User talk:Shot info/harassment
Information from the BvR arbitration (see [[1]] for original post).
Response to User:I'clast's COI accusations edit
I am not involved in this RfArb, however I have been subjected to various forms of harassment by User:Ilena's primary defendants, namely User:I'clast and User:Levine2112. For the record I have no contact with User:Ilena outside of WP.
It is very disturbing that User:I'clast can make unfounded accusations here in ArbCom and provide no evidence, specifically that I have a COI [[2]] with regards to Stephen_Barrett, stating that I am of filial descendent [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], (presumably fellow editor Daniel Barrett [[6]]) and information was provided to Ilena [[7]], [[8]] theoretically to help build her case for use in this ArbCom discussion. Rather than do so, it was apparent that she instead attempted to build an attack page for which User:Slimvirgin decided was not acceptable [[9]], [[10]]and hence placed her under indef block [[11]].
However, it would appear that Ilena spent some time spreading some of this information provided by I’clast to various detractors of hers, one of whom tracked me down, and emailed me with extracts of this information. In it implicates that I’clast also provided the same information to Levine2112 and was going to “set up Shot to take a fall”. Unfortunately this information coupled with Levine2112 and Ilena’s persistent harassment on my talk page [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], pointed to a conspiracy by I’clast [[16]] in collaboration with this pair to somehow use this to discredit me and hence reinforce Ilena’s defence here at the ArbCom.
I do need to note that I only have an edited email, and the sender was insistent that I do not forward it onto any third parties, however they did write that I can paraphrase elements of it. So for the record, the comment “set up Shot to take a fall” (above) is a paraphrase of an extract of an email sent by Ilena based on information provided by I’clast. Of course it is possible that it is all pure fiction, nevertheless it reinforces and matches behaviour by several protagonists here in this ArbCom and over on my talk page (see various diffs above and below).
Because of this, I'clast now needs to prove his assertions with some evidence that there is a COI and that I am Stephen_Barrett’s son. So far: nothing, other than a collection of bad faith smears by hinting at impropritory (“enticed another editor(s) with easily recognized trollish capabilities “,“Yet hardly an unkind or skeptical word” etc.). Then all of a sudden, I am no longer Stephen_Barrett’s son but now I am “one of Ilena's arch adversaries on USENET” [[17]]. Who exactly I’clast now thinks I am I don’t have any idea. Although I have made a wild guess [[18]], principally based on Thatcher131’s comments here [[19]] and here [[20]] and my request [[21]]) but it is irrelevant given the complete lack of real evidence per WP:AGF and WP:COI (not to mention Thatcher131's own comments [[22]]).
As for I’clast’s grandiose claim “when I asked someone to look more clearly into the mirror and their aggressive comments finally ceased”, the reason I ceased in my replies was that I’clast appeared to be acting very aggressively, assuming bad faith; and I wished not to inflame him. His actions often are the very same aggressive editing that he has accused others of, something that was ironically proven by his own words and pointed out by other editors after I had withdrawn [[23]].
I am very interested to see I’clast bring his information to here or to a formal COI arbitration as I feel that his attempts here are only to somehow tar editors with a COI brush to whitewash behaviour of Ilena using a childish “You haven’t punished him, so you shouldn’t punish her” form of defence [[24]]. It should be noted that this defence is being used quite regularly by various editors defending Ilena [[25]] [[26]] [[27]]
This matter has been “on the table” since the 23rd February [[28]] and now the assertions are still without substance and in fact are subtly being altered with no evidence being provided whatsoever. As has been pointed out (nay demanded) by others voluntary disclosure is in the best interests. The evidence needs to be supplied to this RfArb without further delay. To date, the continuing procrastinations show the assertions for what they are, malice assertions with no substance. Malice assertions that so far, nobody has been taken to task over. Shot info 01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)