QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 14th October 2009, 7:49am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 14th October 2009, 5:18am)
Coren
started posting his "remedies" back on 19 September,
and since then his "remedies" have
attracted zero votes, other than his own.
Those were proposed temporary injunctions, all of which have attracted multiple votes. The remedies proper were just posted October 12.
SI is correct. It may be significant that the findings and remedies have not attracted any votes in more than two days, or not. I don't see how anyone who actually reads the primary source, the mailing list archive, as cited, could support the conclusions Coren proposes.
Above, in two posts, I examined the proposed findings in detail with regard to Piotrus. They are shallow and with astonishingly little basis in cited evidence. ArbComm has sanctioned editors who present strong claims before ArbComm without evidence; what about an arbitrator who does the same? At best, Coren's work is sloppy, and he used some local timestamp rather than the archive index UTC stampi, making it much more difficult to find what he refers to, and, in addition, there is at least one duplicated citation, so he presents what looks like three elements of evidence, when there are only two. And the two that there are, not only don't show what he claims is demonstrated by him, but, in fact, one of them is exculpatory.
Coren placed summaries of the evidence at
Workshop. What would we think about an editor who provides the community with cherry-picked evidence, citing a sentence or two out of a source, when the next sentence would create a very different impression? This was a mailing list where editors felt free to express their feelings and to brainstorm solutions to problems. So, then, snippets are taken out to show reprehensibility, and over twenty years of experience with on-line conflict has shown me that most people won't read the actual evidence, it's too much work; instead, they will pick whom to trust and believe whatever they say, and conclude that everyone else is lying or engaging in puffery. It can be brutal.
The two posts here that review the evidence:
#1,
#2.