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/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
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.
User:Davenbelle has shown no willingness to compromise in this encyclopedia in order to remove the transparent left-slanted bias from his constant reverting and edit warring. Primarily, he has not explained his uninterrupted reverting, has utilized unreliable sources, has continued to add in shaky information conforming to his POV, and has continually violated NPOV standards.
I'll detail the evidence... after this commercial break.
This article is quite illustrative of Davenbelle's disdain for NPOV. His edits are generally tilted toward favoring Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's self-described " propaganda model," as well as presenting pro-corporate bias as "apparent."
This article is another good example of clear anti-American POV that uncritically accepts Nairn's views as fact without citing sources to back up the journalist's claims.
Another article in which Davenbelle & co. have uncritically presented supposed U.S. support of FRAPH as unambiguous, while failing to cite sources, provide a neutral perspective, or take steps to resolve the dispute other than wholesale reversion.
Another illustrative example of Davenbelle's failure to provide NPOV and his use of weasel words.
More summary reversion and POV.
More uncritical acceptance of the particular subject of this article's POV.
Davenbelle helps his buddy Viajero to inject POV backed by unreliable sources into the intro.
I'd request an admin check on whether Davenbelle, Viajero, Mel Etitis, and NoPuzzleStranger share any accounts, although it could just be that they're comrades in POVerizing.
The sockpuppetry issue that Davenbelle brings up was resolved a while back, as was the vandalism, which I have not done in some time. I admit to being somewhat harsh in my arguing and reversions on this project, but I sometimes have difficulty assuming good faith with users who seem so clearly guided by ideology.
Trey Stone has been reverting many editors who've challenged his editing on many articles in spite of their pointing out that he fails to cite his sources and falls back on original research. He often discards all other edits to articles, contravening Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. His talk and edit summaries are often quite uncivil.
Trey Stone has been editing Allan Nairn frequently since April 25; 1st edit with the edit summary: "NPOVing this sorry article". Viajero and Mel Etitis have challenged Trey Stone's edits on the Talk page, asking for citations to back up his assertions, but he refuses to cite his sources and tries to argue his point of view using original research. I became aware of this dispute after reading and endorsing the RfC re Trey Stone. After reading the article and talk and noting that Trey Stone's most recent revert had broken the three revert rule, I reverted his edits as detailed here:
As with Allan Nairn, Trey Stone, and Viajero and Mel Etitis have been at odds over Amy Goodman since April 25. And I have opposed the edits Trey Stone is attempting to introduce that Viajero and Mel Etitis have argued are original research on the talk page.
Another Trey Stone vs Viajero and Mel Etitis article with Grace Note opposing Trey Stone, too. Trey's edits already addressed on the talk page: "This is at best personal research and speculation." — Mel Etitis. Prior to my first edit, Trey Stone had just performed his 6th revert within 24 hours (and was blocked within the hour).
The activity editing Suharto is more complex. A series of edits ( [3], [4]) by Trey Stone and Meursault2004 over the spelling "Suharto" vs "Soeharto" involving global search-and-replace resulted in two image-links breaking. One of the broken images was removed by Cdc and the other was lingering in a broken state.
On Suharto, Trey Stone's edits have previously been reverted by WebLuis [5] and Mel Etitis [6].
The issue on Isle of Youth revolves around the use of the word 'allegedly' re torture occuring in the prison on the island under Fidel Castro. Trey Stone edits have been previously reverted on this page by Viajero rv and NoPuzzleStranger [7] [8] [9]; Trey Stone's 4 reverts of NoPuzzleStranger earned him a 24 hour block.
Corporate media is an article Trey Stone originated. It is unsourced original research with a condescending tone.
Trey Stone's incivility, edit-warring, sockpuppetry is extensively documented Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone, including his many 3RR violations (no fewer than eight since the RfC was opened on 9 May 2005) and a bizarre faux "edit war" between him and at least one and possibly two of his own sockpuppet accounts. The RfC contains much material not included this Evidence page and vice versa; in fact, the RfC and the ArbCom evidence is largely complementary; there is little overlap, and I hope that the Arbitration Committee will at least take a brief look at the RfC and take it into account in its final decision.
Here, I am going to address one issue not well covered on the RfC, Trey Stone's failing to cite his sources and his reliance on original research which, in my opinion, is as grave as the matters listed above, but one that is more of a challenge to document, partly because one comes up against content issues. In the example below, Trey Stone makes edits to an article, Allan Nairn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and is challenged on the talk page to justify his changes by first one editor then later a second.
In the interest of readability and succinctness, I have restricted myself to one clearly defined section of the text, and I have have listed only the article edits and talk page comments that I feel are relevant. (All times UTC)
From this point until 21 May, the article is reverted seventeen times by Trey Stone, ten times by Davenbelle, nine times by Mel Etitis, and once by Viajero.
Trey Stone is challenged to justify his edits, but instead of drawing on solid scholarship, he falls back on blustery, ad hoc argumentation to defend his position, and appears to believe that simply by repeating often enough that he has "justified his edits" that others will be convinced that in fact he has, but as the evidence above demonstrates, this is far from the case. He makes no effort to work towards a concensus on the talk page beyond stating his position (The issues have been the same with FRAPH ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), which deals with the same subject matter).
The Allan Nairn article is but one example of this kind of behaviour; more examples can be found in the page histories and on the Talk pages of Henry Kissinger, Death squad, Amy Goodman, among others.
In summary, Trey Stone has been contributing since July 2004 and should now be intimately acquainted with Wikipedia culture but appears incapable or unwilling to enter into the collaborative spirit of the enterprise and engage in concensus-building over controversial topics.
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/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
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.
User:Davenbelle has shown no willingness to compromise in this encyclopedia in order to remove the transparent left-slanted bias from his constant reverting and edit warring. Primarily, he has not explained his uninterrupted reverting, has utilized unreliable sources, has continued to add in shaky information conforming to his POV, and has continually violated NPOV standards.
I'll detail the evidence... after this commercial break.
This article is quite illustrative of Davenbelle's disdain for NPOV. His edits are generally tilted toward favoring Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's self-described " propaganda model," as well as presenting pro-corporate bias as "apparent."
This article is another good example of clear anti-American POV that uncritically accepts Nairn's views as fact without citing sources to back up the journalist's claims.
Another article in which Davenbelle & co. have uncritically presented supposed U.S. support of FRAPH as unambiguous, while failing to cite sources, provide a neutral perspective, or take steps to resolve the dispute other than wholesale reversion.
Another illustrative example of Davenbelle's failure to provide NPOV and his use of weasel words.
More summary reversion and POV.
More uncritical acceptance of the particular subject of this article's POV.
Davenbelle helps his buddy Viajero to inject POV backed by unreliable sources into the intro.
I'd request an admin check on whether Davenbelle, Viajero, Mel Etitis, and NoPuzzleStranger share any accounts, although it could just be that they're comrades in POVerizing.
The sockpuppetry issue that Davenbelle brings up was resolved a while back, as was the vandalism, which I have not done in some time. I admit to being somewhat harsh in my arguing and reversions on this project, but I sometimes have difficulty assuming good faith with users who seem so clearly guided by ideology.
Trey Stone has been reverting many editors who've challenged his editing on many articles in spite of their pointing out that he fails to cite his sources and falls back on original research. He often discards all other edits to articles, contravening Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. His talk and edit summaries are often quite uncivil.
Trey Stone has been editing Allan Nairn frequently since April 25; 1st edit with the edit summary: "NPOVing this sorry article". Viajero and Mel Etitis have challenged Trey Stone's edits on the Talk page, asking for citations to back up his assertions, but he refuses to cite his sources and tries to argue his point of view using original research. I became aware of this dispute after reading and endorsing the RfC re Trey Stone. After reading the article and talk and noting that Trey Stone's most recent revert had broken the three revert rule, I reverted his edits as detailed here:
As with Allan Nairn, Trey Stone, and Viajero and Mel Etitis have been at odds over Amy Goodman since April 25. And I have opposed the edits Trey Stone is attempting to introduce that Viajero and Mel Etitis have argued are original research on the talk page.
Another Trey Stone vs Viajero and Mel Etitis article with Grace Note opposing Trey Stone, too. Trey's edits already addressed on the talk page: "This is at best personal research and speculation." — Mel Etitis. Prior to my first edit, Trey Stone had just performed his 6th revert within 24 hours (and was blocked within the hour).
The activity editing Suharto is more complex. A series of edits ( [3], [4]) by Trey Stone and Meursault2004 over the spelling "Suharto" vs "Soeharto" involving global search-and-replace resulted in two image-links breaking. One of the broken images was removed by Cdc and the other was lingering in a broken state.
On Suharto, Trey Stone's edits have previously been reverted by WebLuis [5] and Mel Etitis [6].
The issue on Isle of Youth revolves around the use of the word 'allegedly' re torture occuring in the prison on the island under Fidel Castro. Trey Stone edits have been previously reverted on this page by Viajero rv and NoPuzzleStranger [7] [8] [9]; Trey Stone's 4 reverts of NoPuzzleStranger earned him a 24 hour block.
Corporate media is an article Trey Stone originated. It is unsourced original research with a condescending tone.
Trey Stone's incivility, edit-warring, sockpuppetry is extensively documented Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone, including his many 3RR violations (no fewer than eight since the RfC was opened on 9 May 2005) and a bizarre faux "edit war" between him and at least one and possibly two of his own sockpuppet accounts. The RfC contains much material not included this Evidence page and vice versa; in fact, the RfC and the ArbCom evidence is largely complementary; there is little overlap, and I hope that the Arbitration Committee will at least take a brief look at the RfC and take it into account in its final decision.
Here, I am going to address one issue not well covered on the RfC, Trey Stone's failing to cite his sources and his reliance on original research which, in my opinion, is as grave as the matters listed above, but one that is more of a challenge to document, partly because one comes up against content issues. In the example below, Trey Stone makes edits to an article, Allan Nairn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and is challenged on the talk page to justify his changes by first one editor then later a second.
In the interest of readability and succinctness, I have restricted myself to one clearly defined section of the text, and I have have listed only the article edits and talk page comments that I feel are relevant. (All times UTC)
From this point until 21 May, the article is reverted seventeen times by Trey Stone, ten times by Davenbelle, nine times by Mel Etitis, and once by Viajero.
Trey Stone is challenged to justify his edits, but instead of drawing on solid scholarship, he falls back on blustery, ad hoc argumentation to defend his position, and appears to believe that simply by repeating often enough that he has "justified his edits" that others will be convinced that in fact he has, but as the evidence above demonstrates, this is far from the case. He makes no effort to work towards a concensus on the talk page beyond stating his position (The issues have been the same with FRAPH ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), which deals with the same subject matter).
The Allan Nairn article is but one example of this kind of behaviour; more examples can be found in the page histories and on the Talk pages of Henry Kissinger, Death squad, Amy Goodman, among others.
In summary, Trey Stone has been contributing since July 2004 and should now be intimately acquainted with Wikipedia culture but appears incapable or unwilling to enter into the collaborative spirit of the enterprise and engage in concensus-building over controversial topics.