Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Delicious carbuncle (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 17 August 2011 (→Since when is it OK to edit the remarks of others?: r to John V). 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 the 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)

I did not remove it because it is out of scope, however I am concerned that it was not appropriate evidence given the scope and other evidence currently on the table. It was invalid evidence as it was without diffs, and that is why I removed it. As I said above, I am happy for Cla68 to continue this line of evidence, with diffs, but I am wanting to see better/more evidence of why it is relevant to this case. I want to see actual manipulation of BLPs, or at least supporting the manipulation of BLPs. So far the only relevant evidence I see is that Prioryman isn't convinced that templates cause google bombing and he stuck his oar into the Cirt/Jayen dispute. I havent seen evidence that Prioryman supported any edit by Cirt which violates policy or decency. I havent looked at every diff in Cla68's first two bullets; if some of them are relevant to the scope of this case, they need to be described. John Vandenberg 14:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So you have carte blanche to remove any claims that are not supported by diffs? Do I have this right as well, or is it just you, the committee?Griswaldo (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Misplaced Pages:ARBPOL#Admissibility_of_evidence. Typically only arbitrators and clerks remove inadmissible evidence, however uninvolved people occasionally do it. Parties need to challenge the evidence, and a clerk typically reviews the evidence and removes it when they agree it is inadmissible. John Vandenberg 14:52, 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)

I just want to respond to that last point, because it's something that Cla68 has seriously misled others about. I never claimed uninvolvement in the topic area. I said that I don't edit the articles under discussion , which is completely accurate. I also said that I was not a party to any of the disputes being raised in the RfC , which is again completely accurate - I do not edit any articles in any of the topic areas being discussed and I've not been involved in any ongoing disputes about them. The fact that I had been involved in an arbitration case in one topic area over two years ago does not mean that I have any involvement in that topic area now. I've commented on the evidence presented in the RfC; I've not edited or disputed any of the articles in question and I'd never even heard of the vast majority of them before they were raised in the RfC. Prioryman (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you know who Lyndon LaRouche is? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've heard the name and I know he's regarded as a loon, but I couldn't tell you anything about the man or his beliefs. I've never read or edited his article or anything related to him. Prioryman (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So this comment was indeed untrue? "I don't have the faintest idea who Lindon Larouche and all the rest are." Can you please explain that. When someone tells you that they don't have the faintest idea of who someone else is, it is completely unreasonable to believe that it will be understood that you've heard about them before and that you know they are regarded as a loon.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You, Prioryman, also claimed directly to ResidentAnthropologist that you are "not a party to any of your disputes involving cults." If you want people to accept that as an editor under sanction when it comes to Scientology making such a statement should be considered anything but deception, I'm speechless. As to the rest of your claims above I find them down right insulting. You do not presently, in your new persona, edit in the topic area, but your comments clearly lead people to believe that you never have. You being correct on a technicality hinges upon no one knowing who you once were. If you don't consider that deceitful I don't know what would be.Griswaldo (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

My statement was and is entirely accurate. I'm under a voluntary restriction not to edit any Scientology BLPs. My restriction does not prevent me from commenting on any such BLPs, including on their talk pages, but I've not knowingly edited any such BLP for the entire period of the restriction. I've not been involved in any editing of such BLPs or their talk pages in two years. Moreover, at the time the restriction was agreed, I was involved in no disputes involving any such BLPs or any other articles in the topic area. No findings of battlefield conduct were made against me. The most recent BLP edit in the topic area in which my edits were disputed (not at the time, but later by the ArbCom) was this one three and a half years ago. You're reading into my statement what you want to read into it. Prioryman (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I understood your statement in a manner that any reasonable person would have. What you are now doing is arguing that we should have understood it differently.Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, should we take the removal of that particular piece of evidence to mean that no such deal was reached between ChrisO/Prioryman and ArbCom? If that is the case, it suggests that ArbCom is not holding ChrisO to their previous sanctions, which seems unlikely. It should be easy enough for you to simply state the terms of the arramgement so that this dispute can be settled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, please dont arrive at that conclusion, and I can't immediately publish the agreement. Luckily that isnt needed. If you can find a violation of a prior sanction, you can let us know about it.

We usually see or hear about restarters who violate their prior sanctions fairly quickly, but we dont watch every edit of every user who restarts. More often they go back to their old stomping grounds in a more careful and policy-compliant way, and this is generally considered to be A Good Thing, despite this being a potential "avoid scrutiny" problem. The difficult cases are where someone has restarted, returns to the same areas with a better approach, but they slowly slip back into their old ways. It looks bad when the community sees edits that show the new account acting like the old account. Not suggesting that happened here. Just saying we often look like twits because restarters dont abide by their prior sanctions perfectly, and we dont always notice the infractions. John Vandenberg 14:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems unnecessarily obfuscatory to say that one should not assume that ChrisO had not agreed to abide by prior restrictions but not to state they they had agreed that. You removed a very specific claim (that ChrisO could "resume editing if he promised to stay away from Climate Change articles") - even if you are unwilling to reveal the entire agreement, I cannot see what harm it would do if you simply confirm that one point. Or refute it. Removing it in the manner that you did just makes people wonder why it is an issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

From the Climate Change decision:

The "Right to Vanish" is a courtesy afforded to editors intending to withdraw permanently from editing Misplaced Pages. It is not intended as a temporary leave or absence, or as a method to avoid scrutiny or sanction over one's past behavior. Editors who invoke this right should expect that, should they return, their previous identity will be fully restored and any possible sanctions will be reapplied.

As I read this, if a user invoking RtV reappears, they should expect their previous identity will be fully restored and any possible sanctions will be reapplied. Is this a misreading of the ArbCom position? Was this principle reversed subsequently? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)