Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence

__NOINDEX__

Here we go again?
Is there any sort of moratorium that can be put in place regarding the individuals who have already commented on these pages, and the article subject this revolves around? This has just started erupting over at WP:AN, and a lot of the issues that gave raise to this ArbCom are being raised in a somewhat intemperate atmosphere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at a personal level, I pledge not to touch any of the Palin-related articles for the duration of this case.  MBisanz  talk 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi
I don't wish to put forward any evidence, but I find this comment by Jossi to be particularly disturbing. It is never necessary to wheel war, and the fact that Jossi still believes his actions were correct is a problem. Voluntarily stepping away from the article might be a good step. - auburn pilot   talk  00:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - but what do we know. ;-) - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is never necessary to wheel war" not so. highjacked admin account deletes main page. You undelete they redete. You undelete and block they unblock and block you. You keep blocking untill you can find a steward. Wheel waring but in a worthwhile cause.Geni 00:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:LessHeard vanU evidence section
LessHeard vanU characterized my action (unprotecting during the ramp-up period of activity on the first day) as follows: "They, in my opinion and indicated by the evidence above, acted high handedly in delivering platitudes and quoting WP principles without any indication of appreciation of the hard work, dedication and stressful conditions that those they were speaking to had been experiencing."

I'd like to point out several things: 1) protection had been placed over an hour before, there was no indication of any specific vandalism threat beyond intense edit rate and the commensurate vandalism, and anons on the talk page were being generally helpful, but clearly hindered by the semi-protection; 2) any discussion of protection happened long enough before that it was already archived, and given the nature of the attention, the early, more sparse hours wouldn't necessarily reflect later consensus anyway; 3) I initiated a discussion after being notified of the earlier protections, and provided evidence that, on balance, anonymous editors were helping more than hurting. It was also clear that the community was having no trouble keeping up with vandalism and destructive edits.  Yes, it seemed overwhelming to any one individual.  But there were so many eyes that it was really not an issue of bad edits overwhelming the article; the only concern was people happening upon a vandalized version (a threat we deal with just fine for Featured Articles). Nevertheless, I respected the opposing views (definitely not what I would call consensus at that point) and did not unprotect it again.

I don't think I did anything wrong, and during the time it was unprotected, anons made some very strong edits that might not have been made otherwise while all the negative edits were taken care of quickly and efficiently (often by other anons).--ragesoss (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you intending to place this in evidence? If not, I will respond here to make a singular point; consensus is what it is at the time it is formed - if it only involves the few editors currently working the relevant article/talkpage (and some passing commentator) then it is as valid as that derived by a larger selection of the community who can review at their leisure, moreso even when those who are taking time out from editing the article to comment are amply aware of the immediate concerns. What the consensus may be at some future point is of no concern. Also, consensus is not a popular vote - opinion based in fact and practice is always of greater weight in such discussions, and therefore the views of persons who have been involved in the maintaining of the article under discussion to appropriate neutrality carries more weight than either those whose contributions are being rejected/reverted for policy violation concerns, or those whose concerns are the theoretical application of generalised principles without appreciation of the difficulties being experienced. A sysop should be able to determine consensus on the basis of due weight, which entails a review (or knowledge of) the available facts. I maintain that none of the sysops who acted to lift or reduce protection of the article exercised that duty of care. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence on BLP issues
Thanks to those who have submitted evidence on this matter following Brad's request to the parties on the workshop. As I understand it from the evidence presented so far, the key issue over which BLP concerns were raised leading up to the events which are the subject of this case was the addition and removal of this passage concerning the Alaskan Independence Party:. Is this an accurate view of the situation? --bainer (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That was one of them, at the time. The consensus on the talk (which Jossi has disputed, as one of the key proponents of including negative information here) was that it was indeed, at the time, a BLP violation since it was based on hearsay assertations by two people. I have more here of the immediate build up to the Keeper76 protection. For example: . But we also had this edit, and random allegations of affairs as seen here. Yes, CBS news. One blog, however, and thoroughly debunked. People were trying to cram in any and all negative info on the BLP subject as fast as the news media was scraping it from the blogosphere, sourced, factual, or not. rootology ( C )( T ) 00:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)The disputed nature of that section and the edit warring over it did play a role in my decision, but I wouldn't say it played a significantly larger role than the other three areas I described.  MBisanz  talk 00:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ecx2)Rootology is correct...there were also allegations about the parentage of her children, and/or the circumstances of her childrens' birth. I think Rootology covered that in his evidence, as well. Kelly  hi! 00:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. --bainer (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Timing
I hope to place a draft decision on the workshop within the next couple of days (subject to real-world scheduling issues). If anyone has not completed presenting his or her evidence or workshop proposals, please do so as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * see my comment about timing for adding evidence to support any remedies FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)