User talk:B/ID arbitration evidence

[edit] Comment on B's statement

In his statement, B says

• I have provided more than ample evidence that FM has abused the admin tools - yes, but most of this "evidence" was more than amply refuted by Dave Souza.
• What you call an "attack" is a good faith presentation of evidence about an admin whom I believe has repeatedly and severely abused the administrative tools - not really, since prior to Dave's correction, there were outright falsehoods in B's statement. After Dave's correction the most egregious false accusations were removed, but they continue to fundamentally misrepresent the facts.

B's attacks on FM started last year and has continued, both off and on-wiki. Overall, B is a decent guy - except when it comes to FM. The evidence provided by Odd Nature suggests that this is a case of behaviour driven by personal animosity. That sort of behaviour has no place in Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a complete misrepresentation. I made four changes following his comments (diff).

1. He took issue with "content areas where he is involved" rather than "content disputes where he is involved". Upon pointing out the correct wording of the ruling, I immediately changed it.
2. In looking at the history of Rosalind Picard and James Tour, I missed that one editor was a new editor at the time and would thus have been affected by s-protection. The point remains the same whether there was one editor in recent memory or zero editors in recent memory - s-protection should be used in the case of vandalism or (in extreme cases) block evasion, not from stopping an otherwise unblocked editor from editing.
3. Dave Souza thought that I was claiming there was something abusive (as opposed to a merely an incorrect use or misuse) about indefinite IP blocks even though my previous unedited comments said "(an IP that was almost nothing but trolling, but indefinite IP blocks are not a good thing)". That makes it very clear what the issue is - he didn't do anything abusive by blocking the IP - he did something incorrect under our standard practices. IPs change and in one particular case while I was gathering evidence, I found an IP he had indefblocked that pretty unquestionably was no longer in the possession of the person he was trying to block. Though I thought my comments were clear, I added "I consider this to be an incorrect use, as opposed to an abuse of the administrative tools" to make it completely clear.
4. This one is one that I can't believe anybody would misunderstand. Of Ferrylodge, I said, "Indefinite block of Ferrylodge, a block which a previous arbitration held was inappropriate". Dave's issue with this is that he thought I was somehow claiming that the arbitration committee decision occurred before the block. Unless you all think I'm a complete idiot or that I believe in time travel, nobody could possibly believe that I was claiming that. "Previous" means an arbitration "previous" to the current one, not "previous" to the block itself. I changed the wording to be more clear, but it strains credibility that anyone didn't know what I meant before.

Now, please tell me what it is here that you have an issue with. Which of these four are "egregious false accusations"? I don't have any dislike for FeloniousMonk - I'm sure he is a nice guy in person, but I believe that there is an abuse of administrative tools, I am going to bring evidence of it. If you consider that animosity rather than a good faith attempt to bring to the arbitration committee evidence of abuse, well, that's not a me problem. --B (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)