Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 20:11, 12 March 2011 (→Discretionary sanctions are seldom overturned: fix old username). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
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 ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk 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 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 Dreadstar

Unblock of Ludwigs2

Again, I apologize to the Committee. I have zero admin experience of dealing with AE blocks, and didn't realize the full implications of it. Overall, I've only made a total of four unblocks in the past two years (including this one); the other three were unrelated to AE and were of blocks made by me where the blockee gave assurances of better behavior – so I have no history of unblock abuse.

Regarding the Ludwigs unblock, I saw what appeared to be a hasty block that would increase drama, with several editors on both sides of the debate speaking out against it (and I believe no one in favor when I unblocked), so my aim was to reduce drama quickly. I apologize that my actions had the opposite effect. When I began to realize the implications of it being an AE block, I e-mailed the Committee to explain my actions. I was unsure how to proceed at that point: to reblock for the sake of process seemed wrong and unfair to the blockee, so I waited to hear from Sandstein. When he came back online he filed the case immediately, so there was no opportunity to look for another way forward.

It would be helpful to me and possibly others to clarify what conduct, in what venues, by which editors, regarding what issues, should fall under an AE restriction. I didn’t see this as being directly related to the Pseudoscience ArbCom case. Also of help would be verification that any block marked as AE be treated as AE, even if the association seems distant.

But, once again, mea culpa here, and let me assure everyone that it definitely will not happen again. Dreadstar ☥ 06:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by BullRangifer

We can end this right now

I think Dreadstar's statement is sufficient to end this right now with no more drama. A mistake was made because of inexperience. That's forgivable.

Now all that is needed is a statement that will prevent such things from happening again. The proper process for unblocking an AE block should be followed. The determination of whether or not to call the initial block an "AE block" isn't anyone's business but the blocking admin. If they say it was, then all other admins must AGF and not unblock without following due process. If the blocking admin has abused the "AE block" template, that's an entirely different matter.

This could be the shortest AE case in history. There is no need for more drama. We just need a clear statement for the record.

PS: Ludwig2's block should be reinstated. Due process must still be followed in this case. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sandstein

This section was last updated 14:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC). It may continue to be updated until the end of the deadline (if any) for submitting evidence. Please tell me on my talk page if any factual assertion made here is incorrect.

Dreadstar

Dreadstar undid a block which he knew was an arbitration enforcement action

At , Dreadstar unblocked Ludwigs2. A few lines above the unblock request I had previously added the {{uw-aeblock}} notice and a further message explaining the AE nature of the block. Dreadstar was therefore aware that he undid a block that was an arbitration enforcement action.

Dreadstar was aware of the rules governing reversals of AE actions and of the penalties for not abiding by them

The {{uw-aeblock}} notice on Ludwigs2's talk page contains a link to the ArbCom decision in the Trusilver case as well as its full operative text, which reads:

"Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Additionally, my message linked to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, which reads in relevant part:

"Appeals: Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations."

Dreadstar's unblock message made reference to that decision, which indicates that Dreadstar read it. Dreadstar was therefore aware that he was not allowed to undo the AE block of Ludwigs2 except as provided for in the abovementioned decisions, and he was also aware of the potential consequences of disobeying the Committee's decisions.

Dreadstar's unblock clearly did not meet the requirements for reversing an arbitration enforcement action

Requirements set forth in the Trusilver decision

The Trusilver decision, reproduced above, requires a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard" to undo an AE action. The three-hour WP:AN discussion that preceded the unblock, linked to here as it was at the time of the unblock, obviously did not meet these requirements. The following editors commented in between my announcement of the block and Dreadstar's unblock announcement:

• Supporting the block:

1. Collect,
2. Protonk,

• Not clearly supporting or opposed to the block:

1. WhatamIdoing, , does not address the block
2. Hans Adler, , possibly critical of the block ("Sandstein has decided to shoot the messenger") but does not advocate overturning it. Hans Adler was at any rate involved in the underlying dispute.
3. N419BH, , possibly supportive of the block ("WP:BOOMERANG strikes again")

• Opposed to the block:

1. SlimVirgin,
2. Short Brigade Harvester Boris, . Whether he is an uninvolved editor is open to discussion, as his contributions show that he is heavily engaged in disputes related to Misplaced Pages's coverage of science and fringe science topics.
3. The Four Deuces,
4. Xxanthippe, . Xxanthippe was involved in the underlying dispute.

Only two clearly uninvolved editors, therefore, opposed the block, while two others (three if one includes N419BH) supported it, and the whole discussion lasted only about three hours until Dreadstar unblocked Ludwigs2. No editor can argue in good faith that this constituted a "clear, substantial, and active consensus" to unblock Ludwigs2.

Requirements set forth in the Pseudoscience decision

The Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions remedy, moreover, provides that

"Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue" (my underlining).

Dreadstar did not do so. He did not only not wait for any consensus to emerge, as shown above, but he also made no attempt to engage me (as the blocking admin) in discussion, either onwiki or per e-mail, and he also did not engage in discussion with other editors, but simply announced his decision to unblock.

Moreover, Dreadstar's statement that he read the AN discussion as "no one in favor" of the block, which is at odds with the editors' actual comments as outlined above, indicates that Dreadstar did not even properly read the discussion and that he thereby failed to familiarize himself with the full facts of the matter, as he would have been required to.

By unblocking Ludwigs2, Dreadstar therefore did not comply with the Arbitration Committee's instructions, of which he was aware as shown above, in both the Trusilver and the Pseudoscience cases.

Dreadstar is responsible for the escalation of this matter to the Arbitration Committee

Even after his unblock, and after realizing (as he claims in his submission) his mistake, Dreadstar could have avoided the escalation of the problem by either

• reinstating the block, as he had been advised, or
• contacting me to seek my approval for the unblock or to propose another way to resolve the problem.

He did not do so. Instead, even after being advised of his mistake by another user, he replied:

"It was a very bad block and in my opinion did not properly fall under the ArbCom findings. If this goes to ArbCom, so be it." , and

"I was prepared for backlash when I did it."

Then he archived that whole talk page section, with the apparent intent of cutting off any continued discussion, and did not reply to continued messages from other users advising him of his mistake (, ).

Given that Dreadstar had thus repeatedly made clear that he was not going to undo his unblock, that he had made his decision in the full knowledge of its possible consequences, that he was not ready to discuss the matter further and that he was ready for escalation to ArbCom, any communication by me (after I came back online and read the above) would not have served any useful purpose. This left me only the possibility of a request for arbitration to remedy Dreadstar's disruption of the arbitration enforcement process.

I am not certain that Dreadstar's statement that "I waited to hear from Sandstein" can be taken at face value, because his actions (as outlined above) do not provide the slightest indication that he was interested in hearing from me - rather, the opposite.

Conclusion

The evidence above shows that Dreadstar wilfully and repeatedly held the Committee's decisions in contempt and failed to exercise the judgment expected of an administrator. Even in view of his apology, which appears honest but rather belated, some kind of tangible sanction against him is still, I think, appropriate (even if not necessarily an indefinite desysop). If no such sanctions are imposed, other administrators would not be deterred from likewise wilfully undoing AE actions or even Committee decisions, which would lead to more entirely avoidable cases of this sort, and which would also substantially undermine the authority and binding nature of the Arbitration Committee's decisions. Additionally, I predict that such a development would reduce further the willingness of administrators to engage in enforcement work.

Sandstein

My block of Ludwigs2 was within the ambit of discretionary sanctions

The discretionary sanctions remedy provides in relevant part (underlining and bracketed numbers added for reference):

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior , or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; 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; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

My block of Ludwigs2 complied with these requirements, in particular the following:

• "Uninvolved administrator": The remedy provides that "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute." I meet this requirement, as well as the more stringent requirements of WP:UNINVOLVED, because I have never been engaged in a conflict with Ludwigs2 as far as I recall. (It is possible that I did engage with him at some time in an administrative capacity, although I do not recall that either, and according to his block log I have not previously blocked him).
• "Editor working in the area of conflict": The thread that triggered the block was a complaint by Ludwigs2 about editing on the Pseudoscience article. Ludwigs2 has also edited that article, most recently on 4 March, in what seems to be an edit war that had to be stopped by full protection. He is therefore an editor working in the area of conflict.
• "Repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior": The reason for the block was the following threat by Ludwigs2:

  "I'm dropping this in your lap now, because if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up. I'm very capable of doing that (as some of you should be aware), but if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly" (italics in original).

  Announcing one's intention to "shout down" and "shut up" another editor, and that things will "get ugly" can only be construed, as even Dreadstar agrees, as a serious threat of disruption, violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE as well as the Committee's particular advice to editors working in this topic area "to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution ) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators".

  This threat by Ludwigs2 did not only represent serious, but also repeated misconduct, because his block log shows several blocks for similar problems (incivility, attacks etc.), of which many seem to be in the same topic area also.

• "The editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator": Ludwigs2 received the required warning on 22 September 2008 by Elonka, an uninvolved administrator. Additionally, prior to blocking Ludwigs2, I invited him to respond to the concerns I voiced about his threat at the AN thread, where the previous warning by Elonka was also linked to.

I did not communicate optimally with Ludwigs2 prior to blocking him, but that does not invalidate the block

While not required to by the remedy or any policy, for reasons of fairness, I always ask an editor whom I am about to sanction to comment about the concerns that have been put forward about their editing. This gives them an opportunity to explain any possible misunderstanding or to undo their problematic edits and so possibly avoid the sanction altogether.

I did so in this case as well, inviting Ludwigs2 to respond to the concerns I voiced about his threat at the AN thread. In retrospect, as I already commented at the request stage (, ), I agree that my communication could have been better:

• My message to Ludwigs2 did not explain my specific concerns but only referred to Ludwigs2's AN thread where I had explained them. The tone of the message was also not, as Casliber noted, "conducive to calming a frustrated editor down and moving forward."
• When Ludwigs2 responded without addressing the threat I had objected to, instead asking me "hunh? what are you talking about?", I should not have assumed that he was wilfully ignoring my question or failed to understand why the threat was problematic. Instead, it would have been better to give him another opportunity to respond.

I regret this miscommunication and will pay more attention to such issues in the future. Nonetheless, my messages did impart all information that would have been required for Ludwigs2 to respond appropriately, had he read my messages more attentively. In addition, pre-sanction communication of this kind is not a requirement under the discretionary sanctions remedy (although maybe it should be - I will consider making a corresponding workshop proposal). This is to say, following the remedy, I could have made a valid enforcement block without talking to Ludwigs2 at all. For these reasons, my suboptimal communication does not remove the arbitration enforcement purpose of my block, and, consequently, it does not excuse or mitigate Dreadstar's unblock.

Arbitration enforcement in general

Arbitrators wish to review AE practices in general and the use of discretionary sanctions in particular. In my opinion, the AE system is generally well-established and a benefit to the project. No major changes to the rules are therefore required, except perhaps certain tweaks and clarifications (for instance, that discretionary sanctions do apply to conduct outside of topic-related articles). This section provides evidence for this assertion.

Discretionary sanctions are frequently used

In the 14 areas where they are authorized (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions), discretionary sanctions are regularly imposed. With respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict alone, where they are available since January 2008, a very approximate count in the enforcement log indicates that about 150 such actions (including blocks enforcing previous sanctions) have been made.

Many of these disputes, if they could not have been handled with some degree of finality through the AE system, would have needed to be addressed on community dispute resolution fora or by the Committee, usually with much more drama and effort. Also, it can be assumed that the availability of a relatively fast and authoritative framework to handle misconduct has deterred established editors in the respective topic areas from much confrontational behavior. Without AE, therefore, the number of escalating disputes may well have been higher.

Discretionary sanctions are seldom overturned

Also using the Arab-Israeli conflict area as an example, according to the enforcement log, only 7 of the about 150 enforcement actions seem to have been changed by somebody else than the admin who made them, or as a result of an appeal discussion in a public forum:

No AE sanction that I know of has been overturned by the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales.

This indicates that most discretionary sanctions seem to be considered appropriate (or at least not clearly inappropriate) by the wider community and the Committee, in the cases where they are appealed at all.

Discretionary sanctions are subject to review by a well-established appeals system

Under the rules instituted by the Committee in the Trusilver case in March 2010 (as quoted at WP:AEBLOCK), users subject to discretionary sanctions can appeal to the sanctioning admin, to the committee or to a community noticeboard discussion (which requires a "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to overturn). Since then, the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} exists to provide structure to such appeal discussions. Its use is explained in the WP:AE edit notice and at WP:AEBLOCK, which is linked to from the AE block notice template, {{uw-aeblock}}. Users are therefore well-informed about the venues of appeal. The appeal template has been used 19 times in the AE archives. I am not aware of any appeal discussion derailing or of the result of any appeal discussion being contested.

Discretionary sanctions are generally accepted

I am not aware of any community discussion (such as a WP:RFC) that has expressed community discontent with the system of discretionary sanctions as instituted by the Arbitration Committee, or any particular aspect of it, such as the "Trusilver" restriction on undoing enforcement actions, the appeals framework or the enforcement practices of any administrator. As is to be expected, there have been expressions of discontent by users affected by individual enforcement actions and their friends.

Evidence presented by Ludwigs2

I'm breaking my evidence down into three sections, for clarity and convenience. The sections cover the following topics, for the following rationales:

1. That QuackGuru was tendentiously engaged in promoting overt synthesis from publish sources.
   • This is intended to show that my wp:AN thread was neither frivolous nor out-of line.
2. That Sandstein made no effort whatsoever to examine the context of the wp:AN complaint, but instead trumped-up an excuse that would allow him to immediately jump to sanctions.
   • This intended to show that Sandstein acted with deliberate bad faith with respect to me and with respect to the interests of the encyclopedia
3. That Sandstein and other editors have a pattern of intimidating editors (through harassment or sanctions) in order to exclude or deter them from presenting disliked content perspectives on fringe articles.
   • This is intended to demonstrate that this is a broad systemic problem, rather than simple administrative misjudgment, to make it clear that stronger measures are necessary to remedy the problem. --Ludwigs2 16:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru aggressively promoted synthesis from published sources

This section is intended to show that QuackGuru (talk · contribs) was explicitly engaged in synthesis from published sources on the pseudoscience article, and to suggest that this is an established pattern of behavior. I say 'explicitly' rather than 'deliberately' because I am not entirely certain that QG understands the policy on synthesis, or that he is in fact engaged in it - this despite a variety of interactions with him on issues related to SYN.

QuackGuru's overt synthesis in this particular case

The contested passage was originally added by QuackGuru here in December 2010 (one month after the publication of the article, incidentally), and was removed by me as inappropriate in the next edit - - with a discussion begun in talk. The passage has gone through a number of revisions, removals and changes since then, but none of the changes addressed the actual problem of synthesis.

This claim comes from the following abstract, which I include in its entirety (collapsed) for easy reference:

Things to note about this abstract:

• The initial 'pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery' statement - which is what was quoted in wikipedia - only appears in the abstract, and is not part of the article itself
• The article is clearly an article about cognitive distortions that lead to erroneous beliefs, and not an article about pseudoscience itself.
• The experiment in the article clearly (sentence 6) deals specifically with quackery
• The article is a psychology article in a psychology journal, and is consequently not reliable for discussing pseudoscience in general (except in the specific vein of possible cognitive distortions)
  • It's doubtful that this source is even reliable for discussions of medical quackery - there's no indication that any of the authors are MDs - but the idea that medical quackery might pose a health risk is so common-sensical that I probably would not have opposed the source on that narrow ground

However, this quotation - "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to the public" - was placed in the overview of the pseudoscience article in such a way that it could only be interpreted to mean that all pseudoscience was a threat to the public. That is not true to the source's intent, is not tracaeble to other sources, nor is it even remotely consistent with common sense. As I pointed out in talk -, - UFOlogy, parapsychology, cryptozoology, cold fusion, and a host of other pseudoscientific topics pose no conceivable threat to the public.

N.b. Mathsci produced an older statement that says much the same thing as this except adds a phrase about public science education. That makes more sense - all pseudoscience raises concerns about public science education (which does not qualify as a 'threat' but is worth noting), and some medical pseudoscience creates a more direct risk to the public. However, that does not justify the use of this passage in this way

QuackGuru's tendentious behavior with respect to promoting this synthesis

This source was repeatedly reintroduced to the article in that capacity, mostly by QG, but also by a number of drive-by editors. To give an idea of the talk page tendentiousness, here is a fairly typical exchange (please forgive the heat in one of my responses - this was in the third month of repetitions of this same kind of argument, and was one day before I decided to take a day-long chill-out break from the page):

• QG claiming that the source 'literally says' this, so the quote is relevant.
• L2 noting that no one is saying that the source doesn't 'literally say' that, but that it's a misrepresentation to use the quote this way.
• QG asserting that my objection is a personal bias, and that we have to stick to what the source 'literally says' without interpretation of context.
• L2 (somewhat heatedly) pointing out - again - that no one is questioning what the source 'literally says', but that the source is not reliable for or relevant to the pseudoscience article, and is being taken out of context and used for original research.
• QG simple contradiction - saying the source is relevant and is not taken out of context, and accusing me of making 'vague' objections.
• L2 - pointing out that I have made several clear and relevant objections, that he is just refusing to acknowledge.
• QG simple denial that I have made any argument at all.

In short: QuackGuru was pushing for a literal reading of a non-significant portion of the abstract of an article on a completely different topic, just so he could say something damaging about pseudoscience as a whole. It's about as clear a case of wp:original research as I have seen, and his single-mindedness in pursuing it is almost Olympian in scale.

QuackGuru's long-term abuse of sources on fringe articles

Sandstein's block was unjustified and combative

Sandstein misrepresented my statement as threatening

Sandstein failed to examine the merits of my request concerning QG

Sandstein failed to clarify the problem, and failed to give me the opportunity to address the issue

Sandstein improperly blocked under AE sanctions

Pattern of using unjustified sanctions against editors on fringe article

Ongoing hostility towards anyone perceived as being 'fringe'

Habitual use of trumped-up AE sanctions against editors on fringe articles

This section is a placeholder - I personally know of my case (in which Sandstein used AE to give an inappropriate block) and the case of Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) - in the archives (In which Sandstein closed the case in the midst of a discussion over whether it was an inappropriate AE topic ban). I will need to take some time over the week, however, to dig more thoroughly through Sandstein's AE actions, and the actions of other admins that he has supported.

Evidence presented by Hodja Nasreddin

Sandstein does very good work at AE

Sandstein was in the limits of his discretion when he applied this block. The discretionary sanctions can be used by an individual uninvolved administrator, regardless to AE discussion. But as a matter of fact, I have seen Sandstein asking an advice from others at AE, rather than imposing unilateral sanctions, on at least one occasion . When others expressed concern, he was willing to discuss the issues and modify his initial decision . This is something one would expect from a good administrator.

How to improve the system

If you want to improve the system, it might be possible to modify current discretionary sanctions by asking that any block or ban longer than a week should be posted for discussion at AE (exactly as Sandstein did in MarshallBagramyan case - see first diff above) and be enacted if there is a consensus of at least three uninvolved administrators. It seems that other AE administrators are doing just that .

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.