User talk:Psb777/draft

Statement

Over a year ago I happened accross this. It just cried out for improvement and I had a go at doing so but Tkorrovi, the "owner" of the article, was very resistant to the article being changed in any way. I persevered and argued at length on the talk page. I put up with Tkorrovi's sensitivity, poor understanding of English, his poor grasp of the rules of argument and his deceit. But I did improve the article. At the time I gave up (May 2004) the article looked like this. A lot of the improvement was down to me and another (Matt Stan) but we had to put up with Tkorrovi the whole way. And reading the history, reading the edit comments, reading the Talk page (and its various archives) is necessary to understand this. It is certainly necessary to do much of that reading if you are judging this case.

I have been an active and critical yet constructive contributor to Wikipedia for some time. I have started a few articles, I have contributed in thousands of edits to scores. Overwhelmingly my contributions have been well received but I do sometimes see one of my older edits that make me wince. I have also contributed financially on each of the occasions there has been an appeal.

On the other hand we have Tkorrovi. He has contributed almost entirely only to one article. His edits have not usually been well received, and I am not his only critic. He has been called a troll by not just me. He has vexatiously misused the Wikipedia process. And he has, liedmisrepresented the facts whenever it has suited him. This I think is all obvious to anyone who follows even the links he has provided in his evidence. But my evidence demonstrates it well enough.

The occasionally pompous and arrogant bureaucrats that have taken up positions of power here wind me up no end and I have been annoyingly critical of one or two but, here too, I think, to the good of Wikipedia. I have been surprised how people are prepared to vote without thinking. A recent example was a proposed featured article where I wound a few people up with my unrestrained comments and an ill-judged edit. More recently I was surprised at the vote to accept this case. Of course I reassure myself the two are unconnected, but I note that others who could make that plain decline to do so.

I cannot but hold bodies such as the ArbCom and the like in some contempt. I will not enter a club with bouncers, they often cause all the trouble; and I have a similar attitude to the ArbCom: In my view some problems would not even exist of the ArbCom did not exist. This is a case in point. Tkorrovi was being kept in check. "His" article was being improved despite him. If there had been no ArbCom, Tkorrovi would have vented his spleen on talk:artificial consciousness and none of your time would be wasted.

I am not the only one who has been keeping Tkorrovi in check. One or two may have used weasel words to say what I have said but one, perhaps two, have been just as forthright. I have sometimes been more persistent in my checking of Tkorrovi's behaviour but I have sometimes been more effective.

In the "real world" (in the UK, at least) sometimes infringements of the law are not prosecuted and the decision is taken, they say, "in the public interest". A speeding ambulance driver rarely gets prosecuted. I suggest that I am treated here in the same way: If I am guilty of anything, I am guilty of baiting a troll: Tkorrovi is a lying troll. I am not the only one to have said so. And I present evidence to show this.

Oh, and perhaps I am "guilty" of something else: Being provocative in my handling of this case. If you want to find me in contempt of court, fair enough. But that does not make me guilty of punishable personal attack of Tkorrovi. I do not like having to even ask you not to find me guilty of that but I am in your grasp: In the grasp of a bouncer I would also ask not to be hit. "Mercy, you bully!"

Tkorrovi's evidence

Tkorrovi's evidence is too voluminous for me to do anything other than intersperse my comments amongst his various allegations. My comments to his allegations are in bold type.

• 18:14, 13 Mar 2004
  • Content. Unexplained deletions on controversial article. Removed more than 60% of the article, replaced removed paragraphs with keywords, like "spatialization", "analog I", "analog Me", "excerption", "conciliation" and "narratization". Reverting this change resulted in series of extensive changes. [1].

No charge to answer. All edits made in good faith. Most explained in the edit comment or on the Talk page. Some discussed prior to the change. "Edit boldly", they say. I did. And I improved the article. By contrast here is a set of deletions made by Tkorrovi (without rational explanation, the edit comment also makes a typically false accusation) which get reverted by Darien.

• 21:07, 13 Mar 2004
  • Possible use of sock puppet, later named User:Ataturk, now there is no such user [2] [3].

See #Sock puppet.

• 00:42, 25 Apr 2004
  • Personal viewpoint. A paragraph including a reference to children's book about Pony the Merrylegs, [4].

No charge to answer. It was a link to the book "The Discontented Pony", a popular children's story which I used as a reference to make a relevant point. The link no longer seems to work.

• 00:00, 3 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "screw loose", a longer text [5].

This is humour. That a thermostat is conscious is a point which has been seriously made. I provided a reference. Tkorrovi, if the cap fits, wear it. Matt Stan, vehemently opposed to the thermostat is conscious argument, did not take offense.

• 12:05, 3 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "That Tkorrovi consistently misrepresents the facts is well established" [6].

Good old Tkorrovi! What a great link he supplies and it is a good example of my assertion. In #Tkorrovi_consistently_misrepresents_the_facts I (will) have a comprehensive list but I suggest we just start with his supplied link. Tk had removed text supplied by me re David Chalmer's claim that a Thermostat can be considered conscious. (Chalmer's is a well respected figure in the field.) Tk then supplies a quote from Chalmers which he says shows he is saying the opposite. No! Chalmers effectively says it is difficult to argue against the proposition that a T is C. But Tk is vehement that his reading is correct. I say his interpretation is wrong, he misrepresents the facts.

• 17:23, 3 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "You are a dishonest troll, tkorrovi. Please go away", [7].

By this stage Tk has taken to saying he did not say that which he has written. He is being tiresomely argumentative. Ugen64 remarks on this. I need to find some references for this.

• 23:53, 3 May 2004
  • Ignorance of Wikipedia policy, inserting NPOV label without a proper explanation or reason (the only explanation "Tkorrovi insists on his particularly spin on every issue. This article is not NPOV"), a sequence of edits [8] [9] [10].

No charge to answer as ignorance of Wikipedia policy is not a punishable offense. But I was not ignorant and I knew what I was doing. 1st example is not an edit made by me but it seems a good one. 2nd is a definite improvement. 3rd is my NPOV edit. I had tried and tried and tried to keep it neutral. Even the 2nd example was reverted by Tkorrovi. My reasoning I gave and Tk quotes it above.

• 00:10, 4 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "You are not an asset to Wikipedia", longer text [11].

This heartfelt criticism of Tkorrovi I still agree with. I do not think it qualifies as an unwarranted personal attack as documented at personal attack. insert description of surrounding events here.

• 11:35, 4 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "Tkorrovi's persistent trolling and dishonesty destroys any good will", [12].

• 14:25, 4 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "he's paranoid", [13].

He is paranoid. Every edit is taken as a personal affront. Please see the edit history comments for 4 May.

• 14:42, 4 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "That is correct. Tkorrovi is worthless troll", [14].

• 15:05, 4 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "Tkorrovi caught out again in another barefaced lie. If he can twist the facts to support his view he will", [15].

Assertion made by me is demonstrably true.

To see what is going on here, to see the frustratingly mindless edits of Tkorrovi, to understand the circumstances please look at the edit history for May 4 and read the edit comments. Look at the edits!

• 15:34, 6 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "So you say but you are not an authoritative source", [16].

Ugen64 explains why this is not a personal attack. See here.

• 00:27, 7 May 2004
  • Removing a paragraph with reference to the article, the only explanation was that it doesn't belong to his "Genuine AC POV", [17].

No, this is another misrepresentation of the facts. Just a casual look at the Talk page shows [|this], a comprehensive attempt to get Tkorrovi to explain his sentence (not "paragraph"). This he has difficulty doing and the sentence remains deleted. But this misrepresentation here, in evidence, by Tkorrovi seems deliberate as his next point is this:

• 15:50, 7 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "When in a hole, stop digging", [18].

This extract is from the discussion he claims was not had in the above point. And I deny this is a personal attack.

• 19:05, 10 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "You are a pain in the neck to deal with", longer text, [19].

• 07:35, 11 May 2004
  • Personal attack. "That's the paranoia I mentioned earluier", [20].

• 13:51, 2 Dec 2004
  • Ignorance of Wikipedia policy concerning the NPOV label. Putting NPOV label back without a comment or explanation, the label was removed after all requirements necessary for removing it, provided by the Wikipedia rules, were met, [21], diffs of the last necessary changes to comply with NPOV label removing requirement [22] [23] [24] [25].

• 07:42, 8 Dec 2004
  • Personal attack. "A correct argument is a valid argument where the premises are correct. Neither test applies, of course, when the argument is submitted by Tkorrovi", longer text, [26].

It's all Logic 101. That Tkorrovi seems not to have a grasp of this is demonstrated by him. I just point it out. That I bother to do so is not a personal attack. He says A implies B, C implies D. A. Therefore D. That I am sarcastic I admit, but see the surrounding circumstances. Getting a simple logic error recognised so as to allow faulty reasoning NOT to be represented in the article was like pulling hen's teeth. References needed here.

• 17:52, 8 Dec 2004
  • Personal attack. "Tkorrovi, let someone else have a go with "your" article", [27].

No charge to answer. Not a personal attack. Tkorrovi deserves censure and was censured for not allowing others to edit "his" article, for claiming some sort of master editor privelege.

• 20:21, 8 Dec 2004
  • Personal attack. Cimon Avaro talk page, discussion about mediation. "Tkorrovi is a pest", "Tkorrovi's understanding of the Wikipedia common procedures and standard editing behaviour is as warped as his understanding of his pet subject", longer text, [28].

Of course, that this is the truth is a valid defense against the charge. My language could be dressed up in weasel words: I could have said, "I find Tkorrovi awkward to deal with." And, "Tkorrovi should be encouraged to consult the Wikipedia documentation and to ask for help as his editing seems to display a severely distorted sense of the Wikipedia common procedures as well every bit as much as his uncompromising and opinionated view of AC, the only article to which he contributes." It seems more temperate for me to phrase it that way, it is more difficult to complain about, but it is every bit as much a criticism, AND THE SAME IS SAID. But, however I phrase it, it is not punishable "personal attack". Of course, this is stuff said in mediation, in any event, and in the real world would be "without prejudice" and unavailable as evidence in court. Please, as ever in Tkorrovi's evidence, do actually follow his link and see if the conclusion he draws from his evidence is valid.

• 21:48, 8 Dec 2004
  • Personal attack. "Edit boldly. Ignore Tkorrovi. That is what is necessary", [29].

Yes, if only I had followed my own advice. Ironically, I anticipate that the ArbCom will agree with the sentiment expressed: I should not have let myself be baited by Tkorrovi. But I think they too should have ignored this laughable case.

• 05:53, 11 Dec 2004
  • Personal attack. "You remind me of that", with a picture of monkeys in a car, yelling to the passing pedestrians "Bastards! Homo Sapiens!", meant me as a monkey. On Cimon Avaro mediation page, during the mediation [30].

There has been discussion about this in the case. Matt Stan says its humour (ref required). I use Laurel and Hardy to explain that Tkorrovi is just hypersensitive (ref reqd).

• 07:40, 28 Mar 2005
  • Consensus. Didn't want to allow me to edit the article by reverting my changes (I made different changes every time), without agreeing to explain or discuss, writing an absurd edit summary "remove non-grammatical, non-sequiter addition by Tkorrovi which is UNFIXABLE" concerning the text which was exactly copied from a scientific paper, more explanation in my comment in the arbitration request, [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36].

This is another misrepresentation of the facts. Look at the Talk pages, look at the edit comments. This is a vexatious allegation which deserves censure.

• 22:38, 28 Mar 2005
  • Modification of other users' edits of Arbitration page. Changed the title of the arbitration request of this arbitration submitted by me, from his user name to my user name [37] and second time [38] . Changing the title changes the meaning of other users' edits, at least in this case.

I did not change Tkorrovi's text, which is what Tkorrovi implies. This is thus a false charge. (And my conduct in this case is a matter for the ArbCom, not for Tkorrovi.) I added a sub-title for Tk's second statement. I changed the title of the case as described and then to the title it now has been given by Grunt.

Questionnable or wrong edits by Paul Beardsell: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

Each of these edits is entirely defensible. Better than that: They show me to be a good little Wikipedian. That Tkorrovi thinks that these edits can be used to criticise me shows his misunderstanding of the whole Wikipedia project.

Paul Beardsell forced into the article the term "Strong AC", or "Genuine AC", never used by any scientist before. This caused problems on the whole structure of the article, to accommodate his view, as a compromise to have "NPOV". as he interpreted it. [47]

I do not really understand what Tkorrovi complains of. Even if these few of my edits were ill-judged, which I do not necessarily accept, so what? The article was being written. All articles are always in the process of creation.

Some of the underlying reasons of this "conflict" [48].

This comment by Matt Stan requires careful reading. What he is saying needs him to explain. I took it to mean that he had no wish to get involved in a process which he has already said to the ArbCom should not even be happening.

I submitted an arbitration request against Paul Beardsell [49]. I didn't see any provided evidence in what I am accused before starting the case, why the case was made against me, in addition to Paul Beardsell?

Perhaps Tkorrovi should not have testified so eloquently against himself?

Concerning the evidence by ugen64:

(ugen64 was asked by Paul Beardsell to provide evidence here [50] [51])

4 April 2005

• I did not argue so much about the headers or other miniscule issues, if Paul Beardsell and Matthew Stannard did not change the headers, and move the text within talk page so frequently, and emphasize the miniscule issues.

• The only thing I said, was "anonymous, please register", I don't understand how this can be interpreted as preventing the anons from editing, or "taking to own the articles".

That is not all he said. Far from it. Misrepresentation. refs required

• I inserted a sentence without sources, it is not said anywhere that all sentences in the articles, like logical conclusions, must have sources. But, after this sentence was disputed, I removed it at [52].

• 13 March 2004 I don't see it as trolling, that prediction is an aspect of consciousness was argued at [53], which is a peer-reviewed paper, as said earlier. What Paul Beardsell states, is something which I only heared Paul Beardsell to say, and it doesn't even seem to be a logical conclusion based on any source.

• 13 March 2004 This edit war started from Paul Beardsell removing most of the content of the article, I mentioned earlier. I was a new Wikipedia user then, with not much edits, and therefore I had not much experience to deal with such conflicts correctly. But in the end, the article was protected in a version favourable for Paul Beardsell, by ugen64.

• Sorry, couldn't find that from the history, the history is only 500 changes deep, and the earlier conversation is not there. Don't remember saying that, but this is also not an attack against any person in particular.

• 30 March 2004 This was one of the series of major changes, which followed removing the content by Paul Beardsell. I would not describe it as a "wholesale revert", rather ugen64 added a lot of content, which I partly replaced with almost the same amount of content, these both were major changes.

• 30 March 2004 The user mentioned, an anonymous user 80.3.32.9 deleted the whole talk page of the article [54], which I think nobody considers a "good faith". I thought it was a sock puppet of Matthew Stannard, as it was created just then, and appeared together with Matthew Stannard, though later I had some doubts about that. There is no common definition of trolling, but the trolling by Paul Beardsell and Matthew Stannard I mentioned, is how I call this [55], ie an exercise of winding up a user, including the personal attacks both by Paul Beardsell and Matthew Stannard. I don't remember saying exactly that, but I considered to submit a request for arbitration, talked about it, and said exactly that -- I shall submit a request for arbitration, if there will be no alternatives, so this was not a threat.

But see Wikipedia:Trolling 81.155.14.34 22:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see that I deserve any punishment, or ugen64 is going to double punish me for edit war almost a year ago, when, as I said, I was a beginning user with not much edits, and measures against me (protecting the article [56]) were already taken. I though consider it necessary to ban Paul Beardsell, because now already almost a year he did not want to settle the dispute, and his hostile behaviour didn't change even recently. This arbitration request by me was the last resort, no measures taken earlier, or in a civil way not responding to his attacks, didn't change Paul Beardsell's hostile behaviour. In Wikipedia I have almost only edited the Artificial consciousness article, and because of personal attacks, even this has been severely hindered.

Hehe, you've gotten better at it. And anyway, I can't punish you. What would I do, block you for 24 hours: "edit war and personal attacks 13 months ago"? :) ugen64 00:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users (81.155.14.34) started to edit my evidence [57], they should stop doing that.

Work in progress: My response

This is the new main page now the case is officially open: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell

Commentary from the original pre-opening page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell/Evidence

The ArbCom has ignored much which has been written in the "proper" places i.e. the above links. I have succeeded in getting some response here:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration

Tkorrovi's self-promotion

Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_1 The start of the "dialog" between Psb777 and Tkorrovi. Note how I try hard over many postings to try and discuss the original issue: The definition of AC. I eventually make the change I want to. Tkorrovi then says I was wrong to do so, says that his definition comes from an external source. I check: The external source is a forum he dominates. He claims the term AC was first used in 1996, I find that this is not true. I point out a contradiction in his reasoning. He adds an external link to an unpublished article which has not been peer reviewed and which reads badly. I later determine Tkorrovi wrote the article! I remove the link, he takes offense! I ask him to substantiate his contributions. He declines. I then say I am going to remove the word "all" from a sentence, I give my reasons also. I later do so. Once again he reacts like a stuck pig. I declare my frustration and ask for external review at the requests for review page. I re-rehearse all the args on the Talk page, Tkorrovi once again shows an unmistakable inability for logical thought together with a marked sensitivity for taking everything personally.

Sock puppet

Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_2 Talk showing me attempting to reason with Tkorrovi, Tkorrovi having taken to reverting all changes of any type made by me to AC. I logged out and made changes anonymously but Tkorrovi "ruled" that anonymous contributions were not allowed and started to revert all of those too. I was thus forced to adopt an alternative identity in order to continue to contribute, I did so, inventing Ataturk. My sock puppet Ataturk was then able to make the same edits without being reverted by Tkorrovi.

Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_5#Who_is_Ataturk? Here I admitted to being Ataturk 17 Mar 2004 At the time I was acutely well aware of the Wikipedia:Sock_puppet article which says sock puppets cannot be used without good reason. In this testimony I believe I have already demonstrated my good reason.

Hidden talk archive

Link to this is mysteriously missing from the talk page: Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_4_(Summarized_Materials)

Tkorrovi consistently misrepresents the facts

The many examples will be listed here.

For starters the accusation of vandalism (#Abuse of process by Tkorrovi) contains a barefaced lie.

Abuse of process by Tkorrovi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/archive06072004#Paul_Beardsell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/archive06072004#Paul_Beardsell_2

What others have said about Tkorrovi

ugen64 and Matt Stan saying that Tkorrovi is not a good Wikipedian: User_talk:Psb777#Artificial_Consciousness

Not quite anon comments from Chinasaur who provides a reasoned argument for his conclusion that Tkorrovi "is a troll or very misguided" User_talk:Ugen64/Archive_1#Master_Editor_-_Artificial_Consciousness

RickK: [58] [59]; block warning [60]

More from Chinasaur: "I am stuck deciding between alternative explanations for his behavior (essentially: bad faith versus cluelessness), which leaves me not really knowing how to deal with him." [61]

On being called a racist

[62], [63], [[64]] and my talk page. [65]

On the difficulty of getting Tkorrovi to admit he is wrong

Please read the entertaining / stunning discussion at Does Wikipedia support racism? Or, are all Estonians or South Africans this sad? at [66]

Others gave up, here's why

[67]

Timeline

My last four edits at artificial consciousness

28 Mar 2005 - repairing / undoing very recent bad edit by Tkorrovi
27 Mar 2005 - repairing / undoing very recent bad edit by Tkorrovi
3  Dec 2004 - replacing NPOV tag - 1st edit here in nearly 7 months
11 May 2004 - When I gave up and left the article to Tkorrovi's incorrigible care

And at the Talk page:

11 Dec 2004 - my last post on AC Talk page.

The instances of my supposed bad behaviour cited by the ArbCom are all dated over a year ago or are citations arising only from this case. I am therefore being criticised now for actions a year ago.

Grammar

[68]

Master Editor

Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_5#Master_editor_.28originally_on_Village_pump.29 I am Ataturk. (Tkorrovi was preventing me from editing at all.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump/March_2004_archive_5#Master_Editor

And here (skip over discussion at beginning if you like): [[69]]

On my "blanking" of the article

Tkorrovi repeatedly asserts I repeatedly blanked the article. This is a vexatious lie. As is demonstrated here: Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_2#Edit_war. And in this extract of the edit history [70].

Tkorrovi admits repeated mindless reversion:

[71]

And here he acknowldges he will not let me edit: [[72]]

Commentary on the proposed decision

Grunt has listed some references as being evidence of "personal insult" between me and Tkorrovi.

This[73] ([17]) is me being ironic. Read the contect: I was having an discussion with Tkorrovi, he got upset at being shown to be wrong, he says (paraphrasing) "you think I am worthless" and I replied (paraphrasing) "yes". Tkorrovi essentially attacked himself, out of frustration and being openly tempted by him I simply agreed. I contend this was standard passive-aggressive behaviour by Tk which I failed to recognise at the time.

Here[74] ([18]) Tkorrovi has just made a false allegation against Matt Stan. One he need not have made. He was either careless, mistaken or he was trolling. I called him a troll. OK, so I shouldn't have but the ArbCom should also consider Tkorrovi's unacceptable behaviour and, if this difference listing is cited by them, so should Tkorrovi's false allegation. False accusations are not allowed, surely?

Tkorrovi has been extraordinarily frustrating in the events leading up to this ([25]). I claim justification or grounds for mitigation. What I write there is the truth. Paul Beardsell 22:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unquestionably: This[75], ([26]) in the proposed decision, is an altercation to which I was not party. But is evidence (by the questionable standard of such taken in this case only) of "personal attack" by Tkorrovi on another party. But not me! Please remove this from being listed under my name in the proposed decision.

Tkorrovi's false accusations of "insult"

A few examples:

Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_2#Pistols_at_dawn

Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_2#Predictability_not_necessary

Errors by the ArbCom

1. Grunt accepted the case saying that there was a current problem: "Accept - this is indeed a full scale edit war in progress." See [76]. But there was no "current" problem whatever definition is used for "current". This was the essential mistake. If only Grunt was brave enough to admit that this "accept" by him was over hasty then we would not have wasted all this time.
2. Grunt accepted the case ONLY TWO HOURS AFTER IT WAS RAISED. How is this explained? Collusion is a rational alternative explanation to foolishness.
3. Grunt accepted the case BEFORE I had a chance to comment.
4. Other administrators piled in similarly.
5. Fred Bauder[77] and others start to find against me before I had submitted a statement or evidence.
6. The ArbCom neglected to answer many of the reasonable questions I placed on the proposed decision's talk page.
7. Being ignored I added a principle to be considered to the list of principles. This is reverted by the ArbCom.
8. The ArbCom refused to consider the timeliness of the complaint. They refused to add a principle of timeliness to the list of principles even to vote against it.
9. David Gerard blocks me saying I have been warned not to edit the proposed decision. This was not true. I was told it was not allowed but when I asked where this is said nobody replied. And my edit was simply to make the prohibition plain!
10. Ambi, on the proposed decision page (which I may not edit) and on its talk page (where I am ignored), accuses me of saying Tkorrovi was "not human". I never did. Only when someone else owned up to this did she remove her accusation until, she says, she is able to support it. We are in limbo. She refuses to acknowledge she was in error still.
11. Ambi accuses me of bullying twice in the same place. I ask for evidence. Another argues on my behalf. Only then is one of these accusations has been removed. The other not, inexplicably. Ambi refuses to enter into discussion still.
12. I complain that Grunt is refusing to take into account my argument as to admissibility of evidence. Raul654 says (paraphrasing) that as I am guilty I should not be surprised. I call foul. The head of the ArbCom is finding against me before the end of the trial.
13. Grunt accuses me of "intimidation". I ask him to back up his accusations. He refuses. I explain carefully why this is unacceptable. He once again refuses to back down. I say that, as a member of the ArbCom, he is a disgrace to Wikipedia. He adds that to the list of insults he intends to find me guilty of in this RfA. Still he refuses to support his false allegations or to withdraw them.