| Revision as of 17:01, 8 January 2014 editNorth8000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,160 edits →evidence by hippocrite← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:36, 8 January 2014 edit undoHipocrite (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,615 edits →evidence by hippocrite: Civil!Next edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| ::::::North8000, anyone may present evidence in a case. It is my intent to read all evidence before coming to any conclusions, but also to analyze and interpret it. If evidence is weak, unsupported, or irrelevant, it will carry little to no weight toward the final outcome of the case. We would only redact evidence in the case that it were extremely inappropriate, i.e., outing of an editor's private information. The reason that arbitration cases take significantly more time than most other forms of dispute resolution is so that we can thoroughly and critically examine what is presented, and not just take a cursory look at it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | ::::::North8000, anyone may present evidence in a case. It is my intent to read all evidence before coming to any conclusions, but also to analyze and interpret it. If evidence is weak, unsupported, or irrelevant, it will carry little to no weight toward the final outcome of the case. We would only redact evidence in the case that it were extremely inappropriate, i.e., outing of an editor's private information. The reason that arbitration cases take significantly more time than most other forms of dispute resolution is so that we can thoroughly and critically examine what is presented, and not just take a cursory look at it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Well, thorough is a good thing. And hopefully it can include a boomerang on that abusive travesty which has zero about the case in it. Sincerely, <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 17:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | :::::::Well, thorough is a good thing. And hopefully it can include a boomerang on that abusive travesty which has zero about the case in it. Sincerely, <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 17:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::: The range is hot, I guess? We might disagree about lots of things, but could you at least keep it civil here? ] (]) 18:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:36, 8 January 2014
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| 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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Refactoring
Would Gaijin42 (talk · contribs) or a clerk refactor his evidence to include the reply with a deeper indentation, so it is easy to see who said what? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Done (before I realized that this wasn't my case, so any further inquiries will likely be answered by the case clerks). --Rschen7754 08:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
evidence by hippocrite
Roger Davies Seraphimblade Editor Hippocrite is posting evidence to this case. As far as I know he has never been involved in the gun control articles in any significant way, and his evidence so far appears to have nothing to do with the articles/topics in dispute for this case. This is my first interaction with ArbCom, so I don't know if once the door is opened its like an RFCU/ANI where you can bring up alleged issues about editors in any context, or if its restricted to just the arbcom case at hand. I ask only because I (and other editors mentioned) probably don't want to waste time defending against accusations/evidence that do not have a bearing on the case, if that is going to be disregarded anyway. Could you please clarify the scope of the ArbCom evidence to be submitted/evaluated?Gaijin42 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's very unlikely we'll intervene as we almost never do. Anyone can give evidence in an ArbCom case, and it seems within the rules. The scope is conduct issues relating to the Gun control article. Roger Davies 18:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Roger Davies Sorry to dig further, Based on that last sentence, does that mean that evidence not related to teh gun control article will be disregarded, or should we be prepared to defend against non-guncontrol evidence? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say it depends on if my evidence convinces any of the Arbs that any possible misbehavior on the Gun Control article is a pattern of political activism that merits a global sanction, or merely a local problem that merits a local sanction, wouldn't you? Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, Gaijin42, it doesn't mean that at all. If there is persuasive evidence of widespread misconduct, and the alleged misconduct within the topic is but a small example, we may well take the bigger picture into account in findings or remedies. Roger Davies 03:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Roger Davies Sorry to dig further, Based on that last sentence, does that mean that evidence not related to teh gun control article will be disregarded, or should we be prepared to defend against non-guncontrol evidence? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hippocrite's effort is nasty and ludicrous. I don't know what this individual is up to. They went back over 2 1/2 years (for me that's about 25,000 manual edits) to try to find things that they could claim something negative about and even then had to spin or misstate them to try to make them sound like misdeeds. And none are about the topic. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- @North8000: in case it is not clear to you, as an ArbCom-sanctioned editor, evidence that you have exhibited similar behaviours in another topic, or imported issues from the banned topic, are very likely to attract notice. I take no position on whether this has happened - I haven't looked - but I think that the chance that ArbCom will simply ignore any suggestion of a sanctioned editor taking similar actions for which the sanction was imposed is very small. Not suggesting that they will accept such a claim without scrutiny, of course they will look carefully at evidence and may decide that there is nothing problematic... but they will look. I suggest you accept that and reflect on evidence relating to you and consider whether it might look sanctionable to an arbitrator. Protesting such evidence being posted will only draw attention to it. You are, of course, free to ignore my suggestion. :) EdChem (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- The unfortunate fact is that false impressions are nevertheless impressions when people who don't thoroughly look into them and evaluate them in an overall context. And the latter often happens in Misplaced Pages. So they IMHO they must be noted at both levels. As a quick "reflect on" they claimed that one edit in line with a clear consensus is "tag teaming"....first, tag teaming is an essay (not a policy nor even a guideline) second, even if it were double elevated to a policy (vs. deleting the essay as many serious admins have suggested), that situation clearly doesn't fall under it. Or putting a link to a partial SELF-revert as showing "edit warring". And finally ZERO from the article / topic at hand which itself says a lot. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- North8000, anyone may present evidence in a case. It is my intent to read all evidence before coming to any conclusions, but also to analyze and interpret it. If evidence is weak, unsupported, or irrelevant, it will carry little to no weight toward the final outcome of the case. We would only redact evidence in the case that it were extremely inappropriate, i.e., outing of an editor's private information. The reason that arbitration cases take significantly more time than most other forms of dispute resolution is so that we can thoroughly and critically examine what is presented, and not just take a cursory look at it. Seraphimblade 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, thorough is a good thing. And hopefully it can include a boomerang on that abusive travesty which has zero about the case in it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The range is hot, I guess? We might disagree about lots of things, but could you at least keep it civil here? Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, thorough is a good thing. And hopefully it can include a boomerang on that abusive travesty which has zero about the case in it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- North8000, anyone may present evidence in a case. It is my intent to read all evidence before coming to any conclusions, but also to analyze and interpret it. If evidence is weak, unsupported, or irrelevant, it will carry little to no weight toward the final outcome of the case. We would only redact evidence in the case that it were extremely inappropriate, i.e., outing of an editor's private information. The reason that arbitration cases take significantly more time than most other forms of dispute resolution is so that we can thoroughly and critically examine what is presented, and not just take a cursory look at it. Seraphimblade 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The unfortunate fact is that false impressions are nevertheless impressions when people who don't thoroughly look into them and evaluate them in an overall context. And the latter often happens in Misplaced Pages. So they IMHO they must be noted at both levels. As a quick "reflect on" they claimed that one edit in line with a clear consensus is "tag teaming"....first, tag teaming is an essay (not a policy nor even a guideline) second, even if it were double elevated to a policy (vs. deleting the essay as many serious admins have suggested), that situation clearly doesn't fall under it. Or putting a link to a partial SELF-revert as showing "edit warring". And finally ZERO from the article / topic at hand which itself says a lot. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- @North8000: in case it is not clear to you, as an ArbCom-sanctioned editor, evidence that you have exhibited similar behaviours in another topic, or imported issues from the banned topic, are very likely to attract notice. I take no position on whether this has happened - I haven't looked - but I think that the chance that ArbCom will simply ignore any suggestion of a sanctioned editor taking similar actions for which the sanction was imposed is very small. Not suggesting that they will accept such a claim without scrutiny, of course they will look carefully at evidence and may decide that there is nothing problematic... but they will look. I suggest you accept that and reflect on evidence relating to you and consider whether it might look sanctionable to an arbitrator. Protesting such evidence being posted will only draw attention to it. You are, of course, free to ignore my suggestion. :) EdChem (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hippocrite's effort is nasty and ludicrous. I don't know what this individual is up to. They went back over 2 1/2 years (for me that's about 25,000 manual edits) to try to find things that they could claim something negative about and even then had to spin or misstate them to try to make them sound like misdeeds. And none are about the topic. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)