Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 17:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

[edit] Involved parties

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

WP:RFC (article-based) [1]
Extended discussions at the talk page, with repeated request to join the discussions to find consensus.
Limited 'discussion' at user talk pages.
WP:AN [2] under Advise needed.
WP:RFM Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected_3#Natural_selection Marcosantezana response

at the Talk:Natural selection page

[edit] Statement by User:KimvdLinde

I fill this Request for Arbitration because it is impossible to constructively work on the Natural selection article, due to the behaviour of Marcosantezana. He deals with the page as if he owns it, and single handedly edits everything such that it fits his ideas about natural selection (which is not always very clear for outsiders edit sumary of someone extended response of a visitor, which response of Marcosantezana), and his discussion is primarily through the edit summaries [3]. Other editors do not have a say in that. Anybody who disagrees can get a strong, and not always civil response. I and other editors have stopped the revert war because that was not leading towards a solution in this case and has already led to blocking of Marcosantezana, which he tried to evade using two different IP-addresses: Marcosantezana block log IP-one, blocked IP-two, semiprotect NatSel page.

Some quotes to show his attitude:

In response to 3RR warning User_talk:Marcosantezana#3RR_on_Natural_selection by Kzollman: do you know how to read? then do it below. i've made my point very clear many times beyond what you can read below; and the last time i did not "revert" (how horrible!) but rather eliminated the problem with a new, neutral formulation. it's the others who are truly being obnoxious on top of being wrong and insisting in peddling misleading "scholastic" garbage. [4]
After being reminded to stay civil [5] by Kzollman, he responded: so in that case you either don't know how to read or don't want to read. in either case you are disqualified from sermoning anybody about being civil. since when it is civil to pontificate to others when you do not know what's been going on? take drugs if you need to feel better at *any* cost. sermoning others gratuituously lets you appear like a fool. warmest regards -- ;)[6]

I and others have repeatedly asked him to join the discussion (example [7] [8] ). He pretty much does not join in (or dumps some remarks at my user page with my response at his page. He has also been asked to respect consensus, but he has until now refused and kept editing the new lead introduction that was reached after some discussion. (I have not reinserted that version again as to avoid edit warring).

This unworkable situation has to stop. I and others want to work on this page, which for now is impossible due to the actions of a single editor. I want a decision that is wider reaching than this page, but covers all pages he edits, as I can see similar issues with these pages arising as well: Unit of selection and Kin selection. --KimvdLinde 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to mention here also that I only got invloved with this page after I saw the RfC.

Furthermore, the discussion on the content between the editors that do contribute is intense, but I think those differences can be bridged by carefull thinking about this page as well as its content.--KimvdLinde 00:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Kzollman

Marcosantezana appears to refuse to engage in discussion with other editors on Natural selection. A quick comparision of the number of edits (many of which are reversions) at the history of natural selection with the number of comments at Talk:Natural selection demonstrate his unwillingness to engage in discussion. I am not a party to the content dispute which is occuring there, but I have interacted with Marco when his behavior has violated Wikipedia policies. He was brought to my attention for nearly violating the 3rr on Feb. 19 [9], [10], [11], [12]. He avoided directly violating it by performing the last reversion outside of the 24hr period. I have no evidence that this was an intentional skirting of the rule and not just a happy accident. I warned him about the violation (noting that just barely missing the 24hr period is still a violation), to which he responded with the remarks quoted above. Slightly less than a month later, I noticed a second near violation of the 3rr. [13], [14], [15], [16]. As I took this to be an attempt to game the rule, I blocked Marco for 24 hours. He evaded the block twice, and it was extended by User:TexasAndroid. Again, I'm not sure if he was aware that he shouldn't evade the block, although I can't imagine that he thought his behavior was acceptable. Certainly the second evasion was malicious, since he was warned about the first.

Attempts by many editors and by myself, as an administrator, to alter his behavior have been entirely unsuccessful. It was hope that he would emerge from the block realizing that his behavior would not be tolerated. However, it appears this is not the case. I am aware of at least one bonafide evolutionary biologist who has basically given up on the page as a result of this users actions. I hope that action by ArbCom might, if not change his behavior, make the page on Natural selection editible by others. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if the "bona fide biologist" be named. If you are referring to me (although you could be referring to Pete.Hurd, who has been less active recently due to real life commitments), let me explain that I did not leave because of Marcos' edits particularly, but due to the two parties' inability to communicate effectively. Being an outsider in a debate does not automatically mean that your view is wrong. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm far too busy with professional responsabilities do keep up with the large volume of changes and debates on the Natural selection page. I have enough time to do minor edits, but not enough to deal with Marcosantezana, Axel147, et al. it's not just frustrating, it's really far too time consuming. More constructive discussion from Marcosantezana would only help this page get fixed, and make it more time-worthwhile for others like me to participate. More comments to follow below. Pete.Hurd 15:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to Pete, but since I didn't know if he wanted to be dragged into this mess, I did not mention him by name. Since he drug himself in here, I'll mention it now :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Gleng

I'm essentially an observer to this page, though I've added some copy edits and chipped into the discussion. The article is in bad shape I think and Marcos' edits and unwillingness to negotiate changes through the Talk page is driving good editors away. I'm very sorry to see this happen. As I've commented specifically and forthrightly on Marcos' edits on the Talk page I guess that I should be a party to the arbitration.Gleng 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Safay

Recently (since after this arbitration request) I began to work on Unit of selection. Marco and some other editors have also been working on that page during that time. It has been very frustrating because s/he often reverts to edits that s/he wrote and feels are appropriate that seemingly the community has agreed are too wordy or difficult to fit in. It is clear that s/he knows something about the subject, but s/he seems to have a strong point of view that it be presented in a manner more complex than necessary. It seems hard in this case to distinguish between an "ownership" mentality and thinking one's writing is better than it actually is.
I personally would advocate no punishment, s/he is not a vandal, but something does have to be done to impress upon this individual the importance of working within the community, on an encyclopedia. I find it very strange that s/he is unwilling to use the talk pages or respond to this arbitration request. Safay 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Marcosantezana

(place comment here)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept. James F. (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 19:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Accept ➥the Epopt 00:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)