Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→{Write your assertion here}: Rp2006 coi edits |
→Evidence presented by {your user name}: getting started, more to come Tag: Disambiguation links added |
||
Line 42:
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.
==Evidence presented by
How I've been saying this should be handled since the beginning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053518583&diffmode=source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053684382] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=1054775924&oldid=1054774317&diffmode=source]
===BLP/NPOV/DUE/Coatrack===
There is a pattern of severely coatracking [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:UNDUE]] negative and defamatory content into BLP articles of psychics, alternative medicine practitioners and the like(PAMPATL). On the flip side, there has been a pattern of severely coatracking [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:UNDUE]] positive and fluffy content into the BLP articles of skeptics and those involved in the skeptic movement. There is also a clear disregard for [[WP:BLP]] applying to non-article space when dealing with PAMPATLs. Just because someone says they're a psychic or says the earth is flat does not give carte blanche to ignore BLP.
====Negative====
=====Rp2006=====
'''Non-article space'''
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_John_(medium)&diff=1065276966&oldid=1065268496&diffmode=source] "Only legitimate thing the subject does"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rp2006&diff=prev&oldid=932885766&diffmode=source] labels article subject "Medical quack" on his user page. Article states "Quackwatch has stated that PATH promotes and sells questionable health products, and has also accused Braverman of promoting quackery." This itself is BLPvio, using SPS in a BLP for negative claims.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rp2006&diff=prev&oldid=832358285&diffmode=source] Labels Gwyneth Paltrow a "snake-oil salesman" on his user page
'''Article Space'''
====Positive====
===Battleground/Civility/Stonewalling===
It is incredibly difficult to make any headway in discussions about issues in this area due to incivility and stonewalling during discussions. The diffs below are not exhaustive, and certainly aren't the only users taking part. Some are plain [[WP:PA]]s, and some show the type of stonewalling behavior that derails discussions and creates a toxic atmosphere and animosity which makes any collaboration much more difficult. In AlexEng's section, you can see an involved user closing a COI thread with a clearly biased summary of events, which is it's own kind of stonewalling.
====Roxy====
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063906692&diffmode=source] "fringe sympathetic admins"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063905043&diffmode=source] battleground, "fringe sympathetic people"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1060924592&diffmode=source] defending "lynch mob," continues to refer to others as a "mob"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1060888938&diffmode=source] [[Night of the Long Knives (disambiguation)]], even if not a Nazi reference, none of these are acceptable comparisons
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1060926584&diffmode=source] " I used the phrase "lynch mob" 36 times in about a dozen years" as if that is a defense?
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexbrn&diff=1063908151&oldid=1063907644&diffmode=source] "Witch hunting is exactly hitting the nail on the head. It ''does'' mean false accusation. Good grief."
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053388795]
====Rp2006====
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1064353003&diffmode=source] Attacks editor's contribution percentages "you just love causing drama. Or maybe you don't love doing so, but it is your nature and you cannot avoid it."
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1064351201&diffmode=source] I thought maybe I had the wrong idea; Santacruz does actual work and isn't just here to cause drama.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063994429&diffmode=source] When informed of copyright issue "This is harassment, plain and simple."
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rp2006&diff=1064635478&oldid=1064633511&diffmode=source] Calls DS/alert template harrassment
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rp2006&diff=1063549890&oldid=1063549605&diffmode=source] Witch-finder, harrasment, hounding, obsessive accusations
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1053754467&diffmode=source] "at war with GSoW, but is actively supporting Fringe."
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_John_(medium)&diff=1065487437&oldid=1065467332&diffmode=source] "intentionally or not, you folks are handing a huge win to con-men everywhere"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1060667143&diffmode=source] "And now A._C._Santacruz is harassing me on talk with a misgendering claim."
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Havana_syndrome&diff=1053306535&oldid=1053306318&diffmode=source] "Yes... Thought that would piss you off. I admit it's not quite WP:RS material"
====Alexbrn====
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rp2006&diff=1063487248&oldid=1063486149&diffmode=source] "Witchfinder General behavior"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1060932031&diffmode=source] "Witchfinder General hats"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1061361051&diffmode=source] "especially if there was a suspicion that they were being asked to do somebody else's work fishing for evidence in aid of a campaign against GSoW."
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063897177&diffmode=source] "And am I to understand the witch-hunting has now migrated to a coordinated email effort"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063899948&diffmode=source] "Editors don't get to go on a witch hunt by policing the language about what they're doing"
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063926567&diffmode=source] Included for irony's sake, warning an editor about PAs in a thread after repeatedly calling people witch hunters.
====AlexEng====
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=1064442646&oldid=1064442569&diffmode=source] Involved close, from an editor with strong opinions on the subject. Lists "facts" of the discussion, leaves out a functionary saying they have received clear evidence of COI editing. Community can't resolve issues when involved editors close threads with their POV.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1064267065&diffmode=source] Stonewalling, before closing. Close matches their views expressed here.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053318507] The old, " can you point to any specific violations? Any bad edits, including {{tq|low quality}} sources? Any instances of suspected [[WP:CANVASSING]] on the talk page?" Also, "Or do you just not like self-described skeptics promoting editing of Wikipedia? I don't think there are any policies against the latter. Personally, I would encourage it." Then closes the COI thread two months later. Shows deeper involvement than just a few posts in the discussion they closed.
====Hob Gadling====
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1064352821&diffmode=source] It's hard to find single diffs that show stonewalling, but that's a decent example. Little bit of incivility mixed in as well
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1064434525&diffmode=source] More stonewalling and mild incivility.
===Stonewalling At [[Sharon A. Hill]]===
This is the clearest example of what happens in the topic area when cleanup work is attempted.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_A._Hill&diff=1057232200&oldid=1057218463&diffmode=source] Discussion on edits started on Nov26
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharon_A._Hill&diff=1059131770&oldid=1059102053&diffmode=source] Revert with no discussion
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharon_A._Hill&diff=1060565259&oldid=1060437124&diffmode=source] Revert again with no discussion
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharon_A._Hill&diff=1060600426&oldid=1060571132&diffmode=source] Revert again with no discussion
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_A._Hill&diff=1062792699&oldid=1062792201&diffmode=source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_A._Hill&diff=1062790175&oldid=1062770570&diffmode=source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_A._Hill&diff=1062867678&oldid=1062845534&diffmode=source] Roxy the dog complaining about RFC after not discussing reverts, with incivility
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_A._Hill&diff=1064988921&oldid=1064592437&diffmode=source] Clear consensus close of a discussion about part of the edits made. showing they have merit.
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
| |||