54:
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
778:
The result of
Jacrosse's involvement on the Neoconservatism page has been one continuous edit war between Jacrosse and all the other editors since 16 December 2005 to the present day--four months straight. Jacrosse has been extremely persistent and aggressive in pushing his POV into the article,
40:
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
65:
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
685:
Following the block, Jacrosse no longer persisted in reinserting the large blocks of text which constituted a fair use violation, and thus a legal liability to
Knowledge. He did, however, at this point engage in a viotriolic and uncivil dispute with Cberlet. Here are some choice diffs:
514:
Jacrosse has been frustrating from day one. Despite appeals to civility, Knowledge policy, and common sense, Jacrosse has engaged in naked revert warring, with nearly complete disregard for talk page consensus and the concerns of fellow editors. My experience is principally with the
638:
I thought that by protecting the page, the discussion could actually carry on and a consensus could be achieved. Of course, I was wrong. Jacrosse made no attempt to engage other editors who had repeatedly asked him to come to the talk page. The 8 day cooling period had no effect.
326:
What I personally witnessed, however, was a refusal to discuss his edits to a section about the left-wing origins of
Neoconservatism (edits that were quite tendentious, included unattributed opinions, and sometimes removed sourced information or dispute flags—e.g.,
336:) and a concurrent refusal not to keep removing dispute flags from the article. Instead of citing diffs, I think it more illustrative to cite to sections of the talk page, so one can more easily see Jacrosse's refusal to engage in substantive discussion. See
66:
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.
858:
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring
867:
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.
806:, jacrosse has trampled: civility, NPOV, Verifiability, "take it to the talk page", respecting copyright, decent edit summaries, assume good faith, no personal attacks, be graceful, and no original research. —
211:
article, an article to which it had no relevance at all. See these diffs on the talk page, which testify to other editors' repeated good-faith attempts to discuss
Jacrosse's addition and reversions:
74:
283:, Jacrosse continues to revert without discussion. He has reverted the article at least 68 times between Dec. 19, 2005 and Mar. 31, 2006, almost all times without including an edit summary. See
73:. /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
365:
I should also like to point out that
Jacrosse's behavior continues unabated, both at Neoconservatism and elsewhere, even after the opening of this arbitration case. Please see
70:
681:
and I blocked
Jacrosse with an expiry time of 24 hours (Persistent insertion of copyvio material, see Knowledge:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Fair_use_violation.3F)
478:
Based on the evidence I have presented, the policies and guidelines that
Jacrosse has disregarded or broken include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
90:
Jacrosse seems to have repeated the pattern of reversion without discussion everywhere he has contributed in
Knowledge. Others have testified to this. Please see
207:
Apparently while this was going on at the Animal House article, Jacrosse was adding this rumor about the Straussians, which he again presented as fact, to the
21:
30:
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.
195:. When he finally stopped edit-warring, he said he had "surrendered," thus showing a lack of understanding of what the Knowledge project is about:
783:) and penchant for personal attacks despite repeated warnings, it is not a stretch to conclude that Jacrosse is a wholly dysfunctional editor.
48:
62:
and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
17:
787:
525:. I reverted part of this change (preserving changes to categories) explaining that it was inappropriate to excerpt so much text
256:. Jacrosse's only contributions to the discussion—contributions, I should emphasize, that only occurred pre-mediation—were these:
134:
499:
495:
803:
483:
479:
491:
452:
779:
despite the concerns of more than half a dozen other editors. Coupled with his total disregard for edit summaries (
845:
832:
810:
534:
The revert war would go on for nearly a month. My basis for reverting Jacrosse's four-paragraph insertions was
416:. The same sort of refusal is evidenced by these further diffs to the article, which show a low-level edit war:
462:
with the mild admonition that Jacrosse "refute, but don't remove, criticism." Jacrosse then almost immediately
86:
Jacrosse has a consistent pattern of making controversial and/or disputed edits without engaging in discussion
186:. He refused to discuss his edits on the talk page, despite attempts by editors to engage him in discussion:
384:
290:, and had engaged in an edit war with him and a disagreement filled with unproductive personal attacks. See
522:
Jacrosse began with a large number of edits, adding a significant piece of quoted text to Neoconservatism
780:
403:, which has Jacrosse repeatedly reverting without discussion or even the courtesy of an edit summary.
535:
349:
345:
341:
337:
506:
Others know more about Jacrosse's original research than I do, so I shall leave that topic to them.
487:
287:
807:
528:. Without edit summary or talk page explanation, Jacrosse re-inserted the large block of text
388:
841:
I'm sorry for the delay. Things have been mad at work. I will do this this week, for certain. --
180:
include edit summaries, the edit summaries were confrontational and contained personal attacks:
147:) as fact. He did so almost always without edit summaries. See these diffs, which are only a
407:
516:
280:
273:
474:, saying the criticism "just totally clashes with the tone of the rest of the article."
842:
829:
286:. Before my arrival at the article, Jacrosse had gotten into a fight with a user named
823:
441:
Jacrosse, without explanation, deleted large sections of the Alger Hiss article. See
151:
of Jacrosse's reversions (which total 39 between Nov. 28, 2005 and Jan. 31, 2006):
120:
451:
At Murray Rothbard, he removed a paragraph that cited to a critical report by the
644:
Less than an hour after unprotected, Jacrosse reinserts the entire disputed text
140:
208:
125:
555:
and leaves a message on the talk page that doesn't address fair use concerns
58:
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence
539:
33:
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and
320:. (Cberlet, it must be admitted, was guilty of one personal attack. See
139:
where he kept entering a completely irrelevant second-hand rumor about
470:, and Jacrosse, instead of engaging in substantive discussion, again
37:. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
434:. Yet further evidence of Jacrosse's avoidance of discussion is my
410:, which shows Jacrosse's frustrating refusal to discuss his edits:
361:
Other (continued violations; Harry Elmer Barnes; Anne Norton; etc.)
826:
over the Easter weekend. Please accept apologies for my tardiness.
355:
He also seems not to understand the "no personal attacks" policy.
455:, saying he thought the source was "simply not credible." See
253:, which failed because of Jacrosse's refusal to participate:
118:
Jacrosse edit-warred and did not engage in discussion at the
69:
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at
143:
that he presented (contrary to the source he was citing—see
201:), he replied in a hostile and condescending manner (see
47:
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see
774:
771:
769:
767:
765:
763:
761:
759:
757:
755:
753:
751:
749:
742:
739:
736:
733:
730:
727:
724:
721:
718:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
697:
695:
693:
691:
689:
687:
678:
673:
668:
663:
658:
653:
648:
643:
631:
626:
621:
616:
613:
610:
605:
600:
595:
592:
587:
582:
577:
572:
567:
564:
559:
554:
551:
546:
536:
Knowledge:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others
529:
526:
523:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
445:
442:
435:
432:
429:
426:
423:
420:
417:
414:
411:
400:
396:
392:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
356:
334:
331:
328:
321:
318:
315:
312:
309:
306:
303:
300:
297:
294:
291:
284:
266:
263:
260:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
242:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
144:
112:
109:
106:
103:
100:
97:
94:
91:
42:
377:. (I am not the only person to have noticed this. See
480:
talking to other editors in order to resolve disputes
466:, including a vehement edit summary. This was again
786:In my experience, Jacrosse has violated 3 of the 4
588:
Jacrosse reverts w/o edit summary or talk page note
728:and again (this time with an ad hominem thrown in)
55:illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
77:. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
674:Jacrosse reverts, calling Cberlet a "stalinist"
232:. Finally, there was an attempt at mediation:
8:
596:leaving talk page explanation of my concerns
519:article, which is what I will now address.
397:this request for mediation and discussion
542:. Here are the diffs from that month:
391:is also instructive. In particular, see
198:. When I responded good-naturedly (see
7:
822:I will be adding evidence concering
484:resolving disputes through mediation
340:, about the dispute flag. See also
262:, and (note the tone in these two)
634:and protected the page for 8 days.
81:Evidence presented by Hydriotaphia
28:
18:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration
132:I first encountered Jacrosse at
816:Evidence presented by DuncanBCS
669:Cberlet tries a compromise edit
176:for the full edit war. When he
272:He did much the same thing at
1:
632:I roll back Jacrosse's revert
748:Some more personal attacks:
510:Evidence presented by Thames
438:on the article's talk page.
453:Southern Poverty Law Center
885:
846:16:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
833:11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
811:01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
406:See also this exchange at
568:and leaves a talk message
444:, which was immediately
772:this one is my favorite
698:revert w/o edit summary
317:, and especially this:
788:Key Knowledge policies
601:jacross reverts back
399:with the subsequent
393:this personal attack
172:. See the article's
781:11% for major edits
614:with talk page note
496:no personal attacks
492:assuming good faith
401:history of the page
60:in your own section
488:consensus building
389:Harry Elmer Barnes
75:/Proposed decision
593:I revert jacrosse
876:
863:Second assertion
664:Jacrosse reverts
654:jacrosse reverts
627:Jacrosse reverts
611:jacrosse reverts
578:Jacrosse reverts
565:Jacrosse reverts
458:. This edit was
408:Talk:Anne Norton
884:
883:
879:
878:
877:
875:
874:
873:
865:
856:
854:First assertion
818:
745:. It goes on.
679:Cberlet reverts
617:and my response
560:Hippo43 reverts
517:Neoconservatism
512:
363:
281:Neoconservatism
277:
274:Neoconservatism
130:
88:
83:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
882:
880:
871:
864:
861:
855:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
836:
835:
817:
814:
683:
682:
676:
671:
666:
661:
656:
651:
646:
636:
635:
629:
624:
619:
608:
603:
598:
590:
585:
580:
575:
570:
562:
557:
549:
511:
508:
395:; and compare
362:
359:
276:
270:
129:
116:
87:
84:
82:
79:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
881:
872:
869:
862:
860:
853:
847:
844:
840:
839:
838:
837:
834:
831:
827:
825:
824:Max Shachtman
820:
819:
815:
813:
812:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
784:
782:
776:
775:
773:
770:
768:
766:
764:
762:
760:
758:
756:
754:
752:
750:
746:
744:
741:
738:
735:
732:
729:
726:
723:
720:
717:
714:
711:
708:
705:
702:
699:
696:
694:
692:
690:
688:
680:
677:
675:
672:
670:
667:
665:
662:
660:
657:
655:
652:
650:
647:
645:
642:
641:
640:
633:
630:
628:
625:
623:
620:
618:
615:
612:
609:
607:
604:
602:
599:
597:
594:
591:
589:
586:
584:
583:Hippo reverts
581:
579:
576:
574:
571:
569:
566:
563:
561:
558:
556:
553:
550:
548:
545:
544:
543:
541:
537:
532:
530:
527:
524:
520:
518:
509:
507:
504:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
475:
473:
472:reverted back
469:
465:
464:reverted back
461:
457:
454:
449:
447:
443:
439:
437:
433:
430:
427:
424:
421:
418:
415:
412:
409:
404:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
381:
379:
376:
373:
370:
367:
360:
358:
357:
353:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
329:
324:
322:
319:
316:
313:
310:
307:
304:
301:
298:
295:
292:
289:
285:
282:
275:
271:
269:
267:
264:
261:
258:
255:
252:
249:
246:
243:
240:
237:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
205:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
142:
138:
136:
127:
123:
122:
117:
115:
113:
110:
107:
104:
101:
98:
95:
92:
85:
80:
78:
76:
72:
67:
63:
61:
56:
52:
50:
45:
43:
38:
36:
31:
23:
19:
870:
866:
857:
821:
804:Simple rules
799:
795:
791:
785:
777:
747:
684:
637:
533:
521:
513:
505:
477:
476:
450:
440:
405:
382:
364:
354:
338:this section
325:
278:
206:
177:
148:
135:Animal House
133:
131:
121:Animal House
119:
89:
68:
64:
59:
57:
53:
46:
41:this form:
39:
34:
32:
29:
573:TDC reverts
141:Straussians
802:. Of the
552:He reverts
209:toga party
126:toga party
35:be concise
796:Copyright
743:and again
740:and again
737:and again
734:and again
725:and again
722:and again
719:and again
716:amd again
713:and again
710:and again
707:and again
704:and again
701:and again
385:talk page
71:/Workshop
49:talk page
800:Civility
659:I revert
649:I revert
622:I revert
606:I revert
547:I revert
540:Fair use
468:reverted
460:reverted
446:reverted
149:very few
128:articles
22:Jacrosse
20: |
436:comment
288:Cberlet
174:history
843:Duncan
830:Duncan
808:thames
798:, and
374:, and
348:, and
731:again
383:This
16:<
792:NPOV
538:and
531:.
500:NPOV
350:here
346:here
342:here
265:and
145:this
124:and
448:.
387:at
380:.)
323:.)
279:At
226:,
204:).
178:did
51:.
828:--
794:,
790::
498:;
494:;
490:;
486:;
482:;
431:,
428:,
425:,
422:,
419:,
413:,
371:,
368:,
352:.
344:,
333:;
330:;
314:,
311:,
308:,
305:,
302:,
299:,
296:,
293:,
268:.
259:,
250:,
247:,
244:,
241:,
238:,
235:,
229:,
223:,
220:,
217:,
214:,
192:,
189:,
183:,
169:,
166:,
163:,
160:,
157:,
154:,
114:.
111:,
108:,
105:,
102:,
99:,
96:,
93:,
44:.
502:.
137:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.