Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Evidence

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Kirill Lokshin (Talk) & SirFozzie (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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 evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Giving 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 refactor 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.

Evidence presented by Stevertigo

Revised original statement

The current issue is largely between Steve Quinn, Jim Wae and I, centered largely at the

stalking
me through my edit history, following me from the time article to the punishment article, and then taking a stand against my editing as if they had previously edited the article.

Listen to this page (0 minutes)
File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg
Spoken Wikipedia icon
Audio help · More spoken articles
)

Timeline: After an initial battle at that article, I left it alone in the state that Jim and Steve wanted it. I notified Steve Quinn several times on his talk page of problems with his version, and he said that his participation at that article was ended. After waiting for some time, I edited the article again, and JimWae and came back to the article. Because I had made an effort to include the previous changes in my edited version Jim and I edited collaboratively for most of a day. Steve came by to add some commentary on the talk page. When I took issue with one of Jim's changes, Steve lost his temper and reverted the article back to a previous version. Instead of edit warring, I made an audio recording (right box, or File:Spoken version of the article Punishment.ogg) of his chosen version and posted it on the talk page. I hoped that spoken audio would make the problems with their writing clearer. Steve Quinn then filed an ANI (though judging by its length, he may have been working on it at the time I posted the audio file, right). While I have been occupied with matters at the ANI, and now this RFAR, other editors have since been working with Steve and Jim at the punishment article.

Steve and Jim appear to have been

harassing
me via my edit history, taking an interest in my editing and not necessarily the subject matter. This is the essential point - they did not arrive at the punishment article due to interest in that article, but they did so due to an undue interest in my editing. Thus their editing of that article suffered from a lack of cohesion that editors of actual interest would naturally have, hence I was opposed to certain edits they made to the article. This was our dispute.

Note, Steve Quinn and Jim Wae both have claimed at the ANI that I did not use sources and that their writing was superior simply because it did. I have edited the lead sections of hundreds of articles, always writing with focus on the definition - as given by a dictionary or other definitive source. Even if the writing does not persist or stand over the long term, its usually an incremental improvement that guides subsequent edits. I do use sources, but I do not parrot them. Among Wikipedia's paradoxes is the issue that that writing for Wikipedia requires us to be creative and original, and not simply plagiarists. So though certain writing may be well sourced, it may be the case that such writing lacks coherence (and sometimes even competence). Sometimes we find that writing from sources shows a kind of parroting - copied phrasings from published sources without coherent focus. And parroted writing, though it may be sourced, is often unsatisfactory for reasons just as legitimate as rules against non-sourcing. When Jim and Steve edited the punishment article, their "sourced" writing was cobbled together with parroted sections that did not add up to a coherent introduction (See my breakdown at Talk:Punishment#Disassembly.2Fpoint_by_point_critique).

Steve Quinn filed an ANI, at which other editors have chimed in - people whom I havent' had interactions with in months or years, and who still hold the grudge that previous cases did not find in their favor regarding me. To a fair eye, its clearly a case where bitter contestants are trying to finish what they started in years previous. To decide for yourself if my editing is "disruptive" (a euphemism for "trolling") see examples of my recent work (for example [1] article). My reasons for posting here are because matters of sanction and banning should be taken seriously. Recalling a time when Jimbo alone reserved the right to ban people, it appears as if delegating this capacity to the open field of administrators was an error.

Moved by clerk AlexandrDmitri from main case page

Comment about Ucucha's evidence

Keep in mind the context for the above edits was the human article - where my previous attempts to make changes to that article were negated by a wall of science-oriented editors with a fixation on writing taxonomically about human beings, such that not even the word "person" was mentioned. This is a continuing problem - human beings are not just a species and there are limits to the success one can have if writing that way. Only one editor was reasonable and tried to integrate some of what I wrote into the lede of the article. But it took writing an entire page - what looked much like a rewrite - to see even this small change happen. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Hipocrite as MedCab mediator in the Time dispute

Mediation

Mediation was requested for the "time" dispute at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-04/Time. The request was presented on August 4. No medcab mediator picked up the dispute until 24 September, when I returned from a wikibreak and started to clear the MedCab backlog. I volunteered to take the time dispute, but was informed that one party would not participate unless other parties also agreed to participate, and one of the other parties believed that the discussion had died 6 or 7 weeks prior.

I closed the MedCab case as the parties did not agree to mediate (one considered the dispute dated). It is a shame that there are not enough editors aware of MedCab to step up and clear these backlogs when they arise. This evidence for historical information only - I have not, and will not do any research into the underlying anything unless the MedCab case is reopened. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Steve Quinn

Prior remedies have not dissuaded engagement in years-long, controversial editing practices, which are in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Over the years, prior remedies appear to have had little impact on this editor's contrary, and problematic editing. Now in October 2010, these disruptive editing patterns are still problematic. It is my hope and intention that the ArbCom committee read the remedies listed, and use this lens when viewing the editing behaviors. The evidence presented is designed to be emblematic, rather than complete. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies

In this Remedies section it is demonstrated the problematic editing spans years. Some prior remedies have resulted in sanctions:

-2010-
-2009-
-2006-
  • Prior RFM, December, 2006
    WP:NPOV
-2005-


  • It appears that 3RR violations (see above) are no longer an issue, but there appears to be an inability to effectively confer on articles.
No Effect

In other words, the remedies have not made enough of an impact to alter an overall problematic editing style. The editing practices are described below:

  • Unconvinced, problematic editing continues, evinced at the current, active, ANI. The problematic editing is most often characterized as removing
    WP:MADEUP which carries over to the talk pages discussions, but is not limited to those. [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
  • Consequences are not apprehended, or understood; "Faced ANI before..." [11], Prior discussions made no difference [12], and [13], soundly defeated opponents[14]
  • Certain article edits lack the required level of competence, and no concern about this is apparent here, and here. For example, links to notable scientists are perceived as "off topic" and removed from a physics template. These are navigation templates placed in the lede of relevant article spaces, which serve as a way to link related topics [15], This edit was later reverted[16]. Unable to competently demonstrate knowledge of other topics: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23],
  • Disregards
    WP:NFT
    --
Human: [30], supported by talk page - [31], [32]
Dark matter:[33], [34], - talk page: [35], and the next two respondents agree. Furthermore, [36], [37]
Time: [38], [39] talk page: [40]
Time in physics: "...likely holographic and computational in nature..." [41], relevant comments in OR tag, in response[42]
  • A current content fork is revealed [55], evades the issue, and then issues a "civil" ultimatum instead [56], uninvolved administrator then asks about the content fork [57], evasive again [58], uninvolved admin, "please take this seriously" [59], evasive again, [60], "irrevocably damaged" relationships?[61], and Stevertigo's reply (next three diffs) - [62], [63], [64], request for clarification [65], the content fork is justified (see above)[66]
  • He restores his unsourced OR because he left a comment on the talk page, not because of consensus. [67], [68], [69], [70]
  • A familiar pattern emerges: [71], in this case the second paragraph is not immune [72], the edit conflict begins [73], and continues [74], [ [75], [76], Stevertigo's version of the 2nd paragraph is lost [77], ...and so on.
and ("I will then refute each.") [82]
  • Acknowledges having been "a 'problematic editor' for some eight years now..." [83]
  • Notes:

Nonce tag

Not inclined to address the problems uncovered in the Sep. - Oct. 2010 ANI

  • Refuses to acknowledge problems that have been illuminated [84], [85], Uninvolved admins have determined a community consensus for sanctions, asking him to volunteer. [86]. Stevertigo declines to voluntarily accept the binding revert restriction [diff].
  • Misattributed ANI participant's' motivations, without supporting evidence, rather than focusing on issues of editing according to guidelines and policies.[87], uninvolved editor [88], [89]

Misapplication of BRD (as an excuse) for first inserting unsourced OR, and then engaging in edit conflicts, to keep it

2010
  • More sustained edit-conflicts on high traffic articles:
  • punishment. After 25 successive edits (all marked minor), resulting in a POV lede between August 1 and August 3 [111]; he is reverted [112]. And the edit conflict has begun [113], first with two other editors [114], then a third [115]. Stevertigo reverts again, characterizing the sourced material as "garbage" while acknowledging it has the support of three other editors [116]. Reverted a few days later (by yours truly) (see explanation) [117]. Stevertigo reverts again [118], and so on.
- May 14 (animal rights) edit to the lede - [131], -- Stevertigo may have violated 3RR on May 17, 2010, with three edits in the lede and at least one, on that day, to keep POV in an image caption -- First, the lede edits - [132],*[133], [134],*[135], [136],*[137],[138], -- that's three reverts for the lede
He also inserted POV into an image caption (May 14)*[139]. It was reverted (May17) -[140], and POV restored (May 17)*[141] -- these are specific, unique edits to place POV into the image caption. It was ultimately reverted inside a larger edit [142], and continued to be reverted inside the larger edits, afterwards.
--Added citation needed tags on the 21st [143], one fact tag [144], a hidden note [145], and all items removed [146]. I am presenting the insertion of tags, and the inserted comment, as disruptive behavior. Evidence for this is also here: [147].

Two attempts to disrupt the Disruptive Editing guideline within 6 months

November 15, 2009. A new made-up box, containing POV material that includes specious claims and commentary, is placed atop the WP:Disruptive editing guideline page [148]. "personal opinion" and "soap box" and is removed [149]. Box re-inserted, it's a "warning" [150], removed again[151].

"undermined legitimacy of guideline" [152], What's inappropriate about that? [153]. Dismissive response[154]. Constructive feedback for Stevertigo [155]. Feedback trivialized, and dismissed, by changing the context for the word "format" - to construe it as a forum for what he wants to discuss [156]. No one joins the discussion. Next...

  • See evidence talk page [157] for a longer explanation of the action below:
  • 19:44 UTC: May 23 2010 - Content removed, actions aimed at one editor [158]. Restored same day.
  • 19:51 UTC: May 23, 2010 Talk page: - Stevertigo states, that the September 2009 ANI "referendum on [his] editing, and claims of [his] disruptive editing," are motivations for his actions pertaining to this guideline. Also notice that in the next paragraph he specifically names User:Slrubenstein as the person who "inserted the related text". [159], Stevertigo again attributes fault to Slrubenstein, [160], claim of COI [161], now aimed at group - disputed and duplicated content on talk, including commentary [162], wikilawyering ("example of trivial minutiae") [163], [164] Stevertigo argumentative [165], [166], "...an imbecile personal attack..." [167], Slrubenstein's noteworthy summation [168].
  • Not without irony - applying the disruptive editing guideline, to revert the part that was removed from the disruptive editing guidelines, (possibly by a disruptive editor?) [169]
  • June - Content mischaracterized and removed [170], restored [171].

Evidence presented by JimWae

Stevertigo repeatedly inserts original research into article ledes

Time

On 2010-Jul-03 Stevertigo inserted his NONCE template into the Time article.

On 2010-JUL-12 he inserted as the very first sentence of Time: (marked minor)

Time is the concept of the underlying physical mechanisms that macroscopically transform reality —in accord with dimensional constraints and orthographies at the smallest scales —such that the state of the present is realized directly from past states, and the future can be pictured by projection.

On 2010-JULY-29 he appropriated a ref that did not support the view that "time is a physical process" or that "it macroscopically transforms reality"

Time is a physical process and non-spatial dimension in which reality is macroscopically transformed in a continuum from the past through the present and to the future.

On 2010-JUL-29 @15:45 Stevertigo added a link to Time in physics to the lede sentence of Time

---

Time in physics

On 2010-JUL-30 @00:00 Stevertigo made his first edit to Time in physics

Time is a
computational in nature), and though time is a key aspect within the study of physics and physical interactions, it has generally been treated as a single dimension within the geometry of a physical space, or else a transactional property that acts upon a physical object
.

On 2010-JUL-30 @00:35, after he linked Time to Time in physics, I made my first edit to Time in physics, adding {{or-section|date=July 2010}}, which Stevertigo promptly removed, then he made a series of edits to read

reference frame
).

I then restored the OR tag

{{or-section|date=July 2010|reason=The assertion that time is real is either contentiously meaningless, or is POV opposing several scholarly authors. 2>What it "likely is" is completely unsubstantiated AND never discussed in the article - so it does not belong in the lede. 3> that it is an agent that "acts upon a physical object" is too speculative to not be at least attributed to some scholar, somewhere in the article. This appears to be nothing but POV original research}}


---

Time & Paradigm - RFC starts

On 2010-AUG-01 I started an RFC at Talk:Time so that other people would contribute their input on the dispute.

On 2010-AUG-01 he changed the lede of Time to refer to a paradigm. Stevertigo does not mention Paradigm, where he again added unsourced verbiage as the first sentence of the lede [172], and where others who were taking part in the RFC on Time reverted him [173] [174].


---

Punishment

On 2010-Aug 1 Stevertigo made his first ever edit to the Punishment article, a change to the first sentence, again marked minor and continued editing uninterrupted until 2010-Aug-03

On 2010-AUG-03 I made my first edit to the Punishment article, inserting {{unreferenced|date=August 2010}} which I then restored to {{unreferenced|date=January 2008}}

At this point, other editors became involved, reverting Stevertigo's changes

By 2010-AUG-08 Stevertigo had made more changes to the lede - repeatedly re-inserting "destructive", and again removing tags indicating content was unreferenced OR.

Stevertigo engages in personal attacks in response to resistance to his insertion of OR

Stevertigo opposes providing reliable sources for his "conceptualizations"

When Stevertigo does refer to a source, it fails verification

  • 2010-JUL-29 Note that he has adopted a source already in article but that this source does not support "Time is a physical process" nor "in which reality is macroscopically transformed in a continuum" - phrases that had already come under debate.

His subsequent posts on Talk:Time#RFC on "Time is a... process" focussed on whether "physical paradigm" or "physical phenomenon" would be more acceptable - when neither of those had any sources either. Nevertheless. he chose to change to "paradigm".

Stevertigo's claim that I am wikihounding him has no basis in fact

Stevertigo contends I wikihounded him to the

WP:MADEUP
.

It is my recollection, however, that in my case, Punishment was already on my watchlist. While I cannot prove this, I can produce jpgs of the Philosophy of Education books I have owned for over 30 years. I have added (to the Punishment article) a ref from those sources, from text not available on-line. --JimWae (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo has published several essays in wikipedia space which nobody else has worked on....

Stevertigo has published several essays in wikipedia space which nobody else has worked on. These essays frequently present arguments at odds with

WP:V
. He has also created numerous shortcuts (& one template [since deleted]) for these non-consensus essays.

Stevertigo has written numerous essays for which the content is solely his:
plus one that was significantly altered from Stevertigo's POV, and is now no longer expresses opposition to
WP:OR
Besides the {{Nonce}} he created to "enforce" his NONCE essay, Stevertigo has created numerous shortcuts to his own essays:
  • WP:CONLIM
  • WP:CONCEPT
  • WP:ABSTRACT
  • WP:EXPLAIN
  • WP:AMW
  • WP:VAI
  • WP:NONCE
  • WP:BARS
  • WP:BSM
Though it is not actually true, templates and shortcuts do still convey to most readers (and editors) that these have community endorsement because they form part of the structure of wikipedia. Stevertigo has used his shortcuts and templates in his arguments with other editors.
All his shortcuts to his single editor essays should be deleted. Without endorsement that his essays are a {{supplement}} to WP guidelines & policies, his single editor essays should be considered for removal to his user space. I also think we should consider creation & usage of {{essay-single-editor}} for any future similar cases.

Evidence presented by Ucucha

Stevertigo misuses sources

Stevertigo (S) introduced a new lead for the Human article, with references, that is shown in this version and reproduced with its references below. I have analyzed the references below. I realize this may steer into having the Committee rule on content, but there are some very clear instances of abuse of sources, and I believe they illustrate one of the issues with Stevertigo's editing. (I have underlined my comments for clarity.)

  • In scientific terms, the human species is an
    primates. – cited to Mammal Species of the World and Nature (2003-06-12). "Access : Human evolution: Out of Ethiopia"
    . Nature. Retrieved 2009-11-23. – generally uncontroversial, but neither reference actually says this: the first is a taxonomic listing that doesn't address ancestry, and the second is only concerned with relationships within our species.
  • and (unlike any known animal) higher forms of
    sapience. – cites Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues By Alasdair MacIntyre pp. 60, "But this [language] is insufficient for human rationality, What is needed in addition is the ability to construct sentences that contain as constituents either the sentences use to express the judgment about which the agent is reflecting, or references to those sentences." and John McDowell , Mind and World, 1994. p.115, Harvard University Press, (quoted in Dependent Rational Animals, by Alasdair MacIntyre): "In mere animals, sentience is in the service of a mode of life that is structured exclusively by immediate biological imperitives" [..] "merely animal life is shaped by goals whose control of the animal's behavior at a given moment is an immediate outcome of biological forces" and The Really Hard Problem:Meaning in a Material World, Owen Flanagan, MIT Press </ref> – no comment on the first two; haven't been able to find the precise location referenced to in the third, but this
    hardly supports S's "transcendent of all animalia" assertion.
  • In the colloquial distinction of
    Edward O. Wilson
    [..] the ten most intelligent animals next to humans are the following: 1. Chimpanzee (two species) 2. Gorilla 3. Orangutan 4. Baboon (seven species..).." – utterly unreliable source, but doesn't even talk about "higher and lower organisms", only about intelligence

Evidence presented by User:Amble

Resolving issues with Stevertigo through discussion has been unnecessarily difficult

Stevertigo is a dedicated and intelligent editor who performs much useful work and has done so for a commendable number of years. He also has some idiosyncracies that cause difficulty for other editors, and it often seems frustratingly difficult to get a point through to him.

The sections below are intended to show specific examples in which it has been unreasonably difficult to resolve issues with Stevertigo through discussion, specifically in the use of edit summaries, the minor edit flag, and insertion of unsourced and sometimes nonsensical material into the lead of the article on dark matter.

Example: minor edits

SV began marking almost all edits as minor by August 2006 [175], having apparently checked the option to mark edits as minor by default. He seems to have stopped on or around 2010-Sep-8 [176] after having been repeatedly requested to stop doing this over several years.

Many page moves made as minor edits. A few more recent examples are given here. Some are uncontested: Submission (psychology), Mithraic mysteries. Many other moves marked as minor were contested or reverted: Repulsion, Floor, Discrimination against the disabled, Manner of articulation, Intelligence (information gathering), Dominion, Containment.

Example: edit summaries

SV often makes series of edits to established articles, with inadequate summaries. These often include more or less complete re-writes of the lede. Example: War.

Several editors have politely asked SV to make more consistent use of edit summaries over the years, but the response has often been dismissive or occasionally hostile.

Example: Dark matter

Edits at dark matter are illustrative. The first of his recent edits was 2010-Jun-15 [211]. The issues with these edits verge on content questions for this particular article, but more importantly illustrate a pattern that shows up again and again in many articles. The main problem here is that SV tries to rewrite the lead based on his own thoughts of the moment, without following sources; and often a sentence or phrase appears to be just a nexus of related words. He's willing to discuss, but it takes a lot of time from other editors to keep OR out of the article.

  • Idiosyncratic use of "conceptualization" where its function is not clear [212]. (Possibly related to
    Wikipedia:Conceptualization
    ?).
  • "where matter, or 'visible matter,' itself does not exist" [213] - the words are related, but what's the meaning?
  • Introduced "cosmological scales" [214] as a replacement for the "matter itself does not exist" phrase, but it's not clear why, since dark matter is not specific to cosmological scales.
  • Later replaced with "astrophysical scales" [215], but again it's not clear where this would come from. (Astrophysical scales contrast with microscopic or everyday distances, but that's not very informative here; and as far as I can tell, the phrase was extracted not from a source but from a talk page comment).
  • Another confluence of words without any clear meaning at all, "ubiquitous mass-gravitational phenomenon" [216].
  • There's a substantial talk page record around these edits [217], in which SV was collegial and welcomed criticism, but the point would never seem to take, as he would usually replace one phrase with another one that was equally out-of-the-blue.

Stevertigo is dismissive of others' concerns about his editing

A big part of the reason why it's so difficult and so frustrating to resolve issues with Stevertigo through discussion is that he is usually dismissive of others' concerns. He's willing to discuss, but discussions go nowhere because he's not willing to consider changes to his behavior, even when the arb clerks are asking him to observe proper use of the case pages.

  • When editors address what they see as problem behavior repeated across articles, Stevertigo takes this as harassment and does not accept the possibility that they may have a valid point. In particular, Stevertigo's changes to the leads of many articles have failed to win support from other editors (my experience was in the dark matter article, see diffs above), but he takes this as a sign that other editors have a personal grudge against him, and refuses to consider the possibility that his edits aren't accepted because of the quality of the edits themselves.
  • "You don't seem to understand that "concern about what they felt were serious issues with your editing" is harassment, when it is matched with an adversarial tactics of reverting wholesale any changes I made. They didn't have any actual interest in the topic of punishment itself and they issue of my editing was not of their concern.[218]
  • In his initial statement upon filing the request for this arbitration case, he similarly characterized several editors' concern with his editing patterns across articles as stalking: [219].
  • In the sections I posted above regarding edit summaries and minor edits, the problems with Stevertigo's editing were politely brought to his attention by multiple editors over several years. These concerns have generally been ignored [220] or snapped at [221].
  • When his rewrites of article leads are opposed, Stevertigo has insisted that others editors must address problems with his versions by trying to patch them up, rather than contesting them altogether [222]. This would be fine if the issues with his changes were minor and easily fixed, but often the objections from other editors are pretty fundamental. He continues to express a similar view in the evidence talk page of this case [223]. He doesn't seem to accept the possibility that, in the considered opinion of other editors, his versions may be beyond fixing.
  • It appears that he's even dismissive of the arbitration clerk's request to post in the proper place in the arbitration pages: [224]. And yet again: [225]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo_2/Evidence&oldid=1061483817"