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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration | C68-FM-SV

1 Comment concerning the ID Wikiproject
2 Evidence page
3 Regarding question by FT2
4 Comment to those submitting evidence
5 SlimVirgin's Larouche page
6 "Evidence" presented by Tony Sidaway
7 "Evidence" provided by Fill
8 Small note about Viridae's evidence
9 Tom Harrison's "evidence" is only an assumption of bad faith
10 Comment on the evidence presented by Wikigiraffes
11 Query

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

I didn't mean "allegation", the problem was the tone (saying "Wikipedia Review editor" and later "Wikipedia Review regular" as if that characterized Krimpet's entire wikipedia career), and the _implication_ (not made explicit IIRC) that she'd made the edit because Moulton asked her to. --Random832 (contribs) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The term that appears next to posts at Wikipedia Review is "member", so that seems to me to be the appropriate term to use. Editors here working on controversial subjects are used to common attempts to overturn consensus NPOV, and to a newcomer less familiar with the subject they may seem to be working as a group. However, once misunderstandings are overcome and different viewpoints are appreciated there is usually a mutually agreeable outcome, and I'm glad to see that was what eventually happened in this case. The premature escalation to AN/I was unfortunate, and appears to have arisen from such misunderstandings. While assurances have been given that Krimpet had not been directly asked by Moulton to initiate the ill considered change, she clearly discussed BLPs in principle with him, and this does seem likely to have initiated her interest in the Picard article. No doubt more research will help to clarify this point. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Without the "premature escalation" any "mutually agreeable outcome" would have been impossible. What you describe as "misunderstandings" are precisely the problems: extensive accusations of bad faith and crypto-POV against uninvolved editors. What you call "common attempts to overturn consensus NPOV" ignores the fact that (a) that an attempt has been made by anon IPs or people with CoI does not mean that it is necessarily POV-pushing, especially when wider attention causes those same attempts to be made and (b) consensus can change - especially when the consensus was due to a limited number of editors with strong views on the political aspects of the subject anyway... --Relata refero (disp.) 07:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've long been opposed to the attitude that, just because a user is banned, all ideas that can in any way be connected with them need to be vigorously suppressed as well, along with all other people who advocate anything similar or who talk with the banned user on an outside forum. This reminds me of Scientology's Suppressive persons, Orwell's unpersons, or McCarthyite witchhunts and blacklists. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, the hysteria members of Wikipedia Review seem to show about this alleged "cabal" reminds me of the Witches of Salem ;) If a user banned for tendentious disruptive editing and persistent pushing of original research says something, there's no need for the ideas to be "vigorously suppressed". They should be examined with care and fully verified before credulously taking any action on them. . . dave souza, talk 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I think any reasonable observer who looked at the records would find many examples of agreement among the members of the ID Wikiproject, and many examples of disagreement. This is true of any group of editors. For example, if you look on the talk page of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed you will find instances of User:Saksjn agreeing with me, and instances of Saksjn disagreeing with me. The same is true of Orangemarlin and Jim62sch and KillerChihuahua and all the other members of the ID Wikproject. I am sure I can find numerous examples where I agreed with other members of the ID Wikiproject, and examples where I disagreed with them (and vice-versa). Here are some recent examples: [1] and [2] and [3]. There are many others, if anyone wants to pay attention. However, the lumping together of all ID Wikiproject editors into a group and only noticing the instances where there was some agreement among the members of this group and discarding as irrelevant all instances of disagreement among the members of this group is a classic example of confirmation bias. It is just silly.--Filll (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would even imagine some of the project's members don't even adhere to the philosophy of Intelligent Design. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A common misunderstanding. As far as I've seen, all, or nearly all, of the active project members are opposed to ID. Those of us who are bothered by their behavior often don't have any problem with them in most article content issues directly related to ID. The issue is that a number of us believe they create an unnecessarily hostile environment. The only real content issues I've had with them has been on articles for people barely connected with ID (Rosalind Picard and James Tour). Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well I suspected as much; reminds me of the McLibel operation (OK, I see we have some new faces here tonight) which was ridiculous, but this is only a tad silly. Real ID proponents are probably hard to find anyway. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've not noticed a shortage of ID proponents, indeed one turned up this morning.[4] It's also remarkable how many editors giving credence to their viewpoint describe themselves as atheists who believe in Darwinism ;) However, ID proponents are often very ill informed, and often have difficulty in working within Wikipedia policies. Nevertheless, the list above does include editors who are clearly sympathetic to ID. . . dave souza, talk 10:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is perhaps even more remarkable how many editors are labeled as ID supporters, or apologists of the Discovery institute without in fact having given any credence to "their viewpoint". For instance here is a group member accusing an outspoken atheist of being a "long time ID fan." Two issues are notable in this behavior. On the one hand unless someone is willing to go the extra mile and for example smear a living person in their Wikipedia biography then that someone is evidently excluded from the group of "true" evolutionists. On the other hand it seems that the group, lacking a real opponent in their crusade against intelligent design has to invent a phantom menace of closeted ID apologists to go to war against. Neither behavior is conducive to the type of project we are trying to run here, nor is it helpful for those in the group to continually identify problems only with their opponents. A little self-reflexive scrutiny is called for here.PelleSmith (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not care who is an ID proponent and who is not. How do you know I am not an ID proponent? Whether I am or not is irrelevant, as long as we follow the principles of Wikipedia. And the same is true of all editors.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting example, PelleSmith. The assertion that an editor is a "long time ID fan" has no credence unless backed by solid evidence, and shouln't affect discussions anyway. Some of those listed above have been supportive of ID, and views have been discussed civilly. Claims about religious views are irrelevant, and I for one have certainly not claimed to be an atheist. The statement about someone being "willing to go the extra mile and for example smear a living person" is wildly hyperbolic, the editor in question was refusing to accept what to me was a plain and obvious interpretation of a source, and was making flat assertions when a reasoned argument was needed. All got sorted out in the end. Oddly enough, you've used the term "evolutionists" which is unexceptionable in the UK, but rather a red rag in the US where it's used by creationists to portray evolution as a religion. Such nuances can easily lead to misunderstandings, which is why assessment of edits must trump perceptions about the beliefs of the editors. . . dave souza, talk 17:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only people in the United States who would think twice about terms like "evolutionist" are the afore mentioned creationists and the few and the brave who get all agitated over what said creationists are up to. I naive dunce like myself doesn't think twice about using it. In the future I'll use another phrase like, "those who accept the scientific theory of biological evolution by natural selection." I retain the right to call myself the much more manageable term evolutionist regardless. As to the rest of your response all I ask is for some recognition of your own role here. You and Filll go on and on about how it doesn't matter if someone is an ID proponent and not to judge people and yada yada. If that is true Dave then don't even bother with the label "ID proponent" and certainly don't make statements like this "winking" comment: "It's also remarkable how many editors giving credence to their viewpoint describe themselves as atheists who believe in Darwinism ;)." Especially be sensitive of the fact that in reality, as in the example I linked to, members of ~~your group~~ the ID WikiProject do accuse others of supporting ID, as if it is a bad thing. Not to mention the fact that said accusations have no grounding in "the assessment of edits". In other words its not helpful to discuss generally good guidelines of editing that are not actually adhered to in practice.PelleSmith (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not a member of ID Wikiproject, but have edited the articles enough to be aware of the sensitivities. I don't condone unsupported accusations, and in that case it certainly didn't help to work towards agreement. However I also recognise that everyone's different and things can get heated, especially when someone seems to be refusing to read and understand a source that they've demanded. The relevant guidelines seem to me to be those about behaviour, and while that case seems to me to be uncivil, it's equally uncivil to bandy about "smear" accusations instead of AGF. . . dave souza, talk 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As an aside consider the fact that within your frame of reference I naively used the term "evolutionist," as if it wasn't loaded. Most people do not exist within the cultural sphere where this term has the meaning you mentioned above. Consider that when uninvolved editors share the same editing space as the ID WikiGroup, for whatever reason, they are not easily identified within the linguistic and behavioral conventions that said group may be used to. Using a term like "evolutionist" most likely doesn't mean that an uninvolved editor is a creationist (and i'm not saying that you claimed this btw), and attempting to remove unverifiable information does not necessarily mean POV pushing for one side or another. Consider that to the otherwise uninvolved it seemed that on Talk:Rosalind Picard one could only be accepted by the ID group as being with them or against them. It seems to me that the basis for judging this comes from within that very specific cultural arena they operate in with frequency. Relying on the conventions of that cultural space is inherently problematic, because it leads to the afore mentioned accusations and attempts to artificially define roles. It also leads to the position that no alternatives are possible outside of those that are already ritualized within the creationism v. evolution subculture. FYI, I'm not sure what sourcing demands you refer to, but I read all the sources presented in regards to the red herring "petition promotes ID" language and none support it, which I'm sure based on recent edits you have made you fully understand.PelleSmith (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way the example Dave presents of a real "ID proponent" showing up illustrates a rather troubling fantasy. If anyone is emphatically convinced that an IP vandal who shows up on Talk:Lucy (Australopithecus) claiming that Lucy is a fake and commenting that "there is no talk of intelligent design" in the entry, is a real life "ID proponent" then I would suggest a reality check. Dave, children vandalize lots of entries, sometimes they sort of believe the stuff they write, and sometimes they don't, but who really knows and who really cares?PelleSmith (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if the vandal or the SPA or the malcontent is a child or not. It still has to be dealt with. Some are more sophisticated, some less. But that does not mean it does not have to be dealt with.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a "reality check", PelleSmith, you see an IP vandal, to me it's an editor earnestly asking for credence to be given to the sort of info that appears in Icons of Evolution, and I try to explain why not without any great hope of persuading the editor. Not sure what you mean by "a real life "ID proponent"," my understanding is that a while ago edits were made from the DI's IP, and ID websites have tried to recruit editors as meatpuppets every now and then. It's easy to get used to it and familiar patterns can arouse reasonable suspicion, but it's wrong to prejudge editors just because their edits appear to favour ID. There's always hope :) . . dave souza, talk 17:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What the DI once made an edit so every IP is problematic? I must be reading that wrong. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you missed the point, I appreciate that you're not well versed in the subject. A range of editors repeatedly bring up the same old talking points, it can be hard to tell if they've just read something, seen a movie or are "a real life "ID proponent", either peripheral or from the DI. Some are tediously repetitive, some come up with useful information that helps the article, most have problems with npov. All in the day's work :) . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if that's all... hardly an unusual problem then. The best way to deal with tediously repetitive questions about talking points, especially of a denialist nature, is to set up a FAQ linked on the talkpage. See Talk:Holocaust denial for one example, and there are of course several others, especially the Mohammed FAQ. It is not usually necessary in either case to make assumptions about background - which was Pelle's original point - which is why FAQs are useful, as they are more neutral than exasperated editors. (In general, if exasperated, watch another article instead.) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Like Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ? Helps up to a point, I always find it useful to appreciate a new editor's viewpoint. . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you have one! Excellent, then there's absolutely no reason to complain about man-hours handling trolls or meatpuppets.

It isn't "useful to appreciate a new editor's viewpoint" when that requires assumptions based on assuming meatpuppetry. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I would have gladly clarified this if asked, KillerChihuahua... I said that "WikiProject ID members" were responsible for that incident, not the project as a whole. The individuals in question - OrangeMarlin, Guettarda, Filll, and later FeloniousMonk - are all members of the WikiProject Intelligent Design, and the article where they started edit warring against me was tagged with {{WikiProject intelligent design}}. krimpet ✽ 02:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago, I had a nasty incident with at least 3 of the five recalcitrants listed by krimpet. They are nakedly biased people regarding article content and they are abusive and dishonest people regarding the consequent relationship to other editors who challenge that bias. FM and KC are particularly abusive of the authority that should have never been given them. They are very nasty, dishonest, and equally unashamed and entitled people. It's really a shame of WP. 71.161.198.82 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you either log in or link to the problem so we can give your statement some credence? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would if coming out from behind the veil of anonymity didn't result in nasty consequences. If I identified the issue and actions, that would immediately identify me and then nasty consequences. I'm working on getting some insulation, and then I would be happy to be specific. I don't even know that this will come out the same IP as above, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't identify me now, and that's good. 71.161.198.82 (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, once ~~your checkuser data become stale~~ you've insulated yourself from the nasty consequences, please do come back with more constructive commentary. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. So an incident which you started without informing yourself of the the details of the case is someone else's responsibility. People who often edit together will commonly work as a team with shared understandings, in the same way that editors carrying out OTRS duties will have habits acquired from their experiences. However, I'd hope that it isn't common practice to overturn consensus without reading and raising the matter on the talk page. Perhaps that procedure was influenced by membership of Wikipedia Review encouraging misconceptions about other editors. . . dave souza, talk 10:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This "membership in Wikipedia Review" scarlet letter that people keep bringing up is a canard. I created an account there, primarily to read the stuff in their "logged in users only" forums, so I would know if they were whining about me. Dozens of other senior editors, administrators, and even sitting arbitrators, have done the same. (And I for one have since made it a point to stay the hell away after what happened to NYB, and after hearing that their moderators may have been leaking posters' IPs to Daniel Brandt.) KillerChihuahua's original complaint here was that WikiProject Intelligent Design members were being "lumped together" - how is this any different? krimpet ✽ 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No different, so don't do it. Specific actions can be notable, membership of a "group" does not imply anything more than the fact of that membership. .. dave souza, talk 17:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"So an incident which you started without informing yourself of the the details of the case is someone else's responsibility." Dave, do you realize it's exactly this sort of thing that brings about accusations of a clique/cabal? Krimpet made a couple of edits to an article that had been quiet for months, and somehow it's Krimpet's fault for not magically knowing to appease a group who considers that section of the article their territory? BULLSHIT!!!

Stop finding excuses to blame the victim in order to defend people who did wrong, and the cabal accusations just might go away. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll continue to complain about the "anti-ID crew" in your posts at Wikipedia Review, no matter what, and some unfortunate innocents might take your accusations seriously and fail to follow the proper collegiate way of discussing reverted edits on article talk pages. Escalating a content dispute to AN/I is not a good way to minimise wikidrama. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Does his posting on Wikipedia Review change the fact that there is clearly an "anti-ID crew" or otherwise labelled group of editors of like mind about creationism v. evolution, immersed in the culture of that conflict, who go about editing and acting like they are in a group? Does his posting at Wikipedia Review change the fact that this group also bites like a group and acts very much like, those not entrenched in the culture of this conflict don't belong anywhere near their territory of entries? Does it help our project to simply label those who want to bring this to the attention of the community as creators of Wikidrama?PelleSmith (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's an individual, and people taking a pro-science view have a range of views and responses about the issues of ID, but from my British point of view it does seem to be a cultural conflict and knowledge of that is important to understanding what's going on. From what I've seen of Wikipedia Review it seems to be devoted to griping about behaviour and escalating wikidrama. In the case of the Picard article, renewed attention brought welcome new sources, including a source about her religious views which could readily have been incorporated earlier without all the fuss and without any opposition from Wikiproject ID people as far as I can tell. The subject of ID is controversial, and in my experience getting edits made can require very good sources and a lot of patience. The editors who've been dealing with it for years can seem off-putting, but they have a very sound grasp of a complex and sensitive subject and their views should not be dismissed lightly. . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I find it interesting that you would claim to know what I would do, Dave. What do you know of my motivations? Still, if following the proper collegiate way of discussing reverted edits on article talk pages and minimizing "wikidrama" is so important, perhaps you should bring the issue up with OrangeMarlin. After all, OM did not discuss on the talk page when he reverted Krimpet, nor when he did the same to me, even though I had already posted a talk page discussion(reversion and his utter lack of talk page involvement.

Take a step back and think about it from other points of view. Of course, if you want to simply blow it all off as the work of malcontents, I suppose it's your choice. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of your motivations, and will be delighted if surprised to be proved wrong about you continuing to complain about the way people work together here. As the links you post show, back in December OM reverted your deletion of information with a comment suggesting that more talk page discussion was needed, he didn't comment on the talk page, nor did he change it back from your subsequent reversion to your version. However, others joined in and at the end of the discussion you assented to his preferred version subject to removal of the section header, with the cavit that you'd think about it. Note that he didn't escalate your edit to AN/I, but of course consensus was achieved on the talk page. . . dave souza, talk 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(ri)All of the bitching and whining makes me wonder why we have them Wikiproject pages. Yawn. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a step back and think about it from other points of view. Of course, if you want to simply blow it all off as the work of malcontents, I suppose it's your choice. No, of course not. I'm sure that WR is chock full of content editors like yourself who insist on lofty, polite, constructive conversation. Of course, that's all hidden in the hidden forums that Krimpet talks about higher up the page (funny, that someone who registers only to read "hidden forums" uses WR to engage in attacks on SlimVirgin, but I'm sure Krimpet meant this in the most high-minded and polite manner that all participants of that use).

Sxeptomaniac, you've made post after post on WR attacking various editors over here. [I have removed a portion of my comment; see below¹] Quite frankly, It's you're right to hang out with whatever crowd of malcontents you choose. But if you choose to sleep in filth, don't be offended when other people hold their nose when talking to you. Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"You've gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good." That is a lie. I demand you provide evidence for this supposed statement or retract and apologize now. I will not stand for you attempting to assassinate my character in such a way. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a "lie" is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. If I misinterpreted your comments at WR that you were considering engage in pro-ID editing, then by all means I'd be interested to know what you were talking about. After you strike your personal attacks, you can explain to me what it is that is wrong with my interpretation of your comments. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

¹[Deleted]What I said [Deleted] distracts from its purpose, which is clear communication. I have removed it. Now please remove your personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, WADR, you have made an accusation and need to either back it up with a link or completely withdraw it and not just say the equivalent of "I'm sorry you lost your temper". I have no idea if it's true or not - but calling it a "simple observation" and leaving the unproven accusation hanging out there isn't going to resolve anything. --B (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK B, the words are gone. As I said, it's a distraction. It does nothing to further the conversation. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. B! You're lecturing me? You? The guy who put a string of outright falsehoods in your evidence, which when Dave called you on them, you replaced them with claims that merely twist the facts? You are lecturing me? OK, so I'm being lectured by the experts here. Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC) (Not constructive, leave it alone)

Please link WADR for the rest of WP/. BTW, observations, especially keen ones, are priceless. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WADR = with all due respect. If the observation is true, it needs to be supported with a diff or a link to a WR message. If it is false, it needs to be retracted. --B (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Registering an account to edit Wikipedia: $0.00. Participating in an ArbCom case: $0.00. Making keen observations: Priceless! *Dan T.* (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, you accused me of doing something that goes against my principles, so I will not let you squirm out of this. I see no other logical explanation than that it is a lie, unless you can somehow bring evidence otherwise. It is not a personal attack if it is true, therefore, one of us has committed a personal attack, and the other has stated the truth. It is now your turn to prove which one of us that is. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 07:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a personal attack to call something a lie, since a "lie" is an intentional falsehood. So calling something a "lie" is a comment on the motivation of the person making the statehood. It is thus, necessarily, a personal attack. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, I believe you have two options here: back it up or withdraw it. Trying to exercise an ephemeral third option, which is avoiding accountability for what you have said, really isn't an option, because it doesn't answer the question. So, which do you choose? Anything less than providing evidence as requested or withdrawing your statement means you are attempting to choose option 3. The floor is yours. Cla68 (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

~~[Irony meter broken. This from someone who has yet to renounce his threats to out other editors. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)]~~ (Not constructive, leave it alone)

Per WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry and lying.

I do not believe I have made any statement that could reasonably be interpreted to say what you claim. Therefore, I have responded based on what is, by far, the most logical possibility. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We could draw the same inferences about your statements Sxeptomaniac, or about Cla68's statements, by that reasoning. Why try to escalate this? As I said, there are lots of ways to interpret statements. And WR is not a good source really, for the reasons I stated. And this is not some formal inquiry looking into your behavior, is it? --Filll (talk | wpc) 19:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not read any posts on Wikipedia Review that Guettarda is referring to. However, I think it is a bit much to demand that he produce "evidence" from a site that locks threads, that has control over what is displayed, can edit content, etc. Wikipedia Review is not Wikipedia. Any material on Wikipedia Review can summarily disappear or be changed with no record. I will also note that it is quite normal for people to interpret things two different ways. Perhaps Sχeptomaniac meant it in a completely different way than it appeared to Guettarda. This is not evidence of mendacity on Guettarda's part, and surely it stretches the bounds of credulity to claim such a thing. This seems like an unnecessary and unseemly escalation of wikidrama. --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, Guettarda specifically said that Sxeptomaniac had threatened to add pro-ID material. If he has no evidence for this, he shouldn't have said it. Meanwhile, you and he continue to wax lyrical about perceived threats, while you very clearly threatened the anonymity of another editor,[5] and he seemed to have no problem with it. Perhaps there would be a lot less wikidrama if you hadn't come here for the second time to escalate conflict over a perceived infraction that you've very recently engaged in? I think that might have helped. Mackan79 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda said that Sxeptomaniac had made posts to Wikipedia Review that appeared to him to advocate that. Of course, these things are always open to interpretation. And Guettarda is supposed to have diffs and evidence for an informal comment? This is supposed to be a formal inquiry about Sxeptomaniac? I thought it was about Cla68 and others. Do I have that wrong?

In any case, even if Sxeptomaniac did advocate including more pro-ID material, so what? Who cares? If that is his agenda, then he is free to pursue it of course. Why isn't he?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

while you very clearly threatened the anonymity of another editor,[6]

I did not threaten KTC's anonymity. I made it clear that this editor has posted copious amounts of material on the internet. He is well known on the internet and his point of view is well known. I will not "out" him, even if knew his true life identity (which I do not, and I will not try to discover). I will not "out" anyone because I think that damages the community (that is part of what this entire proceeding is about, is it not?).

When KTC brought it up later, I made it clear that I apologized for any offense that I had caused. And he accepted that apology.[7] What is wrong with that?

Perhaps there would be a lot less wikidrama if you hadn't come here for the second time to escalate conflict over a perceived infraction that you've very recently engaged in? I think that might have helped.

Pardon me? What are you talking about? Are you suggesting I am not welcome to defend myself on these evidence pages? Would you summarily ban me from this case, which I am involved in? Is this not exactly part of what Cla68 is apparently trying to do, or at least is accused of doing, to try to summarily unilaterally ban other users from certain pages, certain topics and even Wikipedia itself? Perhaps you might want to rephrase that so there is no confusion. I am sure you would not be suggesting such a thing, right here on the evidence talk page.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he's suggesting that that type of hysterical, over-the-top reaction (to a calm suggestion that you exhibit some self-restraint!) promotes wikidrama. At least for now: I imagine the time when people routinely ignore you is not far off. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore that ;) . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, did you think it was hysterical? :) --Relata refero (disp.) 22:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm back from the weekend, and I see Guettarda has chosen to ignore the issue. I've got a grand total of 53 posts at WR at this point, so it wouldn't be hard to dig up the proof, if it existed. I want to make it abundantly clear that Guettarda made no "observation"; it was made up. I do this because I do not want to see the lie repeated in the future as a supposed fact. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked that you strike your personal attacks. Instead you choose to repeat them. This does not come across as a serious attempt to resolve this issue. If you think I misunderstood what you said, then by all means we can discuss this further - as soon as you stop engaging in silly name-calling and personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, I don't believe you're entitled to make unsupported accusations about someone and then refuse to support your accusation when they call it a lie; in fact it seems like extremely inappropriate behavior from an administrator or any other editor, for that matter. Mackan79 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not making an accusation, supported or unsupported. I removed the statement - it wasn't helping the conversation. The point was that Sxeptomaniac's behaviour at WR undercuts his/her credibility here. His (her?) response to that was a slew of personal attacks. I see no point in further engagement with someone who chooses to ignore policy and the basics of civil discourse. Once s/he calms down and starts behaving appropriately, I would be interested in exploring what it was that was wrong with my interpretation of his/her statement, if that's what s/he wants. But, as I said, it's a distraction, nothing more. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are making an accusation, and a false one at that. I will not "explore" something that isn't true, even if it were possible to do so. I'm dealing exactly as one should in the face of a falsehood.

At this time, I'm taking this up on a more appropriate page. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I can see why that Amerique suggested that the current "ID" request be lumped in with this one. But that's going to an ArbCom all its own. Ain't that gonna be fun *sighs* SirFozzie (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The term that appears next to posts at Wikipedia Review is "member", so that seems to me to be the appropriate term to use. I don't think it's appropriate to use any term that implies that a user in good standing is "a WR member first and a wikipedian second". It prejudices the issue. --Random832 (contribs) 14:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

By their fruits ye shall know them.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

<undent> As a relative newcomer to this kind of thing, my assumption is that the statement in the evidence page heading "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." means what Lar has said at 18:54, 20 May, above. I take SlimVirgin's point that this is a complex case or group of cases, and would suggest that care is taken to use subsections to clearly show when evidence is a response to another editor's evidence. Skimming the page just now, the only thing that appears to respond to another editor is Random832's statement On oversight which implies that an unnamed editor has made claims or might make claims about the tool being misused. A link or reference to the disputed evidence would be helpful, or clarification if this is a non specific statement for general guidance. Thanks, . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the edits in question can be found in the history. (obviously something happened since this topic did come up, and if you look in the history you'll find it) Hopefully a word to the wise will suffice. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very obvious to me, and asking those reading it to hunt through the history to find out what it's about doesn't seem very helpful. However, I'm a newbie and if obscurity is desired, so be it. . . dave souza, talk 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If I thought it was a serious enough matter to call specific attention to specific editors via diffs, I guess I would have. But in that case, it would seem the place to introduce the diffs would be in the evidence section. I'm not sure it's actually that serious, and I was hoping that a word to the wise would suffice without naming specific names. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, didn't you start editing in 2004 or 2005, Dave? If you've been editing that long and are a newbie to RfAr you're a better man than most of us! ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've been an admin since Sept '05, it's just wikislothfulness and an instinct to resolve issues through talk page negotiations and evidence rather than escalation. Did help with evidence a couple of times at the end of 2007, but ain't at home with procedures here :-/ . . dave souza, talk 10:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to the situation I raised in point 7 here. Mackan79 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The chronological context of this discussion thread section initiated by SlimVirgin is that just prior, proactive clerking by Ncmvocalist [8] and then by party SlimVirgin [9] resulted in a mess and confusion, with Cla68 being caught in the middle.[10][11] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I think Cla68 understood why I'd moved the answer to the question (after I explained, and why it was moved as evidence), and so all of the comments me and Cla68 had made were ready to be moved/removed in 1 easy chunk. But then SlimVirgin, among certain others, decided that the evidence page and the workshop for proposals were to be used differently (as signalled by this section heading) - that's why there was 'unkinking' involved as opposed to one quick move/remove. Anyway, it's settled now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, FM seemed to be saying that Cla68 was making or repeating allegations about Jayjg's use of oversight, and since the substance of those allegations cannot be examined at all I think it's a point best left alone. I had not seen Mackan79's comment, as it happens, but this concern is equally relevant to that. When I think about it, if it becomes necessary the developers could provide the information to arbcom, so it's less of a concern than I originally thought. --Random832 (contribs) 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

Actually, I'm kind of surprised by your question, FT2, because I thought I was fairly clear about things here [12] 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 [13] [14] [15]. Cla68 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Discussion regarding the move.

The following is an archived debate. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Comment to those submitting evidence

Can you please try to keep evidence mainly to things that have happened recently? I see at least one submitter whose only evidence is a two-year-old discussion, and another whose diffs are mostly from more than a year ago. It's one thing if it's meant to show a pattern, and other, more recent diffs back this behavior up. But bringing up past arguments is fruitless. The Arbitration Committee is unlikely to sanction specifically for something done one or two years ago, and it clogs up the evidence page to add these allegations. Ral315 (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, taken as a whole it can show a pattern. If someone introduces mainly recent evidence, and someone else documents more past events, taken together can't that show an overall pattern? Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that dragging up isolated incidents from the past can create a distorted picture. I think it would be a good idea to note when the evidence is from, and that old evidence (beyond a year or so) should be only considered if it helps to show a long-term pattern. The older evidence is, the easier it is to take out of context. Dr. e X treme 02:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Old evidence would also be relevant if other editors have been hesitant to speak up sooner for fear of retaliation. Cla68 (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I think the best thing to do would be to justify any evidence beyond a certain age, by giving one of the above reasons. Dr. e X treme 03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, if it shows a pattern, it's one thing. But if you're arguing a point that can't be supported by any evidence that's less than 12 months old, it's probably not a valid point. Ral315 (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which sections you're referring to Ral, although I see nine of the fifteen incidents I raised are within the last year. The sockpuppetry issue is one that went back further, which I included largely because I've seen comments (one specifically from JzG on a blog, that she had briefly considered starting a new account at the time), that in light of her other edits at the time suggest her recent explanation was not accurate. I think most of us agree the problems recently have been less pronounced, but even then at the least there are strong reasons for creating a record, especially as people are suggesting that Cla68's concerns have been unreasonable. The fact is SV also continues to make gestures which suggest she will continue to personalize disputes and misrepresent her actions, while I hardly think one can presume improvements during Cla68's RfC will last without some clear evaluation and recognition. When she recently accuses other long term admins of wikistalking her, recently misrepresents oversighted edits in an arbcom case, and I think even when she continues to misrepresent the content of edits, unfortunately all of it remains extremely relevant for ArbCom to get a clear picture; see also FT2's question, which suggests there is interest in the background as well. Mackan79 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with mackan. The recent material will carry the most weight, but inorder to show the full pattern of behavior of the users in question here the whole story does need to by laid out. The striking amount of folks appearant misrepresentation of thier own actions is astounding to me. The project seems more resistant to poor behavior than it seems. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin's Larouche page

The reason I posted the contents of that page ([16]) is because the evidence in this forum is supposed to be available for everyone to see it. Currently only admins can view that content, which is unfair for regular editors who are watching the case. The contents of the page are evidence because, as you know, SV is accusing me of having an "attack" page. At least one of the editors on that page was evidently unaware that he was being monitored by an admin [17]. I guess non-admins can just look back in the page history, but why make them do that? Note that no one objected when I posted content in another ArbCom case from an AfD discussion that Jimbo had admin deleted [18]. Cla68 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence should be succinct. The contents of that page are not necessary to support your assertion. I gave a longer explanation here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily think the entire contents of such a page are needed, something explainitory of the page is needed. If that turns out to be cla linking to the deleted name, and an admin clerk summary of the information on it that then can be used as evidence or something that would be ok. One of cla's defenses against accusations in this case is that the accusors have done exactly the things he's being accused with. Enough evidence of this nature needs to listed for evaluation. If the committee wants to limit the actualities of this stuff, someone from the committee needs to say "we buy into cla's point, and don't need further evidence of it". --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrators are all administrators, but if by chance any of them should be unable to access the relevant information I'm sure they'll be enabled in some way. The details needn't concern us. If there's some principle in arbitration that all evidence must be available to the whole world, that's a new one on me. Presumably the person who said this is unaware that some arbitration cases have occurred substantially in camera. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Evidence" presented by Tony Sidaway

This seems to be an essay with no evidence. Should it be here? --NE2 22:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you describing Tony, or his essay? I'm sure his opinion is as welcomed as it always is. Perhaps it would help if he just explained how Cla68 was not using the correct dispute resolution process rather than just making the assertion? This case is an excellent venue to deal with "crass" evidence, no? 58.108.101.64 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC) — 58.108.101.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He is describing the misuse of the section "Evidence". To wit, "Evidence", not "Essays and Opinions". Achromatic (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It comprises several well founded statements of fact (I refuse to elaborate them because that would involve repeating Cla68's slurs; the Committee is at least as familiar with these as I am). It also incorporates some measure of personal opinion (in essence, that Cla68's undoubted good faith and excellent contributions have masked the underlying problem somewhat and pose a problem in resolution). "We've been here before" is something that the Committee will understand well enough. I could have emailed this. Would the objectors have preferred that? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be your opinion, not backed by any evidence. --NE2 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Giving your opinion and refusing to elaborate with any specifics, and failing to provide any actual diffs or other direct evidence to back it up, is hardly what I consider "evidence". *Dan T.* (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's just my opinion not backed up by evidence, it will be ignored. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be removed by an arbitrator or clerk? That's what the lead to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence appears to state. --NE2 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are grounds for such removal, it should undoubtedly be removed. As far as I'm aware, there are no such grounds. But I'm neither an arbitrator nor a clerk, so it isn't my decision. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the part of the directions that reads "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." --NE2 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we could decide to remove the section on technical grounds, by creative application of the rules, etc. If the evidence is really so insubstantial, however, bearing in mind that it is presently among the briefest evidence submissions so far, what's the hurry to remove it? If, as you seem to believe, it's unfounded, then it will be ignored anyway. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you add it? --NE2 00:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it because I believe it to be crucial and decisive evidence in the case. Your mileage, as they say, may vary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's your opinion, unbacked by evidence that you yourself state you have no intention of actually providing (instead of relying on some vague hand-waving "they'll know what I'm talking about"), it shouldn't be there, not left there to be selectively ignored. It's funny to watch you admonish on technicalities, while handily trying to rely on the same 'letter of law' to keep your work in. Achromatic (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, everyone try ignoring Tony, we don't want a repeat of the Mantanmoreland Talkpage Fiasco. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea; thank you. --NE2 00:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. Either the evidence is good or it is not. Obviously we can differ on that, and it really wouldn't do to argue over those few words since, even if they were untrue, they're equally quite harmless. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It takes a bit of Orwellian doublethink to simultaneously regard the evidence as "quite harmless" and also "crucial and decisive" (which, if true, would make it very harmful to the targeted individual). *Dan T.* (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would take Orwellian doublethink in the scenario you describe. I do not think the scenario you describe conforms in any way to reality, however. The evidence is in no way intended to impugn Cla68, but to request that the Committee pay especial attention to certain known facts about his conduct. It is not a matter of dispute that he has relied on, and sometimes cited in Wikipedia articles, websites that have been explicitly set up for the purpose of making attacks on Wikipedians, and that his citations have been to those attacks. Cla68 values Wikipedia. If he knew what damage such actions do to Wikipedia, he would not engage in them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, because one of my most valued advisors has recently departed from the arena, I'm going to have to pay attention to what I call my "inner Brad", and resume my long holiday from Wikipedia community matters. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he thinks it does better good to Wikipedia to heed its critics instead of putting our collective fingers in our ears and yelling "La La La I can't hear you", like you, and the BADSITES principle you seem to espouse, would seemingly have us do? *Dan T.* (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't really necessary, was it Dan?58.108.101.64 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC) — 58.108.101.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[edit] "Evidence" provided by Fill

At what point (and this may well be a silly question) did "Evidence" become a synonym for "Essay of Theorems, Hypotheses and Abject Speculation"? The entirety of Fill's "evidence" consists of uncited claims, vague hypotheses about potential long term consequences to unproven possibilities of someone perhaps doing something.

This is, as civilly as I can put it, farcical. Evidence is evidence, not an open invitation for people to wax lyrical and rhetorical. Achromatic (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you. But I think it may be best for you, or someone else that agrees with you to rebut the approach taken (pointing out that it is inappropriate, and not evidence, to opine without any substantiation) and perhaps also rebut the analysis and assertions made if you find yourself in disagreement. Or perhaps do so on the analysis of evidence section of the workshop? The arbitrators are charged with evaluating all the evidence presented after all, as we the community have entrusted them to be. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. Perhaps when folks arn't going to be presenting evidence, but rather an opinion essay it should be labeled as such? or labeled as 'friend of the committee' similar to what happens in legal proceedings? I've go no issue with anticipation or fill's essays as such, but they should be clearly labeled. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:45, 26 May

2008 (UTC)

No offense, but the links and quotes and meat of my evidence are on the linked subpage, placed there at the suggestion of a Arbcomm clerk. Did you miss it?--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Which subpage? The only one I can find is a timeline, not one that provides a basis for the evidential claims in the essay. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Scroll down. Read the whole page. Guettarda (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Did so before posting. Done so again. Still nothing to support the analysis that makes up most of the statement. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue this. If one of the arbitrators needs extra information and/or extra clarification, I will provide it. Otherwise... --Filll (talk | wpc) 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course. The concern is whether it should be re-labeled, that's all. --Relata refero (disp.) 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone with any reason or authority instructs me, I will. Otherwise...--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear chap, authority is unlikely to bother, and "reason" is a clearly a question of judgment in this case. In any case, we were discussing what to do with opinion essays of this sort in general, rather than in particular. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

~~Relato~~Relata: OK; it's fair that different people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions. Guettarda (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, sometimes some conclusions are more accurate than others. For example, it's Relata. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Crap. I migrated the final vowel from refero to Relata, and somehow it stuck. Usually I only invert numbers (and that very rarely). Sorry. :) Guettarda (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, it is interesting that you are willing to go on record as disagreeing with the format suggested by an Arbcomm clerk. Why not file an RfC against the Arbcomm clerk who directed me to do this? Would you like to know the details so you can file your RfC?

I also would gladly put my contribution up for comparison with some of those complaining here. This sort of spurious harassment and petty attack might be viewed as reflecting negatively on your credibility and impartiality in this matter, and possibly others.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small note about Viridae's evidence

I don't think JzG's reblocking of User:Fairchoice can be considered a violation of the wheel warring policy in light of the fact that he gave a different reason the second time he blocked than the first time, and that Archtransit was asked about his unblock before JzG reblocked a week later. This is especially reinforced by later events involving Archtransit. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite follow that, could you explain that a bit more slowly? how are two blocks a week apart, with an intervening unblock by an admin who was shown to not be abiding by policy (and who in fact was a sock of a banned user) wheel warring? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 10:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Viridae (in his evidence section) presented JzG's actions re: User:Fairchoice as "wheel-warring". Shalom is arguing that this was not actually wheel-warring, and it sounds like you're agreeing with him. I think? MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I was really confused by Lar's comment. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion, that was poorly worded, I was indeed agreeing with Shalom. ++Lar: t/c 10:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Harrison's "evidence" is only an assumption of bad faith

I realize that it might be sometimes important to refer to discussions off-site, but Tom Harrison's section must surely be a new low. Basically, he contends that Cla68 must be trolling SlimVirgin because he asked an "innocent" question.

Tom Harrison contends—without proof—that Cla68 must have already known the answer to the questions because Cla68 supposedly reads WR religiously every morning—including obscure one-off posts in threads that died weeks ago. Besides the problems Cla68 points out, Tom Harrison's section is insulting. Cla68 did not then have an account on WR, so Tom Harrison could not possibly link evidence that Cla68 was aware of the post. Instead, he just assumes that Cla68 acted poorly.

Assumptions of bad faith are not evidence.

Incidentally, in light of current developments, any involvement that Cla68 might have had in the Mantanmoreland case deserves praise, not scorn. Cool Hand Luke 19:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, with the situation as it now stands, one can with some logic (the same amount, anyway, as is often seen on the "other side") accuse everybody saying anything in support of MM, in opposition to those who oppose MM, or with ideas, concepts, ideologies, or positions vaguely similar to MM's, or who seem to be posting from the same state as him, as "proxying for a banned user". *Dan T.* (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should provide evidence? Weren't SlimVirgin and Mantemoreland attacking you for your efforts to uncover sockpuppetry? --Dragon695 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's yet another bottomless pit. But maybe relevant evidence could indeed remind the ArbCom to act stronger against those who have ceaselessly helped out and protected proven sockpuppeteers by loudly claiming that people who criticized them for it are sock-/meatpuppeteers. dorftrottel (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The single-use accounts in question were marked by admins as sockpuppets of User:Jon Awbrey. So this "evidence" isn't even spuriously unlikely, it's just plain wrong. Shii (tock) 00:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the evidence presented by Wikigiraffes

Although semi-protecting a page where you are a major editor is not ideal, this seemed an entirely correct action based on the additions from IPs that changed this into an attack page. I think any other admin would have made the same decision and I have semi-protected the article myself for one month. Just because some of SlimVirgin's actions are under scrutiny here is no reason for every POV pusher with a grudge to pile in and unload their complaints about normal administrative actions. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the case can stand it. There's no need to be too hostile to new users who are reactively poking around taking their first looks at policies and procedures, as yet incognizant of the roles that common sense, IAR, BLP, NPOV etc. play here. The less this sort of thing is seen as disruption or acting in bad faith, the more drama will be avoided, I fancy. 86.44.28.52 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to ignore this evidence. It seems SlimVirgin did nothing wrong in this case. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See also here. dorftrottel (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Could someone explain to me how Ashton1983 knows that “Cla68 showed enjoyment producing diffs to show SlimVirgin in a poor light” rather than outrage or dismay or disgust or simple amazement? The quoted edit summaries read

“diffs, wow”
“diff, wow”
“diff incredible”
“incredible”
“diff unbelievable”
“unbelievable”
“diff OMG”
“personal attack diff; unbelievable”
“good grief”
“diffs. unbelievable”
“wow”
“un-freaking-believable”
“you've got to be kidding me”

Which of these wouldn't fit outrage? Which of these wouldn't fit dismay? Which of these wouldn't fit disgust? Which of these wouldn't fit simple amazement?

Also, just how would enjoyment have served to discredit Cla68?

(Mind you that I haven't followed Cla68's edits and have myself no theory as to whether he is knave, fool, hero, or ordinary Joe swept-up by events.) —SlamDiego_←T 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The best explanation I can think of is that Ashton1983 is most obviously not neutral, and not trying to be. The most valuable thing about such "evidence" is that it speaks volumes about itself and about the people who present it. dorftrottel (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't ask that he be neutral nor that he pretend to be. But the initial presumption would be that he did not expect his audience to begin from the same position. Here, a theory seems to be treated with such privilege that merely fitting the evidence is taken as demonstration, without regard to whether and what other theories might also fit the evidence. As far as I can see, his evidence in that section didn't eliminate any rival theory of prior interest. —SlamDiego_←T 08:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And therefore, it's no evidence for anything at all. dorftrottel (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it merely reduced the plausibility of one of those rivals, then it would still be evidence, but I don't see that it accomplishes even that much. And (as per my second question), if it were evidence, it would seem to be evidence for an irrelevancy. —SlamDiego_←T 23:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Arbcom evidence pages.....;) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)