| Revision as of 13:43, 12 January 2015 editRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Proposed decision target date: reply @Hipocrite← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:21, 24 October 2016 edit undoKs0stm (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators25,726 edits fix |
| (567 intermediate revisions by 97 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{notice|header=This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched| |
|
{{ombox |
|
|
|
*To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see ]. |
|
| type = delete |
|
|
|
*To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see ]. |
|
| textstyle = font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; |
|
|
|
*To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see ].}} |
|
| text = {{red|<big>Before editing this page ensure you comment in the correct section.</big>}}<p>If an incident occurs that you feel the Arbitration Committee needs to know about as it will affect the proposed decision, please post a short, neutral summary above. |
|
|
|
{{Casenav|case name=GamerGate|clerk1=Ks0stm|clerk2=Sphilbrick|draft arb=Roger Davies|draft arb2=Beeblebrox|draft arb3=David Fuchs|active=14|inactive=5|recused=0||}} |
|
__NONEWSECTIONLINK__ |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Casenav}} |
|
|
==Comments before proposed decision is posted== |
|
|
===Is there a good reason the workshop is still left open despite having a close notice on it?=== |
|
|
{{moved to|]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__NOINDEX__ |
|
===Loganmac=== |
|
|
|
{{ombox |image=] |text= This page has been ]. The contents of this page can be viewed in the . <!-- Template:Courtesy blanked --> |
|
{{hat|The introduction of new evidence is not something the Committee "needs to know about as it will affect the proposed decision". <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 04:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
|
For the record, as there had been evidence submitted regarding a "Logan_Mac" on Reddit, but the dumb outing policy says identifying that account with any editor going by a remarkably similar username is outing unless the Misplaced Pages editor identifies as the Reddit member, I figure we should note some facts. While {{ping|Loganmac}} has avoided identifying as the Reddit user, he did identify as the operator of a Twitter account under a similar handle. In ] Loganmac reported Ryulong for, among other things, saying of the tweet that "he told me on social media to 'learn to fucking read'", which obviously identifies Logan as the Twitter user. In , the Logan account there linked to by the Logan account on Reddit two minutes after it was made. In a later tweet the Logan account as a poster on KotakuInAction. Logan clearly identified as the Twitter user and the Twitter user clearly identified as the Reddit user. As such, I do not believe it is outing to state Loganmac here is Logan_Mac on Reddit. Do with that what you will.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The account to which Ryulong sent me that tweet has been deleted https://twitter.com/loganmac91 I don't get how is this relevant to anything, no evidence was against me that wasn't accusation of SPAs by one editor at most. An Arb already said this is irrelevant ] (]) 21:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The account provided here to which Ryulong sent me that tweet it's not the same as the link provided by TDA here the ] policy prevents us from everyone judging what's "obvious", for example are you this user that identifies as "The Devil's Advocate" on Twitter? or any of these? or what's there to stop me from making an account called The Devil's Advocate and admit on the account I'm a Wiki editor and post as you? Again in any case this was already deemed irrelevant even for self-admitted cases ] (]) 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::All this proves is that you changed your Twitter account name seeing as (archive comparisons: ).—] (]) 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Obviously, you changed names on Twitter. That is why someone @replying to @Logan_910 was shown @replying to @LoganMac91 and @Logan_910 responded back to that tweet. Stop being so silly. For instance, Quinn was originally @ZoeQuinnzel, but changed names to @TheQuinnspiracy so her current handle . You identified as @LoganMac91 who changed names to @Logan_910 and who identified as Logan_Mac on Reddit. I have only identified myself as operating the accounts at Wikia, Wikipediocracy, and The Escapist. That is the distinction. Off-wiki conduct has not been dismissed as irrelevant, though comments off-wiki are not necessarily something that is going to get a user sanctioned. However, your off-wiki activity should be just as much subject to scrutiny as that of any other party and not be excluded due to some bizarre new technicality in the policy. It's only fair.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Delay?=== |
|
|
The casenav says the proposed decision has been pushed back? I'm not sure this was announced anywhere for parties.—] (]) 07:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:And given the mass of accusations and counter accusations we have to sift through is very likely to be pushed back again. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:*{{u|Roger Davies}}, I believe 7 Jan has passed in UTC. Could we get an update on discussion progress and/or a new date for the proposed decision? Thank you. ]] ''']''' 01:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::* Please see ], ] <sup>]</sup> 09:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===8chan=== |
|
|
{{hat|Thanks, noted. Continuation of this thread is not likely to be helpful in reaching a final decision. -- ] (]) 07:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Not sure if this counts as "new evidence", but worth pointing out. 8chan's editing efforts are . This case is ridiculously long, but a key component seems to be the extra-wiki coordination that is amounting to disruption. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 06:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:As of this minute, they are targeting , , and . ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 06:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::/pol/ is not Gamergate, the only one of those articles that's been argued as linked to Gamergate is cultural marxism, which has already been deleted and redirected. If you are concerned about the other two articles, request protection for them. ] (]) 06:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Concur with weedwacker. This has nothing to do with gamergate but with /pol/. A clerk should close this. ] (]) 11:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And yet 8chan and Gamergate are related to /pol/ much like reddit is.—] (]) 12:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes let's make broad generalizations about users of sites. ] (]) 21:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Two admin issues=== |
|
|
{{hat|New evidence and not helpful to arriving at a final decision. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
|
The first is a bit minor, though I think it is worth noting. HJ Mitchell against Kitsunedawn. Mitchell imposed a topic ban on any edits or comments "connected to GamerGate or any person involved in GamerGate anywhere on Misplaced Pages" as opposed to a basic topic ban from any edits related to GamerGate. To me that seems overly vague and unduly broad given that it could arguably apply to any edit connected to any person who has been noted as involved in GamerGate on either side. Furthermore HJ suggests that any violation of that topic ban would result in a "permanent block" of the editor. It is just another in one of several unduly aggressive actions against other editors. Note that Kitsunedawn has been editing Misplaced Pages every month since October 2013 so we are not talking an SPA or a "zombie" account. |
|
|
|
|
|
More noteworthy is an incident involving Gamaliel. After Baranof requested sanctions on me for undoing his redaction of a Breitbart link on the talk page, Gamaliel as an uninvolved admin that my restoration would be disruptive stating it is somehow a violation of BLP to link to Breitbart even though it was not being suggested for BLP content or even necessarily for a statement of fact. and noted his clear involvement in contentious discussions regarding the very issue of using Breitbart as a source even in generally acceptable cases such as a source of opinion. Despite this, with a statement that essentially implied linking to Breitbart in itself is a BLP violation and thus a cause for sanctions. His involvement regarding Breitbart is really beyond obvious and his actions effectively dictate the handling of a source that has been generally favorable to GamerGate.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 08:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The (non-)"issue" regarding my actions was discussed on the workshop talk page, where I explained my rationale at some length. I know you don't like it when people you agree with get sanctioned, but I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that I've sanctioned editors on the other side. The arbs are quite welcome to review the RevDel'd edit and judge for themselves whether they think a topic ban is an "unduly aggressive" response to accusing named individuals of criminal activity. Personally, I thought it was a relatively mild response given that they'd previously been warned about BLP, but I thought a topic ban was sufficient since they have edited constructively elsewhere. Oh, and it's courteous at the very least to inform editors that you're slinging mud at them on arbitration pages, though poor Gamaliel (although I think his judgement has been sub-par) is probably used to it by now. {{ping|Gamaliel}} FYI. ] | ] 13:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Isn't this the kind of thing that could be resolved by the community on appeal at ]? If the ban on Kitsunedawn stands, I don't see what issue exists with respect to adminning. Admins are editors, and like other editors they are allowed to have opinions that other editors may disagree with. --] 13:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Actually I'd disagree with that. If an admin wants to express their own opinion or write articles or participate in talk page discussions, that's fine, but they do so as ordinary editors. They can't then come back and act as an uninvolved admin because no matter how objective they are or think they are, the side that disagrees with their opinions is going to accuse them of bias. ] | ] 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: If we're at the point where people seriously consider someone to be "involved" merely for expressing an opinion on the application of the BLP to certain sources, I think this arbitration may be needed more urgently than I thought! How could BLP-related ban ever be imposed, if the decision on the merits cannot be considered for fear of being "involved"? --] 15:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You should examine the diffs from my comment on the enforcement page as Gamaliel's comments regarding Breitbart go well beyond simply questioning the merits of citing Breitbart: . His statements about a named Breitbart editor would seem to be BLP violations as well.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{Ping|HJ Mitchell}}, I only see three sanctions of yours logged at the sanction page, are there ones we have missed? ] (]) 14:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thank you for un-hatting this. The hat was done in good faith, but was a little premature imo. Gamaliel should have a chance to respond to the accusations and I'm perfectly happy to reply to your question.<p>The three sanctions I've logged there are the only ones for which I've invoked the community-authorised general sanctions, but I've made several other actions related to gamergate as ordinary admin actions. For example, I indef'd ReynTime, I briefly blocked Ryulong for restoring unsubstantiated allegations on the evidence page, and I blocked and later unblocked DungeonSiegeAddict510. I've also blocked several disruptive single-purpose accounts, sockpuppeteers and sockfarms (notably Torga), and several accounts that were created to harass Ryulong, though most of these came to my notice at AIV or SPI. Other than that, I've previously protected the main article and one or two related articles as result of RfPP requests (which is also how this whole mess came across my watchlist in the first place), and I've RevDel'd a handful of serious BLP issues. ] | ] 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There's nothing to respond to. I closed a stale discussion, and making a policy call that TDA disagrees with does not constitute "involvement". ] <small>(])</small> 18:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've just reviewed the diff and it does indeed contain serious accusations of criminal activity. This is exactly why we have a BLP policy. ] <small>(])</small> 16:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I closed the discussion because the discussion was stale for a week. I was not going to impose sanctions on The Devil's Advocate for the reasons I stated there, no other admin expressed interest in doing so or was even participating in the discussion at all, so the enforcement request had already long since been denied and there was no purpose keeping it open. The sanctions enforcement page is not a forum for an open-ended pile-on to engage in frivolous complaints about me or an echo chamber for aggrieved partisans to complain to each other. It's very simple: The sanctions enforcement page is for sanctions enforcement, it was determined that in this case there would be no sanctions, the case was closed. ] <small>(])</small> 16:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Kitsunedawn is lucky not to have been blocked for a gross BLP violation: a topic ban is about the mildest measure available. As for Gamaliel's closure without action, I assume this is an objection to Gamaliel closing the sanction request against TDA without action, rather than someone else? TDA seems to be asserting any action of any kind is foreclosed if TDA has at some point disagreed with said admin, no matter how routine or uncontroversial the action may be. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::If you are suggesting Kitsunedawn should have been blocked indefinitely then I think this attitude exhibits part of the problem. Kitsunedawn is not some single-purpose account, but someone who has been actively contributing to Misplaced Pages for over a year, though not really on any BLP articles. This material was not added to articlespace, but to talkspace where the application of BLP is not as widely understood and more often violated even by well-established editors. My issue is not that action was taken, but the type of action. A vague and broad restriction such as a ban on "any edits connected to any person involved in GamerGate" with threat of a permanent block for any violation is not the proper response to someone who likely does not even fully understand our increasingly complex policies. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Personally, I believe the best approach would be to calmly and civilly engage the editor to inform him or her of how the comment violated policy. When I see an editor's talk page filled with templates and wikilegalistic threats and that editor is not engaged in vandalism or sockpuppetry then I feel this is a mark against those engaging the editor at least as much as a mark against the editor. The defense that "this editor did something bad" is not really sufficient to justify a lack of civil engagement regarding that editor's actions.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:TDA is simply trying to take attention away from him by drumming up little to do about nothing issues regarding others.--] 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:With no more respect to {{U|The Devil's Advocate}}, this shadow theater of "You're involved because you've applied sanctions against someone I support" nonsense must end. The evidence phase closed nearly two weeks ago and the workshop phase closed several days ago and still we have unnecessary posturing, evidence introductions, rebuttals, and some of the worst rudeness I've seen in a long time. Clerks and Arbitrators, please take a more active role in enforcing the purpose of the Proposed decision page as the continual breaking of Arbitration procedure is only serving to enbolden all viewpoints to continue the battleground mentality. ] (]) 19:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Mitchell's sanction occurred right around the end of the workshop phase and I didn't notice the sanction until soon before I raised it here. Gamaliel's close of that discussion took place just about a day ago. The issue with that, to be clear, is his : "After a week, there is no evidence of '''continuing insertions of offending material''', so there is nothing sanctionable here. '''All parties are reminded that talk page discussions must be compliant with BLP'''." His close given his original statement seems to treat the restoration of a link to Breitbart as a BLP violation even when it was supplied on the talk page of an article that is not a BLP and was neither being used nor suggested for BLP claims. Basically, Gamaliel has decided that any link to a Breitbart article that makes any sort of contentious claim about a living person is a BLP violation and should be redacted with the "offending" editor open to sanctions for adding or restoring such a link even on the talk page. |
|
|
|
|
|
::That Gamaliel has been heavily involved in heated discussions about the use of Breitbart is a matter of being involved and I don't think anyone reviewing the relevant evidence could come away with a different impression. For the record, I do not contend that Mitchell is involved regarding GamerGate, though I do think he was involved regarding the ANI discussion about Tutelary and Titanium Dragon hence why my workshop proposal mentioned his actions regarding that matter. If I have not explicitly accused an admin of being involved then one should take that as me not making such an accusation. That should go without saying, but it seems people wish to misrepresent any criticism I make of an admin as an implication of them being involved. Reality is that being uninvolved does not mean an admin is free from scrutiny.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: TDA, just for clarity, for Gamaliel's Breitbart usage, you're referring to ], right? ] (]) 22:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That is where relevant talk page discussions occurred.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is rather telling that this user has not posted a thing since the block, as that is generally a sign of a single-purpose or throwaway account; an editor who is truly here in good faith would be more likely to protest, post unblock messages, and so on. ] (]) 23:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Are you somehow suggesting Kistunedawn knew GamerGate was going to happen back in October of 2013 and prepared an account simply to edit the future article that at the time had no basis for existing?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking at least for myself, very little of this is going to help the arbitrators decide the case. ] (]) 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Ground rules === |
|
|
|
|
|
<big>'''The Committee is no longer accepting evidence for this case and it may not be introduced on this page as commentary. Material purporting to be informational, which in fact introduces new evidence, may be summarily removed by the clerks. Use of this page to disparage, to cast aspersions, or to engage in personal attacks is prohibited and editors who do so may be banned by the clerks from the case pages or blocked.'''</big> ] <sup>]</sup> 04:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Clarification=== |
|
|
So, just to check, I looked to see if these kinds of "please refrain" notices are common since I don't recall encountering one when I have commented on other arbitration cases and found this was actually the only recent case to have such a notice. I presume this is due to the similarly atypical approach to the ending of the evidence and workshop phases where the page is full-protected, something that generally doesn't happen in other cases. Given that this is currently the only arbitration case page open for discussion, I am curious what Arbs think qualifies under the above notice since the things I have presented are all directly relevant to the case and potentially things that could have an effect on it, but have been shut down, while the discussion about 8chan that has no clear relevance to this case is still up and running. The statements about "new evidence" are misleading as presumably any incident brought up here that could affect the proposed decision would involve some form of evidence.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:At this point, the least said here the better. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Have hatted the 8chan thread also. --] (]) 07:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Information: sanctions against named parties=== |
|
|
{{archive top|The FYI has been provided, no need for a discussion about the merits of doing so. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Acting as an uninvolved admin, I have been processing a backlog of requests at ], and have issued general sanctions against several editors. I am noting my actions here because two of those editors are named parties to this case, and Arbcom may or may not wish to take these (in my opinion mild) sanctions into consideration: |
|
|
*Loganmac is against making personally directed comments on article talk pages and counselled to use the enforcement mechanisms available should he believe another editor is behaving disruptively. |
|
|
*Ryulong is "" He may request an exception for posting on arbitration pages from a clerk or arbitrator should he wish. |
|
|
While I will be happy to answer any questions from arbs or clerks here, I won't be responding to comments by others unless arbs indicate a desire to hear from me. An arb or clerk can collapse this if desired. ] | ] 20:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hat|No need for this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)}} |
|
|
::I have expressed my concern about the sanction , and requested HJ Mitchell to reduce the duration of the restriction so that it does not affect the proposed decision or prolong the drama needlessly even at community level. ] (]) 11:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
*Update: As the result of a suggestion by {{u|Ncmvocalist}}, I have reduced the duration of Ryulong's restriction. It will now expire once he receives notification from a clerk that the case has been closed. The appeal remains open, and this action is not intended to make that discussion moot, but is merely a response to what I felt was a reasonable suggestion. ] | ] 14:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Further FYI: I have just indefinitely blocked Xander756, as he returned to editing today, whereupon he personally attacked the admin who previously blocked him and repeated the BLP violation for which he was originally blocked. I have also revoked his talk page access, as he used it to continue making personal attacks last time he was blocked. I have informed him that he is welcome to email me or to appeal to UTRS, and he has since emailed me. ] | ] 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:*The user e-mailed me that his appeal at AN only stated his original edit concerned Anita Sarkeesian's work history and that he did not specify any further in his appeal what the edit entailed. Can an arbitrator or clerk verify whether that is an accurate assessment of Xander's appeal?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 00:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:**The comment at AN that was RevDelled for violating the BLP policy contained an unsourced allegation related to Anita Sarkeesian's work history. ] (]) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I am of the understanding that the user is claiming that he had a source, and was attempting to discuss the source, but the source was revdeleted with his initial post. Further, because of the revdelete, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what said user actually said in both the initial incident and the revdeleted appeal. This, it would be difficult for said user to defend himself while being unable to link to said incident because of the revdeletion. I believe TDA was asking an arbitrator or clerk to look into it because I assume he believes they have other tools that allow them to view content that has been revdeleted, in the interest of confirming or refuting said user's allegations, which if true, appear to be serious. I personally do not know if anyone can view revdeleted information after said deletion. ] (]) 02:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*So, I think this qualifies as something important concerning the above sanction by HJ Mitchell. After I asked for Xander to e-mail me a description of the remark he made in his appeal, ] went and for requesting such information. Obviously, I am unblocked following . Additional note is that this admin has previously taken admin action ( ) in the topic area.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Proposed decision target date === |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all. To reflect the size/complexity of the case, I've just updated this to 21 January 2015. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:With the greatest respect, {{u|Roger Davies|Roger}}, that's ridiculous. This case has already dragged on for far too long and the date of the PD has already been put back (twice?). It doesn't take the best part of four weeks (27 December–21 January) or even a fortnight to sift through the evidence and the workshop and reduce it all down to a proposed decision. My workshop proposals are entirely based on other people's evidence and it took me a couple of days to read every claim and scrutinise every diff (a decent chunk of it is duplicate, so hovering over links, especially with ] enabled, could save you some time). The workshop is probably another happy day or two's reading if you read all the rebuttals and rebuttals to rebuttals and "he started it". Of course you'd put careful thought into an almost-final decision so that could take another few days. So allowing for real life I can see how it could take a week, maybe two at the outside, but four weeks seems far too long. ] | ] 16:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: If someone were to devote their whole life to ArbCom, I may agree with your timelines. However, this is a large and complex case by any standard, and it is not the only thing any of the arbitrators have to deal with. While I am dismayed as well at the delay, I believe we should trust that the arbitrators are giving their full attention to this and their other duties and await their decision. Your comment is very inappropriate. ] (]) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Even if you disagree here, it's hardly an inappropriate complaint to raise. The original request for an Arbcom Case was submitted on 10 November. Gamergate has now been at Arbcom for 59 days. Adding another 13 seems a bit over the top. Has any other Arbitration case ever gone on this long? ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Given the amount of crazy they have to sift through here, it's understandable. ] <small>(])</small> 18:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ec}}From my own recollection most do, and most also have "extensions" on the proposed decision due date and extentions for the Arbs to wrangle about which PD statements they are going to support/oppose/be silent on. ] (]) 18:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That actually has nothing to do with it. There is a truckload of evidence and it takes a decent amount of time to sift through all of it. --] | ] 19:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I was not speaking of this case, but a great many that I have rubbernecked and peanut gallery spectated on, but thanks for assuming ill intent... ] (]) 20:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm quite fine with the delay, I can understand the length of this case and that the arbs are busy people and the holidays were a busy time as well. I'm sure many people would have appreciated more notice of a delay though, because I've seen quite a few comments from editors about withholding editing the topic area or bringing up new sanctions against editors named in the ArbCom case until after it has ended. ] (]) 18:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Heck, even the ] case took longer than 72 days. A long time for an Arbcom case would be more like ]--] (]) 01:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Curious, are the incoming Arbs going to be involved or will the departing Arbs remain active for this case?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::There's a current list at the top of this page of the Arbs active on this case. Four of the retiring Arbs while three of the new ones aren't active on it. ] (]) 19:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: Postponing the decision date isn't usually a problem (it happens frequently), the bigger problem is usually the cases aren't closed by the updated proposed date and come a week or two later. I'd rather have a realistic decision date than one that is overoptimistic and ArbCom doesn't abide by. Hopefully, this date is one that will be kept. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 00:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Believe me, we want to get it done. But free time is often in short supply during the holiday season, plus we've been in the middle of the transition for the new committee, and of course there is the fact that, in response to a apparent need for it, we doubled evidence limits. Over 20 people submitted evidence, there is a lot to go through, however I am hoping we can get this finished before the new date even arrives. I'm quite ready to go back to being a regular old admin. ] (]) 01:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{od}} Every year, we can try to vote for candidates who promise to be open and honest about the deliberative procedure. Every year, we can be disappointed that they are unwilling or unable to deliberate in public. What's doing the same thing and expecting different results called? ] (]) 15:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:This has nothing whatsoever to do with openness and private deliberations. It has to do with the amount of time it is taking to go through - with care and due diligence - and collate and organise the public evidence from 41 different people and the private evidence of around 35 emails from another 16 people into possible findings against the 35 parties. This comes on top of the long Christmas holidays and the immense complexities of inducting new arbitrators into the complex logistical structure that the committee operates in. Bear in mind that despite our best efforts to offload responsibilities only about 15% on the committee's work is on-wiki. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The committee constantly alleges that it's constant and massive delays are not due to back-room dealings and negotiations. I don't believe them. Why can't you "collate and organise the public evidence from 41 different people" in public, exactly? The long Christmas holidays were scheduled about 1700 years ago. If the 85% of the work you do that you don't tell anyone about and that appears to have little impact to the project is taking you away from the 15% of the work you do that has massive public effects, I have an idea for you - stop doing it. ] (]) 13:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: {{u|Hipocrite}} First, we have drafted publicly on several occasions, notable for the Climate change case. It's very time-consuming, generating hundreds of thousands of words of direct comment (check out the extensive archives on ] plus extensive discussion on individual arbitrators talk pages). So, doing the detail in private is much more time-efficient than drafting in public. Second, the 85% has a massive public effect, cumulatively much more than any particular case.<ol><li>We handle the ever-increasing amount of off-wiki harassment in private: this should really be a WMF responsibility but they have so far declined to take it over.<li>The CU/OS stuff is our responsibility, because the community has failed to produce a workable appointment system and is unable to scrutinise CU/OS activity.<li>Administrator misconduct is our responsibility because the community has failed to come up with a workable community recall process.<li>Community ban appeals are our responsibility because the community has failed to respond to efforts to take it back under their control and because some ban appeals involve privacy issues.</ol>The inference from your remarks that we spend 85% of our time discussing about the colour of the bike pages. That is very wide of the mark. That's just the start of it, ] <sup>]</sup> 13:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I personally do not care in the slightest if it comes in 2 minutes or is delayed 2 weeks. Let's not give too much weight and real-life credence to what is just an argument on the internet. That isn't to say that this is unimportant; for those of us who are genuine Misplaced Pages editors here, we have an interest in this affair as it concerns a project many of us have poured many hours over many years into. But it's only important ''to us''. This isn't a murder trial, there's no prison time or financial penalties looming. Our lives won't be shattered if some of us volunteers are told by a bunch of other volunteers that we can no longer toil away for free while Jimmy Wales . From the playoffs this weekend to the NCAA championship Monday, there's three days of football (manly American football, not the diving divas of "soccer") to enjoy. GO PATS! ] (]) 16:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
----<!-- All comments should be made above this line --> |
|
|
{{cot|Comments before the proposed decision should be made above. If an incident occurs that you feel the Arbitration Committee needs to know about as it will affect the proposed decision, please post a short, neutral summary above.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
=Comments regarding specifics of the proposed decision= |
|
|
{{ombox |
|
|
| type = content |
|
|
| text = <big>Comments may be made on specifics of the proposed decision as it is written in the appropriate section below.</big><p>Comments here may be related to how current proposals are written (such as minor changes to grammar) or short questions or suggestions regarding the evidence or justification for a specific proposal. ''Threaded discussion is permitted.'' |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
==Proposed principles== |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
==Proposed findings of fact== |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
==Proposed remedies== |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----<!-- All comments should be made above this line --> |
|
|
=General comments= |
|
|
{{ombox |
|
|
| type = content |
|
|
| text = <big>General comments about the proposed decision should be made in this level one section.</big><p>Comments here may be related to how a specific user is addressed (i.e. in both finding of fact and remedy) or suggestions for further proposals. ''With the exclusion of arbitrators, all editors must comment in their own section only.'' |
|
|
}} |
|
|
===Statement by {username}=== |
|
|
Editors may make relevant statements addressing general aspects of the proposed decision (which are not related to proposal). |
|
|
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Statement by {username}=== |
|
|
Editors may make relevant statements addressing general aspects of the proposed decision (which are not related to proposal). |
|
|
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
