Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Peter Lee and Mario Roering

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC).

• (Peter Lee | talk | contributions), and numerous presumed anonymous IPs which appear to be dynamically assigned.
• (Mario Roering | talk | contributions)

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

This RfC is brought jointly by the signees below: neither has an interest in the articles involved. This RfC is brought as 3rd parties to the dispute as the disputants have not availed themselves of the opportunity.

Both

As a result both sides have repeatedly reverted, 'edited' and 'cleaned-up' the other's edits. This is usually simple reversion to their prior version. Initially at least, there was a fairly hot-headed discussion on the two users' talk pages, apparently also participated in by other editors who no longer appear to be involved. Latterly, there has been almost complete refusal by both sides to discuss anything on talk pages. Mario Roering has at least engaged in some discussion with both the cosignees but it appeared that, on learning there was no offer of advocacy, he lost interest. Peter Lee did engage in some fairy accusatory discussion with JeremyA, although this amounted largely to demaning the removal of Roering's content.

Eventually, as the edit summaries become more heated, and the reverts more frequent, and

There was no further discussion by either Mario or Peter, both preferred to simply revert and give inappropriate edit-summaries. Both have been offered, repeatedly, the chance to file RfC or RfM or RfAr themselves, but have routinely ignored messages in that regard — or have refused on the grounds that the Arbitrators might be even handed, or because they have no jurisidiction over Genseiryu etc [1]!

With the failure of informal mediation, no willingness to seek formal mediation and a perpetual revert war, JeremyA decided to simply revert, with an explanation, any revert that was not discussed on the relevant talk pages. This did at least encourage some talk-page input from Mario Roering although it was not exactly consensus-building in nature. Peter Lee, editing under anonymous IPs continued to revert on sight with increasingly abusive edit-summaries towards both Mario Roering and JeremeyA.

Eventually, owing to a huge string of minor-edits by one of (presumably) User:Peter Lee's IP addresses which were extremely minor edits specifically for the purpose of an abusive edit summary e.g. [2], [3], the article was re-protected and this RfC filed.

Both sides need to stop reverting one another, calmly discuss things on the talk page, study carefully what

It may or may not interest editors to know that both editors apparently received conditional blocks on the Dutch Wikipedia [4], over the same issue. Apparently, Peter Lee has since been banned for a year from the Dutch Wikipedia [5].

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. Talk page related incivility and personal attacks, of varying degrees:
   1. Mario Roering: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] (to a 3rd party, apparently from the Dutch Wikipedia), [14], [15], [16], [17] (invites another editor to join the war on his 'side'), [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] (on Karate).
   2. Peter Lee, [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37],[38],[39] (blanks an article talk page), [40] (again), [41] (again), [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] (inapprop. use of talk page).
2. Although as an attempt to avoid conflict,
   Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation [51]. All are eventually removed, however: by Splash twice [52], by Roering [53] after advice by Splash ([54]), and much later by JeremyA [55]
   .
3. A 3RR violation by User:Peter Lee: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. Again, a few hours outside 24, so simple revert-warring: [61].
   1. Responded to with simple reverts by Mario Roering (who does not technically violate 3RR) and evident colleagues. Note ArbCom admonishes agains revert-teams: [62], [63], [64], [65]. Colleague (not party to this RfC) reverting to same version: [66], [67].
   2. Again, the above include various inappropriate and attacking edit summaries as well as POV-pushing.
4. Both users violate the
   3-revert-rule
   , over the addition of a link:
   1. Mario Roering: [68], [69], [70], [71].
   2. Peter Lee: [72], [73], [74], [75] (in fact slightly outside 24 hours).
   3. The above also includes accusations of lies and defamation in the edit summaries.
5. Anon IPs, presumed to be Peter Lee, repeatedly tags
   Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation) and violation of 3RR[81], [82], [83], [84]
   .
6. Another 3RR by both parties, with Lee presumed editing under a couple of anon IPs:
   1. Mario Roering: [85], [86], [87], [88].
   2. Peter Lee (anons):[89], [90], [91], [92].
   3. Note again the edit-summaries and that no discussion took place in the meantime.
7. Another 3RR by both sides (in the midst of the revert/edit-wars below):
   1. Peter Lee (as anon):[93], [94], [95], [96].
   2. Mario Roering: [97], [98], [99], [100].
8. Various revert-warring, inappropriate and uncivil use of edit-summaries. Note these are not usually 3RR violations — they are examples of reverts, substantial removals of text, or substantial rewrites carried out repeatedly by both sides.
   1. [101] (Lee), [102] (Roering), [103] (Lee), [104] (Roering), [105] (Lee), [106] (Roering).
   2. [107] (Lee), [108] (Roering), [109] (Lee), [110] (Roering or collaborating IP), [111] (Lee), [112] (Roering).
   3. [113] (Lee), [114] (Roering), [115] (Lee), [116] (Roering or collaborating IP), [117] (Lee), [118] (Roering), [119] (Lee), [120] (Roering).
   4. A 3RR violation by Peter Lee operating under anon IPs: [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126]. Note particularly the highly abusive edit summaries in the final two diffs.

      However, Roering plays his part (hence listing here as continuation of revert-war): [127], [128].

   5. Same on
      WGKF, by Peter Lee, but Roering need not intervene since JeremyA's policy of reverting undiscussed changes with abusive edit summaries is in effect: [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]
      .
   6. [135] (Lee), [136] (Roering), [137] (Lee), [138] (Roering), [139] (Lee), [140] (Roering), [141] (Lee).
   7. A colleague (no evidence of being a sockpuppet) of Roering's arrives, and reverts although is warned [142] about 3RR and edit-summaries. Lee, operating under anon IPs, reverts, as does TenChiJin (not a party to this RfC). Included here mainly as evidence of team-work in POV pushing and reverting, and Lee's reverting (includes a violation of 3RR by Lee):
      • [143] (TenChiJin), [144] (Lee), [145], (TenChiJin), [146] (Lee), [147] (TenChiJin), [148] (Lee), [149] (Roering), [150] (Lee), [151] (TenChiJin), [152] (Lee).
9. With the revert-undiscussed-edits policy temporarily in place, Peter Lee continues blindly reverting. Note the edit summaries become increasinly abusing toward JeremyA in particular: [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168].
10. Final spate of minor edits by anonymous IPs presumed to be Peter Lee. Made with the sole purpose of being making personal attacks in the edit summary: [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194]. These span a period of 11 minutes.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:ISNOT
   advocacy or a battleground;
2. WP:NPOV
   ;
3. WP:NPA
   generally and;
   • WP:NPA#A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down"
     specifically per #7 below, since one or more of Peter Lee's IPs were blocked at the time.
4. WP:CIVILITY
   ;
5. WP:FAITH
   ;
6. WP:3RR
   ;
7. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
8. Wikipedia:Edit summaries
   ;
9. Wikipedia:Edit wars
   ;
10. Wikipedia:Vandalism (particularly for the final spate of edits by Peter Lee.)
11. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution not availed of.

Possibly

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [195], JeremyA advises Peter Lee on appropriate methods of dispute resolution.
2. [196], [197] JeremyA offers informal evidenciary mediation to both editors. Mario Roering does not respond, Peter Lee responds with a refusal to participate and more attacks agains Mario.
3. [198], [199] JeremyA {{{protect}}}s the pages and admonishes both parties to desist and discuss. They desist as the article is protected, but do not discuss. A request to enter formal mediation was also made at this point, to which neither Mario Roering nor Peter Lee responded.
4. [200],[201] (to dynamic anons), [202] (to Mario Roering), [203] (to talk page of mainly-active article) Splash admonishes against the style of edit summaries. Peter Lee delivers an unpleasant response to Splash's talk page [204], and Mario Roering suggests he will try harder, and does for a while — but rather than discuss, he simply puts 'rv' or similar in the edit summaries. This does not really last.
5. [205], [206] Splash gives an account of the dispute resolution process, recommends an RfC or similar. Nothing happens.
6. [207] JeremyA warns of his attention to revert (and block) for pointless reversion. This has no effect on User:Peter Lee, who editing under anon IPs simply continues reverting, with increasingly abusive edit summaries (see the article histories), including a revert with this edit summary, taken as his response to JeremyA's message.
7. [208] JeremyA warns Mario Roering again about edit summaries. Mario admits he shouldn't have done that [209].
8. Despite the various warnings, Mario leaves a widly inappropriate message on Peter Lee's talk page: [210], for which he is blocked for 24 hours by JeremyA, although he apologises to JeremyA [211].

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. -Splash 02:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. -JeremyA (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. -Waerth 08:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC), see on my talkpage for more statements by Peter Lee including his aim to bannish the article from wikipedia. I also tried to solve the same dispute at nl.wikipedia, the result there is a year long ban for Peter Lee because he refused to abide by request from editors to talk. Mario Roering has bettered his behaviour on nl: tremendously though.[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Robert McClenon 17:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the users whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Please keep discussion of these responses to the talk page.

Response by Peter Lee

(Peter Lee has been made aware of this RfC and has refused to participate. JeremyA (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Response by Mario Roering

For this moment I only want to comment that from the beginning I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia. It's a wonderful medium and an excellent idea from Jimbo Wales! Just check my edits in the beginning to see that I also contributed to other articles, besides

P.S.: Just for the record: above here in the part about "Evidence of disputed behavior", where it says "Roering or collaborating IP", it is indeed a collaborating IP (212.127.137.2) and NOT me. Not that I would care, but just to show that I (or TenChiJin and I) am (are) not alone... That's all!

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. -- MarioR 19:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the dutch wikipedia we had edit wars between the same users, which we have stopped by freezing the page. We had two parties of Dutch administrators. 3 administrators were involved in trying to solve the dispute and trying to mediate. The other party (of which I am one) have edited the article nl:Genseiryu in a way it is without point of view. That means: mentioned in the article is the dispute, but every information which was disputed has been taken out (omitting information alas). Mr Peter Lee, who can not really understand dutch, did not understand the changes made to the article for NPOV and thus disputed the changes. The language used by Peter Lee in his E-mails, as well as the threads made to the Dutch administrators and to wikipedia were that bad, that Peter Lee was blocked for 1 year to the Dutch wikipedia, see : [212]. The Foundation board was informed about this behaviour. This blockage was not about who was right, but is self-defence to insure the continuation of the NL:WP.

Every attempt to let these two work out a solution is futile, they are both very stong-headed about their POV.

There is one difference though. Mr Peter Lee has not edited any other article than about Genseiryu, where Mr Mario Roering has done several other positive additions to the Dutch wikipedia.

But in the end both people are guilty of not trying to resolve the dispute. Both were blocked for 2 weeks over the dispute, before the final solution.

Since the one year block on Peter Lee and in fact during the whole process to come to this block, on the Dutch wikipedia it is quiet and the article is still in a neutral state. In the end in my opinion the article and the information in the article is not worth the time taken by all people, also here at EN:WP. Behaviour of both discredit their sport.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Londenp 06:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Londenp had spoken very well. I just want to add that by email there have been various contacts with both users. But also with other people in their organizations. The users and persons asked me not to publish these emails, so I won't. If there is allowance of the users, you can take a look at them. I'm very sorry for this. I can however tell you how the contacts went somehow. I, Oscar and Jeroenvrp tried to solve the problem. We saw that both users had, beside a dispute about the facts, a personal conflict. Therefor it was not rational to think that both users could come together, without severe pressure, without other users. We didn't even thought it possible that these to users could talk rational with eachother. That was why we first blocked both users, whitch we shouldn't furfill immediatly, but with a prohibational time. So if they did something wrong in the coming half year, they would be blocked more sever then usual, in return of the no blocking immediatly and that they could start the discussion all over again, so nobody should be in a bad position (sorry no good english word I could find for it). That didn't work out. Within a few days they were blocked for a week because of an edit-war.
Because it didn't work out, we tried another variant. I asked both users to come up with a representant. Peter agreed with Thoar, but Mario found one, whitch should be on vacation. I still wait for his final approval. Then we can discuss with bot users, in Dutch, on an IRC-channel what the problem is about, what we can do to solve it, etc. On a certain moment Peter came up with threats to wikipedia about vandalizing, and about asking all his friends to do so. This, together with the vandalizations in the past and the a-constructive way he behaved at nl.wp (on the email he was usually very polite before the edits of londenp, though) I kept an vote with the question if peter lee should be blocked for a year because of these reasons. The link londenp gave you already.
I an still would like to get this issue solved, and not out of the way. But not costing what it costs. If Mario finally come up with his representant, I am still allright to get with him and Thoar into discussion. But if it will not work out, well, it's a shame, but, ok, we have now some article anyway. Just a pity that two grown-ups have to behave this way.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Effeietsanders 08:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At NL.wikipedia Peter Lee admitted quite clearly over and over again that he has obvious bad meanings intending mass vandalism. Peter Lee simply doesn't want to talk. Mario Roering seems to be more and more prepared to talk and behaves quite better than Peter Lee. For that reason my opinion is that Mario Roering still has a value as a Wikipedia editor, where Peter Lee obviously doesn't have. After repeated tries to cope with the Peter Lee behaviour, I would advise to follow the Dutch results and to block Peter Lee for at least one year.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Jcbos 11:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have only briefly reviewed the history of this strange edit war. I can see that there have been breaches of civility on both sides. It appears that Mario Roering is at least trying to be reasonable, and I see no evidence that Peter Lee is even trying. Editing another user's user page with edit summaries that another user is insane is not reasonable. Peter Lee has had notice of this RfC, and has refused to provide a response. That is disrespect for the Wikipedia process. Unless Peter Lee will provide a response, I don't see any alternative to submitting this case to the ArbCom to take the same action that has already been taken in the Dutch version, which is to ban an editor who has shown a disregard for the whole Wikipedia process (and possibly to caution another editor who has lost his temper when provoked). Robert McClenon 11:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to remind you of this: This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. This case is clearly about two parties. I recommend this is moved to

Given both editors rejection of the Arbitrators' authority, it seems unlikely that either will submit to Mediation. If you are to absolutely insist on the complete invalidity of this RfC, then I shall simply remake it as two seperate ones. -Splash 04:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are right. Separate RfCs would just be more work with no extra gain. I just wasn't sure of how strongly policy was enforced. Acetic Acid 07:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Acetic Acid 03:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've never met Peter or Mario and have no reason to be biased in either direction. I came on here looking up Peter Lee in Google. All I found was a blank article and the Talk war, which I then wasted an hour reading (all the talk, all the articles, all their talk pages). The only thing that really stood out to me as legally relevant was this article, where Mario writes that in 2003 "many Genseiryu Karate instructors from all over the world" voted that any instructor not subscribing wholly to their bible could no longer be called Genseiryu without the appellation of butokakai. As such the burden of proof lies with Mario to prove that said group had binding authority to say so--not that they constituted a large body (even if 99%) of Genseiryu practitioners--but that they own the international trademark of the term. Otherwise Peter Lee has the right to disagree and call himself whatever he wants. In my opinion, the historical reason these kinds of debates get so heated is simply because, for 500 years, anyone has been able to call themselves whatever they want, because these titles aren't regulated by any body. Any art with binding trademarks is an art that's less than 50 years old (and those arts don't get a ton of respect in the industry anyway.)

And no, I don't think Peter Lee was the aggressor here. I think he simply disagreed with Mario, and as far as I've read here and elsewhere Mario was the first one to start posting under multiple fake names, etc. It's pretty obvious when you read Peter's talk page, that the big name-caller isn't Peter, and that there are multiple fake posts. I vote both are locked from editing any related topic, and we let legitimate 3rd parties from unrelated IPs recreate the articles. I'll volunteer, as I have 19 years myself in related martial arts, belts in 6 styles, and years on the wikipedia, but know little about Genseiryu itself. But we've had enough volunteers and it hasn't worked. Again I vote delete the thing and let a new group sort it out. --Mrcolj 16:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly close to saying I agree with Mrcolj, and wouldn't be sorry to see both Mario Roering and Peter Lee topic banned from the whole area for a good length of time. While I believe Peter Lee's behavior to have probably been, on the whole, worse in terms of outright attacks, Mario quite often goads and baits such attacks, and has on more than one occasion engaged in them himself. Both parties have engaged in totally unacceptable levels of edit warring, as well. Neither party has anywhere near clean hands here, and both parties have repeatedly stated that the situation is hopeless and they'll never stop the bickering, so my reaction is leaning towards "A topic ban on both your houses". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.