Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/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.

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 Bishonen
I urge the AC to to evaluate InShaneee's actions in regard to both the 24-hour January block of Worldtraveller (especially its aftermath), and to earlier controversial blocks, because the Worldtraveller affair is only the latest. There have been some strong protests against InShaneee's blocks before, especially from fellow admins, and many complaints that he's unresponsive to criticism — "stonewalls", as Worldtraveller says. I have myself seen InShaneee browbeat/intimidate users with what I've thought inappropriate blocking threats (exemplified and criticized here). It's surely time to consider whether it's positive for Wikipedia that InShaneee has a block button. I also respectfully ask the AC to comment on 's related blocks of Worldtraveller and Dbuckner, for civility offenses supposedly committed during the recent ANI discussion of the InShaneee/Worldtraveller affair.

InShaneee's blocks of A Link to the Past, 31 October 2006
InShaneee blocked, according to Link, "for 48 hours for apparently trolling .. and then blocked me for an additional 48 hours for being sarcastic".. This incident is similar to the Worldtraveller block, including the theme of InShaneee refusing to reply or explain, and of protests from uninvolved users and fellow admins. Link immediately opened an RFC, which, while not very widely edited, was solidly critical of InShaneee's actions, and accompanied by much talkpage action, as users attempted to persuade InShaneee to unblock Link, or did it themselves. I confess I don't well understand why such an RFC, and the situation as a whole, wasn't taken to arbitration. Examples of critical voices:
 * tjstrf here, in an RFC note with telling diffs. ("You have broken this definitely worded rule no less than 4 times and are wheel-warring against 2 other admins, all the while decrying the sin of wheel warring. This is both hypocritical and flies directly in the face of policy.")
 * Andrevan, in a conversation moving across several different talkpages): "(I don't know where you got 48 hours for talking about an RfC on WP:CVG from, nor do I understand why you then doubled the block when ALTTP got a little testy (understandably so considering you blocked him outside of blocking policy)")  ("you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of blocking") ("And please modulate the pomposity of your tone. We are admins, not kings.")
 * Newyorkbrad here:

InShaneee's block of Worldtraveller, 2 January 2007
Worldtraveller's own account of the aftermath of this block is rather brief and elides InShaneee's responses by npa template, which I'd like to draw attention to, as they startled me when I realized their context. Worldtraveller's posts to InShaneee from 3 January to 13 February can conveniently be viewed here (scroll down). There were eight of these posts in six weeks, starting with WT arguing, almost pleading, for a reply and an explanation, gradually rising to rage. Finally on 13 February InShaneee responds, in a way I couldn't even have imagined: with npa templates on the anon's page ! . When WT writes in response to this, "Perhaps you just don't think it's worth talking to IP addresses, except to block them and leave templates on their talk pages", InShaneee follows up with a npa template — only a template, exclusively that — on the Worldtraveller account's page. I think this moment in InShaneee's editing history may be the most contemptuous, the worst, behavior I've ever seen from an admin. (And I have seen the elephants dance in #wikipedia-en-admins, remember.)

WT followed up with posts on InShaneee's page on 19 feb, 23 Feb, 28 Feb, 1 March. That's altogether twelve posts in two months. This is harassment? This is what InShaneee, in preference to responding, in preference to explaining the block, or offering a real apology for it (more of the supposed apology below) brought to ANI as "harrassing me nonstop for months now, and has ramped up his attacks today with the addition of threats of further harrassment." Yes, it really is. And, yes, CBDunkerson really did block Worldtraveller in consequence, blaming him both for contacting InShaneee so many times, and for letting so much time pass without doing anything!

In his response to the request for arbitration, InShaneee makes a big deal of having apologized to Worldtraveller. CBD and HighInBC, who both blocked Worldtraveller on 3-4 March for imputed harassment of InShaneee,, also made much of that apology in the ANI discussion. Worldtraveller ought apparently to have been satisfied without explanation or reply to his questions, because InShaneee apologized. "Sometimes people won't accept any explanation. Giving an apology and saying 'my bad' ought to have been enough." "InShaneee apologized. Frankly, that should be the end of the story." I must protest against the idea that any old reproachful, self-serving, partial and direly belated post has miraculous healing properties just because it contains the words "I apologize". Please check out this apology here.

InShaneee-related blocks by HighInBC, 4 March 2007
CBDunkerson and HighInBC blocked Worldtraveller for supposed harassment of InShaneee after a couple of days of ANI discussion of the InShaneee/Worldtraveller affair. HighInBC extended CBDunkerson's original block, with the log note "personal attacks while asking to be unblocked". HIB staunchly defended this action on ANI as "standard when people are abusive while asking to be unblocked." This is IMO too, too much like InShaneee's own practice, for instance InShaneee's second block of Link for "trolling, incivility on talk page while blocked" in November. A little later HIB also blocked, a user of four years' standing with a previously virginal block log, for arguing against the Worldtraveller blocks in a supposedly incivil way. I'm not interested in sanctions against HighInBC, but I am appalled that we still, after the Giano debacle, find this trigger-happiness in our ranks, along with a lack of interest in the advice of more experienced admins (there were many thoughtful posts on the subject in the same ANI thread, note especially Musical Linguist). It is not, of course, "standard" to treat blocked users with extra harshness. It's standard to put up with defiance from a user reacting to the shock of a block, to not block them some more for "Personal attacks", and it's also standard to look away if you think you and your admin status aren't getting enough respect. As quoted from Andrevan, above: "We're admins, not kings." Bishonen | talk 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Evidence presented by 81.179.115.188
A lot of this duplicates what I already said in my statement. For convenience I'll note here that the following IP addresses have been used by me in recent weeks, and I am the user formerly known as User:Worldtraveller:


 * 81.178.208.69
 * 81.179.115.188
 * 81.179.150.16
 * 85.210.45.81
 * 144.82.240.76

InShaneee's block of 2 January was against blocking policy
Following these edits] on Talk:Red rain in Kerala, InShaneee blocked me, citing 'vandalism'. The block contravened policy in the following respects:


 * 1) Vandalism states that Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
 * 2) WP:BP states that Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption.
 * 3) WP:BP further states that Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited, and that Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

InShaneee ignored all criticism for 6 weeks

 * 1) I requested unblocking via unblock but the block was apparently not reviewed.  As soon as it expired I questioned InShaneee on his talk page about the block, and posted to WP:AN about it .  InShaneee ignored my post to his talk page, and his only contribution to the discussion on WP:AN was this.
 * 2) I continued to try to start a dialogue over the next several weeks .  The only response from InShaneee was his leaving npa2 on my talk page.
 * 3) After a request for comment failed to be certified and was deleted, I left a message for InShaneee indicating that I was not prepared to let the matter drop without him having commented in any way.  This finally elicited a direct response on 19 February, some 48 days after the original block

InShaneee's eventual response was inadequate

 * 1) InShaneee's 'apology' failed to acknowledge that the block was against policy.  He merely stated that he had 'jumped the gun' and 'should have sought outside input on'.
 * 2) He also indicated that his behaviour in ignoring discussion and questions was motivated by the fact that the block had been against an IP address and not a named user.  I had outed myself as the anonymous editor in question just over a day after the block had been placed.
 * 3) He failed to apologise for the seven weeks of stonewalling, or offer any reason as to why he had failed to comment when the block was discussed on AN.

InShaneee believes that this is a matter of no importance

 * 1) A post by InShaneee on User:CBDunkerson's talk page indicate that he does not think that blocking against policy is a serious matter - so minor of an incident

InShaneee's original statement on the arbitration case contains significant inaccuracies

 * 1) He begins by saying I'll be the first to say (once again) that my 24 hour block of WorldTraveler two months ago was rash, reactive, and I should have sought more discussion and input before acting in any capacity on the matter.  However, the very problem which has brought this to arbitration is that he wasn't the first to say anything, and failed to comment in any sensible way until almost seven weeks after the block.
 * 2) He states that my response to his 'apology' was to 'lash out'.  My response was to ask further questions, and it also included an apology for having called him a witless moron
 * 3) I've said on AN:I more than once that I would welcome intervention from MedCab or a similar body - I can find no such statement from InShaneee during any of the discussions that have taken place regarding this block.
 * 4) He simply wants blood - this is what I said in 'desired outcome' on the deleted RfC:
 * "If InShaneee admitted that he either didn't understand or deliberately violated WP:BP, that would be a start. An apology for his actions would be good as well. If he deliberately violated the blocking policy I think further steps should be taken to see that his adminship is rescinded.  If he just didn't understand it, then he should be placed on some kind of parole to see that he understands such key policies before attempting to use the relevant admin tools."

Comment on Tony Sidaway's evidence
I never claimed to be a new user in the discussion I started on AN/I on 3 January. What I said was that anyone wishing to check InShaneee's assertion that I had 'vandalised' anything would find it easy to look through my contributions because the IP I had been editing from had only four at the time of the block. 81.179.115.188 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I outed myself. 81.179.115.188 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway asks what response I was looking for when I continued to question InShaneee after his post on my talk page. The response I was looking for was clearly elucidated in my reply to that post. Also see the 'desired outcome' section of Requests for comment/InShaneee 2. 81.179.115.188 10:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on CBDunkerson's evidence
CBDunkerson points out an occasion on which I removed a post from my talk page, saying that I would not be responding to the person concerned. However, he should note that I had been conversing with him both on my talk page and on the talk page of WP:WIF, and I gave him a clear statement that I would not continue to do so along with a reason why that was so. InShaneee did not extend me those basic courtesies.

CBDunkerson's contention that many people told me to stop what I was doing may be partly true; certainly a few people jumped on the 'harassment' bandwagon. However, some of the comments he cites, such as this one, are not relevant as they don't mention any perception of harassment. I readily discounted the views of someone who believes that 'you're a terrible administrator' is a personal attack and that I should somehow criticise administrative actions without actually saying anything critical.

While a number of other people may have supported the assertions that my criticisms were 'harassment', many people supported my contention that InShaneee should have responded to concerns in a timely fashion, and that my requests for any kind of response were not harassment at all. Just read User_talk:Worldtraveller and Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents/Harassment (Worldtraveller, InShaneee, etc).

I've just actually fully examined CBDunkerson's diffs that he says provide evidence of harassment and I'm staggered at the dishonesty. Several of them quote conversations I was having with someone else. One of them is my original unblock request, and another is the first post I made on InShaneee's talk page. Looks to me like CBDunkerson is just trying to make as big a list of irrelevant diffs as he can to make his argument look more compelling - unless he seriously believes that requesting unblocking is an act of harassment. 81.179.115.188 11:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on JzG's evidence
WP:WIF was not in any way inspired by InShaneee's appalling behaviour - it never mentioned administrators or user behaviour of that nature at all and is purely about article quality. It still angers me that people want to use WP:OWN to justify the re-writing of a critical essay to be not at all critical, when WP:OWN is about ownership of articles, and that JzG, while wheel-warring over deleting a page that informed readers where to find the essay when it had been removed from its original location, repeatedly referred to 'WP:VAIN', an irrelevant link which says do not use it unless you want to be insulting, but I am not sure this really matters now. 81.179.115.188 11:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Inshaneee blocked an editor while in dispute

 * 31 December 2006-2 January 2007 Edit warring between Inshaneee and User:81.178.208.69 on Talk:Red_rain_in_Kerala
 * 
 * 23:34, 2 January 2007 Block by Inshanee for 24 hours:

Blocked, the editor complained and eventually received a response, but the block review process failed

 * User talk:81.178.208.69 11:38, 3 January 2007 Unblock request on talk page:
 * 22:29, 3 January 2007 Further complaint:
 * 23:49, 3 January 2007 Response by User:Newyorkbrad expressing concern that the block had not been reviewed in nearly twelve hours
 * By this time the block had expired.
 * 23:55, 3 January 2007 Comment on the user's edit warring, by User:J.smith
 * User talk:81.178.208.69 00:39, 7 January 2007 Comment on Inshaneee's prior conduct by User:Hypnosadist
 * User:Hypnosadist had previously been repeatedly blocked by User:Matt Crypto and User:Inshaneee for "harassing other users", "personal attacks", and "continued incivility during block."
 * 18:07, 8 January 2007 User:JzG reverts comment by Hypnosadist

The block was discussed and criticised on WP:AN. The failure of the process was also discussed.

 * WP:AN 23:50, 3 January 2007, user complains about Inshaneee's block.
 * WP:AN Inshaneee's block was criticised in the ensuing discussion. during which it emerged that the user was actually User:Worldtraveller editing anonymously and claiming to be a new editor.

Inshaneee has apologised for the block

 * 01:35, 19 February 2007 Inshaneee posts his apology on the user's talk page

Inshaneee and others have blocked User:A Link to the Past

 * Inshaneee is one of a number of administrators who have dealt with User:A Link to the Past by blocking:.
 * This user, and User:Newyorkbrad, both strongly dispute the characterization I gave him earlier as a "disruptive troll" . I duly note and withdraw this accusation on grounds that it is disputed.

The editor misremembers

 * User:Worldtraveller now says that he didn't represent himself as a new user. He misremembers.
 * 11:38, 3 January 2007 "the four edits I've made"
 * And there are others. A minor point, but let's keep our facts straight.  Worldtraveller was eventually "outed" by a third party, he did not volunteer his identity.  The strong involvement of the Scoobies prior to this unveiling is, I think, significant.  To spell it out: this is a fit-up.

Worldtraveller has repeatedly harassed Inshaneee

 * Worldtraveller harasses InShanee and accuses him of failing to respond
 * 20:25, 1 March 2007
 * 09:40, 3 March 2007
 * 17:26, 3 March 2007
 * Inshanee had apologised over a week before this.. What response was Worldtraveller after?

Mixed signals

 * The dispute was discussed in several venues but rather than point Worldtraveller towards the dispute resolution process those involved almost universally concentrated on attacking or defending his right to carry on, even after he had received an apology.
 * Civility discussion, User talk:World traveller, 19 Feb. HighinBC,  WorldTraveller, Bishonen
 * RFC/Personal attacks discussion, 18-19 Feb. InShaneee, various.
 * "Harrassment" (sic) discussion, 1 Mar. InShaneee, various.

Selective quoting

 * He said that none of the four edits on the IP were vandalism. That is the point he made - there is no reason to assume that he was acting to vandalize the article. He never said "I've only made four edits to Wikipedia". WP:AGF - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dbuckner engaged in personal attacks
, who did not previously seem involved with the parties to the ongoing dispute between and, chose to jump in out of the blue with a number of clear personal attacks (the sole purpose of which appeared to be to throw gasoline on an already raging fire):

2007-03-04T05:51:10 - "someone who spends most of his time writing trivial crap like this"

2007-03-04T07:57:31 - "Yes well you are fuckwits, it seems to me"

2007-03-04T08:25:54 - "Don't do it. Read carefully. I said the editors in question seem to be behaving like f--wits. As indeed they do. Incredibly so."

2007-03-04T11:37:12 - "But there was the definite appearance of f---wittedness... By contrast, the one called Inshane specialises in inane puerile drivel of this sort, and contributes nothing at all to Wikipedia... Now that's really, well, I won't say the word."

HighInBC's block of Dbuckner was justified
blocked for 24 hours for the aforementioned personal attacks, but only after giving him plenty of warning to stop. He chose not to. This post by HighInBC nicely summarizes the fair warnings that were given before the block was imposed.

The block was justified because Dbuckner's attacks constituted clearly disruptive behavior; his intent could only have been to inflame an already inflamed situation, and his attacks against InShanee can be seen as a calculated attempt to further harass an editor who had just posted about being harassed himself on ANI. To me, this sort of behavior is disgusting, and to dismiss Dbuckner's words above as "supposedly incivil" is quite bizarre.

Comments upon blocking/NPA policy made by several admins
Statements about the blocking and NPA policies made by Geogre and Bishonen, listed here for reference; I am commenting upon them in Workshop.

Incorrect/possibly incorrect statements about policy:

2007-03-04T11:50:17 - Bishonen - "WP:NPA has no penalties. There is no such thing as 'a personal attack block'"

2007-03-05T08:25:0 - Geogre - "You are incorrect. The policy is clear that personal attacks may result in blocks in extreme cases.... If you get nothing else from the experience, get this: you should not block for insults."

Unhelpful reiterations of extreme or non-consensus opinions about policy:

2007-03-04T21:31:57 - Geogre - "Because of the exceptional misuse and misreading of WP:NPA (which shouldn't be policy at all, as it says virtually nothing)"

2007-03-04T10:45:02 - Bishonen - "I have been arguing on this board for a long time for the propriety of having patience with a user under a block; putting up with what they say; turning a blind eye even to attacks from them; even from pure vandals."

Worldtraveller has harassed InShaneee
This has been covered elsewhere, but a concise summary (including some items not listed previously) can't hurt;


 * - Personal attacks. Note, while some of these also attack other people, only attacks which include InShaneee as a target are listed.
 * - Incessant badgering, including various insults/incivility which Wikilawyers argue are not 'personal'. AN & AN/I comments are not included.
 * - Edit warring to restore attacks InShaneee had removed from his talk page

Addendum: Worldtraveller states that he is "staggered at the dishonesty" of my evidence above. Specifically, he cites his unblock request, wherein he noted that he was "appalled by the dishonesty" of the block reason, and his first message to InShaneee, wherein he denounced the "incredibly petty" block, as instances where it is 'dishonest' of me to suggest that he was incivil. My reason tells me that calling someone dishonest (or incredibly petty) is incivil. Our WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies seem to clearly say the same. Therefor, my evidence is not 'dishonest' in the least. I'll go further and say that I doubt InShaneee was being 'dishonest' when he used 'vandalism' as the reason for his block. Incorrect, yes... dishonest no. As cited in my evidence below, alot of blocks for 'vandalism' which isn't are made... even by admins far more experienced than InShaneee. Worldtraveller's apparent inability to perceive the difference between civil criticism and insults (at one point claiming that "witless moron" was not a personal attack) has been one of the primary problems underlying this dispute.

Worldtraveller continued to pursue this complaint past any useful purpose
Arbitration is considered a last resort when all other efforts to resolve a dispute have failed. So why did this case get to ArbCom rather than being handled by some previous effort(s) at resolution?

- InShaneee acknowledged his error more than once prior to the filing of this RFAr.

Review of InShaneee's block log shows that he has not made subsequent improper blocks.

There was no ongoing pattern of bad blocks requiring further action. There was repeated open acknowledgment that the original block was wrong. What more needed to be resolved?

(see edit summary) - Worldtraveller has refused to respond to incivil 'discussion'. He should therefor have better understood InShaneee's refusal to respond to his own incivil comments.

- Prior to my block, Worldtraveller received many comments indicating that his behaviour towards InShaneee was improper/should stop, and that his failure to stop was becoming harassment. There were also four warnings from InShaneee himself (three in response to "witless moron" and one after "terrible administrator").

"Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do." - This is not a proper approach to a dispute - certainly not over a single bad 24 hour block which the person had already acknowledged was wrong and apologized for.

My block of Worldtraveller was proper
The blocking policy cautions against, "blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block", and lists several recommended steps before enacting such blocks. Specifically, before blocking, administrators are encouraged to check the facts and policy with care to be certain that they believe the action is blockable (I did, and I do) and to discuss the matter with others, "preferably on ANI".


 * 03/02/07 08:16:05 - AN/I warning of block if harassment continued
 * 03/03/07 04:38:32 - Worldtraveller states that if his actions are harassment he will "keep on harassing".
 * 03/03/07 04:40:09 - Worldtraveller continues harassment of InShanee
 * 03/03/07 12:01:09 - Moe Epsilon concurs that Worldtraveller should stop harassing.
 * 03/03/07 12:17:12 - HighInBC concurs that Worldtraveller should stop harassing.
 * 03/03/07 12:26:15 - Worldtraveller continues harassment of InShaneee
 * 03/03/07 14:26:44 - AN/I discussion at the time of the block. All neutral participants except Bishonen (who cited, inaccurately, a lack of personal attacks) agreed Worldtraveller's actions were harassment.
 * 03/03/07 12:32:01 - User talk:InShaneee discussion at the time of the block. All neutral participants agreed Worldtraveller's actions were harassment.
 * 03/03/07 14:35:35 - Block placed

More than thirty hours elapsed between the time I warned Worldtraveller on ANI that further action of this sort would result in a block and the actual placement of the block when he refused to stop. In that time nobody said that a block would be improper or that Worldtraveller's actions were not harassment. Instead, two users agreed with my assessment, as did the general consensus on both pages where this was discussed.

Let us suppose for the moment that I was wrong. That the ArbCom will find that we want to allow our 'valued contributors' to call each other "witless moron" and the like repeatedly, edit war to restore personal attacks, badger each other for months on end, et cetera. These things have been found helpful to Wikipedia, or at least 'less harmful' than blocking users who act that way and refuse to stop after repeated warnings. Even if so, this was not heretofore apparent to me, and was not indicated by the consensus of opinion at the time I made my block. Thus, I submit that my block was proper even under the heightened strictures for blocks of 'established users'. I apologize for not anticipating that the community would want to allow 'valued contributors' to harass others indefinitely, if that is to be the case, but the possibility simply had not occurred to me and the subsequent objections thus took me by surprise.

Further, I think my block log shows that I am not the 'trigger happy' blocker some have claimed. Indeed, I am almost certainly one of the least 'block happy' admins. I think many blocks do more harm than good. The primary concern expressed on my RFA was my 'radical' opposition to 3RR blocks (preferring attempted compromise first). I firmly believe and myself follow the principle (though I don't press it with others since the community disagrees) that it would be best to block only when it is clear that there is no other way to stop the problem behaviour... as Worldtraveller had made very apparent in this case with his direct refusal to stop after many people had warned him to.

InShaneee's block of Worldtraveller followed recent trends
For some time now there has been a concerted effort to establish wildly divergent standards of required behaviour for users depending on their level of 'community contribution' (as defined in various ways). Diffs can be supplied if needed, but I believe we are all familiar with the movement and indeed it plays heavily in the current case. That effort argues that it is permissible, indeed even 'beneficial', to apply different blocking standards to different users. This has already resulted in noticeable changes to our culture;


 * WP:BP - As noted previously, blocking policy extends special protection to logged in users with a substantial contribution history.
 * - A few days prior to this dispute between InShaneee and Worldtraveller flaring up there was a discussion about potentially improper blocks of anons by another admin. Some examples closely paralleled InShaneee's block on Worldtraveller. Many, indeed most, respondents supported the blocks... despite no warning having been given, despite the admin being involved in disputes on some, despite no actual policies having been broken on some, and despite the fact that the blocks were often for a full week.
 * - Likewise, some users argued that InShaneee's block of the anon who turned out to be Worldtraveller was essentially correct, but should have been done by someone else. Others felt it was wrong, but dismissed it as a minor matter.
 * - Jimbo himself responded to an anon complaint about a block saying, "anon ip numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community".
 * Template:Welcome-anon-Jimbo - Jimbo's statement above has been taken up and put into a standardized template for greeting new anons.

It is ironic that the partial success of these efforts to establish different standards for blocking 'anons' vs 'established users' vs 'valued users' has resulted in a 'valued user' editing as an 'anon' being blocked on thin cause, but that is part of the inevitable damage caused by this sort of institutionalized 'unequal rights'. It encourages 'valued users' to behave badly and discourages 'anons' from contributing at all - thus losing some who would otherwise have become major contributors themselves. I strongly disagree with this practice, but hey... it's right there in the blocking policy, and the welcome template, and the statements and proposed motions of this very ArbCom case. This is what a significant portion of the community has been asking for.

Evidence presented by User:JzG
It is my strong belief that this edit, and the series of similar reverts before it, holds the key to the begining of the whole thing. It looks to me as if InShaneee has assumed that the anonymous editor is either a known figure evading accountability, or an outsider recruited to support a point of view. It is clear that the inclusion of the Paranormal Wikiprokect is controversial, and although the revert war is lame, and a revert war, it is not vandalism, but a legitiate difference of opinion, albeit disruptively pursued.

For completeness this arbitration should probably also include the history of, which appears to have been inspired in whole or in part by Worldtraveller's experiences with InShaneee and other editors. I am uncertian myself of whether the problem here is InShaneee or a general failure to assume good faith and review blocks in a timely manner. That episode itself is pretty unsavoury, and I don't think anybody came out of it well.
 * Essay posted on Feb 10
 * Slashdotted on 14 Feb and vandalised
 * 16:42, February 14, 2007 TenOfAllTrades (Talk | contribs | block) protected Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (Article on slashdot; receiving repeated vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 16:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)))
 * 16:45, February 14, 2007 TenOfAllTrades (Talk | contribs | block) protected Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (lifting sprotect; anon vandal was blocked [move=autoconfirmed])
 * 16:54, February 14, 2007 Brion VIBBER (Talk | contribs | block) protected Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (re-semiprotecting, seeing more vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
 * 17:14, February 14, 2007 Jamdonut (Talk | contribs | block) moved Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is succeeding (revert)
 * 00:25, February 16, 2007 Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) moved Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing to User:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing (If no one else is allowed to edit this, as many of the "Wikipedia is failing" crowd are asserting, then it is NOT a projectspace essay.) (revert)
 * 22:35, February 16, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing" (Ridiculous, ridiculous nonsense. Vanity and WP:OWN. Enough.)
 * 23:33, February 16, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing" (WP:OWN, WP:VAIN, cross-namespace redirect.)
 * 00:53, February 17, 2007 Aude (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing" (26 revisions restored: for the sake of readers that followed links here... please just leave this page alone)
 * 09:58, February 17, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing" (Like I said, you don't get to write an essay and then take your ball home whe nit's challenged.)
 * 10:18, February 17, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing" (content was: 'The essay that was originally here is now at User:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing' (and the only contributor was 'Worldtraveller'))
 * 10:19, February 17, 2007 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Talk | contribs | block) protected Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (to disallow recreation [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
 * 14:04, February 17, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing" (deleted to make way for move)
 * 16:15, February 19, 2007 Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing" (30 revisions restored: Guess these shouldn't be deleted anymore.)
 * 18:32, February 20, 2007 Haukurth (Talk | contribs | block) unprotected Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing (Semi-protected for a week, Slashdot traffic has presumably resided)

In amongst that lot we had a lame edit war with some insisting that the original version be linked as "the version you saw on Slashdot" or variations on that theme. WT exhibited signs of WP:OWNing the essay, and there was a lot of "for the original essay by Worldtraveller see this link" type of silliness, but after some discussion with WT I think we (a few of us involved by then) reached a more or less amicable conclusion, and one consistent with our interpretations of policy and consensus as applied, with the essay back in project space as an essay, and some commitment from various parties to ensure that it was not excessively subverted, albeit with a link to a complementary essay Wikipedia is not failing added.

That's a lot of text, I'm not sure how much of it is relevant. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by KP Botany
InShaneee blocked me stating on AN/I that he was blocking me because, "The lion's share of his recent contributions have all been anti-Khoikhoi rants." At the time he made this post no lion's share of my posts had been about Khoikhoi, just a couple out of the prior over 500. You can't make the number of prior edits small enough for the lion's share to have been Khoikhoi rant's. Can't an administrator at least be truthful and accurate? See these two pages of my contributions:

The Wikipedia policy on blocking at the time stated that I should e-mail the administrator and request being unblocked. I followed the guidelines and did so. InShaneee used my e-mails to mock and taunt me on AN/I,, he also mischaracterized my e-mails in order to taunt me on AN/I while I was blocked from responding, while he was refusing to reconsider my block, and not responding to my e-mails. The same as he exaggerated my Khoikhoi rants from less than 1% to well over 50% if 500 edits are considered (less than the lion's share no matter how few posts prior to his block), InShaneee misrepresented and exaggerated the content of my e-mails to him, sent according to policy, requesting to be unblocked. I sent the e-mails to another administrator who unblocked me.

InShaneee was purposefully and maliciously provoking me. KP Botany 21:08, 24 March 2007 (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.