Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al./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/enwiki/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.

Evidence presented by {BrandonYusufToropov}

<3-9> <May>

First time I've submitted something like this -- sorry if I'm not formatting it right, but below is verbatim from Talk:IslamofascismBrandonYusufToropov 20:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Grace Note is the user who touched this whole thing off by vandalizing the article in the first place. REFERENCE. His/her contribution to any discussion of this topic ought to be deemed worse than meaningless.KaintheScion

• All he did there was revert to the last version by Jayjg, maybe you should go harass him.Yuber^(talk) 23:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• BULLSHIT, Yuber, and you're really one to talk. From the headers of the edits:

Revision as of 04:08, 3 May 2005

Fredwlerr (Talk | contribs)

restore last good version

Revision as of 04:12, 3 May 2005

Grace Note (Talk | contribs)

rv to Jayjg

Grace Note wasn't "restoring" anything; he/she was engaging in vandalism. Go read the rules: wholesale content deletion, without a consensus on the Discussion page (and there isn't one) is vandalismKaintheScion

You seem to know a lot about the "rules" for a new editor. It's only a pity you didn't read the rules on civility. Grace Note 00:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

<snip>

Richard II is another debate, and a different situation. Mohammed's marriages were not "arranged by the family" or such bullshit: look through his list of wives.

<24> <May>

And below is verbatim from Talk:Islamic Fascism, another perpetually contentious page. It takes a while to get through, for which I apologize, but note that the page was, amazingly, on the verge of compromise ... until the newly-born-but-strangely-familiar-with-the-discussion Enviroknot got wind of as much, and disruption followed once again. (P.S.: Note Svest's accurate prediction, below.)

I think CBerlet is on the mark here. I think it will help (1) to get this out of the context of a particular religion and (2) to discuss the inappropriate use of epithets like this and (3) to discuss the several cases where adherents of various religions -- Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, possibly others -- have, at times, adopted ideologies that blend neo-fascism and religious sectarianism. Fascists in the Muslim world tend to be relatively secular, but there is a better chance of getting that clear in a more broadly contextualized article than in one like this, which is an almost guaranteed perpetual battleground. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am sensitive to the fact that the idea of Islamic Fascism can be used in a bigoted way, but by moving to a page that talks about several religions, the issue can be put in greater context, and can lessen the focus on a single religious tradition. --Cberlet 21:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add support for a redirect. The Neofascism and religion page is, IMHO, a good example of a wiki page on a potentially controversial topic, in that it leaves the reader with many options for further investigation, and provides contextual imformation to examine the issue as it may apply to various religions. It also provides a good grounding via the opening discussion about the nature of fascism itself. Thanks illWill 23:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I would as well like to add support for a redirect, perhaps we can get this whole thing settled once and for all (been going on for over a month now).Yuber^(talk) 23:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Great to see blue skies again. Everybody is agreeing about the redirection. Redirect has been my option since the birth of the me-u-fascim articles. We even tried to merge them in a single article Fascist (epithet) that User:LeeHunter created. The problem is that everytime we felt that we were almost achieving a consensus, some literally just-yesterday-new account-users would come up with an objection as if she/he's been participating in this discussions since the beginning. This is not against the rules but surely against the ethics. Since the discussions begun, everytime that just-yesterday-new account-users felt losing ground, she/he'd leave and would be replaced with another on the spot. We've come up to solutions a couple of times but we experienced the sudden ressurection and arrival of NAUs with a veto to the deal. I believe this is time to decide this for once. Now, we have to decide if it is possible to avoid redundancy by merging Fascist (epithet) with Neofascism and religion. Cheers and respect -- Svest 01:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I hope to help rewrite Fascist (epithet) to avoid redundancy and add some text. It really is a problem that goes beyond religion. We can move the Orwell quote back in there, and provide several cross-links in the Neofascism and religion page.

I might point out that Neofascism and religion is an inherently different category than Fascist (epithet) the latter is properly concerned solely with the term used as a political slur against any group (ie, not particularly a religious group), whereas Neofascism and religion might cover religious groups who are acually fascist in philosophy (some fringe white power groups come to mind), so if the content is to move, it might be better as a disambiguation page pointing in both directions. Saswann 23:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Saswann. Cheers -- Svest 23:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

This makes a good point. I would be willing to discuss it further if anyone else has input.--Cberlet 01:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Disagree This has been gone over multiple times. Islamofascism was the target of an apparently successful defacement campaign following a failed Vote for Deletion, and appears now slated by less-than-unanimous consent (given Mel Etitis' misrepresentation of at least one user's comments) to be merged into Islamic Fascism. To then merge Islamic Fascism away is beyond ridiculous. It goes against the objection of the editor Mel Etitis misrepresented as well, which was that the merge was fine provided the content of Islamic Fascism was not then defaced. There are also the objections of Klonimus at the talk page for Islamofascism to consider]]. Enviroknot 21:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

<end>

I (BrandonYusufToropov) then immediately ask Enviroknot to offer further thoughts, but no response is forthcoming, presumably because Enviroknot/Kain/ElKabong is wary about interacting with someone who has expressed skepticism about his/her previous sockpuppets.BrandonYusufToropov 20:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

<day2> <month>

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway

People who have seen this guy at work will know what to expect. Evidence of extremely aggressive trolling. He really isn't a very nice chap at all.

6 May

• 16:58
  • WP:AN/I: Mel Etitis says "I blocked ElKabong (talk · contribs) for violating the 3RR, and 129.7.35.205 (talk · contribs) immdiately popped up making the same edits with similar edit summaries. I'm now not sure that I should have blocked ElKabong myself, as I had been involved in editing the page (at the time I thought that, given the 3RR issue isn't a subjective matter but an objective and mechanically verifiable fact, being an interested party shouldn't matter, but I should have checked the rules first). I'm therefore reluctant to do anything about the anon." [2].
  • There is also a fair bit of other stuff around on that archive page. In particular see this for an example of ridiculous trollery.

12 May

• 05:23
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/KaintheScion: RfC started by User:Firebug. Again much trolling ensues.
• 17:07
  • WP:AN/I: Tony Sidaway makes comment describing the suspiciously sockish actions of User:ElKabong and User:KaintheScion [3]. Again we get some pretty aggressive trolling.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

<day2> <month>

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

Evidence presented by {ElKabong}

• You ought to cut a deal with this guys, and do it very quickly, or this will be the end of your time on Wikipedia. Arbitration is a rigged game: you play, you lose. I don't know whether you care or not, but I just wanted to give you that bit of advice. Everyking 05:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I really don't see the point of answering having received this. If you can tell me what the point would be, I might reconsider. ElKabong 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)