Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
[edit] Evidence presented by User:CarbonLifeForm
[edit] User:Kingofmann is a series of single purpose accounts which were created for self-promotional purposes
[edit] Kingofmann & his socks have engaged in edit warring
He regards anything questionning, critical or negative about David Howe as defamatory and WP:NPOV. In this he has been supported by User:Hu12 who cites wikipolicies.
[edit] NPOV
Kingofmann is a non-notable person who sought and achieved momentary renown by making a remarkable claim based on WP:OR. This gave rise to a temporary page (created by admin User:Hu12) which lead some editors to seek to put the information in context. This included saying that he is a glass repair/ replacement franchisee; he preferred to be described as a small-business man. He was also seeking to sell titles and a 'Marie Ahearn' is listed as the contact person in Howe's press releases regarding his current fund-raising scheme. He described his wife as Queen Pamela but editors pointed out that she had been Pamela Marie Ahearn. Both statements were sourced, relevant and in the context, notable. Kingofmann tried to suppress them using NPOV and BLP. In my view they were information in the public domain (put there by him) and of great interest. Their absence made the claim less implausible and biased the article. Lazydown wanted the article to remain but wanted the warts stripped out. NPOV is an inviolable core policy which trumps most BLP issues in the public domain. It may be that the article was deleted under afd because of the undue bias and general lack of balance - which certainly encouraged me to nominate it.
[edit] User:Hu12 does not fully understand WP:OWN or WP:BLP1E
There seem to be WP:OWN issues on the part of User:Hu12. He says "The Media bias is evident in many of the sources, which are attributable and doesn't surprise me since its rooted in forms of Cultural biass. The subject of David Howe is no doubt a Political one to many, however lets keep these biases out of the article space." Hu12 has leaned too far away from WP:NPOV in seeking to redress the inevitable rejection of the ridiculous claim. He has allowed statements based on WP:OR to remain while quashing the counter-viewpoint expressed at www.unrealroyal.com. Hu12 cites wikipolicies to excuse what has fundamentally been documented fact about somebody whom he regarded as notable, thereby skewing the biographical record. To my mind Howe is pulling the leg of the British establishment and knows it. He cannot seriously think his claim is meritorious or that he has pulled off some sort of coup. Hu12 should not have supported this non-notable person as he has.
[edit] The website www.unrealroyal.com should be removed from the spam blacklist
[edit] Cases should go to rfc before being sent to arbitration
[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}
[edit] {Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
[edit] {Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}
[edit] {Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
[edit] {Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
[edit] {Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
[edit] {Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
