| Revision as of 20:38, 27 June 2011 editWnt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users36,218 edits →Re: Outside view by Gamaliel← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:55, 27 June 2011 edit undoMacwhiz (talk | contribs)2,807 edits →Timing of santorum edits: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| :Gamaliel's comment seems to ridicule Jayen's evidence without any substantive analysis (which is rather ironic). I'd also like to add that Prioryman's claim about wikihounding is an exaggeration. I commented at the linked to discussion and Jayen was not "heavily criticized." Indeed the thread went nowhere and people suggested RFC/U as the appropriate courses of action if either editor had complaints about the other. On that point, the arbs also suggested RFC/U when they declined the RFAr that Coren started about Cirt and the Santorum issue. I don't see how posting notice to each arbitrator about the RFC/U individually (as opposed to on a much more public noticeboard) amounts to "canvassing." People should look at all the evidence and decide for themselves what may or may not have merit. Many will undoubtedly find, as Ken has, that even if some of it seems overly ambitious there are very clearly troubling bits in there as well. Cheers.] (]) 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) | :Gamaliel's comment seems to ridicule Jayen's evidence without any substantive analysis (which is rather ironic). I'd also like to add that Prioryman's claim about wikihounding is an exaggeration. I commented at the linked to discussion and Jayen was not "heavily criticized." Indeed the thread went nowhere and people suggested RFC/U as the appropriate courses of action if either editor had complaints about the other. On that point, the arbs also suggested RFC/U when they declined the RFAr that Coren started about Cirt and the Santorum issue. I don't see how posting notice to each arbitrator about the RFC/U individually (as opposed to on a much more public noticeboard) amounts to "canvassing." People should look at all the evidence and decide for themselves what may or may not have merit. Many will undoubtedly find, as Ken has, that even if some of it seems overly ambitious there are very clearly troubling bits in there as well. Cheers.] (]) 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::If there's a legitimate charge in there I'd like to know what it is. It would save us all so much time. ] (]) 20:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC) | ::If there's a legitimate charge in there I'd like to know what it is. It would save us all so much time. ] (]) 20:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Timing of santorum edits == | |||
| * On May 9, Cirt made five edits to ], primarily adding a response by Santorum that in my view substantially improved the article's NPOV. Prior to this, he had not been a substantial contributor to the page for at least a year. | |||
| * On May 9, at 11 p.m. EDT, Jon Stewart suggested that users search Google for the term "santorum", leading the term to become one of Google's top hits. | |||
| * On the afternoon of May 10, Cirt began seriously editing the article. In the course of 14 hours, he made the majority of 100 edits by six users. This all occurred '''after the term became newly newsworthy and notable thanks to Jon Stewart'''. | |||
| So, based on the timeline, there is a perfectly credible alternative to the "pure political motivation" theory for Cirt's edits. // ] (]) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:55, 27 June 2011
Alleged cavassing
I do not consider this to be canvassing, and in any case, it's had no immediate effect, as I responded to put off the work. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: Outside view by Gamaliel
I agree that it looks like some of the charges are just throwing everything at him to see if something sticks. But there are also some legitimate charges in there as well. This RFC seems to be treating Cirt like OJ Simpson--like the police then, we're trying to frame someone who's guilty anyway. It's bad for the police to use bogus evidence, but ultimately, OJ did do the deed he was accused of. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gamaliel's comment seems to ridicule Jayen's evidence without any substantive analysis (which is rather ironic). I'd also like to add that Prioryman's claim about wikihounding is an exaggeration. I commented at the linked to discussion and Jayen was not "heavily criticized." Indeed the thread went nowhere and people suggested RFC/U as the appropriate courses of action if either editor had complaints about the other. On that point, the arbs also suggested RFC/U when they declined the RFAr that Coren started about Cirt and the Santorum issue. I don't see how posting notice to each arbitrator about the RFC/U individually (as opposed to on a much more public noticeboard) amounts to "canvassing." People should look at all the evidence and decide for themselves what may or may not have merit. Many will undoubtedly find, as Ken has, that even if some of it seems overly ambitious there are very clearly troubling bits in there as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- If there's a legitimate charge in there I'd like to know what it is. It would save us all so much time. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Timing of santorum edits
- On May 9, Cirt made five edits to Santorum (neologism), primarily adding a response by Santorum that in my view substantially improved the article's NPOV. Prior to this, he had not been a substantial contributor to the page for at least a year.
- On May 9, at 11 p.m. EDT, Jon Stewart suggested that users search Google for the term "santorum", leading the term to become one of Google's top hits.
- On the afternoon of May 10, Cirt began seriously editing the article. In the course of 14 hours, he made the majority of 100 edits by six users. This all occurred after the term became newly newsworthy and notable thanks to Jon Stewart.
So, based on the timeline, there is a perfectly credible alternative to the "pure political motivation" theory for Cirt's edits. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)