Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake/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:.

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.

8bitJake blanks his talk pages concerning warnings of policy/guideline infractions

 * 8BJ is prone to keeping a blank talk page . Unfortunately, this means that his talk page consistently is clear and masks his repeated violations of WP:3RR as well as comments and warnings:

He has since ceased this practice following his fifth blocking, where it was noted at the 3RR discussion that he was doing so (Third violation in 10 days)

8bitJake has been coached by an independent mediator

 * Disputes at a few articles prompted an attempt at mediation, which was posted to his talk page , blanked , and ultimately ignored (as other evidence shows).

8bitJake using improper, incorrect and/or incivil edit summaries

 * At Debbie Schlussel, he categorized the subject of the article as a "minor media figure" to avoid providing sourcing for a section:
 * At Hillary Rodham Clinton, dismissed a non-fiction book as "fantasy" and blanket removed the section:
 * In what was a decent edit, said "right wing views are not to be included here" in a criticism area of Democratic Party (United States):  Later considered Zell Miller, an inarguably famous Democrat, "unimportant".
 * At Henry M. Jackson and Christine Gregoire, made a number of improper and incivil edit summaries during edit wars and talk page discussions, including "gang bang editing," "neo-con wording," and "restore consensus version" following an RfC and 4 different editors reaching the opposite consensus:

8bitJake engaging in POV edit warring
In this section, I will outline edit warring 8BJ was part of. In one of them, I was the chief party he battled with, and did some edit warring of my own in the process. I'm fully aware that this is typically not the way to deal with it, but in instances that it was unavoidable, I will link to talk page diffs to demonstrate.


 * At Flying Spaghetti Monster, began a POV edit war where he attempted to falsely assert that it was a religion, including at least 4 reverts in an 8 hour period, citing "religious discrimination," none of which he was blocked for:


 * Considered POV edits by an anonymous IP at United States House elections, 2006 to be vandalism, while removing sections he felt were POV at the same time. This included at least 11 reverts in less than a 4 hour period, which he was not blocked for:


 * He would later do the same at Patty Murray, with 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. He was not blocked for this violation:


 * Got involved in another edit war at Henry M. Jackson. He was eventually blocked twice over the course of three days over a well-sourced and RfC'd  dispute over content, and a third time later in the week (making it three times in ten days) over a different dispute.  This is not a complete accounting, please see the contribution history for the full detail.  At the talk page, you can see my attempts at working out the problems, as I noticed his name pop up at WP:3RR:

8bitJake and incivility

 * As opposed to including a series of diffs, it's easier to link to the entire section of Talk:Henry M. Jackson, starting with "Jackson was not a Neocon". As he was "fully prepared to fight and win [the] edit war," among the attacks levied on various editors as consensus was attempted and points of incivility include:
 * "I don’t give a rats ass what Wolfowitz calls himself that does not change one damn"
 * "That is a load of revisionist crap."
 * "I am trying to remove the vandalism and right wing libel...there is no reason to disgrace his article with mentioning this [Neo-conservative] cult."
 * "the neocon cabal had falsely appropriated my beloved Senator and are trying to re-write history to fit their twisted world view...Look the Nazis loved Wagner but the page on Wagner should not be covered with Nazi rants."
 * "It does not matter because he was not a Neocon and did not subscribe to the twisted modern Neocon beliefs of lies, propaganda and wars of aggression. I wish they would stop pissing on the grave of my Senator."
 * "Jeff I thought an Admin has already warned you about Wikistalking me." (in reference to the Mediation session from December)
 * "I too grow tired of your persistent abusive editing."
 * "Bull. It is insane to atrribute the radical belief of neoconservatism purely on my late Senator. You can't ignore Leo Strauss and the many neocons that follow his questionable views on policy and the truth"
 * "Do you allways slander everyone that has a different political view as you? Sad actually"
 * "Well Jeff I am not convinced a neo-neocon like yourself is such an impartial source."
 * "I referred to you a "neo-neocon" as in a neocon enabler or apologist."
 * He would later name a section "Biased gang-bang editing" and continue on this road. none of his complaints, by the way, were accepted after three separate editors came from RfC to discuss it.

A third block on this was also doled to User:FRCP11 as well as UseR:8bitJake during this time period. For whatever reason,t he block was split 12 hours each, although 8BJ was in violation for the third time in 10 days. If it's possible to undelete User:FRCP11's user page, you'll see that FRCP11 eventually left the project due to 8BJ's actions and the responses to them.


 * At my RfA, 8BJ made a rather quick personal attack (within 4 minutes of the RfA posting) calling me "petty" and accusing me of wikistalking and always editing with a "heavy right wing POV."
 * At User:Truthsquad5's talk page, calls him an "ass" in response to what may have been vandalism.

Edit warring on Henry M. Jackson
Within 24 hours of his initial deletion, 8bitJake had reverted FRCP11 thrice , reverted Bwithh ( - though less successfully than he thought), called FRCP11 a vandal while removing a link , reverted Bwithh again while calling him a vandal , reverted Badlydrawnjeff , reverted me , and reverted Badlydrawnjeff again. Shortly thereafter he reverted once again calling his preferred version the "consensus version".

Meanwhile, FRCP11, Badlydrawnjeff, Bwithh, Youngamerican, and Zleitzen concurred on Talk:Henry M. Jackson that there should be mention of the topic which 8bitJake was continually removing. The sections Jackson was not a Neocon, May 30 RFC, and 8bitJake's complaint show attempts all around to discuss; I think the talk page is fairly clear as to who said what, when, so it speaks for itself pretty well.

Obviously, 8bitJake wasn't the only one to revert; FRCP11 had more than a few (,, , - reverting Jake's less-successful revert,  - which I thought was really unfortunate as it wiped out Zleitzen's edit as well); Bwithh had a pair ; Badlydrawnjeff had a couple ; and I had one.

-- Jonel | Speak 02:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff is a tenacious editor
After I made it perfectly clear that I no longer wished to engage in discussion with BDJ, he continued to attempt to engage me with an alternating pattern of taunting and fake motions to dispute resolution. .

This is after his position had already "lost" 2 AFDs, a deletion review, and the straw poll directly above said exchange. Articles_for_deletion/Armando_Llor%C3%A9ns-Sar_%282nd_nomination%29

Badlydrawnjeff has little respect for other editors
Diffs above, plus, and numerous others in those linked articles. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff ignores policy when it does not suit his case
BDJ asserted that a list of speakers at a conference was not a primary source here. He filed this as a request for comment ("Do not continue the debate here - at top of page"). Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

8bitJake engages in personal attacks
Even though this ArbCom case in under process, 8bitJake continues to make personal attacks in edit summaries, while reverting it. He provided no explanation as to why this was wrong, and the only trace in on Talk:Chris Pirillo from a conversation back from December, where he said it was Northern Iowa. Computerjoe 's talk 13:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Chris Prillo has written about in accuracies in the Wikipedia on his sites and this has inspired some readers of his to keep reinserting the incorrect name of his college. user 4.21.120.135 knew he was inserting false information since he read about it on Chris's blog recently. Saying " come on don't be a jerk." to some one who is deliberately inserting false information is hardly a cutting insult.--8bitJake 20:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You should be civil regardless of the situation. Computerjoe 's talk 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)