Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Evidence

User:C56C added something to the User:Cberlet section. I am not sure if that is supposed to happen. Intangible 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Intangible and recategorization of hundreds of pages
User:Intangible is in the process of recategorizing hundreds of pages, despite the fact that Intangible is in arbitration over this very issue. I have asked for a temporary injunction, See:request for injunction. I raise this here because so many pages are being edited, and I felt someone should at least glance at what is going on and decide if it is OK or not. I am obviously biased, and think the recategorization is POV, idiosyncratic, and ultimately destuctive of the work of scores of editors.--Cberlet 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've been noticing this the last couple days and have been reverting a number of these edits by Intangible. But I also am highly biased in this situation and I would also like a 3rd party to review these actions. The Ungovernable   Force  20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Back in a few weeks
I need to take a break from Wikipedia. Back in early September. It is very frustrating to go to all the work of presenting an arbitration case, and watch while User:Intangible essentially ignores the process and makes hundreds of dubious POV edits. I think the case for a temporary injuction is a strong one. I realize that administrators are overworked and some are attending the Wiki meeting. So I think it is better if I just walk away from this whole mess and cool off for a few weeks. --Cberlet 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Intangible's claims


For User:WGee, his double standard was also noted by another editor .
 * It should be noted that the aforementioned editor, SandyGeorgia, was not invloved in the article at all. Moreover, she has a history of content disputes with me in the Hugo Chávez article.  This is relevant because it indicates that she is not a neutral commentator.

This 'double standard' is examplified by the comment of User:WGee at the talk page of the Québec Solidaire article.
 * Not only did Intangible misconstrue my comment in the first place, but he has chosen to ignore my precise clarification of it:.

''Furthermore, User:WGee has simply removed edits by another user User:Fastifex. I originally provided a source for my edit on the talk page here: .''
 * Indeed I did remove the edits. Additions to Wikipedia are not "true until proven false"; so I don't understand why Intangible is trying to use my removal of these edits against me.  No source was provided for them orginally, so I exercised my duty to remove original research from Wikipedia.  Although Intangible did provide a source sometime later asserting that all Communist states are/were "totalitarian" (a word frequently misapplied), it was merely an opinionative essay; and certainly the assertions made in one essay cannot be regarded as fact.  In addition, Intangible's source did not address this part Fastifex's edit: ". . .embracing market reforms isn't necessarily coupled with as much socio-political liberalisation, they may remain authoritarian."  Not only is that a moot assertion, but it's written in a horrible standard of English.

--WGee 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

evidence by User:Tazmaniacs
This is not really structured. I am not sure how I can reply to this. Some are not even assertions made by User:Tazmaniacs. Intangible 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

gone
I'll be gone drinking some tequilas in the sun. Back in september. Intangible 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Active Arbitration?
Do we wait for Intangible to check back in?--Cberlet 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know when/if Intangible is rejoining Wiki?--Cberlet 16:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And under what username ?
 * I trust that enough data has been saved from his edits to verify suspected sockpuppets. --LucVerhelst 12:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Intangible 00:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)