Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/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.

Evidence presented by User:Coolcaesar
Note: Some of the evidence below has been adapted from the previous Request for comment on Ericsaindon2 and some was adapted from the original Request for Arbitration.

Ericsaindon2 has been trying to insert original research into Wikipedia
For several months, Ericsaindon2 has been trying to insert original research into Wikipedia, in violation of No original research and Neutral point of view: namely, the idea that Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California is a city or should be treated like one. He has been trying to put in an infobox into the article that shows fake city "boundaries" and a "seal" of his own design, and he keeps moving the article to Anaheim Hills, California even though everyone keeps reverting the move.

After watching User:Mike Dillon and User:Will Beback struggle to point him straight on this issue (see Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California/archive 2), I decided to jump in. As I have explained to Ericsaindon2, Anaheim Hills should not be treated like a city because it lacks clearly defined boundaries, and is not recognized as an official neighborhood or district in any way by the City of Anaheim. In response, he produced links to a boatload of garbage which I easily rebutted. He feebly attempted to counter my rebuttal, but I pointed out that in his counterargument, he made several fatal concessions that defeated his own position. In short, he has utterly failed to convince anyone that his position is anything but original research.

The following list of examples of original research on Ericsaindon2's part is copied from the RfC:
 * Adding Anaheim Hills to lists of cities, or otherwise listing it as a city
 * ,, ,, (calls Anaheim Hills a "major city" that surrounds a large national forest), , , , , , ,
 * Adding self-created city seal and maps., , ,
 * Adding unsourced information and personal opinions, removes tags
 * April7, 2006, April 9, 2006, April 12, 2006, May 14, 2006
 * Adds original theory about "How Geography Defines the Wealth of a Community", and revert wars over its inclusion in several articles, , , (removes "Unreferenced" tag),  (ditto),  (ditto),  (removes specific "Fact" tags)), ,  (removes "Unreferenced" tag),  (removes counterpoints to his theory added by another editor.)

Ericsaindon2 has repeatedly disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point, engaged in miscellaneous vandalism, attempted to "own" a Wikipedia article, and used Wikipedia as a soapbox:
The following list is copied from the RfC:


 * Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and other vandalism
 * Adds "cleaunup" tags to a user page in reaction to that user having applied the tags to an article., ,.
 * Moves many articles to new titles after "Anaheim Hills" was moved. Some of the page moves were appropriate, but others were not. Especially "Manhattan, New York (state)]]", which was made with no discussion, and in ignorance of previous discussions. Some of the moves caused the edit histories to become confused and require repair.
 * Repeatedly removing and  when it is it under protection.
 * Edit warring
 * Ericsaindon2 has been blocked four times for violating WP:3RR.. After the third block he promised via email that he would not edit war in exchange for an early unblock.
 * Combative tone; ,
 * Ownership
 * Adds large amount of text to article, wiping out existing end material. (Later rewrites the rest.) April 5, 2006
 * "You have no justification for blocking the movement of this page (expecially since I wrote 99.999999999% of this article). "
 * Soapbox
 * Adds article to list of Featured Articles
 * Posts a variation of on the talk page that says, "Anaheim Hills, California is a Wikipedia:Outstanding Achievement and Progress, which means that it (or a previous version) has been greatly modified and drastically improved over the past 90 days, and is now one of Wikipedias premier articles. In its current state it is one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community."

After this case was accepted by the Committee, Ericsaindon2 vandalized my own user page four separate times within 24 hours:


 * These vandalism claims were not done by me, but rather Mr.Executive, who alleges Coolcaesar has sockpuppets.


 * The above comment was inserted by 69.227.173.154, which Ericsaindon2 is apparently using since he is blocked. --Coolcaesar 16:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 has been using sockpuppets
Primary account: Besides his primary account, he has been using multiple accounts and IP addresses as sockpuppets in violation of Wikipedia policy:

He continues to persist even though he has been warned several times that sockpuppeting is bad: 

Ericsaindon2 has failed to comply in good faith with the consensus of the Wikipedia community
The consensus of all concerned editors is clearly against Ericsaindon2, yet he refuses to concede and cooperate. A cursory review of Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California/archive 1, and Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California/archive 2 will show that this issue has been debated and run through straw polls several times, and every time the vast majority voted against Ericsaindon2's positions.

  
 * Ericsaindon2 has been warned on many occasions by admins and users that he should cooperate with the consensus of the Wikipedia community and basic rules like 3RR

Furthermore, through his sockpuppets, 69.232.58.210 and Mr.Executive, he attempted to retaliate by opening a Request for Arbitration against myself shortly after this case was accepted by the Committee:


 * No facts or basis for this allegation either, I am not affiliated with user:Mr.Executive
 * The above comment was inserted by 69.227.173.154, which Ericsaindon2 is apparently using since he is blocked. --Coolcaesar 16:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 has uploaded images of questionable provenance several times
Ericsaindon2 has been warned several times to make sure his uploads conform to copyright law:

Ericsaindon2 has been trying to insert original research into Wikipedia Rebuttal
I have personally never treated Anaheim Hills like a city. The first sentence of the article read community of Anaheim Hills within Anaheim, which is my writing. The infobox I inserted which is shown here [] had community referenced 3 times in it as well as the city of Anaheim that was referenced in it twice more. This, in fact, cleared up the point that Anaheim Hills was not a city than the article even did for the infobox stated 5 times that it was not a city. The boundaries are legitamate, and follow the annexation of the unincorporated territory from 1973, which was considered Anaheim Hills before it was annexed to Anaheim. I used these borders to create this map that is in exact specification to the 1973 annexation, and even showed the borders of Anaheim Hills within Anaheim. And the city seal was my very first edit on Wikipedia, and I found it somewhere, and thought that the community had a seal even though it was not a city, and added it. It was quickly removed, and I reverted it again back to the way it was because the person who reverted it gave no explanation, and when they finally did I left the issue alone over the seal, which represents our community. This user also fails to note that these two users were of six engaged on the page at the time who had consensus with me, but these particular users, Mike Dillon and Will Beback were opposed, which he gave you only part of the story. And, these two men did not struggle with me, but we merely had a conflict about the information on the community page. It was a clean conflict, and did not get "nasty" really, just a debate over ideas. I have never treated Anaheim Hills like a city because it is not, for I have tried to add community references to the page over and over again, and have not once ever refered to the community as a city in the article nor in talk. The community does have boundaries (which I went so far to call LAFCO to send me the annexation papers) from when it was annexed to the city of Anaheim in 1973. I should be recieving it any day now. And the "garbage" that this user refers to was merely not. He was stating what the technical name for the community was, but Wikipedia uses familiar name, so I was showing him all the places (even on the Anaheim website) where the term Anaheim Hills is used, and that is the communities formal name. He states that I failed to convince anyone that this was its name, for we were the only two involved in the arguement at the time, so the only person I had to convince was Coolcaesar himself, and it is not original research, for there are documents (which were done prior to computerization and I am waiting arrival of) that prove the existense of Anaheim Hills, for the Anaheim website itself does not seem to make this user believe that it exists.
 * The evidence provided by this user is true to some degree. A couple of those edits were done in the beginning of my term here at Wikipedia, and I was learning my way around. I did not rebut those examples, or try to fight them for I knew that they were not legitamate, and I reverted a few of them myself. As far as this revert [] there was no where that stated it had to be a city, just a suburb, and that is what Anaheim Hills is, so this one is not proof against me. In this very next edit [] I never made a reference that Anaheim Hills was a city, bet yet emphazized that the city was divided into two halves emphasizing the fact that it was just a community. In this edit, the page never stated that the starting point had to be the city. Rebutting this edit, [] and [] the Cleveland National Forest starts in Anaheim Hills. I never stated it starts in the City of Anaheim Hills, and the article never said that the starting point must be a city. In this edit [] I did not notice the city reference already there, and I apologize for that one, but the main land grant area was in Anaheim Hills in this reference. In this instance [], I refer to Anaheim Hills as a community the first time showing the intent of the addition, I must have messed up the second time, but indeed meant community. In this edit [] I never refer to Anaheim Hills as a city, and there is nowhere on this page that stated that a starting point must be a city, so I added the community it started in. In this reference [] I am not sure what the Spooky and Shakira things are about for I did not put them there. But the map are the official boundaries form the 1973 annexation to perfect scale (using a small version of a map, tracing the borders to this map) and a legitamate. In the users "Adding Self Created City Seal and Maps" section, they are all the same map on the same page. And were all verified using the map size reduction technique. This edit [] I verified right after with weather.com, so he only shows you the edit before I added the reference. Again I dont know what the Shakira image is [], but all that information was verified later. I was only 30 hours into my time at Wikipedia, and didnt know about Verification, and all this unverified stuff I went back and verieid later. This edit [] was verified using the annexation of Anaheim Hills from 1873 (which is about boundaries). I do apologize for the Wealth of a Community section. Although it was true, it was original research, and I was unaware of the rule at the time.

Ericsaindon2 has repeatedly disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point, engaged in miscellaneous vandalism, attempted to "own" a Wikipedia article, and used Wikipedia as a soapbox:Rebuttal
I apologize for the edit tags I put on those user pages, and I did apologize to those users at the time. I was fed up with them when they kept adding it, and I was still new and they would not tell me how to cite a source, just told me that I needed to which irritated me, and I did apologize to them at the time. The edits where I reverted the protect tags were a mistake on my part. See, I thought that they were eliminating my map, so I kept reverting it, without noticing that the protect tags were being deleted every time I did that. I apologized to Will for that after I realized I hed deleted the tags every time I reverted them, but the statement by the user above did not show that. As far as the 3rr's. I do realize that 3rr's are wrong and disruptive to the project as for I do apologize for the 2 unfortunate ones I have recieved in the past 6 months. But I am claimed to have 3 others, which is incorrect. You see, Will Beback seems to think that anyone that supports me must be my sockpuppet, and the only sockpuppet (if you can call it that) is my IP address before I log in somethimes. So, when I perform 1 revert, and maybe a supporter of me commits 2 more reverts, we are both suspended. This has happened twice. In another instance I had 2 supporters make 2 different reverts, and a bot made a revert and I got suspended as well. So this statement gives no justice to the abuse of the admin who gave me these 3rr punishments. The statement that states I wiped out all of the text is incorrect to. There were a total of 3 lines to the page before I edited it extensively. I added alot of information, and wiped out the other 3 lines and reworded them to fit the modified version better. Also note I made this edit right before I even created my first account, and was my first or second real edit on Wikipedia. The quote that states I wrote 99.99999% of the article is true. I did write basically the entire thing. I didnt claim any ownership to the article, I just stated I created it. The user who filed this claim made the same statement on his talk page to over 10 articles []. And next the addition to the featured articles []. I was merely 33 hours into Wikipedia, and I thought I did a good job at the article that I wanted to nominate the article for a featured status. I put it in he wrong place, and I even reverted that edit myself. And the variation of a featured article [] was just something I created to congradualte the group for creating such a good article. I did revert the edit myself two days later. Then the additions of the sockpuppet accusations were added to the page for they werelegitamate (although they were not even done by me). His sockpuppet, Anaheimmat, has caused great damage, and I added the sockmaster tag to his page for he was the sockmaster of this puppet of his (and stated so on his filed RFA request).

Ericsaindon2 has been using sockpuppets Rebuttal
Primary account: Besides his primary account, he has been using multiple accounts and IP addresses as sockpuppets in violation of Wikipedia policy:
 * -not me, but the account owner let me use his name after he realized that I was blocked for something I did not deserve to be blocked for (we were long time internet buddies)
 * -a supporter of mine and the filer of the RFA against Coolcaesar, but definately too bold to be me, and has never been proven, just "speculated" by one user, and dramatized by this user
 * -again, this is Mr.Executive's account, you would have to ask him, not me
 * -My IP June 9-July 13 prior to logging in on my screen name (I tend to forget to log in quite often)
 * --Mr.Executive IP ask him about its use
 * --Mr.Executive IP ask him about its use
 * --Mr.Executive IP ask him about its use
 * --Mr.Executive IP ask him about its use

The notices about socks being bad have no reason to be referenced for they are not my socks. I continue to prove these people wrong about that fact, yet they continue to believe that they are my socks. As for me, I only have been warned once from his list of 3. ONCE! Not 3 times like he claims. Other supporters of me recieved sock notices for being cornered into being claimed of my socks.

Ericsaindon2 has failed to comply in good faith with the consensus of the Wikipedia community Rebuttal
In regards to both straw polls, the next thing I knew, a straw poll for my infobox was created. It said things like "no basis for facts" and "doesnt have real borders", which were things that were not true. So the introduction given to the straw poll of the infobox was totally misleading not at a neutral point of view, but to make it look like I totally decieved Wikipedia by adding it, and I created a total hoax. As expected with slander like this, I lost my case. These straw polls convinently closed when the other user had the majority of votes, but didnt allow anyone else to partake afterwards. This straw poll was slandered to one opinion, and therefore unusable.

The Requests for arbitration were legitamate, and I did not file them, although I should have. They were not retaliation, for his behavior was wrong as well (see below) He had his own issues.

Ericsaindon2 has uploaded images of questionable provenance several times Rebuttal
Note that all but 2 of those images were on my very first day, and were all removed either by me, or after I told an admin or noted it on a talk page that they could be removed.

My View and Story (No Rebuttal)
FROM A PREVIOUS ATTEMPT FOR HELP-NOTE THIS WAS INTENDED FOR SOMEONE WHO DID NOT REALLY KNOW ME, SO WORK AROUND IT. THANKS.

Hello. My name is Eric Saindon, and I am currently listed on the ArbCom list, which was after a series of abuses by an admin, and his friend. I have felt powerless to stop the abuse, and it came in conflict with the debate I was trying to pursue. I was trying to give a community known as Anaheim Hills, California the name of either Anaheim Hills, California, or Anaheim Hills, and take it away from its existing name of Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. The name was used on this page for about 2 years before I arrived at it, and gave the article a complete overhaul. It was at Anaheim Hills, California at the time I got to overhaul the article as one of my first edits.

See, when I came to Wikipedia nearly three months ago, I had no clue what the site was about. I came in as an expert on the Anaheim Hills area. I have worked with the Anaheim Hills area for about 20 years now, through my job which includes this part of North Orange County. The first edits I made were trying to figure out what this whole site was about. I applied all my knowledge about Anaheim HIlls to the editing of this page (which was pretty sad when I got to it). Now, my job more specifically is enhancing features of communities and citites to bring in revenue, so when I came in here for the first time, I came in with all of this swayed information about Anaheim Hills putting it in a positive light. Now, had only being there 5 minutes, I didnt know that all sources had to be cited, and that it couldnt sound like you were promoting something. The next day, I was totally bashed by users:Alex, and Will Beback for writing that article. So the very next day, I went through the rules of Wikipedia, created Ericsaindon2 as a username, and edited the Anaheim Hills page again. I took the comments made about me about how "funny" and "embarassing" my writing was because I did read back on them, and yes they were pretty self promoting. But, then I completely went back, and started over on the article after all of my edits were completely erased by Mike Dillon, another involved user. He also went into other peoples talk pages and made fun of the way I wrote the page for the first time unfamiliarly for my first edit. I always kept that thought in the back of my head, and didnt take it too strongly against me, but knew that I wasnt going to take anything from these three users that had slandered me for writing one bad article. So two weeks later after I had completed research, and went online to the Database I have access to at my job about not only cities, but communities that were privately researched, I felt like I had enough information to add an infobox to the page. So, I completely modified the existing city infobox to create the community infobox. It didn't include all of the other stuff that incorporated cities have, but it had avalible facts that were compiled by my dadabase. I was lied to by Will Beback in the regard that I needed to use Census for these statistics as for a rule that I still have found no basis for, so I did. I physically went in, and calculated all of Anaheim Hills neighborhood by neighborhood with Census (22 neighborhoods and subdivisions in all), and reposted it. Then, I was protecting my Monday nights entire work, and reverted it three times back onto the page because I really thought it was appropriate for the page. Now, to avoid a 3rr, 2 othert editors went in on a consensus (because they were still bitter about the incident two weeks prior), and reverted it together so that they couldnt violate the 3rr before I did, and I got suspended. Then, the next thing I knew, a straw poll for my infobox was created. It said things like "no basis for facts" and "doesnt have real borders", which were things that were not true. So the introduction given to the straw poll of the infobox was totally misleading not at a neutral point of view, but to make it look like I totally decieved Wikipedia by adding it, and I created a total hoax. As expected with slander like this, I lost my case. But I protested again for there being such an unfair straw poll that I ended up getting myself suspended again for the 3rr. At this point, I was getting suspended for everything I did, left and right, and so I created Ericsaindon154 to try and gain a new identity on Wikipedia apart from what my assumed fate was on Ericsaindon2. But three minutes after I created it I had sock puppet tags all over the page. Then, my half brother, Etton Smith got involved, and tried to edit these pages too. But, he was accused of being my sockpuppet for still undefined sources and evidence. So both he and I were put on 3rr after he made alot of edits to back me up, and I was also suspended for it. Then for a week, I was on the 3rr, but whoever submitted for me to be suspended had it on 1 week instead of 1 day, so Etton let me edit from his account. So I did, trying to stay like him while I was on there. Then, the next thing I knew, the Anaheim Hills page had been moved to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. This rule was not stated anywhere in the rulebook that this was standard for communities, and so a slandered strawpoll was created for this naming issue by the same editor that created the infobox one. But this one also said things like "every community uses community, city, state" format, and "it is stated in the Wikipedia rules that this is how to name a community", when in reality neither of those facts were true. And because of this misinformation, Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California won, and the page was moved there. Then I told myself, wait a minute, that is violating Wikipedia's own rules

Evidence of statement: According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Since NOBODY outside of Wikipedia uses the term Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California to refer to the community of Anaheim Hills, naming an article about it with this term is in direct violation of the primary Wikipedia naming convention. An alleged standard naming "convention" dreamed up by Wikipedia administrators for their own irrational need for perceived order is null and void because using that reason violates the naming convention too, which also is also stated as follows:

Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. The much simpler and more recognizable term of Anaheim Hills alone is what should be the article name here, regardless of what a handful of editors happen to vote for in a strawpoll.

I have yet to find any place, besides Wikipedia that uses Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. There are a few references that are currently larger and more powerful than Wikipedia that dont use Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California when referencing Anaheim Hills, but rather use Anaheim Hills, California.

So, then I learned and had proof that Anaheim Hills, California was the only proper way to name the article, and that Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California was clearly not the choice by Wikipedia standards. Then, Will Beback came up with a compromise saying that the best name was Anaheim Hills, California. I wanted to see if his compromise would withstand the test of the complaining editors, so I created a straw poll seeing how his name would withstand the test, and see if his way was unanimously approved so that another edit war wouldnt come up in the future. And all I got was crap from these people for creating it, stating that the prior straw poll (which was based on no facts, just slandered opinions) was legitatite, which it was not in any way. I had now finally found some outside support in a couple of Anaheim Hills residents, saying that Anaheim Hills, California was the proper way to name the article. When I got this support, immediately Will Beback told AmiDaniel to put it on a move protection because the proof against their ruling, and the support I had lacked was starting to show.

Regarding the Census issue, and that I dont have any proof for the infobox, which they lie about in the ArbCom statement too. I have put a tedious amount of work into the page, and have based all of my statistics on Census™ neighborhood by neighborhood to determine an overall Census statistics for the community. Since I worked 6 hours on gathering this information for all the areas south of the 91 freeway, Will Beback and Coolcaesar (the filer of the complaint) have continuously tried to keep it off the page, even though I continue to provide sources through Census. The infobox has been totally modified to meet a community standard, deleting all the details that are only true for cities. It even includes the city it is part of in the infobox, and is titled Community of Anaheim Hills, California, with a map that shows Anaheim Hills within Anaheim. There is no way that you can mistake the community as a city, for it is referenced 3 times in the infobox alone, not to mention in the article several times.

Comments on naming issue from the ArbCom Page: The page sat at Anaheim Hills, California for nearly 2 1/2 years before I edited it extensively. After I edited it, user:Mike Dillon moved it to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California after no consensus or talk about this. I moved it back, and he seemed to back off, and said that it was typical, but he didnt mind the change, so he let me keep it at that location. Then, user:Coolcaesar came along. He stated that the ONLY location for Anaheim Hills, California was using the {community, city, state}, and that EVERY page used this format, and there were no exceptions. Since then, they have yet to find any page that clearly states that Anaheim Hills, California has to be at the {community, city, state} format. Since then, I have had the brunt of retaliation from Coolcaesar, and have heard no proof for the statements he made about the format. The only rule stated by Wikipedia is that you use the most common name known for the topic, and that would be either Anaheim Hills or Anaheim Hills, California; and by no means is Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California the most simplified version of the name. Plus, rules have it that you must also use the most common name, which in this case is Anaheim Hills, California. When referring to our president of the USA, you dont refer to him as George Walker Bush, his legally technical name, you refer to him as Geroge W. Bush, which is what the page is named. Or we dont use Magnoliophyta when referring to a flowering plant, because the common name is flowering plant, although the government states it in an official document as Magnoliophyta. Now, the word flowering plant is probably never referred to in the official governmental plan directory, but just because it isnt listed there doesnt mean that it doesnt exist, and it is referrred to as a flowering plant on the Wikipedia page. It is referenced at the most common name. Now, using all these lies that could not be backed up, a highly manipulated straw poll, which sold all this unreferenced information to the voters lead to a minor defeat on my naming setup, and it was all because of them stating how the name had to be {community, city, state}, and there were NO EXCEPTIONS. Yet, they found no answer when I found hundreds of communities that didnt follow that setup (listed below), it was after the straw poll closed (which was closed convinently when they finally had the majority of the votes).

As far as their claim as to me having sockpuppets, I have none. I use my IP number before I log in sometimes to Wikipedia. But I have no sockpuppets. The users that claim I have sockpuppets only feel that because they think that everyone who agrees with me must be a sockpuppet, which is purely false. Many times in the past, many of these users that they claimed as my sockpuppets, Will Beback has blocked them when I break a rule, and I get blocked when they break a rule. So, whether were guilty or not, we are continuously all blocked if one of us does something wrong, which is totally showing a lack of proof.

And referring to the behavior of the admin and his little friend, Coolcaesar. Over the past few weeks, Coolcaesar has been contributing to this dispute equally as I have. The difference is that he has hired this guard to protect him, Will Beback. Since this abusive relationship began, every action I make is scrutenized and reported to Coolcaesar to give him information from Will Beback, the admin. I, and all my supporters are allowed to make a combined 3rr's a day, yet each of them (Coolcaesars supporters have been given 3rr's each which is what the rule states). I can make 1 edit in 24 hours, but if someone else who supports me (even in one instance a bot made a revert in my favor) I get blocked. I dont know what the relationship between the two is, but Will Beback has coached him on his talk page about how to increase this nonexistent problem, and its believability from this honorable commitee, just because he has disagreed with me from the beginning, and magnified the problem with all the editors that come along on the page. There was no problem until Coolcaesar created it, because I have off and on edited the page for 6 months with no problem until Coolcaesar showed up. Even to this moment, this abusive admin (Will Beback) still has blocked my brother, and the block that was suppose to be 24 hours for one of our "combined 3rr's" has gone on for 9 days now, so he has been unable to comment on the ArbCom page, but he is angry at them too. I understand the arguing of people when disagreeing, and this step is totally unnecessary. I dont see how two people who were equally involved in a dispute can only punish one, just because another has enlisted an admin who acts as his attorney, and information source. Its downright wrong. You can clearly see how the admin has used his abusive powers on the Anaheim Hills talk page, and being subjective to his punishments. He punishes everyone on the talk page who makes a rude comment to another editor, (which in total is about 12 or 13 instances) yet has never told the very bold Coolcaesar to keep his comments friendly. There are many examples of this subjective punishment on the talk page. If this goes to arbitration (which I hope it does not) I will not sit there and let these admins harass and abuse other editors if it is the last thing I do on Wikipedia. I hope that you will realize that Coolcaesar and I deserve the same punishment, if any at all for content dispute (which could be cured with mediation), and that Will Beback will learn that his adminship is not to be abused. I would like your neutral POV on the issue. --Ericsaindon2 09:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2's evidence is inconsistent

 * Eric writes in his evidence above, "then, my half brother, Etton Smith got involved, and tried to edit these pages too. But, he was accused of being my sockpuppet" referencing the account User:Es92808 (the accountholder indeed identifies himself as Etton Smith on his user page). However, on May 30, Eric made the following comment on my talk page, which claims that he only edits from Ericsaindon2 and Es92808, and that he "create[d] a new one which is Es92808" as a result of difficulties with his primary account. Soltras 06:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

More uploading of images with copyright problems

 * Eric recently uploaded Image:Caliber Motors.jpg and claimed that he took that image when he used the db-self tag. I easily found the photo on the Caliber Motors website at . Not only is this another example of uploading images with copyright problems, but it is yet another example of Eric's mendacity
 * For other examples of Eric's untruthfulness, he is still claiming on his user page to have edited more than 9,000 articles, and 451 Good Articles, when the truth is 888 total edits (as of 10:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)) and probably zero Good Articles. BlankVerse 10:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved here because of size. Rejected 12:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC) because after well over a week it has no chance of being accepted.

Involved Parties
(some parties may not be contributing to Wikipedia at the present time, and many other users who are involved may not be listed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.173.154 (talk • contribs)
 * user:Coolcaesar
 * user:Ericsaindon2
 * user:Mr.Executive
 * user:OC31113
 * user:Decimal10
 * user:Asbestos
 * user:off!
 * user:Siroxo
 * user:SleekWeasel
 * user:Invitatious
 * user:ThomasisScholar
 * user:24.64.223.203
 * user:Rewinn
 * user:Preslethe
 * user:Fahrenheit451
 * user:Gleng

Comfirm all parties are aware of request

 * user:Coolcaesar []
 * user:Ericsaindon2 []
 * user:Mr.Executive-initiator
 * user:OC31113 []
 * user:Decimal10 []
 * user:off! []
 * user:Asbestos []
 * user:Siroxo []
 * user:SleekWeasel []
 * user:Invitatious []
 * user:ThomasisScholar []
 * user:24.64.223.203 []
 * user:Rewinn []
 * user:Preslethe []
 * user:Fahrenheit451 []
 * user:Gleng []


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

        
 * User has been warned that further consequences will come if his personal attacks don’t cease on numerous occasions


 * This user tends to use inappropriate language, and uses personal attacks for his own benefit in a situation. Despite the notices of his inappropriate actions (in list above) he continues to bring negative energy to the project, and tends to humiliate other users

        []             [] [] [] []

           []  []           []  [] [] [] []   [] [] [] [] [] [] []   [] [] [] [] [] []    []  [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
 * This user also tends to leave inappropriate and degrading comments as his edit summary. Since he usually does not back his statements up on talk pages, most of this disruptive behavior is seen in the edit summary. He tends to disrespect the hard work of others in these summaries.

  []     [] []
 * User misuses the term “vandalism" in its context on a continuous basis


 * Mediation was offered to settle a dispute between several editors, and rejected by user:Coolcaesar which was offered by user:PS2pcGAMER on the Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page for he thought another user should just "give in" to what he requests out of the page. Instead of taking this more peaceful approach, he decided to file an Arbitration Case against the user he was against. I dont think it would be any use just one week later to try and introduce mediation again.


 * After this user apologized for his destructive behavior to arbitration, it began again in this edit summary. This shows that even a pending case against him is not enough to change his actions, and that his behavior can only be changed with punishment. []

Checkuser request
Due to the allegations that user:Coolcaesar has used sock puppets, I request that the CheckUser tool be used to inspect the records in regard to user:Anaheimat.

Suspected puppets



Statement by user:Mr.Executive
User:Coolcaesar has involved himself in many controversial pages in his career at Wikipedia. However, in most cases it is reasonable for two editors to disagree from time to time. This particular user tends to make derogatory comments, misuses the term of vandalism, and degrades the emotions of the people he disagrees with. Over the past two years, over 50 Wikipedians have fallen victim to his cruel comments and harsh reactions to disagreements on a page. He has been notified plenty of times for his egotistic attitude, and strong views, but continues to use his comments in a ruthless and inhumane way. This type of an extremely negative attitude disrupts the other editors who engage in normal conversations. These users do not deserve these comments they receive just for having a different viewpoint, yet find themselves humiliated with his comments in front of many other editors who read these personal attacks. As we all know, this type of editing and commenting does not provide any positive change to the Wikipedia community, and has gone on long enough. One major Wikipedia rule that is probably most shun upon is the devaluing and personal attacks toward new users who are learning their way around Wikipedia. Many users who edit a page for their first time do so incorrectly, but user:Coolcaesar tends to use personal attacks and their lack of knowledge against them. He is also suspected of having a sockpuppet, user:Anaheimat, which as an experienced Wikipedian, he knows that these are prohibited. Another tendency of this user is to revert edits continuously, as for he claims articles as “his own”, and leaves personal attacks on these edit summaries.

Statement by User:Coolcaesar
This request for arbitration is clearly a retaliatory and harassing move on the part of Ericsaindon2 in response to my recent filing of a request for arbitration against him. Furthermore, to file it, he used a sockpuppet for the umpteenth time in violation of Wikipedia policy (as noted by SCEhardt). I have already noted Ericsaindon's attempt at retaliation on the Evidence page for Ericsaindon2's arbitration.

I will concede that on certain occasions I have forgotten about the civility policy (particularly when I was editing WP to cool off after a bad day and came across inept edits or clear vandalism). But I also wish to remind the Committee that unlike Ericsaindon2, the vast majority of my edits have greatly improved the encyclopedia. In particular, see my work on Lawyer, Roger J. Traynor, Rest area, Pruneyard Shopping Center, the State Bar of California, and the Supreme Court of California. Unlike me, very few editors go to the trouble of providing citations to reliable, verifiable hard copy sources for the assertions in their edits.

Also, because of my passion for Wikipedia, I have provided under the GFDL many high-quality photographs of important places and things; see Puerto Vallarta, Motel 6, University of California, Santa Barbara, FedEx, and World Wide Web.

I apologize for my tendency towards excessively harsh commentary. In the future, I will be more careful about complying with the civility policy. I ask all members of the Committee to vote to reject Ericsaindon2's frivolous request. --Coolcaesar 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to Ericsaindon2's rather self-serving statement, I wish to point out that I have always acted in good faith. I have been careful to comply with core Wikipedia policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not while Ericsaindon2 has repeatedly inserted unverifiable, partisan original research as if Wikipedia were his personal soapbox &mdash; as I have pointed out on the Evidence page for his arbitration.  Even though I do not always agree with the consensus of the community, I have conceded to it many times, and I have been careful to not violate the 3RR rule or to use sockpuppets.  This is why I have never been blocked, while in contrast, Ericsaindon2 has been blocked seven times so far [], and his sockpuppets Mr.Executive and Mr.Executive2 have been blocked indefinitely.   Having failed in his quest to distort the Anaheim Hills article (which was properly resisted by User:Mike Dillon and User:Will Beback), Ericsaindon2 is now lashing out in a vindictive bad faith action against me, just because I stepped in and did the legal research that conclusively repudiated his position (see the arguments and counterarguments at Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California).  I again urge the Committee to vote to reject this frivolous request. --Coolcaesar 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:69.238.56.207

 * Note that right after this user apologized for his destructive comments, he left this edit summary clearly showing that his apology means absolutely nothing, and his behavior is not ceasing [] --69.238.56.207 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet another rude statement was made by this user earlier. His word has no basis or foundation, and is not worth anything, for in just 3 days, he has managed to offend 2 more people. It is a clear sign that his behavior is not changing, and something MUST be done to stop him []


 * Victim #3 in less than 48 hours. WOW!!! His apology is very tarnished by his acting in bad faith once again. How can you believe someone who has lied to you, and continues the disruptive behavior even after dozens of warnings and an arbitration case against him was opened. There is no plan for him to stop, as evident by this edit, and the other 2 edits he has made in 2 days since he lied to the ArbCom. Sickening, truely sickening. []


 * And some more destructive behavior made this morining. This user is out of control []

Comment by User:JCO312
Although not involved in this dispute, I have been involved with several articles that User:Coolcaesar has also edited, most notably the article on Capital punishment. I have never seen any comments from him that rise to the level of "inhumane." It's true that he is assertive in his edits and comments; he has also always been correct in every edit I've ever seen. There are unquestionably users out here who abuse others, but I firmly believe that Coolcaesar is not one of them. JCO312 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by President Lethe
I'm not involved in this dispute.

When I got notice of this matter, I wasn't sure what it was all about. I knew I had seen several edits by Coolcaesar at "United States" and Talk:United States, and I didn't have any specific recollection of hostility there.

Then I remembered that he'd been the one to write "DUDE! ARE YOU BLIND OR DYSLEXIC OR SOMETHING? Read the top of this page! There's a humongous link RIGHT THERE to Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. That's the sixth or seventh time that question has been asked this year!" at Talk:United States—but, when I originally saw that edit, I took it as somewhat humorous, one-off flabbergastedness.

This morning, however, having looked at every one of the references of Coolcaesar's behavior linked above, I'm ... just very surprised and rather annoyed.

Now I also see that Coolcaesar is the person whose "idiot" and "dumb" edit summaries at "Raised pavement marker" led me to leave a brief comment at his/her Talk page once.

I don't know what to say. My recollection of most of what Coolcaesar has done at "United States" and its Talk for the last weeks is one of decent civility. Why Coolcaesar has such a different style elsewhere: it baffles me. I've seen Coolcaesar be decent and civil and even nice; so why all the hostility and meanness and personal attacks elsewhere? I'm sure other users exhibit the same contradictions; but it's just strange to see such detail of it in one specific user.

The main thing that gets me is the NUMBER of instances of incivility: so many times calling things a mess and calling users idiots and dumb and bozos and ... just on and on and on. Appalling.

I know Coolcaesar is capable of being a good contributor; it's happened plenty of times. '''But something must be done to effect the end of the poor behavior. Immediately. This behavior must not continue.' [Boldface and "Immediately. This behavior must not continue" added later. — President Lethe 14:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)'']

One last point. About Coolcaesar's describing non-vandalism as vandalism: at least one of the examples given above is inappropriate; Coolcaesar's edit here most definitely looks to me like reverting vandalism. In a few of the other examples, while I wouldn't necessarily reach a vandalism conclusion, I can see how someone else (e.g., Coolcaesar) might reasonably reach it.

President Lethe 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel compelled to supplement my comments.


 * While Coolcaesar may not have gone against other Wikipedia rules and guidelines, I don't find that mitigating; also not mitigating in the matter of Coolcaesar's behavior is Ericsaindon2's behavior. When your neighbor sues you for crashing your car through her fence, it doesn't matter that you've always paid your rent and never beaten your kids, while your neighbor has been convicted of possessing pot and has disobeyed housing-association guidelines in building the swingset in her back yard; the point is that you crashed your neighbor's fence. (I'm not drawing any connections between these specific example behaviors and what Coolcaesar and Ericsaindon2 have done. I'm simply pointing out the dissociation.)


 * I'm baffled by the comments left by users who find themselves unable to believe the Coolcaesar has ever been unreasonably and oft repeatedly rude at Wikipedia. The evidence is linked just some paragraphs above their comments.


 * President Lethe 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by BlankVerse
I'm not involved in this dispute.

There has been no RFC, nor an RFM. This RFaR should be summarily dismissed.

Furthermore, I think that a checkuser should be done comparing user:Mr.Executive with both user:Ericsaindon2 and user:OC31113.


 * A check user was filed with user:Morven by user:Mr.Executive earlier yesterday in an effort to remove any speculation that the two parties are afiliated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.173.154 (talk • contribs) (who, by their edit  to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence|Ericsaidon2 RFA evidence

page]], implies that they are user:Ericsaindon2.
 * Even if a checkuser comes up negative or inconclusive, the editing style and wording, plus the style and wording of the spamming of article pages against Coolceasar says that Mr. Executive is Ericsaidon2. BlankVerse 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah right, if it comes up false (which it will) you cannot treat this user like you have treated me. There is no way any of that stuff you have done to him is going to last... --69.227.173.154 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because of the way that my ISP handles it's POPs, I could easily look like three different users that would come up completely negative on a checkuser check. If I wanted to risk inconclusive checkuser results, I could also look like users in two different counties, in four different area codes, up to 30 miles apart. If I started borrowing or paying for internet access from friends, neighbors, work, the local libraries, Kinko's, etc., I could have a dozen or more sockpuppets that would get completely negative results from a checkuser check. That's one reason that doing a check is as much art as science and access to the tool is limited to those who can interpret the results. BlankVerse 09:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Coolceasar occasionally gets grumpy in his edit summaries, and I have even scolded him once for losing his cool, but if I did as much vandal fighting as he does I'd probably get just as grumpy and start leaving snarky edit summaries as well. On the other hand, we share an interest in Southern California topics, so I've seen him do plenty of good article edits, and leave lots of comments on article talk pages. I've never seen any of grumpy comments on article talk pages, where sometimes he has also had very good reasons to be exasperated as well. BlankVerse 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by SteveBaker
I am not involved in this dispute.

user:Coolcaesar has left numerous comments on Computer and everything I see there seems very level-headed and reasonable. I have not always agreed with him - but the conversation has always remained civil and polite. SteveBaker 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Fahrenheit451
user:Coolcaesar did commit a personal attack and was uncivil in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive3 I had no other incidents with him before or after the cited incident.--Fahrenheit451 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Rewinn
user:Coolcaesar's edit summary is disparaging to an editor, and his comment at  is both snotty and wrongheaded. For my part, I laughed it off and gave him the snub direct and was satisfied, but since we are here, let me make an additional comment.

I hope it is not inappropriate to note that the intersection of his and my interests is our profession: user:Coolcaesar describes himself as a young lawyer, and I am a not-so-young lawyer, with extensive experience in bar associations. Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure is a remarkable development the legal profession should study for applications elsewhere. Tools for dispute-resolution can always improve! In this case, I think we can agree on a few basic rules, in particular: I am willing to live by the above code and to apologize when someone tells me I've slipped. Is this an appropriate request to make of user:Coolcaesar? It would be a shame to lose a prolific editor on a question of manners, if that's what this is. rewinn 05:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit summaries must never disparage another editor
 * 2) Edit summaries should rarely if ever name an editor or contain a naughty word
 * 3) An apology goes a long way.


 * I see Coolcaesar apologized very nicely at 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC). Thank you. I suggest we drop it and move on. rewinn 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the Clerk has very helpfully deleted remarks that were inappropriately threaded. Let me re-introduce one point: if this matter had any valid purpose, it was served when its target acknowledged the issue and resolved to do better. Therefore this matter has no further valid purpose and should be closed (rejected). The further complaint by User:69.238.56.207 at 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) lacks factual merit. Let us return to making wikipedia as good as possible. rewinn 23:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Will Beback
I made a previous comment, but it was moved out of this case by the nominator. Instead of fighting over that, I'll write fresh material.

Since this request has been filed by EricSaindon2's puppet and since Coolcaesar filed a request about ES, it would be typical to merge this case with ES's case. However this RfAr does not fit that mold because this request does not merit arbitration. While CC has used frank language at times, there have never been serious formal complaints - no mediation, no RfC, no AN/I threads. This request has obviously been brought simply as revenge against CC for his RfAr on ES.

CC is a valued, longterm contributor to this project who has my full support. -Will Beback 09:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Ericsaindon2
I know I am on block but I am highly involved in this user’s personal attitude, and attacks. I will return to my block once I make this statement, because I feel, since this is the user that blocked me, I need to make a statement when he faces a similar situation. I have, over the past month been harassed by this user. I was involved in a content dispute with him, and he continued to use the slander, and inappropriate language, as exemplified above (but for some reason not all of it is shown above). He degraded me and treated me inhumanely throughout the entire month for just a content dispute. I made no personal attacks against him, but he came at me all the time for reverting uncalled for edits he had made, and treating all my work as vandalism, even though it was not. He seems to, by the statements and proof above, feel that if it doesn’t go his way, he can trash talk the users, and therefore creating disputes which are counter productive. His personal attacks need to stop now, for they are uncalled for, and unmanageable. I feel that mediation would never work because this user has been warned in excess of a dozen times by high Wikipedia figures and admins that his behavior is unacceptable, but continues his trend. He needs a break from Wikipedia to think about what he is doing, and how he can change it to become productive, and stop being the instigator and attacker that he has become on this website. The debate in which I received my Arbitration case for were far less significant and destructive as his have become. My comments were not ruthless, and all my disputes were limited to the one page, whereas this particular user has created chaos and devalued Wikipedia with counter-productivity on over 50 pages, and has involved and attacked 30+ users. I don’t care who was right in the situation over the content dispute, his behavior was downright uncalled for, and needs to be terminated, and treated as such. People are not rag dolls like he has tended to treat them without punishment. Using the profanity used by this user is the worst offense committed on Wikipedia, and people have rights to be treated like people, which is far worse than the easily fixable edits I made with good intentions that got me blocked. Plus, in cases like this, where it was me, sorry is just too late, and there is a point when the word sorry has been abused so many times that it carries no meaning for certain people, like in this case. I urge you to take this case, because the attitude of this user is reckless, and uncalled for, and despite any apologies, it has all been heard before by this user, and still no change. This user can use all the excuses to why he committed these malicious attacks, but in the end, like in my case, it doesn’t matter, it is the harm you created and the people you offended that matters. I don’t think that he should be completely abolished from Wikipedia, for he does make the occasional good edit as stated by users above, but a temporary block would help this user, and give him time to thoroughly understand Wikipedia and its rules and how to treat people. -- Ericsaindon2 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Arbitrators' opinions are on the main Requests for arbitration page. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

 * This requst is confusing: evidence of misconduct is not the same thing as prior dispute resolution. It appears there has been none, other than some warnings about rudeness, and this probably does not rise to the level of arbitration yet. In any case, the Ericsaindon2 case is closely related, and any evidence offered there will be considered, so reject. Dmcdevit·t 16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject, but take this evidence into consideration in the Ericsaindon2 case. - SimonP 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reject as above. James F. (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept and merge Fred Bauder 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Behavior since beginning of RfA
Since this RfA began, ES has engaged in further problematic behavior.
 * Altered a user comment to change a Checkuser finding.


 * Used sock puppets and IP addresses to evade block.
 * +more
 * Congratulated himself for good editing.
 * Edit warred over {sockpuppet} tags on IP user pages.Number of accounts involved, number of reversions to a typical page
 * +more
 * Congratulated himself for good editing.
 * Edit warred over {sockpuppet} tags on IP user pages.Number of accounts involved, number of reversions to a typical page
 * +more
 * Congratulated himself for good editing.
 * Edit warred over {sockpuppet} tags on IP user pages.Number of accounts involved, number of reversions to a typical page
 * +more
 * Congratulated himself for good editing.
 * Edit warred over {sockpuppet} tags on IP user pages.Number of accounts involved, number of reversions to a typical page
 * +more
 * Congratulated himself for good editing.
 * Edit warred over {sockpuppet} tags on IP user pages.Number of accounts involved, number of reversions to a typical page
 * +more
 * Congratulated himself for good editing.
 * Edit warred over {sockpuppet} tags on IP user pages.Number of accounts involved, number of reversions to a typical page
 * +more
 * Congratulated himself for good editing.
 * Edit warred over {sockpuppet} tags on IP user pages.Number of accounts involved, number of reversions to a typical page
 * +more
 * Congratulated himself for good editing.
 * Edit warred over {sockpuppet} tags on IP user pages.Number of accounts involved, number of reversions to a typical page
 * Edit warred over {sockpuppet} tags on IP user pages.Number of accounts involved, number of reversions to a typical page


 * Continued soapbox promotion of Anaheim Hills.
 * This list of ZIP codes contains only cities, not neighborhoods, with the sole exception of Anaheim Hills.
 * This list of ZIP codes contains only cities, not neighborhoods, with the sole exception of Anaheim Hills.


 * Original research
 * In order to derive population figures he had to add up hand-picked census tracts, and admitted that the value doesn't match his last calculation.


 * Disruption to illustrate a point.
 * Filed arbitration request against user:Coolcaesar, the person who filed a request focusing on him.
 * Altered this page and the ArbCom Tasks template to make it appear that the case had been accepted.


 * Not problematic but indicative:
 * Posted complaint to User talk:Jimbo Wales, who replied that he didn't agree with ES on either point raised.


 * Copyvio
 * After coming off a one-month block, among ES's first actions were to upload two photographs to illustrate an article he'd written on a local car dealership. One of the photos, of a new facility, he labelled as his own work. Yet the identical picture was found on the dealership's website, and so his photo was deleted as a copyvio. ES subsequently wrote a tale of why his picture looked like the dealership's picture. Yet a careful comparison of the two images shows that they are the same in every way: unusual dimensions, number of unique colors used, size, even the JPEG compression artifacts are identical.


 * 3RR on Anaheim Hills
 * Once again, ES is engaging in revert warring to reinsert unsourced, POV material, resulting in the protection of the article.
 * 01:13, August 21, 2006
 * 04:22, August 21, 2006
 * 07:50, August 21, 2006
 * 18:45, August 21, 2006

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.