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.

Evidence presented by User:Trey Stone[edit]

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.

Corporate media

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."

December 27

May 10

May 15

Allan Nairn

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.

May 10

May 12

Death squad

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.

May 11

May 12

Isle of Youth

Another illustrative example of Davenbelle's failure to provide NPOV and his use of weasel words.

May 10

Suharto

More summary reversion and POV.

May 12

Amy Goodman

More uncritical acceptance of the particular subject of this article's POV.

May 12

Contras

Davenbelle helps his buddy Viajero to inject POV backed by unreliable sources into the intro.

May 15

May 18

Slight suspicions of sockpuppetry

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.

On Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey_Stone

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.

Evidence presented by User:Davenbelle[edit]

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.

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Allan Nairn

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:

May 10

May 11

May 12

and on May 18 between Trey Stone and myself.

Amy Goodman

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.

May 11

May 12

and on May 18 between Trey Stone and myself.

Death squad

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).

May 11

May 12

Suharto

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].

May 11

May 12

Isle of Youth

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.

May 10

May 12

and on May 18 between Trey Stone, and Viajero

Corporate media

Corporate media is an article Trey Stone originated. It is unsourced original research with a condescending tone.

May 10

May 12

and on May 15 && 18 between Trey Stone and myself.

Evidence presented by User:Viajero[edit]

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 (edit | 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)

25 Apr 2005

In an article published in The Nation in 1994, Nairn broke the story of the US government's role in establishing and funding the Haitian paramilitary death squad, FRAPH (the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti).
to this:
In an article published in The Nation in 1996, Nairn raised questions about possible links between the U.S. CIA, DIA, and the anti-Aristide death squad FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti). However, his report relies heavily on a single source, and the Clinton administration had publicly come out against the Haitian military regime of General Raoul Cédras, accused of supporting the group. Furthermore, the deposed Jean-Bertrand Aristide was reinstated as President of Haiti through U.S. military intervention in 1994.
Trey Stone: several cmments about your recent edits.
[...]
2. You changed this:
In an article published in The Nation in 1994, Nairn broke the story of the US government's role in establishing and funding the Haitian paramilitary death squad, FRAPH (the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti).
to this:
In an article published in The Nation in 1996, Nairn raised questions about possible links between the U.S. CIA, DIA, and the anti-Aristide death squad FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti).
Was changing 1994 to 1996 just an editing error? Also, if you read his original reports, he did not "raise questions", he asserted it was true.
3. Then you added this line:
However, his report relies heavily on a single source, and the Clinton administration had publicly come out against the Haitian military regime of General Raoul Cédras, accused of supporting the group. Furthermore, the deposed Jean-Bertrand Aristide was reinstated as President of Haiti through U.S. military intervention in 1994.
This is blatant editorializing. Unless you can attribute this POV to someone, with a citation, I will delete it.
Thanks, -- Viajero 08:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

26 Apr 2005

6 May 2005

8 May 2005

Fine, but that doesn't mean the Clinton admin's support of Aristide shouldn't be mentioned.
[...]
The tone is a little much, but like I said before, the article gives the false impression that the U.S. was unambiguously hostile to Aristide, and that needs to be fixed."
Trey Stone: in your most recent edit summary, you wrote: i've proven my case, i will not discuss this any further. What kind of childish petulance is this? You haven't presented a shred of evidence in support of your argument. -- Viajero 21:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
[...] Secondly, his evidence surrounding U.S. "support" of Constant is not conclusive, and contradictory to the Clinton admin. policy of restoring Aristide to power. This needs to be noted. J. Parker Stone 21:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Yet again you're offering original research. You might think that an action, event, or state of affairs conflicts with a certain politician's or government's stated policy, but that's not sufficient reason reason for excluding it from the article. You need to provide evidence for your views, not assumptions and appeals to what seems to you to make sense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
What "seems to me" to make sense makes sense to any rational person not blinded by a kneejerk distrust of U.S. foreign policy. The Clinton admin. said that the Cedras regime had subverted democracy in Haiti. It intervened in 1994 and successfully secured the resignation of Cedras through threat of military action. It's not that hard to comprehend. J. Parker Stone 22:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
It's original resarch, unbacked up by evidence. That's all there is to it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
so are you saying that it's disputed that the U.S. restored Aristide to power? if so i'm gonna have a hard time taking you seriously J. Parker Stone 22:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
It's not the fact that's underdispute, but the original-research conclusions that you draw from it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
No one is arguing that the U.S. restored Aristide to power. But this fact does not "disprove" that the U.S. also backed FRAPH. Nairn explains why in this interview: [2] (http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/june95arnove.htm). -- Viajero 23:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
paying Constant as an informant does not equate to unequivocal support of FRAPH's actions. J. Parker Stone 23:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Fine, back that assertion up with a citation which disputes Nairn's findings, and we'll add it to the article. -- Viajero 23:22, 8 May 2005 (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.

9 May 2005

hey, it's not my fault no one takes Nairn seriously enough to discuss his charges J. Parker Stone 00:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
But it is your fault that you insist on putting unverifiable conjecture into the article against Wikipedia policy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
In an article published in The Nation in 1994, Nairn claimed to have found a definitive link between the CIA and the establishment of FRAPH, a notoriously brutal death squad that terrorized supporters of deposed president Jean-Bertrand Aristide with approval from the military regime that ruled from 1991-1994. As the U.S. was instrumental in restoring Aristide to power in Haiti and forcing the resignation of the junta, Nairn's allegations are controversial, as they run contradictory to the stated policy and actions of the Clinton administration. His claims rely heavily on the testimony of Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, FRAPH's founder, who is currently serving time in Florida jail.
As can be seen seen, he still fails to cite his sources and in no way addresses the concerns of the other editors.

12 May 2005

ATTN Davenbelle The allegations are controversial, and I have fully justified my edits. Please stop this incessant reverting. J. Parker Stone 06:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have fucking explained myself again and again, but you kids can't fucking compromise on anything less than anti-American tinged POV. J. Parker Stone 07:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

14 May 2005

it's a fact that Clinton restored Aristide -- this presents an unambiguous contradiction to the Chomskians' claims)

15 May 2005

The fact is OK, the original-research conclusion isn't
"original research" doesn't apply to patently obvious facts.

21 May 2005

"explained time and time again"

Conclusion

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 (edit | 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.

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway[edit]

25 March


More