Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (talk | contribs) |
Opabinia regalis (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
::::::Since anything even remotely related to GamerGate, very broadly construed, has been considered out-of-scope, the entire section "Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case" would be a great start. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 19:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
::::::Since anything even remotely related to GamerGate, very broadly construed, has been considered out-of-scope, the entire section "Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case" would be a great start. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 19:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
*It looks like it will not be granted, but I hereby oppose any motion to extend the evidence period. Gamaliel's content is mostly argument, anyway, as is much of the entire "evidence" page. The diffs which are the evidence have long been posted. We are still fighting over a dumb April fools' joke and stupid infighting over it which followed, the sooner this Arbitration is over, the better.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 18:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
*It looks like it will not be granted, but I hereby oppose any motion to extend the evidence period. Gamaliel's content is mostly argument, anyway, as is much of the entire "evidence" page. The diffs which are the evidence have long been posted. We are still fighting over a dumb April fools' joke and stupid infighting over it which followed, the sooner this Arbitration is over, the better.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 18:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
*To reiterate some of what has been posted here and on the evidence talk page all in one handy diff: yes, some out-of-scope (pre-April 1) material was removed prior to posting Gamaliel's evidence. That does not preclude new requests for review. Obviously, if someone is unable to post on Wikipedia during a case we'd be happy to facilitate public submission of their evidence; this isn't some special deal for Gamaliel. Equally obviously, we aren't going to pass judgment on the content or quality of the evidence other than reviewing for scope as with any other evidence. So it doesn't get lost now that the evidence talk page is closed, Callanecc responded [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence&diff=719075158&oldid=719074294 here] on the matter of the final section. Analysis of evidence - Gamaliel's or anyone else's - is encouraged on the workshop page. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 19:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==@Iridescent== |
==@Iridescent== |
Revision as of 19:28, 7 May 2016
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.
Guidelines for obvious humor?
Just as an idea here, I have no particular reservations about having overtly humorous material available somewhere in wikipedia, maybe even in what some might call "official" material, like the Signpost. But maybe it would be best if the material were presented in a more overtly over-the-top, absurdist way, maybe something along the lines of a lot of the humor in Warren Ellis's Transmetropolitan and some similar works, possibly including some degree of rather obvious and possibly vile insults against the person writing the piece in the piece itself. If there is virtually no way anyone could ever reasonably see a work as being even remotely likely to be "serious," even if reproduced elsewhere, such material might be considered acceptable here. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think the actual question is whether BLP policy has an exemption for humor. Half of the debate was whether or not it was funny but the other half was an argument that it's ok to make a joke on a living person as long as it's in humor. Mostly likely, BLP is exempt from humor given the amount of silliness conducted on April 1st, including the repeated deletion requests for Jimbo's page (which ignoring all the silliness is still a BLP). The secondary issue is whether there are differences in policy for mainspace content and non-mainspace content. To be honest, I can't figure out how it can be considered a BLP violation anymore given the amount of comments here and in all the evidence that freely discusses the Trump allegations. If it's considered a BLP violating thing to say (even in jest), wouldn't it be scrubbed everywhere? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- The real truth is that no one really thinks this joke was a serious BLP violation. They can say whatever they want (hello anyone who posts below me to disagree), but their actions (making Trump jokes themselves of equal or greater value) show the truth. The action of editors attacking the joke and Gamaliel's responses are the meatless sandwich of this arbitration.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Q on case timeline
@Miniapolis, Lankiveil, and Amortias: Is it permitted to use the workshop page at this time to propose findings of fact etc, or does that need to wait until the evidence phase is formally closed? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Gaijin42.Nothing in procedures prevents editing of the workshop pages prior to the evidence phase closing. Only concern would be if evidence submitted after the proposal was made contradicts or affects the proposal. A close watch may need to be kept by the proposer to ensure this doesn't occur. Amortias (T)(C) 15:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Evidence extension
The instructions atop the evidence page states The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect
. Given the named party's evidence was posted [1] three minutes before the deadline, will the committee be extending the deadline to allow parties to make the rebuttals the committee expects? NE Ent 01:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Miniapolis, Lankiveil, Amortias, DGG, Callanecc,Doug Weller: Répondez s'il vous plaît NE Ent 13:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- In fact editors (6 if I'm counting correctly) did add evidence after the deadline, and we've left it there. The evidence analysis section can be used for almost anything else. We don't want to muzzle anyone who has actual evidence (you know, diffs that are within scope) that is necessary to rebut Gamaliel's evidence. Just as we don't want anymore personal comments. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Concise in-scope rebuttals which include relevant evidence are probably best placed on the Workshop evidence analysis section given that they are analysing the evidence presented rather than are present for the purpose of presenting new evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the prompt replies. While it doesn't matter to me where a particular piece of text goes, in the past some individual arbitrators have implied they don't find Workshop pages provide much value (e.g. Guerillero's ACE 2015 question). Can you confirm that all eleven arbitrators on this case have confirmed they will place equal value on submissions independent of whether they are on the Workshop or Evidence pages? NE Ent 16:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Did I mention herding cats? Doug Weller talk 16:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- While Gamaliel, as a named party, is entitled to wider latitude than others as far as evidence length, his has significant opinion, narrative and diffs that are not part of the scope of this case. Its interesting that his is mostly redirection and fails to provide us with adequate explaination for his own lapses.--MONGO 16:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @MONGO: The clerks have been directed by the arbs to review Gamaliel's evidence for compliance with scope. I'm not active on this case, so I would guess that another clerk will do that when they get the chance. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- We did remove some material that we believed to be out of scope. It might help if you were more specific. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @MONGO: The clerks have been directed by the arbs to review Gamaliel's evidence for compliance with scope. I'm not active on this case, so I would guess that another clerk will do that when they get the chance. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the prompt replies. While it doesn't matter to me where a particular piece of text goes, in the past some individual arbitrators have implied they don't find Workshop pages provide much value (e.g. Guerillero's ACE 2015 question). Can you confirm that all eleven arbitrators on this case have confirmed they will place equal value on submissions independent of whether they are on the Workshop or Evidence pages? NE Ent 16:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like it will not be granted, but I hereby oppose any motion to extend the evidence period. Gamaliel's content is mostly argument, anyway, as is much of the entire "evidence" page. The diffs which are the evidence have long been posted. We are still fighting over a dumb April fools' joke and stupid infighting over it which followed, the sooner this Arbitration is over, the better.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- To reiterate some of what has been posted here and on the evidence talk page all in one handy diff: yes, some out-of-scope (pre-April 1) material was removed prior to posting Gamaliel's evidence. That does not preclude new requests for review. Obviously, if someone is unable to post on Wikipedia during a case we'd be happy to facilitate public submission of their evidence; this isn't some special deal for Gamaliel. Equally obviously, we aren't going to pass judgment on the content or quality of the evidence other than reviewing for scope as with any other evidence. So it doesn't get lost now that the evidence talk page is closed, Callanecc responded here on the matter of the final section. Analysis of evidence - Gamaliel's or anyone else's - is encouraged on the workshop page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Iridescent
@Iridescent: Carrying on from this section (that page is admin-only now), thanks for explaining. FWIW, I didn't read the comment you highlighted as an insinuation against you and Carrite. YMMV. Andreas JN466 18:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)