Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:40, 2 August 2006

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, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Tazmaniacs

First assertion

Intangible sanitize political articles by removing the term far right wherever editorial consensus has judged it necessary. (see 3rd Afd in a row). One example: having discovered the Far right leagues art., based on the fr:ligues d'extrême-droite, Intangible has only one desire: asking for the deletion of the Category:French far right leagues, or at least separating it into "fascist" and "nationalist leagues". He thus proposes a new CfD (proposing ten CfD at the same time, all about the same subject), here. This new CfD is an obvious trolling attempt. I guess Intangible is using his ideological stance as only navigational tool.

• Ad hominem?. Furthermore, his comment about Cberlet's use of a Journal of Historical Review article in the Nouvelle Droite article () is close to an ad hominen attack where he tries to reverse the charge and let Cberlet pass as a revisionist. This is quite indecent especially in the views that Cberlet's citation was there to source a quote from Alain de Benoist, that the article is about a far right movement not totally unrelated with the revisionist galaxy, and all the more if you see a bit the debate on the "Nouvelle droite" talk page: Intangible is trying since a month to transform the Nouvelle Droite in the New Right, forcing Cberlet to endlessly repeat the same evidences. If this isn't trolling, than what is? Tazmaniacs 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A few more trollish edits by Intangible:

• Jean-Marie Le Pen:

, ,,

• At GRECE (Alain de Benoist's Nouvelle Droite's think-thank:

, ,, , , ...

• , ]

)

• National Front:,,

,,

• I took the freedom to copy-paste this list which we tried to set up a few weeks ago at . Tazmaniacs 12:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• CfD:,,,

• Pierre Drieu La Rochelle:,

• Intangible's work at the Communist state article. We may also have to block Intangible from editing pages involving far-left politics, since he won't stop commandeering those articles either. -- WGee 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• July 18, Guido Demoor Guido Demoor recently died in Antwerp, Belgium. Initially, press coverage led to believe that he was the victim of a beating by 6 youths of North African descent. Later was revealed that he himself had far right connections, that he initiated the fight in question, and that his death was primarily caused by his bad condition, and only circumstantially by the fight (that he started himself). The article as it is now depicts only the first, racially coloured story. I've tried to bring NPOV into it, giving two independent sources, but my edits were plainly reverted by Intangible, while commenting : "rv to sane version - see talk page". --LucVerhelst 10:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• 12 July 2006 Vlaams Belang While reverting vandalism, Intangible reverted good faith edits by TedMundy. After a revert back by TedMundy, new revert by Intangible ("use the talk page first when you want to remove references here"). Revert back by TedMundy, commenting "What references ? I edited the text, made it better. No need to ask permission first, I should think.", upon which Intangible reverts back again : "I don't have time for silly games, so use the talk page first". I step in, and revert back : "I don't see why user TedMundy should first confer on the talk page". New revert from Intangible : "surely it can be included though". Revert back from myself :"I agree with TedMundy. This belongs in the Vlaams Blok article", upon which Intangible goes to my talk page : . My answer on his talk page : , upon which Intangible reverts back Vlaams Belang : "instead of proving a POINT, I will add the reference back again". Another revert from me, following some edits by me and another user, and a final revert back by that other user, accompanied by a personal attack by that user on me and TedMundy on the talk page. --LucVerhelst 10:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, 15 July 2006. Between edits and  : discussion between myself and Intangible about the content of the criticism section. Intangible inserts the vision of a minority far right group, using weasel words, trying to depict them as mainstream. I tried to find some middle ground, but I gave up. --LucVerhelst 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• While on the Vlaams Belang page he insists on adding information on the predecessor of the party (see above), on Matthias Storme he "hides" this information behind a legalistic description . He simply reverts my addition : "not at all necessary here, there are wikilinks you know". I gave up. --LucVerhelst 20:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Intangible has been temporarily blocked for 3RV on Anarchism by User:William M. Connolley, see his talk page. Tazmaniacs 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Deletion of valuable and accurate information, and removal from a valid category. Intangible summarized his edits as "see article", while the article for National Bolshevism was virtually unchanged (although Intangible did obscure some of the references to Facism as an ideological source for the theory by moving them around, they are still prominently in the text - as well they should be); his changes did not reflect those changes as much as they did his very own comment on the talk page for the article. Even if the fascist connection would be as shaky as he claims it is, it is obvious that National Bolshevism would need inclusion in Category:Fascism at the very least for having oriented (I use the term in the vaguest sense) itself after political theories which were brought to the forefront by Fascism - as a parallel, note that the very non-fascist Category:Fascist/Nazi era scholars and writers is also included in the Fascism category. And, of course, it is obvious that several movements covered by the term were also overtly fascist-inspired (arguably, they all are, but let's not get into that). Dahn 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sources

• ,

Evidence presented by User:Cberlet

First assertion

Arbitrary deletion or reversion without proper discussion or consensus: Diffs: ; ; ; no discussion, against consensus; wholesale;

Second assertion

Unreasonable deletions to POV push: , , , .

Third assertion

Continuous POV deletions re: "far right:" Diff: ; ;

Fourth assertion

Sanitization of articles about right-wing groups or individuals: Diffs: ; ; ; ;

Fifth assertion

POV campaign of Renaming/Deleting Categories: ; , , , , .

Sixth assertion

Gaming discussions & walking editors in circles: Diffs: ; ; here; user talk go round

The following Diff's illustrate the rapid-fire aspect of trumping other editors and brushing aside attempts at consensus in a relentless and POV way: ,, , , , , , , , , , .

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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.