This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Robert McClenon ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: DGG ( Talk) & Euryalus ( 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.
Eagle-eyed observers will notice I have posted some proposed principles in the workshop, despite also being a case drafter. This is an exciting new tradition going back to the Christianity and Sexuality case in February this year. It aims to ensure the full range of proposals is presented and discussed so the PD stage contains no surprises. It also aims to foster discussion.
Please note there is no difference in status between workshop proposals presented by Committee members and those presented by other parties. -- Euryalus ( talk) 16:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Example:
1) A proposal is made
2) it gets a few concurs...lets say 3
3) someone suggests a pretty substantial change to the languaging of the proposal which actually shifts the focus just a bit
4) If the suggested change is made, does it not bring into question the previous concurs. Are they still valid? Do the editors have to restate their approval? .
Buster Seven
Talk 10:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
As a piece of bureaucratic triviality, am now also removing EvergreenFir and OccultZone as parties to the case. Should have happened at an earlier stage. -- Euryalus ( talk) 13:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The Comments by Parties and Comments by Others subsections below draft language in the Workshop are intended for comments by other editors on the draft language proposed by posters. Threaded discussion in these sections is strongly discouraged. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Are all remedies adopted enforceable at AE or do sanctions need to be noted in the text of the remedy? Jbh ( talk) 00:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The intention behind my other proposals is to simply restrict him from what I think are particular problems. These are:
Anyway, that is the thinking behind what I wanted to do with my proposals. I am not sure I got the wording right in them but that is where I wanted to go with them.
My personal opinion is that Collect should have an indef site-ban because of his propensity for what I consider deception and misrepresentation. I recognize I am maybe too close to the issue and that those are hot button issues for me in any environment so I wanted to see if there was a way to keep the good, restrict the bad and be able to still ban him if it does not work. My belief is those four elements are what makes Collect's behavior pernicious rather than just annoying. Jbh ( talk) 11:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
"Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and WP:DR if the OP refuses to drop the stick after that."[1]
FWIW, I did accept your close Guy, and in retrospect I can definitely understand the argument that the ANI post was unlikely to resolve much, and might even further inflame things. That was my first experience of ANI and I was quickly disabused of the notion - inferred from other users' discussions - that it was the right forum (or a useful forum) for issues like this. That said, I confess that I was disappointed that you chose to characterize my complaint as "querulous" and as motivated by a content dispute: at that point I'd already indicated my acceptance of the developing consensus in the AFD discussion, and I'd been very careful to focus on Collect's conduct rather than on content issues in my post.
Personally, I was left feeling very disillusioned and a little confused by the experience: To this day I'm still puzzled as to where someone in my position was supposed to or could have raised the issue of Collect's conduct productively. Also, to open the complaint, go to bed, and find in the morning that I'd been accused of POV pushing, witch hunting, harassment, etc by multiple editors, but denied an opportunity to respond by a quick close (given the chance, I would have strenuously denied all of those allegations, and could have posted evidence that clearly refuted them) was an experience that very nearly made me swear off wikipedia altogether. I don't hold it against you or anything (this already feels like ancient history) and tbh I'm not sure why we're discussing this here, but since I was pinged above and the subject came up, that's my perspective. Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
JzG's response is the most egregious I can remember but I really only read through ANI if my attention is brought there from reading a talk page or noticeboard. I understand where he is coming from and agree that there would have been no real resolution if the thread had continued. However opening the ANI thread likely directly affected the timing of this case because a critical mass of editors were fed up with Collect's behavior all at the same time. If the ANI had been silently closed it is likely we would not be here today.
My guess is that if a similar situation comes up again it might be possible to ping one of the admins you notice having done admin work where the issue is. Although if that is/becomes common practice we might as well just create WP:Administrators' Noticeboard/Star Chamber and be done with it. :) Jbh ( talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Unproductive comment. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How is it that Mr. X is allowed to post a long nonsense list and I'm not allowed to refute it? The clerk hatted it with the note "unproductive back and forth", but in actual fact he left the "back" intact and only redacted the "forth". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
The Arbitration Committee has adopted a zero-tolerance policy with regard to disruptive or other inappropriate conduct on case pages and has authorized the clerks to implement and enforce this policy. Accordingly:
Violations of these rules may result in sanctions.
For the committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
In the course of posting proposals, findings etc., are we allowed to posts supporting evidence in the form of diffs that were not posted during the evidence stage? I'm asking this in case I post some workshop proposals since my involvement during the evidence stage was minimal.-- MONGO 16:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Question re posting rebuttals to evidence, which seems resolved. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"However you can provide new diffs and analysis to rebut existing evidence or accusations."
Yeah, likewise, I thought that the Workshop page's discussion sections were for discussion of the proposals made on the Workshop page. Particularly I thought that the "comment by others" sections appended to each proposal were meant to imply that "others" — i.e., people who were not invited to participate in the case itself — were permitted to engage in that discussion. And even more particularly, when you made a laundry list allegations, some of which were frankly ridiculous, I just assumed that the "comment by others" section appended to that proposal would be the appropriate place for me respond. My mistake, perhaps I'm simply not supposed to respond? Still no response yet, and it remains a mystery. Oh wait, Robert McClenon has posted on my talk page (not sure why) that "threaded discussion is not allowed". Could An Arbitrator Or Active Clerk Who Is Willing To Explain Stuff please explain what this means and where I'm supposed to respond?
And, finally, if it's just physically impossible to allow me to respond to these claims can they please be hatted Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Comment on approaches as case proceeds. Hatting as a bit off-topic but I appreciate the sentiment and hope it is reflected in the outcomes. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WE = Wikipedia Editors. During the evidence stage and the workshop stage WE clench our teeth and WE snarl at each other. But as the time approaches that the case is going to be closed, WE begin to heal and to reach across fences. When all is said and done, WE are collaborators. . Buster Seven Talk 19:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
|
A conversation between User:Jbhunley and myself began on the Workshop page in the section housing evidence from My_very_best_wishes and spilled over onto my Talk page.
I found the dialogue to be constructive and I wanted to ask the Arbs to consider whether it might perhaps be useful to move the material from my talk page to the Workshop page or elsewhere. Just a suggestion. Thanks, Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I notice that a number of proposals refer to harassment. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I don't see that any substantive evidence of harassment has been presented. Would it be possible for those who have posted or supported such findings to clarify which aspects of the case constitute harassment, in their views? Alternately, if evidence of harassment has been presented off-wiki due to meaningful privacy concerns, then of course I won't pursue this further. MastCell Talk 18:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved from /Evidence as a courtesy. Simultaneous hatting, because while it has a nice succinct haiku style and makes some reasonable points, the content doesn't especially drag us closer to case resolution. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Evidence presented by Black Kite
|
Unproductive exchange. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I apologize to everyone, and especially to the arbs, for having brought this to attention. Though I guess it's not all that bad to have a limited space for folks to let off steam. The Traveling Boris ( talk) 19:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Arbs or clerks: has the workshop closing date been extended and, if so, what is the new close date?- Mr X 21:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A brief comment on private evidence.
Private evidence is a routine component of many Arbcom cases. There are many good reasons for evidence to be forwarded privately, and it doesn't seem necessary to rehearse them all here. However where private evidence makes an accusation against another editor, then in fairness that editor should be given the opportunity to respond.
In this case:
None of the above seems any different from what usually happens when private evidence is received. Am noting it all here to demystify the process and make sure all involved in the case know exactly what body of evidence the Committee wll consider in relation to them. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to all who took part here or at /Evidence. Proposed decision due on Monday. -- Euryalus ( talk) 12:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Robert McClenon ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: DGG ( Talk) & Euryalus ( 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.
Eagle-eyed observers will notice I have posted some proposed principles in the workshop, despite also being a case drafter. This is an exciting new tradition going back to the Christianity and Sexuality case in February this year. It aims to ensure the full range of proposals is presented and discussed so the PD stage contains no surprises. It also aims to foster discussion.
Please note there is no difference in status between workshop proposals presented by Committee members and those presented by other parties. -- Euryalus ( talk) 16:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Example:
1) A proposal is made
2) it gets a few concurs...lets say 3
3) someone suggests a pretty substantial change to the languaging of the proposal which actually shifts the focus just a bit
4) If the suggested change is made, does it not bring into question the previous concurs. Are they still valid? Do the editors have to restate their approval? .
Buster Seven
Talk 10:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
As a piece of bureaucratic triviality, am now also removing EvergreenFir and OccultZone as parties to the case. Should have happened at an earlier stage. -- Euryalus ( talk) 13:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The Comments by Parties and Comments by Others subsections below draft language in the Workshop are intended for comments by other editors on the draft language proposed by posters. Threaded discussion in these sections is strongly discouraged. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Are all remedies adopted enforceable at AE or do sanctions need to be noted in the text of the remedy? Jbh ( talk) 00:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The intention behind my other proposals is to simply restrict him from what I think are particular problems. These are:
Anyway, that is the thinking behind what I wanted to do with my proposals. I am not sure I got the wording right in them but that is where I wanted to go with them.
My personal opinion is that Collect should have an indef site-ban because of his propensity for what I consider deception and misrepresentation. I recognize I am maybe too close to the issue and that those are hot button issues for me in any environment so I wanted to see if there was a way to keep the good, restrict the bad and be able to still ban him if it does not work. My belief is those four elements are what makes Collect's behavior pernicious rather than just annoying. Jbh ( talk) 11:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
"Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and WP:DR if the OP refuses to drop the stick after that."[1]
FWIW, I did accept your close Guy, and in retrospect I can definitely understand the argument that the ANI post was unlikely to resolve much, and might even further inflame things. That was my first experience of ANI and I was quickly disabused of the notion - inferred from other users' discussions - that it was the right forum (or a useful forum) for issues like this. That said, I confess that I was disappointed that you chose to characterize my complaint as "querulous" and as motivated by a content dispute: at that point I'd already indicated my acceptance of the developing consensus in the AFD discussion, and I'd been very careful to focus on Collect's conduct rather than on content issues in my post.
Personally, I was left feeling very disillusioned and a little confused by the experience: To this day I'm still puzzled as to where someone in my position was supposed to or could have raised the issue of Collect's conduct productively. Also, to open the complaint, go to bed, and find in the morning that I'd been accused of POV pushing, witch hunting, harassment, etc by multiple editors, but denied an opportunity to respond by a quick close (given the chance, I would have strenuously denied all of those allegations, and could have posted evidence that clearly refuted them) was an experience that very nearly made me swear off wikipedia altogether. I don't hold it against you or anything (this already feels like ancient history) and tbh I'm not sure why we're discussing this here, but since I was pinged above and the subject came up, that's my perspective. Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
JzG's response is the most egregious I can remember but I really only read through ANI if my attention is brought there from reading a talk page or noticeboard. I understand where he is coming from and agree that there would have been no real resolution if the thread had continued. However opening the ANI thread likely directly affected the timing of this case because a critical mass of editors were fed up with Collect's behavior all at the same time. If the ANI had been silently closed it is likely we would not be here today.
My guess is that if a similar situation comes up again it might be possible to ping one of the admins you notice having done admin work where the issue is. Although if that is/becomes common practice we might as well just create WP:Administrators' Noticeboard/Star Chamber and be done with it. :) Jbh ( talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Unproductive comment. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How is it that Mr. X is allowed to post a long nonsense list and I'm not allowed to refute it? The clerk hatted it with the note "unproductive back and forth", but in actual fact he left the "back" intact and only redacted the "forth". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
The Arbitration Committee has adopted a zero-tolerance policy with regard to disruptive or other inappropriate conduct on case pages and has authorized the clerks to implement and enforce this policy. Accordingly:
Violations of these rules may result in sanctions.
For the committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
In the course of posting proposals, findings etc., are we allowed to posts supporting evidence in the form of diffs that were not posted during the evidence stage? I'm asking this in case I post some workshop proposals since my involvement during the evidence stage was minimal.-- MONGO 16:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Question re posting rebuttals to evidence, which seems resolved. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"However you can provide new diffs and analysis to rebut existing evidence or accusations."
Yeah, likewise, I thought that the Workshop page's discussion sections were for discussion of the proposals made on the Workshop page. Particularly I thought that the "comment by others" sections appended to each proposal were meant to imply that "others" — i.e., people who were not invited to participate in the case itself — were permitted to engage in that discussion. And even more particularly, when you made a laundry list allegations, some of which were frankly ridiculous, I just assumed that the "comment by others" section appended to that proposal would be the appropriate place for me respond. My mistake, perhaps I'm simply not supposed to respond? Still no response yet, and it remains a mystery. Oh wait, Robert McClenon has posted on my talk page (not sure why) that "threaded discussion is not allowed". Could An Arbitrator Or Active Clerk Who Is Willing To Explain Stuff please explain what this means and where I'm supposed to respond?
And, finally, if it's just physically impossible to allow me to respond to these claims can they please be hatted Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Comment on approaches as case proceeds. Hatting as a bit off-topic but I appreciate the sentiment and hope it is reflected in the outcomes. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WE = Wikipedia Editors. During the evidence stage and the workshop stage WE clench our teeth and WE snarl at each other. But as the time approaches that the case is going to be closed, WE begin to heal and to reach across fences. When all is said and done, WE are collaborators. . Buster Seven Talk 19:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
|
A conversation between User:Jbhunley and myself began on the Workshop page in the section housing evidence from My_very_best_wishes and spilled over onto my Talk page.
I found the dialogue to be constructive and I wanted to ask the Arbs to consider whether it might perhaps be useful to move the material from my talk page to the Workshop page or elsewhere. Just a suggestion. Thanks, Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I notice that a number of proposals refer to harassment. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I don't see that any substantive evidence of harassment has been presented. Would it be possible for those who have posted or supported such findings to clarify which aspects of the case constitute harassment, in their views? Alternately, if evidence of harassment has been presented off-wiki due to meaningful privacy concerns, then of course I won't pursue this further. MastCell Talk 18:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved from /Evidence as a courtesy. Simultaneous hatting, because while it has a nice succinct haiku style and makes some reasonable points, the content doesn't especially drag us closer to case resolution. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Evidence presented by Black Kite
|
Unproductive exchange. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I apologize to everyone, and especially to the arbs, for having brought this to attention. Though I guess it's not all that bad to have a limited space for folks to let off steam. The Traveling Boris ( talk) 19:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Arbs or clerks: has the workshop closing date been extended and, if so, what is the new close date?- Mr X 21:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A brief comment on private evidence.
Private evidence is a routine component of many Arbcom cases. There are many good reasons for evidence to be forwarded privately, and it doesn't seem necessary to rehearse them all here. However where private evidence makes an accusation against another editor, then in fairness that editor should be given the opportunity to respond.
In this case:
None of the above seems any different from what usually happens when private evidence is received. Am noting it all here to demystify the process and make sure all involved in the case know exactly what body of evidence the Committee wll consider in relation to them. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to all who took part here or at /Evidence. Proposed decision due on Monday. -- Euryalus ( talk) 12:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)