Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence: Difference between revisions
evidence page |
Poeticbent (talk | contribs) /* Evidence presented by Poeticbent |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
==Evidence presented by |
==Evidence presented by [[User:Poeticbent|Poeticbent]]== |
||
===Rename this case to Eastern European disputes=== |
|||
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|||
Out of respect for ArbCom invaluable time, I support my assertion only by edits and diffs provided already by the involved parties in their initial statements even though the stream of supporting evidence is growing. Most recently, the majority of them ([[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]], [[User:M.K|M.K]], [[User:Irpen|Irpen]], [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]], [[User:Lysy|Lysy]], [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]) engaged in a highly politicized dispute over the content of WWII [[Operation Wilno]]. However, their edit summaries remained cordial throughout in spite of numerous edit wars. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Wilno&limit=500&action=history] [[User:M.K]] made his first Main Space edit by flagging the article with disputed <nowiki>{{NPOV-title}}</nowiki> tag only after the article was already 6,244 characters long, 3 months after it appeared on the front page of Wikipedia in section "Did You Know?", and after a long period of tedious editing by [[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]] who created the article. Corresponding remarks made by [[User:M.K]] on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Wilno&diff=next&oldid=105006537 Talk page] were casual at best. Both users provided reference for their conflicting points of view. There was no bad faith on either side, only bouts of frustration resulting from two different perspectives on one historical event. |
|||
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring. |
|||
The example proves that the request for arbitration against Piotrus was little more than an attempt at scaring off or tiring out an editor who's used to defending his sources. However, the issues are broader than that and should be addressed by arbitrators as such. The stream of requests for arbitration will continue until ArbCom finds a way of easing the situation before a new generation of editors arises. Please rename this case and use it for future reference to our joint benefit. --[[User:Poeticbent|Poeticbent]] [[User_talk:Poeticbent|<small><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#FF88AF;"><span style="border:1px solid #DF2929;"> talk </span></font></small>]] 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|||
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. |
|||
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
Revision as of 03:04, 1 May 2007
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Evidence presented by Poeticbent
Rename this case to Eastern European disputes
Out of respect for ArbCom invaluable time, I support my assertion only by edits and diffs provided already by the involved parties in their initial statements even though the stream of supporting evidence is growing. Most recently, the majority of them (Piotrus, M.K, Irpen, Dr. Dan, Lysy, Halibutt) engaged in a highly politicized dispute over the content of WWII Operation Wilno. However, their edit summaries remained cordial throughout in spite of numerous edit wars. [2] User:M.K made his first Main Space edit by flagging the article with disputed {{NPOV-title}} tag only after the article was already 6,244 characters long, 3 months after it appeared on the front page of Wikipedia in section "Did You Know?", and after a long period of tedious editing by Piotrus who created the article. Corresponding remarks made by User:M.K on Talk page were casual at best. Both users provided reference for their conflicting points of view. There was no bad faith on either side, only bouts of frustration resulting from two different perspectives on one historical event.
The example proves that the request for arbitration against Piotrus was little more than an attempt at scaring off or tiring out an editor who's used to defending his sources. However, the issues are broader than that and should be addressed by arbitrators as such. The stream of requests for arbitration will continue until ArbCom finds a way of easing the situation before a new generation of editors arises. Please rename this case and use it for future reference to our joint benefit. --Poeticbent talk 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.