Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone Appeal/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Beginning of collaboration with 172
Me and 172 agreed to put aside our past disputes and collaborate on edits after I removed a 3RR post that mistakenly claimed he had violated the rule. After that, I asked for his advice on major future edits I made.

Future edits, end of politically-based arguments
The three articles I tried to rewrite in a major way were Henry Kissinger, Iran-Contra affair, and Communist state. On the Kissinger page, I made a draft of a rewrite; Jmabel agreed to implement my intro changes, and 172 editted in the other changes, commenting here. I felt my rewrite and 172's approval reflected not only a removal of bias within the article, but also a clearer organization and wording. I was careful not to let my own political views influence my changes. At the time, I had a temporary ArbCom injunction, so I was unable to directly edit the page.

Before my injunction, I had tried to rewrite the Iran-Contra Affair page as well. I got 172's advice on this as well; he mostly approved of the edits though gave me some minor suggestions as well. Once again, my focus was more on organization and relevancy than the political bias I had mostly been concerned with when I first started editting.

The other article I remember copyeditting before my ban was Communist state. Here the article was just bloated with too much back and forth opinion; "the anti-communists say this, the pro-communists say that." I tried to cut down on that and stick to the facts of what had historically occurred within Communist states, the technical definition of the term, and removing redundant wording. Here again 172 approved of my changes, though added that the article still needed some work. Ultramarine objected to some of my changes and I explained my rationale on the talk page.

I know that's only three articles, but they were major changes I'm happy I made, particularly to the Henry Kissinger article. I made sure to ask for 172's advice on my changes and see what he thought so we had a kind of "bipartisan" consensus. Should I go back to editting political articles, I'll make sure not to engage in the heated disputes and rhetoric I did before, and ground my changes in articles not just in NPOVing but also improving organization and wording. I feel like I've definitely learned a lot since I first started contributing here about how this site works, and won't repeat my past mistakes.

Sorry for taking so long to post this, and if I messed up on format or need to add more evidence just let me know. Thanks to the ArbCom for taking up this case. Dr. Trey 09:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

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.