Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Query

If the evidence is clearly there in the statements, e.g. the person admits to it, for instance, Jean-Thierry Boisseau admits that Musikfabrik was used for promotion, is it useful to provide evidence of it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, it is useful to provide a diff for it, because sometimes people make such assertions, and the person they're talking about has said no such thing. Mak (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know where this goes...

but I'd like to point out that Mr Boisseau neither gave evidence to show my internalized sexism, nor did he apologize for accusing me of it while he was apologizing to others. Also, his discussion of "Involved professionals" vs. "informed amateurs" once again shows how he makes assumptions about people, based on little to no evidence. I happen to be a professional singer, who will be performing in a concert of contemporary music at Carnegie Hall later this year (among others), and I have sung in premiers of pieces by contemporary women composers. I don't tend to bring these issues into my Wikipedia editing that much, but I find the number of assumptions Jean-Thierry has made about me really offensive. For all I or Mr Boisseau knows, others involved in this conflict may actually also be professional musicians. Mak (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (if a clerk wants to move this to the right place that would be cool)

What you haven't seemed to notice is that none of what you're discussing was in reference specifically to you. I don't even know if you're a man or a woman (and please don't tell me). What I said was that there was a process that some people were seeing that would indicate that women were involved in the discussion. I identified the process and how it had been expressed in the discussion. I took great care to not specifically name anyone, nor to assume that anyone was a man or a woman.

I did this because you asked me a specific question regarding whether women were present in the process or not and whether this changed anything. My response was to answer the question, not to make statements about the individual participants. All of this will be clear if you will reread my statements.

You will notice in my remarks about "involved professionals/informed amateurs", I made the point that this was indeed a generalisation and that there were graduations in this scale. I also said specifically that this was my viewpoint.

The point of that section is that "involved professionals" have an inherent "unfair" advantage over "informed amateurs" which does indeed cause problems in this sort of process. If you feel that you are also an "involved professional", then perhaps you might want to consider the implications of this unfair advantage, because you too might be in my position of having the power to modify sources outside of the system.

If you are upset about this, then I'm very sorry. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 14:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query: when do WP rules apply?

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful. As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [1] [1]. Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

By my count, Monsieur Boisseau's evidence is over 6000 words long and (as far as I can tell) he has provided no page differences, merely linked the page. What gives? --Folantin 21:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I took the word "diff" to mean "sources". I must have been mistaken. My evidence is rather long, but the situation was also rather complex. It seemed to me that the complexity of the situation needed a complete explanation.

I apologize if I misunderstood this term. (again IP, JTB typing) 87.231.242.188 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well how about you go and reformat your evidence properly like the rest of us had to? I wasted a lot of time insuring my evidence was presented correctly. Or don't Wikipedia rules apply to you as an "involved professional"? If you can write 6,000 words of English then you're clearly capable of reading the instructions at the top of the page stating "maximum 1,000 words".

I'd like a WP admin. or a member of the ArbCom to comment on this issue, please. Why has this case gone ahead when Monsieur Boisseau's evidence was quite clearly presented incorrectly?--Folantin 07:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)