m →Outside Proposals?: only mostly, because special circumstances |
|||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
:::: {{Reply to|Hasteur}} {{Reply to|Weedwacker}} Alright, thank you both. I'm still undecided, and may submit something if I have the time to put forth an analysis that I feel would be beneficial. I will keep your comments and suggestions in mind before making any proposals. [[User:Ries42|Ries42]] ([[User talk:Ries42|talk]]) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
:::: {{Reply to|Hasteur}} {{Reply to|Weedwacker}} Alright, thank you both. I'm still undecided, and may submit something if I have the time to put forth an analysis that I feel would be beneficial. I will keep your comments and suggestions in mind before making any proposals. [[User:Ries42|Ries42]] ([[User talk:Ries42|talk]]) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::: Hasteur is also mostly wrong in the fact that you 'might be reverted'. This page is not an article and whatever proposal you put forward, it's wording can't be edited except by the arbs, only commented on. Though trolling or obviously sarcastic proposals like what DSA put forward is the baseline on what -will- be reverted. I've no doubt that the arbs will let you submit proposals, as long as you are sincere and serious about them. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
::::: Hasteur is also mostly wrong in the fact that you 'might be reverted'. This page is not an article and whatever proposal you put forward, it's wording can't be edited except by the arbs, only commented on. Though trolling or obviously sarcastic proposals like what DSA put forward is the baseline on what -will- be reverted. I've no doubt that the arbs will let you submit proposals, as long as you are sincere and serious about them. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::Why are you humoring a troll?—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>]]) 22:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:05, 18 December 2014
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.
Can I hat the long rambling discussions in my section
They seem pretty unproductive, but I don't mind if they continue, however can we hat them or move them or something to stop them filling up this page? HalfHat 11:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a total mess of that, urgh I need some sleep. HalfHat 12:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let the clerks handle any refactoring of other editors' posts that they deem necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I've moved it below. Ridiculously long, Roger Davies talk 11:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Halfhat draft FOF: NPOV is over dominant
- Arbitration is not a new forum for solving a perceived content dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- While normally yes, establishing what the content/concerns that are disputed is normal practice in ArbCom cases (several of the proposed FoF in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement for example apply here; add in the inability to engage in consensus building at the talk page or other venues, and that becomes a more important manner to set what content policies apply and if there are problems with content policies that the community needs to review. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- So we're allowing Gamergaters to turn this into a new forum to make the same complaints over and over again?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you can't point to a documented consensus about a given point, then pretty much yes, give or take. And also keep in mind consensus can change too even if that is set (though in the time frame we're talking here, that really doesn't apply). Also, this does not apply if there is a true meatpuppetry-type push to demand change, but if we have independent editors asking about the issues that don't have consensus demonstration, then that's completely fair. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's been plenty of consensus-building, it's just that the consensus has consistently gone against Gamergate, and Gamergate supporters have shown a distinct inability to recognize this and drop the WP:STICK. A group doesn't get to re-run disputes until they get the result they want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, there actually has not been much consensus building, as evidenced by refusal to participate in dispute resolutions, refusal to discuss suggestions on improvement, closing/hatting of discussions by involved people, and by trying to treat new editors by immediately labeling them as unhelpful SPAs as to be able to nullify their voices. Ownership of the article in such a manner leads to cases just like this. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you're going to argue that one side or the other has refused to discuss things, I will present the 14 pages of archives on Talk:Gamergate controversy (compiled in less than 3 months) which are evidence to the contrary. This issue has been discussed more than anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The problem is not a lack of discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Discussion" != "Consensus building". When the bulk of discussions on anything tied to the neutrality of the article is shut down by a handful of long-standing editors "no, gamergate is a fringe movement, we don't have to talk about them at all" or "you're an SPA, we're ignoring your contributions"-type of discussions, that's not consensus building. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're basically arguing that because Gamergate supporters haven't gotten what they want, there hasn't been "consensus-building." Wikipedia consensuses don't work that way. The fact that there are fourteen (14) pages of talk archives generated in less than 90 days demonstrates that there have been extensive, repeated, stick-gripping discussions that nobody has "shut down." The problem is that those discussions repeatedly come back around to some subset of "we don't like this article, the sources are biased and you're conspiring against Gamergate." This is a clear attempt to relitigate a content dispute in front of ArbCom. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not just people GG supporters, but myself (I'm antiGG) and several other established editors that see the problems. And we've tried engaging in consensus building and the handful of editors just shut it out, refusing to discuss the nuances of policy that apply to this case. The fact these editors have refused dispute resolution also is a sign that no consensus building has been done on this page. And no, I'm not expecting ArbCom to resolve the content, but to be clear that page ownership to push a specific tone of WP's voice and a certain POV is not appropriate behavior for editors, comparable to past ArbCom cases like the Tea Party case. The fact there is 14 pages of discussion, including repeating discussions about how the page does not meet policy, is a possible sign of page ownership and control, where other editors try to break the hold that a small group have on the page. However, I also contest that the fact there are 14 pages is because in three months there was a lot of information generated by GG that we had to sort through, much of it determining how appropriate sources and the like are in there. Irregardless, there is no evidence of any strong form of consensus building (a core principle of WP) and particularly in dispute resolution. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- And a wide array of other established editors and administrators largely view the article as an appropriate depiction of the movement and its notable actions based upon reliable sources. Your attempt to reduce this to some sort of cabal is offensive. We can go around and around this, but I'll stop here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please point to a consensus-based discussion that addresses the neutrality based problems of the article that involved more than just the editors on the GG page. I will acknowledge that there was the ANI issue on whether to keep the NPOV tag or not, but as it was determined there by consensus, issues with impartial language is not something to keep the tag there, but did not speak anything to whether the article was appropriately neutral and impartial, or not; as such, that is not the discussion that determined that the article language was appropriate. In fact, comments by uninvolved admins at the GG/GS page on the case raised at me suggest that there are impartial language problems but that a proper RFC would be a venue. I have been very hesitant to open any new RFC on the neutrality/impartiality of the article due to 1) general weariness of dealing with GG across WP (per the latest spat at ANI) that I don't want to bring in any other groups until I'm sure what the way forward is, and 2) the existence of this case which I will wait to see how it is resolved to determine how to properly work the RFC if it remains necessary. Add to this the type of behavior exhibited by the comments above, akin to a "I'm not listening!" attitude that persists on the talk page. This is caustic behavior that absolutely is not helpful or appropriate in light of both the topic (which is strongly decisive and begs for care in dealing with POV/BLP), and the fact that we have people trying to influence the article from outside. CIVIL behavior is a key aspect here and that means participation in appropriate consensus building steps. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- The massively-participated-in request for comment that you opened seems to underscore it appropriately. Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner?
There are feelings on both sides here, both the article is too biased to the pre and anti sides here, while quite a few people seem to think it is ok. Often, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are hard to distinguish in situations like this, due to the unbalance in sourcing avalible. However, the overall tone is, while there are some issues, there is no overarching bias in the article.
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)- Yes, I'm aware of that, and we (or at least myself) have long moved past the fact that we cannot change the predominate viewpoint being against GG (but the conclusions still state that we need to be careful with the approach in the article). But that speaks nothing to the impartialness issue that remains a point of discussion long since that consensus. Bias and impartialness are two separate concepts per WP:NPOV, and rationale attempts to suggest alternative wording that maintain the weight of viewpoints but improve the impartialness have been shut down by editors owning this page. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- And this is what I mean by not dropping the stick. A month-long RFC with widespread community participation was closed with the conclusion that the article is not biased and, for the most part, accurately reflects the reliable sources available. Rather than accepting that conclusion of the community, you immediately turn to a semantic argument about "bias" and "impartiality." Do you propose to initiate another RFC asking Is the current Gamergate article impartial? How will that generate any different feedback than the previous question? How many times do you propose to re-run the same arguments? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is a huge difference between bias/weight of sources (which we can't control), and impartiality of our writing which we have full control of. Two very different facets even outlined at NPOV. And I don't know what the RFC will be if I initiate another yet, but as suggested at the GS page on my case, specific wording instances would be better targeted. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please identify where specifically there are any "impartiality" issues with the current or draft versions or provide your own draft that is "impartial". Vague unsubstantiated assertations are meaningless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is a huge difference between bias/weight of sources (which we can't control), and impartiality of our writing which we have full control of. Two very different facets even outlined at NPOV. And I don't know what the RFC will be if I initiate another yet, but as suggested at the GS page on my case, specific wording instances would be better targeted. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- And this is what I mean by not dropping the stick. A month-long RFC with widespread community participation was closed with the conclusion that the article is not biased and, for the most part, accurately reflects the reliable sources available. Rather than accepting that conclusion of the community, you immediately turn to a semantic argument about "bias" and "impartiality." Do you propose to initiate another RFC asking Is the current Gamergate article impartial? How will that generate any different feedback than the previous question? How many times do you propose to re-run the same arguments? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that, and we (or at least myself) have long moved past the fact that we cannot change the predominate viewpoint being against GG (but the conclusions still state that we need to be careful with the approach in the article). But that speaks nothing to the impartialness issue that remains a point of discussion long since that consensus. Bias and impartialness are two separate concepts per WP:NPOV, and rationale attempts to suggest alternative wording that maintain the weight of viewpoints but improve the impartialness have been shut down by editors owning this page. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- The massively-participated-in request for comment that you opened seems to underscore it appropriately. Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner?
- Please point to a consensus-based discussion that addresses the neutrality based problems of the article that involved more than just the editors on the GG page. I will acknowledge that there was the ANI issue on whether to keep the NPOV tag or not, but as it was determined there by consensus, issues with impartial language is not something to keep the tag there, but did not speak anything to whether the article was appropriately neutral and impartial, or not; as such, that is not the discussion that determined that the article language was appropriate. In fact, comments by uninvolved admins at the GG/GS page on the case raised at me suggest that there are impartial language problems but that a proper RFC would be a venue. I have been very hesitant to open any new RFC on the neutrality/impartiality of the article due to 1) general weariness of dealing with GG across WP (per the latest spat at ANI) that I don't want to bring in any other groups until I'm sure what the way forward is, and 2) the existence of this case which I will wait to see how it is resolved to determine how to properly work the RFC if it remains necessary. Add to this the type of behavior exhibited by the comments above, akin to a "I'm not listening!" attitude that persists on the talk page. This is caustic behavior that absolutely is not helpful or appropriate in light of both the topic (which is strongly decisive and begs for care in dealing with POV/BLP), and the fact that we have people trying to influence the article from outside. CIVIL behavior is a key aspect here and that means participation in appropriate consensus building steps. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- And a wide array of other established editors and administrators largely view the article as an appropriate depiction of the movement and its notable actions based upon reliable sources. Your attempt to reduce this to some sort of cabal is offensive. We can go around and around this, but I'll stop here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not just people GG supporters, but myself (I'm antiGG) and several other established editors that see the problems. And we've tried engaging in consensus building and the handful of editors just shut it out, refusing to discuss the nuances of policy that apply to this case. The fact these editors have refused dispute resolution also is a sign that no consensus building has been done on this page. And no, I'm not expecting ArbCom to resolve the content, but to be clear that page ownership to push a specific tone of WP's voice and a certain POV is not appropriate behavior for editors, comparable to past ArbCom cases like the Tea Party case. The fact there is 14 pages of discussion, including repeating discussions about how the page does not meet policy, is a possible sign of page ownership and control, where other editors try to break the hold that a small group have on the page. However, I also contest that the fact there are 14 pages is because in three months there was a lot of information generated by GG that we had to sort through, much of it determining how appropriate sources and the like are in there. Irregardless, there is no evidence of any strong form of consensus building (a core principle of WP) and particularly in dispute resolution. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're basically arguing that because Gamergate supporters haven't gotten what they want, there hasn't been "consensus-building." Wikipedia consensuses don't work that way. The fact that there are fourteen (14) pages of talk archives generated in less than 90 days demonstrates that there have been extensive, repeated, stick-gripping discussions that nobody has "shut down." The problem is that those discussions repeatedly come back around to some subset of "we don't like this article, the sources are biased and you're conspiring against Gamergate." This is a clear attempt to relitigate a content dispute in front of ArbCom. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Discussion" != "Consensus building". When the bulk of discussions on anything tied to the neutrality of the article is shut down by a handful of long-standing editors "no, gamergate is a fringe movement, we don't have to talk about them at all" or "you're an SPA, we're ignoring your contributions"-type of discussions, that's not consensus building. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you're going to argue that one side or the other has refused to discuss things, I will present the 14 pages of archives on Talk:Gamergate controversy (compiled in less than 3 months) which are evidence to the contrary. This issue has been discussed more than anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The problem is not a lack of discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, there actually has not been much consensus building, as evidenced by refusal to participate in dispute resolutions, refusal to discuss suggestions on improvement, closing/hatting of discussions by involved people, and by trying to treat new editors by immediately labeling them as unhelpful SPAs as to be able to nullify their voices. Ownership of the article in such a manner leads to cases just like this. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's been plenty of consensus-building, it's just that the consensus has consistently gone against Gamergate, and Gamergate supporters have shown a distinct inability to recognize this and drop the WP:STICK. A group doesn't get to re-run disputes until they get the result they want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you can't point to a documented consensus about a given point, then pretty much yes, give or take. And also keep in mind consensus can change too even if that is set (though in the time frame we're talking here, that really doesn't apply). Also, this does not apply if there is a true meatpuppetry-type push to demand change, but if we have independent editors asking about the issues that don't have consensus demonstration, then that's completely fair. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- So we're allowing Gamergaters to turn this into a new forum to make the same complaints over and over again?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- While normally yes, establishing what the content/concerns that are disputed is normal practice in ArbCom cases (several of the proposed FoF in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement for example apply here; add in the inability to engage in consensus building at the talk page or other venues, and that becomes a more important manner to set what content policies apply and if there are problems with content policies that the community needs to review. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Arbitration is not a new forum for solving a perceived content dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where to so this, but I think I may have been misunderstood, I have attempted to word it better.HalfHat 14:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I agree with Ryulong that Arbitration is almost never going to solve a content dispute for you. I would not include this finding of fact like this unless you are going to advocate a remedy like Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, and claim the current NPOV issues are hopelessly irreparable. --Obsidi (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not to speak for anyone else, but the more I read - from all parties involved - the more I find myself contemplating that remedy. The obvious problem is that of who gets to do the rebuilding. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I simply do not understand how the assertion that "there's been plenty of consensus-building" can be supported here - especially if (as everyone involved seems to be happy to paint the discussion) there are two clear camps consisting of 8chan's so-called "five horsemen" (plus supporting admins) on one side and basically everyone else on the other side. If "Gamergate supporters can't drop the stick", and Gamergate supporters are numerous, then just what definition of "consensus" are we using that allows their concerns to be ignored? Who exactly are the people involved in all of these putative "consensuses"?
- As for the talk page, the sheer volume of discussion is not evidence of "willingness to discuss" an issue. That's like saying that a revert war is evidence of rapid progress on an article because "look at how many diffs there are". 76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Er, um, if you think everyone besides we "five horsemen" are on the side of Gamergate here, you need to actually read those 14 pages of archives, because that's not a particularly good reading of the extensive discussions.
- The fact that one side is dissatisfied with the result of those discussions does not mean that there has been a failure of discussion. Sometimes you don't get what you want, no matter how much you argue for it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Would you care to name names of people you consider to be in agreement with you here, who I might not have considered? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Given that this section is not for the presentation of evidence, no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Would you care to name names of people you consider to be in agreement with you here, who I might not have considered? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Ryulong that Arbitration is almost never going to solve a content dispute for you. I would not include this finding of fact like this unless you are going to advocate a remedy like Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, and claim the current NPOV issues are hopelessly irreparable. --Obsidi (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Sea lions
We are here to discuss behavior on Wikipedia not article content or behavior out in the real world. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
Didn't they also fully fund a sea lion that they've named Ethics in some major passive aggressive nonsense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This seems like totally the wrong place to discuss this. HalfHat 12:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Why was this cut out? It was to show that Gamergate was using charities hypocritically and/or passive aggressively. They chose a sea lion due to its existence as a term of art in the "debate" just like someone who used a slur towards those on the autism spectrum donated to autism speaks, despite the neuroatypical community hating the organization.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Commentary on Proposals by Retartist: Principle: NPOV
Moved from /Workshop Proposals by Retartist: Principle: NPOV
Extended content
|
---|
|
The committee is not interested in this wall of text. Thread closed; do not comment further. AGK [•] 01:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Mandated external review
Hi, all. I was wondering whether the "mandated external review," which indicates that certain editors who have a history of problematic editing on a topic can still edit the article itself, but have to receive consent for the proposed edit on the talkpage from an uninvolved administrator first, might be a useful thing to implement here. There is a precedent for it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- We struck down the few instances of this and deprecated the entire concept and marked its pages as historical earlier this year. So I'd say that's pretty unlikely. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Note on new proposals
I'm sick of being harassed. I've been thinking, and I feel it isn't worth it to get doxxed by anti-gg terrorists. I take no joy in doing this, but, ultimately I'm a worthless coward. I just wanted to clear up my sudden change of heart. I know I'm to betray the only person who stuck by my side, helped me, and gave me support when I needed it for all this time; my informant, but as I'm nothing more than a stupid parasite who wallows in his own self-pity, it can't be helped. Its funny, I'm abandoning my own ethics (mainly not backstabbing people who trust me), to support the so called ethical side. Basically, my proposals aren't jokes, but me merely trying to appeal to the better nature of my tormentors. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 03:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Nice signature color change doc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to give my tormentors a total victory. I'm a coward, but I wont completely give in to terrorists. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Terrorist is a pretty strong accusation, DSA. Are those that you claim are harassing you (who?) really as bad as ISIS or similar groups? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- If gamergate is as bad as ISIS, the KKK, Hitler, ebola, and other unsavory characters, what does that make the people who harassed me? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 05:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Terrorist is a pretty strong accusation, DSA. Are those that you claim are harassing you (who?) really as bad as ISIS or similar groups? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to give my tormentors a total victory. I'm a coward, but I wont completely give in to terrorists. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- DungeonSiegeAddict510 If you had heeded the advice when your first set of workshop proposals had been forcably been redacted (including arbitrators saying no) then we wouldn't be in this situation. Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I really hope I've misinterpretted your statement. Because it reads like you're saying its his own fault for being doxxed and harassed. Bosstopher (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Bosstopher Either you've misinterpreted it by accident or are willfully misinterpreting it. The first proposal (an allusion to the BigBrother/1984) was clearly out of line and was redacted. Several people counseled DSA that they shouldn't be flippant on their talk page. The new set of proposals shows a significant lack of thought in the proposals (in fact trying to get Remedies passed under the guise of Principles) shows that they still treat this as a joke. Hasteur (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- The new proposals are poorly thought out, but I got the same interpretation out of your earlier statement as Bosstopher. Weedwacker (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hasteur It is incredibly easy to misinterpret your statement as victim blaming here. Given that the talk section was started by DSA describing how he has been harassed and doxxed, it is hard to think of the "this situation" which you mention as anything other than that. Bosstopher (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- The new proposals are poorly thought out, but I got the same interpretation out of your earlier statement as Bosstopher. Weedwacker (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Bosstopher Either you've misinterpreted it by accident or are willfully misinterpreting it. The first proposal (an allusion to the BigBrother/1984) was clearly out of line and was redacted. Several people counseled DSA that they shouldn't be flippant on their talk page. The new set of proposals shows a significant lack of thought in the proposals (in fact trying to get Remedies passed under the guise of Principles) shows that they still treat this as a joke. Hasteur (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I really hope I've misinterpretted your statement. Because it reads like you're saying its his own fault for being doxxed and harassed. Bosstopher (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
DungeonSiegeAddict510 and Workshop decorum
Could the Arbs/Clerks evaluate some of this user's recent workshop proposals such as this? It does not in any way appear to be a serious proposal, but rather a mock draconian one to "punish" editors of a pro-GG bent. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- If DSA dosn't self-revert his changes to the workshop the clerks should extend his topic ban for being pointy. Agree with Tarc here. Avono (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm being completely serious here. I'll do anything it takes provided I stop getting harassed. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't even have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Unless you have proof that someone here is harassing you, then stuff like I noted above, plus the Nazi allusions about Jimbo and the "terrorists", is getting to be a bit absurd. Tarc (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not being harassed here. And the fuhrer bit is a joke. So is the terrorists bit, seeing as the FC4 dev compared gg to terrorists. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- DSA, I'm a bit confused by your actions. At least, it's inappropriate. At worst, it's bad for the case in general. You have the opportunity to really spell it out how we'ven't been given a fair shake on Wikipedia, some of the iffy actions admins have taken, some of the failed reasonings and the like. There's no reason to do this. Tutelary (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care about your gamergate conspiracies. First its the entire media against you, now its the admins. What next? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 20:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- DSA, I'm a bit confused by your actions. At least, it's inappropriate. At worst, it's bad for the case in general. You have the opportunity to really spell it out how we'ven't been given a fair shake on Wikipedia, some of the iffy actions admins have taken, some of the failed reasonings and the like. There's no reason to do this. Tutelary (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not being harassed here. And the fuhrer bit is a joke. So is the terrorists bit, seeing as the FC4 dev compared gg to terrorists. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- DSA is clearly just being silly, and is not in any way trying to contribute to the encyclopaedia. I've indef'd him and removed the silliness. If any arb or clerk feels that there's something to be accomplished by restoring the content or unblocking DSA, I have no objection to them doing so without any deference to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Outside Proposals?
Howdy, I've been watching the proceedings of ArmCom, basically fascinated with this whole process and I had a question. Are only parties or semi-involved editors allowed to make proposals, or may completely outside parties, even those who submitted no evidence or otherwise participated, allowed to submit proposed principals, findings, and remedies? Ries42 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Ries42: I'm going to say this as nicely as possible, but your relatively short edit history does not really inspire the command of WikiProcedure that I would expect of an editor making a serious collection of proposals. I suggest that you not make any proposals. Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your response, but you didn't quite answer my question. I understand making any proposals would require a significant undertaking to be procedurally and substantively adequate, and I trust the arbitrators to apply due weight as they deem appropriate to any proposals submitted. However, my question is, assuming that all other things are equal, may an outside source submit proposals or is such explicitly or implicitly not allowed? Ries42 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Per the Guide to Arbitration you would not be forbidden from submitting workshop proposals. Hasteur is just suggesting to you that a new editor may not have the experience and knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and policies to put forth strong and usable proposals. If you don't know exactly what you're doing, i'd avoid contributing. Weedwacker (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Ries42: Be Bold, however don't be upset if your bold edit gets reverted and please be careful. I'm not a named party or (what I consider) a semi-involved editor, yet I've made a set of proposals. Understand that if you make proposals, they are going to be gone over with a high power microscope to look for any defects and you will be extensively analyzed for motives. In short: I wouldn't do it. Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: @Weedwacker: Alright, thank you both. I'm still undecided, and may submit something if I have the time to put forth an analysis that I feel would be beneficial. I will keep your comments and suggestions in mind before making any proposals. Ries42 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hasteur is also mostly wrong in the fact that you 'might be reverted'. This page is not an article and whatever proposal you put forward, it's wording can't be edited except by the arbs, only commented on. Though trolling or obviously sarcastic proposals like what DSA put forward is the baseline on what -will- be reverted. I've no doubt that the arbs will let you submit proposals, as long as you are sincere and serious about them. Tutelary (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: @Weedwacker: Alright, thank you both. I'm still undecided, and may submit something if I have the time to put forth an analysis that I feel would be beneficial. I will keep your comments and suggestions in mind before making any proposals. Ries42 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your response, but you didn't quite answer my question. I understand making any proposals would require a significant undertaking to be procedurally and substantively adequate, and I trust the arbitrators to apply due weight as they deem appropriate to any proposals submitted. However, my question is, assuming that all other things are equal, may an outside source submit proposals or is such explicitly or implicitly not allowed? Ries42 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)