Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:57, 20 May 2008

Comment concerning the ID Wikiproject

I for one am getting sick of this "ID Wikiproject cabal" thing, which appears to have started on WR. People don't seem to mind lumping us all together even when only one was involved, or lumping in all other project members when only a few were involved. LaraLove is claiming Moulton was blocked by the ID cabal - although only 3 of the 17 or so people commenting (and who knows how many reviewing) were members of the project. Now Krimpet is claiming she was harassed by the ID project members, but she means Guettarda, so far as I can tell. Did John Carter or Wikidudeman harass Krimpet? Doc Tropics? I personally don't recall ever saying anything to Krimpet, although its entirely possible I'm forgetting some interaction in the past. Yet I'm tarred and feathered as "harassing", as are all other project members, by Krimpet. This is getting to be a bit much.

ID project members are (and we can always use more, so feel free to join if you're reading this and feel you can help the project):

Uncle Ed (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda 05:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua?!? 15:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Purdonkurt 21 May 2007
Orangemarlin 16:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Tharikrish 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
John Carter 18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
– ornis⚙ 09:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Filll 15:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn 18:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Odd nature 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Naturezak (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Writtenonsand (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
RJRocket53 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Saksjn (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
AmericanEagle 03:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Olorin3k 12:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- DiligentTerrier (and friends) 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Doc Tropics 21:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Bnaur Talk 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(preceeding message left by KillerChihuahua)

Whoever left this comment forgot to sign. Cla68 (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks. It was I. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might be useful to link to the project page... I don't know its URL offhand. (But, then again, some might regard it as an attack site! :-) ) *Dan T.* (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done so. (Puppy lives dangerously) KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"she means Guettarda, so far as I can tell" - My guess was FeloniousMonk, actually, due to the smear against Krimpet that was included in FM's post to Moulton's user page. The point being that there are certainly more than one user involved in Moulton's block and in subsequent actions opposing those opposed to the block, and that the "cabal", "clique", or whatever you want to call it is not coterminous with the Wikiproject does not per se mean the former does not exist at all. --Random832 (contribs) 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "smear" is both emotive and loaded, presumably you mean allegation and of course it's up to FM to present evidence for consideration to determine if Krimpet's actions fall within the Wikipedia definition of the relevant term. I have noticed that Wikipedia Review members tend to be rather uncivil when discussing Wikipedia editors, at least on that site, but although these Wikipedia Review members seem to be acting as a "clique" or "cabal" the actions of individuals should be judged on their merits, as should everyones. .. dave souza, talk 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by an outside observer: As someone who has only recently had any contact with several members of the ID Wikiproject, during the latest fiasco at Talk:Rosalind Picard, it seems very likely that many of the editors listed above are indeed done a disservice in being lumped into some supposed cabal. However, those editors also listed above, who can be empirically observed in various venues acting like a group, need to sit back and consider the causal role their own actions may be playing in this otherwise exaggerated stereotype.PelleSmith (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence page

Could I add a request here that the evidence page be reserved for evidence? There have been a couple of cases recently where people added questions and answers and general discussion to the evidence page, making the page hard to follow and very long. I feel that, in this case particularly, the evidence needs to be crystal clear because (as I see it) Cla68 has made a number of serious allegations that are simply not backed up by the diffs he presents. I'd therefore like to ensure that the evidence is very clear and that the signal-to-noise ratio is high. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont clerk the case, because if you read your above request, it is full of barbs and accusations. Those barbs and accusations may be well founded, but they do not belong in a paragraph that is requesting smooth passage of the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay, what I'm saying is that I'm not willing to be traduced during this case, as has been done before. If someone says that I abuse the admin tools, I want to see evidence on the evidence page, including diffs and an explanation of why it's an abuse. If someone makes an allegation of POV pushing, I similarly want to see clear diffs. I am tired of the swirl of allegations that surrounds whoever Cla68 focuses on, and I'm requesting that this case not be turned into a platform for more of it without strong supporting evidence. I hope you can respect that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I cant say "I respect that" to a statement which implies wrong-doing by another party.

I do hope that this case proceeds without hitches, and everybody provides good evidence in their own section, and participates in good quality discussion on the Workshop. Sadly, only Arbitration cases that are dismissed due to inactivity seem to follow that model without a bit of gentle persuasion. This is not helped by parties clerking the case to suit their personal desires. This is a collaborative process, and parties unilaterally changing other peoples comments is not going to be respected. If you feel that adjustments are required, and a clerk cant be found, feel free to request them without adding barbs, and wait to see if others agree. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am asking you to respect is that I am not willing to watch myself be traduced without clear supporting evidence. Whether you call that "clerking the case" or simply defending myself, I can only repeat that I would like to see allegations with evidence, and not without it, and that I'll be doing what I can to ensure that that happens, and to comply with it myself. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request in this section was regarding what discussion should happen on which pages, for the sake of clarity and simplicity. My response was to that request, and in regards to you moving other peoples comments around. I call that clerking the case. I don't see how you can label those edits and your request above as "defending yourself". Please don't clerk the case without discussion on the talk pages. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John. Cla68 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (and I suspect others) have a strong preference, given the number of senior folk involved in this case, some of which have strong views about various matters, that in accordance with longstanding practice, only ArbCom clerks, as duly assigned and approved and so forth, do any clerking. So it may be best for all concerned that they are the only ones that move things around, or point out structural issues (evidence in the workshop, questions in the evidence, and the like) or enforce decorum, or what have you. Further, it's been my understanding from long practice that if one party feels that another party's evidence is deficient in some way, that they make that known in their own evidence section. That may include just stating it, or calling certain statements into question, or even point by point rebuttals. Maybe I am confused but that is how I think things usually have went in the past (although sometimes not without some nudging, gentle or otherwise). ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding question by FT2

This comment and reply has been moved around a few times so I am dropping it here as meta discussion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure communication is reasonably clear, it might also be useful if those providing such a 'background' assume that anyone reading through the background has had no prior dealings with those involved, and have little to no idea about the dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm kind of surprised by your question, FT2, because I thought I was fairly clear about things here [1] in a case in which you were a sitting arbitrator. As far as FM's involvement, FM has joined with SV in previous personal attacks on editors that they've been at odds with [2] [3] [4]. Cla68 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is as aware of all that's known and said. It'd be risky to assume evidence and comments for one case are also fine tuned for another, or that all participants who might want to follow the case or give evidence will be aware of that section in a previous case. It's safer to assume not. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding the move.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm not sure if my reply should have been moved to the evidence page. My reply was meant as a direct response to FT2. My evidence, when presented, will be intended for the entire ArbCom and interested observers, not just for FT2. If I had known that my response would be moved, I might done it differently. Now, it may be out of context. Cla68 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned the answer to FT2's question [to the Workshop page], because it's not evidence. It would be good if the evidence page could be reserved for evidence, and this page for discussion and questions. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People may want to provide replies to your comments/evidence - and this is not the place for them. Ideally, FT2's comment probably should not have been made [on the Workshop page], to avoid confusion for those who would not understand. In any case, a clerk will remove these comments soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, it is back here again; what joy. And now after everyone else has clerked the case, I am being told a clerk will un-kink it all. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, when I present my complete evidence, I'll probably incorporate that comment into my entire evidence presentation. Cla68 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 :"she means Guettarda, so far as I can tell" - My guess was FeloniousMonk, actually, due to the smear against Krimpet that was included in FM's post to Moulton's user page. The point being that there are certainly more than one user involved in Moulton's block and in subsequent actions opposing those opposed to the block, and that the "cabal", "clique", or whatever you want to call it is not coterminous with the Wikiproject does not ''per se'' mean the former does not exist at all. --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 ::The term ''"smear"'' is both emotive and loaded, presumably you mean ''allegation'' and of course it's up to FM to present evidence for consideration to determine if Krimpet's actions fall within the Wikipedia definition of the relevant term. I have noticed that Wikipedia Review members tend to be rather uncivil when discussing Wikipedia editors, at least on that site, but although these Wikipedia Review members seem to be acting as a "clique" or "cabal" the actions of individuals should be judged on their merits, as should everyones. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-:::'''Comment by an outside observer''': As someone who has only recently had any contact with several members of the ID Wikiproject, during the latest fiasco at [[Talk:Rosalind Picard]], it seems very likely  that many of the editors listed above are indeed done a disservice in being lumped into some supposed cabal.  However, those editors also listed above, who can be [[empirical|empirically]] [[social research|observed]] in various venues [[Group action (sociology)|acting like a group]], and at times doing so to the detriment of open and rational discourse, need to sit back and consider the causal role their own actions may be playing in this otherwise exaggerated stereotype.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
+:::'''Comment by an outside observer''': As someone who has only recently had any contact with several members of the ID Wikiproject, during the latest fiasco at [[Talk:Rosalind Picard]], it seems very likely  that many of the editors listed above are indeed done a disservice in being lumped into some supposed cabal.  However, those editors also listed above, who can be [[empirical|empirically]] [[social research|observed]] in various venues [[Group action (sociology)|acting like a group]], need to sit back and consider the causal role their own actions may be playing in this otherwise exaggerated stereotype.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 ==Evidence page==