Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Jim Carter (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: AGK (Talk) & Salvio giuliano (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.

Question for a clerk

I believe that normally, once a case is accepted, the evidence page usually consists of the preliminary statements of the parties to the case, and those of the non-parties are relegated to main page's talk page. Is there a reason it was done differently this time, and all the preliminary statements were placed on the evidence page?

Normally, my comments are almost entirely directed toward whether the Committee should accept the case or not, and I haven't felt the need to present evidence. This time I have been considering doing so, if I have the time to gather the data that I need. I'm not sure if having my preliminary statement on the evidence page makes much of a difference one way or the other, but I am curious about the apparent change in procedure. BMK (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: It's my personal understanding and also my impression from clerks-l (for those with a subscription, the thread starting with [1]) that all statements should be copied to the evidence page, not just parties' statements. Putting preliminary statements in the evidence page is a pretty new procedure - we changed it a month ago. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, this is indeed a change in procedure. The traffic count is different too, and this allows people to add evidences in reply to others' preliminary comments easier. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to both of you for your prompt responses. BMK (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin action

Hi,

Can someone please advise (or clarify if I've missed it) the process if someone restricted from doing so sees an issue they feel needs admin intervention against any one of the named parties. Amortias (T)(C) 08:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email ArbCom via Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee is best or direct to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org.  Roger Davies talk 08:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence against non-party users

Carrite has a section of evidence against Slowking4 in their evidence section, but Slowking4 is not party to the case. I was actually wondering this... can evidence related to non-party users be presented? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 12:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was wondering that myself. It depends whether any action against Slowking4 is being requested, or if that evidence is merely being used as background for the "Gender Gap Allies training program" which was the issue in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't had chance to read that evidence yet, but speaking generally if it is just background then we'll just make sure that Slowking4 is aware so that they can respond if they choose. If their actions are more central to the case then the drafters will add the user as a party and request the clerks make them formally aware, etc. It's better to add parties at this stage than after the evidence closes. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both. I wasn't sure if naming individuals in background info was considered okay or not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add Slowking4 as a party to this case

@Salvio giuliano - I formally request that Slowking4 be added as a party to this case because his factional activity is very much a part of this case. It goes to Eric Corbett's motivation for chiming off in the first place, I believe. The fact is that EC, jerk though he may sometimes appear to be, has been victimized by a tag-team effort of GGTF/GG-l — members of which include Kevin Gorman, Slowking4, EvergreenFir, and Gorilla Warfare. It's alllllllllllll part of the recently-completed GenderGap Task Force case (as is the LIghtbreather case, incidentally). Carrite (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend you strike your accusations that lack evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I don't want to relitigate, because if we start going down that road, this case will spiral out of control and the relevant policy will never be clarified. So, in the context of this case, I have to decline to add Slowking. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You just requested that I strike my evidence. I presented evidence that GG-l has identified Eric Corbett as Evildoer #1. I ran out of words at 500. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that, but, honestly, I'd like to keep this case from focusing on Eric's or the gendergappers' actions. This case was opened because the policy on the enforcement of our decisions is unclear and we need to clarify it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see, Salvio, here's the problem — it's all one huge interwoven problem and it all goes back to the poor GGTF decision. One word screwed that up — escalating blocks. If EC had received a one week AE knuckle-rap for his tepid talk page comment, this circus could have been avoided.... Either that gets fixed with this case or the problem recurs... Carrite (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not unsympathetic, as I believe that admins enforcing our decisions used should use their common sense, tailoring the seriousness of the sanction to the seriousness of the violation (taking, however, into account the hypothetical recidivism of the editor to be sanctioned). And I hope to clarify that as well in the final decision. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Clarified my meaning. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that we can focus on the processes rather than individuals. So far as I'm concerned this is not a case about Eric or Gendergap. Doug Weller (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was exactly the point, as I've mentioned in my evidence. Because of the wording of the TB, it was either a month (or at least more than 2 weeks, which was the last one) or nothing. If I'd had the option of a short "don't do that again" block, I might well have used it. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: I recommend specifically striking the 3rd sentence. You provided evidence of specific statements by individuals, not stances of entire projects and all its members. You also allege coordination without evidence. Do not cast aspersions so broadly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question for arbs re scope of this case

Note to everyone else: Please don't let this section degenerate into an argument. Actual question: I appreciate that the committee has taken this case, as I think it is important to clarify whether an AE close as no action is considered an admin action. However, given that Eric Corbett is a named party, is it appropriate to also provide evidence as to whether or not the sanctions that he is under are overly broad? From what has been posted in evidence already, I think the fact that he was facing a month-long block under the AE scale ... and the scope of what was actually said, were factors in some of the decisions that were made. If the arbs don't intend this case to go that way, I'll refrain from posting anything further. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A drafter will give you a firm answer, but I don't think that reanalysing Eric's restriction will form part of this case for the sake of keeping the scope manageable. Evidence that people hold (differing) opinions regarding that restriction and were basing actions on those opinions would certainly be taken into account, but I'd be surprised if that led to more than advice on how, if the situation happens again, all parties should proceed without it ending up in a similar mess. After this case closes it could of course be used as background in a separate review of Eric's restriction. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that answers my question pretty well. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too await to hear the scope of the case. In looking at past AE, ANI, and AN, it's clear that there's a large rift and "camps" on this issue, even among admins. Does this rift come under the scope of the case? If so, there may be many more parties to add... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not the correct place to relitigate Eric's restriction. I am actually thinking of removing him as a party (along with a couple of others who should not have been added). This case will be only be about the conduct of the various administrators involved in this mess. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it disappointing that ArbCom is considering examining only conduct rather than dealing with the underlying issue, the clarity and scope of the policies. All this does is give ArbCom the "easy out" of desysopping all relevant administrators and claim to have "solved" the problem with minimal drama. In actuality, as I have presented on my evidence section, the policy is unclear. Note, especially, the logic table. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Reaper in principle here. There are a few underlying issues that need addressing, including how admins in these "camps" I mentioned act in admin capacity when dealing with something they feel strongly about. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't expressed myself clearly. Of course, we will be examining the policy and, hopefully, we will clarify it. That was one of the reasons I voted to accept the case (I also have no interest in sanctioning anyone, at the moment; I actually proposed to pass a general amnesty for all administrators involved, but my proposal failed). Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Salvio, I'd like to comment on what you said about removing Eric and maybe others as parties. In my comments asking ArbCom to accept the case, I expressed the opinion that there are really two separate groups of issues involved here: the issues around Eric's violation of ArbCom sanctions, and the issues around AE procedures. It is, of course, up to you and the other members of ArbCom to accept or not accept whatever you think best, and if you decide to limit the scope of this case only to AE procedures, that's your prerogative, but I want to recommend that you not do so.
Karanacs began this talk thread by asking about whether the scope should involve a reevaluation of the previous sanctions placed on Eric, and I agree that it should not. But, to be precise about what we are saying here, let's not confound that question with the question of what Eric did under the existing sanctions. It seems to me that this issue is one that the community has not been able to agree on, that it will not be able to agree on going forward, and that it is a perpetual subject of contention and drama. As such, I suggest that it remain as part of the case scope. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My fear is that we include the issues around Eric's violation of ArbCom sanctions, the case is going to become unwieldy. My preference would be to first settle the policy issues (which, to me, are the priority) and, then, once the case is over and the dust has settled, to see what else needs to be done, to curb disruption. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reaper Eternal, thanks very much for your table. I certainly found it useful. This case should be about processes, not people. I don't think there is any way that we can do both in one case. As I've said elsewhere and as I said to my colleagues last night, I'm opposed to any desysops in this case. Of course if someone does something new and OTT, I might have to reconsider, but I don't think that's going to happen. I also supported the suggestion for a general amnesty. Doug Weller (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Salvio, ah, my apologies then. I misinterpreted the "only about the conduct of the involved admins" to mean that no policy issues would be considered.

Doug Weller, I'm glad you find it useful. :) I was trying to put together the information on what is potentially at fault with the policies and why they are unclear in a clear and concise manner, and a table seemed to be the simplest method, even if it looks somewhat awkward compared to the usual paragraph format of arbitration case pages. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any scope for reviewing the IRC comments of the anonymous admin? I'm guessing that, too, would be considered to be a separate case and in addition rejected on the grounds that the admin IRC channel is not en-WP. I said yesterday that I've got a hunch regarding who it might have been but ReaperEternal was circumspect, presumably because of concerns of outing. My concern is that, even if said in anger, such comments make that person unfit ever to take administrative action in relation to Eric Corbett and perhaps unfit to be an administrator, period. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a can of worms to be opened if we start reviewing comments that make one unfit to act as admins re: Corbett... I hope that the commenter was dealt with, but not sure this case is the place unless the arbs want to make the scope wider. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, are you an arbitrator now, EF? - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: You struck it, but a fair point. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom are aware of the identity of the administrator in question and we are discussing where best to deal with it. I don't anticipate it will become part of this case, however. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many more cases are going to see attempted hijacks to widen their scope to include the issue of civility? Can we have a quick decision that yet again this is out of scope, please? - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of events

The evidence of EvergreenFir provides a useful timeline of events. I am curious, however, whether there was any communication — either by email, IRC, or some other means — between EvergreenFir and Gorilla Warfare between EF's filing of the AE enforcement request against Eric Corbett at 17:13 and Gorilla Warfare's controversial out-of-process block of Eric Corbett at 22:58 on June 25, 2015. Was there any such contact? Carrite (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if there's an appropriate way to do this, but rather than go through the bureaucratic nonsense, I'll just answer directly: no. There was no private contact at all between GW and I between my filing of the AE and her block of Corbett. Don't think there was any public contact either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's Carrite with two Rs. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add EvergreenFir as a named party in this case

Please add EvergreenFir as a named party in this case. The recent kerfluffle was instigated in part by this report. To put it quite simply: one way bans do not work. EvergreenFir and GorillaWarfare should be banned from interacting with Eric (two way, broadly construed). Detecting and reporting any behavior violations is best left to uninvolved parties. 70.197.129.170 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. That's simply bad faith. I declined EF's AE submission, but as I've pointed out in evidence, that wasn't because it was wrong, but because I was left no option but to decline it or block EC for a month. If I'd had the option of a very short "don;t do that again" block, I may well have opted for it. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No bad faith intended. The reason I am recommending two way bans is that EvergreenFir has no business viewing Eric's talk page in the first place. 2600:1003:B44E:6FFC:F15E:A3C7:A18:343D (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Kite: Dumb question on my part probably - why were your only two options nothing or a month? (I'm asking to seek information, not to be snarky.) I'm looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_topic_banned and if I read that correctly, there is no set length for the block time for violations of the topic ban. (Violations of the ban on insulting or belittling other editors does have the requirement that the blocks be 72 hours (twice), one week, one month, and then three months, but I don't see such a requirement for violations of the topic ban.) --B (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, that's very interesting. I'd assumed the 72/72/week/month applied to the whole of the topic ban. But it actually doesn't appear that it does. Is B right here, or have we both (and, apparently, Gorilla Warfare) read it wrongly? (I'll be seriously pissed off if that's the case, because it means I could have blocked Eric for 12 hours and none of this would ever have happened). Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, it appears you're right. The 72/72/7/30 only appears to relate to EC "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors", not his TB from the Gender Gap topic. Damn. Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Black Kite (talk · contribs) Actually, on further review, I think you are right, but for the wrong reason. This is very confusing with contradictory provisions. (And, amusingly, if you look at all of the other blocks so far, they were all for violating the topic ban - not the civility remedy - but they nearly exactly follow the civility remedy's prescribed escalation.) But even though the topic ban does not prescribe an escalation schedule, there is also the enforcement provision to consider, which says "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." So if I read that correctly, following the letter of the law, since Eric was blocked for two weeks on the previous occasion, you could have blocked him for any time greater than two weeks and less than or equal to one month. --B (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Interesting points here. Perhaps that part of the GGTF could be amended to avoid this issue in the future where reviewing admins feel the nature of the violation does not warrant the length of the block prescribed by the enforcement provisions? I've stated I disagree with this approach in principle, but if that fixes some of this mess, it's a good compromise. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose adding EvergreenFir as a party. It smacks of retaliation for filing a report at the proper venue (AE) about a problem he was concerned about. GregJackP Boomer! 00:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no opinion on the subject of whether or not he or she should be added, but adding someone as a named party does not mean that they have done something wrong or are even accused of doing something wrong - just that they are a party to the disagreement. --B (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I appreciate the comments here, I will not oppose being added if the arbs think it's warranted. I have my opinions on Eric like most folks here but I, of course, do not think an iban is called for at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • EvergreenFir absolutely should be a party in this case as the AE complainant that started the mess. This is obvious. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysing EvergreenFir's conduct would be outside of the scope of the case, so I have to decline the request to add her as a party. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved TParis

  • Wheel warring is the 3rd action taken. GorillaWarfare's action was the 2nd in the chain, not the third. Wikipedia:Administrators#Reinstating_a_reverted_action_.28.22wheel_warring.22.29: "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action..." GorillaWarefare was doing the reversing. Wheeling is reinstating an action after it has been reversed. Action, Revert, Reaction. GW is well inside of this particularly policy and GregJackP should strike that.--v/r - TP 18:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the scope

Since the scope of the case seems to be slightly nebulous at the moment, I'll clarify that this case will only deal with the closure of the AE thread and subsequent block and unblock, with an eye to clarifying the relevant policy. We do not anticipate we will be examining the conduct of anybody else and it is for that reason that I've just removed Eric as a party.

Please, do not provide evidence and don't make workshop proposals regarding non-parties; I'll be directing the clerks to remove or hat everything which is outside the scope of the case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: Just to clarify the clarification: does the mass injunction apply to people who were parties to the case but have since been removed? That is, as you pare down the list of case parties, are you also paring down the list of people the 110 editors need to be paranoid about crossing paths with? Or are all of those original no-fly-zone parties still covered by the injunction? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of the mass injuction now that the only person who has actually been subject to admin action has been removed from the case, and is thus no longer protected by the injuction? Monty845 15:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's still covered. The injunction applies to all those who were parties when the injunction itself carried. Then again, we are currently discussing how it can be amended or whether it simply needs to go, so, when we modify it, we'll also make sure to clarify who and what actions it covers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: If you follow the links in the notice sent out to some 110 editors, it leads back to the case page, which no longer indicates Eric is a party. How is someone who got the notice supposed to figure that out without reviewing the page history of the case (which would be patently unreasonable to expect)? Monty845 15:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, this will do for the moment... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope the scope of the injunction is clarified, and sooner rather than later. As it currently stands, many people are confused by it, and hesitant to take even the most minor administrative actions (or even mention them) in case they accidentally butt up against one of the people they're not allowed to administrate or suggest administrative actions against. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waitwaitwait. You passed an injunction against 110 people, to stop involved admin actions against one person who has only been subject to 2-3 admin actions related to the current case, and who has now been removed as a party? It's like if Kafka went to Night Court. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence to present

I've no evidence to present, as I advised Arbcom not to accept this case. To reduce clutter on the Evidence page, yas may aswell remove my section. GoodDay (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso

@L235, Jim Carter, and Penwhale: Could I ask you to review their evidence im not sure its quite adhering to the civil manner required here. Amortias (T)(C) 19:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After discussions with one of the arbitrators, I've hatted this as being out of scope; most of it relating to a non-party to this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Lankiveil, you leave an editor's (Sjakkalle's) false and character-demeaning accusations unhatted, yet you hat when an editor, in the same thread, objects and defends themselves!? Apparently the culture at arbitration proceedings is that editors may make any accusations of wrongdoing they please against other editors, and if an editor objects to this and defends theirself in the same thread, they are hatted (censored)?!? Well that certainly seems fair and equitable, huh!? IHTS (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That can be hatted also, Lankiveil. Hatting is hardly censorship, in this case we are hatting material no longer within the scope of this case. This section may also be hatted. Doug Weller (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that User:L235 beat me to this as I was safely asleep and in bed when the request was made. The lack of hatting of a particular comment obviously can't be taken as endorsement by me of that comment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry... I didn't even see this thread until after I hatted, because the hatting was on explicit email request by an arb... L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doug Weller and L235. IHTS (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Called it

Perhaps if you answered the question when it was asked [2] this case could have been avoided. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this acceptable?

How is any of this acceptable as "evidence"? If I saw a Wikipedia editor making claims this WP:ABF anywhere other than Arbcom proceedings (where the arbs and clerks are supposed to take care of such things), I wouldn't hesitate in blocking them, and I don't see why Arbitration proceedings should be any different—this is supposed to be the 'Evidence' page, not the 'Ranting personal abuse' page. (I can't be the only one getting increasingly concerned by this user's conduct during this case and apparent attempt to use it as a soapbox to vent assorted grudges, and one of the clerks should probably serve him a formal warning.) – iridescent 08:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the clerks to deal with this. It's also not in scope now. Doug Weller (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been hatted as being out of scope, as outlined above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Out of scope evidence?

This [3] and this [4] both appear to be outside the scope of this case, which I thought was to look at the process for AE. It was my understanding that the ArbCom was not going to look at individual conduct of EC and the parties of the case, which is why EC was removed as a party, why amnesty for the AE/AN discussion was granted, and why several submissions were hatted off. Both of these evidence submissions appear to focus on Eric or the GGTF, not on the process at AE. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 06:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't out of scope as the AE process doesn't exist inside a vacuum. If the evidence shows that Eric's support network regularly skews the outcomes of decisions related to him, it is critical to consider how that impacts process. Any "fix" for the AE process will have to take into account broader patterns of manipulation if it is to avoid the same fate. These efforts to censor editors' viewpoints during this case continue that same pattern. ArbCom can determine for themselves whether the evidence is relevant. gobonobo + c 17:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence closed

The evidence phase for this case is now closed. Editors are welcome to contribute at the Workshop, which is scheduled to close 26 July 2015. Thank you. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement/Evidence"