Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision

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.

Outcomes?

Does anyone have any idea when outcomes might be posted? I do realise that people are busy and that this has been a messy case almost from the day it was proposed. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

These are (when they are posted) still only proposed decisions. I expect that there will be a lot of "Joe Bloggs is reminded". I fear there will be unuseful sanctions. We shall see. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

They are proposed decisions followed by motions on this page, as far as I can understand. I'm not fussed about what these may be but I would like it to be resolved. I'm under an awful lot of stress at the moment regarding an unrelated issue and this thing is just adding to the burden. Not helped by continued needling involving some of the parties. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

All one can do is be patient. It's in the arbitrators hands, now. PS- Remember, the entire process started 8 days after the case was opened :) GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We're working on it ;) I'm sorry we've not met the deadline, it looks like we might be another day or two. Worm^TT(talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality of work is more important than meeting a roughly predetermined schedule in matters regarding arbitration IMHO. We can wait. :) John Carter (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can wait, probably because it does not directly affect you. I can already tell you the outcome (and I'm neither a genius nor clairvoyant) but I can do without the suspense. There really is an awful lot of crap flying around behind the scenes about another matter and I'm buckling, trying to retain good contributors who are at their wit's end and are ranting at WMF people who are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I could do without this additional agony, with its obvious conclusions. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Some people have made their beds and now must lie with it, ranting and raving at the WMF isn't going to solve anything neither are a select group of editor's mission to stage a silly boycott until they get their way. Good contributors are great Wikipedia has a-lot of them but that does not make them perfect and immune to faults. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You are completely ignorant regarding that to which I refer, Knowledgekid. Shame about your chosen name, given this fact. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome I will say this, I hope it changes things for the better. Arbcom is meant to improve things on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I share your hope, in a triumph over experience. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Once again we have "behind the scenes" stuff going on? I really wish people would be up-front about these things. Hidden decisions and discussions damage the whole spirit of Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

If the above comment is accurate that there are significant behind-the-scenes discussions taking place here regarding this decision, and I don't check mailing lists so I don't know, I too would regret that. In some cases, like those dealing with privileged information about individual users' identities and the like, I see that they would be a bit of a necessary evil, but I think even Jimbo has indicated that transparency in as many areas of wikipedia as possible is something we should seek, and I don't think that discussions in the ArbCom Star Chamber come close to meeting the standard of transparency. This is particularly true if the matters at hand get revisited in a few years when many or most of the current arbs are retired. At least, it might be indicated on the talk page that there is discussion elsewhere specifying what areas of concern or individuals involved are being discussed. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been behind-the-scenes discussions, yes. About the issue that I can't really explain further here and which have no relevance to this case. Those discussions have involved WMF and all sorts of admins etc and I've also had lawyers and the police involved. What I said, and what I meant, was that it takes neither a genius nor a clairvoyant to work out what is going to happen in this case. As Rich well knows, I deposited something with a third party a while ago: that something sets out some likely outcomes and also some critique of how this case has been handled. I did that to prevent accusations of "sour grapes" should I still consider it fit to raise the issues once this case is concluded. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course there are behind the scenes things going on, I have realized that one of Wikipedia's flaws is how involved editors can get in things that don't include just editing an encyclopedia and working with other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

We should be thankful that discussion is taking place behind the curtains. If done in the open, the same repetitive arguments would drown the conversation.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not much on observing deadlines, are they?

I'm edging towards the perspective that ArbCom is an institution that needs to go away. Carrite (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors have lives of their own you know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The average Proposed Decision is at least 3 days behind the expected time table --Guerillero | My Talk 04:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The last one I was in last winter was MUCH simpler issues, clearer and fairly similar statements, relatively little political BS behinds the scenes, and over all an easier decision and they got it done about 6 weeks after predicted. Of course they were relatively new group then. Maybe now they can just knock them out. Whatever happens, MOKSHA! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's it. I've been trying to hold my tongue against the continuous onslaught from you and Neotarf over the last few days but enough is enough. relatively little political BS behinds the scenes - Really? How would you know? Please provide a confirmed example of it in relation to this case (not just your own paranoia, which manifests itself in more or less every post you make). - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please consider this as advice from a well-wisher: a proposed decision has just been posted that includes "Sitush (talk · contribs) and Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions)." Since there's no guarantee of an interaction ban, neither of you is under that restriction yet ... but to avoid giving any ammunition to anyone in case that does become a reality, your best bet is to act as if the interaction ban is already in place. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely agree with that. Interaction bans are not necessarily evidence of wrongdoing, but rather that conversations that involve the parties are very likely to not have a positive outcome. Both Sitush and Carolmooredc are aware that this is the case and have made statements to confirm that they'd rather not interact with the other. Ignoring each other from now on would be a positve step forward. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I had already been doing that, outside of this case. That said, I'm not happy with the proposals: CMDC should be sitebanned because this is just another part of her long-running general campaigning and she won't stop. She has already been making snarky inferences about English editors, editors from Manchester, imperialists who controlled India, etc. She is not here for the right reasons. And she has been following me around since this case began, as well as sort-of threatening some who criticised her in situations where she was clearly, if not explicitly, referring to me. That's my last word on it. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Understood that you don't think it goes far enough, but once someone is under any kind of Arbcom restriction or ban, it at least plants the idea that further restrictions may be necessary, if the things that were happening in one area begin to, or continue to, be a problem in other areas. The thing that you're worried will be a huge problem usually doesn't wind up being a huge problem in the long run, in those relatively rare cases where there's any kind of ban or restriction. Enjoy your vacation from dealing with this. I enjoyed reviewing your FAC, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorting out that FAC might well be the last thing I do. I am absolutely appalled. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm also considering my position. Eric Corbett 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of yas are pressing the panic button, too early. My goodness, the other arbitrators haven't made their proposals yet. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a panic button. It is a disgust button. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-discrimination policy

This finding of fact mentions legally protected classes. This should be expanded to note by which legal authority defines theses classes. I'm presuming it is the US, but it wouldn't hurt to explicitly state this.--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The language was pretty imprecise, but it would be as big as a set of law books if it were precise. I don't have any expertise in either legal drafting or Arbcom drafting, but one might say something like "in general terms" or "many countries have certain legal protections". - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think it would hurt to say protected classes are under the jurisdiction of wherever the WMF is incorporated -- or however non-profits are declared if "incorporated" is imprecise. INAL. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The point here is that we (Wikimedia, and English Wikipedia in particular) do not discriminate on these bases. Let's not focus unduly on the phrase "legally protected," which defines minimum rather than maximum aspirations for this project in terms of treating users equally. (For example, our commitment not to discriminate based on sexual orientation does not vary geographically even though in some places that is a legally protected characteristic and in other places it currently is not.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In other words I assume this means something like policy wise you can't say "we don't want you women editing in controversial areas" but you can say "we don't want you editing in controversial areas" to a specific female editor. (Though individuals might well suspect misogynism there.) Of course, if an editor said it repeatedly to one woman or especially several women in a row or in a group, then that would be an obvious pattern of discrimination, among other policy violations.

Of course more difficult to define can be something like if editor(s) said "we don't want you GGTF women telling us that what you think about your own life and experience is more accurate than what we guys think about it." Something which has been said in different ways or inferred repeatedly. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Remedy 3.3 Eric Corbett restriction

I would eliminate or at the very least rephrase the restriction on Eric Corbett (3.3) as its way too vague and will only lead to problems.--MONGO 17:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all vague, any admin who doesn't like me can ban me. Seems clear enough to me. Eric Corbett 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with eliminate. Eric who made a few snippy comments and used a "rude" word has emerged as a scapegoat. J3Mrs (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)