User:BaronLarf/Arbitration with SummerFR

Summary

This is a summary of the conflict between SummerFR and myself over the Jeb Bush article. I believe that at all times I displayed civility in my actions while aiming for a comprehensive and neutral article on the Floridian governor. I worked hard to not bite the newbie, and went out of my way to explain every action that I was taking, with references to the Wikipedia policies to back myself up.

Basis of the original dispute:

• the POV statements in the article
• the posting of low-quality, copyrighted images into the article

In addition to those original concerns, I have additional concerns at this point about SummerFR's lack of common courtesy throughout the dispute, accusing me of harrassing her while writing vicious comments about me around Wikipedia. ([1], among other places)

Instead of trying to work together on the article, SummerFR seems to view any edits of Jeb Bush as interference and attempts to talk with her as harrassment. If any user has suggestions on how I could have better handled this situation, please let me know on this page's talk page.

Thank you.

Timeline of dispute

Initial dispute on Jeb Bush

First edits on Jeb Bush, dialog on Talk:Jeb Bush, dialog on User talk:BaronLarf and User talk:SummerFR

I came upon the Jeb Bush article on April 23, 2005. I noticed some serious POV problems, as well as sections that needed to be formatted to conform to the WP:MoS. I editted the pages [2] [3]. While I have a basic knowledge of who Jeb Bush is, I am not familiar enough with his critics to even out the article. I therefore posted on the talk page that the article needed some NPOV'ing [4] . At this point I also tried to gently point out that SummerFR had been doing hundreds of little edits on the page in the last few days, and suggested that she try using the preview button more so that the history wasn't clogged up, etc.

When I looked at the pictures on the page, I realized that many of them were of low quality and also seemed to have been taken straight from the [5] webpage. I knew that this probably wasn't a good thing, so I mentioned it on the talk page [6].

At this point, SummerFR undid many of the revisions that I had just made on the page, so I manually went through the article and put back many of the wikifications. A quick glance at the history showed that SummerFr had editted the page 14 more times in the last hour, but I reverted only the last 5, which had undone my wikifications. In the comment, I directed her to reply on the article's talk page if he had any problems with the edits so we could discuss it. I also left a message on her talk page letting him know what I had done.[7]

SummerFR replied to reference her talk page, saying basically that someone else had already worked on the format, the photo issue had been resolved, and that I should look at her talk page for more information.[8] I replied by coping over a comment that had been made on her talk page by FreplySpang requesting information about the photographs, but that I could not see any resolution to the issue. I listed the photographs in question. [9]

In 22 subsequent edits over the next five hours, SummerFR made many additions to the article, in addition to undoing many of my changes to the wikification of the first two sections.[10] I then manually went through and re-wikified the first two sections of the article again, referring in my comment to see the talk page.[11] This was not a revert, as I did not undo any of the editions she had made to the article. I then commented on the talk page, providing links to different wikipedia style guides showing why I had done what I had done.[12] I also tried to let her know that we were not trying to impede his progress, only trying to work towards a quality article.

An hour later, SummerFR undid many of my changes again.[13] At this point, I stopped making any edits of the Jeb Bush page, since I could see it was descending into an edit war. (The only change that I ever made to the article again was a minor wikification of a word in a caption fifteen hours later. [14])

SummerFR then left me a message on my talk page accusing me of breaking the three reverts rule and instructing me to stop editing the page, saying that it was annoying her.[15] I replied to her that I had not broken the 3-revert rule, and gave her a link to a description of the rule.[16]

I could tell that I was getting mad, so I took a break from anything having to do with the page for the day.

Attempts to get other users involved

I did not want to stifle SummerFR's enthusiasm, but I wanted to get some more people onto the article to have a look at it. Since she was a new user, I was trying to take pains not to alienate her, so I did not take the page to RfC yet. So, the next day, I left messages on the talk pages of several editors who had been involved in the article in the past, seeking their input.

• Eloquence ([17])
• Minesweeper ([18])
• Sekicho ([19])
• Jez ([20])
• Joy Stovall ([21])
• FreplySpang ([22])

Continued dialog

On the Jeb Bush talk page, SummerFR had requested that FreplySpang and I detail exactly which parts of the article we had NPOV problems with.[23] I replied that my problem wasn't with any one section, but rather the tone in general. I listed a few phrases, though, as requested. I tried to be as courteous as possible, reiterating that I was not trying to pester him, only help form a quality article. I even apologized for waiting to reply till the next day.[24]

SummerFR replied on the talk page accusing me of not paying attention to his arguments, saying that I must just not approve of Jeb Bush as a subject, and asking me what my problem with Republican articles was.[[25]

I replied to SummerFR requesting that she calm down, and attempting to answer all of her concerns. I echoed what FreplySpang had written on his talk page, recommending that she write the article on her user space and post it when she was finished if she didn't want her editting interrupted. [26]

Peer Review

At this point, I submitted the article for peer review ([[27]]. In retrospect, this was a bad decision. I knew that the point of the page was for pages that were trying to reach feature-article status (which I know Jeb Bush could), but I had thought that this would be a good place to get outside review. Now I realize that the dispute had gotten too big for this page, plus the article is not far enough to go there.

SummerFR disagreed with the Peer Review listing, writing on the Peer Review page that I had been harassing her, among other things. [28] At this point I wanted to remove the peer review listing, but I was afraid that if I did so, I would be accused of trying to silence her or something along those lines. (I later removed the peer review listing after being requested to by Bishonen.)

Listing on List of controversial issues

SummerFR listed the page on WP:LCI, including the statement "some people here at wikipedia do not want him to receive any credit for any of his achievements."[29] After I removed his statement and alphabetized it,[[30] SummerFR then wrote on that page "there are some people here who don't want anyone to know anything about any one of the many accomplishments of JEB BUSH, so they constantly harass me, and have already once edited out the reason I am posting this topic here." The comments on his edit were "reason I posted JEB BUSH here now restored, after being vandalized and edited out."([31])

I feel that this is a real breach of wikiquette, if not something worse, but I don't want to get into an edit war, so I will let someone else choose what to do about this listing.

Listing Jeb Bush on WP:RfC

I listed the article on WP:RfC, giving what I believe was a neutral statement on what the concerns were.[32]

SummerFR then added to my listing the following: "NON-STOP HARASSMENT BY THE PERSON WHO POSTED THE PREVIOUS." [33]

Although I believe this was a breach of wikiquette, if nothing else, I let it stand for someone else to remove to keep an edit war from forming. Eventually Bishonen did remove SummerFR's additions.

Attempt at dialog rebuffed

I again attempted to talk to SummerFR on his talk page, telling her that his comments on the other pages were not necessary, and we should keep our dispute to the talk pages.[34] Se replied "Leave me alone." [35]

SummerFR copied all of her posts from the Peer Review page onto the Jeb Bush talk page, writing on the comments "More harassment by BaronLarf".[36]

I replied on the Jeb Bush talk page that I was unsure how I was harassing anyone, reiterating why I was concerned about the photos and that her email did not need to be posted again, and informing her that I had listed the page on RfC.[37]

SummerFR replied on the Jeb Bush talk page "Leave me alone." [38]

Arbitration requested

The next day, SummerFR attempted to open up an arbitration hearing on me.[39].

She informed me on my talk page, stating "I am leaving this message to notify you, as required by the artbitration rules, that I have asked for arbitration in this matter concerniing your harasssment of me re the JEB BUSH article. Please do not write me back. Thank you." [40]

I visited the RfC page and could tell that the request was improperly formatted, but I wasn't about to help someone in their attempt to open arbitration against me. I knew that I needed to show I had received notice, so I replied on my own talk page. [41]

Attempt to refute allegations by SummerFR

I apologize for the length; SummerFR has leveled many accusations, and I'm trying to cover all of them, even though none of hers are accompanied by evidence.

• It also appears to me that AFTER I notified Bartlarf of the Arbitration, he went to the JEB BUSH article discussion page and suddenly edited in new text, in a COVER UP, to make it look like he was discussing the article with me all along, when in fact he was not

I have never tried to cover up anything on the talk page; I encourage users to look at the history page. All of my posts are also clearly timestamped.

• I know for a fact I am right about this point I made in my statement: BaronLarf, who is claiming a remarkable new interest in Jeb Bush, previously described himself as someone who finds it impossible to be neutral about George Bush, saying: "trying to make articles on Geroge W Bush neutral really makes me want to scream..."

Wikipedians do not need to show why they're interested in an article. I did indeed edit my user page after it seemed to confused SummerFR, but this was no attempt at a cover up. What do I have to hide? (Difference in user page: [42])

• My explaination is that a respondent like Bartlarf who wants to "scream" at articles on Jeb Bush's brother -- and publicly proclaims his need to stay away from that article subject because it is impossible for the respondent to be neutral -- should then not have been on the Jeb Bush article, by his own admission. (etc., etc)

I wanted to scream at the GWB article because of the difficulty of editing a highly-contentious article with many people who have strong convictions while at the same time trying to ward off the vandals. Other people seem to have a handle on it, so I mostly bowed out. I think that I have demonstrated a great deal of patience putting up with this entire matter on the Jeb Bush article; saying that negotiation with me would be fruitless doesn't seem to make much sense.

I do have an interest in articles on politicians, but I have shown time and again to be interested in a neutral and fair presentation. For instance, on the Russ Feingold article which SummerFR talks about, I took a page which read like a press release [43] and helped to shape it into a more neutral article. I stopped an edit war [44], talked things through on the page with others [45], and with others slowly edited the controversial portions away [46]. When a vandal put in unsupportable allegations that Feingold cheated on his wife, I reverted those.[47] Perhaps it confuses SummerFR that a person who calls himself a Republican is attempting to take a neutral view on Republicans and Democrats without trying to push their agenda.

• But mostly I recall that silence is what Barlarf offered to me, after I posted the myflorida.com email in repsonse to his photo questions/demands. And, it was then a prolonged silence from Bartlarf on that photo/email topic, while he then made a long list of other demands of me, in what I now believe was part of his course harassment of me.

I continued to attempt to have dialog with SummerFR until she told me "Leave me alone." (see above) After she removed posts from my talk page, I reverted her changesasked her to stop on her talk page. My comment was quickly removed by her, and she again removed posts from my talk page. (See below) I have never been guilty of silence; in fact, when I did try to talk to SummerFR, I was accused of harassment.

• And, likewise, no response to me from BartLauf about the myflorida.com email.
• If you read the discussion page of the article you will see the user first demanded proof I had permission to use photos, and I did get proof from Gov Bush;s office via email on the weekend, this past Saturday, that they were looking into it. The user then ignored that email I posted for three days and created other complaints in the meantime to harass me. Efforts to discuss were tried and failed.

I responded several times to SummerFR about her email. Here is one of the times [48]. Right after that communication, SummerFR told me "Leave me alone." How is that an "effort to discuss?"

• The dispute centers on the following: on-going harassment by BaronLarf, acting now under the guise of "desiring to be helpful" when in fact that is not the situation.
• I just want this committee to review my talk page and the discussion page for the article, and issue a decision against the user to leave me alone. I welcome contributors to anything as I understand that is the nature of the process, but I do not welcome harassment and that is the basis for this complaint.

I'm not sure what is meant by "harassment," but I have confidence I am not guilty of it. If any particular instance is cited, I will refute it. Until then, I don't know what to respond to. Wikipedia is based on working with others. If SummerFR cannot bear to see her additions touched by others, then Wikipedia might not be the right place to add them.

• I am feeling so harassed that I just want that user to leave me alone at this point. When this matter began, the user had posted on his talk page that he can't be neutral about George W Bush and so stays away from that page.

A complete misreading of my user page. I am quite capable of remaining neutral on topics. See above for links on this.

• Consequently, i was surprised the user was so interested in the article I was working on, about Jeb Bush. Now, at present, the user is claiming to be a "Republican" concerned about articles about Republicans. I am a registered independent and don't care what political party he claims to be with.

I don't see anything wrong here. What's the complaint?

• PS The other party's attachment -- "For further information..." -- should be stricken from the record at this time, as including it here, now, gives the other party a statement of more than 2,000 (two thousand) words when the instructions and procedures limited each of us to only 500 (five hundred) words. If this matter is ACCEPTED and LATER heard, he should submit it THEN. Otherwise, in my view and my opinion, I am obviously being railroaded here.

I included this link to my user space for those interested in hearing more of my side of the story. It is my understanding that user space is allowed for this usage. If arbitors wish me to remove the link, I will. Until then, it stays.

• PSS Due to my objection in my PS above, I am asking that GRUNT, AMBI and EPOPT all be removed from this proceeding, since they have already rejected my request for a hearing when the other party's statement was not posted (GRUNT and AMBI), and then, after posted (EPOPT), procedures were violated by the other party. I am asking for three other, new arbitrators to be named to take their place, and for the new abitrators to review his statement -- WITHOUT his attachment, pursuant to the 500 word statement limit by EACH party."

It seems to me rather against SummerFR's interests to attack the very arbitors she's taking her case to. That the votes to reject were made before my defense was made seems immaterial; if the arbitors decided in my favor even before I open my mouth, how is that saying that it was done unfairly? It seems more to show that SummerFR failed to prove her case.

• Reason #1 -- BartLarf does not listen to me. Evidence: My "Notice of Arbitration" specifically asked him NOT to write me back. What did he then do? He wrote me back. And he did so at a time when I was feeling extremely harassed, and so harassed that I filed this request for an arbitration.

I'm not sure that there is a Wiki-policy to not write someone back when they ask you not to; that seems rather un-cooperative. Despite this, I did respond to her on her talk page again until a day later, when I requested that she stop removing messages from my talk page (a response that she quickly removed.) [49] I did indeed reply on my own talk page [50], but why am I not allowed to talk on my own talk page? Her request for arbitration had been incorrectly formatted, and my response on my own talk page was the only way that I knew to show that I had acknowledged its being requested.

• Reason #2 -- BartLarf does not listen to me. Evidence; When I showed him the myflorida.com email about the photos, in an effort to continue a dialogue with him about that matter, he never acknowledged the email, despite my repeated requests for him to do so. When I then showed it to him a 2nd time, he yelled at me, with a barrage of questions, asking why was I showing it to him a 2nd time? Well, the answer is this: He never acknowledged it the first time.

Covered above. I did see the email, it did not cover all the concerns that FreplySpang and I had, and the response to which I believe she is referring could hardly be characterized as a barrage of questions and yelling.[51]

• Reason #3 --= BartLarf does not listen to me. Evidence; I told him a "peer review' was the wrong place to be when he filed a peer review. He responded to me on my talk page that he, BartlArf, knows the purpose of a peer review. What happened next? His request for a peer review was denied by peer review because: it was the wrong place to be in this matter. Did he say to me that he was wrong, and I was right? And, sorry? No. Instead he went and "complained" to people all over the site that I had "attacked him" on peer review. And just now, tonight, an admin from there is telling me the same thing. Apparently, the dialogue here only goes one way with some people: harassment of me, and nothing I say matters.

I have already acknowledged that the placement of the article on peer-review was incorrect. This is a moot point. Her comments on peer review were self-acknowledged shouting [52] I have admitted I was wrong; in what way have I specifically wronged SummerFR that I needed to apologize to her?

• Reason #4: BartLarf does not listen to me. Evidence: I posted on the article discussion page an entire new topic called LIST YOUR OBJECTIONS. He did post his objections - without explanation. I responded. I asked him: What are your suggestions to improve what you don't like? He did not have any suggestions. He then went all over this site, trying to find people who know more about Jeb Bush than I do. I assure you, I know more than they do about that topic. Consequently, a dialogue can not continue when he has nothing to add to an article but harassment of a writer of contributions to an article. I am open to suggestions. But he doesn't have any.

My entire purpose for writing on the talk page rather than being bold was that I saw a NPOV problem, yet did not know how to fix it. I called for other people to assist me. When SummerFR asked for my questions on what specifically was NPOV, I gave a few examples while stating it was the overall tone I had a problem with.[53] I did indeed go around the site looking for other people to contribute; that's how wikipedia should work, in my opinion. SummerFR's statement "I assure you, I know more than they do about that topic," is demonstrative of the arrogance that causes her to construe my contributions as bothersome and my communication as harassment. At every turn I have responded to SummerFR while trying to get others to contribute as well, a sure sign that I am open to dialog.

• Reason #5 - BartLarf does not listen to me. Evidence: I spent no less than five hours one night manually editinig the article to revert BACK te changes he had made, none of which he made with discussion. What did he do as soon as I almost logged off? He reverted everything back, again without discussion. He posts on the edit page of the article how many edits I have made. He does this repeatedly. He does not listen to me. Joyous, an admin, told me to be "BOLD" on an article. But the Thought Police named BartLarf who knows NOTHING about the subject of the article, and has NO suggestions, only uses his a deletion button for whatever I may do on the article.

Every change that I made to the Jeb Bush page, from the beginning, was combined with discussion. (See the timeline) There is nothing wrong with being bold, and the reason I have treated SummerFR with kid gloves this entire time was to not stifle her newbie enthusiasm, which I had a few months ago. But I explained every change I made, together with links to the style guide for the reasons. As I explained above, I took care not to just revert her edits but rather go through and replace the WP:MoS-supported style changes that I had previously made. After her second revert, I desisted to prevent an edit war. My suggestions throughout this process have been construed as harassement.

Actions taken by SummerFR subsequent to filing for arbitration

Some of these actions just are against Wikiquette, while others are more serious. Here they are, in no particular order.

• Declaring administrators inept[54], [55]
• Repeatedly removing other users' messages from my talk page [56], [57]
• Immediately removing messages left on her talkpage for her [58]
• Rude messages (To Mel Etitis [59]... others as well)

Statements by others

Responding to a request from me [60] for the names of people I could ask for help on this issue

• "Some users that I have a good deal of respect for include Dbenbenn, Mel Etitis, SWAdair, Rossami, and Korath. You might ask any of these for their opinions of what's happening. I would say that if it gets as far as RfC, you won't be the only one with an issue about the edits, or about the manner of Summer's communications. Joyous 11:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)" [61]

Responding to SummerFR on the Jeb Bush talk page

• "SummerFR: First, calm down; the use of capitals is seen as shouting, and it doesn't do you any good. Secondly, I made no substantial changes to the article. Thirdly, in any case, there is no reason for anyone not to edit the article; there is no arbitration in play — only peer review and RfC. Fourthly, the fact that you're describing my minor edits and my single comment as harassment sheds some light on your claims about BaronLarf. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)" [62]

On my talk page

• "Thanks for carrying the flag of NPOV and civility for now, BaronLarf. Like you, I hope that SummerFR comes to understand the workings of Wikipedia better. Her reluctance to go over Wikipedia policies before yelling "harassment" is certainly a concern. I just don't have time to be in the thick of it right now, I'm sorry. But I think you have been trying very hard to be a good Wikicitizen and I'll support you in formal proceedings if necessary. (By the way, SummerFR is a "she.") . . . [User:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] (talk) 21:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)"[63]

On the Jeb Bush talk page

• "SummerFR,. . .

"Before you fling around accusations of a "cover up," I think you should note two extremely important tools on Wikipedia: the page history, and user contributions. The history for this page can be viewed here, which you get to by clicking "History" at the top. BaronLarf's contributions can be seen here, the easiest way to get to them is to click "My contributions" and swap your name in the address bar with his.

"Now, you posted your "Notice of Arbitration" at 11:05 on April 25th. BaronLarf made absolutely no edits here between your "Notice" and this accusation; his single edit since 04:18 April 25th has been, quite fairly, asking what on Earth you are talking about with these accusations. It is therefore bizzare (and insulting) to accuse BaronLarf of something which he quite clearly never did. It's also bizzare to think that using a talk page could be regarded as "covering up."

"Notice, by the way, that BaronLarf, knowing about tools such as page histories, probably knows that you really can't "cover anything up" on Wikipedia: everything you ever did is buried somewhere in the archives.

"Also, as a recommendation, try making a habit of checking the talk page's history every time you come back. There are comments in sections above directed at you which you have never replied to. For example, I left you a comment in the List Your "Objectionable Words and Phrases" From Jeb Article Here section.

"And as a final recommendation, do try to calm down, as at least three people here have asked. People aren't going to take the time to listen to your arguments if you're acting hysterical (filing Requests for Arbitration, deleting people's comment's about you on their private talk pages, asking admins how to get users listed for vandalism, typing in all caps, etc etc).

— Asbestos | Talk 09:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)" [64]