Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve/Evidence

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.

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 voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Reyk

Personal attacks by Fourth Ave

• On my talk page
• On the Bob Vander Plaats talk page

POV pushing by Fourth Ave

On the Bob Vander Plaats article:

• Article as originally written
• POV revert
• POV revert

Evidence presented by JesseG

Personal Attacks

• On my talk page
• On the User talk:Jaysuschris page. There was an additional attack by FourthAve upon Jaysuschris talk page upon being notified of this arbitration case.
• Numerous times against Jim Nussle and members of his family -
  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G

Vandalism of the University of Dubuque article

FourthAve has engaged in repeated POV vandalism of the University of Dubuque article.

• A
• B
• C
• D
• E
• F

The above vandalism generally takes the form of personal attacks against Jim Nussle and his family, as well as current University President Jeff Bullock and members of his family.

Sock Puppetry

It also appears that FourthAve has engaged in sock puppetry in order to get around blocks and other restrictions placed upon him by the administration.

• An edit to the University of Dubuque article by the user 67.1.121.131, which is very similar in tone and content to previous edits by FourthAve. [2]

Blanking of User Talk Page

Soon after the block against FourthAve expired, his talk page had been blanked, removing all of the previous warnings made against the user. Currently, the only thing on the talk page is the notice regarding this arbitration.

Edits to this Evidence Page

Upon notification of this arbitration case, FourthAve made the following changes to these pages within the evidence sections of other users;

• A
• B
• C
• D
• E

His most recent edit contained further personal attacks against the University of Dubuque, Jim Nussle and his family, and UD President Jeff Bullock and his family.

Response on the main page for FourthAve's case

FourthAve also responded on the main page for this arbitration case, as shown here. His response included further personal attacks against the Jim Nussle family and the Jayuschris user as well in his response.

Further Possible Sockpupperty

On April 27, 2006 further vandalism on the Jim Nussle article occured by the 207.32.33.5 user.

Following are the changes that this user made to the article;

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

Evidence presented by Jaysuschris

Reyk and JesseG have presented the elements that started the process (though I might categorize edits on the Nussle page as extreme POV rather than personal attacks). I will only add the personal attacks that against me and Tony Sidaway that have yet to be chronicled here.

Personal Attacks

Personal attacks against me:

• A
• B
• C
• D (Though I'm not entirely sure what to make of this one...)

Personal attacks against Tony Sidaway

• A
• B
• C
• D

Evidence from after the start of this proceeding

POV edits to Julien Dubuque Bridge

• A
• B

POV edits to University of Dubuque

• A

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway, as involved party

Suspected ongoing vandalism of Jim Nussle

• semiprotect notice on Wikipedia:Protected page. --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FourthAve

1

I have notified all the involved parties of my investigation of this thing. As I have written elsewhere, I thought this was a resolved issue, but Tony Sidaway says elsewise, and seems to have already resolved on a one-year block. I will fight this fully, but do need time to pick through this all. Mainly, I have to snoop through all the edits and mail of the complainants.

I have suggested that Tony Sidaway recuse himself from this case. --FourthAve 08:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

1.1 see the contributions of this user; there is a serious troll associated with this case; Admin Sean Black annhilated a particularly vile bit left on my mail page. I'm told it comes from AOL, but there seems to be more involved here.

--FourthAve 03:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2

I have done a lot of digging thru what amounts to the last two months' garbage. I've come up against the phenomenon of an admin's power to alter the record. While one can sometimes recover things in the history, it gets very difficult to keep things straight. Admins deleting things makes it very difficult, and sometimes impossible to reconstruct past edits. Deleted articles don't just get deleted: every mention of the article also gets deleted, including the stuff in a user's contributions (I know; more than 500, pro'ly less than a 1000 of my edits were deleted when the the EB 1911 project pages were deleted). Only an admin can fully reconstruct things, and who wants to go through month-old garbage?

I call these 'vaporized edits'. Some of these were done during my contretemps with Jaysuschris. I do remember editing a page (perhaps Mongo), then going back, and finding my message vaporized; maybe I mis-saved it.

As for the Jim Nussle bits, the simple facts remain: the details of his divorce from his first wife (Leslie Harbison Nussle) were sordid, as are the details of his marriage to his second wife. And they are part of the underchatter of his campaign for Iowa governor. Should Mike Blouin win the Dem nomination, we'll have an anti-choice Democrat running against a divorced adulterer with a homewrecking K-street lobbyist of a 2nd wife (harshly said, but objectively correct). Jaysuschris cannot abide any mention of this, NPOV or otherwise. This is what set me off.

We now have a repeat (there will be a three-peat) of Congressional staffers vandalizing wikipedia articles for partisan purposes (Republicans have been doing this heavy-handedly; Democrats tend to be much more subtle; Democrats like me are very unsubtle). On the first occasion, JC became my target. He is not an innocent party, but rather, as highly partisan as am I. There were a number of edits where I attempted to compromise, but it seems any mention of Jimbo's Ten-Commandments-breaking was offensive to him. Q.v. my latest post to Sidaway's mail: again, vaporized edits. I think JC was either tag-teaming or actually sock-puppeting, but admins have mucked up the record, back into Feb, or even Jan. (and if this is not true, JC, I do not apologize for this fact; you remember the exhange).

I think this is a fool's errand. I really do believe Sidaway has already pre-judged this. Snooping thru his mail gets downright scary: he blocks other admins and is being very politely accused of being an abusive admin.--FourthAve 03:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)