Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:01, 1 January 2008

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks 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 The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Case Study: SandyGeorgia offers patient, competent and ongoing mentorship to difficult editors

Much of my experience with Sandy has centered around the formerly problematic editor User:AnnieTigerChucky. ATC's early contributions consisted of singularly unhelpful, poorly written and POV/OR-heavy edits to Autism- and Nickelodeon-related articles. Her seeming obliviousness to the project's policies and to attempts to communicate were so pronounced that I was convinced she was a sockpuppet of MascotGuy. ATC ignored comments and warnings from well-meaning users, didn't use edit summaries, uploaded copyrighted material and was generally such a nuisance that she was eventually and repeatedly blocked, after which time she employed abusive sockpuppets to continue making poor quality edits.

Though many (myself included) believed that there was no hope for this editor, SandyGeorgia (who suspected ATC may suffer from some of the neurological ailments described in the articles she chose to edit) took ATC under her wing once her month-long block expired. SG spent over a month showing ATC how to use a talk page, how use an edit summary, how to edit transcluded templates, how to create footnotes, how to identify reliable sources, and carefully answered every question ATC posed. Please review the history of ATC's talk page to get a sense of the extraordinary time and effort Sandy spent, successfully molding an apparent lost cause into a productive editor. ATC's contributions now more closely resemble those of a seasoned editor.

Though I cannot specifically speak to Zeraeph's and SV's accusations of ill treatment (I am wholly unfamiliar with the dispute), I must reject any suggestion that SandyGeorgia is even slightly impatient, unkind or unsympathetic toward difficult editors--particularly those with neurological/psychological conditions. In my experience, she's the most generous, helpful and cooperative figure to be found upon the English wiki.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2008 (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.