Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/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, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Statement by Deltabeignet

 * I admit to roughly three months of loosely connected but still disruptive edits. I admit to sockpuppetry. I admit to blatant misuse of rollback. Once more, I apologize. I can only think it was the result of the gradual annoyance and disillusionment faced by so many longtime contributors.


 * I considered (and at one point asked for) a desysop, but, after jumping into the fray for one last good RC patrol, found myself still hooked. If the ArbCom feels that it is best to desysop me, I couldn't argue against it. The only argument in my favor is this: I won't do it again, and Wikipedia needs admins. I can't promise the same volume of work I used to log in, but I can promise the occasional vandal fight, semiprotect or sockpuppet block.


 * A few clarifications:
 * I did not exclusively use rollback as part of the "experiment". I often used simple reverts from this account, with summaries. Other times, I simply reverted the edit anonymously.
 * SebastianHelm, unfamiliar with WP:BAN, accused me of blocking users that question me; I blocked a sockpuppet of User:Leyasu.
 * As I've stressed elsewhere, none of the anonymous edits were themselves in bad faith, and many were made with no thought of the "experiment."


 * Good night, et joyeux Noël. Deltabeignet 04:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, sockpuppetry, blatant misuse of rollback
I agree with Deltabeignet's statement above. However, while these admissions are a step in the right direction, they are not the whole truth. His edits contain misleading summaries, deletion of sources and falsification of history, and some of these have been commited when he was logged in; all of this contradicting his claims that there's nothing but what he admitted. He keeps spinning his activities, as when he keeps calling them "experiment" despite his refusal to give us any information that might be helpful for Wikipedia.

Some examples by and, from our discussion:

As for deletions vs tag, I grant him that we interprete a guideline differently. Deltabeignet writes: "as Jimbo has stressed, speculative material must be aggressively removed.)" In my view, Jimbo later limited his concern to "unsourced statement[s] that would be libel if false", which I feel clearly doesn't cover wholesale deletions of sections. But I may be wrong.

(Proposed decision moved to ../Proposed_decision) &mdash; Sebastian 01:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (modified 09:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

Blocking of users
I only took a cursory look into Deltabeignet's blocking of. While Leyasu is certainly not the person you would want to pick up your daughter, all edits I have seen from him are good faith fight of vandalism. Seeing how Deltabeignet staged sockpuppet edit wars and, in the case I observed, barely missed 3RR himself, I find it ironical to observe his vendetta against an editor who did the same thing. This seems a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

It should be investigated if Leyasu was the only victim of Deltabeignet's rage or if this was just the tip of the iceberg. &mdash; Sebastian 01:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied with Newyorkbrad's investigation below; this abolished my concern. &mdash; Sebastian 09:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Replies to evidence presented by Sebastian by User:Deltabeignet
Regarding blocking of users:
 * Please, be reasonable. There is no vendetta, and there were no staged wars. I have always blocked sockpuppets of banned users. There is essentially no leeway here; when one sees an account evading a ban, one blocks the account. It is that simple. I have never blocked another user in anger; only for vandalism, 3RR violations, and in enforcement of bans. (Possibly also for username violations.) Deltabeignet 03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding accusations of bad-faith edits:
 * It is impossible for me to defend the quality of every edit I made anonymously; I remember only a fraction of them. I can say, however, that every edit was made in good faith. Often, what appears to be a credible source vanishes under scrutiny; the gothic metal dispute hinged on a site that, as best I could tell, was unreliable as per WP:RS and said absolutely nothing on the subject of the sentence to which it was attached. The Encyclopedia removal was made simply because the material, while perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia, was not especially relevant to the page on which it was located. I have no idea why Sebastian accuses me of falsifying history; it is a matter of historical record that, though Spain was not a victor, French Louisiana was ceded to Spain as a result of the war. The soprano sax article read more like a veiled attack on Kenny G ("The soprano's reputation is a little scarred because some musicians only choose to exploit the high register...") before I cleaned it up.
 * The issue here is sockpuppetry and misuse of rollback. Let us not be distracted. Deltabeignet 04:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You forget "Disruptive edits", as per the headline to my evidence. However, I take your point about the history. This is more complicated than I thought because the statement can be found in at least two of our articles, although it is unsourced. (See also User talk:SebastianHelm.) &mdash; Sebastian 09:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of the 8 edits I listed, this addresses only 3. &mdash; Sebastian 05:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Uninvolved User:Newyorkbrad
In response to the concern raised by Sebastian about potentially improper blocks, I reviewed Deltabeignet's administrator logs for the past several months, and did not note any blocks that raised issues. Deltabeignet issued comparatively few blocks, mostly against IP's for vandalism, and they were always accompanied with adequate block summaries. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you; this abolishes my concern. &mdash; Sebastian 09:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Diffs on gothic metal mentioned by SebastianHelm
By checking the page history of gothic metal, one can tell that most of the restorations of the paragraph Deltabeignet removed were done by the banned User:Leyasu. Leyasu (under an IP) restored the section Deltabeignet removed on December 10. Deltabeignet soon removed the section again; this removal was defended by several other users. Although I sided with Leyasu in this particular part of the content dispute, I still acted in the spirit of WP:BAN and reverted his edits on sight anyway. Deltabeignet, similarly, used WP:BAN as a justification for reverting Leyasu's edits. User:Wildnox and Leyasu reverted each other about 8 times each (example: ; Wildnox's reverts were OK by WP:BAN). User:Samuel Blanning semi-protected the page for about 8 days, and only two edits were made to the page during the semi-protection.

User:Cronodevir re-inserted the same section as Leyasu did ; Wildnox reverted him using the automated popups tool. Wildnox and Leyasu then reverted each other's edits back and forth several times; Leyasu also made some personal attacks against Wildnox, calling him a "biased user" and persistently accusing him of vandalism. Per my request, Samuel Blanning re-protected Gothic metal yesterday. Several admins (primarily me; Deltabeignet also) have been blocking IPs used by Leyasu and documenting the blocks at Requests for arbitration/Leyasu and Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cronodevir is a suspected sockpuppet of Leyasu, although this was not confirmed because Checkuser did not have recent enough edits from Leyasu's main account to compare with Cronodevir.  Leyasu also reverted additions of the suspected sockpuppet tag, which gave further evidence suggesting that Cronodevir is a sockpuppet.   The checkuser case is at Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Other diffs brought up by Deltabeignet and SebastianHelm
The removal of content from Encyclopedia could have been in good faith because the content being removed is more well-suited for a different article, such as Criticism of Wikipedia.

This removal of two sections from The Angry Beavers should have at least been discussed on the talk page; instead, the talk page currently mentions no such removal of the sections. The Template:Fact is somewhat controversial and should not be used liberally; it essentially allows people to write anything in Wikipedia from any point of view without giving sources. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.