Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence

Nightscreams evidence
Going out on a limb here, but I think Nightscreams evidence might be a little over the 1000 word limit. A clerk might want to remind him of said limit. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the limit, and explained my reasons for the material's length at the top of the section. Nightscream (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware you are aware of the limit, and the reasons for the material's limit are at the top of the project page. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If the length is a problem, per this statement "If you feel the need to edit or refactor or edit down this evidence, I have also posted it here." a clerk could always cut the post down to just the first two paragraphs, leaving that link as a guide to the full statement. It's worth reading for any arb who doesn't get a case of tl;dr. :) BOZ (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. That's why I posted it there too. But out of curiosity, what's tl;dr? Nightscream (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr = Too Long; Didn't Read 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant and tangential material
The material at Evidence presented by Scott Free on the project page doesn't address the specific points of this Arb and seems to be making a case for the creation of a tag template.

He also makes an uncivil, as well as inaccurate, accusation of collusion against other editors when he writes, "The mathematical odds of 3 people being in complete agreement in the choice of 6 out of 12 possibilities are rather high to say the least." This is a snide and uncalled-for remark, and I would respectfully ask Scott Free to remove this unfounded accusation. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Asgardian's response to this evidence
In Asgardian's response to my evidence he perpetuates in the same tactics, as I expected he would:


 * He again employs the ad hominem accusation that this is "personal", that I am "emotional", and that my evidence constitutes an "attack", without falsifying the evidence against him, or illustrating a "personal" motive on my part with evidence, or responding to the evidence of my history that shows this theory of his to be unlikely, thereby again implying that any criticism of him constitutes an attack.
 * He again brings up the length of my evidence. Although the length of evidence was an issue for the Arbitration Evidence page, this was an administrative concern, and one which was remedied by User:Alexandr Dmitri and myself, via a condensed summary that fit the length prescribed for that page, and a link to this one. In any event, the amount of detail of this evidence is necessitated by the sheer volume of material that Asgardian provides us with his infractions, and the need to debunk his myriad canards. It requires some degree of chutzpah to accumulate an edit history fraught with such a volume of inappropriate behaviors, and then complain that the rap sheet complied by critics to this effect is "too long".
 * He again sites the comments of User:WhatamIdoing, and the lie that a section on the recent RfC talk page became about "educating" me about Wikipedia, while conveniently omitting the fact that WhatamIdoing himself agreed that Asgardian's behavior was indefensible, and that he was not defending Asgardian. Asgardian also omits the fact that I rebutted WhatamIdoing's comments on that talk page, as well as the fact that I refuted in my evidence summary WhatamIdoing's rather inane comments about focusing on the contributor rather than content, when the RfC was entirely about the contributor in question.
 * He again argues that he has had no direct dealings with me, when this is irrelevant to the issues raised by the editors who have recently compiled all the evidence against him.
 * He describes his recent participation in the Beyonce Knowles article by saying that he "made several attempts to mediate with the other editor", not mentioning that these attempts included the use of his stock "emotive" insult to other editors on that article's talk page, and that he and Off2riorob continued to revert the article persisently over the course of ten days while the talk page discussion was ongoing.

To Asgardian, the fact that these propaganda tactics were debunked by me and others doesn't matter, because his modus operandi is to simply repeat the same speciously reasoned ideas over and over again, perhaps in the hope that no one will notice that that they've been debunked.

The one somewhat new accusation Asgardian has made against me, however, is in this section of his response:

The section of Nightscream's argument that most distresses me is from his Conclusion section: "This is not a problem that can be addressed with “mentoring”, a “parole officer” or topic bans. Mentoring involves someone of experience providing advice or support to someone of lesser experience, often imparting some type of skill to them. But Asgardian’s problems have never been one of skill or experience. His problem is one of character. Deliberately lying, attacking people on a personal level who criticize you, making accusations that you refuse to elaborate on—these are acts of deliberate and calculating intent, and not ignorance or lack of skill.

I find this to be inappropriate on several levels. It is offensive as Nightscream is judging me as a person and would seem to imply I have engaged in criminal conduct. Claims I "lie"; "attack people and "make accusations"? It could easily be argued that this is what Nightscream is doing now. I did not deserve this. It goes again to my assertion that this has become a vendetta. As BOZ states here ([29]), this is not a Nightscream decision, and I find it to be in very poor taste.

If I am "judging" Asgardian, then I am doing so by virtue of his actions and words to others, which is a fairly reasonable set of criteria by which to judge someone, certainly far moreso than his bringing up other editors' medical conditions, or imagined personal motives or grudges that he never bolsters with evidence. To him though, casting such aspersions is acceptable when he does it, but drawing conclusions about his editing behavior is not acceptable, even when relevant evidence is provided when doing so.

Regardless, nothing in my statements implies that he has engaged in "criminal conduct". The only thing that I and others have pointed out——not implied——is that he has engaged in violations of the rules of this site, which is not "criminal". If Asgardian is referring to the use of the phrase "parole officer", it should be noted that A. It's a metaphor, nothing more, B. It was Tenebrae, not I, who first employed that type of terminology on BOZ's talk page on February 25 (he used the phrase "probation officer"), and C. I was merely responding to this suggestion on Tenebrae's part to explain why I thought such a solution would not work. If this is what Asgardian was referring to when he accused me of implying "criminal conduct" on his part, then he was referring to me disagreeing with another editor's suggestion of this idea. Like most of his other arguments, this is just empty rhetoric.

Lastly, Asgardian takes issue with my statements that he has lied, attacked people and made accusations, and offers the rebuttal that this is what I have done myself. Again, notice how he does not make the distinction between the careful, good faith, calm use of this accusation, built upon a foundation of evidence and reasoning (which he fails to falsify), and his capricious use of such accusations as tactics of personal defamation, without said evidence, save for the occasional cherry-picked diff that on close inspection, fails to substantiate his assertions. Yes, Asgardian, I most certainly have accused you of lying, attacking people and making false accusations. This is the way of things in communities maintained by rules of conduct, and instances in which those rules are violated. Only in your mind, Asgardian, is it some type of transgression to point out when another person has committed a transgression. The difference between my doing this and your having done this, however, is that I and others have been meticulous in illustrating this accusation with supportive evidence, whereas you have not. But if you can provide evidence that shows that I deliberately conveyed a falsehood (something you've never even accused me of until now), evidence that excludes other possible explanations, then by all means do so. The fact that you cannot do so, and respond to such challenges with stonewalling, distortion, personal innuendo and non sequiturs, lies at the heart of your problem. Nightscream (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)