![]() Archives |
---|
Sunday
1
May
Please add comments to the bottom
Contents
Clarification
A few points of clarification:
- Assuming your evidence is referring to redactions on the Gamergate talk page and on NYB's talk page, GorillaWarfare used revdel, not oversight.
- You were expected to be named as a party to the case before GorillaWarfare added her statement to the case request. Of course, she had no way of knowing that, because the recused members of the committee do not have access to the mailing list being used to discuss the case. It remains possible that additional parties will be added.
Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Please add my name too. Surely I disagreed with Gamaliel at some point in the past. One sacrificial lamb is hardly "balance"...not when an admin/arbitrator is facing the squad too. You need at least two peons to even the score.--MONGO 00:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: I expected no such thing and no arbitrator mentioned me in their accept statement. I didn't ask for a case. I didn't edit war. I haven't seen or heard a single thing that connects me to Gamaliel's misconduct. This is the Red Queen's "Sentence first, verdict afterwards." --DHeyward (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- You had the audacity to question authority! Thou must know thy place lowly serf.--MONGO 01:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I mean we expected to include you, and did not do so in response to GW's post. You're a party to a proposed temporary injunction for the duration of the case, which has passed and which will be enacted soon. So, independently of any other matters, it makes sense to give you the status of a party to the case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: Where was any of this discussed so I would have a Right of Reply? Star chamber interaction ban that are vague and include an arbitrator, admin and signpost editor? Named party to a case where not a single accepting arb mentioned me? If you are going to make these enforcement actions stick, I request an accounting of how they came about. A broad interpretation of the IBAN would mean I am unable to discuss the case on my own talk page nor reply to the bully pulpit of Signpost editorials regardless of who wrote them. This seems like a lot of information arrived to ArbCom through non-public channels by unidentifiable groups (much like how GorillaWarfare started rev-delling my comments as I detailed on evidence). Please identify the sources and content. There is no reason for ArbCom to protect powerful admin/arbs from simple editors. See Wikipedia:Notification --DHeyward (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought I posted this already - either eaten by yesterday's server gremlins or I just got distracted, I suppose. The iban is two-way, so it really makes no difference who has which bits. If you want to know why it seems like a good idea, scroll up a few sections. If you want to know where you could have responded, the message announcing the proposed injunction explicitly invites your comment and the vote on the injunction was done in public. You are still perfectly welcome to submit evidence. Take the advice in Mongo's link or something; all this 'star chamber' rhetoric is hyperbole. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've got a question for you @Opabinia regalis:, what was he to respond to? That there was a proposal? Evidence wasn't submitted with it, and an argument wasn't made as to why it should be done. You can't very well respond to arguments and evidence that you are not aware of. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: I don't have an issue with iban for the case. I do have an issue with being named. Try this though, follow that link above about the notice and look for a vote now. I clicked the notice when I got and there were three accepts. I clicked it again, later, and it was gone entirely. I thought it died. Where's the notice of the new place? Where's the notice that I was being considered as a case participant? Everyone is confused by that bit considering all the other active participants. --DHeyward (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- (ec)@Opabinia regalis: the explicit request for his comment was here, which instructed DHeyward to comment at the case request page (then titled BLP and the American Politician). 9 hours later, the case was opened and there was no more chance to comment at the requests page [1]. The injunction was then moved to the proposed decision page, with no chance for comment. If this is not "star chamber" rhetoric, it surely is kafkaesque. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Kyohyi: You're posting just a few sections down from notifications of poor behavior related to the case. Acting like it's a big mystery why an iban might seem like a good idea is an insult to DHeyward's intelligence.
- DHeyward and @Mr Ernie: yes, it would have been a good idea to update the link (I'll add that to the list of reasons behind my apparently quixotic quest for case requests to be subpaged) but come on, if you see a link to a subsection of a case request and subsequently the case is opened, you've got a pretty good idea where the subsection might have ended up. And if you're a party to a temporary injunction related to the case, why wouldn't you be a party to the case? I'm sure the conspiracy theory factory would be churning away either way - if you weren't a named party it would be because we were trying to make sure you got less evidence space, obviously, right? Just post whatever evidence you think necessary within the scope of the case and otherwise go about your wiki-business. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like posting evidence is a waste of time. "Just post whatever evidence you think necessary within the scope of the case and otherwise go about your wiki-business"...really? That comes across as post your evidence and we will make sure it gets shoved into the circular file. Sure, fine, an Iban is possibly not the worst idea, but that hardly justifies being a named party.--MONGO 23:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: Who said anything about why an iban being a good idea is a big mystery? I'm not about to commit a post hoc fallacy when it is the responsibility of those asserting problems to make their own cases. --Kyohyi (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- @MONGO: The point is more like "we're not actually trying to set traps for people", but I suppose once you've convinced yourself there's a conspiracy, everything looks like evidence in favor. (Arbcom is fifteen people, not all of whom were familiar with each other beforehand, coming from a pretty wide cross-section of the project, coordinating across multiple time zones by email, while trying to continue working on our other Wikipedia interests. We'd be really bad at conspiracy.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea how that addresses my last comment. Written words are so easily misconstrued...so much is lost without being able to hear the tone of voice or observe body language and gestures.--MONGO 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like posting evidence is a waste of time. "Just post whatever evidence you think necessary within the scope of the case and otherwise go about your wiki-business"...really? That comes across as post your evidence and we will make sure it gets shoved into the circular file. Sure, fine, an Iban is possibly not the worst idea, but that hardly justifies being a named party.--MONGO 23:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought I posted this already - either eaten by yesterday's server gremlins or I just got distracted, I suppose. The iban is two-way, so it really makes no difference who has which bits. If you want to know why it seems like a good idea, scroll up a few sections. If you want to know where you could have responded, the message announcing the proposed injunction explicitly invites your comment and the vote on the injunction was done in public. You are still perfectly welcome to submit evidence. Take the advice in Mongo's link or something; all this 'star chamber' rhetoric is hyperbole. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: Where was any of this discussed so I would have a Right of Reply? Star chamber interaction ban that are vague and include an arbitrator, admin and signpost editor? Named party to a case where not a single accepting arb mentioned me? If you are going to make these enforcement actions stick, I request an accounting of how they came about. A broad interpretation of the IBAN would mean I am unable to discuss the case on my own talk page nor reply to the bully pulpit of Signpost editorials regardless of who wrote them. This seems like a lot of information arrived to ArbCom through non-public channels by unidentifiable groups (much like how GorillaWarfare started rev-delling my comments as I detailed on evidence). Please identify the sources and content. There is no reason for ArbCom to protect powerful admin/arbs from simple editors. See Wikipedia:Notification --DHeyward (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- FWIW, my body language and tone is collegiate discussion. I may say some things sharply but it's a mistake to think I am angry. Why be angry in a hobby? For example, one of the things I wrote hastily was redacted. I could have rewrote it in the style of WP using the exact same words but there's no point as it was already misconstrued. The userbox issue was highlighting the dispute and not malicious, just a rather rhetorical foil just as the reference two editors made to "kicking my dog" was rhetorical. The iban has no more effect on me than just saying "don't comment anymore." However I fear it's being used as a stepping stone to a "more permanent solution." That's my only concern with it. --DHeyward (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- What would that be? A ban from gamergate stupidities. Or the sordid cast of zero sum gain trolls and SPAs that haunt those pages. I think that entire affair should be deleted and salted. What an ugly mess that place is.--MONGO 05:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Who knows? Maybe I'll need to put a trigger warning in my signature. I could change my name to "Trigger" after the horse. I argued that GG be deleted and salted in Aug 2014 but what do I know. I rarely edit there except when there are massive BLP issues or NPOV issues related to living people. --DHeyward (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- What would that be? A ban from gamergate stupidities. Or the sordid cast of zero sum gain trolls and SPAs that haunt those pages. I think that entire affair should be deleted and salted. What an ugly mess that place is.--MONGO 05:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- FWIW, my body language and tone is collegiate discussion. I may say some things sharply but it's a mistake to think I am angry. Why be angry in a hobby? For example, one of the things I wrote hastily was redacted. I could have rewrote it in the style of WP using the exact same words but there's no point as it was already misconstrued. The userbox issue was highlighting the dispute and not malicious, just a rather rhetorical foil just as the reference two editors made to "kicking my dog" was rhetorical. The iban has no more effect on me than just saying "don't comment anymore." However I fear it's being used as a stepping stone to a "more permanent solution." That's my only concern with it. --DHeyward (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Opabinia regalis: (in reply to you've got a pretty good idea where the subsection might have ended up. As indicated by my query [2], I didn't notice the updated location of the injunction discussion, either; in arbcom cases the proposed decision page typically does not become active until after the close of the evidence phase, and that a temporary injunction considered part of the propsed decision for the case isn't instrincially obvious. NE Ent 10:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arbitration temporary injunction enacted
The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the end of the Gamaliel and others arbitration case:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- @L235: Why? No reason was given. No evidence presented. No Right of reply asked for. --DHeyward (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't speak for the Committee about why they enacted this. However, you were very clearly notified of the consideration of the injunction and invited to comment, notified of the timeframe of which it would be enacted, and edited after you were notified. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Dheyward, were you contacted at all (except for the talk page comments above) about this temporary injunction? --Kyohyi (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. In fact, they moved the vote in the middle of the process and I thought it had died until it was mentioned again. No notice, no evidence, no request for response. If you look at the notice, the link is dead. No update that they moved it. I had to hunt for it after OR mentioned it again.. --DHeyward (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are many stupid rules we have to follow to live in a civilized world...be that as it may, any deviation from this hardline rule is not going to help you one iota. Considering the subject matter, maybe better to go do some proofreading at FAC or work on something...anything else.--MONGO 22:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the nonsense grows though. Check out this revert [3]. Reverting an 18 month old edit I made. I kinda think a change that stood for 18 months is pretty much consensus. I didn't even remember making it. Why bother editing anything with clouds? I have no reason to believe it wasn't sincere and he did edit that section over 2 years ago and he was nice enough to use revert so I'd be notified. But force a BRD? Not for me right now. I'm easy pickings right now. --DHeyward (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are many stupid rules we have to follow to live in a civilized world...be that as it may, any deviation from this hardline rule is not going to help you one iota. Considering the subject matter, maybe better to go do some proofreading at FAC or work on something...anything else.--MONGO 22:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. In fact, they moved the vote in the middle of the process and I thought it had died until it was mentioned again. No notice, no evidence, no request for response. If you look at the notice, the link is dead. No update that they moved it. I had to hunt for it after OR mentioned it again.. --DHeyward (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Dheyward, were you contacted at all (except for the talk page comments above) about this temporary injunction? --Kyohyi (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't speak for the Committee about why they enacted this. However, you were very clearly notified of the consideration of the injunction and invited to comment, notified of the timeframe of which it would be enacted, and edited after you were notified. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom
rbCom
Talk page
As I understand your IBan above, you're restricted even from the case talk pages. I see you self-reverted and I had forgotten about this IBan when I suggested you revert. --v/r - TP 07:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- @TParis: No worries. I took your advice there and I believe even without reverting I was in line with the IBAN. I keep arguments in the abstract and it was more helpful to hear your comments on heat vs. light (and thanks for covering the topic, I am grateful and humbled by the number of people that have come out in support). I even changed my evidence to reduce the unfocused heat/light ratio unrelated to me specifically. I wouldn't have commented if I thought I was in violation (either on that talk page or here). I'm sure many will look at what I wrote and I have many watchers now. It's my impression that discussing Signpost, Arbitration, ADMINACCT, and other policies are beyond iban per se but I will take more care that they are not anything but broad and unfocused comments. I edited your comment here to keep it broad and unfocused. I hope you don't mind. Your advice (as is anyone elses) is always welcome. --DHeyward (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others date extensions
The evidence and workshop closing dates and the proposed-decision date have been extended to 6, 13 and 23 May, respectively. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)