![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BU Rob13 ( Talk) & Premeditated Chaos ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
To what extent does the committee want evidence regarding editors other than Philip Cross? On Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party and related topics, any of Slatersteven, Alssa1, Garageland66, Tanbircdq, Icewhiz, Absolutelypuremilk and יניב הורון might have enough diffs to justify some action, but it would take a significant amount of time to gather the evidence. Some of these concerns may end up being more related to Israel-Palestine issues than British Politics issues. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
For something completely different: Are there rules regarding the creation of templates like {{ Donald Byrd}} or {{ J. J. Johnson}}? I personally don't like them, but I don't see any reason that PC's addition of these is problematic. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@ FiveFilters:: Generally if an edit is still visible in Wikipedia (even if it's reverted), it's ok to go ahead and use it. If something is deleted (so you can't see it, like that Mojito Paraiso "biography" of PC), it's ok to refer to it in general terms but don't mention any of the deleted content that might have been private (attempts to out people, etc). You can still email that type of info/evidence to the arbitration committee privately if it's unsuitable for posting. See WP:ARBCOM#LISTS for addresses. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 03:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee would like to respond to claims of "censorship" over the past couple days. At the top of the evidence page, there is a large notice that states "The Arbitration Committee reminds participating editors that any off-wiki information should be sent privately to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org rather than being posted publicly on case pages. Arbitration clerks have been instructed to remove and
revision delete any material related to off-wiki information from case pages." We are strictly enforcing this rule, as one of the major reasons this case was accepted was due to privacy concerns. All off-wiki material must be forwarded to the Committee privately via email rather than posted publicly. This does not mean that we are ignoring the material, but rather that we are protecting the privacy of all editors involved in this case. All material submitted privately by email will be fully reviewed by the Committee and weighted no differently in our decision-making than if it were posted publicly. Off-wiki evidence posted publicly will continue to be removed, and editors who persistently add such material may be sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee or an Arbitration clerk. ~
Rob13
Talk
03:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
There's been a bunch of recent "redactions of off-wiki evidence" example where the redacted links don't point to anything about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors and the removals come across as POINTy. The diff I gave took out a bunch of Guardian articles about the British Labour party.
I'd like to ask that these redactions be left up to the arbitrators and clerks, and for others to please stop doing them, unless there are obvious issue of editor privacy (the reason for this case's having the restriction on off-wiki evidence), or maybe even then (assuming it's the same stuff we've all already seen: we don't want to immortalize it on the permanently visible evidence page, but it won't matter if it stays around a few extra hours). The arbitrators and clerks are good at this and we can trust them to handle it. I also request a clerk to undo the diff that I posted. Thanks! 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 07:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
How is the evidence section still open, it's almost two days past 22 June? @ L235:. -- Pudeo ( talk) 20:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BU Rob13 ( Talk) & Premeditated Chaos ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
To what extent does the committee want evidence regarding editors other than Philip Cross? On Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party and related topics, any of Slatersteven, Alssa1, Garageland66, Tanbircdq, Icewhiz, Absolutelypuremilk and יניב הורון might have enough diffs to justify some action, but it would take a significant amount of time to gather the evidence. Some of these concerns may end up being more related to Israel-Palestine issues than British Politics issues. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
For something completely different: Are there rules regarding the creation of templates like {{ Donald Byrd}} or {{ J. J. Johnson}}? I personally don't like them, but I don't see any reason that PC's addition of these is problematic. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@ FiveFilters:: Generally if an edit is still visible in Wikipedia (even if it's reverted), it's ok to go ahead and use it. If something is deleted (so you can't see it, like that Mojito Paraiso "biography" of PC), it's ok to refer to it in general terms but don't mention any of the deleted content that might have been private (attempts to out people, etc). You can still email that type of info/evidence to the arbitration committee privately if it's unsuitable for posting. See WP:ARBCOM#LISTS for addresses. 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 03:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee would like to respond to claims of "censorship" over the past couple days. At the top of the evidence page, there is a large notice that states "The Arbitration Committee reminds participating editors that any off-wiki information should be sent privately to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org rather than being posted publicly on case pages. Arbitration clerks have been instructed to remove and
revision delete any material related to off-wiki information from case pages." We are strictly enforcing this rule, as one of the major reasons this case was accepted was due to privacy concerns. All off-wiki material must be forwarded to the Committee privately via email rather than posted publicly. This does not mean that we are ignoring the material, but rather that we are protecting the privacy of all editors involved in this case. All material submitted privately by email will be fully reviewed by the Committee and weighted no differently in our decision-making than if it were posted publicly. Off-wiki evidence posted publicly will continue to be removed, and editors who persistently add such material may be sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee or an Arbitration clerk. ~
Rob13
Talk
03:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
There's been a bunch of recent "redactions of off-wiki evidence" example where the redacted links don't point to anything about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors and the removals come across as POINTy. The diff I gave took out a bunch of Guardian articles about the British Labour party.
I'd like to ask that these redactions be left up to the arbitrators and clerks, and for others to please stop doing them, unless there are obvious issue of editor privacy (the reason for this case's having the restriction on off-wiki evidence), or maybe even then (assuming it's the same stuff we've all already seen: we don't want to immortalize it on the permanently visible evidence page, but it won't matter if it stays around a few extra hours). The arbitrators and clerks are good at this and we can trust them to handle it. I also request a clerk to undo the diff that I posted. Thanks! 173.228.123.166 ( talk) 07:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
How is the evidence section still open, it's almost two days past 22 June? @ L235:. -- Pudeo ( talk) 20:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)