User:Littleolive oil/ AE diffs

The following is an analysis of the Arbitration Enforcement ‘evidence’ diffs proved here: here.

1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: [1] : 21:11, 8 August 2010 Content A
2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [2] : 06:06, 8 August 2010 Content A
3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [3] : 06:32, 7 August 2010 Content A
4. Littleolive does not follow RfC: [4] 18:27, 7 August 2010 Content A
5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead [5] 06:38,6 August 2010 Content B
6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [6] 19:43, 2 August 2010 Content C

The evidence doesn’t support the conclusion of Tag-team edit warring, and if a finding of edit warring is found, why is only side being sanctioned? The sanction should be fair, and equally applied. The ArbCom decision was not followed in this case; editors were falsely accused of tag-team edit warring, the evidence given was six edits made over almost a week in time, three different contents and three different editors, with diff #6 completely unrelated to the other five presented; how is this tag-team edit warring?

Broken down further, referencing list above:

1. [7]Jmh649 edit warring (reverts TG in edit #1 above)
2. [8]Jmh649 edit warring (reverts Olive in edit #2 above)
3. This doesn't claim to be evidence of edit warring, it’s falsely claimed to be an edit that "does not follow RfC”, where there was no consensus from the RfC, it was still in progress, with no decision.
4. This one also doesn't claim to be edit warring evidence either, it’s falsely claimed to be an edit that "does not follow RfC”, where there was no consensus from the RfC, it was still in progress, with no decision.
5. Doesn’t claim to be evidence of edit warring, just ‘removed references from the lead”, which actually fits with WP:LEAD, and is a proper edit, (since a lead does require references). If it’s edit warring, then once again it is Jmh649 who is reverting: [9]
6. A single reversion by an editor and content unrelated to any of the above ‘evidence’ [10] . Apparently resolved by ‘talk page discussion” which is the right way to do it.

This evidence doesn't fit the report at all.