Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-06-28/Arbitration report

When is "today"? Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The date of the report, 28th, I presume. — Pretzels ^Hii! 23:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that is correct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Any reason Piotrus is being singled out to be represented as a questionable editor across all of WP as there have been other appeals? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This part of Signpost previously reported on requests for amendments that had been filed in the week, however, this was dropped due to a lack of interest. Early last week, I decided that this position will be reviewed in this issue. So in response to the loaded question, the Piotrus request was singled out because it was the only request that was unclosed/unpassed by arbitration process, and it had also been filed before the end of the reporting date (that is, it was the only recent/new news). Signpost reported both views that were expressed to date (primarily by Malik Shabazz and Skapperod): one concerning the burden on WikiProject Poland and his constructive edits, and the one that questioned trustworthiness which cited the findings of deceptive (or misleading) conduct for the purpose of causing disruption. The reason for the adverse latter view being made by Skapperod or others is presumably because of the obvious: resigning ones tools does not absolve that user of responsibility - that is, no one else can be blamed for the extremely serious breaches that Piotrus committed during the time in which he was an admin (an established position of trust and clue). Had the Piotrus request been made later, it would not have been reported in this issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not just with the fact that you (for some reason) "decided" to focus on this particular appeal but also in the way you wrote about it. "However, questions are raised..." is a weaselly way of making a personal attack ("However, questions are raised about Ncmvocalists journalistic integrity"). "engaged in severe misconduct that disrupted (and was calculated to disrupt) Wikipedia's processes," - there's no FOFs to that effect anywhere and you pulled this straight out of your thin air. Basic problem blindingly obvious to anyone who's ever read a newspaper and understands the difference between a newstory and an editorial, or a respectable newspaper and a yellow journalist tabloid is that you presented the one side of the argument as just an argument: "The filer is arguing that...", whereas you presented the other side as fact "who over a lengthy period of time..." (which you made up). If I was cynical about this sort of thing, I'd venture that you're trying to use the Signpost to engage in Wikipolitics and influence the outcome of the appeal, which would be, were I cynical about this sort of thing, quite a shameful use of the project. Since when do personal attacks get put into the Signpost? Final question - did you get any outside "input" or did anyone suggest this to you? Not to be cynical or anything.radek (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My decision to review the position of recently filed amendment requests was as a result of a suggestion that was made shortly after the publication of the previous issue. As I just said, had the Piotrus request been made later, I would have had no choice but to sit on the suggestion for another week. I think the rest of your comment consist of exaggerations and nonsense. Again, one user was making an argument based on their own views about edits since the case - another user was raising questions on the basis of activities & edits made prior to the case that resulted in the linked ArbCom's findings of facts. The material part of these views were conveyed, but seeing the latter view is in question here, I think some copying and pasting is warranted. Fof 8 states that "Piotrus was aware that usage of the list was inappropriate, and made efforts to keep its nature and existence secret from Wikipedia editors." 10.1 states he "participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring, abuse of dispute resolution processes, encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies...." An arbitrator also observed "the emails show that Piotrus knew' that the group was doing something wrong, yet he supported forming the group, and used it to promote his agenda." Also "Piotrus participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing". All of this was conveyed within one line for the purposes of this report - the alternative would have been to convey the context by copying and pasting every single case, line, diff and email reference, and date. I think others prefer the short version I posted where they can look into the substance of prior findings that justified the remedy that was imposed; similarly, I think others can look into the details of what is actually said at the request for amendment. I also think others can identify the commenting users who have (or have had) an actual vested interest in the area/dispute, be it due to their own participation in coordinated disruption of Wikipedia or be it due to involvement in the EE content disputes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Who made this suggestion? Nonsense and exaggerations yourself. You took one person's statement and presented it as an "argument". You took another person's statement and presented it as a matter of fact. Then, however you try to Wikilawyer it, you added your own highly biased interpretation of some of the ArbCom findings. Where in those findings does it say, for example "over a lengthy period of time"? That's nowhere in there and it's straight out of one of the COMMENTATOR's opinion. These kind of things always end up with people making wacky allegations and you presented these wacky allegations as truth, when they're not. Look, this area is enough of a battleground without the Signpost acting as a mouthpiece for one side or another, fueling the drama with these kinds of editorials and personal attacks, and being made into a vehicle of Wikipolitics.radek (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Radeksz, whatever the outcome of this particular appeal, the gravity of the presenting issues are of interest to a wider audience than any run-of-the-mill appeal. Your above comments, all-too-typical of the whole tone of the protagonists in the debate, are in my view unhelpful and I urge you to desist. Ben MacDui 17:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to argue a straw man. As far as I can see Radeksz have not argued that the issues are of no interests or that the Signpost should not report about the case, but simply that the issues were not presented in a neutral way, in fact they were presented in a very negative way for Piotrus.  Dr. Loosmark  18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark is exactly right. If Ncmvocalist had written: "There is an amendment proposed to case x. The person making an appeal is y. The sanction being appealed is z. There are comments from users p, q, and r. Arbitrators m,n, and l have commented and/or voted on the case. The case need epsilon votes for the motion to pass." that would've been fine - that's how regular news stories, rather than attack pieces (what is this, Lou Dobbs? If so, it should at the very least be labeled as an editorial), are written. And I would still like to know who was it that made this "suggestion" to him.radek (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

and (ec) My (original) point, in short, was the announcement was prejudiced. Let's just leave that while mistakes were made, privacy was also grossly violated based on absconded Emails and statements made in private interpreted literally, i.e., inappropriately, and evidence provided by the "protagonists" to the contrary was wholly discounted. I have not seen you, Ben MacDui, before, and we have not interacted, so I would prefer you not make sweeping "all too common" contentions regarding the protagonists, who include myself. I invite you to contact me off-Wiki if you wish to discuss the case from the perspective of a "protagonist." (Also, my comments regarding "canvassing" are in evidence.) Thank you. That you so freely make sweeping statements already proves the damage done. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)