This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Ks0stm ( Talk) & Penwhale ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & GorillaWarfare ( 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.
I will be offline for a while. I started responding here prior to being added as a party. If my responses thus far need to be moved due to the changed circumstances then please would someone oblige. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Sitush's posts must be moved to the comment by parties from comment by others sections. GoodDay ( talk) 15:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The whole Party vs. Not party thing is largly irrelevant. The only functional difference is how many words of evidence you can submit before asking for more. Not being a party gives no special immunity to sanctions nor does it prevent you from submitting evidence, submitting workshop proposals or commenting on them. It's just minor bookkeeping. 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 16:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe, Jehochman's posts are being misplaced aswell. They belong in the comment by others section, not comment be parties section. GoodDay ( talk) 14:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
At this stage, please add additional material to the case pages only if it is (1) non-repetitive and (2) important. There is no need for anyone to repeat information that has already been presented or to feel that you need to get the "last word" on any particular issue. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it is worth noting that in a span of less than four hours user Patrol Forty was given a strange
"signal to noise" warning,
taken to ANI, and
indefinitely blocked. He/she *may* be a sock, or if you AGF maybe a quick learner. Either way several of the players in this series of events are related to this ArbCom either as an involved party (Sitush) or as one of the pro-Eric/anti-Jimbo participants in heated discussions on the evidence talk page and/or on Jimbo Wales' talk page in the past week or so.
72.223.98.118 (
talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Trolling and foolishness, whether on or off our site, will not affect the proceedings. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this content creation or harassment? [1] What are the chances that, out of some 4 million articles, someone came on the first article I ever created by accident? And what are the chances if they did it 5 minutes after naming me here: [2] This was not the first time either, a similar edit here: [3], after this edit [4]. Similar edits of sourced material: [5] [6]. — Neotarf ( talk) 01:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any chance that we could have a prompt and clear close of this section of the case when the time comes? The evidence extension did not get closed in such a manner, and the drift caused by the extension itself has seen a proliferation of character assassinations etc in this phase. I'm stressed up to the eyeballs with something else and would much prefer it if the Committee and Clerks could find their way to sticking with the published timetable, even if that works detrimentally to my own outcome here. Entirely selfish, I know.
Also, for clarification, could we please be told the precise time at which the presently stated 1 November close applies? I'm guessing it is 23:59 UTC 1 November, not some local time. - Sitush ( talk) 07:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone might want to write an Arb bot that closes sections down automatically at 12:01 UTC. This can't be the first case this has been an issue. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I might phrase things differently from the 204 IP above, but he's got the right idea. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it really ok to post this on Jimbo's page. I don't mind that it draws attention to this case but the thing is surely not neutral in its presentation. I'm also unsure why the anonymous person didn't send the thing to the Arbcom mailing list (or have @ Neotarf: do that) rather than having Neotarf proxy the full version into the Workshop here. Neotarf should only be posting their own comments, not someone else's, and this isn't the first time they've sidestepped what seems to be the procedure in this case.
And while we're on the subject of subtle canvassing, Carolmooredc posted something at WT:GGTF earlier today and that, too, strikes me as inappropriate in tone. - Sitush ( talk) 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The workshop is closed. Please stop arguing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Just to note some edit-warring over the closure of a thread at ANI after a request to leave it open for comment by members of GenderGap project, who had just been notified of the discussion. The ensuing convergence of ANI participants on the GenderGap task force page has now reached more than 4000 words. — Neotarf ( talk) 01:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It is my understanding that several members of Gender Gap group are also members of Reddit "Men's Rights" group. I know in the past this has been a problem for editing some topic areas. There is nothing in the evidence for this case about this group, indeed it would be surprising to find anything, since much information about this that has appeared on-wiki has been oversighted, and any information available off-wiki is probably not going to be presented here, because of WP:OUTING. So what effect will the Reddit membership have on the mission of GenderGap? And what is ArbCom's role in all of this--do they just want to pay lip service to the GenderGap thing by scolding a few individuals, or does it go deeper than that? — Neotarf ( talk) 06:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
|
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Ks0stm ( Talk) & Penwhale ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & GorillaWarfare ( 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.
I will be offline for a while. I started responding here prior to being added as a party. If my responses thus far need to be moved due to the changed circumstances then please would someone oblige. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Sitush's posts must be moved to the comment by parties from comment by others sections. GoodDay ( talk) 15:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The whole Party vs. Not party thing is largly irrelevant. The only functional difference is how many words of evidence you can submit before asking for more. Not being a party gives no special immunity to sanctions nor does it prevent you from submitting evidence, submitting workshop proposals or commenting on them. It's just minor bookkeeping. 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 16:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe, Jehochman's posts are being misplaced aswell. They belong in the comment by others section, not comment be parties section. GoodDay ( talk) 14:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
At this stage, please add additional material to the case pages only if it is (1) non-repetitive and (2) important. There is no need for anyone to repeat information that has already been presented or to feel that you need to get the "last word" on any particular issue. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it is worth noting that in a span of less than four hours user Patrol Forty was given a strange
"signal to noise" warning,
taken to ANI, and
indefinitely blocked. He/she *may* be a sock, or if you AGF maybe a quick learner. Either way several of the players in this series of events are related to this ArbCom either as an involved party (Sitush) or as one of the pro-Eric/anti-Jimbo participants in heated discussions on the evidence talk page and/or on Jimbo Wales' talk page in the past week or so.
72.223.98.118 (
talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Trolling and foolishness, whether on or off our site, will not affect the proceedings. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this content creation or harassment? [1] What are the chances that, out of some 4 million articles, someone came on the first article I ever created by accident? And what are the chances if they did it 5 minutes after naming me here: [2] This was not the first time either, a similar edit here: [3], after this edit [4]. Similar edits of sourced material: [5] [6]. — Neotarf ( talk) 01:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any chance that we could have a prompt and clear close of this section of the case when the time comes? The evidence extension did not get closed in such a manner, and the drift caused by the extension itself has seen a proliferation of character assassinations etc in this phase. I'm stressed up to the eyeballs with something else and would much prefer it if the Committee and Clerks could find their way to sticking with the published timetable, even if that works detrimentally to my own outcome here. Entirely selfish, I know.
Also, for clarification, could we please be told the precise time at which the presently stated 1 November close applies? I'm guessing it is 23:59 UTC 1 November, not some local time. - Sitush ( talk) 07:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone might want to write an Arb bot that closes sections down automatically at 12:01 UTC. This can't be the first case this has been an issue. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I might phrase things differently from the 204 IP above, but he's got the right idea. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it really ok to post this on Jimbo's page. I don't mind that it draws attention to this case but the thing is surely not neutral in its presentation. I'm also unsure why the anonymous person didn't send the thing to the Arbcom mailing list (or have @ Neotarf: do that) rather than having Neotarf proxy the full version into the Workshop here. Neotarf should only be posting their own comments, not someone else's, and this isn't the first time they've sidestepped what seems to be the procedure in this case.
And while we're on the subject of subtle canvassing, Carolmooredc posted something at WT:GGTF earlier today and that, too, strikes me as inappropriate in tone. - Sitush ( talk) 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The workshop is closed. Please stop arguing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Just to note some edit-warring over the closure of a thread at ANI after a request to leave it open for comment by members of GenderGap project, who had just been notified of the discussion. The ensuing convergence of ANI participants on the GenderGap task force page has now reached more than 4000 words. — Neotarf ( talk) 01:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It is my understanding that several members of Gender Gap group are also members of Reddit "Men's Rights" group. I know in the past this has been a problem for editing some topic areas. There is nothing in the evidence for this case about this group, indeed it would be surprising to find anything, since much information about this that has appeared on-wiki has been oversighted, and any information available off-wiki is probably not going to be presented here, because of WP:OUTING. So what effect will the Reddit membership have on the mission of GenderGap? And what is ArbCom's role in all of this--do they just want to pay lip service to the GenderGap thing by scolding a few individuals, or does it go deeper than that? — Neotarf ( talk) 06:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
|