Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder/Evidence

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.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

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 this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

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 illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

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 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.

Evidence presented by User:AlexR

Mostly copied from the RfA page -- AlexR 20:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Gender and Talk:Gender

• 15. May 2005, 16:49 Njyoder removed large parts of the content from Gender: [2]. Edit comment was: "removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus"
• 20:31, 15 May 2005 Given these rather questionable reasons, the fact that there was no explanation on the talk page, and his previous behaviour, I merely reverted that as "vandalism" [3]. * 14:41, 17 May 2005 [4] " Marking them as vandalism when they're not is a violation of Wikipedia policy."
• 16:19, 17 May 2005 [5] "I just noticed that AlexR, without even consulting the talk page, tried reverting the same thing he did before." (Well, he hadn't used it, either; see below.)
• Article went RfC on 21:15, 17 May 2005 [6]
• 18:41, 18 May 2005 [7] Claims that User:Arbor already explained his edits sufficiently on the talk page ( [8]); only, how can anybody know whether Arbor and Njyoder did indeed agree there? There was not even a brief "Yes, that was why I did it" or similar. Also:

• "He [AlexR]] took it to RfC without even bothering to make the slightest attempt to explain why he wrongfully reverted my edits as vandalism (a violation of wikipedia policy)." and the rather odd:
• "Another POV etymological statemet: "Gender is also evolving in this usage from noun to adjective: it is increasingly being seen as an attribute (like color) rather than as a distinct entity in itself." is completely unsubstantiated. I've never heard anyone say "that color is male/female." A color being preferred by a gender doesn't make it a gender in itself. This usage is non-existant."

• 22:14, 19 May 2005 [9] Reply to User:Axon: "Are you kidding me? ... If you can't even acknowledge that, then you're ridiculously biased. ... All you're doing is reinforcing the fact that you don't want to cooperate and follow wikipedia guidelines in settling a dispute. Additionally, I don't have a history of "controversial edits." That's completely disingenuous to say. ... Please keep on making yourself look bad."
• 22:27, 19 May 2005 [10] Reply to me:

• "You're deliberately ignoring what people have already reached a general consensus on, please stop lying to make a point." and
• "One might oppose a certain analysis of gender, but I've never heard of anyone actually opposing the concept except those from exremist left-wing branches of feminism, the types oh zealously believe that we should use gender neutral terms like "zie" and "zir." Your assertion is not only wrong, it's the opposite of the way it is." (compare gender-neutral pronoun) and
• "Instead, in bad faith, you iniated an RfC against me as a hissy fit. The general consensus is AGAINST you, accept it and stop inserting your POV everywhere."

• 05:54, 24 May 2005 [11]

• "This is why I think he should just be banned from gender and sexuality articles, he refueses to conceded even the most blatantly obvious cases of POV."
• "I've tried this with him in the past, whenever I call him on absurd factual errors, he cries and whines and refuses to provide sources. He's probably the single biggest POV pusher in gender related articles." (compare [12])

Attempts by Njyoder to actually answer the questions brought up cannot be found.

Bisexuality

My initial RfC on 28. April 2005 [13] changed by Njyoder on 29. April [14]. Given that his initial removal of the Kinsey statistics [15] followed a debate with me and others on #wikipedia, I was under the misapprehension that this was a somewhat personal matter, hence the wording of my initial RfC.

At any rate, same pattern - deleted what he didn't like, became highly insulting when the deletion was reverted, and was nowhere willing to compromise. I kept out of the debate somewhat, since I still did not want to fuel it by what is maybe a personal conflict. (Although since he treats everybody who disagrees with him the same way, maybe this is less personal than I fear.)

For the complete debate, see Talk:Bisexuality#Prevalence of bisexuality and cultural practice of it and Talk:Bisexuality#Kinsey.

Third gender

On Talk:Third gender, 19 May 2005 (UTC), he also claimed that it had a "POV-bias", "anti-western-culture bias" and that the article was "non-notable", although so far he has refrained from editing the article itself. The comment includes this rather ... surprising ... statement:

"Also, a quick google test shows that "third gender" only gets 19.2k hits, it's an uncommon term. This should be redirected to an merged with the Gender article, it is not worthy of its own article." [16]

(Talk page conists only of four edits, hence no use in providing diffs)

Update 04.06.2005

Since the 25th of May the page rested for a few days, then the debate continued in the usual tone between Njyoder and Axon; on 3rd of June Njyoder added a "merge" tag to the article, despite being the only one who thinks it should be merged. (All emphasis and formating retained from original.)

• 17:29, 31 May 2005 does some rather odd interpretation of the Google count [17]:

• "Remove all references to books, and you get 7.1k hits, almost one THIRD of the original search results ("hey read this book d00dz" and book websites). Remove transgender and gay and you have 4.3k. Remove references to hindu, native american and indians, you only have 973 left. So if you take out the third gender sub-cultures which practically no one has heard of (don't even DARE to assert that more than a few people know about the Hijras), _attempt_ take out the LGBT sites and take out self-promoting book websites and people giving book recommendations for books most haven't heard of (the biggest one had a total of 2 reviews in Amazon, shock!), it's practically nil."
• If you had bothered to look at the links google provides, it's almost exclusively academic websites in LGBT type studies, LGBT publications and random LGBT type websites. How is that NOT a good indicator that it's rare?

• 19:18, 31 May 2005 [18] (To Axon) :

• " Why don't you actually attempt to refute what I've said instead of just lying and said I haven't presented evidence? ... This is getting quite insane, I think I will start an RfA on you, since either you have extremely bad memory, extremely bad reading comprehension or you are lying. ... I never referred to a simple majority, this is another lie. I said 99%. There is no way you can misinterpret 99% to mean just a simple majority. This is definitely grounds for an RfA since you're just making stuff up out of thin air that a I never said."
• I never said it is not worthy of discussion, I specifically said to MERGE it, when implies that you will DISCUSS it. I'm not even sure how to classify this now, I've repeated multiple times that I want a merge (from the BEGINNING) and even bolded it before this, how can you keep repeating this nonsense? Again, all the more reason to file an RfA against you, this is quite obviously a deliberate misinterpretation of everything I've said. Just so you can't cop-out of this, I'll repeat the word merge many times: MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE, NOT DELETE. Thus, I am now using an argument from popularity.

• 04:34, 3 Jun 2005 [19] (to Axon):

• "I have used no personal attacks here. Do not confuse pointing out your disingenuous behavior with being a personal attack, if it were, then you could never call someone a liar even when it's obvious that they are. ... And yet again you're demonstrating how disingenuous you truly are. The google test involves interpreting the results of said test, not just relying entirely on a raw hit count."
• " The only word I've been repeating is "merge," but me repeating a word is not an appeal to popularity."

• 19:35, 3 Jun 2005 [20]

• " Incidentally, I hope you guys realize that the RfA is just going to die off, since there is no real evidence against me, you had to resort to lies on it and no one except a grand total of 3 people thinks action shuold be taken."

• 19:31, 3 Jun 2005 Njyoder (Added merge tag) [21]

Other pages showing Njyoder's less than mature behaviour:

• Talk:Vole - completely unrelated topic, same style, see for example [22]. Also calling 10k of hits "not notable in the slightest"
• Talk:Circumcision; for example from Talk:Circumcision/Archive 5, [23]:

• "I suggest that he simply be banned from modifying this article (and all other circumcision related articles) as he's demonstrated nothing but his inability to remain neutral and civilized."
• "...proceeds to incorrectly call anti-circumcision people a "minority" fringe group despite the majority of the world not practicing ritual circumcision."

Comments regarding his statement from 10:03, 28 May 2005

Regarding the alleged "tag-team":
This "tag-team" does not exist - I only became aware of User:Axon during the debate on talk:bisexuality at all. (I have a terrible memory for names, though, so we may have met before.) I dunno, two articles in about two weeks hardly do make a "tag-team", do they? Besides, it seems we are thrown together here simply because both of us, independantly, disagreed with Njyoder on his handling of those two articles. So I am asking Njyoder for more evidence on this "tag-teaming". -- AlexR 16:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "see talk page":

• Article: 16:33, 15 May 2005 Njyoder [24]
• Article: 16:49, 15 May 2005 Njyoder (removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus) [25]
• Article: 20:31, 15 May 2005 AlexR (Revert from vandalism) [26]
• Article: 14:45, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (rv to my previous version (plus included minor edit) which is not at all vandalism -- see talk page) [27]
• Talk: 14:41, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (Do not revert non-vandalism as vandalism) [28]
• Talk: 15:30, 17 May 2005 Arbor (→Do not revert non-vandalism as vandalism) [29] That is the edit in which Arbor tries to explain Njyoder's edits [AR]
• Article: 15:56, 17 May 2005 AlexR (Revert widespread removal of content) [30]
• Article: 16:15, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (rv - what part of "see talk page" don't you understand? - stop pushing your POV everywhere through misleading edits and refusing to be civil unless you want to be reported for wikipedia policy violati) [31]

Taken directly from the histories of gender and talk:gender, edits by others omnitted for brevity. All times shown are MEST, UTC +2
AlexR 16:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bishonen

Refactored and summarized from the RFAr page, some diffs added.

1–8 May, 2005

Njyoder trolled my request for adminship, 1 May to 8 May 2005, mostly on the talk page. I don't know why I was singled out in this way, as I'd had no previous contact with him. The only basis for animosity from Njyoder towards me that I know of is that I made fun of him on #wikipedia (briefly and IMO mildly) during an IRC session (though that was actually after Njyoder had begun his crusade against me, so the connection is still obscure). Njyoder has insisted [32],[33] that the #wikipedia logs for early May "incriminate" me, and states it again in his evidence section on this page. I know that #wikipedia isn't supposed to be posted on wikipedia, but if Njyoder's claims are going to create a suggestion in anybody's mind that I abused him on IRC, I would really appreciate it if the arbitrators would take a look at these logs (I'm sure they have access to the full logs). My nicks were bishonen, bish, and bishfreak, as far as I can remember, maybe bishzilla also. (An unbiased observer who did go take a look, User:El C, characterized my responses as "mildly amusing and not particularly harsh"[34]. Njyoder himself, by contrast, was kicked and then banned from the channel for his behavior during this session.) I supply a few diffs below, but arbitrators can get the flavor of Njyoder's "debating" style more simply by taking a look at the RFA talk page , which is dominated by him. There you also get a context of civil editors making reasoned appeals to him.

Njyoder loses interest in my unworthiness to be an admin once my RFA vote closes, so the matter wouldn't be worth bringing to the ArbCom's attention for its own sake. I'm submitting the incident to illustrate, from outside article and talk pages, the point AlexR is making about general incivility: this is how Njyoder treats fellow humans, and how he interacts on policy issues. (Now that I've seen Njyoder's response to Snowspinner's offer of mediation, I reckon that's the entire RFAr right there: the ArbCom could get a picture of Njyoder's whole Wikipedia approach by just reading that message.)

• 1 May, posts potty-mouth RFA vote: Njyoder votes Strong 'Oppose to my RFA, giving as the reason: "She raped me with a series of rolled up Wikipedia print-outs :-(". [35]. Many users on #wikipedia IRC ask him to remove the sentence about rape and he refuses repeatedly. (The sentence is no longer visible on the page, having been removed, not by Njyoder, as being too offensive.)
• 3 May, posts #wikipedia logs, flames me: Njyoder creates the talk page for my RFA and pastes in extracts from the #wikipedia log claimed to "further incriminate her ... decides to go offline in a private medium with kim to spew vitriol so that she doesn't further incriminate herself." [I often talk privately with Kim Bruning on IRC—Njyoder wasn't on that occasion, or ever, a subject between us.] "Objective administrators don't constantly seek validation and work to absolutely ensure that everyone is on their side, nor do they go into private conversations to talk about a dissenter behind their back." [36],[37]
• 3 May, flames Sannse: Sannse, who had been the op in channel during some sessions with Njyoder mildly reminds him not to post extracts from the log: "You probably missed my comment earlier on channel - posting logs from #wikipedia is against the channel policy"[38], and gets a violent response: "Sannse, I suggest you take your POV, and dishonest pro-censorship behavior elsewhere... I suggest you read the Wikiquette, Wikilove and NPOV articles so you can better understand the wikipedia policies that you are violating...if you continue this ridiculous childish retaliatory behavior on both IRC and Wikipedia, I'll get a comitte to come in and review you to have your admin status revoked." [39]
• 5 May, classic trolling against Geogre: Geogre posts a long, polite, reasoned argument to Njyoder, who responds "Either you're just plain ignorant about how #wikipedia works or you're just lying through your teeth here.[40].
• 6 May, accuses User:Giano of bombarding the talk page with personal attacks: "PLease read Wikilove Giano, you are violating the rules of Wikipedia by bombarding this page with your personal attacks."[41] Sic.
• 7 May, accuses me of auto-ass-kissing: "Why the heck should she 'get credit' simply for her ability to garner votes? ... Somehow, I don't think kissing your ass to the top is a valid qualifier for being an admin." [I assume he meant to talk about kissing other people's asses; anyway, if there's any more of this coarseness (compare 1 May) I wouldn't mind an ass joke injunction.] [42]
• 8 May, final flame: "She's so obviously trying to portray herself as a saint here... Frankly, her behavior is very dishonest, if it's not a flat out lie...being certain to periodically inject faux-modest statements...[43].
  

Bishonen | talk 16:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

See also User:Njyoder/bishonen

Statement by njyoder

This RfA shouldn't exist

I find it a bit silly that aribtration was jumped to so quickly. Basically, there was an RFC on one article that is still being worked on by several people (gender). There are parties other than myself, AlexR and Axon working on it, so I don't see why that would even be necessary to mention.

Yes, I was given a request for mediation when I initially edited the gender article (IIRC). I denied the request because I simply don't see the point of it. The mediation was for some alleged personal dispute, which has been completely fabricated by AlexR. Furthermore, there are other methods listed on Wikipedia that must be tried before RfA and after medication, none of those were attempted. This RfA came out of the blue and without warning.

The only edit I've made that has actually stuck in any of those articles was the single edit I made in gender, that's it. So in other words, he launched a request for arbitration over a single article which is still being worked on. This was done a short while after I refused mediation, there have been no real attempts to resolve the dispute. Short of me just agreeing with their POVed edits, they will take it to the highest authority.

What is the purpose of this RfA, what is its alleged basis?

I'm not even sure why it exists, so I would like an official statement of what the basis for it is. Is it because of so-called "personal attacks" (see below)? Most of what I've done is just use the talk pages. I made one edit in one article that was reverted and a major edit in one other article. In terms of the articles I was talking on, we're talking about 3 total articles, two small ones and one medium-large one. How is that a valid basis to start an RfA?

Why the RfA should be against AlexR and Axon

As you will find out below, they have engaged in some very dishonest behavior against me. That includes some flat out lies, extremely misleading statements and out-of-context quotes, and AlexR's attempt to revert my edit as vandalism when it clearly wasn't. THAT IS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF WIKIPEDIA POLICY.

When I get around to it (which will be a while since I don't have all the time in the world), I will collect evidence where in the talk pages they deliberately ignore and twist things I say in order to push POV. That includes AlexR and Axon's defence of using "to dismay" and "used incorrectly" in the article gender to describe the usage of gender as sex. If they can't even acknowledge that saying "to dismay" is POV, how can the expect to be NPOV?

Define "personal attack"

This is very serious and was never addressed. I read the Wikipedia:No personal attacks article and it seems clear that "personal attack" is meant to refer to insults such "you're an idiot" or "you're such a nazi." On the talk page people made it clear they still think calling people a "troll" should be allowed, in fact an admin is calling me a troll on this very page. There is a clear distinction between critcizing someone's behavior and insulting them as a person.

If I call someone disingenuous, obtuse, POV pushing, acting in bad faith or anything else like that, I'm quite obviously describing their behavior. If calling someone a POV pusher, disingenuous or other things like that is a personal attack, then most Wikipedians, everyone who is involved in this included, has engaged in personal attacks and continues to do so.

Sadly, the ridiculously biased User:David Gerard has not recused himself from this case, even though he holds an absurd double standard when it comes to personal attacks (see below).

Accusations of POV

I've been accused of POV pusing, yet no evidence of this has been presented.

Personal attacks against me

David Gerard

stupidly obnoxious behaviour
--David Gerard

Due to User:David Gerard's very unprofessional personal attack* on me and the fact that only half of the arbitrator hearing this case voted on the injunction, I decided to check on him. It turns out he may well know me from another internet medium (LiveJournal), which would explain his personal attack.

Just briefly looking at his LJ I can easily recognize people on his friends list I've talked to and communities I've talked in for which I'm well known and not well liked. If it turns out he does know me through that medium, I suggest he immediatly have his admin and arbitrator status removed for "forgetting" to mention such a critical detail, when it's clear he should have recused himself.

I also have to wonder if the 2 other arbitrators who voted against "personal attacks" actually read the evidence or just briefly skimmed it and trusted the other arbitrator. For the sake of an unbiased hearing, I suggest that we actually define personal attack, lest I file an RfA against David Gerard for his own "personal attack." After all, shouldn't arbitrators be held up to the same standards they hold others up to?

• Please note that I am using David Gerard's own defintion of "personal attack" which means criticizing someone's behavior in a harsh manner. All the evidence presented against me could only be misconstrued as a "personal attack" in this sense, since all of the "personal attacks" are critical of the person's behavior. Thus it only follows that, out of spite, he launched his personal attack against me.

--Nathan J. Yoder 10:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'd just like to say that I have no damn clue who you are on LiveJournal and have no recollection of you from there - David Gerard 14:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Your hostile attitude, in addition to your personal attack on me, are unwarranted. I suggest you read Wikipedia:WikiLove, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Wikiquette before continuing posting on Wikipedia. If you do not follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I've linked to you here, I will arrange for mediation and then a Request for Arbitration if that doesn't pan out. -Nathan J. Yoder 15:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

AlexR

• As for the "general consensus" I have allegedly lost ... maybe on another page, or in another reality, but most certainly not here. Talk:Gender

Interesting, I just found this personal insult on his page against me. I guess AlexR considers personal attacks ok when he uses them, but not when others use them. He doesn't realize that it's long since been agreed upon that gender=sex is a valid usage by general consensus AND that using terms like "to dismay" and "incorrectly used" to describe the usage of gender to mean sex is POV.

About "threats"

I threatened to take action beyond an RfC and this is somehow used as evidence against me. Since when it is against Wikipedia policy to say you'll take something to a higher authority? Consider that THEY took it to a higher authority against me, that's an aburd and hypocritical thing to use as evidence.

Bishonen is not a party of this RfA

Another thing that is bothersome is that somehow Bishonen became a party in this. I stopped talking to her for weeks, so the only conceivable reason that she became a part of this was out of a personal vendetta. My only involvement with her was on her RFC, where I voted against her. Considering that I've never so much as bothered with her since, it's a absurd that she's even included.

Bishonen has since admitted that she is not actually a party of this dispute. Why should she continue to be allowed to present any evidence at all? If you want to read the evidence, see all the IRC quotes I pasted from her with her blatantly unprofessional behavior. First she and others say that IRC shouldn't be used as evidence, saying that anything said on IRC is not to be taken seriously and they never denied she engaged in personal insults. Now she's doing damage control to save face, even though the IRC logs make it very clear she was not interested in anything other than shrugging off her extremely immature behavior.

Am I being blamed for not having all the time in the world?

In any case, I'm only replying to this because I've been busy lately and just want to make this statement. This request for arbitration was actually made after I had stopped editing for a while. Unlike AlexR and Axon, I don't have all the time in the world to do stuff like this.

AlexR and Axon are well known for tag-teaming gender and sexuality related articles and they frequently engage in wikibullying to shut out others' views. If you look at any gender/sexuality article, you'll notice they're some of the biggest POV defenders there, trying to keep an obvious extreme left-wing bias in the articles.

And since this article is based on my behavior in just 3 articles, I don't see why I can't accuse them of tag teaming in just 3 articles (it's actually been more than that which they've edited together). It is a ridiculous double standard.

The so-called evidence (for what exactly?)

AlexR

• I just noticed that AlexR, without even consulting the talk page, tried reverting the same thing he did before." (Well, he hadn't used it, either.)

See above about the talk page.

• Claims that User:Arbor already explained his edits sufficiently on the talk page ( [28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender&oldid=13835017)); only, how can anybody know whether Arbor and Njyoder did indeed agree there?

I don't even see how this is valid complaint. Given that I told him to see the talk page, isn't it IMPLIED that I agree with the statements already made? The fact of the matter is SOMEONE gave an explanation. It dosn't matter that it's not me personally. He refused to reply to that explanation until after I reverted and point him back to it again. Refusing to reply to an explanation on the talk page just because I didn't write it is silly and childish.

• The rest of them are just me pointing out his POV, which hardly warrant arbitration. Basically, general consensus had already been reached, with the help of the consensus of all the major dictionaries, that the use of the word gender to mean sex was a valid usage.

AlexR was defending someone's POV statements in the aritcle that said that gender is used incorrectly as sex and that "to dismay" it's a popular usage (which is kind of a contradiction anyway). AlexR refuses to acknowledge that that was a POV statement and refuses to acknowledge the general consensus reached on gender=sex. That reeks of POV pushing.

Totally irrelevent evidence, lies and distortions

• I suggest that he simply be banned from modifying this article (and all other circumcision related articles) as he's demonstrated nothing but his inability to remain neutral and civilized.

Ok, this one is priceless. He dug back months into archives from circumcision to find this and worst of all, he found something that I was totally right aobut. The person I was referring to ended up being banned from all sex/sexuality related articles for one year. The guy I was referring to was known as "friend of robert," "Robert the bruce" and through other usernames. PRactically everyone agreed that he should be banned, including the admins who banned him. If it's a crime to be right, then lock me up.

• I was under the misapprehension that this was a somewhat personal matter, hence the wording of my initial RfC.

THis is some fine backpedalling on his part. He started an RfC using a VERY POV statement suggesting this was some kind of personal battle. I actually went back to the RfC and de-POVed it. The fact that he thought it was a personal war to begin with suggests that he was acting in bad faith.

• "Also, a quick google test shows that "third gender" only gets 19.2k hits, it's an uncommon term. This should be redirected to an merged with the Gender article, it is not worthy of its own article."

That's nice that he quoted that, but I don't see how it's relevent in the slightest. It is my opinion that the article should be merged and redirected, what's wrong with that?

• calling 10k of hits "not notable in the slightest"

Ok, so I don't think 10k hits are notable.... So what? There's no official metric of what makes something notable, so he's just arguing over an opinion.

• Attempts by Njyoder to actually answer the questions brought up cannot be found.

I have no idea what he's saying here. What questions haven't I answered? I address everything that is said when it's asked. Unless he's referring to the absolutely most recent set of NEW questions asked, this is baseless. I haven't edited the gender article in a few days because, well, I'm busy and don't have all the time in the world to reply to the numerous stuff that's in there.

• the fact that there was no explanation on the talk page

This is flatly wrong, there WAS an explanation on a talk page, it was just provided by another user and not me. Someone else (arbor) had provided a good explanation, so I didn't see reason to provide one of my own. Instead of reply to arbor's explanation on the talk page, AlexR just reverted it again. Again, this is an act of bad faith.

• Marking them as vandalism when they're not is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

He quotes me saying that, I don't see what's wrong with me saying that. He reverted an edit I made as vandalism, when it clearly wasn't. How does that even count as evidence agains me?

• information he dislikes is deleted, and restoring it a "violation of policy" or POV or whatever, in any case, not allowed.

I was referring to him reverting an edit I made as 'vandalism.' I made an edit on the gender page which clearly did not fall under any definition of vandalism (he was the ONLY one there who thought it was--everyone else realized it was not) and he reverted it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't deliberately reverting an edit as vandalism when it's not against policy? At the very least that would qualify as bad faith.

New "evidence" from third gender and merging and Axon's lies

Yet again AlexR engages in disingenuous behavior. He said on 3rd of June Njyoder added a "merge" tag to the article, despite being the only one who thinks it should be merged. This is _grossly_ misleading. AlexR and Axon were the only other people editing the talk page and the only ones who actually gave their opinion aside from. Later, after he wrote that, only one other person has edited the page to show support. Isn't it grossly misleading to suggest that I'm wrong because a total of two people, the ones who are a part of this very RfA, disagreed? Furthermore, isn't it hypocritical for him to point this out when he doesn't accept general consensus himself? He deliberately ignored extremely POV statements in gender AND ignored that consensus had been reached AGAINST him for gender being synonymous with sex.

His quotes I find very amusing. He quotes a disagreement, which is just that, a disagreement. Disagreements, especially ones over the interpretation of google results, are NOT valid evidence for an RfA. There is absolutely nothing in the guidelines nor wikipedia policy against interpreting a google test a given way.

Further, thereis nothing in what he quotes which constitutes a personal attack, unless you consider calling someone who is a liar, a liar. Are we not allowed to called liars, liars? I guess we can't call trolls, trolls either, since that would be a personal attack. Axon had repeatedly engaged in highly dubious arguing tactics, including suggesting that I didn't think the topic should be discussed. Obviously, if it were merged, it would be discussed, just on a different page. He repeated that I didn't want it discussed over and over again despite me repeating that I want it merged. Really, what kind of _honest_ person keeps suggesting that someone doesn't want something discussed when they've explicitly said the opposite many times?

Bishonen

Look at this one from Bishonen, which is literally a joke: "Why the heck should she 'get credit' simply for her ability to garner votes? ... Somehow, I don't think kissing your ass to the top is a valid qualifier for being an admin." [45] (I deny being capable of such an acrobatic position.)

She even hypocritically used evidence of something I did on IRC against me, while simultaneously condemning me from using evidence from IRC (which is not against policy in the first place). Bishonen is only complaining because I found incriminating quotes from IRC that made her look bad.

She is not a party to this dispute anyway, see the other section on her for an explanation why.

Axon

• See the "about threats section"

I should add to that section, that not only is this hypocritical, but accusing someone of POV pushing is not a personal attack.

• My response to Haiduc

This haiduc character was arguing along a very absurd line of reasoning, that it seemed only he and one other person agreed with. I even asked on #wikipedia about this and they agreed that his assertion was wildly inaccurate. He was asserting that Kinsey's statistics were accurate on the basis that U.S. society was MORE open to homosexuality 50+ years ago than it is now. My response to him is totally warranted.

• About see talk page, and AlexR being a vandal.

Absurd evidence which includes a flat out lie and gross distortion of the term "personal attack"

• In reference to his "see talk" point

1. The talk page included an explanation from someone else, so it is misleading to suggest that I'm in the wrong simply because I personally didn't write the explanation.

2. I never accused AlexR of being a vandal, this is a flat out lie. I said he was violating Wikipedia policy be reverting something as vandalism when it's clearly not.

3. Calling someone disingenuous is not a personal attack, it's describing their behavior. If someone lies am I not allowed to call them out on a lie without it being against policy? That's absurd.

4. It's obvious from his flat out lie and his misleading statement about the "see talk" thing that he IS disingenuous. This also goes with him acting in bad faith, which is obviously not a personal attack.

• In refernce to the rest

The rest is just him pointing out me accusing him of being a POV pusher and being disingenuous. As explained above, that is not a personal attack. If it were, then most Wikipedians would be banned from Wikipedia. What are you supposed to say, "this person is engaging in behavior which in my assessment appears to be less than honest and exists to try to put POV statements in the article"?

Changes to RfA page which completely change the meaning of his accusations

Completely retracted a blatantly false accusation

He had previously accused me of accusing AlexR of being a vandal, since I have then stated that this was completely and utterly false, he retracted this flat out lie. In fact, the situation was quite the opposite. AlexR reverted an edit as vandalism, when not a single person, even Axon, has stated that they consider it vandalism. It quite obviously is NOT vandalism and it is quite clearly an act of bad faith and a violation of Wikipedia policy to do such a revert under the guise of 'vandalism.'

[44]

No longer accusing me of personal attacks

Axon just made a rather shady edit to this page that changed the meaning of what he was accusing me of. He changes accusations of personal attacks (since calling someone a liar is not a personal attack) to accusations of being uncivility. So if I am not making personal attacks, then what purpose does this RfA exist for? Are people who are too "offensive" supposed to receive RfAs simply because some people complained and filed a RfA under false pretenses?

Is there a punishment for filing an RfA under false pretenses? Given the retraction of the personal attacks accustion, I would think this would qualify.

[45]

I would just like to note here that I am actually still accusing Nathan of making personal attacks and that I did not file a RfA "under false pretenses" - I actually have some evidence to back up my assertions and it would certainly be strange of me to attempt to deliberately make false accusations when I have made it so very easy to check the veracity of my statements. Axon 09:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additions (Needs to be refactored)

It seems Bishonen is playing a game she played before online, the "lets deliberately misunderstand people and play dumb to get out myself out of it" game. I was referring to the fact that Bishonen took a comment of mine about her kissing the ass of other (shocker--that requires arbitration!) and responding to it with a joke of her own about not being able to kiss her own ass (not sure why she'd do that since clearly I wasn't referring to her doing that). Yes, since she is so insistent on making jokes here, I'm sure she's taking it seriously. AGain I ask, why is she even listed on this in the first place? Aren't arbitrations supposed to be about settling disputes? Considering I stopped talking to her the instant her nomination was over, I don't see what the dispute is exactly.

AlexR wants evidence of tag teaming? Every single gender/sexuality related article I've edited the main page or talk page of, they've been there. That's bisexualty, Third gender and Gender. From looking at their list it seems they also have Homosexuality and Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board in common as well (the later was used as a recruitmet point). If you actually look at the talk pages of bisexuality and gender, you'll notice that all AlexR and Axon do is basically repeat eachother's statements, somewhat rephrased to express I agreement. If I or someone else doesn't reply to them both, no matter how redundant and annoying, then it's seen as being non-cooperative. And even then they still repeat themselves after I've clarified myself, there is no winning with them. Either you agree with their stubborn, unchanging and irrational view points, or something is wrong with you.

Evidence by Axon

Bisexuality

• May 1 2005 In one particularly ill-tempered post, Nyoder makes an unprovoked personal attack against me and threatens me with measures "beyond just an RfC" simply because I disagree with him on a talk page, even though I have not edited the actual article. He accuses me of using "ridiculous illogic" and tells me to "take my POV elsewhere", in enlarged letters (which he later reverts). He threatens me to "comply" within a week or I'll be reported to unspecified "higher authorities". He also falsy accuses me of deleting factual information from an article, despite the fact I hadn't edited the article for weeks[46] Another editor remarks on Nyoder's unprovoked hostility[47].

• May 2 2005 Nathan makes another seemingly unprovoked personal attack against User:Haiduc in response to moderate remarks, telling him to "take the patent nonsense" elsewhere, asking him what "weird parallel universe" he lives in and that he will no longer consider the "absurd notion" Haiduc has, in good faith, presented for discussion. Nathan tells Haidic that he will "ignore him" if he brings up the topic again. [48]

Gender

• 18 May 2005 I note that Nyoder has marked his reversions with "see talk" but has not actually properly explained his changes on the talk page. Nyoder takes offence to this and becomes offensive and incivil, making statements in bad faith - and what I interpret as personal attacks - by claiming I am being "disingenuous", i.e lying. Finally he ironically accuses me of acting in "bad faith" [49].

• 19 May 2005 Nyoder makes another uncivil remarks and bad faith accusations which border on personal attacks by accusing me of being "hopelessly biased" and lying (being "disingenuous") [50].

• 24 May 2005 More incivility and bad faith attacks against me claiming I am screaming "OMG POV" and that I am "biased" and hysterical [51].

• Multiple attempts to (politely) request Nyoder tone down his hostility and personal attacks by myself and others are always ignored[52][53][54].

Personal Attacks

It has come to my attention that the "no personal attacks" rule may not cover accusations of lying, threats and other such hostile activity. Not being an expert on Wikipedia policy I'm now uncertain if the above are personal attacks, but they are certainly evidence of a campaign of incivility and bad faith that makes my job as editor impossible. As such, to be fair to Nathan, I have ammended some of the incidents above to reflect this and ask the ArbCom to decide whether the above are personal attacks or just incivility and bad faith.