Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →Further request for clarification, after several days of no reply: pinging drafters, hoping that helps |
Guerillero (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
A number of days have gone by, and I can't help but find the complete lack of response to the above to be a concern. Is this, as I ask above, the correct spot to make this request? If not, where would that be? And if so, how long is a proper period to wait for meaningful reply, or reply of any kind? Being unfamiliar with these proceedings, I am quite perplexed. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
A number of days have gone by, and I can't help but find the complete lack of response to the above to be a concern. Is this, as I ask above, the correct spot to make this request? If not, where would that be? And if so, how long is a proper period to wait for meaningful reply, or reply of any kind? Being unfamiliar with these proceedings, I am quite perplexed. [[User:Jusdafax|<font color="green">Jus</font>]][[User talk:Jusdafax|<font color="C1118C">da</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Jusdafax|<font color="#0000FF">fax</font>]] 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Jusdafax, my experience is that the Arbs simply have so many simultaneous demands for their attention that it can be difficult to get a timely reply, so it helps to ping them to get their attention. Consequently: {{u|NativeForeigner}} and {{u|Guerillero}}. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
:Jusdafax, my experience is that the Arbs simply have so many simultaneous demands for their attention that it can be difficult to get a timely reply, so it helps to ping them to get their attention. Consequently: {{u|NativeForeigner}} and {{u|Guerillero}}. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::I didn't see this until I was pinged. This page is low traffic so I don't check it very often. I have already said that I am not going to remove anyone as a party and I am not going to make an exemption. Being a party does not mean that you will be sanctioned. As for adding parties, [[User talk:Guerillero|we are already discussing JzG]] and I will consider Skydog. --[[User:Guerillero|<font color="#0b0080">Guerillero</font>]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">Parlez Moi</font>]] 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Scope == |
== Scope == |
Revision as of 22:16, 4 October 2015
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Request for addition of Guy and Pete and protest inclusion of User:Jusdafax
I have stated this earlier, and now I formally request a decision by the full Arbitratration Committee on the inclusion of administrator Guy aka JzG and now, additionally, editor Pete aka Skyring. Their latest involvement against User:SageRad came earlier today at AN/I: note mention of Monsanto in the opening. Prior to that is the remarkable statement "I know who you are" by Admin Guy, who had previously blocked editor SageRad. Involvement at Vani Hari and the Talk page there is significant. There is also ample evidence that both Pete and Guy should be included as involved parties in this ArbCom case at Talk:Monsanto legal cases, where Guy closed an RfC despite being involved, and Pete has erected walls of text.
I also formally protest my inclusion in the case as patent retaliation by User:Jytdog. Note that I had not once been mentioned prior to my statement, and Jytdog's addition of me came within minutes of said statement. If allowed to stand, my inclusion sets a precedent that effectively creates a "chilling effect" - speak up, and you become a target forced to spend time as a party to a case. I submit this is gaming the system. If there is a more appropriate place to file these motions, please let me know. Thanks. Jusdafax 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I definitely want Guy and Pete included, as they've been hugely obstructive in my experience, and quite flagrantly in violation of numerous guidelines. SageRad (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Further request for clarification, after several days of no reply
A number of days have gone by, and I can't help but find the complete lack of response to the above to be a concern. Is this, as I ask above, the correct spot to make this request? If not, where would that be? And if so, how long is a proper period to wait for meaningful reply, or reply of any kind? Being unfamiliar with these proceedings, I am quite perplexed. Jusdafax 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Jusdafax, my experience is that the Arbs simply have so many simultaneous demands for their attention that it can be difficult to get a timely reply, so it helps to ping them to get their attention. Consequently: NativeForeigner and Guerillero. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't see this until I was pinged. This page is low traffic so I don't check it very often. I have already said that I am not going to remove anyone as a party and I am not going to make an exemption. Being a party does not mean that you will be sanctioned. As for adding parties, we are already discussing JzG and I will consider Skydog. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Scope
@Jytdog: given the extent that in situ animal genetic modification has been in the news with CRISPR, including "discovery of the [multi-year period]" awards from extremely prestigious sources, do you think a scope limitation to agriculture is wise? Anticipating the same kind of both neo-luddite backlash and profiteer-driven paid advocacy motives down the road, I would rather that the outcomes apply to both agricultural and animal genetic engineering. EllenCT (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement made after case opening
@L235: A statement was added to the page after the page was closed to further statements. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Tryptofish, done. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)