Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Griswaldo (talk | contribs) at 13:17, 17 August 2011 (→Since when is it OK to edit the remarks of others?: also ... that's not the reason you gave in the edit summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Evidence request

I would like to see evidence from any editor, on any topic, that demonstrates the following:

• One or more individual editor(s) edit BLPs in a nominally policy-compliant matter yet the combined effect of a pattern of such edits is
  • to bias NPOV through UNDUE emphasis or similar political slants...
  • or to manipulate search engine results to either promote or deemphasize a particular reult...
• ... and there is an ideological, financial, or other inappropriate motivation for doing so.

Does that help clarify the nature of evidence I'm seeking? Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What would you accept as evidence of "ideological, financial, or other inappropriate motivation"? Do our usual caveats regarding outing come into play or will there be some leeway in this particular case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

All OUTING evidence should be submitted to the committee privately, with implicit permission to forward to the accused for rebuttal. If you're just interested in illustrating that a problem exists and should be rendered into principles which give notice that such activity is not appropriate, without seeking any sort of sanctions for violating past COI or other existing behavioral expectations, you need not single out any one editor as a "problem". Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The evidence I already amassed presented was aimed at establishing the existence of a clear problem, which I rather think it did. Would I have to delete all of that in order to "make a case" against one or more specific editors now? Or make a case about one or more specific topics now? Would the deadline be extended for such evidence? Would such cites be allowable when discussing the findings yet to be proposed? Or would each editor be allowed one set of evidence on "general evidence that the problem exists" and a second set discussing specific editors or specific topics? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no, not necessary, yes, and "if that tickles your fancy". Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

evidence v. attacks

One editor appears to misapprehend the use of the evidence page, alas. Might someone apprise him of what the case is about and that the evidence should reasonably be applicable to the case? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think an Arbitrator has already addressed that problem: . MastCell  01:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Collect was referring to this.Griswaldo (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when is it OK to edit the remarks of others?

Just now John Vandenberg edited Cla68's evidence. Is this really the proper way to go about accomplishing that end? People post all kinds of claims without diffs, all of the time. I'm pretty sure I'd be blocked if I removed those claims based solely on that premise. Isn't the proper thing to do to discuss it with Cla68, or to refute his claim, or to point out that it is merit-less, or whatnot? I agree in principle that unfounded accusations, and false statments ought not to be made, but I really dislike double standards. Where were you, John, when Prioryman flat out lied at the RfC about his involvement with Scientology? Who has removed those comments?Griswaldo (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, the arbitration committee owns these pages and can set rules for their use. You ought not call people liars either. I don't understand the basis for your claim. Keep in mind that an assertion without evidence is often a personal attack, and as such may be removed. Jehochman 13:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the comment from Cool Hand Luke at User talk:Cla68#On unauthorized emails and ArbCom evidence, and my comment that follows. This case is about BLPs. I am sorry that I didn't see Prioryman's comments at the RfC which you are referring to. Provide evidence to justify Prioryman being a focus of this case, and I have no problem with allowing additional evidence which indicates Prioryman lied somewhere about his RtV & history. I doubt that the committee is going to tackle RtV in this case, as that is a complicated and unclear policy area, but lying would be taken into account by the committee. John Vandenberg 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not he aim that I have a problem with, but the methods. You did not indicate in your edit summary that you were removing it because it was out of scope, as you are now saying, but instead because it was not supported by a diff. That is also exactly what I'm criticizing above. If the edit summary was a mistake then so be it, I'll accept your current explanation regarding the matter, but please understand what I was taking issue with.Griswaldo (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It's in the evidence already and the Arbs know precisely what it means. Prioryman turned out to be a former editor who's involvement in Scientology was such that he has sanctions from a prior case related to Scientology. At the RfC he claimed no involvement in that topic area. What would you call that Jehochman? As to the Arbs "owning" these pages I was not aware of that. Perhaps someone can point me to the policy or guideline that outlines such ownership. I was under the impression that one was not to edit the comments of others. I understand moving, or hatting whole sections which are deemed to be inappropriate, and also removing, hatting, or striking text that is in violation of policy, but this does not fit any of those things. The rest of us have to abide by the principle of not editing the remarks of others, and removing half a sentence surely equates to doing just that. So again, please show me where the Arbs are exempt from this.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)