Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:40, 13 February 2014

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Question on comments vs. own proposals

I have some proposals but got busy replying to User:Robert McClenon's. Now I'm wondering if I should allow my replies to stand as my opinion - or additions - on those topics he has created and let Arbitrators sort it out? Then I would create only sections that I think need adding - or perhaps ones that I feel express the views of myself and others better than others' existing sections. Thoughts? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, better late than never, got the idea from Gun Control Arbitration Workshop and others who may be confused probably also can get some guidance there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Analysis of evidence" section?

Since there is such a section and several people have used it to analyze evidence, I do not understand why TParis said my analysis belongs on the evidence page. Especially since I only have a couple hundred words left which is insufficient and I did link to it from the Evidence page. Are the links not evident?

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Workshop reads: The Workshop subpage allows the parties, the community and the Arbitrators to analyze the evidence, offer suggestions about possible final decision proposals, and receive feedback. (My emphasis.) Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not analyzing evidence, your are providing new evidence about Steeletrap's behavior. You're only barely mentioning someone else's evidence. Your comments belong in the evidence section so they can be used as a finding of fact on Steeletrap's behavior.--v/r - TP 21:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, looking through quickly I see a couple things that might be considered "new evidence" and I can remove them (delete or strike?).

1. that Steeletrap edit warred on Woods/DiLorenzo. ( Note that I already did list the Woods/DiLorenzo WP:Undue sections on my evidence and I can make that clear. )
2. Since I didn't thoroughly analyze problems with the SPLC link, I guess I could take it out - or expand it, as seems more useful once I review it.
3. Mention that she recently added Block link to another article.

The rest is analysis from the sources that she provided of misrepresentations and a couple additional links showing her evidence presented at Arbitration is bogus.

Perhaps my linking to analysis from evidence is a problem too? Can remove if necessary. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Carol, why are you over analyzing this? It's better off in the evidence section. Why is it that you insist it stay in the workshop? Do you fear it'll have less value? Don't delete anything, just move it. It's better off in the evidence section exactly like it is. It's not going to be of worse value or taken less seriously. It just simply belongs there and there is no reason to try to change it to fit here.--v/r - TP 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Evidence: ...The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case;...... Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others.... Plus somewhere it said you have to get permission to go over 1000 words. If Arbitrators do read the Workshop, why bother to add to evidence? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a place to get around the evidence rules. Trim out the narratives and just list the facts and diffs.--v/r - TP 22:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the last paragraph of the Evidence page I'm reminded there is a confusing conflict between that paragraph, what's going on at the Workshop already, and the Guide to Arbitration. I do remember thinking I had a choice, but I guess not. I'll see how much I can shorten it and meanwhile consult a clerk on numbers. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no conflict. You'd like to misinterpret the policy as allowing additional evidence under the pretense of an analysis when you are in fact introducing new evidence. Now, I'm not saying you cannot have your evidence, what I am saying is that the rules on evidence are clear. If you want to include both pieces, trim the explanations and narratives and just go with the facts. See my section for an example. If you must, leave the evidence there and move the narratives here and call that your analysis.--v/r - TP 01:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, what else is new evidence? I've taken out bunch things that I think are plus some more editorial comment. But is it also the couple new links to material that disprove her assertions? Everything else is just my opinion based on the links she gives us.

Also, I see a whole lot of "new evidence" by the EllenCT commentators and a couple by -Ubikwit and I don't see you or anyone else chiding them, which increases my confusion. If you think putting in Evidence makes the case stronger, that would make sense. But I am saving my 300+ remaining words for a bunch of diffs on fringe and some other things. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Went to sleep and woke up with short summary for Evidence page ready to go! So I replaced the link section and link to my workshop analysis, so we have our cake and eat it too (unless Arbitrators ask me and others to take down "new evidence". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 08:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to move my content if admins think it needs to be moved or they are welcome to move it. I was following the lead of some other editors, but I think there was a reason. Our evidence is not really evidence for the case topic, except to argue that EllenCT's evidence is not evidence for the case topic and appeal for intervention. I don't want our arguments for something off topic to hijack the intent of this arbitration, but we did need to respond to the charges. Again, I'll be happy to place my comments wherever they want them. I've never been involved in an arbitration, so the mechanics are unfamiliar to me. Morphh 14:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: I am concerned about the many deletions and revisions of your evidence. Several times I have read your posts and begun to draft responses or compile diffs which refute your assertions, only to see later that you've subsequently changed your narrative. I am finding it unduly difficult to digest and reply to what feels like a moving target. May I respectfully suggest that you collect your thoughts, review the Arbcom guidelines, and post a well-formed contribution rather than a series of work-in-progress. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to two comments above:

• for those in Arbitration the first time, the lack of clarity of rules can cause confusion; I just noticed that the main page describes use of Workshop in yet a slightly different way, more like the Evidence page than the Guidelines page; this more clearly infers new evidence is prohibited at Workshop; so TParis seems to be right and thus I changed my analysis to be commentary on my evidence Steeletrap misrepresented hers, per the main page. That might help Morphh, or TParis could reply to Morphh's question. (I do have a question related to that in already to the clerks which may be rather dated by now.)
• Re: changing evidence/workshop comments: typically on Misplaced Pages if no one has responded to an entry one can change or add to it; I don't see that that rule has changed for an Arbitration. And no one has replied to any substantive issues I've raised, only made process comments encouraging me to change my content. Also Arbitration guidelines do explicitly say you can add new material in new sections during the Arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Update for others: Turns out that Evidence/Talk is the place to analyze (existing) evidence. I have no idea why the "Analysis of Evidence" section exists here but did notice in closed Arbitrations it was hardly used at all. In case anyone feels there's a need to move something over there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

Comment about links

@Carolmooredc: With your Workshop comment edit summary in mind, the answer is yes and no. Yes, you do need links to show where Specifico was opposed to using Hayek, because that issue involves editor behavior. No, you do not need links to Austerians or Krugman because the merits of Austrian School thought or Krugman School thought will not be determined by the ArbCom. Also, evidence is allowed until 8 February. If you have not exceeded your 100 diff/1,000 word limit, then add evidence to the Evidence page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Needed signatures or {{unsigned}} templates

The instructions say "Please sign all suggestions and comments." But we have various comments and suggestions that are unsigned. Would the clerks please add {{unsigned}} templates as appropriate. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC) @Ks0stm: & @Hahc21: 05:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC) 

Discussion involving the proposed IBAN

The following are my remarks regarding "discussion" of my proposed IBAN. They are cut and pasted from the Workshop page.

& – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted these Smileys with the hope that editors would see how trivial and off-topic their accusations were becoming. Consider, editors are commenting about a proposal that would serve to reduce their disruptive, indeed destructive, bickering with one another on Project pages. (I.e., did one editor make a typo when typing "he" when she should have typed "she".) But they do so by continuing their personal sniping at one another. As a result, even the mechanism for settling these disputes and minimizing these disruptions – the ArbCom – gets disrupted. How so? The Committee gets to see how petty and personal the concerns actually are vs. the Project. Alas, the discussion about implementing an IBAN becomes evidence in itself for the IBAN (or, perhaps, other bans). At some point I read that the ArbCom is "ban-happy". I don't know anything about this one way or the other because I have not reviewed prior Arbitrations. But if the discourse which I see on just this one proposal is a typical example, I can see why. – S. Rich (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have explained I just was a bit careless in not making sure I properly identified SPECIFICO where I should have, thus leading to a typical brouhaha over the tiniest little error. Sigh... I agree it all should be moved over here since. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO's comment on Workshop page – This edit by SPECIFICO is an example of how he misuses pages to make personal remarks about other editors (i.e., Carolmooredc). It has absolutely nothing to do with re-writing the "Locus of Dispute" section. It adds evidence supporting my request that an IBAN be imposed on Specifico & Carolmooredc. – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, per my own later realization while the plumber was here, and reinforced by a talk page note when I got back online, I realized that analysis might belong in any Locus of Dispute proposal section. It was not appropriate in response to SRich's question. I was in middle of changing it but had an edit conflict with SPECIFICO. However, analysis of specifics in proposals will happen. In any case, maybe if we could hold our breaths and not jump on every comment immediately we won't have these problems. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: & @Hahc21: Is it possible, please to get a decision on my proposed temporary injunction (the immediate IBAN). Per the above and per the Workshop page we see Specifico & Carolmooredc going after each other. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That's for the arbitrators to decide. Though, if you really believe it's needed, maybe doing it voluntariously would be good. — ΛΧΣ 20:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Srich, I will only speak for myself, but what I am doing on the Workshop page is discussing my evidence and your proposal. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced an interaction ban is needed here; it should be sufficient to remind people that the proposed decision will take into account editors' behavior during the case, and it is in all editors' interest to dial back any attitude or snark or aggression, even if for some reason they think it's justified. I'm not likely to be tricked into penalizing someone because their opponent said they were sneaky or evil or something; I am likely to come down harder on someone routinely being a jerk and unnecessarily making dispute resolution more difficult. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeams comment.

If I understand Srich's concern about some of my statements here, I think he's missing the point. My purpose is to relate Carolmooredc's behavior in the Workshop to the diffs I presented in Evidence. Those diffs give context by which to interpret her actions, and they document that this behavior is longstanding and disruptive. Srich himself is concerned about her behavior at this Arbitration and has been coaching her on his and her talk pages. My statements in Workshop are about the evidence concerning Carolmooredc's behavior which I previously posted. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Where and when to respond to accusations allegedly based on evidence

To continue above, I realize I claimed SPECIFICO was harassing me based on my evidence as a reason for an IBAN. And he didn't like my sharing detailed thoughts about Newbie vs. Olster principles of interaction in the Locus of dispute section. I'm not happy he's claiming behavior by me from before this dispute, allegedly based on his evidence.

The question is: a) should we be making such claims?; b) where?; c) what is the best way to respond (ask for removal, ask to move elsewhere or what?) and d)where is best place to respond? Studies have show that if false or exaggerated accusations are not refuted in a clear and timely manner, people tend to believe them. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Need reminders on New evidence/Analysis of evidence

To make this as simple as possible, are the analysis of evidence submitted so far proper? And it is true that we should not bring up new claims or new evidence here, correct? (I just struck one example of my doing such myself; saying "I didn't present evidence" not good enough. Smack me with the big fish.)

Feb 5th User:Ks0stm wrote at Evidence talk page: Just a reminder to all parties and participants that as I said in the section above, please keep all evidence, rebuttals, and analysis of evidence on the evidence page and reserve the evidence talk page for concerns about evidence presented and questions about evidence."

Based on similar earlier comments I had moved my analysis (which just fleshed out my rebuttals) there from here. However, I see there are no complaints about any of the existing analysis sections, including of parties SRich and Carolmooredc and others. I would like to analyze some others' evidence here briefly, but given everything I write leads to a huge brouhaha, would like to get an idea of what is proper before I do so. @Ks0stm: & @Hahc21: Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As the evidence phase has closed, the time for presenting evidence has ended. The focus now should be on proposing ideas for the final decision. Ks0stm 15:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Well, I think we are mostly concentrating on proposals now anyway. I have added all of mine. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for workshop extension

I absolutely cannot participate fully in the process right now, due to pressing RL matters. However, if it could be extended to next Tuesday or Wednesday, I would be able to do so. Since my hide is on the line here, and we're just talking a few days' delay, I think it's a reasonable request. Steeletrap (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While the Committee is considering Steeletrap's request, I should state that I too am distracted by unavoidable real-life commitments at this time. In the interest of fairness to all parties and other interested editors, I request that the Workshop closing be extended until next Wednesday for all parties and other editors. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I support these requests. – S. Rich (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC) @Ks0stm: & @Hahc21: 20:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the requests. TFD (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, don't see the harm in an extension (but given the volumes of comments, I don't envy the arbitrators here). Mattnad (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that if we are going to have voluminous amounts of material inserted at whatever the last minute is - including problematic new evidence, mistakes about policy, etc. that needs addressing - that further extensions also may be required. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)