Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is for general discussion on the evidence presented to this case.
[edit] Point "Copyright issue?"
The point "Copyright issue?" is relevant neither to the case nor to en.wikipedia. Orderinchaos 14:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is a response to PHG has been uploading images that are copyright violations. Not relevant, but they will both have to agree to remove both sections. Just removing one probably won't work. Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The arbitrators can decide what evidence to consider and what not to consider. Off-wiki evidence (like emails and blog posts) are often problematic, but behavior on other wikimedia projects may be considered, particularly as it mitigates or exacerbates the need for coercive remedies. Thatcher 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Thatcher. I would also argue relevance, since some of the copyright violations that PHG has been uploading, were being used in the Franco-Mongol alliance article. For example, he copied the cover of one of the reference books (cropping out the title and author's name) in order to use a partial image of the cover art, but in his upload did not indicate where he got the image from. I will be expanding my evidence section accordingly, but as I mentioned in my original statement, my free time is going to be limited this month. Stay tuned though. :) --Elonka 18:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, didn't see that. The point seemed like a rant about something over at Commons, hence my comment. Orderinchaos 05:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The arbitrators can decide what evidence to consider and what not to consider. Off-wiki evidence (like emails and blog posts) are often problematic, but behavior on other wikimedia projects may be considered, particularly as it mitigates or exacerbates the need for coercive remedies. Thatcher 17:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Responses to evidence
Are the sections entitled Response to Kafka Liz, Response to Durova, and Response to Ealdgyth in the correct location? Should these responses not be moved to the end of PHG's section? Aramgar (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Note to editors
I expect that I or another arbitrator will be posting a proposed decsion this weekend. Any remaining evidence should be submitted as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- My own evidence is complete, though I may continue tweaking the "Affected articles" section since it's an ongoing situation. Thanks for letting us know though, and I very much look forward to seeing the decision (and getting back to normal editing!) --Elonka 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
