Silencing the opposition? Hogbin wasn't "silenced", only limited.
Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft
I find the close of the AN/I thread by Drmies [27] to be curious, especially with regards to point 'c' where he says "Martin's edits there outnumber his edits to the actual article by almost a factor 10". Using any numerical comparison as a basis for applying a talk page restriction is fraught with all sorts of problems. If this be a valid basis on which to apply such a talk page restriction, then one could just as easily say that Viriditas (not singling you out Viriditas, but using you as a case example) should also be under such a restriction; the number of bytes Viriditas has contributed to Talk:Veganism is 12 times as much as they have made to Veganism [28][29]. If one can conclude based on pure numbers that Martin Hogbin is more interested in talk than veganism, then certainly the same conclusion can be reached about other editors as well. Where, wise Solomon, would you like to draw the incision?
Indeed, when there is dispute about the content of an article (which appears to be the case here), we strongly encourage editors to take it to the talk page. I'm hard pressed to understand why we should be sanctioning an editor for doing what WP:DR tells them to do. Is there any evidence that Martin Hogbin has been abusing the talk page in any way? Unless there is compelling evidence Martin Hogbin has been disruptive on the talk page, the restriction should be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- If Martin Hogbin's abuse of Talk:Veganism is so rampant as to warrant a year long talk page restriction on that page, then evidence should be trivial to produce. I welcome anyone to produce such. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies, I've read that. I don't see disruption. I see disagreement. I've reviewed the diffs provided in the AN/I thread you noted, and not a single one appears to be disruptive in any respect. Could you please point to the rampant evidence of disruption? One diff would suffice. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Disruption isn't proven just by people saying it's disruption. Come on. We're placing a restriction on someone without evidence other than people saying it's true? Please tell me that bar is higher than that. Please tell me we don't wantonly apply restrictions to people just because regulars at an article don't like a newcomer to it? Maybe Martin is being disruptive. I don't know. I'm not involved in this (and frankly don't want to be). But, the restriction seems without basis in fact. There should be at least something concrete to point to. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus isn't a suicide pact anymore than AGF is. Still awaiting proof of any disruption. One diff will do. One. Please? Pretty please? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Finnusertop
Additional information: Viriditas has not edited in almost two weeks. His last edit was interaction with me, when he informed me that he cannot finish a Good Article review he had started, because of health issues. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by onlooker Mangoe
I haven't edited this article at all, but in a very quick skim it comes across as presenting the diet as uncontroversial, and it leans towards advocacy. I think our complainant is right to question that, ignoring other aspects of his behavior.
Comparison of article edits to talk page edits is invalid. There are a bunch of articles where I don't do much article editing, largely due to the time involved, but where I am to some degree involved in talk page discussion. It's often the case that said discussion is in response to others who are making problematic edits. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Resolute
I haven't followed this article's history at all, however this RFArb got me curious. I just did a quick read through of the article. The only evidence I can see of any criticisms of veganism as a diet are a pair of brief statements that some people might require supplements for calcium and vitamin D. Under philosophy, there are is a timidly worded criticism of "strict adherence to ethical veganism", based around the arguments of a vegan. Highly conspicuous in its absence is any actual critical commentary on veganism itself. In fact, virtually the entire article exists to either extol the virtues of veganism or offers advice on what sorts of foods can be used to replace non-vegan equivalents. Given the state of the article, it is incredibly reasonable for an editor seeking to discuss the addition of criticisms associated with the topic would have a far greater ratio of talk space edits to main space. I don't even need to go through the talk page to realize that this article is written from a specific POV.
That said, I did go through the last few pages of the talk archives anyway. What I see there is clearly a case of Martin being persistent in his arguments, and a collection of editors growing increasingly frustrated by said persistence. I think some of the complaints were justified - Martin did seem to have a penchant for time sucking RFCs (the one trying to compare the state of the veganism and carnism articles was particularly absurd) - but on the whole, I would characterize the interactions with Martin as being one of persistence vs. condescension. Without going deeper into the archives to get a greater view of the history of this dispute, however, I can't actually say whether that condescension was justified. I am not sure there is a great deal for Arbcom to look at here, though given my admittedly superficial and extremely recent self-education of the topic history, I am not a fan of Drmies' rationale for topic banning Martin. Whether or not the topic restriction is justified, the "he's more interested in talk than veganism" statement is absurd in the extreme. What is the implied argument there? That Martin should have been battling with the cadre of article regulars in the article itself? Resolute 21:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies:. Even if I accept completely that Martin needed to be topic restricted - and that may very well have been the case - I still find your stated reasoning to be absurd. I took your rationale as arguing that Martin was disrupting the talk page because he wasn't disrupting the article. Even if you came to the right conclusion, the path you took to get there was problematic. But then, given the current status of the article as an advocacy page rather than neutral encyclopedic article, it would have been very difficult to restrict Martin on the basis of something like civil POV pushing without catching others in the same net. Resolute 15:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Coretheapple
I was pinged on the ANI mentioned by Martin, and commented on it briefly based upon my experiences at BP. Martin is apparently upset because of the restrictions that were correctly placed upon him as a result of that ANI, which found that he had behaved disruptively. Other than that, he appeared to be involved in a content dispute at the Vegan article in which he is in the minority. Being a content dispute, I don't see any role for arbcom here, but I guess I could be wrong. Perhaps there is some subtlety that escapes me. The topic ban was not arbitrarily imposed. Coretheapple (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Softlavender
I've never edited on Veganism or any related article, so I'm not a party here. My concern is related, however. In the past 6 to 8 months there has been a proliferation of POV articles related to "veganism": Carnism; Psychology of eating meat; Commodity status of animals. (There may be others that I haven't noticed.) Most started and/or substantially contributed to by the named parties in this Arb request. All of them appear to me to be highly POV, agenda-pushing, coatracky, and disturbingly inaccurate and/or cherry-picked in terms of encyclopedic information, sourcing, and footnotes. I share the OP's concern in that I feel Veganism is being highly politicized here on Wikipedia, and highly agenda-ized. Wikipedia is in effect being used as a platform to endorse and advance vegan "politics" -- when in fact veganism per se is not political or a philosophy, but simply a dietary choice like vegetarianism or raw foodism or paleolithic diet. I don't like to see such misinformation and such POV-pushing on Wikipedia, especially for a dietary choice which is very much an extremely fringe choice worldwide in terms of percentages. I'd also like to point out that the Veganism article itself falsely politicizes and characterizes the dietary choice, right in the opening sentence, and extremely so (note one related RfC). (By the way I say all of the above as someone who has been a vegan for at least a decade [but not anymore].) I'm not going to comment further or answer questions, because I think the problem is too widespread and too entrenched on Wikipedia to spend my Wikipedia time on, but I did want to make this statement/observation. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC); edited 08:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Only in Death
This is two issues being sandwiched together. The first is a content dispute at Veganism in which Martin Hogbin changes did not gain traction in the face of fairly rigid opposition. ARBCOM (in)famously does not make rulings on content disputes. Except when they do. The second is regarding if his subsequent ANI ban was improper - attempts to resolve this (which have not been tried) prior to ARBCOM would be appealing this at AN as it was the result of a community discussion which led to the closing by Drmies. Given the evidence of civil POV-pushing (not limited to Veganism) that was provided by the supporters there, there was enough support for some sanction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- On a related note, the previous case request linked by Ncmvocalist below was declined because it didnt deal in content issues, and behavioural issues had not been dealt with at prior venues (in fact Thryduulf's comment there is practically identical to mine here). Here the only difference is that in this case it has gone to ANI and been acted upon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
The matter concerning Martin Hogbin's talk page participation has been raised on this very page, just about a year ago.
The first issue was relating to a different dispute - being over 2 words in an article's infobox, which managed to incite a 17-revert edit-war between several editors including Hogbin, a 27,000 word discussion on the article talk page primarily by Hogbin and another editor, and multiple threats by Hogbin to take the matter to ArbCom. He carried out his threat and a request was made to last year's ArbCom, which was declined as seen here. At that request, my comment here covers any evidence which is needed to verify whether or not the conduct I've described (as a whole):
- was a proportionate response to the 2 words in issue; and
- has the effect of driving away editors from participating in editing the article in question or any RfC.
Personally, I think the community wanted him restricted across Wikipedia article talk pages, not just on the topic which is the subject of this second issue. That said, any assistance by uninvolved administrators like Drmies is better than the lack thereof provided by others within the community to-date on this particular matter. The type of problematic editing conduct which the community wants curtailed is remarkably exhausting. If this appeal is going to be entertained, I think the restriction and rationale ought to be widened; otherwise the appeal should just be rejected to avoid further resources being unnecessarily expended.
That said, I have not reviewed the conduct of other editors referred to in the second issue so do not comment on that aspect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Masem: Martin Hogbin is subject to a talk page editing restriction which limits the high quantity and high frequency of his posts at the article's talk page; he is not subject to a "blocking action". Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Martin Hogbin has now stated that his request for arbitration is not aimed specifically at Drmies or the editing restriction imposed - which I understand to mean that he does not intend this case to be an appeal; and that his case is about "the long-term tactics used by some editors on the Veganism and associated articles". But this does not explain why Drmies was listed as a party (and why he remains listed as a party by Martin Hogbin), particularly when Drmies has had no involvement in the subject matter of the topic area and Martin Hogbin previously told Drmies he intended to (in effect) appeal. Unless Martin Hogbin can demonstrate the evidence he has against Drmies or intends this to be an appeal, Drmies should be removed as a party (which should address any question of recusal). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Uninvolved Masem
Without considering the content of the debate but only the nature of the behavior, this has unsettling similarities to the GamerGate case, particularly how I myself was claimed by some of those involved that I was being disruptive at the talk page, simply for using the talk page for discussion regarding POV aspects. Asking Martin to make more succinct discussions, or similar improvements in their talk page discussions as to avoid repetitive discussions, that's completely fair, but I find it very concerning that blocking actionharsh editing restrictions was taken simply based on volume of discussion and ratio of talk-to-mainspace edits, and seems a way to silence what seem to be reasonable counterpoints to at least discuss (at the surface, I have no idea of the nature of internal controversy on vegan diets, etc.) --MASEM (t) 16:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Ncmvocalist: Thanks, corrected that, though I still feel we're talking about something extremely punitive for using talk pages to try to solve disputes which is the whole point, as well as having a higher degree of talk page edits to mainspace. Martin's talk page usage would have been something that WP:RFC/U would have been used to try to address and correct without engaging in any admin actions, but that doesn't exist any more, and instead its just being labeled "disruptive" and having punitive action taken. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I never implied you were involved (beyond being the closing admin) or there is a conspiracy. Your close, on first blush, looks like it followed the consensus. The problem is the larger one, not limited to this case, of groups of editors seeking means to remove valid voices from discussions simply because the voice is contrary to their view, which is completely counter to the intent of WP. As Hammersoft's arguments above list, filibustering talk pages may be something to discourage , but it is far from disruption. I am not saying that Martin's behavior is beyond review - it should be for certain as a fair review if this case is taken - but we need to stop this pattern of trying to use admin actions or sanctions to hamper discussion when there's no real disruption going on. --MASEM (t) 03:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MarkBernstein
The question before ArbCom is whether endlessly repetitive talk page filibustering is a desirable or an undesirable tactic. If it is deemed desirable, then naturally we will see more of it, since Gamergate demonstrated how effectively it can drive other editors to distraction, to abandon efforts on the page, or to retire, leaving the field to the allies of the filibuster. Encouraging this sort of editing does increase Lila Tretikov's metric of "highly active editors", and perhaps that metric is what we care about.
On the other hand, a general guideline that limits individual editors from overwhelming a talk page for months on end might greatly improve the atmosphere on Wikipedia. Does anyone often need to post on a Talk page more than, say, 60 times per month? How often is it desirable for an editor to post most than, say, 10,000 words a year on a talk page? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by FourViolas
Martin’s talk page contributions have impeded consensus-building and generated a lot of frustration among editors trying to resolve concerns based on RS, both those who agree with him and those who don't (I have been both). Drmies’s box gives a good overview of the filibustering tactics he uses. His concerns are based on his subjective opinions about the article's wording, notwithstanding RS, as he more or less explicitly states.[30][31][32] He impedes consensus-building by accepting a point, and then after weeks of discussion based on this common ground rejecting it again.[33] His few edits to the article are based on his opinion and usually do not refer to any source;[34][35][36] when he did add a source to the article,[37] he misrepresented it and defended himself by explaining that he had only read the abstract.[38] Because of this, and his polite disregard for the many uncontroversially high-quality sources I and others typed up for him,[39][40] and this disruptive and frivolous AFD, I weakly supported weak talk page restrictions in the hopes that they would encourage him to provide concise, RS-supported arguments instead of opinions.[41]
With all that said, there's a difference between being frustrating and being disruptive. On several occasions, Martin raised points which led to improvements of the article, proving his good faith. Furthermore, I believe some editors who disagree with Martin have expressed their frustration less civilly than they should have,[42][43] although I don’t think any of this rose to an ArbCom leveI; I just went back to look at diffs, and found them more restrained than I remembered.[44][45] I agree that Drmies's metric (c.) was unusual and probably not a good general principle, but also that it's something of a red herring here. FourViolas (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Looie496
I would just like to suggest that if arbs vote to accept this case, they make it clear that they are accepting in order to examine the behavior of all parties, not just DrMies. (Unless, of course, they don't actually want to do that.) Looie496 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Pldx1
Discussing veganism/vegetarianism without any reference to Cao Xueqin, Chaucer, Rabelais or Omar Khayyam seems slightly unilateral and/or uninformed. But this is a remark about contents. Concerning the behavior, this is the usual red herring for derailing a discussion about contents into a drama board opera. Ergo, Bismark herring and beer, instead of accepting such a case. Pldx1 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ched
re to Looie496: I really don't see any issues with Drmies administrative action here, so any examination of that would likely be the obligatory rudimentary type.
As far as a case? ... from what little I've seen I'd likely be leaning toward accept. Martin has been offered plenty of WP:ROPE, and chooses to be here of his own volition. — Ched : ? 20:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- note to clerks - please don't bother with formal notices on this request for me. Thanks. — Ched : ? 21:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Snow Rise
My experience with the underlying disputes here is incidental, so I'll keep my comments brief. Mostly I want to reinforce some of the points already made by Softlavender. I have not participated in the discussions at Veganism which precipitated the AN discussion of Martin's conduct (nor the AN thread itself), but I did have occasion to participate very briefly on the talk pages for the more recently added articles Carnism and Psychology of eating meat, which involve largely the exact same selection of contributors as are involved here and converge on the same oppositional perspectives. My impression is that those articles contain a great deal of content which, at the least, raise not insignificant questions of POV, original research, coatracking, reliable sourcing, cherrypicking and synthesis of some fringe research (of one academic in particular) in an improperly weighted and represented manner. I say this despite the fact that A) the supporters of that content include some of my favourite people to collaborate with on this project, and B) I am highly sympathetic to the animal protectionism and ecological underpinnings of an opposition to meat eating. I did observe a certain degree of entrenched argumentation from Martin, but then I also saw a fair bit from the other side during my (admittedly brief) involvement in those discussions. My main observations were that Martin and Sammy1339 represented the two "poles" of the various disputes, often speaking in largely unmovable absolutes, while most everyone else fell at various points in the middle, trying to bridge that gap, but pretty much failing to bring the two sides together on a consensus view or reasonable compromises.
All of that said, looking over the AN thread, I can't find much cause to fault Drmies, who was, afterall, making a judgement call based on their interpretation of the community consensus of that discussion, not a personal assessment. I still urge the committee to take up the case though; the parties here have (admirably) stayed mostly quite civil despite their disparate and passionate views, but there's a contest of wills now spanning across numerous articles that needs to be addressed in some way, and having observed a bit about how it has played out so far, I'm skeptical the normal dispute resolution mechanisms are up to the task. If ArbCom declines the case, I would urge the matter be advertised in central discussion spaces so some new blood can be brought in to hopefully break the various deadlocks and form a more stable and productive consensus. Snow let's rap 06:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: I don't think I "alleged misbehaviour" on your part above (certainly it was not my intent). I was only noting that (in my short experience on those two TPs) yours and Martin's opinions were the most far apart, and both of you were the least likely to be swayed by the arguments of others from those absolutes. That's not necessarily bad-faith or disruptive (though if you want my opinion, it was not for the best here either). Snow let's rap 13:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by non-party Martinp
Based on a quick review, this feels like exactly the type of case that we need Arbcom to take on: it is about con*duct* with important con*tent* implications. One the one hand we have accusations that an editor's collaborative style, while civil, is disruptive (and may be habitually so in multiple arenas). On the other hand, accusations that a group of editors sharing a POV dominate an article and discourage dissenting voices. An intervention on ANI that was doubtless well-intentioned, but imposed a significant restriction with rather unusual justification. The outcome is an article on a significant topic which is, and appears to have been for years, far from neutral, with various attempts to address this going nowhere. And the whole situation is intertwined together in a way that makes a random outsider's head spin.
Wikipedia has become sensitized in the past few years to the deleterious impact of *paid* POV pushing, which is indeed a problem. Waiting in the wings, but equally important, is *unpaid* POV pushing, where content or discussions about content implicitly become controlled by those voices who have more time and more knowledge of WP processes. This may or may not apply to either side in this specific situation; it seems to need Arbcom to sort it out, hopefully in a way which could serve as a guide in other such current and future situations.
(I have not participated in the article in question and have no particular knowledge in the topic. Posting this outside view in particular given some arbs' comments below that they are awaiting further statements, which I assume means uninvolved ones) Martinp (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Longstanding POV and behaviour dispute at veganism: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/0/1/5>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Accept I see issues all around that need to be addressed. I am particularly troubled by the POV pushing here and what appears to be an offbeat interpretation of RS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to hold off on my accept/decline vote until people have had a bit longer to comment. However, I would like to remind people that we will not be evaluating the article content itself, as that is not within our scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Would like to hear from SlimVirgin and Viriditas (if he's around), and others involved in editing the article... but I am leaning toward a decline here; this doesn't seem ripe for arbitration. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree with Cas that "how people use sources" can be a conduct matter within our scope, this is still not looking to me like a matter that's ready for arbitration. I see three overlapping questions:
- Martin Hogbin's style of talk-page usage and RfC participation: this is not something that the community is unable to handle.
- Drmies' imposition of talk-page restrictions on Martin: we don't need a case to decide this is within normal administrative discretion and is part of the process of #1.
- Allegations of POV-pushing on the topic of veganism: I don't think we've seen real, substantive attempts at dispute resolution on this issue yet. A thoughtfully constructed RfC or a mediation case - with participation from editors experienced at dealing with health-related content - seems more likely to be useful than an arbitration case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree with Cas that "how people use sources" can be a conduct matter within our scope, this is still not looking to me like a matter that's ready for arbitration. I see three overlapping questions:
- I think I am leaning to an accept pending further statements as the issues are possibly too drawn out and complex to be dealt with by other means. Agree we wouldn't rule on content as such, but it would be necessary in this case to examine how people are using sources and (hopefully) not misrepresenting them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Awaiting statements, but a note I have updated Drmies to recuse per this. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- [Updated/tweaked after rereading old and reading new comments:] Thanks K--of course I'm recused in as much as the case is about my close. If this really becomes about the article (Martin Hogbin announced on my talk page a while ago that he was going to challenge my close) I may call in a sick day, though I am not involved with the article or its subject matter and have little interest in it. If the case about the article is accepted I'll gladly recuse if my fellow Arbs or the community think that's a good idea. However, I do NOT believe ArbCom should accept a case about the article yet since, as far as I can tell, no other means of dispute resolution have been tried.
PS: Martin Hogbin, I meant no insult when I cut your first name from my response: I simply needed to save words. I don't know you so I don't really want to presume and use your first name, but I will gladly change my response if you prefer my using your first over your last name. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- [Updated/tweaked after rereading old and reading new comments:] Thanks K--of course I'm recused in as much as the case is about my close. If this really becomes about the article (Martin Hogbin announced on my talk page a while ago that he was going to challenge my close) I may call in a sick day, though I am not involved with the article or its subject matter and have little interest in it. If the case about the article is accepted I'll gladly recuse if my fellow Arbs or the community think that's a good idea. However, I do NOT believe ArbCom should accept a case about the article yet since, as far as I can tell, no other means of dispute resolution have been tried.
- Also awaiting statements (as I said I would a few weeks ago on some talk page in some galaxy). I'll review this tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Accept the specific content of an individual article is not our domain. Whether there is a concerted effort to push dissentors from an article or group of articles might be. Advocacy is a behavioral as well asa content question. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Long-term pattern of tag-teaming between Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes
Initiated by Étienne Dolet (talk) at 18:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by EtienneDolet
Beginning mid-2014 (and possibly earlier), Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes appear to be helping each other out in edit-wars by tag-teaming. VM is the more active of the two, and the tag-teaming typically has the form of VM getting involved in an edit-war in an article that My very best wishes has not previously edited. Once the edit-war is under way, My very best wishes appears out of nowhere and reverts on VM’s behalf. In a minority of instances, it is VM that steps into an edit-war that Mvbw is involved. Since mid-2014, the tag teaming has occurred over a large number of articles (at least 40 in 2015 alone, although there are possibly more), some of which are quite obscure (e.g. Philip M. Breedlove, Khan al-Assal chemical attack, The Harvest of Sorrow). Initially the tag-teaming was restricted to Eastern Europe-related articles, particularly the Ukraine crisis, but as of 2015 it has spread to non-EE articles (example), hence I'm inclined to believe that it's not merely mutual interests that guides them. Furthermore, though both these editors have edited for a long time, they edited few articles in common in the period 2012-mid 2014, with the number of articles they edit in common skyrocketing after that. It should be noted that VM edits a far larger variety of articles than Mvbw does; however, most of the articles Mvbw chooses to edit after mid-2014 appear to be articles VM edits, especially of those he is facing contention (i.e. the April contributions of Mvbw and VM are noticeably similar). The disruption this has caused is considerable. Some of it can be exemplified as follows:
- Outnumbering lone opponents (sometimes having them blocked; example)
- Article protections (example)
- Gaming the system (most noticeable at 1RR articles; example)
- Hampering the consensus building process (most noticeable through NINJA-style reverts with no TP participation; example)
I have identified approximately 40 articles where these two editors have tag teamed. I will provide an extensive list of all of them as evidence in my report. I warned both these users to stop the tag-teaming, but it continues (i.e. [46][47]) even after the advisory. Therefore, as this is a particularly serious user conduct issue across multiple articles, such that the evidence is quite complex, ARBCOM is the proper forum to investigate this. I should also point out that VM has engaged in this sort of thing in the past, as one of the main protagonists of the notorious Eastern Europe Mailing List (WP:EEML). Though in this case I do not have evidence of off-wiki collaboration, it is clear these users are tag-teaming and coordinating their edits in a similar manner and contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia.
Statement by My very best wishes
Statement by Volunteer Marek
This is stupid. MVBW and I edit the same topic area. Yes, MVBW often edits the same pages as I do. So what? I have never asked them to make edits on my behalf, I have no off-wiki contact (and hardly any contact on Wiki) with them and I don't even "thank" them for any edits. He does his thing, I do mine, sometimes those things overlap. There have also been quite a number of cases where we've disagreed on things.
What you got here is an attempt by EtienneDolet to abuse ArbCom to win a content dispute, specifically on Vladimir Putin (which as User:Maunus has pointed out a week or two ago has been over taken by WP:BATTLEGROUND editors such as ED) by going after his opponents. Now, if you do want to see tag-teaming then you can look at the edits by EtienneDolet, User:Athenean and User:Tridek Sep on that article, along with User:SaintAviator.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I should also point out that EtienneDolet has tried to engage in WP:OUTING in his comment above (which I removed). There's no reason to do that except to intimidate others and such actions should be subject to immediate block.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Long-term pattern of tag-teaming between Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)