Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice 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 shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint 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.

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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

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

Be aware that 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.

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.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Crockspot

My role in this proceeding is, by necessity, more that of an expert witness related to policy than a direct participant/witness in the dispute. I have laid out below the relevant policies, and my opinions as to how they apply in this case, and in general. - Crockspot 05:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality regarding the behavior of the Parties

My direct involvement with this dispute is limited, so I cannot fairly judge the behavior of the other parties. I can only vouch for my own edits related to this subject, listed below, which were justified based on policy, advisory and admonishing in nature, and adequately summarized. I became aware of the dispute through a notice on the BLP noticeboard, which I have been monitoring since its inception.

Caveat - As new evidence becomes available in this proceeding, my originally-stated neutrality is beginning to shift toward the view of ownership issues and a novel interpretation of policy on the part of User:NYScholar. I will add backing evidence for this view to my own evidence when my opinion becomes more solidified. - Crockspot 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit] Presumption in favor of privacy

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy states: Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In the specific case of significant public figures: If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

[edit] Biased or malicious content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Biased or malicious content states: Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

[edit] Criteria for categorization

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Use of categories requires that category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

[edit] Public self-identification

What constitutes public self-identification? Olympia Snowe is a good example. The statement in her article identifying her religion cites two secondary sources, both showing the subject participating in public events as a Greek Orthodox and talking about being Greek Orthodox. A politician who goes out of his way to be seen leaving his church every Sunday is another example of public self-identification. (I should point out here that Libby is not a politician in the classic sense. He is a political appointee.) Wearing a hijab or other religious garb in public is probably another example. But the act of going to a place of worship regularly, and participating in worship the same way as any other member of that religion would, including donating money and possibly having their name end up on a donor list (unless he is building the Scooter Libby Wing of the Montreal Jewish Children's Hospital), does not qualify as public self-identification. Certainly a third party identifying a subject's religion would not be public self-identification. I do not doubt that Libby is Jewish, but I have not seen any evidence that he has ever publicly self-identified. It seems obvious that he considers his religion a private matter, which is not uncommon. We must make a presumption in favor of privacy.

[edit] Relevance to notability or public life

It has been proposed that Libby's religion is relevant to his public life, because as the Vice President's Chief of Staff, he may have had interactions with Israeli officials. I am told that there is even a source voicing this concern. But as I understand it, this source is the same third party who identifies Libby's religion; an old schoolmate who had a falling out with Libby, and is an avowed opponent of the Bush administration. I have to question this claim in the light of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It sounds a bit conspiratorial to me. I also would like to point out that Ted Kennedy's article makes no mention of concerns about any contacts or interactions he had with Vatican or Catholic Church officials during his long career in the Senate. Nor does Olympia Snowe's article question her motives in inviting leaders of her church to testify before Congress.

[edit] Logical extension of category criteria

When we are talking about the concept of categorization, what we are really talking about is the use of Wikipedia's unattributed editorial voice. Applying a category is the same as inserting an unattributed statement, using Wikipedia's voice, into the article content. Therefore, it is a logical extension to apply the same two criteria to article content that uses Wikipedia's voice to state fact. If the two criteria are not met, any content regarding religion or sexual orientation must be fully attributed to a reliable source, never in Wikipedia's voice. For example, instead of the unattributed statement "Krusty the Clown is Jewish", it should be "Kent Brockman reports that Krusty the Clown is Jewish"(cite). I believe that this concept is clear in the intent of the policy, and is not inconsistent with related policies, but it is not articulated adequately. I hope that this body takes the opportunity to rectify this shortcoming by issuing a finding that in the absence of the two criteria being met, article content dealing with religion and sexual orientation should be treated with extreme caution, must be fully attributed to the most reliable secondary sources, preferably multiple ones, must assert relevance, and must not give undue weight to a minority view. I don't think, for example, that a single op-ed piece, even from a highly reliable publication, should on it's own be considered adequate sourcing for this type of information. There should be at least a single factual news story from a very reliable source, or perhaps multiple opinion pieces from different notable reliable sources.

[edit] "Yellow badging"

I heard this term for the first time within the last week, but it is a phenomenon that I'm sure we have all been observing on Wikipedia for quite some time. The classic form is your basic Stormfront raider, who runs through and tags every Jew (or suspected Jew) they can find without even an attempt at sourcing. Then there is the more targeted and carefully crafted form, like this edit, which cites an impressive looking source that does not support the claim. (Before I reverted it, I searched high and low, and I could find no evidence, reliable or not, that this person was even Jewish.) These are clearly edits that are motivated by racism and little else. I do not believe that the current case is one of these "classic" examples. However, the charge of yellow badging may not be completely unfair in some aspects. Is it fair to basically suspect someone of being an Israeli spy, or at the very least, question their loyalty, just because they are a Jew? I cite again the Ted Kennedy and Olympia Snowe examples referenced above. Editors who are dedicated to exposing Truth and Hypocricy need to be very careful that in their passion, they are not creating an atmosphere (and this atmosphere is much worse off-wiki) where it's good to engage in this kind of activity. However noble the intent may be, the action is still unsavory, whether it is identifying Jews, or outing gay (or suspected gay) politicians. It's mind boggling that perfectly enlightened people would put themselves in this position, and not even see that there is something not right about it. Perhaps Hanlon's razor applies. WP:BLP is considered one of the strictest policies on Wikipedia. Within the policy, religion and sexual orientation are singled out for even more strict treatment. This is not by accident. Religion and sexual orientation are private and touchy subjects for many people, and circumventing the policies could cause harm to subjects. Editors need to be careful that they are following these policies to the letter, and are using only the strongest sources.

[edit] User:NYScholar shows contempt for the Arbitration process

In this edit, User:NYScholar shows contempt for this body and process, and Wikipedia itself. It is disappointing that he refuses to defend his edits here, and simply directs inquirers to go find comments of his in one of his archives. He claims that he will not be available to participate here, yet he has had time to edit his talk page every day, and has made dozens of edits to Paul Wolfowitz in the past several days. (His original claim was that he could not participate because he would be completely off wiki for several months.) To quote: "I am unable to take any more of my time on this request originated by someone else. I have made it clear that I regard it as a worthless personal vendetta against me and, as such, of no significance to either to me or to other truly responsible editors in Wikipedia (a non-peer-reviewed online publication of often-dubious credibility) or in academic (peer-reviewed) scholarship." It seems that his unavailability is actually only limited to this proceeding. - Crockspot 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Tbeatty

[edit] NYScholar has exhibited ownership issues in violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

I am only tangentially aware of NYScholar's editing history. However, on the few occasions I did happen to edit an article he was involved in, it was clear he owned it.

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is a book written by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter. The editing history from Dec 26, 2006 onward clearly shows that this article has been taken over by User:NYScholar. What is ostensibly a simple book review, NYScholar's constant addition of content from the book plus the removal of criticism created the need for a content fork Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. He was warned for it here.. I do not know where the line is drawn between being just heavy contributor to an article or ownership issues, but NYScholar appears to be on the ownership side. I commend his dedication but his style seems to drive other editors away or create content forks. --Tbeatty 05:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Case in point, from his talk page [2]. This is the type of expression listed as signs of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles problems.

“
  • Professional editors like me are the opposite of amateur editors; academic scholars like me have advanced degrees in their fields (in my case a Ph.D.), and we do know what we are doing through decades of academic scholarship, major publications, and teaching of undergraduate and graduate students in our disciplines. Often in Wikipedia, I encounter students and others who are not professional editors and others who are not well trained in editing, who just do not recognize the value of advanced training in editorial work of this kind, resulting in peer-reviewed publications (scholarly books and articles). That does not diminish my editorial accomplishments; it just means that they are not well understood by people with non-scholarly backgrounds. I suggest that people look at the work that I have produced (content) and try to focus on it rather than on personal squabbles introduced by those who focus on contributors instead of on content. I did not initiate the arbitration request; I do not have time to deal any further with it. For the months of May, June, July, and August, I will have little to no time to do any editing in Wikipedia or to consult Wikipedia's arbitration process. I will be engaged in scholarly research projects and related travel throughout most of this period and subsequently as well. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 ”

[edit] Evidence presented by User:RWilliamKing

Specifically, I have no vested interests in the content of the article, but as mentioned by other users I have also been monitoring this issue for quite sometime.

[edit] WP:OWN by NYScholar

User:NYScholar has frequently engaged in constant ownership claim of the article, even as so far as developing an "alternative" Lewis Libby article within the Talk:Lewis_Libby article itself; specifically because at this time, and for some duration the Lewis Libby article has been placed under protection. Additionally, I believe NYScholar attempts to obscure the evidence against him by pushing many of the altercations between himself and other users into the archives.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8].

I also note that between the time when NYScholar first edited the article 24-Sept-06 and the last time since it's protection, there were over 493 edits in 210 days on this article by this user, sometimes with over 20 edits in a single day that are not typo, grammatical corrections, reformats.

Since the article was locked 10 April to 27 April, 251 edits were made to the talk page, largely in response and continuing development of the article within this page. (example in diffs between two dates on the talk page since the protection of the article).

The total of his 681 edits to the talk page have largely been written to justify the means of the "notariety of Jewishness". (here, here, here. The page archives are extensive.)

While it is recognized that the number of edits do not necessarily indict a user of wrongdoing, in this case they are not m edits on either the Talk or article page, but often long-winded repetions of the same material rephrased.

Additionally, there are many times where NYScholar quotes wiki policy to justify his edits and admonish those who would revert them (see archives of [9]).

[edit] Using protection to ensure WP:OWN

Lastly, it has been pointed out by user Jayjg that NYScholar has, not only in this occasion but on other articles as well (see: Temple_Rodef_Shalom), used protection in claim of revert warring to ensure that his edits remain permanent on the article page.

"Actually, you requested protection so you could get it protected on your version. You then tried the same trick with Temple Rodef Shalom, but people were on to you, and you only succeeded in getting yourself blocked for 3RR violation. Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)"

(see bottom of [[10]])

  • Note: in addition, I noticed that User:Crockspot was offering advice to NYScholar about participating in the arbitration issue, and thus I believe any material or evidence he weighs in must be questioned.

"I was mistaken then. As I have said, my actual involvement has been minimal, and your writings are voluminous, and I haven't taken the time to read everything. I'd rather be doing other things as well. I won't distract you any more, except to offer you well-meant advice: be as concise as you can. People's eyes glaze over after a certain point. Good luck. - Crockspot 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)" (Taken from NYScholar's Talk page.

[edit] Irresponsibility in dispute

Throughout NYScholar's archived user page, it can be seen since Archive 1, that there are many instances where NYScholar states that he "no longer has the time" to commit himself to anymore dialogue. This shows his unwillingness to reach a compromise; essentially placing the important of his schedule above the need for resolution.

  • Top user talk:NYScholar page:

"To everyone: Please do not post any more comments on my talk page. I cannot take the time to deal with them any further. Please consult my statement on the RFA page and the links that I have already provided and the talk page archives of the article on Libby. Thanks. [Updated. --NYScholar 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)]"

"Removed personal attack on me from my current talk page. Will continue to remove all such personal attacks. [Following guidance in WP:NPA; WP:RPA; added tags to talk page.] As I said: I don't have time to deal with these issues any further. -NYScholar 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)"

"Sorry: I cannot and will not take my time to answer any more "questions" about this article. Please do not post them here. As I say on the talk page (a few times) in that article, you are on your own. I've done all that I can and am willing to do. Please do not use my talk page as an extension of the discussion of this article. I am archiving this also. --NYScholar 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) "

"I have no interest in engaging with any of these users anymore: see my comment in my talk page archive 2. In terms of the rest of the block history, at the time it was clear to me and would have and should have been clear to any neutral observer, that the descriptions of those blocks were written by supporters of administrators engaged in wars of editing content eliciting help from their friends to block me and describing my behavior in entirely dishonest terms. Those descriptions should be expunged from block and editing histories. They are outrageous lies. I am not a troll (Internet) and I am not "disruptive"; those are descriptions initiated by parties involved in editing wars over form and content of articles. They are not truthful. I am a serious good-faith editor who does not engage in so-called gaming or edit wars. " -dated NYScholar 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • from archive 3: (continued middle east reference)

"Newyorkbrad: Please see Talk:Middle East Forum, Talk:Middle East Quarterly, and Talk:Daniel Pipes and the editing histories (some which now appear to have been doctored by administrators taking part in editing disputes) in Middle East Forum, Middle East Quarterly, and Daniel Pipes. Thank you. Given the time it took to report and the total lack of action given the report, I have no time left now to update it further. --NYScholar 08:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"

There are many more instances of this user's impatience and unwillingness to cooperate or find resolution in his talk page.

[edit] Rebuff of Quatloo's statement

I recently engaged in a brief exchange with Quatloo regarding the nature of his source. See here His talk page has been archived, with no immediate obvious link. I asked Quatoo to provide references that prove the Tulsa Jewish Review was in fact a reliable, attributable source. Unfortunately the only response about this I received on my talk page was the following:

"It is one of hundreds of provincial periodicals intended to serve the Jewish community. These publications tend to be noncontroversial and pragmatic. I would recommend a visit to the American Jewish Periodical Center, as it is among their holdings on paper medium, along with many similar journals. Quatloo 14:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)"

Because of the nature of this project(wikipedia), it is simply not enough to say they are noncontroversial and pragmatic, or to simply advise someone to essentially "fact check it yourself". Until proven otherwise, I believe that the Tulsa Jewish Review is a questionable source.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Notmyrealname

[edit] Numerous violations of WP:CIV, often directed at me

This user has prevented the resolution of a content dispute by taking a hostile tone towards other editors, including, but not limited to, myself. Examples of violations of WP:CIV towards me include

[edit] Numerous violations of WP:CIV directed at others

[edit] Obsessive fixation about Libby's ethnicity/religion

[edit] Constant abuse of rules regarding the "minor edit" tag

According to [[71]] "Reverts to a disputed page are unlikely to be minor. When a page is disputed, and especially if an edit war is brewing or in full eruption, then it's better not to mark ANY edit as minor, unless you're sure that all other users will agree it's minor, like correcting a misspelling." A quick glance at the editing history of any of the contentious pages that NYScholar edits will show flagrant abuse of this rule.

[edit] Violations of WP:OWN

This is, unfortunately, not an exhaustive list.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Quatloo

This is a reiteration of things I have said before:

I became aware of this issue only after reading about it on the BLP noticeboard, and I do not have involvement in editing articles on Jewish or political topics, with the exception that I once voted for keeping a category on Jewish Fencers because of the special relationship between those two groups (though I think I would vote against other Jewish sports categories unless such a situation existed also for that sport). I do have a general interest in BLP policy and in copyright. Some observations:
The fact that Libby is Jewish is supported by a reliable source, namely the Tulsa Jewish Review. That publication has been published continuously for over 70 years. In the point of Libby's case it is very specific to identify his temple. There are additional online sources for Libby's Jewishness which are not reliable, and I have noticed that editors will indicate those, and attempt to argue that the sources do not meet WP:RS. But the Tulsa Jewish Review meets WP:RS (it gives no requirement that the source not be regional or provincial, and indeed such a requirement would be absurd), and the question is moot. One cannot argue for exclusion of the fact based on its source.
We are thus reduced to the question, under BLP: Is this information germane to the article? The religion of all high government officials (elected or not, it makes no difference) ought to be included in the article. Religious issues often impact on questions of policy, and this is one of the most important pieces of background information on an individual. If reliably known it should be included. But even if one were to disagree with that postulation, the question boils down to: For a person involved in policymaking regarding Israel (as Libby definitely is), how can we possibly omit the fact that he is Jewish?
Any analysis beyond mere statement of religious affiliation would require citation of highly reliable sources. But statement alone does not require additional proof of relevance -- involvement in policymaking makes it relevant.
For this specific dispute, I am not familiar with the parties involved (I do not monitor the article in question), but if someone is forcing the deliberate omission or removal of this information from Libby's article, it is likely agenda-driven and that person should probably be stopped. As for the article on Temple Rodef Shalom itself, I express no opinion other than it is possible/likely the article lacks sufficient notability to warrant an entry in Wikipedia.

Additional details:

One of the other persons giving evidence here said that he could not find the Tulsa Jewish Review reference. I had found it earlier and put it on the BLP noticeboard, but here it is again [72]. I should stress that this is not merely an online publication, but has been in print for 70+ years. There can be absolutely no question that this is a reliable, third-party source. Discussion any other source which is less reliable (instead of this source) is a red herring intended to evade this issue.
I express no opinion as to the behavior of individual editors. But if a remedy is to be effected against someone who wants the religion included in the article, it should be directed towards the editor and not towards the article. It would be a great failing of Wikipedia if we could not state Libby's religious affiliation in the article.

Quatloo 08:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to RWilliamKing's besmirching of the Tulsa Jewish Review

Regard RWilliamKing's ridiculous retort that "it is simply not enough to say they [the Tulsa Jewish Review] are noncontroversial and pragmatic", I invite anyone to see for themselves dozens of issues they have made available of their publication in PDF format, at [73]. I looked at a number of them and I feel that any impartial observer would be quite satisfied at their pragmatism and lack of controversiality. They cannot be accused of "yellow badging" because they are intended to serve their local Jewish community. In the event that your own eyes are somehow inadequate, the American Jewish Periodical Center at Klau Library of Hebrew Union College would surely be happy to vouch that they are in fact a real publication: (513) 221-7444 ext. 3396 [74]. They have a run of the publication in their physical collections. Quatloo 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Fermat1999

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

I'm not sure if this is appropriate, but as I have just written my specialty board exams (and passed!) and am also going through a somewhat depressive episode over a relationship problem, Libby has been the last thing on my mind. I don't have the effort or desire to put on a comprehensive defence here.

I will simply state that Libby is a prominent politician who had strong influence within the current administration; particularly with middle east policy. There is reliable evidence that he is jewish. For an encyclopedia to not note the jewish ancestry of a politician that helps formulate US policy towards Israel and her adversaries is absurd. I could not imagine that being 'afforded' anyone of muslim or arab ancestry (or for that matter mormon, or asian, or african american ancestry). And almost all major contemporary american politicians have their religion and race/ethnicity noted (ethnicity more if white, race if non-white) on wikipedia. As a person of jewish ancestry from my dad's side; it is as much an ethnicity if not nationality as it is a religion to many many jewish people.

In regards to NYScholar. His style may not be the smoothest, but he really has done no harm. Some of the 'attacks' he is accused of and presented by notmyrealname are a bit out of context if one is to read the full history. He is meticulous.

In the end, I no longer care too much if his ethnicity or religion are not included because in the end, it is up to those that dictate wikipedia policy what is permitted and what is not, with their particular biases I suppose. If someone seriously wants to read about Libby, they will find out he is jewish anyways with a little research. It's too bad that a remarkable source like wikipedia will not have that information; something a large percentage of people are interested in knowing about their politicians (background). And not all of them are white racist stormfronters as Notmyrealname seems to think. Fermat1999 15:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by MoodyGroove

[edit] NYScholar is uncivil, makes personal attacks, and has ownership issues

NYScholar has taken over the Paul Wolfowitz and Project for the New American Century articles. Rather than engage in discussion he makes categorical accusations like this. The full discussion is here. MoodyGroove 04:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

NYScholar’s unfriendly and non-communicative editing style and ownership issues continue in the Leo Strauss article. As an example, Edwardwittenstein (talk · contribs) removed an external link to a Leo Strauss profile from SourceWatch citing POV pushing. Admin Will_Beback reverted the edit, with an edit summary that said (undo removal of proper WP:EL link). Since I agreed with Edwardwittenstein that the SourceWatch profile was biased (mostly a platform of left wing criticism of Strauss), and did not contribute anything that the Leo Strauss article would lack if it were a FA per WP:EL, I engaged Admin Will Beback in a conversation about it here and here. He ultimately accepted the rationale that SourceWatch did not contribute anything unique to the article, and said he would not object if I removed the link, which I did here. NYScholar immediately put the external link back into the article, and used an <!---editorial interpolation---> to say "Inclusion of this source contended by some editors. Including it still appears to be consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and Wikipedia:Citing sources as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; deleting it seems to be related to editorial POV." As is typical for NYScholar, broad references to multiple Wikipedia editing guidelines (but no specifics) and no substantive attempt to communicate either on my talk page or on the article’s talk page, and in fact, a review of NYScholar's talk page makes it clear that he's not interested in communicating with anyone. He's "busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries," but not too busy to log over 1,400 edits in the month of May. MoodyGroove 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

More <!---interpolated editorial commentry---> embedded in the Paul Wolfowitz article. Although not technically a violation of the editing guidelines (as far as I can tell), these types of comments remain embedded in the article long after consensus is reached and the talk pages are archived. It's not fair for only one side of the story to be embedded inside the article. If every editor did this, it would be nearly impossible to edit the Wikipedia. To me it represents ownership issues and a tendentious, insular editing style. NYScholar's talk page still says "To everyone: Please do not post any more comments on my talk page. Having already expended a great deal of my time to respond expeditiously, patiently, and courteously to earlier comments, I simply cannot and do not want to take the time to deal with them any further." MoodyGroove 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove.

I deleted NYScholar's interpolation which triggered this exchange in which NYScholar defended his actions. MoodyGroove 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {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.

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {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.

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {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.