| Revision as of 15:34, 18 January 2022 editScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,823 edits →Evidence presented by {your user name}: getting started, more to comeTag: Disambiguation links added← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:58, 18 January 2022 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,823 edits →Evidence presented by ScottishFinnishRadish: will amend, per my talk page.Next edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| ==Evidence presented by ScottishFinnishRadish== | ==Evidence presented by ScottishFinnishRadish== | ||
| How I've been saying this should be handled since the beginning: | How I've been saying this should be handled since the beginning: | ||
| ===BLP/NPOV/DUE/Coatrack=== | |||
| There is a pattern of severely coatracking ] and ] negative and defamatory content into BLP articles of psychics, alternative medicine practitioners and the like(PAMPATL). On the flip side, there has been a pattern of severely coatracking ] and ] positive and fluffy content into the BLP articles of skeptics and those involved in the skeptic movement. There is also a clear disregard for ] applying to non-article space when dealing with PAMPATLs. Just because someone says they're a psychic or says the earth is flat does not give carte blanche to ignore BLP. | |||
| ====Negative==== | |||
| =====Rp2006===== | |||
| '''Non-article space''' | |||
| * "Only legitimate thing the subject does" | |||
| * labels article subject "Medical quack" on his user page. Article states "Quackwatch has stated that PATH promotes and sells questionable health products, and has also accused Braverman of promoting quackery." This itself is BLPvio, using SPS in a BLP for negative claims. | |||
| * Labels Gwyneth Paltrow a "snake-oil salesman" on his user page | |||
| '''Article Space''' | |||
| ====Positive==== | |||
| ===Battleground/Civility/Stonewalling=== | |||
| It is incredibly difficult to make any headway in discussions about issues in this area due to incivility and stonewalling during discussions. The diffs below are not exhaustive, and certainly aren't the only users taking part. Some are plain ]s, and some show the type of stonewalling behavior that derails discussions and creates a toxic atmosphere and animosity which makes any collaboration much more difficult. In AlexEng's section, you can see an involved user closing a COI thread with a clearly biased summary of events, which is it's own kind of stonewalling. | |||
| ====Roxy==== | |||
| * "fringe sympathetic admins" | |||
| * battleground, "fringe sympathetic people" | |||
| * defending "lynch mob," continues to refer to others as a "mob" | |||
| * ], even if not a Nazi reference, none of these are acceptable comparisons | |||
| * " I used the phrase "lynch mob" 36 times in about a dozen years" as if that is a defense? | |||
| * "Witch hunting is exactly hitting the nail on the head. It ''does'' mean false accusation. Good grief." | |||
| * | |||
| ====Rp2006==== | |||
| * Attacks editor's contribution percentages "you just love causing drama. Or maybe you don't love doing so, but it is your nature and you cannot avoid it." | |||
| * I thought maybe I had the wrong idea; Santacruz does actual work and isn't just here to cause drama. | |||
| * When informed of copyright issue "This is harassment, plain and simple." | |||
| * Calls DS/alert template harrassment | |||
| * Witch-finder, harrasment, hounding, obsessive accusations | |||
| * "at war with GSoW, but is actively supporting Fringe." | |||
| * "intentionally or not, you folks are handing a huge win to con-men everywhere" | |||
| * "And now A._C._Santacruz is harassing me on talk with a misgendering claim." | |||
| * "Yes... Thought that would piss you off. I admit it's not quite WP:RS material" | |||
| ====Alexbrn==== | |||
| * "Witchfinder General behavior" | |||
| * "Witchfinder General hats" | |||
| * "especially if there was a suspicion that they were being asked to do somebody else's work fishing for evidence in aid of a campaign against GSoW." | |||
| * "And am I to understand the witch-hunting has now migrated to a coordinated email effort" | |||
| * "Editors don't get to go on a witch hunt by policing the language about what they're doing" | |||
| * Included for irony's sake, warning an editor about PAs in a thread after repeatedly calling people witch hunters. | |||
| ====AlexEng==== | |||
| * Involved close, from an editor with strong opinions on the subject. Lists "facts" of the discussion, leaves out a functionary saying they have received clear evidence of COI editing. Community can't resolve issues when involved editors close threads with their POV. | |||
| * Stonewalling, before closing. Close matches their views expressed here. | |||
| * The old, " can you point to any specific violations? Any bad edits, including {{tq|low quality}} sources? Any instances of suspected ] on the talk page?" Also, "Or do you just not like self-described skeptics promoting editing of Misplaced Pages? I don't think there are any policies against the latter. Personally, I would encourage it." Then closes the COI thread two months later. Shows deeper involvement than just a few posts in the discussion they closed. | |||
| ====Hob Gadling==== | |||
| * It's hard to find single diffs that show stonewalling, but that's a decent example. Little bit of incivility mixed in as well | |||
| * More stonewalling and mild incivility. | |||
| ===Stonewalling At ]=== | |||
| This is the clearest example of what happens in the topic area when cleanup work is attempted. | |||
| * Discussion on edits started on Nov26 | |||
| * Revert with no discussion | |||
| * Revert again with no discussion | |||
| * Revert again with no discussion | |||
| * Roxy the dog complaining about RFC after not discussing reverts, with incivility | |||
| * Clear consensus close of a discussion about part of the edits made. showing they have merit. | |||
| ==Evidence presented by {your user name}== | ==Evidence presented by {your user name}== | ||
Revision as of 15:58, 18 January 2022
Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
 | The scope of this case is: Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics. Additional links:
|
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Misplaced Pages in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. 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.
Submitting evidence
- 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, using the prescribed format.
- Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.
Word and diff limits
- 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.
- If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
- Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.
Supporting assertions with evidence
- Evidence must include links 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.
Rebuttals
- 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.
- Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.
Expected standards of behavior
- You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
- Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
- Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
- Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
- Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
- Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Evidence presented by A. C. Santacruz
Rp2006 has not disclosed COI(s) affecting his editing
{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 ScottishFinnishRadish
How I've been saying this should be handled since the beginning:
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.