Initiated by TomStar81 (Talk) at 06:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• TomStar81 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• ANI reports [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
• Block Log [10]
• Logged behavioral restriction [11]
• IDHT replies [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

I'd seen this posted at ANI this evening and decided to do some digging into it, and my hunch was right: this is essentially a rerun of an earlier case. Same issues regarding an editor who makes decent contributions but behaves as a jackass, and the issues the community deals with in handling these radioactive contributors. As this has been ongoing for a few years, with no apparent attempt by the accused to right the ship, I am bringing the matter here for arbitration consideration. The committee has previous dealt with editors of this nature, and I would ask that the committee in good faith review both cases and see if the same issues there also appear to apply here as well.

• SoWhy Because history tells me that the community can't solve it, won't solve it, or will refuse to solve it. Thats why. And I'm interest to see how the new arbitrators look at the issue. The last tranche declined to deal with editors of this nature, hence the Framgate debacle. Will this one be different, and if so in what way? Humor me. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @KrakatoaKatie: Actually the most recently closed thread was about 36 hours ago: [21] [22] TomStar81 (Talk) 06:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In a counterpoint to Carmaker1's reply to New York Brad, I do want to point out that while 9 days is a good start for observing civil editing the number of ANI complaints serves as a very vivid counterpoint to his claim that this behavior will not happen again. More likely, as was the case in the Joeframrandb matter, we will be back here in a few months because the underlying problems will not have been adequately dealt with. To support this, I point to the fact that 2-3 ANI posts and a COIN post have all been closed with little to no action and just in the last two or so weeks. The community has therefore undeniably demonstrated that it can not resolve the good quality edits with the civility issues in this case, which means it falls to ARBCOM to deal with this or to watch helplessly as the community refuses to enforce both civility standards and AGF standards. Food for thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very clear that this is a witchhunt by a few users out of millions as well as a concern guided by well intentioned users, because of the perspective that my industry knowledge and expertise mixed with occasional passionate displeasure at misleading content harming the credibility of Wikipedia and global information stream, being deemed a threat to the ego of the former set of users. And somehow having an air of authority to it and supposedly intimidating.

Simply put, I want other people to notice the same mistakes that I do and fix them before I have to and MAINTAIN them in my absences. All I want to do is add new content and expand articles, if I can provide supporting sources. Not endlessly restore removed content that shouldn't be missing, fend off vandalism or disruptive editing, endlessly advocate for the submission of good information against a few pigheaded users out of many cooperative people. Much of what's posted on here makes its way to YouTube, blogs, sometimes news articles, and internet forums. I am working here against that pressure to not let it be wrong, vague, nor contradictory and create a stream of misleading insight. If it's ultimately the problem that my edit summaries are snide, then the tone of my summaries will adjust accordingly and not temporarily. I also suggest all of us refrain from such behavior, unless in the direst of problems. It is hypocritical to ask me to dial it down into monotony, then I run into snide commentary directed at me initially over my edits. I do not cuss at others, the way I have been on occasion, with no action taken on my behalf to warn, reprimand, or etc.[23]

And for that matter, Dennis Bratland's relentless drive to stalk and harass me on here, is out of some belief "justice" was not doled out to me as he desired back in 2017 and uncomfortably, a deep-seated vengeance over it [24][25][26] ("Motoring them away. Only hick Americans say "driving". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2017"). Initially reading it as me being an arrogant foreigner targeting Americans and not a fellow American, exasperated with stubborn gaffes confusing a multitude of readers. Lack of objectivity judging by the text below and I expressed similar on my talk page. I am very particular about timelines, with detailed information, and one can see his attempts to trivialize and undermine such contributions, out of his sole opinion and annoyance I didn't vanish away as he wished. Last time I checked, they are not the sole authority on what's trivial. As long as I can verify what I submit on background history or timeline, it should be welcome in an article and not subject to what Bratland considers irrelevant, already a major point of contention of among users (deciding single handedly what's relevant).

To add, it has been in the interest of User: Sable232 that a topic or outright ban take place or "better" ;), because their desire comes across as a playing card to take me "out of the picture" and not "interfere" with their work, as they see it. A convenient excuse unfortunately. Plenty of others here happily or neutrally welcome my contributions and the few disenchanted by attitude at times (understandably), are focused on behaviorial reprimand, not so much content (ie topic ban request means "go away Carmaker1 so I can do what I want and not deal with you"). Sable232's intention is all very transparent and passive aggressive, per diffs, past commentary, edit summaries. AS7 dislikes me because they felt insulted over my distaste towards poor Mazda article content (not so much them) and want vindication, Bratland for my 2017 comment being eeevil "reverse" racism and chasing anything to achieve a goal, and Sable232 over an offense towards their own obsession with USA automotive model years (hence even suggesting topic ban to solely protect their interests, not simply innocent users from my temperament). Unfortunate to state, but most likely true. My talk page was even hijacked by one of the two[27][28], following attempts to passive aggressively antagonize me via 3 different article talk pages. JzG, plus many others have no agenda, by being objective towards my bad actions. Random note: That being said, JzG's history is quite interesting based on my own recent discoveries! Small world!

(moved from arbitrator discussion section SoWhy 12:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of my edit history the past 9 days will easily show that there is little to no problem going forward, outside of self-defense and creating an AN/I to prevent any turbulence on my talk page. There is nothing for me to be angry or seemingly hostile about anymore, as my concerns are equally being heard and not brushed over as "deal with it".

Anything I personally felt to be antagonistic towards me, has been recognized for what it is, as mentioned soundly by Joe & Swarm and has quickly been resolved, therefore it is not my place to fight with people anyone anymore in contentious edit summaries or talk pages. As long as I don't feel stalked (versus courted/summoned by a genuinely collaborative editor) by a detractor, I have little issue. If that does happen, I do not engage them.

What I do take issue with solely is the accusation of COI (not by you), considering that my highest edited articles are Toyota Motor Corporation related. It's a hobby on here (as an automotive historian), not a marketing or paid-to-edit campaign as an engineer. The public absorbs this site so much, in which a 2017 edit to a BMW article with no verified citations, led to a recent disagreement (off here), which ironically led me back to Wikipedia to remove the fallacy added 2.5 years ago. Things like that are an issue, because they become false fact if unnoticed via news/encycl. aggregators. To avoid it is my mission statement here and make allies in that area, not make money/profit.

I do ask that people thoroughly review the evidence they are seeing and not solely small bits. I don't have the energy to be fighting with people on Wikipedia nor investing in adding text with weak sources, which could lead to unnecessary content disputes. The project clearly respects my contributions, but can do without the prior attitude. I am satisfied in that respect.--Carmaker1 (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it help this situation (end to hostile environ., incivility), where statements like this [29] are made to essentially trivialize and demean the contributions of a user against the objective outlook of a trusted group of administrators and arbitrators? I really want to make a point and honor the fairness of many who have voted and commented here, by not reneging on any promises I've made and making them feel foolish, for kindly giving me room to clean up my act in earnest.

However, the linked diff is one particular example of what helps do the opposite. Even the most levelheaded human being, would take issue with such behavior and question the motive of such a statement. I have respected El_C's request on my talk page[30] to avoid any mention, but as you can see...I will leave you all to judge such commentary, as it's certainly not objective and essentially serves to antagonize. Frankly, I am sick of it and it's why I brought such concerns to AN/I to de-escalate, while this Arb Com was already open.

Newyorkbrad, bradv, Swarm, Joe, El_C, JzG, and many others, I am not going to make you regret trying to be fair, as I've heard from you and it's well understood, to absolutely respect your requirements and honor goodwill.

Please just hear me out when I bring concerns to you going forward, in an attempt to avoid unwelcome conflict. I understand no one wants that hassle to deal with (complaints), but at this point I'm not instigating anything going -->>.Carmaker1 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Carmaker1's response here is a perfect exemplar of the problem: he is one of those editors who is right, but goes about it in the wrong way. Blocking or banning him would be a detriment to the project because articles would become less accurate, and that's why I, as an admin, have not wanted to take action. On the other hand, his style is abrasive and prolix even by my standards. I'd be interested to see if we can some up with a fix for that. Guy (help!) 11:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be emphasized enough how trivial these errors are that Carmaker1 is making such a fuss over. Yes, the Lexus RS 300 was refreshed in either 2000 or in 2001. One year is right, the other is wrong. Car model years have been defined by the historic Detroit Big 3 automakers differently than the rest of the world, and frequently sources mix that up. Carmaker1 has derailed civility discussions over this content question many times. Yet even among car enthusiasts editing in the Automobile Wikiproject, there has been no interest in bothering with an RfC to hammer out a firm guideline.

If Carmaker1 were a humble WikiGnome, quietly correcting these off-by-one errors across many articles, that would be great. But they have a delusion that editors take perverse pleasure in introducing trivial errors in articles. Carmaker1's mistake is believing that anybody else cares as much as they do whether the first generation Ford Taurus began in 1985 or 1986.

So we keep on this merry go round of asking Carmaker1 to please refrain from adding insults to their edit summaries, and they say "BUT YEAR WRONG! It's WRONG! Can't you see? Someone did that on purpose and that's why I have to call them an idiot and accuse them of an evil plot against me. Because it was 2000, not 2001!!!! Anyone telling me not to call them an idiot is part of the conspiracy against me!"

It would be too bad to lose someone who is passionate about whether the Taurus was technically a 1985 or 1986 model, but it's not worth this drama. The harm of these endless civility disputes far outweighs the benefit trivial copyedits. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see evidence supporting the strong claim that Carmaker1's editing is of exceptional value to Wikipedia, them being such great a car industry expert, or so we are told. Obviously, every editor is valuable. Anyone can make a positive contribution. Carmaker1's edits can mostly be called improvements, as far as they go, but they are also capable of howlers that waste other editors' time, as explained at Talk:BMW 3 Series by WikiProject Automobiles editor Johannes Maximilian.

  In this example, it is true, technically, that production began in June 1975, but the "contribution" was to change the first words of the article from "The BMW 3 Series (E21) is a line of cars made by BMW from 1975 through 1983" to "The BMW 3 Series (E21) is a line of cars made by BMW from June 1975 through 1983". The article already contained this information, but lower down the page. Because we prefer to keep trivia out of the lead. The work of formatting the citation, and replacing it with a source in English, was left for someone else to do, Carmaker1 being too much of a big deal to worry about such things.

  An expert with a sense of proportion might add insight to the 3 Series article, like why June 1975 might be significant, and help readers see which facts are valuable, how those facts fit together. Carmaker1 contributes little if anything of the kind. Mostly trivial copyediting, polishing, at best, but often turning articles in to battlegrounds. You can say that we don't want to lose this editor in the sense that we don't want to lose any editor. But if you claim this editor is of exceptional value, the burden is on you to explain why that is so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three days ago, I logged in to discover this revision summary on one of the articles on my Watchlist. Not only did he have a problem with a reference he disagreed with, but he also decided to involve me in his grievance on his edit summary and the talk page. I politely warned him not to personally attack other editors, but he proceeded to post long paragraphs on why I was in the wrong for the edits I made on the article over a year ago and that I was the one picking the fight. It's not a problem to disagree with a magazine article, but to call out the user who posted the article as a reference is clearly unprofessional. I have Asperger syndrome and I admit that I sometimes struggle to control my temper, but I surely would not go personal on a petty edit like Carmaker1 does. - Areaseven (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that has gone on for years, and Carmaker1 occasionally shows a brief improvement in behavior (usually under threat of an indefinite block) until regressing back to the old ways. Civility is the largest aspect of this, but he has also shown persistent disrespect and contempt for core Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as consensus, verifiability (this for example), and no original research. He routinely tries to "pull rank" and act like his (claimed) status as an expert in the field gives him the right to turn a particular corner of Wikipedia into his own personal fiefdom. He routinely reframes his violations of policy as content disputes to avoid sanctions, usually with walls of text that obfuscate the issue. His battleground mentality and desire to "right great wrongs," combined with his constant claims of being the victim of a witch hunt and inability to recognize the problems with his behavior/attitude, are incompatible with productive editing on Wikipedia.

It is understandably difficult for experts to work within the constraints of Wikipedia. I'd previously suggested a topic ban that would provide Carmaker1 the opportunity to learn and demonstrate collaborative and cooperative editing in other topic areas where he isn't so emotionally invested. There have been instances where he has used his expertise to do some good work in tracking down hard-to-find sources, but that benefit is negated by his constant insults/attacks and belief that claims of insider knowledge overrule Wikipedia policy.

These two diffs are a good microcosm of how Carmaker1 approaches editing: [31], [32]. It's an attitude of "I can do whatever I want because I'm the expert." That has no place on Wikipedia, and it needs to stop. --Sable232 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: During the course of this Arbitration Request, Carmaker1 has repeatedly cast aspersions against me ([33], [34], [35]) as well as other editors.

  I would note to the Committee that Carmaker1 has been brought to AN/I eight times in the past five-and-a-half years, and the community has been unable to effect any lasting improvement. His attitude throughout the past few days, partly evidenced by the diffs above, would seem to be that of someone who believes that the community's inability to do so means he's above Wikipedia's principles and will never be firmly sanctioned for his conduct. --Sable232 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last time that User:TomStar81 requested arbitration with regard to a combative editor, the ArbCom initially declined to hear the case. Several months later, there was still or again a problem. The ArbCom did hear the case, and it may have been too late to come up with an optimal solution. An optimal solution would have been identifying the users who were baiting Joefromrandb and taking action both against the combative editor and against those who were taunting him. I would advise the ArbCom to trust the instincts and judgment of TomStar81 and to open a case. The question isn't whether this is like Framgate. The question is whether this is like Joefromrandb. If ArbCom concludes that sanctions are not needed, after evidence, ArbCom can close the case with admonitions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this case resembles the recently concluded Motorsports case in that a combative editor has filed a complaint against another editor for harassment. The filing editor is at least as much of the problem as the object editor. In the previous case, the filing editor filed the request with ArbCom, which, after consideration, opened a case. The result was partly a boomerang in that both editors were sanctioned. In this case, the filing editor has filed the request with the community. It would be appropriate for ArbCom to wait a few days to see if the community deals with the request effectively by including a boomerang back at the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had reason to comment at ArbCom, so apologies in advance (and advice please for correction on form). In the latest thread at ANI, Carmaker outed himself as a designer for Ford Motor Company. I had many clients in the automotive industry when I was in the hotel business in Michigan. It's commonplace that key employees receive some of their compensation in the form of stock incentives, profit sharing, or some form of profit based bonus or contribution to a 401k. In my eye, that makes Carmaker a WP:PAID editor. We cannot have an individual whose income is directly tied to the profitability of a particular automaker editing car articles in general. The public perception of conflict of interest is enough for a broadly construed topic ban from automotive articles. Also please note I see no reason why the community cannot handle this new information at ANI. Diff of self-outing John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iridescent:, I see you are correct. However, when an editor is repeatedly at ANI and asserts their title and position as an argument for their behavior, they themselves create a perception of potential bias. Doing it at ANI greatly increases the likelihood the media will pick it up. We as an organization, must show the public, the consumer of our product, that we proactively manage bias. Cannot believe I'm alone in the idea that, knowing that a person who profits when Ford profits is editing articles on Chevys, I have less faith in their accuracy (and of all automotive articles in general, and indeed the entire encyclopedia). Since Carmaker himself created the issue by making such statements in the place where it is probably most noticable by the media, he's essentially brought the neutrality of the entire encyclopedia into question. How can we allow that? John from Idegon (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @SoWhy:, as I stated, I'm a virgin in this territory, so my apologies for not clearly understanding the purpose of this. @KrakatoaKatie:, Carmaker opened a thread at ANI today (well, yesterday now). John from Idegon (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, that's not what WP:PAID says; the wording there is very explicit for a reason, if they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks being the key phrase. It is not and never has been forbidden simply to write about one's employer provided one does so neutrally, although we do strongly encourage (not mandate) people in such a position to self-identify and discourage (not forbid) people from writing or reviewing articles on topics with which they have a direct COI. The relevant non-binding behavioural guideline (my emphasis) is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing. ‑ Iridescent 07:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@user:John from Idegon, ARC is probably not the best place to discuss this, but policy enforcement—whether at ANI, Arbcom, or just on articles in general—is a case of enforcing policies. You can't just invent a non-existent policy and demand other people comply with it (let alone request Arbcom enforce it), and we don't have and never have had a ban on editing with a conflict of interest except in the intentionally narrow circumstances proscribed at WP:PAID. If you want editing with a COI to be banned, head on over to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest and start an RFC, but even if you persuded people to make a change it wouldn't be retroactive; we're not going to sanction anyone for breaching a policy before it was policy. ‑ Iridescent 08:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the committee is considering accepting this case (which I'm not convinced you should), I recommend the behaviour of everyone involved in this bizarre episode (which took place after the request was filed so isn't mentioned in either party's original statements) be examined. ‑ Iridescent 15:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad, SoWhy's the attempted community discussion has been closed in favor of filing this case request refers (I assume) to this thread. ‑ Iridescent 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon and SoWhy: Now listed at COIN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a lot of time looking into these reports in the past and I agree with JzG above. My impression has always been that Carmaker is a reasonable editor who's trying to do nothing other than enforce factual accuracy and common sense in articles. Most of the history stems from his attempts to correct years, which are frequently confused with American model years. This is a never-ending battle that has been going on for years. AFAIK, the only reason this is happening is because he's not backed by a MOS guideline to support the simple, common sense notion that American model years aren't the same as actual years. This is a problem in the content area, but that's not on Carmaker. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't snap once in a while when dealing with such a never-ending, unreasonable conflict. That's 99% of the "problem" here. I don't know why the relevant Wikiproject has no interest in settling this protracted issue. Then, examining the recent incident, that led to this, it appears to be an editor who's unhappy that their edit got reverted, so they're trying to use this misleading "history" against him. As you can see on the talk page, Carmaker went to great lengths to justify his view, and the reporting user just ignored all that and claimed he was being attacked and took it to ANI. It's absolutely ridiculous. Carmaker has been reported many times, yes, but when we as a community have actually looked into the causes of his petty incivility, we generally find him to be in the right. We all know that Arbcom has recently become more aggressive in dealing with uncivil editors, but this case seems to be nothing short of a user hijacking yet another borderline ANI complaint and sending it straight to Arbcom looking for a rubberstamped civility ban.

For the Committee's review is my handling of the dispute between Carmaker1 and Dennis Bratland that spilled over from the ANIs (both of which I eventually closed as resolved) to my talk page here (and the subsection which follows). Note that my knowledge of the history between the participants was limited from the outset. As well, I would like to also note that I viewed the COI facet of the dispute (later moved to COIN) with disapproval, so I actually welcome Committee member xeno's initiative to examine that type of effort more closely. El_C 03:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• @TomStar81: The last AN/I discussion seems to have been from 2018. Why then did you close the recent discussion at ANI instead of seeing whether a solution can be found? Was there any pressing need to bring this here immediately instead of awaiting a few days that might have led to a speedier resolution? Regards SoWhy 09:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline per WTT. With all due respect to TomStar81, I don't see the parallels to Framgate or anything similar. Arbitration is the final step of dispute resolution in those cases, in which the community has verifiably failed to address a problem. Bypassing community discussion with the rationale that it won't work anyway is a self-fulfilling prophecy after all. I'm not saying there is no problem or that we might come back to have to deal with it in the future but the community has previously managed to sanction this editor (e.g. User talk:Carmaker1#Behavioral restriction), so there is no reason to assume they can't do so again. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @John from Idegon: As Iridescent points out, working for someone is not always a violation of PAID but it can be. But there is no reason to assume that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard couldn't handle discussing this potential COI. Regards SoWhy 07:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, Special:PermanentLink/951503120#User:Carmaker1 is the closed thread mentioned by SoWhy immediately above. –xeno^talk 14:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline I don't see that the community cannot solve this problem at the moment - I'd rather we had at least a recent AN on the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 12:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline I think an ANI thread from March 2019 is the most recent, but I'd like to see a discussion within the last year before I vote to accept. If community solutions fail, we'll still be here. Katie^talk 17:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  KrakatoaKatie changes to Accept per mailing list. – bradv🍁 16:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. This does not seem "ripe" for arbitration, the community should be able to handle this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. The community should be able to deal with this, but for whatever reason it's not happening. After having read all the statements, particularly Carmaker's own, I think a case is in order. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  When the attempted community discussion has been closed in favor of filing this case request, I don't think it's valid to argue that we should accept this case request because the community is not dealing with it. Regards SoWhy 06:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder if some general guidance on this would be useful. –xeno^talk 11:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That was what Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision#General reminder attempted but I'd be in favor of adding some specific "Don't close an active discussion in favor of a case request unless absolutely necessary" language somewhere. Regards SoWhy 12:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. needs a more detailed look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Discussions have been taking place in a couple of different forums. @SoWhy: could you point me to where the attempted community discussion has been closed in favor of filing this case request as I seem to be having trouble locating that. If we were to accept a case, I think it should focus on the civility and related issues. The conflict of interest (or even "paid editing") allegation seems unfounded, and on WP:COIN, the editor who initially raised that issue has agreed to drop it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Newyorkbrad: See the link Xeno posted above (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=951503120#User:Carmaker1). Regards SoWhy 06:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you all for the reference. But this isn't a case in which, after a full discussion on AN and ANI, a consensus emerges that arbitration is needed to settle a dispute. I think we would readily accept a request for arbitration in that situation (the Wikicology case is an example that came to mind). What happened here, in which one admin decided to close a discussion in favor of arbitration, is not really the same thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That was my point, yes. If this was a case of problems which were not handled by the community despite full and lengthy discussion taking place, I would have voted to accept. However, this is not the case and David Fuchs' "whatever reason" for that is that the attempted discussion was cut short in favor of this case request. Regards SoWhy 14:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Question for Carmaker1: You have read the concerns that have been raised here about your behavior. Are you prepared to make any changes in how you interact with other editors, as an alternative to our accepting and conducting an arbitration case? Please give careful thought to your answer, because if you do promise to modify your behavior, we will expect you to keep your promise. (Holding my vote for now pending Carmaker1's answer.) Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline at this time. I have reviewed Carmaker1's posts both above and on his talkpage. They are not exactly what I was hoping to see, but I perceive some understanding that his approach to disputes with fellow editors needs to change. All editors should be reasonably courteous to each other, and that obligation is not lessened when there is a good-faith disagreement about information. In particular, when another editor is wrong about some fact, it is possible to explain this and perhaps point to a source saying so, without losing one's temper. People with expertise in a given area are encouraged to edit Wikipedia—and overly broad interpretations of the COI guidelines that would prevent them from doing so are undesirable—but a subject-matter expert editing a general-interest encyclopedia will wind up spending time explaining what may seem like elementary facts to those with less expertise, and has to be able to do that with a level head and pen. (From editing in my own areas of expertise, I understand the temptation to type "come on, everyone knows such-and-such fact" to less-informed people, but it doesn't help. And sometimes it turns out that the other person is actually right, or at least has additional information to add.) In the hopes that problems will not recur, I'm voting to decline this request. I do so with some hesitation, because we all remember prior requests where I and other arbs have cast similar votes based on promises of change, and the problems did not go away after all, and a few weeks or months later we were back here. If that happens, we'll probably wind up quickly accepting the case next time, and it will be unpleasant for everyone, not to mention that I'll look like a naïf or a sucker again. Fingers crossed that that doesn't happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline arguments about the correction of unimportant details are common in Wikipedia .Dealing with them is the responsibility of the community. We should not need to have a role here . DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. There have been a lot of attempts to resolve this by the community [36][37], and more since this request was filed [38][39], still with no resolution. Carmaker1 also seems to be, understandably, feeling some distress that they are being scrutinised across so many noticeboards and talk pages. Per the statements above, he is a valuable contributor that the project would rather not lose, so it would be fairer to all to take a structured look at what's going wrong. Recently we've seen that arbitration can help with entrenched conduct problems, and we shouldn't assume that such issues are only sufficiently disruptive when they come from administrators or otherwise "prominent" editors in projectspace. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Being right is not a justification for being rude. We frequently remind editors to comment on content not contributors, and Carmaker1 has received many such admonishments and made many such promises (see the links provided by Joe above). I understand that Carmaker1 is a valuable contributor, but if they are making the editing environment more hostile that also does considerable harm to the project. A more detailed investigation should be able to sort this out and provide appropriate guidance. – bradv🍁 14:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just read Newyorkbrad's decline vote above, and the relevant discussion on Carmaker1's talk page, and it seems that the issues raised here may have been mostly resolved. I am willing to take Carmaker1's word for it that they will be more civil in their future interactions, and that a full case will not be necessary for that point to be made. However, I am still concerned about the two competing interests of wanting to get rid of COI editing while retaining and respecting subject matter experts. I expect that is a question that we will be asked to investigate at some point, but it may not need to be within the context of this case at this point in time. For now I will move to decline, while noting that a recurrence of these issues will necessitate a full investigation. – bradv🍁 17:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept, in particular to examine the trend to attempt to constrain editing in ways the COI guideline does not support. –xeno^talk 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]