This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Penwhale ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: NativeForeigner ( Talk) & Guerillero ( 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.
Guerillero I see that you have redacted some information from the page in Minor4th's section, but Minor4th's sections are still there. Can editors still comment on these sections and are they still part of the case? AlbinoFerret 18:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish engaged in OUTing is what happened, and it got REVDEL'd at my request. It was more than an error in judgment, Tryptofish. Minor 4th 18:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
For what's worth, I was also putting together an email to ArbCom about the best way to approach the redacted subject and other non-outing evidence a bit before Tryptofish's post. Even the non-outing evidence is concerning, but there's a lot stuff to dig into that isn't related to this case. ArbCom would seem to be aware of the general issue at this point though. It's extremely tricky to deal with these kinds of issues without outing, so I hope the arbitrators can discuss among themselves how the underlying issue may or may not affect editor actions in this case. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Since thought grenades are suddenly a last minute topic, I'll toss out a firecracker for contemplation. Think about showing a 13 yr old student, or entire 7th grade class how TPs on WP are used to discuss article content, and you stumble upon one where Jytdog has demonstrated his exasperation. Another thought - how do we know who any of these editors really are except for those of us whose RL identities have been probed and/or spotlighted or voluntarily provided? How can we be expected to blindly AGF when we're seeing articles being whitewashed? We do know our universities are receiving grants to paint pretty pictures so unless we know for certain we're not dealing with an advocacy or an editor who is fighting for a research grant what exactly can we do to avoid suspicion when we're seeing the signs? It isn't an easy problem to solve regardless of how much thought you put into it. Money talks rather loudly and so do POV advocacies, but let's not forget the grassroots writers and editors who simply want to churn out accurate GAs and FAs and insist on getting the facts straight. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Atsme 📞 📧 21:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Participants, if you list a finding of fact on the workshop page against an editor in particular, I think it helps the ArbCom out if you link to the specific sections of evidence that support your proposed finding. Or, you can list the diffs directly in the finding statement. When the ArbCom drafts their proposed decision, they usually try to list the specific diffs in their findings statements. Cla68 ( talk) 01:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@ NativeForeigner:, I have not heard back from you in response to my email request to submit as evidence the email that was previously approved by the sender for use as part of my evidence in the COIN case. Please advise. Atsme 📞 📧 14:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The drafting Arb hatted this accusation. Now it has re-appeared at ANI. It looks like editors are continuing to attack this editor to get them blocked; would this be allowed when reference to it has already been hatted? petrarchan47 คุ ก 18:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not know where else to submit this request, so I'm making this statement in the hope that a clerk or arbitrator might move it to a more appropriate venue. The crux of my statement concerns a spate of frivolous accusations against me, namely that I am a sockpuppet of some user that I have never heard of nor interacted with. Rather than initiating a full sockpuppet investigation against myself, I am hereby requesting for an active arbitrator to query the CheckUser tool and confirm that I am unrelated to User:Levine2112. The reason for doing so is that this accusation is being shared by at least several editors (such as JzG, Alexbrn and QuackGuru) and it is not the first time this has been raised [2] (diff only visible to admins). When confronted about the truthfulness of the accusation, I categorically denied it and thought the matter had been settled. But it has not been settled.
In the midst of this arbitration case, I note that Geogene has accused me of WP:SOCK [3] and that this issue is currently being taken up by JzG on the ANI drama boards [4]. These sockpuppet (and COI accusations [5] [6]) have continued for more than a year, so I'm wondering if there is some way for me to clear my name without having to launch a sockpuppet case against myself? I will consider giving away some personal information to defintely prove that I have no COIs regarding the topics I perviously edited (and have stopped editing due to the toxic environment), but I think it might suffice if a trusted arbitrator uses the CheckUser tool to review the evidence and clear my name.
In any case, I have already made up my mind to semi-retire. However, it would be nice if I could peacefully withdraw from this place without these very serious (but completely baseless) allegations lingering on the talk pages of ArbCom and elsewhere.
RoseL2P ( talk) 10:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
RoseL2P, please do not let these editors (JzG and Geogene) WP: bait you. their aggressive behavior has been noted/documented on this page. please slow down. And please reconsider your thoughts of semiretirement ! you are appreciated and needed.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 03:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed, Jzg/Guy has repeatedly engaged in outing me. And denying that he's doing it while continuing to do it in many different pages on Wikipedia. He's apparently done research on my identity and likes to drop in insinuating remarks all the time based on what he thinks he knows about me, and that is intolerable. And he's not even a party to this case, for whatever reason, god only knows. You industry supporters can try to minimize it all you want cause he's on your "team" but it's outing and it's nasty, and JzG/Guy has been editing an a very partisan way and abusing guidelines and principles and targeting me personally. It's not alright. Why does tihs drag on and why does he not get included in the ArbCom case? I'm kind of losing faith in this whole process. Meanwhile, Guy is swinging it all around in the Workshop and the dialogues of this case, while actively being abusively partisan, and yet is not even party to this case and is therefore immune to accountability. Impunity. [7] SageRad ( talk) 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Request ArbCom Review and protective block - OK, I have had enough. Please review the comments by JzG/Guy just above: it should never be OK for an admin to say "I know who you are" on editor talk pages and subsequently right here in a discussion on an ArbCom Talk page. I believe this behavior, clearly intended as an intimidating threat, calls for an immediate preventative block. This is extremely serious misbehavior by an involved admin. Jus da fax 15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Please note:
Thanks, Roger Davies talk 17:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@
SageRad: It is not acceptable
The template at the top of the page says the workshop was going to close on the 19th, but, apparently, it hasn't yet. Anyone want to indicate when it might be scheduled to close now? John Carter ( talk) 16:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Penwhale ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: NativeForeigner ( Talk) & Guerillero ( 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.
Guerillero I see that you have redacted some information from the page in Minor4th's section, but Minor4th's sections are still there. Can editors still comment on these sections and are they still part of the case? AlbinoFerret 18:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish engaged in OUTing is what happened, and it got REVDEL'd at my request. It was more than an error in judgment, Tryptofish. Minor 4th 18:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
For what's worth, I was also putting together an email to ArbCom about the best way to approach the redacted subject and other non-outing evidence a bit before Tryptofish's post. Even the non-outing evidence is concerning, but there's a lot stuff to dig into that isn't related to this case. ArbCom would seem to be aware of the general issue at this point though. It's extremely tricky to deal with these kinds of issues without outing, so I hope the arbitrators can discuss among themselves how the underlying issue may or may not affect editor actions in this case. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Since thought grenades are suddenly a last minute topic, I'll toss out a firecracker for contemplation. Think about showing a 13 yr old student, or entire 7th grade class how TPs on WP are used to discuss article content, and you stumble upon one where Jytdog has demonstrated his exasperation. Another thought - how do we know who any of these editors really are except for those of us whose RL identities have been probed and/or spotlighted or voluntarily provided? How can we be expected to blindly AGF when we're seeing articles being whitewashed? We do know our universities are receiving grants to paint pretty pictures so unless we know for certain we're not dealing with an advocacy or an editor who is fighting for a research grant what exactly can we do to avoid suspicion when we're seeing the signs? It isn't an easy problem to solve regardless of how much thought you put into it. Money talks rather loudly and so do POV advocacies, but let's not forget the grassroots writers and editors who simply want to churn out accurate GAs and FAs and insist on getting the facts straight. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Atsme 📞 📧 21:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Participants, if you list a finding of fact on the workshop page against an editor in particular, I think it helps the ArbCom out if you link to the specific sections of evidence that support your proposed finding. Or, you can list the diffs directly in the finding statement. When the ArbCom drafts their proposed decision, they usually try to list the specific diffs in their findings statements. Cla68 ( talk) 01:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@ NativeForeigner:, I have not heard back from you in response to my email request to submit as evidence the email that was previously approved by the sender for use as part of my evidence in the COIN case. Please advise. Atsme 📞 📧 14:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The drafting Arb hatted this accusation. Now it has re-appeared at ANI. It looks like editors are continuing to attack this editor to get them blocked; would this be allowed when reference to it has already been hatted? petrarchan47 คุ ก 18:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not know where else to submit this request, so I'm making this statement in the hope that a clerk or arbitrator might move it to a more appropriate venue. The crux of my statement concerns a spate of frivolous accusations against me, namely that I am a sockpuppet of some user that I have never heard of nor interacted with. Rather than initiating a full sockpuppet investigation against myself, I am hereby requesting for an active arbitrator to query the CheckUser tool and confirm that I am unrelated to User:Levine2112. The reason for doing so is that this accusation is being shared by at least several editors (such as JzG, Alexbrn and QuackGuru) and it is not the first time this has been raised [2] (diff only visible to admins). When confronted about the truthfulness of the accusation, I categorically denied it and thought the matter had been settled. But it has not been settled.
In the midst of this arbitration case, I note that Geogene has accused me of WP:SOCK [3] and that this issue is currently being taken up by JzG on the ANI drama boards [4]. These sockpuppet (and COI accusations [5] [6]) have continued for more than a year, so I'm wondering if there is some way for me to clear my name without having to launch a sockpuppet case against myself? I will consider giving away some personal information to defintely prove that I have no COIs regarding the topics I perviously edited (and have stopped editing due to the toxic environment), but I think it might suffice if a trusted arbitrator uses the CheckUser tool to review the evidence and clear my name.
In any case, I have already made up my mind to semi-retire. However, it would be nice if I could peacefully withdraw from this place without these very serious (but completely baseless) allegations lingering on the talk pages of ArbCom and elsewhere.
RoseL2P ( talk) 10:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
RoseL2P, please do not let these editors (JzG and Geogene) WP: bait you. their aggressive behavior has been noted/documented on this page. please slow down. And please reconsider your thoughts of semiretirement ! you are appreciated and needed.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 03:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed, Jzg/Guy has repeatedly engaged in outing me. And denying that he's doing it while continuing to do it in many different pages on Wikipedia. He's apparently done research on my identity and likes to drop in insinuating remarks all the time based on what he thinks he knows about me, and that is intolerable. And he's not even a party to this case, for whatever reason, god only knows. You industry supporters can try to minimize it all you want cause he's on your "team" but it's outing and it's nasty, and JzG/Guy has been editing an a very partisan way and abusing guidelines and principles and targeting me personally. It's not alright. Why does tihs drag on and why does he not get included in the ArbCom case? I'm kind of losing faith in this whole process. Meanwhile, Guy is swinging it all around in the Workshop and the dialogues of this case, while actively being abusively partisan, and yet is not even party to this case and is therefore immune to accountability. Impunity. [7] SageRad ( talk) 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Request ArbCom Review and protective block - OK, I have had enough. Please review the comments by JzG/Guy just above: it should never be OK for an admin to say "I know who you are" on editor talk pages and subsequently right here in a discussion on an ArbCom Talk page. I believe this behavior, clearly intended as an intimidating threat, calls for an immediate preventative block. This is extremely serious misbehavior by an involved admin. Jus da fax 15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Please note:
Thanks, Roger Davies talk 17:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@
SageRad: It is not acceptable
The template at the top of the page says the workshop was going to close on the 19th, but, apparently, it hasn't yet. Anyone want to indicate when it might be scheduled to close now? John Carter ( talk) 16:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)