Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop

I'm not very familiar with the process. Are we supposed to present evidence (diffs) or does that come later? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Grsz¹¹ 23:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A lot of pages to keep track of... Is discussion there supposed to take place after this workship thing is worked out? It's all a bit confusing to me. I'm sorry that editors aren't willing to put there partisanship aside and work collegially with consideration for all viewpoints. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience evidence is usually presented and discussed first, though Workshop proposals can and sometimes do begin at the same time as has happened here. In theory at least workshop proposals - particularly findings of fact and remedies - should generally be based on some portion of the evidence provided (e.g. the evidence shows that User:X has engaged in extensive edit warring, therefore they should be limited to 1 revert per article per week, etc. etc.). So basically you should feel free to add evidence or comment on the evidence of others whenever you please there's nothing that needs to be worked out here first. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm in the process of working up some evidence. Accordingly I wonder if it would be possible to add Scjessey and Baseball Bugs as involved parties? I tried to add one of them but got reverted. I guess it's a clerk's job sorry about that. If I'm supposed to request this somewhere else please let me know. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adding parties is the job of either the drafting arbitrator (me) or the arbitration committee clerks (Mailer diablo or Ryanposs). I'll add the parties if I believe they need to be, you don't need to worry about anything on that end. Wizardman 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those particular parties make sense because they were involved in page patrol, which appears along with article probation to be a topic of the arbitration. Some other editors who seem to have substantial involvement in patrol and probation duties (many have deleted or closed discussions, changed talk page headings, reported and warned editors, etc., and come up in the evidence as such) include QueenofBattle, SMP0328, PhGustaf, ThuranX, Bigtimepeace, Rootology, Brothejr, Guyzero, Tad Lincoln, Bytebear, Cosmic Latte, Seicer, Jehochman, Nishkid64, Tvoz, and Rick Block. I don't think it's wise to widen the case to include all the editors who simply disrupted the pages, although their actions must be understood to get to the reason probation and patrol exist, and the reasons and relative merits for various ways of overseeing the pages. I note that Wizardman, our drafting arbitrator, has done some Obama page patrolling too and is in fact the one who blocked the Jerusalem21 account. Not sure where to go with that one. Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure if there is a threshold for inclusion, or if there will be one. Countless editors have caused the same disruption that initiated this case (though just a handful to the same extent), while less have been on the other end dealing with it. I feel like the standard for inclusion (if there is one) should not be too detailed that the ArbCom misses the opportunity to really dive into this situation, but I fear the shear numbers and amounts of evidence would drag this on far too long to have any effect, leaving us back where we started. Even now, the initial incident is stale. Grsz¹¹ 03:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of page patrolling, yes, so I have a rough inside idea of what's going on. I don't agree either with extending it to anyone who's vandalized or rv'd, I'm just looking to add parties who have frequently edit-warred, or been a main party of article probation. (I'll recuse from any WND findings due to the Jerusalem21 block). I also don't want to broaden the parties too much so that the evidence can be gone through in a reasonable time. (this case so far is nothing compared to ones such as the Scientology case) Wizardman 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then for starters, the names from above that really ring a bell (and they'd need to be pretty active for me to remember) would be PhGustaf, ThuranX, Rootology (submitted evidence), Brotherjr, Guyzero, Seicer, Jehochman, and Tvoz. Grsz¹¹ 03:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if any of those editors have been involved much in any of the major disputes. Maybe Seicer, Brotherjr and PhGustaf. If they're not mentioned in anyone's evidence they probably don't need to be included. Anyway, it sounds like the Wiz is on top of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs), after his return and continued talk page issues. Grsz¹¹ 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been topic banned from Obama articles for six months. Don't know whether that should affect his inclusion. PhGustaf (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since he's topic banned by the community, I won't add him and respect that outcome. Wizardman 20:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request that Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) be added to the list of named parties, due to a focused, agenda-driven edit record. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could show me a bit of preliminary evidence on this, I'll see whether adding him as a party is justified. Wizardman 20:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything about this is discussed on my talk page, in the first two sections. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) - Sure. Just from today:

• Public image of Barack Obama - Notes that the Communist Party praised Obama's election victory.
• Political positions of Barack Obama - Broken promise on DEA raids (not a political position).
• Presidency of Barack Obama - Same content, different article.

These are just the latest in a very long line of similar contentious edits, despite administrator warnings (see this discussion). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll add him in. I imagine you two are already planning evidence against each other as it is. Wizardman 21:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I did nothing wrong. The political positions article said that Obama promised to stop the DEA raids on medical marijuana. I posted evidence that Obama did not keep his promise. If the article cites Obama's promise, then for balance, the article should also cite that Obama did not keep his promise. As for the other article, since the article already cited conservative support of Obama, I added that he also had communist support too. On my talk page, Scjessey has falsely accused me of making "poorly-sourced" entries, of doing "original research," of "inserting unpublished information," and of putting my "personal analysis" into articles. Scjessey keeps making one false accusation after another. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might not agree with Scjessey a lot but I do in most part about your latest edits.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Magnificent Clean-keeper - Since the article mentions that Obama promised to stop DEA raids on medical marijuana, why shouldn't it also mention that the raids are still happening? Since the other article mentions support from conservatives, why shouldn't it also mention support from communists? Also, you always agree with Scjessey when he erases my entries. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the proper venue to discuss a content dispute. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]