Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Hahc21 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
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.

Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

It appears to be insinuating without supporting proofs/diffs that I am involved in some sort of "breaching experiment" regarding paid editing. While I may occasionally browse the public discussions there (as most everyone here does), my account there was turned off by mutual agreement last fall so I am not privy to the inner workings, and am certainly not collaborating with anyone externally on paid editing nor anything else. To my knowledge, I have never partaken in a discussion on paid editing here or elsewhere. IMO as long as the end result is of sufficient quality, I don't see the harm in someone being compensated for writing, but that's really neither here nor there.

SO, I'd like to request that this section to either be collaborated with proof or stricken by a clerk/arb, please. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence presented by Smallbones[edit]

@Smallbones:JW considers him to be a real world physical threat to JW and others

I'm sorry, but you'll have to provide a clear source for that, because that is a wide generalization to be making, and also a strawman.

Also, who was not using the template?

KonveyorBelt 15:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo once made a comment on his talk page saying something to the effect that if he saw him he'd call the police (I'm just quoting from memory). Look, it was basically hyperbole, an example of the bad blood between the two. What irritates me about this entire exercise is that there are editors who have taken it upon themselves to police Jimbo's talk page for this person, and yet here they are, in a potentially adverse position before Arbcom, and I don't see Jimbo doing a thing to intervene on their behalf. A lesson to us all. Coretheapple (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last minute walkout by Konveyor Belt[edit]

Some rather overly dramatic events here.

  • Konveyor Belt has removed his section on the evidence page.
The result is that there are now no accusations of any type whatsoever against myself or User:Hell in a Bucket
  • Konveyor Belt removed his discussion points on the workshop page as well, including some comments made by others.
User:Tarc then reverted KB, putting everything back in, but then reverted himself again, taking it all out again saying (approx) "It's up to the ArbCom and clerks to decide"

My reaction to this circus is:

  • I was going to put in a small section on the evidence against Tarc, Konveyor Belt, and probably Carrite as well.
This might be difficult as I count just over 1000 words (not including responses) in my section, and I'd have to ask permission or remove something to stay within the size limit. Now I have no idea what to take out. May I add the section and decide later what to take out? Perhaps this will be a moot question.
  • I'll suggest that the evidence page be closed as scheduled tomorrow (?Tuesday, 0:00 UTC = 6pm New York time?), unless there suddenly appear some accusations against me. If sudden accusations do appear, it might take me 2 days to properly respond due to prior commitments).
  • I'll suggest that the case then proceed as scheduled, with the workshop comments of Konveyor Belt removed, where they are not backed by any evidence on theevidence page *and* haven't been responded to.

I'm sure the clerks and arbs are more experienced at this type of thing than I am, so I'll try to ping them.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC) @Hahc21: @Callanecc: @Worm That Turned: @David Fuchs: @Seraphimblade: @Newyorkbrad:[reply]

I'll defer on this point to the arbitrators drafting the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted at first when noticing that there were some (but not many) comments in Konveyor Belt's Workshop section, then reversed since it really ain't my business. No idea why he decided to nuke all and drop it, don't really much care. Seems rather minor to label it a "circus" though, but whatever floats the boats. Tarc (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've included a section now on evidence against Tarc only. Perhaps it repeats HIAB's section, but I feel it is a bit better organized. My total section (not including responses to other users) is 1078 words. Does anybody object to the extra 78 words? Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the extra 78 words approved, but please do make cuts if you want to add anything more. WormTT(talk) 07:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If workshop proposals aren't backed by evidence they aren't likely to gain much support, so I wouldn't worry about that. As of now I don't see a reason to change any scheduled dates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smallbones You forgot the part where you threatened to ban me for the duration of the case. It is little wonder I dropped out. KonveyorBelt 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did this happen? An editor threatening other who happens to be filing evidence against him would be a serious case of tampering here. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Konveyor is referring to this statement: "Being forced to defend myself against unstated accusations is not part of the ArbCom process, and if you do not state what rules you think I've broken, or at least give some context of what the diffs are supposed to mean in line with your promise to Penwhale, I will ask ArbCom to ban you for abuse of the ArbCom process and harassment."--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you TDA, I have entered that into the Evidence page. When one wishes to contest Evidentiary filings, there are IMO better ways to go about it. I have issue with Rich's so I posted here, though it is as of now not commented upon. I also has an issue with KB's post, so I asked him about it...again with no response, but, hey, what more can one do? Tarc (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be helpful, as I'm familiar with the background, and have posted some evidence. But this case has been so vague from the beginning as far as the "who supposed to have done wrong" aspect that I'm at a loss to figure out how to proceed further. Why don't you guys (i.e., the arbitration committee) just drop it? Hasn't this banned editor already wasted enough of our time? Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy/Evidence&oldid=1146575652"