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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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)

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)