Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence

[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}|Main case page]] ([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}|Talk]]) — [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Evidence|Evidence]] ([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Evidence|Talk]]) — [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Workshop|Workshop]] ([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Workshop|Talk]]) — [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Proposed decision|Proposed decision]] ([[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/{{{case name}}}/Proposed decision|Talk]]) Case clerk: [[User:{{{clerk1}}}|{{{clerk1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{clerk1}}}|Talk]])  Drafting arbitrator: [[User:{{{draft arb}}}|{{{draft arb}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{draft arb}}}|Talk]])

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)

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)