Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Evidence

message: I asked David Gerad to recuse, with good cause, and he has not done so. -- Netoholic @ 04:19, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
:If that is because he was in one of the cited "revert wars" with you, that seems pretty minor.  Having seen many revert wars go on for weeks, it is hard to call these events where the 3RR rule was bumped up against a couple of times, "revert wars".  I suspect David will not consider them "revert wars" either, however, there is a sense in which he is being accused by the evidence also, although the posters were careful not to list him as the reverter. --Silverback 13:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had good cause, you had about two weeks to submit diffs. You didn't. I am reluctant to recuse on the grounds of "I disagreed with him so he must hate me so he should recuse" - that sets an awful precedent that our more creatively antisocial editors would waste no time in exploiting, as should be fairly obvious - David Gerard 22:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On-going objection 

message: Hogwash: none of the definitions in Wikipedia:Vandalism can be stretched to apply to Netoholic's edits of Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office. (Nor my edits of the same page, but those aren't at issue here.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "vandalism" 

message: As long as everything is being discussed, I would be much obliged if Netoholic were to explain his attempted hijacking of Template:Sisterproject, after two failed TFD's. This is really quite splendidly audacious, and is probably the single event - well, except for the bot usage - I would most like to see explained. — Itai (f&t) 21:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template hijacking 

message: Since I originally posted my evidence I have agreed to serve as Netoholic's Advocate. If Wgfinley is now an official advocate, perhaps he would be so kind as to reformat/move his posts on the Evidence page, since they are argument, not evidence. If he has evidence, by all means post it, but place arguments where they belong. --Calton | Talk 07:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded on this users page.  Prior Arbcom cases and the rules specify that argument may be presented along with evidence..  All argument is presented with evidence in support of it except for the section concerning personal attacks which is not disputed but rather explained.  --Wgfinley 08:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...rules specify that argument may be presented along with evidence. Right, except what you're doing is the reverse, presenting argument with a soupcon of evidence added to it -- hell, you say so yourself with All argument is presented with evidence. Besides, any argument unsupported by evidence is pretty much by definition a bad argument, so your distinction is pretty much meaningless anyways. I repeat, if you're going to add something to an evidence section, it should be actual evidence -- you know, diffs and links demonstrating some action, behavior, or principle, with explanatory notes -- not a long-winded pseudo-legalistic brief with possible evidence buried within it. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let the Arbcom decide.  --Wgfinley 05:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence