Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Workshop

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

Case clerks: Ks0stm (Talk) & Penwhale (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & GorillaWarfare (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 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.

Am now a party

I will be offline for a while. I started responding here prior to being added as a party. If my responses thus far need to be moved due to the changed circumstances then please would someone oblige. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sitush's posts must be moved to the comment by parties from comment by others sections. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole Party vs. Not party thing is largly irrelevant. The only functional difference is how many words of evidence you can submit before asking for more. Not being a party gives no special immunity to sanctions nor does it prevent you from submitting evidence, submitting workshop proposals or commenting on them. It's just minor bookkeeping. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The clerks or arbitrators can move it if they see fit. I won't be adding any more: the constant re-re-revisions being made to the Evidence and Workshop pages are driving me nuts and I'm struggling to follow what is going on in my limited on-wiki time, often only with a mobile phone for viewing (daren't edit much with it). Everyone will just have to take account of the fact that the points I made were prior to those revisions and that, frankly, the sheer number of revisions made is itself a demonstration of one of the major underlying problems. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that "won't be adding any more" changed, obviously ;) That's a side-effect of extensions, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe, Jehochman's posts are being misplaced aswell. They belong in the comment by others section, not comment be parties section. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

General note to parties and others

At this stage, please add additional material to the case pages only if it is (1) non-repetitive and (2) important. There is no need for anyone to repeat information that has already been presented or to feel that you need to get the "last word" on any particular issue. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that in a span of less than four hours user Patrol Forty was given a strange "signal to noise" warning, taken to ANI, and indefinitely blocked. He/she *may* be a sock, or if you AGF maybe a quick learner. Either way several of the players in this series of events are related to this ArbCom either as an involved party (Sitush) or as one of the pro-Eric/anti-Jimbo participants in heated discussions on the evidence talk page and/or on Jimbo Wales' talk page in the past week or so. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think ArbCom is perfectly capable of determining whether the community-blocked account Patrol forty is a "quick learner" or a "probable undeclared alternate account," phrasing the matter politely. Carrite (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Who cares? It's publicly available information. KonveyorBelt 21:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Trolling and foolishness, whether on or off our site, will not affect the proceedings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Konveyerbelt throws into his "Findings of fact" at the very end two false accusations without a single diff. I've asked him to remove them, but not holding my breath he will. Perhaps if he doesn't in a timely manner someone else should? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the accusations in question, I wouldn't call them false accusations, I would call them interpretations of the evidence. You've refuted those interpretations. As such, I don't believe they need to be removed by force. Worm^TT(talk) 08:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this content creation or harassment? [1] What are the chances that, out of some 4 million articles, someone came on the first article I ever created by accident? And what are the chances if they did it 5 minutes after naming me here: [2] This was not the first time either, a similar edit here: [3], after this edit [4]. Similar edits of sourced material: [5][6]. —Neotarf (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Very little chance. But is it harassment? Did you ask Drmies about this? I too noticed someone following me to articles, and I did ask them about it. When they admitted as such, I was pretty pissed off about it and told them to stop. End of problem.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

They did ask @Drmies: and they did get an explanation. Now he has been informed via the courtesy ping, he may well choose to provide the diff of that. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have taken exception to this unexplained removal of content here, noting that Drmies is an admin and the section blanking is in the context of a dispute elsewhere. These edits were made 5 minutes after Drmies' dismissive rant against me on the evidence page, naming me three times. Drmies called it a "bad article" and said the motive for the edits was to "honor" Eric and his mentee. —Neotarf (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Prompt close

Is there any chance that we could have a prompt and clear close of this section of the case when the time comes? The evidence extension did not get closed in such a manner, and the drift caused by the extension itself has seen a proliferation of character assassinations etc in this phase. I'm stressed up to the eyeballs with something else and would much prefer it if the Committee and Clerks could find their way to sticking with the published timetable, even if that works detrimentally to my own outcome here. Entirely selfish, I know.

Also, for clarification, could we please be told the precise time at which the presently stated 1 November close applies? I'm guessing it is 23:59 UTC 1 November, not some local time. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I know I'll be unavailable to make a prompt close, but I wouldn't object to one if a clerk is available. As NYB points out above, much of this workshop phase has been repeating points already made and hasn't been as helpful as past workshops. As for timings, we'd be looking at 23:59 UTC 1 November, yes. Worm^TT(talk) 08:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Worm. I for one have been pretty confused about the purpose of this case and it is something that I know applies to others also. I doubt that confusion has helped matters, and it is why I've generally limited myself to rebuttals. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So this is Nov. 1 in England, not Nov. 1 in America. —Neotarf (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the end of Nov 1 in England, yes. But since Wikipedia has always gone by UTC for server time, I don't see that it's an issue. Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not objecting, but just noting that Sitush's "some local time" means "USA", and Sitush's seemingly humble "even if that works detrimentally to my own outcome" means it is the Manchester time zone that gets the last word, not Washington DC. Just sayin'. —Neotarf (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll quote NYB above. "There is no need for anyone to repeat information that has already been presented or to feel that you need to get the "last word" on any particular issue". UTC is standard on Wikipedia - this isn't new. The case isn't about USA vs UK. Planning for a last word in 2 days time is not something you should be worrying about. Worm^TT(talk) 10:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Besides 23:59 UTC 1 November is 19:59 EDT 1 November, which means that someone living in DC would have every chance of making a state.ment before the workshop closes; it's not like the deadline falls at three in the morning... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

However the evidence page is still open for editing. Can that be locked now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 11:57, 29 October 2014‎

The last edit to the evidence page was on 26 October; unless it's edited again, I'd say protection is superfluous. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes just mentioning the way in which the system can be gamed is enough to discourage any shenanigans.—Neotarf (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm missing something here. Where were you thinking that gaming might appear? I'd be happy if this thing was closed right now because I can do without the added aggravation. Obviously, that can't happen but the next best thing is that it is closed bang on the advertised time, which didn't happen with the Evidence phase. I won't be around at 23:59 UTC 1 November and, indeed, I think you'll struggle to find the last Saturday when I was around at that time: I often go to watch football in the pub. My reference to "local time" was a reference to anything that is not UTC, ie: the universal standard. There does seem to be a lot of almost paranoia-led thinking going on with this case, or is it perhaps that I'm just not au fait with all of the politics in situations such as this? I prefer to AGF until WP:PACT is obviously applicable. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The best thing is that the committee takes as much time as it needs to consider the issues properly. No one wants another Tea Party case--what was that, 6 months?--but at least they eventually took the time to get it right (or *almost* right IMHO). —Neotarf (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand your gaming point but you seem to have inferred that it relates to me. The committee can take as long as it wants once the Workshop has closed. While that is open, we're now just going round in circles, which I guess is kind of the nub of Newyorkbrad's request in an earlier section above. I really do have more serious matters to attend to but as long as this stays open I'm finding myself obliged at least to rebut some of the many mis-statements otherwise there is a danger that this would be an inequitable process. I really do not want to comment, honestly, but I cannot always let character assassination etc go unremarked. Anyway, that's my lot in this thread: I got the answers that I wanted and your comments are really an aside to them, so probably best I drop it. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone might want to write an Arb bot that closes sections down automatically at 12:01 UTC. This can't be the first case this has been an issue.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the first time, but you are mistaken if you believe it has a practical effect on the proceedings. The arbs, even the newer ones, have been at this long enough to know when someone's pulling shit. They aren't going to be magically swayed because of that type of shennanigans. They do, however, expect participants to behave themselves and attempting to undermine the case and its proceeding is a form of mooning the jury. So feel free to do it and see what it gets you, cus you'll deserve it. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In my experience the committee is open to allowing a response to any accusations that are posted just before the page is locked. When this happened to me some time ago, I was able to email a clerk, who treated it as a routine matter and posted a response on my behalf. —Neotarf (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I might phrase things differently from the 204 IP above, but he's got the right idea. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no effect to late postings. It would be nice to have the instructions for these procedures explain this for future cases. I was personally under the impression that the cutoff times were strict, and adjusted my schedule accordingly. Other procedures like Arbcom elections appear to be very strict. Not a big deal to me either way, as I hope to never be involved in one of these again.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Lots of people make that mistake. The rules only exist to bring structure to the dispute and are enforced as much as they need to be. For example, the max words in evidence thing. Not really a nessesary rule until a certain disputant came along and drowned people in literally thousands of words of nothing. The deadlines are only there so people can understand that eventually they need to stop talking. They aren't 'gotchas' you can use to discredit your opponents, but people keep tattling and keep looking bad for it. Look below for the latest example of that, complete with NYB's predictable reaction. You know how easy it is to break the rules and get away with it? Ask. 'hey, I'm travelling this week and need more time. Can we extend this a bit?'. They usually accommodate simple requests like that. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The 500-word limit for clarification requests is a real burden. I once wrote one, and found I had used 800 words to explain myself. I then spent several hours editing it down to the limit by taking out adjectives, and the little words that make reading smoother, until I had little left but a 499-word outline. Big mistake. Nobody understood the request, and by the time I got back to it to make the explanation clear, it had been closed and archived, not like now, where distressing and inaccurate accusations against good editors stay unarchived and in public view forever. In retrospect, I should have simply posted what I had, and waited to see if there would be any objection. Instead, the matter has remained unresolved, and still festers. —Neotarf (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Canvass?

Is it really ok to post this on Jimbo's page. I don't mind that it draws attention to this case but the thing is surely not neutral in its presentation. I'm also unsure why the anonymous person didn't send the thing to the Arbcom mailing list (or have @Neotarf: do that) rather than having Neotarf proxy the full version into the Workshop here. Neotarf should only be posting their own comments, not someone else's, and this isn't the first time they've sidestepped what seems to be the procedure in this case.

And while we're on the subject of subtle canvassing, Carolmooredc posted something at WT:GGTF earlier today and that, too, strikes me as inappropriate in tone. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't use the word "arbitration" or link here, so it could be lots of situations of a bunch of guys ganging up on me. However, I did just discover that the arbitration is mentioned by name or linked several times on Wales talk pagerecently by both sides, which explains where some of these previously uninvolved people are coming from. I hope they haven't gotten the false impression I'm a stand-in for Wales and piling on about/getting rid of me is going to help them get rid of him and his civility nonsense (or whatever the other complaints are). It will just free up more time for my becoming the infamous world shaking person Sitush evidently thinks I am. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

None of this is going to matter to the decision. If I were the sole drafter here, I'd close the workshop page and this page right now, as little that is useful to the arbitrators is being added at this point, at least as far as I can see. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not useful to the part of the decision written by the arbitrators, but a decision is much more than the face page of a concluded case. There is the internal part of the dispute to sort out--for all the disputants to hash things out and consider the issues. Also there is the public face of the dispute to consider--as the arbcom, being elected, is presumed to speak for the editors as a whole, and it is hoped the decision can find public acceptance. The most successful conclusion is where the disputants, the arbcom, and the editing community are in close agreement over the outcome. A less successful outcome will have disputants posting non-sequiturs on arbs' talk pages for ages into the future, or non-disruptive editors leaving, or an irate voting community asking pointy questions at re-election time. —Neotarf (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree as well the "anonymous" email concerns should be given no weight whatsoever. If that person cares to have their opinion considered they can email arb or post a statement here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The workshop is closed. Please stop arguing. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
More c-bombs and f-bombs at GenderGap Just to note some edit-warring over the closure of a thread at ANI after a request to leave it open for comment by members of GenderGap project, who had just been notified of the discussion. The ensuing convergence of ANI participants on the GenderGap task force page has now reached more than 4000 words. —Neotarf (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC) I think those f/c-bombs continuing at GGTF is a way of reasserting the point that they are at the top of the pecking order, that they can do whatever they want, that they can make the fourth pillar as meaningful/meaningless as they want, and there is nobody who can stop them. The sad thing is, they seem to be correct. So, we can expect f/c-bombs continuing at GGTF and the fourth pillar being as meaningful/meaningless as they want. The rest of the community and WMF etc. are simply irrelevant because they can / will do nothing about it. This may not be as mindless as it seems because with the present trend continuing, we can expect only those who like f/c-bombs to remain, and the rest to leave Wikipedia, leaving the field clearer and clearer for those who like f/c-bombs until, ultimately, only people who like f/c-bombs will be left and WMF will have no choice but to remain stuck with them, and them only. I see an absolutely **electrifying** future for Wikipedia, I must say. Absolutely awesome.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC) There wasn't any profanity directed at anyone in the referenced section at the GenderGap task force discussion page. The first person to use profanity was Carolmooredc, who invited further discussion on the use of profanity, and accordingly the following discussion referred to specific terms. Since the discussion started with the question of reopening a thread where profanity was being discussed, it's not unusual for the discussion to turn to the topic of the thread in question. I sympathize if you'd prefer not to host the discussion on the Gender gap task force discussion page; you can suggest another venue. isaacl (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC) If someone is calling another editor a cunt or a fucker, motherfucker then that is certainly inappropriate. Merely using the word and not directing at an editor is not actionable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Just to clarify, I only used "c*nt" to give context to a quote relevant to the topic of the original thread. Eric then launched another discussion of what's wrong with his use of the word. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC) I did no such thing. Please leave me out of this until you learn to tell the truth. Eric Corbett 13:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC) I guess I forgot Eric's diff: What's the basis for your argument that calling someone a cunt is childish? In my experience that's a word very rarely used by children. Just to be factual. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC) What about Reddit "Men's Rights" members of Gender Gap It is my understanding that several members of Gender Gap group are also members of Reddit "Men's Rights" group. I know in the past this has been a problem for editing some topic areas. There is nothing in the evidence for this case about this group, indeed it would be surprising to find anything, since much information about this that has appeared on-wiki has been oversighted, and any information available off-wiki is probably not going to be presented here, because of WP:OUTING. So what effect will the Reddit membership have on the mission of GenderGap? And what is ArbCom's role in all of this--do they just want to pay lip service to the GenderGap thing by scolding a few individuals, or does it go deeper than that? —Neotarf (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Can't see how antifeminists are gonna help any in closing the gap... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Sigh. One of the big problems with this case has been the absence of the clerks. The workshop phase is over and there is no need for this nasty, vague discussion, which could easily have been raised earlier and with more context. FWIW, I'm certainly not involved with men's rights and I've never even looked at Reddit. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)