Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence

Time limit
I will be busy with college work. Can you extend the deadline of the case please, including the evidence phase? Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This has already dragged out more than I'd like given the scope discussions, and I'm hoping to keep it to a fairly tight schedule. How much of an extension do you anticipate needing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have some textbook reading and other homework to do until Tuesday. I am anticipating some more college reading and homework afterwards. I don't know how much it interferes my contribution to the case, but I don't know how complex the case is as well. I like to fill my statements as soon as possible, but I have real-life priorities as well. --George Ho (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * the evidence phase is open until 17 September, which is almost two weeks from today, that should provide plenty of time. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to extend the case based on this. If homework is preventing you from presenting evidence in the next two weeks, and you don't know when it will subside, it seems we would have to extend the evidence phase until the end of the semester, which is out of the question. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Shall you give us several more days after the deadline? Everyone apparently spends time developing drafts of statements and evidence. Also, I've not seen TRM responding to the case. George Ho (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Near as I can tell, he's boycotting this process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems that everybody has submitted statements and diffs today. Extend deadline? George Ho (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

How about a few or several more days? George Ho (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Several days? Personally, I don't think that's necessary. The most recent posting of evidence (with diffs) was my edit nearly 24 hours ago. Since then, there has only been some conversation with other users or general statements. I believe that those who intended to provide evidence for this case have already done so and unless there is a compelling reason to extend the deadline, I think we should proceed on schedule. As GorillaWarfare has mentioned, it's best to not drag this out longer than necessary. Mike V • Talk 01:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * TRM has been ranting about witch hunts and the like, just not here. I think it unlikely anything will be done to him, but it won't be because he didn't try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless I hear otherwise I will be closing this phase in around 3 hours at which point it will no longer be the 17th anywhere. Amortias (T)(C) 07:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs Section
Is there any particular reason that the names here are in random order instead of alphabetical? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * . Evidence was moved over in the order it was presented, the procedures for opening doesn't specify ordering the evidence in any manner and would have taken considerably longer to have had the evidence page in question created. Amortias (T)(C) 20:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also moved this to the talk section as it was more of a procedural question than evidence. Amortias (T)(C) 20:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Y'all's explanation makes sense, it's just that there are over 50 names. I guess the random order is the arbs' problem to deal with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A few questions about the evidence page

 * Is a section for me missing or should I add one myself? I notice George Ho already added one for himself, but it's a bit odd to not see a section with my preliminary statement there (especially since I'm the filing party).
 * The evidence page is for assertions and evidence only, correct? That is, although the scope says interactions at ITN and DYK are within the scope, I should not make any proposals on how to make those venues more civil on the evidence page?
 * Finally, in the same vein, a "conclusions" section as is typical of an argumentative essay is inappropriate for the evidence page because it's not an assertion, correct?

Thanks. Banedon (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * with regards to your first point, it appears to not have been copied over when the evidence page was created. I had already asked the clerks to remedy that. If you want to add evidence prior to their adding your section, feel free to create your own, and they can amend it to include your preliminary statement. --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced?
How is this evidence unsourced? It gives attribution, allowing the diffs to be found (I assume arbitrators and clerks are capable of doing this?). For 'The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)' the diff is here. The whole discussion back then (this needs to be read to give the context) is here. Maybe a clerk could include the diffs in evidence? Similarly, the quote from 'Baseball Bugs 20:31, 7 September 2016' is here. Though reading through that (a request for help on a clerk's talk page), I think the real reason the evidence was removed is 'trolling' rather than 'unsourced'. It would help if clerks gave the real reason for removing something from the evidence page. Anyway, the cricket discussion references might help. Even if a troll pointed towards them, it does throw some light on the interplay that goes on at the references desks (or was it decided that this was out of scope?). are the above diffs helpful or not? Also as he blocked the IP that presented the 'evidence'. Maybe together you can all decide what to do here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the evidence as it was unsourced. The burden is on those presenting evidence to supply the diffs not for those assessing evidence to find them nor is it the job of the clerks to do so. If another editor chooses to bock them for trolling they are entitlesd to do so but this does not change my reasonging for removing evidence that is not supported.


 * I would appreciate you striking your comment that accuses me of me of lying in my edit summaries as well. Amortias (T)(C) 06:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Amortias, I was not accusing you of lying. I was trying (a bit clumsily) to say that removing the evidence because it was trolling is a better reason than removing evidence because it is 'unsourced'. It lacks diffs, but it is not unsourced - or is that too subtle a distinction? Anyway, I struck something in what I said, but am not sure if it is what you wanted me to strike. I similarly had thought of raising the point that Bugs was asking you to remove evidence that cast him in a bad light (as Gavin/SchroCat has pointed out), but decided against it. He does have a point though - that reference desk discussion does cast Bugs in a bad light, and he has asked you to remove it - surely that should give you pause for thought? Gavin, Amortias is one of the clerks on this case, Bugs was asking him for help (as a clerk). Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking that comment it appears from your reply that I misinterpreted it (unfortunatley the internet doesnt let you read the tone or feeling behind a statement very well). The evidence presented is required by policy to have diffs to back up any claims made. The positivity or negativity of the statements is not taken into account when removing them if theres not a diff to show where it happened or what was said it is liable to be removed. Amortias (T)(C) 08:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't make that edit summary or removed the content; I simply blocked for trolling, because what the editor is doing is trolling. Under the guise of contributing to an ArbCom case about TRM, they are charging Bugs. (I'm not a clerk: I don't get paid to act based on formalities.) Also, it's a troll... We've talked about semi-protecting the pages and about range blocking, but I haven't checked to see what's happened since our last discussion on the Clerks list. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP's evidence is materiel, and gets to the heart of the matter. Blocked by an arb, pfff, couldn't care less; there are more important reputations at stake. Ceoil (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

SchroCat's Section

 * I would have thought that it would have been better for someone to ask the clerks to take the action rather you and Bugs to delete someone else's evidence. It's particularly questionable of Bugs to remove something that doesn't show him in a particularly good light as it looks like he's trying to hide something. I'm sure that's not the case, but next time either let the IP's words alone (there is nothing that stops IPs from posting here) or ask a clerk to take action. - Gavin (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed already between Bugs and myself and as far as im aware we are in agreement on how to proceed should evidence not within the scope or supported is presented. Amortias (T)(C) 07:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, as I indicated above, this is just trolling. If someone has a legitimate argument involving Bugs in this particular context, they can bring it, evidence and all. What the IP brings is not valid. Also, what Amortias is saying is "Bugs, lay off and let the clerks take care of it." Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , Even a broken clock is right twicena day! It may originally have been posted by a troll, but it's still worth considering the content. Despite the misleading title, this case isn't supposed to be about TRM, but about wider interactions, and this is evidence of such an interaction. I've included it in my evidence without naming Bugs, against whom I bear no ill will (I'm not posting against him, per se, but as evidence that a reasonable request from TRM is received poorly by a prickly audience—an audience who have been muddying waters in a forum that is supposed to help bring clarity to people who ask questions.) It matters not that in this instance it was Bugs as opposed to anyone else, but it's a good example that TRM is, more often than not, more sinned against than sinning. – Gavin (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

BBB's section

 * That IP's sole purpose for being here is to cause trouble. And by drawing the attention of the arbs to TRM's responses in that instance, you're hurting TRM rather than helping. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Finally.
I was hoping that someday a case would reach arbcom which might have a chance of actually addressing whether longtime editors and administrators get to ignore WP:CIVIL or not. I urge the Committee to examine this, because it's been an issue on Wikipedia for years. Jtrainor (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Evidence length
At direction, I'm requesting the attention of, , or regarding my evidence length.

I have submitted evidence in this case, beginning here.

The evidence is over length for a non-party to the case. I'm aware. I tried extremely hard to reduce the length of the evidence to the most relevant points. When I first put the evidence together, it was well over a thousand words. Of note; 220 of the words (in darkred in the evidence) are directly quoting TRM. I think I did a pretty good job of trimming my prose and coming up with ways to slash words while still presenting evidence. I previously had dates associated with each item to place them in time context. I could trim maybe few more words out, but without eliminating whole sections I can not get below 500. I believe all three sections are important to the case; two are tied to prior behavior for which TRM was previously admonished, and the third further amplifies hounding evidence submitted by others.

I'm asking for permission to allow it to be the length that it is, 740 words and 51 diffs, according to clerk Amortias. Thank you for your attention, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You may keep your evidence at its current length. Pinging so they're aware of this, though I'll mention it on the clerks list too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention and granting. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I kind of object to "granting" here--it is a very awkward gerund. I suppose used it because "grant", which is really the proper noun to use here, reminds one too much of Grant (money). Anyway, I'm fine with the grantage of this request. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

George Ho's evidence
Arbs, please check all evidence presented by George Ho carefully. E.g. in his last entry, "Time since the case began", he uses this as evidence that "TRM resorted to [...] making empty threats, i.e. "dead, dead, dead."". It is clear from that link that "dead, dead, dead" is not "an empty threat" but a description of whet he feels that some people (metaphorically) want to do to him. Reading comprehension is a general issue at DYK, and the cause of many errors there, but I hoped that it wouldn't extend to the ArbCom case. Fram (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-recall
I'm late to the party and I'm not even sure I can post something here, apologies if this is out of order. I haven't seen any mention of TRM's self-recall from last year and I wanted to make sure everybody was aware of it. In June 2015, it was the community's consensus that TRM should not relinquish his admin status. Isa (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request
Please fix the runaway bold caused by the second signature in the section Evidence presented by Yellow Dingo. Thanks! &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  20:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)