![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) & Amortias ( Talk) & MJL ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Izno ( Talk) & L235 ( 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.
Hi! It is not clear in the guide to arbitration as to whether we should or should not repeat the evidence we included in our preliminary statements as part of the evidence section. My intuition is that we should repeat it using the more structured format available on this page, but thought I should check in order to use the 1000 words more efficiently. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the policy or practice for notifying editors when you submit a diff to evidence of an edit they made? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics), then the evidence is both acceptable and welcome. This is not dependent on the editor who made the edit being a party to the case. Arbitrators regularly in case requests consider evidence / diffs relating to non-parties for the purposes of DS and other non-editor-specific remedies. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
alerting others is nearly always unnecessary). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Please note that the basic principle that alerting those not named is nearly always unnecessary is solidly based upon the basic principle that arbcom never sanctions those not named without first making them named parties and notifying them. There was one incident in the past where multiple arbs suddenly proposed sanctions against two editors who were not named parties long after the evidence phase had closed. Neither party was notified or had any way to respond or dispute the allegations (which contained a finding of fact that was based upon zero actual evidence and was factually untrue for at least one of the editors). The good news is that in that case a majority or the arbs ruled that this was unfair and not allowed, the offending arbs stopped being arbs long ago, and I am not aware of anything similar ever happening. -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 13:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to request permission for an extra 50 diffs. The diffs will be used as in my preliminary statement to allow verification of my claims and will not need to be reviewed. They will include the 51 diffs from my preliminary statement per this, as well as evidence of GSoW contribution patterns on articles related to CSICOP or Sgerbic. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49 and Izno: I have compiled some evidence related to incivility and POV problems in the skepticism area. It is for the most part extremely straightforward and easy to parse (brief quotes supported by diffs), but to clearly show the breadth of the problems I need some additional space. I therefore request to be able to post 75 diffs rather than 50 and 750 words rather than 500. I have no objection to becoming a named party in the case if this should be required. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 23:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I would like some more diffs in order to provide more context to the EW diffs provided by Tryptofish (which has done so in a commendably neutral and disinterested manner). I've asked for a bit more than is necessary for this case so I don't have to ask again in the future, but if the clerks/arbs feel it is better to do so as-needed, about 12 diffs and 150 words should be enough I think. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
LuckyLouie just linked to some articles from fringe sources and the first one had a few timestamps on a lecture SGerbic gave on editing. What's the consensus on using these lectures as evidence in this case? I assume if they are to be used they must be timestamped, but I'm not sure how the videos fall within the evidence. Can/should they be used? Curious on what the arbs/clerks/other editors have to say on this. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
How does one square BilledMammal's list with the fact that they have added these entirely as "noping" template mentions? Does mentioning them as supposed members of GSoW not implicate them as parties of the case? Shouldn't these editors be notified of their involvement/mention? I know if it were me on that list, I would want to be notified. Clerks or Arbs, please advise. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I notice there is a dearth of evidence provided by three of the named parties. Is there a rebuttal period if evidence is posted hours before the deadline, or is that handled in the analysis of evidence section of the workshop? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
We are still working out the details but there will be some kind of public summary of the private evidence while still respecting appropriate confidentialities/policies. This summary will be posted to the Evidence page before the phase concludes. We are considering past practice as well as the anti-harassment RfC in deciding how to do this. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
In order to rebut Sgerbic's claim that GSoW typically uses SI as a WP:PARITY source and that her COI only started when she became a fellow in 2018, and to address XOR'easter's claim that her 2015 post has limited relevance to how GSoW operates today. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
To respond to false claims by Bilby that I took part in stings, that I added such off-wiki activism to the article, and by BilledMammal that I made "significant contributions" to Barry Karr.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 15:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I need at least 124 words please to respond to Bilby. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The evidence phase of this case is due to close in around 24 hours time. Editors wanting to submit further evidence should make sure that submission is before the deadline, as evidence cannot be submitted after the evidence stage closes and additions past the deadline will likely be reverted. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
About the time the evidence phase closed, one of parties to this case made a post on social media taunting other editors. Can this be entered into evidence? Geogene ( talk) 01:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) & Amortias ( Talk) & MJL ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 ( Talk) & Izno ( Talk) & L235 ( 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.
Hi! It is not clear in the guide to arbitration as to whether we should or should not repeat the evidence we included in our preliminary statements as part of the evidence section. My intuition is that we should repeat it using the more structured format available on this page, but thought I should check in order to use the 1000 words more efficiently. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the policy or practice for notifying editors when you submit a diff to evidence of an edit they made? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics), then the evidence is both acceptable and welcome. This is not dependent on the editor who made the edit being a party to the case. Arbitrators regularly in case requests consider evidence / diffs relating to non-parties for the purposes of DS and other non-editor-specific remedies. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
alerting others is nearly always unnecessary). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Please note that the basic principle that alerting those not named is nearly always unnecessary is solidly based upon the basic principle that arbcom never sanctions those not named without first making them named parties and notifying them. There was one incident in the past where multiple arbs suddenly proposed sanctions against two editors who were not named parties long after the evidence phase had closed. Neither party was notified or had any way to respond or dispute the allegations (which contained a finding of fact that was based upon zero actual evidence and was factually untrue for at least one of the editors). The good news is that in that case a majority or the arbs ruled that this was unfair and not allowed, the offending arbs stopped being arbs long ago, and I am not aware of anything similar ever happening. -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 13:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I would like to request permission for an extra 50 diffs. The diffs will be used as in my preliminary statement to allow verification of my claims and will not need to be reviewed. They will include the 51 diffs from my preliminary statement per this, as well as evidence of GSoW contribution patterns on articles related to CSICOP or Sgerbic. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49 and Izno: I have compiled some evidence related to incivility and POV problems in the skepticism area. It is for the most part extremely straightforward and easy to parse (brief quotes supported by diffs), but to clearly show the breadth of the problems I need some additional space. I therefore request to be able to post 75 diffs rather than 50 and 750 words rather than 500. I have no objection to becoming a named party in the case if this should be required. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 23:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I would like some more diffs in order to provide more context to the EW diffs provided by Tryptofish (which has done so in a commendably neutral and disinterested manner). I've asked for a bit more than is necessary for this case so I don't have to ask again in the future, but if the clerks/arbs feel it is better to do so as-needed, about 12 diffs and 150 words should be enough I think. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
LuckyLouie just linked to some articles from fringe sources and the first one had a few timestamps on a lecture SGerbic gave on editing. What's the consensus on using these lectures as evidence in this case? I assume if they are to be used they must be timestamped, but I'm not sure how the videos fall within the evidence. Can/should they be used? Curious on what the arbs/clerks/other editors have to say on this. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
How does one square BilledMammal's list with the fact that they have added these entirely as "noping" template mentions? Does mentioning them as supposed members of GSoW not implicate them as parties of the case? Shouldn't these editors be notified of their involvement/mention? I know if it were me on that list, I would want to be notified. Clerks or Arbs, please advise. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I notice there is a dearth of evidence provided by three of the named parties. Is there a rebuttal period if evidence is posted hours before the deadline, or is that handled in the analysis of evidence section of the workshop? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
We are still working out the details but there will be some kind of public summary of the private evidence while still respecting appropriate confidentialities/policies. This summary will be posted to the Evidence page before the phase concludes. We are considering past practice as well as the anti-harassment RfC in deciding how to do this. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
In order to rebut Sgerbic's claim that GSoW typically uses SI as a WP:PARITY source and that her COI only started when she became a fellow in 2018, and to address XOR'easter's claim that her 2015 post has limited relevance to how GSoW operates today. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
To respond to false claims by Bilby that I took part in stings, that I added such off-wiki activism to the article, and by BilledMammal that I made "significant contributions" to Barry Karr.-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 15:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I need at least 124 words please to respond to Bilby. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The evidence phase of this case is due to close in around 24 hours time. Editors wanting to submit further evidence should make sure that submission is before the deadline, as evidence cannot be submitted after the evidence stage closes and additions past the deadline will likely be reverted. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
About the time the evidence phase closed, one of parties to this case made a post on social media taunting other editors. Can this be entered into evidence? Geogene ( talk) 01:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)