Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

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 (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

WMC is User:William M. Connolley. This section is under construction and will change considerably before completion. See the original evidence presented with the request, linked below, pending.

Preliminary remarks

See expansion of this section at Preliminary remarks.

In order to make clear what occurred in this case, I must first declare that -- please avert your eyes -- the emperor has no clothes. This means:

There is a cabal

In most reference to this, I have referred to a "faction" or "virtual cabal." The latter term refers to the appearance of a cabal; the implication is that the collective actions of a group of editors, identifiable in round outline if not always with specific precision, have the effect of a cabal. "Cabal" is a negative term, implying something other than normal and positive collaboration, and I use this advisedly. Here, it means that this faction of editors weights Wikipedia, because of their numbers and strong collective motivation and activity, toward certain POVs; and, because FPOV (Fringe POV pushing), by definition, cannot muster sufficient support to manage this except transiently, it is always Majority POV-pushing. "Majority" here does not refer to "majority of editors," overall, but rather to the POV. A majority of informed Wikipedia editors are firmly on the side of true NPOV, and recognize that this involves giving fair consideration and representation of minority views, according to the weight found in reliable sources, as per RfAr/Fringe science.

Close encounters of the first impression

First encounter

After I facilitated the opening of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight, which was in danger of being wikilawyered away, I read it and was horrified. I collected evidence and presented it, and part of what I did was to analyze the !voters in the RfC according to prior dispute. Thus I saw, over many articles, patterns of activity that I subsequently saw many times. GoRight was largely an SPA concerned with global warming, and it became clear to me that he was, from the beginning, welcomed with incivility, reverted with bald reverts that did not seek consensus, but assumed he was acting contrary to consensus, and, as often happens, he responded in kind; i.e., he became uncivil and edit warred. GoRight, unlike many editors, though, learned to moderate his own behavior, but then he was labeled a civil POV-pusher, a problematic category.

I was completely uninvolved when I compiled this evidence; I had no history, to my knowledge, with any of the involved editors. Because of my help with getting the RfC going, GoRight initially assumed that I was part of the cabal. However, my comments in the RfC were generally supported by neutral editors, please see the full evidence page, and GoRight came around quickly.

The full evidence page, and the analysis of !votes. The following editors both revert warred with GoRight, or, in one case, blocked him without revert warring (bold but not italic), and commented negatively about him in the RfC. Names which do not recur later, my present impression which may be revised as I compile this, are in smalltext.

• William M. Connolley, admin.
• Raul654, admin, checkuser, oversighter, later blocked GoRight.
• Count Iblis
• Vsmith, admin
• Kim D. Petersen
• User:R. Baley, admin, blocked GoRight before the RfC.
• Stephan Schulz, admin.
• Jason Patton

After analysis of involvement, there is a very different consensus revealed than existed based simply on total !votes, and it can be seen that there is a strong polarization, with few editors crossing lines to support the statements from the "other side," and, as well, reputable editors supported the view that I expressed in the RfC. We will see these same names show up in other analyses.

No claim is made that these editors are engaging in meat puppetry, colluding, or that they were incorrect to !vote as they did, nor is it claimed that they are consciously "cabal members." No editor should be sanctioned simply based on "membership", even if proven. Not every editor above is necessarily visible in later analyses. After all, we are talking about majority POV. This is collected here solely for the purpose of explaining the background to the ban, as well as the confirmation of the ban at WP:AN/I, and other related discussions where a false consensus appeared, as will be shown. WMC's actions must be seen and understood in this broader context, or the extent of the damage will not be understood.

Another encounter

When, in January, 2009, I noticed the edits of JzG that ultimately led to RfAr/Abd and Jzg, and I filed RfC/JzG 3, and laid out the evidence of admin action while involved, the following editors called for or supported calls for me to be banned. Editors whose names also appeared above are bolded. Again, inclusion in this list, by itself, does not identify an editor as a person of interest for this RfC, and specific conclusions will be stated before this is finished so that if anyone believes an editor should be notified, that can be done. This section is under construction.

• Spartaz
• William M. Connolley
• Shot info
• Hipocrite
• Fut.Perf.
• Dirk Beetstra
• Mathsci
• Seicer
• Enric Naval
• Franamax
• Alex Bakharev
• R. Baley
• Phil153
• TenOfAllTrades
• Tom Harrison
• Cardamon
• Verbal
• Eldereft
• Short Brigade Harvester Boris
• Jayjg
• Stifle
• Daniel
• Eusebeus
• Sephiroth BCR
• Skinwalker

and then the AN/I discussion of my topic ban

The following editors supported, at AN/I (permanent link), WMC's page ban of me from Cold fusion:

• Enric Naval
• Bilby
• Jayron32
• Seicer
• Mathsci
• Verbal
• ImperfectlyInformed
• Shell Kinney
• Hipocrite
• Unitanode
• Bali ultimate
• Crohnie
• Sarah
• TenOfAllTrades
• Short Brigade Harvester Boris
• Count Iblis

Original evidence

Original evidence presented with the RfAr is below; this will be refactored as appropriate here for maximum clarity:

Summary

• WMC was involved in immediate content dispute and long-term behavioral dispute with me.
• He edited Cold fusion while protected, in expectation of controversy over it, and contrary to an expressed consensus.
• Then he declared me banned from the article and its Talk.
• Later, he blocked me for making a self-reverted harmless edit, contrary to his expressed prior opinion about harmless edits under ban.
• In spite of charges of involvement, he insists that he remains the enforcer of an expired community ban, asserting it as indef.

History of prior dispute, mostly over use of tools while involved

Stored at:[1]

The present dispute;

Stored at: [2].

Further considerations and issues to be arbitrated

Stored at [3].

As stated in the request for arbitration, I do not intend to take a stand either way as to whether User:William M. Connolley's actions were appropriate, or not. I prefer to simply provide a raw chronology of relevant events with diffs and to defer to the arbiter's judgment on whether this evidence suggests an abuse of administrative privileges, or not.

A Basic Chronology of Relevant Events

NOTE: This chronology is currently incomplete. I intend to provide further evidence. When my editing is complete I will remove this notice.

From my personal perspective the following events are relevant to a proper weighing of the charges being made in this case:

Administrators normally do not have the authority to create bans by themselves

WP:Banning policy#Decision to ban lists 5 procedures for banning. None of them is a ban simply declared by an individual administrator without specific delegation from the arbitration committee. (Throughout this evidence section, when I say "ban" I mean all kinds of bans, whether site bans, page bans etc.)

WMC simply declared that there was a ban

As far as I'm aware, WMC didn't refer to any specific part of the banning policy or name any other specific procedure for banning. WMC referred to a userbox which cited Wikipedia:Trifecta; a ban reason which seems to me to be at odds with WMC's blocking of Abd for a harmless and self-reverted edit.

Declaring bans without proper process creates disruption

We can't expect all Wikipedians to agree on whether a given person should be banned or not, but I agree with MastCell [4] that there's a problem if we can't even agree on whether someone has been banned or not.

WMC muddied the waters by declaring a ban without following any of the standard processes, thus creating a situation where it wasn't clear whether there was a ban or not. This created disruption in the sense of multiple discussions using up editors' time.

Allowing admins to declare bans at will would harm the project

The banning policy does not say that an admin can create a ban at any time by declaring it, and for good reason. NPOV is best achieved by discussion and consensus among large numbers of editors with various POVs. If admins could declare bans at will, they would have too much individual control over article content, for example being able to ban all editors on one side of a content dispute.

An admin can warn someone that they will block them if disruptive behaviour continues, but I don't think it makes sense to warn someone that they will block them if they do any edit at all to a page, (even a harmless or productive edit), in the absense of a ban established by one of the procedures listed in the banning policy.

WMC was involved in page content and in dispute with Abd

WMC edited the cold fusion page with edit summary "Lets wind everyone up", at a time when there were two polls active on the talk page showing some support for other versions of the page. Abd then criticized that edit. WMC subsequently declared that Abd (along with Hipocrite) was banned from the page.

Cold fusion is not pseudoscience

Investigation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is science: controversial science, fringe science, but not pseudoscience. Science by its nature investigates the unknown, and scientific method is being applied in making observations, publishing peer-reviewed articles, discussing proposed explanations, etc., whether or not anything much eventually comes of it.

Talk page comments by Abd

Abd has ADHD, of a type which makes it extremely difficult for Abd to shorten his comments. [5]. People can ask me to provide summaries of Abd's comments. [6]

Pseudocience is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions

ArbCom has put "all articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted" under discretionary sanctions. Such sanctions can be invoked by any uninvolved admin and include "bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics".

Dro(w)ning out any discussion

Communication with Abd is extremely frustrating. His "wall of text" is rambling and without focus. Here he essentially explains that he can't be bothered to write concise texts. I like reading - I own thousands of books and have read many more. But Abd's output is unmanagable. One example of the effect of this non-stop no-control text machine is impressively illustrated in Enric Naval's image: File:Discussion in cold fusion with comments of one editor highlighted.jpg

Abd's "Cabal" contains many editors of high scientific literacy

Without violating the privacy of editors, it's obvious from visiting the user pages and linked home pages that a sizable fraction of Abd's alleged "Cabal" members have higher degrees and often doctorates in the sciences. I know that many of them have published in the peer-reviewed academic press. Many or all areas of conflict originate from topics like global warming and, in particular, cold fusion, which require a good understanding of science and the scientific process. This suggest independent functional reasons, not a a conspiracy, as the base to the claimed (by Abd) common opposition to Abd's positions.

Progress to find consensus on a prefered version

Abd was involved in the second edit war which resulted in Causa sui protecting the article prior to WMC's actions. While Abd did not revert, the trigger was Abd re-adding (modified) content which had been central to the earlier edit war. Abd claimed consensus from talk for this, and there was discussion, but it isn't clear that consensus had been reached as many editors (most notably Hipocrite) hadn't engaged by that time, and the core issue (the reliablity of the primary source) was still unsettled.

After Causa sui protected the page, Abd started a vote for which version to revert the article to. Unfortunately he used an unusual methodology for wikipedia (weighted votes), changed one of the proposed versions after someone had voted for it, (moving their vote as part of this), refactored a vote to "unstrike" it against the wishes of the editor, moved proposals to a collapse box if he felt they weren't getting support, and as User:Noren said, the constant changes to the poll made it appear that Abd felt he owned the process. The result was that many of the main editors boycotted the poll, and Hipocrite started a new one. This also garnered little support, although less outright hostility.

In the end, Abd's claimed consensus for which version to revert to came only because Abd had placed votes for people, based on where they voted in the second poll, without their permission and by assigning weights to their votes which they had not agreed to. When WMC reverted to a version prior to the edit warring, there was no reason to presume that consensus was going to be found in the foreseeable future. - Bilby (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

But you can call me WMC.

Yet another unreliable chronology of events

Short version, for those not interested in the fine detail: CF and t:CF was a mess. I sorted that out. One person whinged but reasonable people ignored him.

In more detail:

• A moon or more ago my attention was drawn to CF. It was a mess. It usually is - see the protection log, for example [7]. I protected for a week the then-current version, as it happened that of H [8].
• The prot expired, edit warring resumed, CS stepped in and protected the page again [9].
• Much tedious discussion ensued, and I think this is where the battlin' polls came in.
• GoRight proposed a different version to be reverted to. He produced cogent arguments in its favour and for that and the amusement of agreeing with someone I've frequently disagreed with before and who often argues strongly against me, I reverted to his proposed version [10].
• But I don't like page protection, so I looked for something better, and decided that the chief offenders were H and A (though in my heart I though A mostly to blame). So I banned them both, for an indeterminate period of approximately a month, from CF and t:CF [11].
• The people rejoiced [12] [13].
• Abd broke the ban, and disputed the ban from t:CF [14]. I deleted his commented [15] and warned him that any further violation would result in a block.
• H was good.
• A asserted that the ban didn't exist. I told him that it did [16].
• Later, I blocked A after he broke the ban by editing CF [17]
• A often seemed confused about the terms of the ban (links to endless discussion suppressed in the interests of sanity). At one point I had to remind him [18].
• H asked to be unbanned, and I agreed [19]. Contrary to assertions elsewhere, the unblock was unconditional, though it came with strong advice to be good and to observe WP:1RR. Not editing CF was definitely not a condition of unblock.
• I reviewed A's ban [20]. Since the ratio of useful edits to wikilawyering in the interim was well below 1%, I kept the ban in place.

Other stuff

• Someone somewhere asserted that I invoked IAR for the ban. That is incorrect, and I've finally found the diff where I say so: [21].

I refuse to go to mediation with Abd unless he agrees beforehand to abide by the result even if it's adverse

because he will only abide by "neutral" mediation[22][23]

Abd has received many good faith advice, warnings and complaints about his behaviour over two years

(since October 2007)

Moved here.

Abd had ample warning that he was going to get himself a topic ban

Moved here.

Abd believes that he knows better than other users

Sorry, but this reinforces his belief that he is not wrong, and it has to be stated.

• more expert in group discussions both online and offline, first in December 2007[24], latest in April 2009[25].
• has no science title, but feels more expert than Physics PhDs because he had Richard Feynman and Linus Pauling as teachers[26]

Abd accuses and harasses admins that warn him

• To Raul654, [27][28], veiled threaths [29]
• To MastCell, saying the he blocked Jed just to support JzG[30]
• To JzG
• To Jehochman, in March 2008, threatening with process [31][32], reply [33]

Abd reacts very badly to corrections

• Raul654 doubts understanding of policy[34], met with disparagement (first sentence) and wikilawyering about policy (rest of the post)[35].

• I proved how his comments filled and overhelmed the talk page[36] (image is linked in Stephan Schultz's evidence), met with derision, said this meant that he made a lot of work, banned me from his talk page[37].

• When told to make shorter comments[38]

Abd has been warned after his topic ban that he is headed for an indef block

• [39][40]

Abd's insistance in already rejected points has brought many editors to irritated frustration with him

• Some made peace and kept collaborating
  • User:Beetstra, [41][42]
  • User:NYScholar, [43]
  • User:Fritzpoll
  • User:bouricius, [44]
• Others have given Abd as impossible
  • User:KP Botany, [45] (last paragraph)
  • User:TenOfAllTrades, [46][47]
  • User:Miamomimi [48]
  • User:Socrates2008 [49]
  • User:Woonpton, [50] started this ANI thread on poll
  • myself, compare my current stance with my initial friendly exchange in April 2008

The community had support not just for Abd's ban, but also for an indefinite ban

ANI thread on poll, ban review

Abd states ideas that are out of touch with reality

(unrealistic, showing lack of knowledge of how wikipedia actually works)

Abd thinks that:

1. I risk getting banned for my edits at Cold fusion[51]
2. NewYorkBrad put a lot at stake for making one comment[52] (second paragraph)
3. he can void WMC's ban by not consenting to it[53]
4. bad-faith cabals exist:
   • [In reference to ScienceApologist] His friends are trying to get me banned"[54]
   • [55][56]
   • discussion pointed to WP:TINC [57], refuses that he described a cabal while describing a cabal[58][59]
5. I am an anti-CF POV pusher[60] (second section), in reply to my ban review. Just one representative example.
6. the mediation backed 100% his content positions[61]
7. Arbcom ratified his last case and only gave him some good advice[62] (3rd paragraph from the end)
8. hoaxes should not be deleted, and hoaxers tolerated, here

Abd performs experiments with democracy

Supported Wikipedia_talk:Delegable_proxy, then experimental sock User_talk:The_Community. See the poll that got him topic banned experimenting with Range voting.

Abd sees no problem at all with any of his editing, and does not admit having a problem

See my last-last-last good faith attempt to solve the issue, specific examples[63], Abd sees no problem[64]

Abd thinks that long comments are not a problem because people can simply not read them

[65][66]

Abd sees no problem at all with his very long posts

[67]. resisted collapsings[68], assumes I'm trying to prevent people from reading his posts[69] (ante-last paragraph)

Abd says that he can't make shorter comments because he has ADHD...

ADHD userbox in his userpage, said publicly by himself since before February 2008 [70].

...but also says that he can be concise when he wants...

[71] (also thinks it necessary to make very long posts)

...and that he refuses to make them shorter

[72] (lsearch for "As to the length")

Abd has also made good work and collaborated effectively

Several editors are grateful with Abd's work, got 24 supports in his second RfA, occasionally I collaborated well with him. Problem is not taking heed to multiple requests for his behaviour to change, and still not seeing any problem. Pushing issues past a reasonable point ran him into problems when accusing Fritzpoll of sockpuppeting here, then in Talk:Cold fusion and in the future since he's failing to interiorize advice to change his behaviour.

WMC's previous blocks have been found to be good by the community, including the block summaries brought up by Arkady

See my comment at workshop on Arkady's evidence.

William M. Connolley has acted properly as an administrator

WMC does not seem to have been involved in editing cold fusion or its talk page. When edit warring broke out, he locked the page at the "wrong version" and then issued page-bans to both Hipocrite and Abd for edit warring. Hipocrite responded cooperatively and the page ban was eventually lifted. Abd contested the page-bans as soon they were issued, with threats of an ArbCom case. The page-bans stopped the impasse created by Abd, whose edits were effectively filibustering on the talk page, almost amounting to WP:OWN. He had created non-standard methods of polling and discussion, which had already driven away editors such as User:Woonpton here.

Abd has made unfounded statements about William M. Connolley

Abd has repeatedly questioned WMC's authority as an administrator. Abd's edits contain innuendos that suggest that WMC is part of some covert off-wiki conspiracy. Since this case began he has written that WMC has been "coddling" me. Writing unsupported remarks of this kind seems to be exploiting a loophole in the civility code on wikipedia to make indirect yet non-sanctionable personal attacks on wikipedia.

Abd appears to bear long-term grudges against various administrators

The administrators include JzG, William M. Connolley and Raul654.

Abd's allegations of a cabal

These provide a convenient way for Abd systematically to disengage from discussion and discredit any criticism during the ArbCom case.

Abd's escalation of disputes is needless and opportunistic

This was the case already in the Abd & JzG ArbCom case. As with the blacklisting issue, Abd threatened taking the case before ArbCom before going through the normal channels where the community can comment. In this case the community did comment on WP:ANI and multiple administrators and editors, not directly invloved in editing cold fusion or its talk page, endorsed the page-bans. Abd has written that he attempted dispute resolution in this case by trying to involve TenOfAllTrades as a mediator, a misjudged request that was immediately refused [73]. It is unclear why Abd did not then seek another neutral and experienced administrator, eg Moonriddengirl. See also [74]. His timing of this request might be opportunistic: Abd's edits show awareness that WMC has made recent blocks which have been repeatedly criticized by a small group of editors, some under sanction from previous ArbCom cases.

Abd's account has regressed to that of single purpose fringe POV-pusher

For the last few months, Abd's edits have been almost exclusively related to cold fusion. In his edits he has revealed that has had off-wiki contacts with Steven B. Krivit and Jed Rothwell, both of them non-scientists who advocate cold fusion. Many times Abd has written that cold fusion is not a fringe topic but an "emerging science". He has, perhaps jokingly, suggested inviting the skeptical science writer Gary Taubes and retired physicist Eric Sheldon to join discussions there. The single most important question to be solved by this ArbCom case seems to be: is there some way Abd can reverse this apparent regression and get back to contributing to wikipedia in a more constructive and less confrontational way?

Abd claims to have scientific expertise

Abd's edits often dismiss editors with formal scientific training, while claiming familiarity with what's going on in research on low energy nuclear reactions and cold fusion from his reading over the last few months. Although possibly unimportant, this does not help discussions. Surely real-life experts, for example in chemistry, know better and are in a better position to evaluate research in a fringe area. Playing around in namespace edits by mentioning discredited topics in theoretical physics like hydrino theory - which will never have its own wikipedia article - is pushing wikipedia to its limits.

Abd's responses to mainstream editors are hostile and evasive

Abd discussed the survey book of Ed Storms, its reception and other recent articles with EdChem, Kirk shanahan and other editors. They have carefully explained how such articles would be evaluated academically, taking into account obvious probelms with fringe topics. Abd has been keen to exploit any positive pronouncement; skeptical expert editors exercise the same caution they would in real life. Abd has had extended discussions on sources with the above two editors, sometimes with impenetrable walls of text which frequently become sidetracked onto unrelated issues; he will abruptly abandon the discussion when his point of view is not accepted, regardless of what the other party was trying to communicate. On the basis of his userspace essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing and other edits, Abd apparently groups together all of those who disagree with his fringe POV-pushing. By dismissing critics as an organized group of opponents, the essay seems to be justifying a WP:battleground approach to editing controversial articles on fringe topics.

Abd has tested the limits with banned editors Jed Rothwell and Scibaby

Abd's edits indicate that he is off-wiki contact with the banned editor JedRothwell and discusses the editing of cold fusion; on-wiki Abd has written that this cold fusion advocate is one of the world experts in the area although apparently he and Abd do not always agree. The Scibaby proxy edits have been mentioned by Raul654 on the workshop page. Like Abd's edit-revert tactic on cold fusion after his page-ban, Abd's edits test the limits of WP policy on banned editors; they seem unrelated to building a reliable and authoritative encyclopedia.

Abd appears to be supported by a small tag team

The members seem to be GoRight (talk · contribs) and Coppertwig (talk · contribs). Coppertwig has stated that she/he is willing to act as Abd's interpeter, but this does not seem to have happened in practice since Abd's two page-bans and does not seem a reasonable thing to expect. Jehochman is not a member of this team; he has self-identified as an off-wiki friend of Abd. His written statements during the RfAr appear to have been an attempt to personalize the case and were unhelpful.

Abd has refused to recognize messages from the community or ArbCom

Abd's edits show that he does not recognize that the community upheld his page-ban when Enric Naval opened a discussion on WP:ANI. His edits, including this case itself, also indicate that he has not apparently understood the findings of the Abd & JzG ArbCom case concerning his own actions. After the ArbCom case concluded, a lot of time was wasted discussing whitelisting of articles on lenr-canr.org; this was dealt with in an exemplary way by the two administrators Fritzpoll and Dirk Beetstra at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

My brief involvement on Talk:Cold fusion has been minimal and constructive

Since Abd's edits in RfAr repeatedly suggested some kind of involvement, I will reiterate here that I have made a total of 16 edits to this talk page for about 10 posts all related to the use of secondary sources and in particular the essay-review of retired physicist Eric Sheldon, which I downloaded with my university account and made available as sheldon.pdf on http://mathsci.free.fr, an otherwise empty website. My main edits are mostly in namespace to mainstream articles in the arts and sciences. It's also quite easy to catch me out on talk pages: I am grateful for all the recent helpful guidance from both arbitrators and clerks.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.