Wikinews talk:Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious/Evidence

small indiscretion

Although I imagine its unintentional, by seeming to infer that only CSpurrier would be considering my request for his recusal, Chiacomo is straying from policy which states an Arbitrator may be "required" to be recused for non-trivial matters. Since the bias indicators are non-trivial, it seems reasonable that all Arbitrators consider those indicators in reference to CSpurrier, so I hope Chiacomo will not be trying to relegate the recusal request off to a talk page where it clearly does not belong. Hopefully, there will be no long discussions on this matter; all we need do is follow the short recuse policy.Neutralizer 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Recuse Request Statement is also on the Request page; however, there is so much non-trivial "evidence" of the appearance of bias on the part of CSpurrier, I think it is crucial that the matter be addressed and dealt with by the entire Arbcom as soon as possible and after a decision is reached, then it can be removed from the evidence page. I wish it to remain however on the request page as part of my request statement. Neutralizer 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Contacted CSpurrier and Chiacomo re; request for CSpurrier's recusal

I have put this note on their talk pages (Chiacomo's because he showed me the recusal policy) so hopefully there will be a response from Craig (as required by our policy) and this recusal matter can be quickly put behind us so the really important work can begin. Neutralizer 14:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't litter numerous pages with duplicate information. Cross posting is generally a bad thing -- no matter the forum. Please choose a place for your request and keep everything on that page and its talk page. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 15:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiacomo, it's a bit frustrating because CSpurrier has not responded as the policy requires. Are you able to address that point, please? That is much more important,I think, than what you categorize as "litter". Neutralizer 17:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out I did reply, perhaps if you had not posted this in so many places, you would be able to find it --Cspurrier 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

CSpurrier has put a 1 line non-committal response on the evidence page. His bias is blatant( 6 months block of me; labeling concerns about MrM as "attacks") and I must assume CSpurrier will,shamefully, not do the honourable thing by recusing himself voluntarily. Hopefully the rest of Arbcom will ask him to either recuse himself or require him to do so for the sake of the integrity of this important arbitration; I can do no more with this recusal request. I will remove the recuse request from the evidence page(per Chiacomo request) and leave it as a matter of record on the request page. Neutralizer 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving along

It appears that involved parties included what is probably evidence on the main arbitration page -- and that's fine I guess... In order to move this process along, however, it would be helpful if involved parties would include evidence on this page (or point the ArbCom back to the main page). We kinda need to know when everyone has had their say. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 06:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Amgine's examination of evidences

I'm going to take notes here of what I'm finding as I examine the evidences presented:

Neutralizer

MrM abuses administrative privilege to gain control over articleshttp://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Users_Cartman02au_et_al_v_Mrmiscellanious/Evidence&action=edit&section=5

User provides one link to a page history, and one link to a single user talk page revision.

Bad evidence, does not show what the user wishes to show with any proof. It is not the ArbCom's duty to search for your evidences.

http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Users_Cartman02au_et_al_v_Mrmiscellanious/Evidence&action=edit&section=6

Evidence： Mrmiscellanious's "typical behaviour" according to Neutralizer

• After Neutralizer tagged NPOV, renamed, and untagged NPOV, MrM tagged cleanup.[1]
• 16 minutes later he is reverted by the anon with the summary "See first line of SUN source", no discussion on talk page. [2]
• MrM reverts, summary "Not my job to look at sources."[3]
• Anon reverts summary "SUN first line explicitly states Saddam's order for trial settles tag".[4]
• MrM reverts, summary "THIS IS THE LAST TIME I AM REVERTING THIS. KEEP THIS TAG UP, THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE THAT STATES WHAT THE TITLE STATES."[5]
• Anon removes tag, alters article to address concern, summary "Change in article required; by this from SUN source the tag settled so removed now".[6]

Example of evidence user wished to present. I will not be creating the evidence for anything else, but simply assessing the evidence actually presented.

Evidence：then MrM accused him of being my sockpuppet on the new user's talk page with no proof at all

Evidence shows MrM saying he had confirmed the IP was in the same area as Neutralizer's. Statement partially supported.

Evidence：then MrM blocked him for a non-existant 3RR

Evidence shows two elements as basis for block, not just one. More complete evidence: block log shows block applied for 5 minutes. Note that the user was unblocked at 23:03, four minutes before the statement in the presented evidence by MrM that he had confirmed the IP was the same area as Neutralizer's (which was refuted 12 minutes later by brianmc.)

Evidence：the block MrM so quickly applied was in relation to the same article MrM was aggressively editing and,therefore, was contrary toWhen blocking may not be used.

In the history page provided as evidence MrM corrected the date template[7], and applied the cleanup tag three times. These are the sole edits by MrM, and in none of them did he edit the content of the article.

Evidence：Then even after BrianMc proved the anon was definitely NOT my sockpuppet (being located 1,000+ miles away from me), and told MrM that, MrM did not offer any apology at all to the new user.

Not determinable from the evidence provided.

MrM chases away new users with rudeness and abuse of admin privilege

Presuming the statements in this section rely on the previous section's evidenciary links, the statements are not supported by the evidence.

MrM accuses contributors of vandalism when they are making good faith edits

MrM counter-accused user:International of vandalism, supported by evidence. Related to the same incident, MrM described the edits as vandalistic. Partially supported by the evidence.

Harrassment,rudeness,bullying & combativeness are MrM.'s usual editing style

Wikipedia policy is not policy on Wikinews.

In 6 of 8 evidenciary edits MrM responded in kind to rudeness, combativeness. In the other two, responses to Neutralizer personally, MrM is notably more rude and unpleasant. Considering the 1879 talk page edits by MrM[8], it is unlikely this is MrM's usual editing style unless the rudeness and combativeness is equal to that which he is assaulted with. Statement is partially supported by the evidence.

Additional "evidence" was quite interesting. The link to the page block did not support the statement. Further research found the article was protected by MrM for 7 minutes before page was unprotected by another admin. However 15 minutes later it was protected by a 3rd admin for exactly the reason given by MrM - editwarring. The statement MrM's Rfda was supported by a majority of users is actually false. 8 supported, 6 opposed, 5 abstentions. Odd someone would actually misrepresent the evidence linked.

False Statements by Amgine Above

• This is a great example of 100"% fabrication on Amgine's part. Pardon me if I get a bit upset as this user has continually falsely accused me of misrepresentation when it's his absurd and false(and unless he is an idiot, which I do not believe, intentionally misleading) methodology which is "odd" and misrepresenting. Even in Amgine's calculations the majority was for Rfda AS THE ABSTENTIONS DO NOT COUNT.
• If Amgine is not aware of basic statistical methodology he should not pretend otherwise. Also, Counting the user who placed the Rfda the total was, as I said, 9-6. The most disturbing aspect of Amgine's ongoing and numerous false statements is that they rely upon laziness and ignorance on the part of his audience and that,imo, is quite insulting to everyone here. If Amgine is so incompetent in his "examination" that he forgot to include the user who presented the Rfda or if he is so uneducated in the field of statistical analysis that he does not know that abstentions do not count, then I suppose an apology from me will be forthcoming; as should one from him calling my true statement "odd" and "misrepresent"ing. On the other hand; I feel I am due many such apologies from this user who calls others "wiki trolls" and "sockpuppets" when the actual historical evidence shows it's more likely to be himself that is out to destroy Wikinews; as David Vasquez warned this site about some 9 months ago (look it up if you don't believe it). Neutralizer 00:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cartman02au

MrM does not edit in collaboration with other users

Evidence：removed content which was of value to the article without discussion

not determinable from the evidence; talk page shows discussion regarding the edit, final version has even more-trimmed statement.

Evidence：removed image despite objections from other editors. Did not discuss it on the article's talk page

There were both objections and support for the removal on the talk page; the second removal took place after contributors had agreed to not re-insert the image on the talk page - and then it had been re-inserted by one contributor. Partially supported by the evidence.

Evidence：MrM posteded an ambiguous cleanup tag, and a statement he would not colloborate if good faith edits were being reverted.

The former is supported by the evidence, but the latter was in reference to this edit by Neutralizer, reverting 5 edits by 3 contributors.

MrM interjects his own POV into articles

Evidence：removed content which was of value to the article without discussion

Not determinable from the evidence.

Evidence：claimed said article was an editorial which it was not. MrM seems to take an interest in articles mentioning GWB and either delays through tagging or claims them as editorials if they are not pro-Bush articles

First statement supported by the evidence. Latter statement is an opinion unsupported by evidence.

MrM engages in Harassing and Combative behaviour

Evidence：Claims that I am a corrupt administrator without proof

Statement supported by the evidence.

Evidence：MrM's recent objection to my administratorship...

Statement supported by the evidence, however it is everyone's privilege to hold one accountable for one's actions, as you did admins on the water cooler.

Evidence：Comments like this which are directed at other users...

Statement partially supported by the evidence; note he is replying to "MrM; I don't think your methods work anymore; at least not on Wikinews; I'd invite you to try some other platform. Neutralizer 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)"

Evidence：Makes comments which are combative

Statement supported by the evidence.

Does not wish to follow practices setup by the community

Evidence：MrM's refusal to participate in dispute resolution

Supported by the evidence.

Evidence：MrM's blatant disregard for the WN ARBCOM is also offensive to the community and it's estabished practices.

No evidence cited, not supported.

Evidence：MrM will block a user under one provision of the WN BP, extend the block to suit himself and when questioned, say he blocked for another reason...

Evidence does not support the statement. 3RR is a form of site disruption so common it has separate policy, but that policy does not overrule Blocking Policy which states "For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked progressively longer, up to 30 days" as well as "Admins may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion."

Evidence：The recent incident where MrMiscellanious was blocked for breaching 3RR...

No evidence cited, not supported.

Evidence：MrM threatens to carry out more revert wars if users continue to ignore him

Statement supported by the evidence.

Evidence by Vonbergm

POV-pushing / Agressive edits while uninformed

He agressively inserted his POV into articles, sometimes to the point of introducing factual errors to fit his point of view.

• Evidence does not support the statement.
• Evidence supports change of character to article tagged misleading, rfc. Does not support factual errors, or the POV assertion, although the word 'earlier' is questionable.
• Evidence does not support the statement. Furthermore, the statement about not engaging on the talk page is untrue; talk page shows previous discussions, including personal attacks against MrMiscellanious. Tally of title changes by contributors to this article:

  Chiacomo, 3

  Mrmiscellanious, 4

  International, 5

  CSpurrier, 1

  Vonbergm, 1

  Mateop, 1

• Evidence does not support the statement. MrM's title changes were not identical, and a court case is an accusation, not fact; the case accused the soldiers of deliberately killing the journalists, while the US government defends the soldiers has having accidentally done so. Tally of title changes by contributors to this article:

  Neutralizer, 4

  Mrmiscellanious, 3

  CSpurrier, 1

Disparate application of policy / Disruptive behaviour

• Evidence supports the statement.
• Evidence partially supports the statement; disparate application of policy, but only a single incidence of seconda-hand disruptive behaviour.

Use your userspace

Amgine; this is a community discussion page; not your personal user space. Please put your "notes" on your own user space. good grief. Neutralizer 01:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion page regarding this case. What I'm writing is a part of the discussion regarding this case. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 02:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)