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.

In five months, Alienus has been blocked 15 times by 9 separate administrators on 11 separate occasions for edit warring, incivility or personal attacks

• 1 block by Alai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):
  • 4 Feb
• 1 block by Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • 19 Feb
• 5 blocks by Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):
  • 5 Mar (2), 17 Jun, 19 Jun, 23 Jun [2]
• 1 block by William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):
  • 19 Mar
• 1 block by Nandesuka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):
  • 24 Apr
• 2 blocks by InShaneee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • 24 Apr (second was an extension of the first after discussion) [3]
• 1 block by Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • 7 May
• 2 blocks by Will_Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • 10 May, 2 Jul [4]
• 1 block by Sasquatch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • 2 Jul

Alienus has received many warnings for edit warring, incivility or personal attacks

• 29 January 2006: Musical_Linguist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) warns Alienus over violations of 3RR on Criticism of Christianity
• 11:26, 31 January 2006 KHM03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) warns Alienus over incivility, probably for this edit where he said, inter alia "*spit* I wash my hands of this page and all of you people on it. I wish I could wash the foul taste of dealing with you out of my mouth, but I can't. You want this page whitewashed to oblivion? More power to you. You get what you deserve."
• 02:55, 4 February 2006 Block notice from Alai for Wikipedia:Three revert rule on Multiple Drafts Model. "Blocked for 24h, which is a bargain, considering the truly excessive number of reverts involved."
• 16:16, 4 February 2006 Further comment from Alai advising Alienus on dispute resolution methods.
• 5:26, 5 February 2006 Sceptre says, referring to Talk:Cartesian materialism, "Please stop removing comments on that page; it is supposed to be for an open discussion".
• 23:29, 14 February 2006 Myciconia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) gives Alienus a civility warning for the edit summary "undoing bad changes" on Safe sex.
• 10:40, 19 February 2006 Three revert rule block notice from Sceptre, related to Ayn Rand
• 21:23, 19 February 2006 Billyjoekoepsel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) writes "From what I read of your above statment you have declared your open hostility and intentions for future "civil disobedience" and "disrespect" which I take to be saying that you plan to disrupt Wikipedia." in response to Alienus' comment on his block.
• 01:31, 1 March 2006 Musical Linguist asks Alienus to stay within the Three revert rule on User talk:Raisinman.
• 08:04, 3 March 2006 Voice of All warns Alienus about Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Clarifies that this related to edits on Objectivism and homosexuality
• 00:20, 4 March 2006 Chooser complains about Alienus reverting his edits without explaining (sometimes using popups to do so).
• 00:16, 5 March 2006 Inshaneee issues a civility warning "regarding this edit and others."
• 00:30, 5 March 2006 Inshanee warns that "you need to remain civil to ALL users, or you will be temporarily blocked"
• 01:40, 5 March 2006 Tony Sidaway gives a warning that "notwithstanding the fact that I'm not banning either of you from editing Ayn Rand, I will block you both if you persist in edit warring on the article. Then you won't be able to edit Wikipedia at all for a bit. Please continue to argue your cases on the talk page." Alienus and LaszloWalrus continued edit warring and were blocked by Tony Sidaway for three hours shortly afterwards.
• 03:25, 5 March 2006 GTBacchus says
  • "Alienus, from a purely practical standpoint, you're going about it the wrong way. Fight zealots, good. There's a right way to do that here, and you can win, every time. There are lots of mechanisms in place here to stop zealots from screwing things up; use them, and you won't get blocked. Take it upon yourself to repeatedly revert anything, and you'll get blocked for it, eventually. That's just not how it's done. Now that you're blocked for reverting, I wish I'd pressed the point more at Talk:Safe sex earlier. If you want to know how to make Wikipedia work for you, just ask."
• 11:29, 5 March 2006 GTBacchus gives expanded advice on how to deal with zealotry without being blocked.
• 14:52, 5 March 2006 Comment on this by Tony Sidaway
• 15:16, 5 March 2006 Tony Sidaway announces extension of the three hour blocks on Alienus and LaszloWalrus after a resumption of edit warring
• 22:56, 5 March 2006 GTBacchus tells Alienus "Sticking to an "I'm right and he's wrong" line will get you nowhere fast, not that you seem to heed advice."
• 04:18, 6 March 2006 GTBacchus again tries to write extensively and clearly to advise Alienus on how to work within Wikipedia.
• 04:59, 6 March 2006 And again
• 05:25, 6 March 2006 GTBacchus warns Alienus that "Original Research ${\displaystyle \neq }$ Vandalism. Get super-conservative about what you're willing to call "vandalism", and you'll hit less static."
• 21:31, 12 March 2006 jossi warns Alienus: "Please note that reverting using popups scripts, also known as "god mode", should be used for reverting vandalism only. Please do not use these scripts to revert edits in articles you are involved with"
• 21:46, 12 March 2006 jossi notifies Alienus about an admin noticeboard discussion on use of "god mode" scripts for reverts in general editing [5], and GTBacchus makes some comments [6].
• 19:18, 15 March 2006 William M. Connolley posts notice of Wikipedia:Three revert rule block over edits on Medical analysis of circumcision
• 21:20, 15 March 2006 Comment on the same edits, by Nandesuka
• 23:56, 15 March 2006 Comment on the same edits, by Musical Linguist
• 21:33, 20 March 2006 EChronicle asks Alienus to stop removing the "POV" template from Creation-evolution controversy
• 12:29, 23 March 2006 No personal attacks warning over edits on Talk:Abortion_law.
• 18:15, 23 March 2006 GTBacchus reminds Alienus on abuse of popups.
• 03:07, 24 March 2006 SlimVirgin issues general warning that "regardless of any other consideration, the personal attacks and violations of WP:CIV do have to stop."
• 04:25, 24 March 2006 Aaron Brenneman says "'d like to echo SV's concerns. I understand that tempers can fray and frustrations build, but comments such "Perhaps you should stick to baseless reverts" do not assist in resolving disputes."
• 14:02, 24 March 2006 "npa2" template from Nandesuka for calling him an "asshole".
• 19:46, 24 March 2006 "npa3 template from Nandesuka.
• 19:46, 24 March 2006 And an "npa" warning from Jakew

Blocks on Alienus have generally been supported on discussion, but have also generated controversy

• 13:33, 18 June 2006 Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Alienus (insufficient cause)
  • Lethe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) dissented from Tony Sidaway's June 17 block of Alienus and unblocked without engaging in prior discussion [7].
  • Pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [8] and RadioKirk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [9] [10] had both reviewed the block and endorsed itf
  • Lar concurred that the block should not have been lifted (20:03, 18 June 2006)
  • Lethe later acknowledged that his unblock was not in order [11] and apologised with good grace, although he did not agree with the block.
  • Timothy Usher disagreed with the assessment "personal attacks" (20:30, 17 June 2006)
  • Romarin felt that administrators were "abusing their power by acting out grudges" (18:00, 18 June 2006) and that Tony Sidaway's 17 June block was "one such case".
  • Lar felt that Alienus was picking on Pschemp, who had endorsed the block (19:35, 18 June 2006)
  • SOPHIA awarded him a barnstar for "remaining polite when blocked for a reason he didn't agree" (21:43, 18 June 2006)
• 00:15, 4 July 2006 Sasquatch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Alienus (unblock to reblock, I agree the original block was BS, it that was an personal attack, then jossi did the same thing (provoked or not))
  • Sasquatch disagreed with Will Beback's 2 July block for personal attacks, but renewed and extended the block in view of Alienus' attacks on his talk page since being blocked.

Alienus has criticised several administrators as corrupt or incompetent

• 18:57, 19 February 2006
  • Long comment with edit summary "Venting my disgust" in response to a Three revert rule block by Sceptre. "I'm frankly disgusted with the whole thing, from the crazy zealots to the incompetent admins who enable them. I expect that I will at some point run into some other zealot, do the right thing, and be punished for that, too. Eventually, I'll be so sick of this nonsense that I'll walk away (not that you care)."
• 04:52, 1 March 2006 "From past observations, there are some admins prepared to block me for scratching my nose. The last time around, I reported someone for a 3RR violation and got myself banned instead, which is where the Chinese legalism rant came from."
• 3 March 2006 Edit with summary "wildly incorrect accusations by an admin" in which he denies any wrongdoing. The administrator in question (Voice of All) had cited in particular an edit with the summary "Oh, look, I've been tricked into a third revert. One more and you two can game the system by reporting me. Brilliant." [12]
• 05:24, 2 March 2006 Edit with summary "biased admin" and wording (in full): "Cat, you were wise to avoid this mess; they've got a biased admin on their side." This opinion was later revised [13]
• 18:39, 3 March 2006 Tells Ryan Delaney about his fears over Objectivism_and_homosexuality: "At this point, I'm likely to get blocked for any continued effort to work on this article. In contrast, none of the edit warriors has been even notified of a possible block by an admin, much less asked to back off. As far as I can tell, they have no intention whatsoever of joining us in Talk and will continue to revert until they win by tricking me into a 3RR violation. This is precisely what Laszlo did on Ayn Rand, which is why that page has been Protected since. I'm doing my best here, but I feel that the Wikipedia administration is letting me down."
• 23:34, 3 March 2006
  • "My take on this now that I've calmed down is that VoA is trusting, lazy and oblivious, but not actively malicious or partisan. It was trusting of him to blindly accept EddieSegoura's mistaken summary of the edit war over on that article. It was lazy of him not to follow up any deeper. It was oblivious of him to single me out as a lone vandal when I'm the only person modifying the article who has an ongoing commitment to Talk about changes before making them." and
  • "The next time I make an edit to the page, I will once again start with the version we're working on, not the vandalized ones that it was reverted to. This will quite likely put me in violation of the 3RR, at least in VoA's mind, which is all that counts. At that point, I fully expect at least a 48 hour ban, intended to "teach me a lesson". Unfortunately, the only lesson I'll learn is that VoA is an incompetent admin."
• 03:04, 5 March 2006 Complaint about being very briefly blocked for edit warring with LaszloWalrus "Funny, eh? Chinese legalism wins again. Fuck Wikipedia."
• 02:55, 6 March 2006 Reply to GTBacchus pep talk: "GT, the fact is that I haven't had any opportunity to fully evaluate your advice because I've been kept blocked the whole time. It's this sort of clumsy heavy-handedness, whether by Wiki admins or real cops, that gives them both a bad rep. In the real word, we're more likely to think of cops as the bozos who give us tickets, not the heros who protect us from genuine crime. Such is the case here, where good editors have more to fear from admins than bad ones do."
• 04:28, 6 March 2006 "What pisses me off about all this is that we were making genuine progress on Objectivism and homosexuality. With the the Protect in place, the vandals were forced to join the rest of us in Talk and come to a consensus. Changes were made in response to criticism and those changes were genuine improvements. Then an admin came in and fucked things up."
• 19:57, 15 March 2006 "Once the block is gone, I'm going to revisit the issue of why non-vandal text was removed repeatedly and without explanation, as well as why the original text was reverted despite the fact that it met all criteria for inclusion. This will include following up on why Jay has been allowed to violate Wikipedia rules while I've been punished despite not violating them. I bet you can guess what will come of this."
• 17:55, 16 March 2006 (edit summary, "bad faith, bad math, bad admins"): "I don't see this as a problem with William, but a problem with the admin system. William is being successfully gamed by Jakew, Jayjg and Nandesuka, a trio of wheel-warriors who obstructed any attempt at all include some mention CA-MRSA in the context of circumcision, no matter how neutral and cited...This doesn't add up and I'm not going to drop this issue until a few admins have lost their badges."
• 20:48, 16 March 2006 "Hey, so far as I know, William is just Jay's dupe, not his willing accomplice."
• 17:11, 19 March 2006 "When you can come to grip with the fact that having a badge doesn't make you right, you'll be well on your way to being a happier and better person."
• 22:56, 5 April 2006 (User talk:William M. Connolley) "Wow, I can't believe someone is accusing you of abusing your powers. It seems like almost yesterday that I did this, and you reacted with hostility. I wonder why this pattern keeps repeating."
• 20:56, 6 April 2006 (User talk:William M. Connolley) "The fact that he enforces it in questionable situations at the behest of his friends while refusing to enforce it at the behest of his detractors is one of the basic ways that William abuses his admin powers."
• 22:00, 6 April 2006 (User talk:William M. Connolley) "I don't know if it'll make you feel any better, but Connelly blew off my requests for explanation as well. He later erased my comments from his talk page, unanswered, while leaving a paranoid accusation. It was pretty creepy. I don't know why Wikipedia has such low standards for admins"
• 01:51, 7 April 2006 (User talk:William M. Connolley) "Nandesuka is the one who got William to ban me on a false basis and is part of the weird pro-penis-trimming cabal who think they WP:OWN all articles about circumcision."
• 18:38, 7 April 2006 (User talk:William M. Connolley) "Sorry you're having to deal with William's incompetence as an admin. As admins go, he's one of the very worst, and that's saying something."
• 15:29, 9 April 2006 (User talk:William M. Connolley) "In fact, you are involved, as the cabal's pet admin. I'll come back for you later. Go have fun reverting my edits here to hide my accusations. The very fact that you hide them only supports them."
• 23:22, 19 April 2006 "I am nothing if not unsympathetic. However, I don't reserve my lack of sympathy for SimplePilgrim; I have lots left over for incompetent and biased admins, including Musical Linguist."
• 12:24, 24 April 2006 "To fight against a kangaroo court is to give it legitimacy, and that's one thing Wikipedia will never have so long as it allows zealots to be admins."
• 17:12, 24 April 2006 "So long as I thwart them, it's only a matter of time before they dig up some some lame technicality and a zealot-friendly admin to enforce it."
• 17:28, 24 April 2006 "Note that Nandesuka shouldn't even be involved in this in any official capacity, since he's an admin who has had many content disputes with me over his unalloyed support for cirumcising all penises."
• 17:38, 24 April 2006 "Even before you got a badge, you have made it a practice to litter my user page with spurious warnings, which has earned you the honor of being the only person whose text I erase on sight from my Talk page. You are a stalker. Since you are the guilty party, your response here is not sufficient. I would like an objective third party to respond regarding this abusive block by you."
• 17:40, 24 April 2006 "Don't allow this spurious block to get in the way of oppose this. There are enough incompetent and partisan admins out there already."
• 20:35, 24 April 2006 "Since you did not attempt to do your job, I will once again raise the flag, in hopes of a more competent admin noticing. Your services, however, will no longer be required, Jareth. You can join Nandesuka on my short list of admins who have proven their incompetence."
• 20:44, 24 April 2006 "In short, you are incapable of legitimately warning me and unqualified to block me. This is because, as I have pointed out and will gladly repeat, you act in bad faith."
• 18:26, 7 May 2006 "This has been used as an excuse to block me for another week, which says almost nothing about me but is a very interesting insight into the psychology of Jayjg."
• 04:10, 8 May 2006 "Certainly, one of the procedural errors that JayJg made here was a failure to recuse himself despite his intimate involvement on this article, and I'll be following up on that as soon as my block expires."
• 05:44, 8 May 2006 "he duration of the block is, in any case, excessive, and the admin was involved in editing the article."
• 20:26, 8 May 2006 "My concern is that Jayjg and I have repeatedly conflicted over edits regarding circumcision, so he is not impartial on this matter. As a matter of procedure, I believe he should have recused himself and allowed an admin without a history of participation on circumcision articles to have made a judgement regarding any possible WP:CIVIL violation."
• 22:37, 8 May 2006 "This is an unfortunate miscommunication, made worse by an admin's mistaken intervention."
• 22:48, 8 May 2006 "All editors are obliged to assume good faith, but admins have an even higher obligation because their errors lead to harm. Currently, I remain blocked for a crime I clearly did not commit."
• 02:16, 9 May 2006 "At most, I made a statement that, to my surprise, was mistakenly viewed as an insult. I apologized for any unintentional insult, and Jake has accepted it. Why do you persist in blocking me for what is, at most, a misunderstanding?"
• 18:17, 9 May 2006 "It is unclear why Jayjg, with whom I have an ongoing content dispute regarding circumcision, personally blocked me over this circumcision-related remark. It has become clear that many other admins, if they would have blocked me at all, would have done so for a shorter period or would have shortened it upon noting the accepted apology."
• 05:38, 15 May 2006 " if Jakew, Nandesuka or Jayjg post anything here, in the interests of civility, I'm just going to delete it out of hand. Two of them are admins, but WP:BLOCK prevents them from having anything to do with me, so this is perfectly reasonable."
• 02:29, 23 May 2006 "If you wish to report me for being one of the many people reverting your biased edits, you are free to do so. However, this will open you up to counter-reports of 3RR violation and your apparent threat to abuse your sysop bit to control content. With all due respect, I don't think it's a winning move for you."
• 07:57, 23 May 2006 (WP:AN3): "Frankly, this is barely a slap on the wrist and makes me seriously wonder whether you admins treat each other more gently than you do the rest of us. It certainly leaves behind the appearance of impropriety, and that's bad enough."
• 15:47, 23 May 2006 (WP:AN3): Extensive criticism of handling a 3RR block, including: "...when I had Jayjg's block on me removed due to his conflict of interest, it was replaced with one that was four hours longer. This was despite calls from multiple editors and admins to shorten my block, due to relevant circumstances. Before that, I made the mistake of strenuously questioning the validity of a block, only to find my comments misinterpreted and used as a justification for block extension. When I complained about that, I had my Talk page Protected to entirely silence me!"
• 16:17, 23 May 2006 "Whatever your intent, there is now at least the appearance of admins censoring comments that they disapprove of, and that is itself harmful. We need our admins to act transparently and gain a reputation for fairness. This is currently not the case."
• 18:48, 3 June 2006 "As it stands, it certainly appears as if you're following me around and waiting for an excuse to block me."

Alienus has a pattern of engaging in ad hominem argument, or addressing arguments to editors rather than topics

(from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision):

• 17:44, 6 May 2006 - Edit summary: "rv whitewashing; the foreskin is functional, except in the case of Jakew's"
• 17:39, 28 May 2006 - "Last time I checked, none of these three pro-circ activists [Jakew, Nandesuka, and Jayjg] are doctors."
• 23:15, 30 May 2006 - "The reason I remove anything you three post on my talk page is that it's become painfully clear that none of you are willing to work productively with me. "
• 18:19, 23 March 2006 - "In shoirt, this is not a case of two neutral people sharing neutral opinions. Both are on the record as religious partisans, and both have worked together against me personally."
• 20:48, 16 March 2006 - "Coincidentally, you've made a career of supporting and enabling people like Nandesuka, which colors your perspective as well. If you pursue this further and continue in your current vein, I will wind up escalating this; I will under no circumstances drop it. I'm quite apathetic about circumcision, but I have very little tolerance for intentional distortions regarding pregnancy. Coincidentally, I also have very little tolerance for meddling and biased admins."
• 20:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC) - "Anyhow, I'm not stopping until Jayjg, Nandesuka, Jakew and anyone else who supports them is blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely."[reply]

Numerous editors have asked Alienus to address arguments to content and not people

• 19:34, 8 May 2006 "As to the rest, it is clear to me that as long as you are unable to restrain yourself from commenting on your fellow editors, you will continue to make personal attacks and engage in breaches of civility, since you do not seem able to distinguish between civil discourse ("I believe you are mistaken, and here's why") and insulting rudeness ("Here's what I think about your dick.")." (by User:Nandesuka).
• 18:32, 7 May 2006 "Speaking as the person to whom the remark was directed, it struck me as an example of turning a discussion in general terms into a personal remark about myself. It is completely unnecessary to discuss another editor's genitals as part of an edit summary, and clearly a personal attack. " (by User:Jakew).
• 19:51, 7 May 2006 "If you believe that referring to another editor's genitals in an edit summary is civil, then I don't question your good faith so much as your basic judgement regarding social interaction." (by User:GTBacchus).
• 13:25, 24 April 2006 "Unfortunately it's your thoughts on others motives that will have gotten you reported with the 3RR used just as an excuse. Whilst I'm sure you have had some bad deals in the past it's just as biased to assume that any action another particular user makes is a bad one. There are certain words that will inevitably raise the temperature of a discussion and I try to avoid these at all costs. I find it helps to just concentrate on what is happening and to never speculate on why it may be (unless it's clear vandalism) as there is never a nice end to post exchanges of that kind." (by User:SOPHIA).
• 03:07, 24 March 2006 "Alienus, regardless of any other consideration, the personal attacks and violations of WP:CIV do have to stop. I don't know anything about the content disputes, and whether I'd agree or disagree with you, but I do know it's best to try to reach compromises on the talk page, or if you're well and truly outnumbered, consider walking away from the dispute. By all means, make your point forcefully, but comment on content, not the contributor." (by User:SlimVirgin).
• 04:25, 24 March 2006 "I'd like to echo SV's concerns. I understand that tempers can fray and frustrations build, but comments such "Perhaps you should stick to baseless reverts" do not assist in resolving disputes." (by User:Aaron Brenneman).

Work in progress

Ad hominem attacks against editors / Assuming bad faith

• 03:43, July 2, 2006 Accusing editors of being "cult members" and thus their opinions are worthless.
• 04:58, June 26, 2006 Making personal attacks on edit summaries: "Never argue with cultists"
• 15:39, July 2, 2006 Expressing disdain for editors, "He is a long-time cult member"; 16:16, July 2, 2006 "Buzz of. Go meditate or something"
• 04:24, June 26, 2006 "XXX is a member of the XXX cult. This action appears to be part of a general defense of his cult against anti-cult editors."
• 22:25, July 2, 2006 "I have been blocked because of a pattern of unsupported and generally refuted warnings on my page, most of them by my pet stalker, XXXX"

Alienus believes that Wikipedia is broken and the best way to fix it is to "make it suck" for other editors

• 04:34, June 26, 2006 "Making it [Wikipedia] suck less overall requires making it suck more for those who currently make it suck."

Alienus believes that personal attacks need to be put in "context"

• 23:06, July 5, 2006 "the matter of what constitutes an insult, or even bigotry, is not always trivial. Intent, consequences and context all matter, and the deciding factor can be perception and preconception."

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.