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)
- It certainly shouldn't be about what was a trivial BLP issue. It also shouldn't be about the Signpost, or anything to do with arbitrator status. What this case should be about is some minor misuse of admin tools while involved, and a failure to drop the stick in the heat of the moment. Resolvable via a brief apology and a promise not to do it again. But a precondition for that resolution is some acknowledgement that there are legitimate community concerns here. And per the last-minute evidence submission, that is clearly not the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:46, 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)
- I edited after the traveshamockery close, but please don't construe it as "adding evidence." I hatted my evidence as being inadequate given the new scope that was being allowed only minutes before the closure time or that the word limit being enforced 3 minutes before close was no longer in effect. I wasn't given any notice of these changes. --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 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)
- 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. ~ RobTalk 19:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:BU Rob13No one has said anything like that. If we had, why would GamerGate be mentioned 40 times on the evidence page? Why would there be, for instance, a section called "Accusations about "Gamergate editors""? You want that left in but Gamaliel's section "Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case" removed, stopping him from responding? Doug Weller talk 20:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- There was large amounts of evidence removed that was related to Gamiliel's recent admin activities involving Gamergate. I'd rather have it all in or all removed. (Well, I'd rather the case was never accepted, but since it has been...) The scope is extremely unclear to many people, myself included. I was under the impression Gamergate as a whole was out, based on your own comments. Is it or isn't it? ~ RobTalk 20:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:BU Rob13No one has said anything like that. If we had, why would GamerGate be mentioned 40 times on the evidence page? Why would there be, for instance, a section called "Accusations about "Gamergate editors""? You want that left in but Gamaliel's section "Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case" removed, stopping him from responding? Doug Weller talk 20:43, 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. ~ RobTalk 19:21, 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 (which, yes, arbs are reading). Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- A lot of pre-April 1st material was removed including material that was duplicated by your post. No, it is not okay to rescope the case three minutes before close. I had plenty of material that was out of the scope being enforced and communicated by arbs. I have had a motion on scope pending for 2 weeks. Apparently, reading the accepted diffs, the new scope even includes off wikipedia conduct. Please remove me from the case as I cannot respond to Kafkaesque charges of wrongdoing that limit my response due to scope, limit my queries through IBAN and limit my time to 0. --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't rescoped. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: The scope hasn't changed. While it's possible we missed something, the only pre-April 1 material I see in Gamaliel's evidence post is very old background material about the Signpost, and I don't see anything related to off-wiki conduct. Can you point to a specific example? If you mean the stats in the last section, see Callanecc's post linked above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis and Doug Weller: It certainly did change and is why so many different editors have complained I am not an an island making an isolated observation. It is a widely held observation. I would need dispensation from the IBAN to go into details as it explicitly forbade it on case talk pages. --DHeyward (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: Good point. (No, not a trap ;) I was thinking the answer would be my error in proofreading post-trimming.) You can email arbcom-en-b
lists.wikimedia.org to comment if you like. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @DHeyward: Good point. (No, not a trap ;) I was thinking the answer would be my error in proofreading post-trimming.) You can email arbcom-en-b
- @Opabinia regalis and Doug Weller: It certainly did change and is why so many different editors have complained I am not an an island making an isolated observation. It is a widely held observation. I would need dispensation from the IBAN to go into details as it explicitly forbade it on case talk pages. --DHeyward (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis and Doug Weller:, The case scope as written is
Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas.
, which does not impose explicit date limits. When was it determined that the scope be limited so as to not include "pre-April 1"? Where was this communicated to editors who may be submitting evidence? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- To add to the above, Gamaliel's evidence outlining people that commented on this case (including myself) but not necessary involved in the actions related to the Signpost. I can only speak for myself but from at least Ryk72's comment above and other comments by Dennis Brown, there was strong concern with Gamaliel's administrative behavior related to the GG page which, based on the wording of the case scope, appeared to be covered by the scope; I would have never added evidence if GG was explicitly removed; I don't know if this applies to others in Gamaliel's evidence. Of course, any GG-only evidence has been struck (including mine), so now Gamaliel's last bit of evidence looks really out of place and appears accusation towards people not even involved in this case when the limit is constrained to the Signpost/BLP issues. Granted, I understand that editors had told Gamaliel to put up evidence that "90%" of those participating were GG editors (and I'll take on good faith Gamaliel meant "editors that have worked on the GG page" and not "editors that support GG"), but even then, the way the evidence is presented, noting how few other edits some have done outside GG, is very accusational. Gamaliel seems to want to make this case, in part, about GG, but the ArbCom has appeared to decide that GG is out of scope. This is paradoxical, and either Gamaliel's GG-related evidence should be nixed (though they are fair to comment on the "90%" aspect elsewhere to get rid of that stigma other editors called out), or that Gamaliel's GG admin-related activities should be put into review as part of this case. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Recent and related to an April Fool's joke surely suggests after April Fool's is the relevant period of time. This was discussed on the evidence talk page here, by L235, here by Doug, and here by Drmies.
- As for the last section of Gamaliel's evidence, by my reading it's meant to offer context to his own prior statement that people involved in editing GG topics were also involving themselves in this dispute. It's not "evidence about Gamergate", it's evidence about how he interpreted events and why. IMO there are reasonable arguments for both keeping and removing, but it's a rather moot point because a) the drafters decided to keep it, and b) it's trivially easy for anyone to compile similar statistics if they want, so removing that section of the post would have no real practical effect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 8 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)
Out of scope evidence
- The instructions atop the evidence clearly state
You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.
(emphasis mine). Therefore Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence#Gamergate_editors_participating_in_the_discussion_at_ANI_or_this_case should be removed. - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence#Fram contains no diffs and should likewise be removed. NE Ent 23:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Labeling me a "Gamergate" editor is complete nonsense. I've been here over 10 years. That such things are left intact, when other actual relevant evidence has been removed says a lot. Arkon (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- But the Gamergate section doesn't link to your contributions page? I'm not sure what point you're making in the first part. ~ RobTalk 02:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Open the collapsed section under Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case section of the 11th hour evidence posted by Gamaliel. I am the first editor listed. Arkon (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are, but it doesn't link to your Special:Contributions page, which is what the notice you quoted refers to. What do you think he did wrong in that section (ignoring scope, which is an enigma to me)? ~ RobTalk 02:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I might be a bit lost here, but is not being listed under the heading Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case, with a count of certain contributions not enough to clarify why I said "Labeling me a "Gamergate" editor is complete nonsense." Arkon (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about that. You say in point #1 that
You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.
, so the whole section should be removed. What in that quote justifies removing that section? ~ RobTalk 02:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about that. You say in point #1 that
- Sorry, I might be a bit lost here, but is not being listed under the heading Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case, with a count of certain contributions not enough to clarify why I said "Labeling me a "Gamergate" editor is complete nonsense." Arkon (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are, but it doesn't link to your Special:Contributions page, which is what the notice you quoted refers to. What do you think he did wrong in that section (ignoring scope, which is an enigma to me)? ~ RobTalk 02:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Open the collapsed section under Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case section of the 11th hour evidence posted by Gamaliel. I am the first editor listed. Arkon (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- But the Gamergate section doesn't link to your contributions page? I'm not sure what point you're making in the first part. ~ RobTalk 02:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh geez, I'm an idiot. Sorry, I was replying to the original post, and I didn't notice you weren't NE Ent when you replied. My bad. ~ RobTalk 03:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @NE Ent: Your question isn't really about scope of the case but about allowable evidence, but that's a minor point. It's an interesting issue. Should we really remove everything that doesn't have page diffs? Should we for instance start with the evidence presented April 18th by User:Jayen466? That does have one diff but most of it has none. So is one enough even though most of the text has diffs? Or various comments about DHeyward being a party - with no diffs, should they be removed? User:Kingsindian]]'s evidence has no diffs at all. Nor does... but you get the point. I'm not sure I get yours - do you really want us to ask clerks to go through the evidence now and remove every section with no diffs? I don't think you do. And how would it make resolution of this case any easier? This isn't the appropriate time to start removing swathes of evidence or change the scope. Doug Weller talk 06:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)