Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. 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 Roscelese

Long-term inappropriate personal conduct of Esoglou

• Responded to my presentation of evidence against him at arbitration enforcement by sexually harassing me.
• Displayed the offending pornographic image at the top of his talk page from July 2012 ([1], moved from down-page where he had earlier posted it immediately after being topic-banned) to the end of February 2014, to which he later added another inappropriate remark about me.
• Continued to make taunting reference to the pornographic image and maintain that I should be pleased with it directly after being asked again to stop this behavior.
• Persistently refuses to acknowledge the fact that, and the reasons why, this action was unacceptable, and continues to make inappropriate comments about me while discussing the issue with others. ([2][3][4])

• Has made numerous snide or derogatory remarks about my sexual orientation, saying that it negatively affects my editing: [5][6][7][8][9]
• These remarks alone, regardless of any article behavior, led to strong condemnation ([10][11][12][13]) and support for a topic ban ([14][15][16]) from uninvolved users.

• Describes his behavior toward me as motivated by "affection". A glance at the talk page or noticeboards will show a sample of the spamming and personal obsession that is evidently the result of this "affection", to say nothing of the aforementioned sexual harassment.
• Multiple users who are not party to this long-term dispute, including uninvolved users, have called him out on his fixation on me. [17] [18]

• Describes my decision not to speak to him, a long-overdue one made in response to his repeated homophobic remarks and other sleazy behavior, as "playing hard to get."

{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.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{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.

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.