WIKIPEDIA TALK:ARBITRATION REQUESTS CASE OCCULTZONE AND OTHERS WORKSHOP

Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk)

Case clerk: Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk)

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.

Evoking the principles

Back-and-forth, and an attempt to tell the clerks what to do. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@ Callanecc: and @ Robert McClenon: for avoiding future trouble, I believe that it would be now worth it to officially warn Nick to stop making extraordinary claims such as this without substantial evidence, he is carrying these accusations for over 14 days, [1] and never provides any diffs, contradictory to head note "Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all)". OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I wasn't aware the evidence I had already supplied was insufficient, but I've added a large number of additional diffs as evidence, which I trust will satisfy all the parties, the clerks and the committee. Nick ( talk) 13:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

You cite irrelevant discussions as warning 'prior' a block in question or people telling not to post on specific boards, though none ever said it. It gets even more worse when you add this diff as "disruptive behavior" even though it is someone else making the edit. Warning others about the BLP D/S is legit, especially when the user in question has recently violated the BLP. Nick, you should now keep this on the topic in place of throwing mass amount of irrelevant diffs when you are clearly misrepresenting each of them in wrong context. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

In fact it is "disruptive behavior" to notify me like this. You tried to make a WP:POINT at the same time there was an active discussion in matter more specific and you are not familiar with many Wikipedia polices and guidelines. You did not explain me further why you posted this and it looked like you were willing to post in my talk page every single ArbCom decision just to disrupt. After a short discussion I archived the page. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

No it is not a disruptive behavior to notify you about the sanctions concerning the BLP violation that you had recently done and it lead to rev-del. [2] You actually attempted to tell that you were "aware" of those sanctions, however you couldn't tell how you were, [3] that alone speaks a lot. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Signing

Both parties warned for signature-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@ Robert McClenon: Can you check this [4]? As far as I have seen, temporary injunctions are signed, it is also seen during some of the recent [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and ongoing cases, [10] because they are not substantiated by header like "Proposals by User: (Username)". OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The proposal is signed [11]. At any rate, you should have discussed this with Ncmvocalist rather than adding their signature like you did. — DoRD ( talk) 16:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I was not referring to comment, but the temporary injunction. Knowing the links that I have added above, it is usual/necessary to sign the temporary injunction in order to save time and avoid misjudgment. WP:SIG applies on every talk, there is no need of permission for signing an unsigned comment and signature can be removed by the original poster only on their own user talk page. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The request for the temporary injunction should have been signed. Both User:OccultZone and User:Ncmvocalist are formally cautioned for signature-warring. The insertion of signatures should be done by a clerk or by a bot, not by parties to the case. Further edit-warring of any sort on case pages may result in sanctions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement and Restatement

~~Any further restatements of points already made in the Workshop will be hatted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)~~ reply

Robert, this is the first Workshop page that I have ever contributed to, so I'm not sure what sort of posts you would consider for hatting. Would you mind pointing out an example or two? Thanks — DoRD ( talk) 17:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply

At this time, removing that comment. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Evidence and Workshop

Since it's th first ArbCom case I ever participated, I have a question: Am I right to think that in Workshop the Evidence are evaluated and not new evidence should be provided? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Arbs and clerks will, of course, have the definitive answer, but I think the short answer is "yes". You might want to look at this thread from a recent case to get some perspective on that. BMK ( talk) 22:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Removing own comment

@ Robert McClenon: Can you please check this edit? Are you allowed to remove your own major comment that had been significantly responded? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply

This is a very weird complaint. OccultZone has already deleted responses. [12]. In fact he kept refactoring the entire text in Evidence making it difficult for people to work on time. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Magioladitis: Do you actually call it "responses"? Nick made his comment at 11:41, [13] and I had removed at 11:39 [14] with a clear edit summary, and I had it at 11:32 [15], it was never replied when I had removed it. However, your comment [16] was replied [17] and it has shown your misrepresentation of banning policy, that's why you removed it nearly after a day. [18] OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Did you not think that someone may reply to your comment, and that removing it would be inappropriate ? It should properly have been left and struck through, ~~like this~~, rather than being removed completely. There's quite possibly a lot of material now which doesn't entirely make sense because you've so heavily edited your submissions it after people have replied to them. If anybody is having trouble understanding a particular response I've made, either look at the revision of the page at the time I made the comment, or feel free to ping me for clarification. Nick ( talk) 00:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment was not incorrect, otherwise I would've struck. It was just not necessary to keep because WTT had already explained that I actually wanted to. I don't edit or remove once the comment has been replied, unless it was a proposal or related summary, I always mention when the proposal was changed and provide diffs for the change. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC) reply

On the other hand, my comment was correct. Just irrelevant to my point to that bullet: community bans by consensus. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 02:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Timing

Robert McClenon Kindly check the timing, workshop had to be closed earlier. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Workshop phase closed

Resolved

I have now closed the workshop phase and protected the page, as there should be no further need for edits. If there's any emergency changes made please let me know on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 04:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC). reply

@ Lankiveil: I just saw other case, where Roger Davies protected the workshop from IPs. [19] [20] I cannot find any edits from IPs, and I haven't seen IPs participating on workshop before, although one IP has made a number of comments on this workshop. What do you think about that? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

You'd have to ask Roger about that, as I'm not an arb and I'm not aware of his reasoning. I'm also not sure how it's relevant to this case. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 11:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC). reply

Thanks for the response and my question has been answered here. Just checked that there is no rule saying IPs cannot participate, and that's about it. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Evoking the principles

Signing

Statement and Restatement

Evidence and Workshop

Removing own comment

Timing

Workshop phase closed

Evoking the principles

Signing

Statement and Restatement

Evidence and Workshop

Removing own comment

Timing

Workshop phase closed

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook