Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence

Comment

I'm having trouble keeping track of the different pages. There's the original one where it was accepted. The talk page for that one where it was discussed whether it should be taken. Then there is the workshop page where recommendations are made for what resolutions should come out of the process (and its talk page). And then there is this page where evidence is presented. Am I missing any pages? Who decides on the timing of when the Arbs take over (is that the next step)? Anyway, sorry, just trying to follow it all. I thought I had the pages watched but I think no one edited this project page for a while, so I was confused. But now it will show up on my watchlist so I can take a closer look tomorrow... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this case is a lot quieter than I anticipated. The main page you don't need to worry about in terms of watching it. The Workshop page and its talk, and the Evidence page and its talk are the 4 main pages to keep an eye on at this stage. Workshop's where the editors submit ideas for proposals to work into the decision, Evidence is for evidence to support claims. then there's the proposed decision page and its talk, which the case will ideally move to in 1-2 weeks. I'm just waiting to make sure no more evidence comes in last-second (and i only recently clarified the scope, so we'll see if more comes in) Wizardman 05:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll likely go ahead and post some evidence in the form of case studies that might help ArbCom look at the issue of Obama article / talk page management and probation, but I really don't want to concentrate on individual editors - that would be hecka work and I'm going to be way over the requested evidence page limits as it is. Plus if individual editors and incidents are under scrutiny here they really ought to have the opportunity to know what the claims are, and have a chance to respond. Wikidemon (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your helpful response on the process and timing Wiz. I have tried to follow the proceedings and have considered weighing in, but I'm thinking that if the outcome provides a mechanism of arbcom enforcement for future incivilities and inappropriate behavior, I would rather let sleeping dogs (past transgressions) lie. Given the political nature of disputes and their tendency to escalate, my perception is that editors and admins are reluctant to weigh in on specific incidents on the talk pages and even on the admin boards when incidents are reported. This has allowed the pages involved to descend into a rather partisan muck, but I don't think it needs to be that way. I'm hoping that that if there were an arbcom page for reporting future violations, this might provide a more objective area for supervision (if you will) that would provide a mechanism for improving the editing environment and keeping it clear of personal attacks, soap boxing etc. (I realize no system is perfect). Do you think that's a reasonable approach and set of expectations? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the mess I got myself into this week over on List of micronations, I think this is a good tack to take since it promises to yield useful applications across the board. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

I have struck through the little evidence I submitted. I no longer wish it to be reviewed. I understand I'm a "party" to this case, but have no further interest in it. Grsz¹¹ 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

If you're still finishing up writing evidence, you have three more days. I don't wish to delay advancing this case any longer. Wizardman 03:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Grundle's new evidence

Grundle just posted a complaint[1] that supposedly pro-Obama editors are trying to get him banned. This seems to arise from Tarc's prodding an article Grundle just created,[2] with the edit summary: "Article created by a user who has been warned numerous times over about this anti-Obama crusade, and is about to be topic banned by ArbCom for it anyways."

As a point of order, a topic ban or block for Grundle has not been proposed. But more to the point, could we all try to be supportive of each other, and take a cue from this case to try to be cordial? Even if the edit summary is exactly how you feel, it's best to tone down that kind of language and say it in the appropriate place, not an edit summary. If you think an editor is taking an unduly POV approach, I think the remedy will likely be to file a report on the article probation page (after the reform / review) or else arbitration enforcement, not to aggressively prod their articles. I'm not sure this is a good prod / AfD candidate anyway, and Grundle seems to have created it in good faith. Tarc, a little lighter on the language please. Grundle, if you're reading this we are not all out to get you! Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Furthermore, it's not really even evidence as such. It should be moved here by a clerk. –xeno^talk 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This user's contributions read like a laundry list of horrid, POV pushing bunk. I will not beat around the bush and describe it as anything else. The constant edit-warring, the constant synthesized, original-research material jammed into a huge swath of Obama-related articles, all reverted by a wide variety of editors and admins alike. Checking the contribs of a known and serial violator of core Wikipedia policy is perfectly acceptable, and this new article is just the latest of Grundle's usual behavior.

So, Wikidemon, I will kindly ask you to butt out and stop trying to play the traffic cop. As a habitual edit warrior in your own right, you honestly do not have much of a pedestal to pontificate from. Yes, I misspoke when I noted his pending topic ban, my apologies; it is actually a 1-year general probation, I has him mixed-up with ChildofMidnight...though IMO Grundle's activities have been far more pervasive and destructive than CoM's, but that's not for me to decide. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominems aside, I can't make you stop, it was just a request and a reminder. I'm not criticizing your interpretation of Grundle's edits, just suggesting a more constructive approach. Directing harsh language at people rarely works here on Wikipedia. Your exchange with him kind of proves a point Arbcom is making in its findings. You saw what happened, it inflamed him. I would be upset too if someone attacked me in that way, in fact I'm feeling pretty nonplussed by your non-sequitur characterization of me above. And look at the really long exchange between me and another editor on the proposed decision talk page... doesn't do anybody any good. Why ruin someone's day? You'll probably find that Grundle responds well as we all do to some kindness.Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF has its limits, and this user went beyond those limits a ways back. The article I prodded was not created in good faith; it was just another coatrack for criticism. And if we're going to police escalating situations, perhaps you should take your own advice and stop the back and forth withNoroton over on the Proposed Decision talk page? Glass houses, m'boy... Tarc (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon - Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc - Senator Obama voted to require 30 days before firing an inspector general. But after this inspector general discovered that Obama's friend had abused and misspent tax dollars, President Obama had him fired without the 30 day waiting period, and without giving an explanation. Given that Obama has repeatedly promised to be transparent, and given that I first talked about this issue on Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama, where I said, "I think this may deserve a sentence in the transparency section," how can you say that what I am doing is against any of the rules? Since Obama promised that his administration would be transparent, and since it's mentioned in the article about his presidency, what's wrong with mentioning an incident where he breaks his promise to be transparent? And what is all this talk abut a general block for me for a year? No one here has had any serious problems with the dozens of articles on science, technology, and pop culture that I have created, which are cited on my userpage. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you really need to be reminded that this is not the venue for content discussion? Tarc (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc - Here you claimed that Associated Press is an "unreliable source." Please explain why you made that claim. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page, which is the better, and final, venue for this. Tarc (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)