| Revision as of 19:03, 5 May 2015 view sourceSalvio giuliano (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators49,151 edits →Question about case request vs evidence: rp. to Karanacs← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:41, 5 May 2015 view source Lightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →Request for extra words and diffs: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| ::--] (]) 18:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | ::--] (]) 18:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| {{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
| == Request for extra words and diffs == | |||
| Per WP:AC/P ] I request double the default 1000 words and 100 diffs for named parties. | |||
| In her preliminary statement on the main case page, Karanacs named seven editors whom have had disputes with me on topics that fall under the focus/locus of the gun-control and GGTF ArbComs. Three - Eric Corbett, Two kinds of pork, and Sitush - were formally ] in the GGTF ArbCom and another, Hell in a Bucket, was ''heavily'' involved in the case. The others - Sue Rangell, Mike Searson, and Scalhotrod - have been ''heavily'' involved in gun-control disputes with me. | |||
| As the "defendant" (so to speak) in this case, and someone whom at least a dozen (conservative guess) editors - including some admins - would like to see banned, I feel I have two burdens before me: | |||
| #To respond to the evidence presented by Karanacs (and presumably others) on the main case page and on the evidence page, and to questions by the arbitrators and others who participate in good faith; and | |||
| #To persuade the committee to formally add eight other editors as involved parties: EChastain, Eric Corbett, Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Hell in a Bucket, Scalhotrod, Sitush, and Sue Rangell. | |||
| If I only address the first task, I fear there will be more disputes in the future. If I concentrate on the second task only, I may be banned on the basis of one-sided evidence. | |||
| If evidence presented in my preliminary statement will be considered by the committee, I may not need to use this many words and diffs; otherwise, I will need them. | |||
| Respectfully, --] (]) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:41, 5 May 2015
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.
Comment on real life concerns
As one of the editors who has experienced not inconsiderable real life concerns as a result of the unfortunate remark of July 2014, and especially as a result of the ensuing community dialogue that "if it is too impolite for women here, why don't you just leave!" I shall be interested to monitor the outcome of this case. Many individuals like me who are active in the offline world of Misplaced Pages and open culture can not participate in site administration, movement leadership, or governance as a result of such concerns. That said, we should be clear that it is the remit of the Wikimedia Board, and not of Arbcom, to determine whether the US based non-profit funding this site intends to uphold the standards of a non-hostile working environment as defined in US law. Absent such guidance from the Board, we must assume that Arbcom may set social norms for the site as it sees fit. --Djembayz (talk)
- This has zero to do with the events of last July, they have to do with the behaviors of editors since that time. Hostile environments are created everyday and you'd be mistaken to think that polite words and flowers can't make a hostile environment just as easily as adult language. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed that there is more than one way to create a hostile environment. I'd like to point out that although your opinion is that the events of last July (which resulted in lengthy and acrimonious discussions between proponents and opponents of the use of vulgar sexual terms when interacting with other volunteers) are not relevant to the matter at hand, those events are the situation that is referred to in the opening statement by the person who filed the case, as being a source of the "battleground mentality". One additional thing to consider in this regard: it appears in this case that we may be looking at a change in direction, in which requesting interaction bans is no longer considered an appropriate way to deal with editors who one finds inappropriately vulgar/sexual-- which may exclude some of our less aggressive editors, especially female editors, from participation in specific topic areas. --Djembayz (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Canvassing at GTTF
| This one has run its course, Roger Davies 18:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
Question about case request vs evidence
I presented some diffs in my request to open the case. Do I need to copy them to my evidence section to make sure they stay front and center, or is that a waste of limited text? Thanks, Karanacs (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is an excellent question. In addition to herself and the seven editors Karanacs has named in her opening statement and evidence, there are three others for whom I would like to provide evidence of long-term harassment, tag-teaming, gun-control and GGTF DS violations, and socking (that contributes to these problems). Lightbreather (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that including a further ten people would be helpful so my vote would be "no". While mentioning others might sometimes be useful for context, it is primarily your conduct that is being examined. Roger Davies 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've posed the questions on the clerks email list and hopefully we'll get some word about these questions today. Liz 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Karanacs, in general, the diffs mentioned in the opening statement are considered part of the case and may be relied upon by arbitrators when drafting the proposed decision; therefore, there is no need to repeat them on the evidence page. Salvio 19:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Battleground at User talk:Karanacs
| Unproductive. Will everyone go and do something else please? Roger Davies 18:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There has also been a comment by Eric Corbett, which Karanacs deleted with the edit summary "i agree." Look at the May edits on her talk page since I started to compose this discussion: Disregarding individual violations of WP:IBAN, WP:AGF, WP:FORUM, and WP:CANVASS, this adds up to WP:BATTLEGROUND. That which has been discussed since the ArbCom was opened also violates WP:ARBPOL. Certainly Admissibility of evidence, and maybe some other areas, too? I request that the committee add the above-named persons as involved parties. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Request for extra words and diffs
Per WP:AC/P Submission of evidence I request double the default 1000 words and 100 diffs for named parties.
In her preliminary statement on the main case page, Karanacs named seven editors whom have had disputes with me on topics that fall under the focus/locus of the gun-control and GGTF ArbComs. Three - Eric Corbett, Two kinds of pork, and Sitush - were formally involved parties in the GGTF ArbCom and another, Hell in a Bucket, was heavily involved in the case. The others - Sue Rangell, Mike Searson, and Scalhotrod - have been heavily involved in gun-control disputes with me.
As the "defendant" (so to speak) in this case, and someone whom at least a dozen (conservative guess) editors - including some admins - would like to see banned, I feel I have two burdens before me:
- To respond to the evidence presented by Karanacs (and presumably others) on the main case page and on the evidence page, and to questions by the arbitrators and others who participate in good faith; and
- To persuade the committee to formally add eight other editors as involved parties: EChastain, Eric Corbett, Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Hell in a Bucket, Scalhotrod, Sitush, and Sue Rangell.
If I only address the first task, I fear there will be more disputes in the future. If I concentrate on the second task only, I may be banned on the basis of one-sided evidence.
If evidence presented in my preliminary statement will be considered by the committee, I may not need to use this many words and diffs; otherwise, I will need them.
Respectfully, --Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)