This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mackan79 (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 22 February 2008 (→Your edit to the ArbCom case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:49, 22 February 2008 by Mackan79 (talk | contribs) (→Your edit to the ArbCom case)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Template:Archive box collapsible
Picture of the day
Reduced Gravity Walking Simulator
Photograph credit: NASA
Your edit to the ArbCom case
First of all, please have the basic courtesy to NOT directly edit someone else's evidence in an ArbCom case, especially on the terms that you did. BADSITES is not policy. If you MUST try to have it removed, ask an ArbCom clerk to do so. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from, but I would like to note that some of the allegations thrown at other people from are squeaking by just fine (mostly at WordBomb, but at other people as well). Note, I'm not supporting all of the things he's done, as I said, I didn't appreciate his investigation tactics, and I told him just that but what would you call someone calling him a blackmailer (whether true or not, without explanation of that edit). That has happened in this case as well.. Also, with the sensitive nature of this, I would definitely encourage you to work through an ArbCom clerk instead of taking unilateral action, as it would seem much less controversial for an ArbCom clerk to fix rather then someone who (fairly or not) could be considered an opponent in the greater dispute. SirFozzie (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- So it's OK to edit war to restore disgusting material when Mantanmoreland does it, but when someone else does it it's a BLP violation? Give me a break. krimpet✽ 17:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Crum375, if you think it violates BLP you might supply the portion that you think it violates. Byrne links to his blog, which appears relevant to the dispute on which the COI issue is based. It is provided as evidence in an arbitration case, not on any article or article talk page. I've seen we also link to Weiss' blog many times, despite the fact that it makes many allegations about Bagley, Byrne, Overstock, and others. Having read WP:BLP I don't see any portion that this discussion of either site would violate. Mackan79 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing the relevant portion, but I don't see how this prevents us from linking information about a COI dispute in an arbitration case. If it did, as I said, we would have to remove all links to Weiss' blog as well. Is this also necessary? I'm also not sure why as a single person you think you should take this on yourself. Mackan79 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
BLP question
Out of curiosity, Why are you removing the link from Patrick Byrne's section, but not removing the exact same link (along with several other links to ASM) from Georgewilliamherbert's section further down the page? —Random832 17:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it applies to all such links. Thanks for pointing me to the other instance. Crum375 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- You appear to be over the 3RR, and since other users (respected admins, even) disagree about the BLP issue, I think it would be wise to stop. Cool Hand Luke 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm aware, but admins disagree that this is such a case. Moreover, you don't even pretend to care about BLP violations from the other side. Cool Hand Luke 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)