Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway

In five months, Alienus has been blocked 15 times by 9 separate administrators on 11 separate occasions for edit warring, incivility or personal attacks

• 1 block by Alai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):
  • 4 Feb
• 1 block by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • 19 Feb
• 5 blocks by Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):
  • 5 Mar (2), 17 Jun, 19 Jun, 23 Jun [2]
• 1 block by William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):
  • 19 Mar
• 1 block by Nandesuka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):
  • 24 Apr
• 2 blocks by InShaneee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • 24 Apr (second was an extension of the first after discussion) [3]
• 1 block by Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • 7 May
• 2 blocks by Will_Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • 10 May, 2 Jul [4]
• 1 block by Sasquatch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • 2 Jul

Alienus has received many warnings for edit warring, incivility or personal attacks

• 29 January 2006: Musical_Linguist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) warns Alienus over violations of 3RR on Criticism of Christianity
• 11:26, 31 January 2006 KHM03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) warns Alienus over incivility, probably for this edit where he said, inter alia "*spit* I wash my hands of this page and all of you people on it. I wish I could wash the foul taste of dealing with you out of my mouth, but I can't. You want this page whitewashed to oblivion? More power to you. You get what you deserve."
• 02:55, 4 February 2006 Block notice from Alai for Wikipedia:Three revert rule on Multiple Drafts Model. "Blocked for 24h, which is a bargain, considering the truly excessive number of reverts involved."
• 16:16, 4 February 2006 Further comment from Alai advising Alienus on dispute resolution methods.
• 5:26, 5 February 2006 Sceptre says, referring to Talk:Cartesian materialism, "Please stop removing comments on that page; it is supposed to be for an open discussion".
• 23:29, 14 February 2006 Myciconia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) gives Alienus a civility warning for the edit summary "undoing bad changes" on Safe sex.
• 10:40, 19 February 2006 Three revert rule block notice from Sceptre, related to Ayn Rand
• 21:23, 19 February 2006 Billyjoekoepsel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) writes "From what I read of your above statment you have declared your open hostility and intentions for future "civil disobedience" and "disrespect" which I take to be saying that you plan to disrupt Wikipedia." in response to Alienus' comment on his block.
• 01:31, 1 March 2006 Musical Linguist asks Alienus to stay within the Three revert rule on User talk:Raisinman.
• 08:04, 3 March 2006 Voice of All warns Alienus about Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Clarifies that this related to edits on Objectivism and homosexuality
• 00:20, 4 March 2006 Chooser complains about Alienus reverting his edits without explaining (sometimes using popups to do so).
• 00:16, 5 March 2006 Inshaneee issues a civility warning "regarding this edit and others."
• 00:30, 5 March 2006 Inshanee warns that "you need to remain civil to ALL users, or you will be temporarily blocked"
• 01:40, 5 March 2006 Tony Sidaway gives a warning that "notwithstanding the fact that I'm not banning either of you from editing Ayn Rand, I will block you both if you persist in edit warring on the article. Then you won't be able to edit Wikipedia at all for a bit. Please continue to argue your cases on the talk page." Alienus and LaszloWalrus continued edit warring and were blocked by Tony Sidaway for three hours shortly afterwards.
• 03:25, 5 March 2006 GTBacchus says
  • "Alienus, from a purely practical standpoint, you're going about it the wrong way. Fight zealots, good. There's a right way to do that here, and you can win, every time. There are lots of mechanisms in place here to stop zealots from screwing things up; use them, and you won't get blocked. Take it upon yourself to repeatedly revert anything, and you'll get blocked for it, eventually. That's just not how it's done. Now that you're blocked for reverting, I wish I'd pressed the point more at Talk:Safe sex earlier. If you want to know how to make Wikipedia work for you, just ask."
• 11:29, 5 March 2006 GTBacchus gives expanded advice on how to deal with zealotry without being blocked.
• 14:52, 5 March 2006 Comment on this by Tony Sidaway
• 15:16, 5 March 2006 Tony Sidaway announces extension of the three hour blocks on Alienus and LaszloWalrus after a resumption of edit warring
• 22:56, 5 March 2006 GTBacchus tells Alienus "Sticking to an "I'm right and he's wrong" line will get you nowhere fast, not that you seem to heed advice."
• 04:18, 6 March 2006 GTBacchus again tries to write extensively and clearly to advise Alienus on how to work within Wikipedia.
• 04:59, 6 March 2006 And again
• 05:25, 6 March 2006 GTBacchus warns Alienus that "Original Research $\neq$ Vandalism. Get super-conservative about what you're willing to call "vandalism", and you'll hit less static."
• 21:31, 12 March 2006 jossi warns Alienus: "Please note that reverting using popups scripts, also known as "god mode", should be used for reverting vandalism only. Please do not use these scripts to revert edits in articles you are involved with"
• 21:46, 12 March 2006 jossi notifies Alienus about an admin noticeboard discussion on use of "god mode" scripts for reverts in general editing [5], and GTBacchus makes some comments [6].
• 19:18, 15 March 2006 William M. Connolley posts notice of Wikipedia:Three revert rule block over edits on Medical analysis of circumcision
• 21:20, 15 March 2006 Comment on the same edits, by Nandesuka
• 23:56, 15 March 2006 Comment on the same edits, by Musical Linguist
• 21:33, 20 March 2006 EChronicle asks Alienus to stop removing the "POV" template from Creation-evolution controversy
• 12:29, 23 March 2006 No personal attacks warning over edits on Talk:Abortion_law.
• 18:15, 23 March 2006 GTBacchus reminds Alienus on abuse of popups.
• 03:07, 24 March 2006 SlimVirgin issues general warning that "regardless of any other consideration, the personal attacks and violations of WP:CIV do have to stop."
• 04:25, 24 March 2006 Aaron Brenneman says "'d like to echo SV's concerns. I understand that tempers can fray and frustrations build, but comments such "Perhaps you should stick to baseless reverts" do not assist in resolving disputes."
• 14:02, 24 March 2006 "npa2" template from Nandesuka for calling him an "asshole".
• 19:46, 24 March 2006 "npa3 template from Nandesuka.
• 19:46, 24 March 2006 And an "npa" warning from Jakew
• [

Blocks on Alienus have generally been supported on discussion, but have also generated controversy

• 13:33, 18 June 2006 Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Alienus (contribs) (insufficient cause)
  • Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) dissented from Tony Sidaway's June 17 block of Alienus and unblocked without engaging in prior discussion [7].
  • Pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [8] and RadioKirk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [9] [10] both reviewed the block and endorsed it.
  • Lethe later acknowledged that his unblock was not in order [11] and apologised with good grace, although he did not agree with the block.
• 00:15, 4 July 2006 Sasquatch (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Alienus (contribs) (unblock to reblock, I agree the original block was BS, it that was an personal attack, then jossi did the same thing (provoked or not))
  • Sasquatch disagreed with Will Beback's 2 July block for personal attacks, but renewed and extended the block in view of Alienus' attacks on his talk page since being blocked.

Evidence presented by Nandesuka

Alienus has a pattern of engaging in ad hominem argument

• Work in progress

Numerous editors have asked Alienus to address arguments to content and not people

• Work in progress

Evidence presented by Jossi

Work in progress

Ad hominem attacks against editors / Assuming bad faith

• 03:43, July 2, 2006 Accusing editors of being "cult members" and thus their opinions are worthless.
• 04:58, June 26, 2006 Making personal attacks on edit summaries: "Never argue with cultists"
• 15:39, July 2, 2006 Expressing disdain for editors, "He is a long-time cult member"; 16:16, July 2, 2006 "Buzz of. Go meditate or something"
• 04:24, June 26, 2006 "XXX is a member of the XXX cult. This action appears to be part of a general defense of his cult against anti-cult editors."
• 22:25, July 2, 2006 "I have been blocked because of a pattern of unsupported and generally refuted warnings on my page, most of them by my pet stalker, XXXX"

Alienus believes that Wikipedia is broken and the best way to fix it is to "make it suck" for other editors

• 04:34, June 26, 2006 "Making it [Wikipedia] suck less overall requires making it suck more for those who currently make it suck."

Alienus believes that personal attacks need to be put in "context"

• 23:06, July 5, 2006 "the matter of what constitutes an insult, or even bigotry, is not always trivial. Intent, consequences and context all matter, and the deciding factor can be perception and preconception."

Evidence presented by {your user name}

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.