This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 10 August 2011 (→Evidence presented by Cla68: moving to my section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:50, 10 August 2011 by Jehochman (talk | contribs) (→Evidence presented by Cla68: moving to my section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Main case page (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 |
 | Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. 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 Waalkes
Current word length: 391; diff count: 3.
Overuse of insinuation and anonymous sources
BLP policy discourages the use of insinuation and allegations against living persons attributed to anonymous sources. At Misplaced Pages:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops it says "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." Will Beback and SlimVirgin have extensively used this sort of material at Lyndon LaRouche and LaRouche movement, and have defended its use and refused to remove questionable material. For example, at Lyndon LaRouche it says that Frances Piven, a university professor, "was almost pushed down a flight of stairs by someone calling her a fascist and CIA agent." There is no evidence that this has anything to do with LaRouche or members of his movement, but its inclusion in the article implies that it does. When challenged on this point, Will Beback said "The Piven material was discussed extensively with previous HK socks back in February. Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 23#Sources and structure. Please stop repeating the same complaints." (diff) Following the link in this response, I found only this comment by SlimVirgin: "Once again—they appeared in the Washington Post, they do name LaRouche and his followers, and they're consistent with stories that appeared in many publications, including other high-quality ones." (diff)
At LaRouche movement, there is a very long section entitled "Alleged violence and harassment." It is a list of allegations, many of them from anonymous parties prepared by Will Beback. For example, "While Girvin was being interviewed on a sidewalk by a TV reporter, someone walked behind her and said "Polly, you're going to die" which the reporter said sounded like a threat." The inclusion of this in the article implies, without giving evidence, that this "someone" was a LaRouche movement supporter. As a typical example of an anonymous allegation, there is: "A student who asked a critical question of LaRouche at a rally was reportedly abused verbally by campaign workers and called a "prostitute" by a LaRouche aide." There is an ongoing Request for Comment about the length of the section, in which 9 editors say the section is a problem, and one editor, Will Beback, disagree. I raised the issue of the use of anonymous sources and cited the section of BLP about it. Will's response was to say "It's standard across Misplaced Pages to use reports in reliable sources, even when those reports use anonymous sources." (diff) Waalkes (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
Evidence presented by Tryptofish
Current word length: 290; diff count: 0.
Misplaced Pages needs a guideline to distinguish between disruptive editing aimed at search engine optimization, and good enthusiastic editing.
- See, for example, the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikibombing.
- Note a potential problem with the traditional formulation that the effects of edits matter more than the motivations. Such a supposition, without further clarification, would implicate as a WikiBomber anyone who writes a new article, makes links to it on other pages so it won't be an orphan, and nominates it at DYK.
ArbCom needs to get better at handling requests for recusal.
- Noting also the e-mails that the Committee has seen, and which were subsequently leaked.
This is directly relevant to this case, because it speaks to the interactions between multiple editors with respect to Cirt's editing of BLPs. Requests that a member of the Committee recuse may sometimes be very legitimate, and should be treated seriously. If the member decides that recusal in not needed, they should explain that to the complainant. If the complainant persists in requesting recusal, the member should quickly disengage from further debate with the complainant, ask the rest of the Committee to evaluate the situation, and, generally, abide by the Committee's consensus. If the Committee agrees that there should be no recusal, there should be a clear statement to that effect, from the Committee as a whole. If, after that, the demands continue, that should be treated as disruptive editing. No single editor, nor small group of editors, should be able to to undermine the will of the community expressed in an election. Please note that the exact same pattern took place for Elen in the Noleander case. (Given that Cirt entered willingly into the e-mail conversations, which occurred off-site, I do not think that sanctions against SV can be justified, but I find the prosecutorial tone directed at Cirt disturbing. Clearly, Shell did nothing to require recusal.)
Evidence presented by Cla68
Will Beback
(Placeholder)
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.