The Arbitration Committee has directed that discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC) |
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: DeltaQuad (Talk) & Cameron11598 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos (Talk) & KrakatoaKatie (Talk)
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.
As a reminder editors are limited to 1000 words and 100 diffs. The following is a preliminary word count of the evidence sections;
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I really like the fact that you have a question section so arbs can talk to editors directly. I haven't see that before and think its an excellent idea. Thank you for that.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for taking so long to post evidence—partly the sheer amount of material to work through, partly the difficulty in paring it down to the 1000-word limit, and partly life getting in the way.
I struggled to keep it within the 1000-word limit, and thus left out several sections of evidence entirely (on the removal of all maintenance tags, a couple more major cases of IDHT relating to BLP, Quebec, and "scandal", denial of evidence, and other behaviours). I can't help but feel what I've presented doesn't properly show the sheer extent of the behavioural issues on the article and at ANI.
A smaller issue—I've got 1000 words to present my evidence against several editors, while each of those editors has 1000 words to present their case against me (and it'll be against me and not Littleolive oil). I call it "smaller" because I doubt they'll use up 4000 words worth of substance against me, but it's an issue everyone should be aware of: the opposition has massively more leeway to make their case than I have. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Question: should I be signing each of the sections of evidence I provided? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Echoing Pldx1's evidence section that, even with Curly Turkey's evidence, this case is looking like to be a no-show. So there were some problems with source attribution and people had different POVs? Those must be the most common issues in Wikipedia. Every recent American politics RfC has had far more issues even with the discretionary sanctions. Looking at Mr.Gold1's section, they are clearly a new editor and have no clear idea what they are supposed to do here.
This whole case does not make sense, unless the Arbs have already privately decided that Canadian politics will get discretionary sanctions. --Pudeo (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry all, I've been dealing with a combination of real life and aversion to getting back into this dispute. I'm aware of the deadline to submit evidence and I'll have it in ahead of that. Safrolic (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I hereby request the consent of Arbcom to post ~1250 words in my evidence section. While I am only marginally involved in the article (only one edit), and not named by the filer, yet that one edit get me involved, and I believe I can offer relevant evidence in a useful format. This evidence consists of a timeline of a small editwar, with excerpts and diffs to relevant comments. These comments are a fair sample of the "instransigent behavior" at the heart of the case, and also illustrate some of the IDHT issue. The draft can be reviewed at User:J._Johnson/sandbox/timeline I don't believe it can be made shorter without loss of structure, clarity of context, and convenient linkage. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
While I don't believe I need more time, I join Safrolic's request to allow a few more days for evidence. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)