For some time now, I have felt that Tvx1 has engaged in a sustained campaign of harrassing me, which has included wiki-hounding. This started some time around 2014 when he repeatedly referred my old account to ANI. This included selectively referring editors to ANI, directly lobbying to admins to have me blocked and trying to re-open ANI reports without following proper procedure. Most of these ANI reports followed lengthy disputes over content, and with the admins taking no action, I felt that Tvx1 was trying to use ANI to punish me for disagreeing with me.

In 2018, Tvx1's behaviour changed. He started editing articles related to the World Rally Championship, but his edit history shows that his contributions are limited to formatting articles and taking part in talk page discussions where he only ever opposes me. However, some of his edits reveal factual errors which suggest he does not understand the subject. Tvx1 is well aware that I am proud of my work in these articles, and I believe that his actions amount to wiki-hounding as he tries to frustrate my editing.

I have previously tried to resolve this at ANI, in which I proposed a mutual TBAN as a way of staying away from each other. Tvx1 responded by proposing I be banned from editing a range of topics, which included topics that he did not edit. There was no reason for this, except to frustrate me. In preparing for this ANI, I approached an admin, who advised me that "Tvx1 is a problem user with an incredibly long history of blatantly lying/misrepresenting policy".

@Robert McClenon and Newyorkbrad: I have been advised by Xeno that I can post an update here—there is an attempt at resolving the dispute underway at Chris.sherlock's talk page. I would also like to re-state my willingness to be subject to a mutual TBAN, where both Tvx1 and I nominate a topic area that the other is then banned from editing. We have very little overlap on Wikipedia, so it would function like a de facto IBAN, where both of us are able to go our separate ways, articles become stable because they are protected from any dispute, and (to put it bluntly) we can both have our pride intact. Like I said, I'm open to it and I think it's the neatest and easiest way of resolving this. It just needs Tvx1 to be on-board. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad and Xeno

I would like to address some of the statements made by Tvx1. I hope this will resolve your questions as to why we are here.

I did not come to Arbitration to resolve a dispute over car numbers. I came to Arbitration because of Tvx1's behavior in that discussion. What should have been quickly resolved when I provided four sources that disproved Tvx1's claims. These included the FIA, which governs motorsport worldwide; wrc.com, the official website of the World Rally Championship; and Autosport and Speedcafe, two of the most reliable third-party sources that are regularly used across the motorsport WikiProject. Instead, Tvx1 dragged this discussion out for weeks. He dismissed the sources as not being sufficient enough, avoided providing any evidence of his own and generally turned the discussion into a battleground. I came to Arbitration because every conversation involving him is like this.

Tvx1 says he does not want to agree to a TBAN or IBAN because "it would lock me out of editing a topic I want to contribute to (in fact I fear that the latter would prevent me of editing all the topics I'm most active at)". Firstly, in proposing this measure, my only intention was to suggest WP:RALLY for the TBAN. He would still be free to edit other motorsport articles. Secondly, he says he wants to contribute, but what does he actually add? He adds formatting, and that's about it. Compare that to other topics where he adds content and sources and does maintenance. If you look at his full edit history, you will see that like many editors, Tvx1 has several topics that he likes to edit. And, like many editors, he works on several articles within those topics. But when it comes to rallying articles, he only ever works on formatting in a very narrow selection of articles. Given his argumentative and obstructionist approach to the car numbers, I often feel as if this is hounding, specifically this part:

Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor.

I believe that this is exactly what he is doing, especially considering that some of his comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the subject matter (I can explain why this is incorrect if you ask me to, but it's a technical explanation).

Finally, Tvx1 has said the following:

a specific administrator who imposed a severe block on me last summer (one of only two blocks I have incurred in my over seven year history here) and as result which I have a really bad reputation with since [...] This is a situation of grave concern to me, especially since the notoriously bad reputation I have with that administrator and which I seem not to be able to improve

And also:

I'm really disappointed that the only advice the aforementioned administrator gave to the filing party was to escalate this here

Tvx1 was blocked for "Disruptive editing: Repeated wikilawyering/deliberate misinterpretation of policy to the point of threatening/harassing other editors". This is quite a serious thing to be blocked for, so I think that it is only appropriate for me to ping Fastily—the admin who blocked him—at this point, given that Tvx1 has suggested he has a personal bias. It is also worth noting that Tvx1 has highlighted my block history, but has neglected to mention that I have not been blocked for four years, but his block is about six months old. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: oops, forgot this:

Is it possible to stay out of each other’s way in the motorsports topic space?

Yes, entirely. I'm really only interested in rallying these days. I used to be pretty active in Formula 1 articles, but I have grown increasingly bored by the sport lately. There's a few other things I edit like Formula 2, Formula 3 and Supercars, but I can happily give them up. If Tvx1 stays out of rallying articles, the problem solves itself. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To GorillaWarfare

There are a few reasons why I suggested a mutual TBAN:

There are only a small handful of editors who work on rallying articles—maybe six who add content and four who take part in discussions. An IBAN would allow both Tvx1 and myself to continue working on those articles, but this would probably make life more difficult for the other editors in this topic area.
There are a few areas outside our preferred topic areas where Tvx1 and I could potentially encounter one another. A mutual TBAN would mean that we can be confident there will be no disputes in the subjects we are most interested in, so we can potentially work together in other articles we are not as passionate about and rebuild trust that way. Any constructive editing we undertake can be used as evidence if and when it is time to review the bans.
In my opinion, it's unlikely either of us will back down. Tvx1 spent six weeks refusing to provide a source for a contentious claim and I suspect that was because of his pride. I spent six weeks pursuing it because I think it sets a poor precedent and I'm concerned other editors have started adopting his tactics. I'm sure that if you ask him, Tvx1 could describe me in similar terms. This mutual TBAN is the equivalent of giving us enough rope to hang ourselves, but with the expectation that we're smart enough not to actually do it. Take away the thing causing us the most grief so that there can be no excuses. And since it's voluntary, we'd know what we're getting ourselves into. However justified we would feel escalating a situation, the voluntary nature would make it impossible to do so without further sanctions.

I know it's a novel idea, but I think it could work. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Bradv

I feel like an IBAN is impractical. The articles where most of these disputes happen only have a small handful of editors who make regular contributions—four who participate in discussions plus another two who work on the articles, and that figure includes myself and Tvx1. An IBAN would place a lot of responsibility on the uninvolved editors to basically act as moderators and negotiators, and I think it would be wrong to do that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Casliber

I would just like to go on the record here to say that I have no idea what Fecotank is doing posting here. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with him, and the block that he cites is nearly five years old at this point, has nothing to do with any of the issues raised here and has never been a problem since. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Softlavender

There are a few things that I would like to address here:

The issues at hand are content issues, and apparently full of minutiae.

As I have said before, this is a conduct issue, not a content issue. Yes, the discussion that I have focused on is based on minutiae, but that is why I focused on it—Tvx1 turned it into a battleground for six weeks. Just about every discussion he is involved with is like this, and I think he does it deliberately by targeting articles I work on.

In terms of the numbering issue (discussed by Chris.sherlock above), apparently most editors disagree with Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys, but he won't drop the stick. Why has an RFC not been implemented?

It never got to an RFC because Tvx1 never provided sources to support his claims. I posted four sources in the discussion that are routinely accepted as being reliable by members of WP:MOTOR. If Tvx1 had provided an alternative source, then we could have had an RFC. But without one, his claim amounted to original research.

In the discussion with Chris.sherlock, I admit to having grown frustrated. As soon as a new source emerged—one that only partially proved his claim—Tvx1 latched onto it. That source was not available at the time of his original claim, but he behaved as if everything he had done up until that point was okay. I felt that Chris.sherlock agreed with that and was willing to excuse Tvx1's behaviour. I think that sets a poor precedent, and I am worried that other editors are starting to adopt Tvx1's tactics. The other day I had an editor ask me what I would do in a hypothetical situation; when I replied that it was hypothetical, he asked me for a source to prove it.

A TBAN would not be fair to Tvx1. The fact that the filing party (aggressor) is already determining the desired solution is a giant red flag.

I am suggesting a TBAN because this dispute has been going on for five years and no-one has been able to resolve it. I am trying to be proactive and provide creative solutions since nothing else has worked. I also think it would be fair on Tvx1 given his habit of wiki-lawyering—case in point, the car numbering discussion where he dragged things out, avoided providing sources, found every reason to ignore given sources, and then changed his entire argument once a different source emerged.

For example, some of the sources that I provided specifically compared the numbering system used in the WRC to that used in Formula 1. Tvx1 is a regular editor of Formula 1 articles, but has never objected to the numbering system used in those articles in the five years since its introduction. Yet we are supposed to believe that once the system is put into the context of the WRC, the phrase "permanent numbers" is too vague for readers to understand? It's a quibble at best, and the edit history of 2020 World Rally Championship shows a string of editors who updated numbers after the consensus was formed, which suggests they understood "permanent numbers" exactly as it was intended. As was pointed out when he was blocked last year, Tvx1 has a habit of wiki-lawyering, lying and misrepresenting things (especially policy). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: why is the burden on me to start an RFC in this case? If you're going to level that criticism at me, then surely it should be levelled at Tvx1 as well. After all, he was the one who disputed the original source and he didn't start an RFC. We both failed equally on that front, but you single me out. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad

Honestly, I'm torn. This discussion (which revisits a previous one) offers hope because editors are trying to negotiate a new outcome, but at the same time, I feel that Tvx1's actions are deliberately counter-productive. I know that he can be a very constructive editor, but his attempts to prevent a discussion from taking place when it could establish a new consensus, his narrow focus of trying to establish and enforce a specific consensus that only applies to one part of an article and his lack of engagement with anything else to do with rallying (such as this article) make me doubt his motives. I want to believe that he has the best interests of the article at heart, but I can't see it. I have repeatedly asked him to contribute to other articles as a show of good faith, but he has never made the effort. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tvx1

I will strongly stress that I never made any action with the intention of harassing or hounding Mclarenfan17 or their previous account Prisonermonkeys. When I decide to join a discussion anywhere I do so because of the subject and I will decide my view based on the arguments and the presented facts, not because of who the participants are. The accusation that I join discussions just to oppose Mclarenfan17 is just simply false. In fact throughout our joint history on Wikipedia there have been plenty of occasions where Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys and I agreed. I have fruitlessly tried to explain this to them for a while. In fact multiple users have questioned their accusations against me (example).

For a start the first paragraph in their statement is simply false. In my entire history spanning over seven years on Wikipedia I have actually only initiated three or four ANI reports against Prisonermonkeys/Mclarenfan17, not nearly as much as they claim. Having searched the ANI archives, the recentmost ANI report I could find in which I directly initiated it against them dates back to when they were still using the Prisonermonkeys account (though it is possible I overlooked one). Moreover these ANI reports have been initiated in the opposite direction as well. In fact they have been warned on occasion not to jump to ANI. Other users have reported them at ANI in the past as well. Very recently another user reported them and multiple reviewers voiced there concerns with Mclarenfan17's attitude. This is an other example of another user seriously questioning their behavior and actually giving them advice on how to improve their ways. The reports in the past were certainly not all unjustified considering that they were blocked for disruptive behavior six times with their original account.

Unfortunately I'm not at all the only user with whom Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys has gotten into heated disputes. In order to get a more thorough view of my interactions on Wikipedia, feel free to ask the opinions of the regulars of the WikiProjects I'm most active at (which are WP:F1, WP:RALLY, WP:MOTOR and, to a lesser extent, WP:Tennis).

With the regards to the ANI thread Mclarenfan17 mentioned during which they requested restrictions being imposed on me, the various people reviewing the claims all disagreed with Mclarenfan17's stance of me being the sole cause of their problems. While restrictions were proposed, there was no agreement to impose any and following the end of that discussion, we didn't have any serious problems until a discussion regarding driver numbers in rallying enrolled over the last month. That discussion was not started by me at all and I was for from the only one involved. In fact no one in that discussion agreed with Mclarenfan17.

Lastly the administrator they contacted is not just "an administrator". It is a specific administrator who imposed a severe block on me last summer (one of only two blocks I have incurred in my over seven year history here) and as result of which I have a really bad reputation with since, which is a fact Mclarenfan17 is well aware of. In fact it was not the first time they contacted said administrator to complain about me. This is a situation of grave concern to me, especially since the notoriously bad reputation I have with that administrator and which I seem not to be able to improve despite having completely respected the restrictions that were imposed on me upon my block being lifted.T v x1 04:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Robert McClenon and Xeno

It would be difficult for me to agree to a topic ban or interaction ban, because it would lock me out of editing a topic I want to contribute to (in fact I fear that the latter would prevent me of editing all the topics I'm most active at). Moreover, as Robert Mclenon acknowledged in the recent ANI report against Mclarenfan17 filed by another WP:Rally regular, the problem is much more complicated than just Mclarenfan17 versus me. I'm not at all the only wikipedian the filing party gets into quarrels with.T v x1 16:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad

I'm certainly willing to take part in a mediation attempt. I agree with you that these are minor content disputes, and therefore I'm really disappointed that the only advice the aforementioned administrator gave to the filing party was to escalate this here, and I'm convinced we can work this out without the requirement to impose editing restrictions.T v x1 16:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Alanscottwalker

As I have already stated in my reply to Newyorkbrad, I'm certainly willing to take part in a mediation attempt.T v x1 22:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Softlavender

Of course RFC remains a useful and efficient tool to resolve these content disputes, and I'm more than willing to continue to use it to try and resolve such situations. Though, I must admit that WP:RALLY is a niche subject and it hasn't always been easy to generate enough participation in a RFC there to provide a helpful outcome. I have however found that two other more simply ways have been rather efficient to provide an even simpeler solution to difficult discussions involving the filer. The first one is to simply ask an uninvolved person to assess and close the discussion at hand through posting a formal request for closure. Because of the considerable amount of requests that are posted there, it does require some patience. But the formal consensi that these provide generally serve to resolve matters. Unfortunately though the filer sometimes still didn't compromise and even such a consensus invalid. The second way that mostly provides resolution is a way that applies to discussions involving events in the near future. In a such a case often new information is published while the discussion takes place, providing an answer to the question that was posed and thus bringing a natural closure to the discussion. The latter situation is also one where a RFC isn't always efficient, as the 30-day default length of such a RFC would often exceed the time frame in which the publication of vital new information is expected.T v x1 22:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Davey2010

I beg to disagree with that. That just seems like a solution just to a have quick decision and action. As a considerable number of the people making statements here have observed, there is more to this story than just Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys not getting along with me. Therefore it would be better that if this case were accepted, that it is accepted fully so that a full proper look can be taken into the entire situation. That would the better option for the community.T v x1 17:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad's update

As I have expressed in my initial reply to you, I'm more than willing to keep trying to get along. There is no reason why I wouldn't be. I still believe that arbitration isn't actually necessary.T v x1 17:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chris.sherlock

No judgement from me, I can see Mclarenfan17 feel frustrated by edits on a topic he is clearly passionate about. However, I can see a number of discussions that seem somewhat argumentative. I do compliment Mclarenfan17 for not resorting to personal attacks (at least not that I can see!), and I can see at least one case where he was provoked. However, it does seem to me that the issues aren’t hugely major.

I can actually see that issues by multiple editors were brought to ANI, and not just TV1. I don't think a topic ban is helpful but could you at least acknowledge that there might be something you need to consider about your actions that made others take you to ANI?

FWIW, I love your passion on motorsports. It’s just a pity that your good work is being overshadowed by conflicts with other editors.

Tvx1 also not judging you, but in this case you were asked for a source. It would have been nice if you had responded with the source... forgive me if I missed something.

I have had another look into this case. I don't believe that it would be helpful to setup a TBAN on either party, but I cannot say after looking at the evidence that Tvx1 ever wikihounded Mclarenfan17. Once of the examples that is given is this edit, but that was just Tvx1 asking to close down the thread. This doesn't look like wikihounding to me, it wasn't actually Tvx1 who introduced it to AN/I either. In fact, as much as it pains me, I don't think that the AN/I complaints are invalid. Mclarenfan17, I have been discussing this on my talk page as I was hoping I might mediate but I cannot say that you have been wikihounded. This comes down to a content dispute, and it was discussed in detail at WikiProject Motorspot. Whilst lots of discussion was had, but it remained inconclusive. I am very much an outsider to the dispute, but I'm afraid that I also am not clear on the "permanent number" dispute. In actual fact, it looks like the rules about assigning numbers were not actually changed (I checked the WRC rules for 2019 and 2020 and they didn't change, however in 2018 the rules for number changes did occur - unfortunately the rules for 2019 and 2020 say that the drivers still must apply for their numbers season by season so the rule change was to allow the drivers to pick their number for the season and apply for them to the FIA and the promoter).

I think that unfortunately, in this case I suspect that despite the genuine attempts by Mclarenfan17 to determine how numbering works, it appears that his assertions are sufficiently and reasonably disputed by numerous other participants. Indeed, as a non-subject matter expert, it also appears to me that Mclarenfan17 may not be understanding how the seasonal numbering works post-2018.

I do not think that a TBAN would be in any way appropriate. I do think the only way to resolve this is that if multiple people tell someone on the sporting articles that they don't believe that one person's interpretation of something is correct that, so long as it has been debated fairly (and this did happen in this case) that they not be allowed to force through their view on things.

I realise that Mclarenfan17 may not be happy with me saying this, but I genuinely cannot do not believe that Tvx1 should be banned from any topic, nor do I believe that this user has been mean, intimidating or rude towards Mclarenfan17. It would not be fair to Tvx1 to ban him from any topics whatsoever.

The proposed solution that Mclarenfan17 wants can be found in the ANI archives. I don't believe that they are at all fair, and I don't believe that any TBANs should be in place, only an undertaking by Mclarenfan17 should bide by overwhelming consensus. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is a long-running dispute between two editors. As a minor point, I would suggest that its title be changed either to Tvx1 or to Motorsports. It isn't about harassment in general, but a specific claim of harassment. There is, in my opinion, no need for the ArbCom to hold a full evidentiary case. ArbCom has two choices. The less preferred but acceptable choice would be to decline this request and send it back to the community. The last time it went to the community at WP:ANI, it was archived without action, and that is likely to happen again. The best action by the ArbCom, in my opinion, would be by motion to impose an interaction ban between these two editors.

I have had repeated dealings with User:Mclarenfan17 and with their former account User:Prisonermonkeys at DRN. The most recent such case was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_179#Talk:2019_World_Rally_Championship . I had to dismiss that request from DRN because the filing party argued, both in that thread and at my talk page , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_26#DRN_discussion, that the conduct issue had to be addressed; but DRN is not a conduct forum. (I am not sure why they went to DRN at all.)

The filing party then went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Harrassment_by_an_editor , which was archived without administrative action.

There is a problem here, long-running hostility between two editors. ArbCom can choose to let the community deal with it, which may cause more drama. On the other hand, since the community has had opportunities to deal with it and has let it go by, I suggest that ArbCom deal with it summarily by imposing an interaction ban between these two editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Newyorkbrad

I have no special knowledge of motorsport, but have tried to mediate one of the content disputes. In my opinion, the issue was a matter of how to organize content, rather than of content as such, and I thought that the filing party was being unnecessarily stubborn. I do not think that these content disputes can be mediated, because there is a lack of willingness to compromise. The dispute that I dealt with was resolved by RFC. I think that this is a case where either the community or the ArbCom will have to tell the parties to stop disturbing the community with their quarrels, and the least bad way to do this will be an interaction ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Softlavender and User:Casliber

Softlavender raises a valid point, that User:Mclarenfan17 is the more aggressive of the two editors, and Cas Liber asks about their relative contributions to encyclopedic content. In my opinion, the disputes usually have to do with formatting. Content will not suffer much from any combination of interaction ban and topic ban. In view of the unequal amount of fault (and I agree with SoftLavender), I am now thinking that a one-sided topic ban against McLarenfan17 would be an alternative. While a full fact-finding process would benefit the community, I think that the benefit would be less than the value of the volunteer time of both the arbitrators and the parties, so that a slightly suboptimal result of either an IBAN or a one-sided TBAN is acceptable.

I do not think that mediation will work unless the mediator has a Sword of Damocles. RFCs will work if a mediator has a Sword of Damocles. A sub-optimal result with the sword can be tolerated. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fastily

Most of what I was planning to say has already been said by Robert McClenon, so I'll keep my comments short. As past ANI/DRN threads have demonstrated, there's (unsurprisingly) little community interest in meditating this long-running dispute. There does also appear to be some hounding/harassment going on, and IMO the best outcome would be for ArbCom to handle this by motion (e.g. 2-way IBAN). -FASTILY 21:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Past attempts to resolve the dispute via ANI/DRN ended in failure. What evidence do you have to suggest that the next time will be different? -FASTILY 04:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Based on the comments here I think there are two possible motions that would allow these two editors to both remain productive contributors to the encyclopaedia if enacted either individually or together.

A two-way interaction ban.
A topic ban for Tvx1 from Rallying and a topic ban for Mclarenfan17 from motorsport except rallying (all topics broadly interpreted).

I agree with pretty much everyone that a full case is unnecessary here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

What Thryduulf said. These are not bad people, they just don't get along. Guy (help!) 15:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OhKayeSierra

It's apparent from past interactions and past attempts to resolve the dispute through DRN and AN/I have failed. I believe that the best path forward would be for the committee to handle this by motion, as Thryduulf and Fastily suggested. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

If you can find a mediator, preferably one that has mediator-cabal experience, the party or parties who are not willing to mediate in good faith, should be banned. Disruption of good faith mediation will be met by blocks. The mediator should have the scope, if any issue proves intractable and cannot be satisfactorily addressed by having the parties construct good and successful RfC's, they will report here or at AN on the parties' failings including failings in seeking compromise, and make recommendations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fecotank

As somebody who has had quite a few run ins with User:Mclarenfan17, my overall feeling is that he enjoys confrontation and is unwilling to accept when he in the minority. E.g. this case (through both his current account and the 1.129 and 1.144 series IPs), he continued to fight (and abuse), even though all others editors had disagreed with his stance. Or this one, arguing against a snow close, that was clearly only going to go one way. I have no problem in someone having a differing opinion, and being prepared to robustly state their case, but there does come a point to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

For all the insistence that User:Tvx1 back up his claims with cites, when he was asked to do likewise in this case, Mclarenfan17 danced around the issue. Even though Mclarenfan17 is trying to portray himself as the good guy, he isn’t. When caught evading a block, rather than just saying fair cop I did it, taking the punishment and moving on, tries to bluff his way out of it. Not surprisingly no-one bought it. Fecotank (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I'd like to point out that the three people with knowledge of the matter who have posted so far all agree that the (most?) problematic party is Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys. No one agrees that any harassment or wikihounding has occurred. Considering all three observers agree that Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys is the aggressor, it is telling that he is the party who opened this case accusing someone who disagrees with him content-wise of harassing or wikihounding him.

I'm concerned about a few things: (1) The issues at hand are content issues, and apparently full of minutiae. (2) A mutual IBAN is subject to gaming, particularly by the more aggressive party. (3) In terms of the numbering issue (discussed by Chris.sherlock above), apparently most editors disagree with Mclarenfan17/Prisonermonkeys, but he won't drop the stick. Why has an RFC not been implemented? Why is this one editor allowed to disrupt Wikipedia at such length? (4) A TBAN would not be fair to Tvx1. The fact that the filing party (aggressor) is already determining the desired solution is a giant red flag.

I strongly suggest that no TBANs or IBANs be enacted without a full case. I also strongly suggest that instead of an ArbCom case or repeated ANI reports, that these editors resolve their content disputes with RFCs instead of creating disruption.

In short, I don't encourage accepting this case (especially not if ArbCom is busy or something that actually merits a case comes up), but by no means should any mutual sanctions be enacted by motion instead of a case.

PS: The participants in WP:F1, WP:RALLY, WP:MOTOR should really be opining here or or if a case occurs. Softlavender (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Well, the filer is still on his "I'm right, and Tvx1 is wrong" premise, and does not understand how RFCs work or why. That's why he wants to push Tvx1 out of the picture, when simple RFCs for every point of dispute could have saved us all of this ridiculous amount of time and text and energy. I think the thing to do is to force an RFC for every point of dispute between these two parties, and forbid them to dispute further between themselves without RFCs. These are all content disputes (even formatting is content), and the RFC is the standard way to resolve them. Not ArbCom.

PS: Why are the clerks allowing such an extreme abuse of wordcount on this case? Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I don't think that shooting from the hip is a good idea. If you are going to implement any topic bans, evidence should be taken and a decision made when one or both editors have been editing problematically. Be careful not to sanction an innocent editor. Once in a while a dispute comes along that the community can't resolve. This seems like a case where it will be useful for the Committee to provide a detailed analysis. This may help the community resolve other, similar cases, and it may help the parties better understand how to behave. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

The simplest solution here is to resolve by motion and start with a 2-way IBAN. Allow these two editors to work free of each other and let's see the results. A mutual topic ban should be a last resort after an IBAN has proved ineffective. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

Happened to come across this case by accident so I'll leave a quickish comment. I've sometimes seen various disputes between these editors at ANI and haven't generally gotten very involved.

One time I did get involved was here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#User:Mclarenfan17. That case involved Mclarenfan17 but did not significantly involve Tvx1 AFAIK. My impression from that case wasn't particularly positive of Mclarenfan17. They seemed to bring up allegations about other editors (including Tvx1) but didn't really provide much evidence.

Maybe more importantly, the content or really formatting dispute seemed silly. It seemed to be between these 2 versions [2] [3]. Whether to group the teams together or not. As I understood it, there was some consensus both for that article and historically to group the drivers under teams, and to me it made sense anyway. Mclaren17 was concerned because the structure of one team was uncertain, especially which drivers would be eligible for points. (There was also talk of a possible B team but that mostly seemed to get ignored.) Those were reasonable concerns, but as I pointed out in the talk page Talk:2020 World Rally Championship#Entries table, as a reader unfamiliar with the subject, Mclaren17's preferred version did not seem to convey this uncertain. It seemed to me there were ways, like the use of footnotes which would convey the uncertainty while keeping the team grouping.

It was true that User:Pelmeen10's preferred version seemed to suggest something which wasn't supported by the sources, I tried to resolve that here [4]. So I do also fault Pelmeen10 for not recognising the problem and trying to come up with a solution to that particular issue although perhaps Mclaren17's manner of approach didn't help. I also found, and this applies equally to both parties, that the whole thing was a little silly. By the time it made it to ANI it seemed likely the uncertainty would be resolved in less than a month so frankly it wasn't a big deal either way. And sure enough, it seems to be resolved now.

I do agree that Tvx1 and Mclaren17 really can't seem to get along, and I'm doubtful it's one sided. But I also get the feeling from what I've seen Mclaren17 has problems with other editors, at least Pelmeen10 and maybe others. And this is more so than Tvx1 has problems with other editors. Which while far from conclusive this is concerning.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pelmeen10

I am one of the few rally editors, and I can tell three of us: me + the 2 involved editors are the most active users on rally discussions. That's the first reason I see no gain from IBAN. How can we solve problems with removing one participant? We need to discuss things openly, and probably time-to time bring in some uninvolved editors (Rfc-s). I totally agree with this about Mclarenfan. Though my biggest problem with the user is when some content he adds is not directly sourced for the current season, and later it happens to be false (has happened a bunch of times). Now I try to remove those parts, because wrong info is not good for Wikipedia's reputation (funnily he then asks me sources to support my removal). Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest? 1RR for both in rally articles and suggestion to keep their heads cool because there is no wikihounding or personal attacks. I see this as a 1-side complaint, not some serious conflict. But the problems start and escalate with them editwarring. IBan should be considered when their discussions would be way more personal. Are the discussions currently really so bad? And I want to say sorry for again wasting admins time over this minor issue. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

Resolve by motion and enforce an IBAN between both editors, That's the best solution here imho. –Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I can see absolutely no reason here for a topic ban on Tvx1; indeed I would go as far to say it would be ludicrous. An IBAN is quite enough. Black Kite (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {uninvolved editor}

Harrassment and wiki-hounding: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Do yinz want to accept and then close by motion or decline and pass a motion? The only difference is how things are logged --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment and wiki-hounding: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <6/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I have done what I can to review this request, although it is difficult, because I am not familiar with the world of rally racing and neither party's presentation makes clear exactly what the dispute is about. Overall, my impression is that we have a series of relatively minor content disputes, with an overlay of disharmony between these two editors that has existed for too long. For example, the most recent content dispute involves whether the new system of driver numbers introduced at the beginning of 2019 is based upon "permanent" numbers (meaning that a driver's number would remain the same for the driver's entire career unless the driver made a point of changing it), or "seasonal" numbers (meaning that the numbers can change each year, although as a practical matter most wouldn't). A disagreement over the answer to this question, which will inevitably become clearer over time as there is more experience with the new numbering system, is not the sort of thing that should need to be dragged to the noticeboards and culminate in editors seeking sanctions against one another. I would put into the same category the prior content dispute over whether certain results tables for rally teams should display two rows of results or three. I don't mean to belittle the importance of our coverage of rally sports—I have seen equal passions about editing of baseball or football or chess topics—and I do note some prior unsuccessful attempts at dispute resolution. However, it is possible that an administrator or other experienced editor with subject-matter knowledge and mediation skills could try to help sort this out before we have to formally vote on it as an arbitration case? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated comment: It has now been a few weeks since this request was filed, and I am interested in whether, with the parties being on the brink of an ArbCom motion or case, they have been able to get along better or whether they feel ArbCom action is still necessary. I would appreciate if each of the two parties would post a brief (less than 200 words) update on whether they still believe a case or motion is warranted or whether they now believe they would be able to get along. If the parties think action is needed then I will vote either to accept a case or to support a motion. If the parties agree to make another attempt to get along, I will vote to decline the case with the understanding that if problems persist in a few weeks they can return here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging Mclarenfan17 in case he didn't see my request above (which would be quite forgiveable given that it's buried in the middle of this section). Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<Fond memories of a time when we had functioning mediation committees and cabals> NYB/Robert McClenon: thank you for the analysis. My concern regarding an interaction ban would be the shared interests. Mclarenfan17/Tvx1: would a mutual interaction ban be a healthy step forward? Is it possible to stay out of each other’s way in the motorsports topic space? –xeno^talk 03:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So we actually have net 4 acceptance for some days, but two of those indicated a desire to resolve by motion, SoWhy somewhat explicitly so. I will try to take another look tonight. SoWhy: Did you have a motion in mind? Does your accept also count towards accepting a full case, as AGK (and Casliber, mildly) don't seem to favour the motion route? –xeno^talk 18:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  If the choice is only between decline and accept, I would be in favor of accepting but I still don't think it's necessary. As for a motion, I'll add a proposal below for discussion. Regards So Why 08:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender: Given the request is somewhat non-standard, there has been some back and forth questions, so advised the clerks not to be too concerned if the wordcount was exceeded primarily due to answering questions. –xeno^talk 18:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still considering whether ArbCom intervention would be useful here; I'm feeling that if we are, we may be able to sidestep a full case and handle this by motion. In the meantime, @Mclarenfan17: I see you have suggested a sort of novel approach to a topic ban, which you describe as acting like a de facto interaction ban. Can you explain why you feel that would be preferable to a two-way interaction ban? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept ~~, with a preference that we resolve this by motion.~~ GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Striking my preference that we resolve this by motion—I have no objections to a full case, especially if other arbitrators and community members feel it is necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything here that rises to the level of harassment or wikihounding, but it is clear these two editors do not get along. Would the parties please comment on whether a mutual 2-way interaction ban would allow you both to contribute productively and peacefully? – bradv🍁 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was willing to impose a simple 2-way IBAN if both editors were agreeable, but from the comments here that doesn't sound like a workable solution. Accept, although I think it will need to be a full case. – bradv🍁 01:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline At a fundamental level, this revolves around a content issue we cannot resolve. I'm not convinced an IBAN would work given the niche the issue is in. Either ANI or mediation seem like the only paths forward. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think this dispute could benefit from arbitration. The accusations of misconduct are a little too complex for ANI; the conduct complaints make discussing the content issues ineffective; and a binding decision would bring stability back to the topic area. Suggesting mediation by someone experienced and impartial (per Newyorkbrad) comes to mind, but I see Robert McClenon did that at ANI and DRN. Although accepting narrow cases is unusual for the committee, I would be declining this request merely so as to ask the parties to try again at ANI, which is unlikely to be the right venue. As for accepting and handling by motion, I think this matter needs a proper evidence phase; if it did not then ANI would have worked and, I suspect, we would not all be here today. Accept. AGK ■ 09:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
accept - the fact this has taken place over five years suggest that our current dispte resolution mechanisms are not resolving it nor investigating conduct issues, some of which are outlined by Fecotank above. It may be that one editor is subtantially more at fault than the other, which an IBan would be unfair as a solution. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: (or/and anyone else familiar with the disputants) are you confident that their conduct with respect to encyclopedic content is equivalent? i.e. one is not violating standards on verifiability or NPOV more than the other? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I read so far, I agree that there is a problem but I don't believe a full case is strictly required at this point. I suggest we accept and resolve this by motion per Robert McClenon's analysis and suggestion, imposing an two-way IBAN, appealable after six months by either editor. Should problems persist with the IBAN in place, we can revisit opening a full case. Regards So Why 10:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accept with a preference to resolve with the motion below. I really don't see how other dispute resolution options have been exhausted here – there's one ANI thread that was quickly bludgeoned by walls of text from the two parties. However, the solution is obvious—a 2-way IBAN—and we can do that just as well as ANI. If we can't pass the motion, then a full case it is. – Joe (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. and, since we cannot agree on whether to do it by motion or a full case, we need a full case. Tjough I personally would have preferred doing it by motion, doing it by motion when there is the current amount of disagreement among us doesn't seem right DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motion to close

This motion is currently for discussion purposes. It is not ready for voting.

Suggested wording

The case request is accepted under the title Mclarenfan17 and Tvx1 and resolved by motion as follows.

Two-way interaction ban

Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs) and Tvx1 (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This ban can be appealed by either user after six months have elapsed.

Topic-ban

Mclarenfan17 is topic-banned from the articles about motorsports, broadly construed. This topic-ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed.
Tvx1 is topic-banned from the articles about motorsports, broadly construed. This topic-ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed.

Comments

I think the iban might be enough but I added a topic-ban for discussion purposes. Regards So Why 08:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wording seems fine, but I voted to accept because holding an evidence phase helps us clarify how to solve the underlying problem. I have no idea whether this remedy is right and at least one of the disputants is protesting this solution. The summary motion being discussed makes the arbitration request go away but our objective is taking the right decision, and making the problem go away in the long term. Do we understand the dispute fully enough to be capable of rendering the right decision? Holding an evidence phase is the accepted way of making our decision-making processes safer and I would prefer opening a case. Enough arbitrators support doing so. I would be open to handing down a temporary injunction, granting us time to conduct the process, but I think we should be cautious about rushing into any decision. AGK ■ 08:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In general I tend to support the use of i bans for a interpersonal dispute, and t bans as well for a dispute originally over content that becomes an interpersonal dispute. I wonder , though, whether it would be practical to limit the t ban to rallying, which might meet the objections of one of the parties. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I can comment here, but I have to say that applying a t-ban in Tvx would be a massive injustice. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv and DGG: I'm not sure either who should be commenting here, can this be clarified in the header (such as "Comments by arbitrators" or "Community discussion", or split into two sections if desired). --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it matters too much in this case, but I think it's probably better if comments are made in the form of statements so they don't get missed. – bradv🍁 16:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Grenell text

Initiated by Datamaster1 (talk) at 04:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Datamaster1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
MelanieN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NedFausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[5]
[6]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Datamaster1

I have attempted to resolve an issue in the most respectful way possible. There is a dispute on wording in the article Richard Grenell. I attempted to contact the editor I was having an issue with and we moved it to the talk page. We are engaged in edit wars on the page itself and the talk page. I did a Rfc and she has reverted it multiple times. I am trying to get input from the community and want the article to reflect accuracy. I think the comment made by NedFausa insinuating that she not take my concerns into consideration is counter-productive. I just want the article to be accurate. I think an Rfc would be appropriate given the disagreements as the community should be able to comment. There is no policy saying that Rfc is not allowed here.

I have notified the other participants.

Update - The page has been protected due to edit warring. I think it's important to note that not only are the edits being reverted with regards to the comments made on the issue of first gay cabinet member but now subsequent edits that are not even relevant are being reverted not in good faith.

Statement by MelanieN

Well, I apologize to you folks for this intrusion. Datamaster is new here so I have been inclined to AGF and give him credit for just overzealousness rather than outright disruption, but this quest of his is getting ridiculous. Here is the issue: I added sourced information to the Richard Grenell article saying that he is the first openly gay cabinet member. Datamaster removed it, saying that the position of Director of National Intelligence isn’t a cabinet member. He then started a formal RfC at the talk page. I converted the RfC to a regular discussion, explaining that per WP:RFCBEFORE we are supposed to try normal discussion before undertaking an RfC. He restored the RfC tag; I removed it again; that is the RfC part of his complaint here.

At the talk page I cited five Reliable Sources describing Grenell as a cabinet member. I restored the information to the article, but I changed the wording to “person in a cabinet-level position,” to humor Datamaster. At the talk page I asked Datamaster what he thought of that wording; he deleted my question without replying.[7] Another user, NedFausa, came to the talk page and agreed that “cabinet-level position” was a good way to put it. But that wasn't consensus enough for Datamaster, and he dismissed the Reliable Sources. I guess he hopes that if more people join the discussion they might agree with him.

Datamaster wants to use the invented phrase “ranking-member of the cabinet” to express his insistence that DNI is not a real cabinet member. In despite of the talk page discussion, he inserted that phrase into the Grenell article [8] as well as the article Director of National Intelligence,[9]. and when NedFausa reverted it (pointing out that the issue was under discussion), Datamaster pasted an EW warning on his talk page. Now Datamaster is bringing it here for arbitration, although this is clearly the wrong place for it. (Maybe he was looking for Third Opinion?) I leave it up to you folks what to do next. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking a little more about it: this Arbitration request was opened awfully skillfully for a newcomer. I wonder if it might be worthwhile doing a troll check? Any CUs think that is appropriate here? -- MelanieN (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NedFausa

This is a spurious, misplaced request for arbitration submitted by the novice Datamaster1. I apologize to administrators and other editors who must waste their time disposing of what is otherwise unworthy even of comment. NedFausa (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Something wrong here. The filer (assuming it's not a sock) started editing Wikipedia only yesterday & is calling on Arbcom to settle a content dispute? GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Filer is not suppose to comment or respond in the Arbitrators' section. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FlightTime

The reporting user is new and is only interested in their agenda, which falls into WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked with that rational, otherwise Datamaster1 needs to drop the stick. - FlightTime (open channel) 05:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

On the face of it, it looks as if Datamaster1 has descended from the Reichstag and this can be closed. Guy (help!) 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Richard Grenell text: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Richard Grenell text: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Decline. This appears to be very premature, as dispute resolution has not been attempted outside of the article talk page. Datamaster1, if you are having a problem on a talk page, WP:AN or WP:ANI is a good place to get another set of eyes on it. ArbCom is the last resort, not the first. I would also urge you to stop editing pages while conflicts like this are ongoing, even if the page is not at your preferred state—it only serves to further disruptive edit warring and block constructive discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I have no objections to the case request being withdrawn. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as a content dispute and as premature for arbitration in any event. If an RfC is wanted, ArbCom isn't needed to convene it and this page isn't the place to hold it. (Although ArbCom doesn't decide content disputes, since we're here, I will add that the content dispute is purely semantic. The term "Cabinet" is ambiguous and does not have a single definition. The D.N.I. position is considered part of the Cabinet or as Cabinet-level in some contexts (e.g. attending Cabinet meetings) but not others (e.g. presidential succession). Historically, only the "heads of the executive departments" were called Cabinet members. The practice of designating some other high-ranking officials as Cabinet-level began with the Eisenhower administration, has varied from administration to administration, has never been codified, and leaves even historians and presidential libraries in disagreement as to who was or wasn't in the Cabinet at any given time (see, e.g., here). Given that there is a real-world ambiguity as to whether the D.N.I. is "a member of the Cabinet" or not, it seems silly to bicker about it on Wikipedia; it should be possible to agree on wording, including if necessary a link or footnote explaining why the answer is not entirely clear. "Cabinet-level position" seems a sensible suggestion, by the way, while terminology newly created for Wikipedia is quite unlikely to be the best solution.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Datamaster1: Clearly this is not going to be accepted for arbitration at this point. It looks like progress is being made in the talkpage discussion. Would you be willing to withdraw this request? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad Yes I was actually just looking for the policy on how to do that! Datamaster1 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I vote to archive the request as withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. Clearly premature and primarily a content dispute. – Joe (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline because appropriate wording for the article is easily within reach. Arbitration could be unsuited for this matter (we do not adjudicate questions of content) and resorting to it certainly would be premature in any case. I also agree with GorillaWarfare. AGK ■ 12:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Datamaster1: Thanks. When time permits, the clerks will be removing this request as withdrawn pursuant to WP:AC/P#Withdrawn case requests. You do not need to do anything further now. AGK ■ 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]