Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Axon/Evidence

Offenses by Axon
Repetitive addition of POV to article Open gaming:       

Re-arranging other people's comments on the Talk:Open gaming page to confuse attempt at resolution: (Axon calls this "reverting" them to their "original order" -- this is not the case.)      -- Bblackmoor 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In my defence I would like to note that BBlackmoor has completely altered an old comment here, but kept the original timestamp  . His comment is in fact a completely original and is subsequent to mine own. I have no objections to having a dispute resolution notice posted, but I do object to this being do so as to censor and hide my own comments. --Axon 18:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of comments from Talk:Open gaming:  -- Bblackmoor 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you examine this edit, no content was actually deleted. Comments were removed from being interleaved with my own as I felt this was purely down so as to diminish the impact of my own comments --Axon 20:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at dispute resolution ignored: 

Dispute resolution sabotaged by re-arranging the Talk: Open gaming page: -- Bblackmoor 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution was not "sabotaged": I once again attempted to assert order of comments by date descending but deleted no comments: titles, sections, capital letters et al were preserved. BBLackmoor's resolution itself notice was offensive and hostile. --Axon 01:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments from the community ignored:   

Survey ignored:  -- Bblackmoor 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does the survey or the community comments, other than BBlackmoor's own, actually contradict anything I wrote or any of my edits. The consensus was ambiguous as best and most certainly not in BBlackmoor's favor. --Axon 01:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at mediation ignored:  -- Bblackmoor 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most recent undisputed revision
Axon may disagree, but I think the most recent non-disputed revision of the Open gaming article was made on 11:01, 2 Dec 2004 by User:Liftarn. -- Bblackmoor 18:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Notes on "Offences"
I don't really understand what the above alleged offences demonstrate, M'Lord. I would note that all it show is that I have been:


 * un-deleting content on the OOGL in response to content being automatically deleted by BBlackmoor (examples of blanket deletion of content without reason by BBlackmoor, all edits marked as "Minor":, )

, ),
 * editing for NPOV (POV and controversial edits by BBlackmoor again marked as "Minor":, , ,


 * the "survey" consists of a single individual who would seem to know little of the subject matter. the survey also concluded that my version, not BBlackmoor's, was more neutral, --Axon 18:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Brian Kendig was of the opinion that the section on the OOGL was interesting and relevant enough to include. The specific version of that section on which Brian was commenting had been edited by me to remove Axon's POV and leave only the facts (the relevance of which I disputed, but which I had unilaterally agreed to leave in place per the WikiTruce Axon never acknowledged). -- Bblackmoor 21:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not true, Brian argued that the OOGL itself was worthy of note and that it should not be deleted, something BBlackmoor repeatedly has attempted to do - the "consensus", such as it could exist, was very much in my favour. After BBlackmoor could not longer delete the section his further edits were heavily POV in reaction. The WikiTruce was proposed and supported only by BBlackmoor and only so as to ensure his version of the article stayed --Axon 01:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * and re-arranging comments in their original order (examples of BBlackmoor re-ordering chat so as to give precedence to his own comments, marking many of his edits as "minor":    --Axon 18:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)