Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 13 November 2015

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

A little help please

@Liz: I'm not at all familiar with this page, but I'd like to make a proposal. Thanks in advance. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88:, you would just make a proposal at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop#Proposals by User:Example, replacing Example with your name. If you would like to see how Workshop proposals typically look and are formatted, check out Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop or Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. I don't expect proposals in this case to be as involved as the ones in these other cases. Liz 23:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: thank you for getting back to me. Can you explain the "principles" and "proposed findings of fact" sections? It looks like I give a description of how things should be, and for the next section I give a summary of people, places, and/or events and restate evidence? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The best advice I can offer is to read over Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop, look through some old cases at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2015 and base your proposal on what you see, both in the Workshop and in the Proposed Decision pages. I don't think there is any magic formula.

But know that you don't need to post all of your principles and findings of fact at once, you can start a section and build it up over the course of the Workshop phase until the deadline (November 11th). Liz 00:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Thank you very much for the help, I think I have an idea of what to do now. Also, am I allowed to propose sanctions against non-parties? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe so, Sturmgewehr88 because Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page. It is difficult if not impossible to argue for imposing a sanction on an editor that isn't tied to a finding of fact of misconduct which needs to be supported by evidence from the evidence page.

Maybe GorillaWarfare can confirm this as being correct. Liz 21:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There were a couple of requests for parties to be added to the case while the evidence phase was open; if you thought a non-party should be involved in the case, you should have mentioned it then. It's not particularly fair to add parties this late in the case, as they will have missed out on the opportunity to provide their own evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I did mention an interest in adding AlbinoFerret, and he has provided plenty of evidence. His increasing attention to this case and great involvement in virtually every ANI case regarding the parties is enough for him to be counted as involved in this case. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I oppose being named as a party. I am a community member who is active on AN/I and AN at times. I have commented on numerous other sections on those pages that dont involve the people in this case. My only interaction with Sturmgewehr88 has been on the noticeboards as an uninvolved community member. At this late date, and the fact I only gatherd evidence for this case as a non party, adding me would be a huge disadvantage to me. I was unable to see specific evidence gathered against me,, no statements were made against me, and have no way of gathering anything that could be used as a defence against whatever if brought forth. AlbinoFerret 00:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I did see that request, and I was not and am not inclined to add AlbinoFerret as a party. Editors are allowed to pay attention to arbitration cases, and I don't think his participation in the ANI discussions is sufficient to involve him in this case as a party. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare Though I am not a party to this case, it appears that Sturmgewehr88 has added a section on me. AlbinoFerret 21:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I've hatted the two proposals that exclusively refer to AlbinoFerret. @Sturmgewehr88: It's questionable behavior for you to ask here whether you can propose sanctions against non-parties, then do so after being told that that's not appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

I see by the section above that some editors may be new to these pages. Would a clerk or arb please clarify that what is proposed and the responses to the proposals must be based on the evidence provided in the evidence phase and case requests? Thanks AlbinoFerret 17:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The guide concerning the Workshop phase can be found at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop. The relevant section is Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page..

It is up to the arbitrators who examine the case to decide how much weight to give the proposals and the comments made about them. Liz 21:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Do the diffs already provided in the "Evidence" phase need to be copy-pasted into the "proposals" here?

AlbinoFerret and I seem to be in disagreement on this point. I don't really mind him posting diffs in his proposal, but I deliberately gathered all the evidence I needed and posted it before the November 4 deadline, and so it seems kind of pointless to repost the same diffs here as part of my proposals for what to do based on this evidence. None of the other ArbCom cases I've examined gave extensive diffs in the "principles", "findings" or "solutions"... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You do not need to repeat your evidence in your workshop sections. Liz 23:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: now you can strike all of those "there is no evidence" comments. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Workshop says "Proposed findings of fact should be supported by evidence on the evidence page. Linking to the evidence page or a few of the best diffs illustrating the point is helpful." While I cant say they are required, the comments are my observation of the sections. AlbinoFerret 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: No, that was obviously not your intent when you originally made those comments. You were ignoring the evidence page after misunderstanding whether evidence is required to be restated here. That could well be a good faith mistake, but leaving them there now makes it look like everything Hijiri said is an unfounded accusation. It would be much more simple for you to strike them than for me to paste Liz's response after every comment. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Your earliest comments were "There is no evidence presented for this.", not merely that they weren't on the page. You then went on to spam the page with "Evidence needs to be on this page to prove the findings." You have an opportunity now to prove your good faith and are declining it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. AlbinoFerret 17:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 17:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Facts are not based on reading between the lines and mind reading. AlbinoFerret 17:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: and now it's becoming obvious that you're just here to cause drama. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, I hope this case will end the drama. Please stop pining me, its excessive the number of times you have pinged my name. I am watching the pages. AlbinoFerret 18:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Just keep adding to the record. The more diffs we can collect on your behaviour the better. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it's for your benefit that I ping you with every response, but alright. And obviously that's the entire point of this case, but you are not helping with your behavior here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Workshop phase closing tomorrow

This is just a notice to remind all parties and interested editors that the Workshop phase of this arbitration case will be closing at the end of the day (UTC time) tomorrow, November 11th. Please post any remaining proposals you might have prepared before then. Thank you. Liz 16:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Liz I was in a hurry, and forgot to sign what I added. Been at the hospital most of the day, my wife fell last night and messed up her back. Would you make a note on the edits instead of my sig since the page is locked? AlbinoFerret 00:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, tell me which ones (link/diff). Sorry to hear about your wife, I hope she recovers soon. Liz 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

They are in the Analysis of evidence , the only things in there, didnt get to complete it for everyone like I had hoped to today. She herniated a disk, looks like surgery. I have had a few back problems and surgeries, I know what she is going through. Its going to be hard for me to be up there, limited mobility, but I dont think anything can keep me away. Thanks for adding the notes in advance. AlbinoFerret 00:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret and Liz: The Analysis of evidence section says "Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis"; were diffs supposed to be provided in the section? I see that AlbinoFerret's additions there are his interpretations of my and Hijiri's evidence, and I can follow along with most of what he's reffering to, but stuff like "Jhon Carter suggests that all editors are responsible for their own actions" I don't know where he found that. I added a diff where John Carter said "we are not responsible for what our readers may or may not conclude" (NPOV exists because we are responsible) if that's what he's reffering to, but that's not what he said. I think these statements of "fact" require citations. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr88, I politly asked you not to ping me earlier, please dont continue to ping me. The sections are based on the diffs in the evidence sections they are named after and linked to in the header, the part in the brackets is the section or claim in the evidence section. The rest is my opinion of what that evidence for that claim or section shows. They are not statements of facts thats in the workshop above, its an analysis (opinion), as the section is named "Analysis of evidence". If I had more time I would probably have added the diffs. AlbinoFerret 06:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

At this point, the workshop is closed and the strength or weakness of the evidence and proposals will be judged by the arbitrators. Liz 10:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret:, it's still unclear where you neglected to sign. Please give me a link to the exact section or provide a diff and I will place a signature there. Otherwise, the Workshop phase is closed and right now the arbitrators are considering the information provided in this case. Liz 10:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasnt clear about the location Liz. I added a diff above. The edit adds the only two sections in the Analysis of evidence section here and here. AlbinoFerret 14:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The links didn't work for me. Are you saying that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop#Analysis of evidence is all your section? Liz 20:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I was the only one who added any analysis, so yes, its all added by me. AlbinoFerret 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

After the fact comments

First, I guess I should say that a pre-existing condition causing seizures acted up again this past week, and has limited my ability to do lots of things, particularly since I totaled my computer in the process. This explains my lack of participation in the workshop phase. Having said that, after the fact I would be interested in I guess indicating my own preferences for results, which are basically imposition of discretionary sanctions on Hijiri88, as opposed to a site ban, although I have an idea that the latter will become ultimately necessary, and an admonishment of Sturmgewehr88 to cease to function as a kind of proxy or self-appointed "defender" of Hijiri88. I can see that there has been serious misconduct by others, but it seems to me that that misconduct was likely precipitated by the misconduct of others, specifically and most importantly Hijiri88 himself, and I have every reason to believe that if the conduct which prompted their responses was ended, that misconudct by those who are not regular defenders of Hijiri88 would likely e curtailed or eliminated. Regarding the point regarding Sturmgewehr88's conduct, I forwarded an e-mail to the committee mailing list which Sturmgewhr88 had sent me regarding TH 1980 which is I believe relevant. I have yet to receive an acknowledgement of that e-mail, and wonder if the nature of it might not be useful under these circumstances.

I would also I suppose request a review of some of the other proposals, particularly those of Sturmgewehr88, which to my eyes raise serious issues of understanding and/or competence of the proposers. As per at least one of his comments on the workshop page, he seems to think it a virtual requirement that others are required to "stand up" for Hijiri88 to be seen as being neutral. No one is in fact obliged to "stand up" for anyone, although, obviously, Sturmgewehr88 seems to believe otherwise. Also, in general, not saying something negative can often be seen as implicitly indicating that they see nothing wrong. This assumption of Sturmgewehr88 once again to at least my eyes raises extremely serious questions whether he is capable of being non-partisan in any matters in which Hijiri99 is involved.

I also note that apparently Curly Turkey has on the workshop page stated that someone (presumably Hijiri88?) is his or her "boyfriend." Interesting. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)