Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture/Evidence
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: ToBeFree (Talk) & MJL (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & Enterprisey (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.
Analysis of evidence
Will the case pages include a place for analysis of evidence? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'll second this question. There was a lot of ground to cover in what I posted for my interactions with Leyo right up to the 1000 word limit. In past AEs for Leyo or the block review there have been claims about me that were ignored as misrepresentations. This whole interaction[1][2] described by JoJo Anthrax[3] comes to mind where if similar things are repeated about me again, I would like to address that if needed and walk through my actual edits. KoA (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I see that clerks are removing mentions of the Workshop page from case pages. There's still one near the top of the Evidence page, under "Rebuttals". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: Fixed. thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I see that clerks are removing mentions of the Workshop page from case pages. There's still one near the top of the Evidence page, under "Rebuttals". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, that is the most useful piece of the workshop for me. Tryptofish I am open to either making a special section of the evidence page or part of the talk page. Do you have a preference? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- From my perspective, the most important consideration is that the Arbs should be able to find and read it easily. (And the second most important is that Arbs should be able to shut down unhelpful back-and-forth arguing.) My suggestion would be to make a section at the bottom of the Evidence page, formatted like the corresponding sections that have been on Workshop pages. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Notify previously involved users?
More heat than light at this point. firefly ( t · c ) 22:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Would it be appropriate to inform the (active) users involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms about the current case? They might be able to provide relevant evidence in the current case. Leyo 23:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is the list of active (= having edited in the last month) users involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms, but not yet here, as initially proposed: --Leyo 20:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Please clarifyWhat's the issue with whether presumably interested editors are pinged/notified of the discussion? Unlike canvassing (which can have the potential to disrupt a consensual result), those who comment here aren't doing so in order to come to a consensus. This is an Arbcom case page where evidence and analysis is shared/provided to Arbcom. Which, I think, is part of why comments on the evidence page are to be addressed to Arbcom members, clerks, or case drafters. So what's the issue? - jc37 17:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Word count and diffs question
@ToBeFree thank you for fixing my comments. Since part of it has now moved to the evidence section I notice my "talk quotes" take up most of the word count available. Do talk quotes count towards that? Is there a more concise way of quoting that content? Since it is an old discussion finding the diffs isn't very easy. Thanks for helping out a newbie! {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- No problem. I'd say talk quotes do count towards the word count as only diffs are counted separately, especially if the only argument for providing a long quote is the time needed to find a diff. In that case, if you're near the word limit and would like to add more, please take the time to condense the existing part first. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll try my best but my volunteering time is limited and I will probably not make it within the time limit unfortunately (it's in 2 days right?). {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
ToBeFree (or other clerks/arbs), I had a lot of interactions to cover for the core locus of interactions in my evidence that brought me to the word limit. For the broader topic of just my actions alone though and making a section on that (not getting into Leyo's standalone actions), I would like to submit some evidence related to recent analysis related to me here before this closes. I'm at about 700 words right now trying to tweak that down to 500 or so. Would that be ok to post in my evidence? Thanks. KoA (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a clerk, but because you're a named party, you are allowed 1000 words. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)See, that's why I'm not a clerk! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)- (and almost using these, thus requesting 500 or so more) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- KoA, please prepare existing and proposed evidence to reach at most 1500 words combined in case a 500 word extension is granted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll prep that with that max target in mind and wait to hear back. And yeah, you got it ToBeFree, but for others if it wasn't clear, I meant the additional section(s) I'm contemplating would add 500 words to my existing ~1000. KoA (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- @KoA, yes, your extension is granted for another 500 words. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll prep that with that max target in mind and wait to hear back. And yeah, you got it ToBeFree, but for others if it wasn't clear, I meant the additional section(s) I'm contemplating would add 500 words to my existing ~1000. KoA (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Depending on how exactly it's counted (titles, signature etc.), I'm slightly above 1000 words in my evidence section. I hope this is tolerable, also considering that KoA's word count is much higher than mine, when the evidence and analysis sections are taken together. --Leyo 09:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's currently less than 1050 words even if the signature is included; this seems fine to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Leyo 21:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Addition of a party and extension of the evidence phase
Based on the evidence presented and ongoing conduct, I direct the clerks to add Gtoffoletto as a party. While I am trying to avoid turning this case into a runaway grand jury, my review of the evidence shows that the GMO/industrial agriculture topic area has had ongoing problems since the GMO case. The drafting arbs will announce a update of the scope tomorrow. Due to this, the evidence phase is extended until 15 November and the PD is going to be posted on 1 December. If there are other suggested parties, please contact myself or a clerk -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I just want to note that I will be away from editing from November 10–16, so if anyone needs anything for this case from me, please let me know before then. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is a comment to the Committee as a whole, made before seeing the new scope posted. I'm glad to see the comment above about not intending to have a runaway process, but there's a real risk of that if any more parties are added, after the three now. The case came as a request to review admin conduct, and the community has provided no credible evidence that the existing CT in GMOs has been insufficient for AE to handle problems. If ArbCom decides to amend the existing GMO CT to include the words "industrial agriculture", that would be a good idea, and better than establishing a separate CT. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- amend the existing GMO CT to include the words "industrial agriculture" is in my very rough draft -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
After several days, it still says Scope: [Pending update]
. Will this be changed at some point? --Leyo 14:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the door for that has closed due to my inaction. I did not foresee how difficult it would be to coordinate with my co-drafter while we are 9 hours off of each other. The weekend was also much busier than I expected. My apologies for letting this sit in limbo for a week. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Guerillero I usually like linking to WP:NODEADLINE. However I am very confused here. What does my addition to this case mean? I was hoping the new scope would clear things up. Given the current scope why am I a "party" in a case regarding
Interactions between and actions of Leyo and KoA
? What do I have to do? Am I being accused of something? I don't know what we are talking about anymore. - As I've said before I feel like this case is way above my "pay grade" and I even had doubts of whether I should provide evidence. So I would appreciate some extra guidance/explanations. Please bear in mind that I am learning on the fly and I am not an expert in any of those policies, processes and past decisions. I'm just a casual editor and have only a vague intuition of what is happening here (I opened my first RfCs ever in the last few months). I've never dealt with arbcom or similar stuff at any level before. As others have done I have provided evidence of what I have seen in the interactions between KoA/Leyo in those last few months. What was different in the evidence I provided to make me a "party" but not others?
- Also, when you talk about "ongoing conduct" above does it refer to me and something I did? If so, I will appreciate direct guidance/clarity on what you are referring to exactly so that I know if I am doing something wrong (I'm not sure how to interpret the "runaway grand jury" reference for example).
- Thanks! {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 00:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good questions, and apologies for the delayed response. You don't have to do anything at this point; all the evidence is in. (You can comment on the proposed decision when we post it as well.) You were added as a party just because, to be completely transparent, there's a nonzero chance you end up somewhere in the proposed decision, but you aren't currently being accused of anything. The scope is still interactions between Leyo and KoA, but you and other users show up in those interactions. We can amend the scope to make that more clear; I'll look into that. To reiterate, there's nothing you currently have to do or stop doing. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Because I care about the fairness of the process, I have some follow-up questions. If I look at it from Gtoffoletto's perspective, and I try to combine the ideas of "there's a nonzero chance you end up somewhere in the proposed decision" and "you aren't currently being accused of anything", there are two opposing ways I can play that out. One is that the party will simply be mentioned in a Finding of Fact, and nothing more. The other is that they aren't currently being accused of anything, but those accusations will appear when the Proposed Decision gets posted. It can, potentially, be an unfair process when the case scope gets changed after the Evidence phase is over (and more so when there is no Workshop). I keep coming back to the facts (and am repeating myself) that what ArbCom received from the community was simply an administrator conduct request, and ArbCom has received zero credible evidence that AE has been unable to deal with ongoing problems under the GMO CTs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate the followup. Your option two is correct. I agree that it would be an unfair process if the scope was conduct in the topic area. This may seem to contradict my previous message. When I said
you and others show up in those interactions
, it implied that we were going to sanction @Gtoffoletto based on those interactions. This wording was imprecise and incorrect, and I apologize for that. The actual situation is we want to keep the option open to sanction Gtoffoletto for their behavior during the case, for which all the evidence already exists. The actual case scope hasn't changed and will continue to be as it was when the case is opened. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)- @Enterprisey What do you mean sanction me “for behavior during the case”?
- I’ve been clear that I am totally new and inexperienced here. I gave some evidence like others and received no warnings or guidance I am aware of that I was doing something wrong.
- What is the difference between me and the others that gave evidence?
- What does it mean that I was added as a party in a case about interactions between two users unrelated to me in any way?
- Why should I be sanctioned? What am I being accused of? I asked several times and nobody has answered me.
- This lack of clarity is quite distressful for me. I don’t understand what is going on anymore. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 00:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Gtoffoletto, I owe you an apology for the extended uncertainty. It was silly that you didn't know what you would be accused of or have an opportunity to defend yourself. Part of the problem was the drafting was delayed for a while, so I wouldn't have had anything to say except "we have not decided yet what to accuse you of and we don't know when there will be updates". I guess even that would've helped. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @Enterprisey. Although the experience was distressing I absolutely understand that those cases aren't easy for anyone involved especially in a volunteer-driven environment. Some bumps on the road are to be expected. For the future my WP:BOLD 2 cents (remember this is the first time I see Arbcom!) would be to suggest to the committee to prioritise clarity, precision and transparency above all else (in this case I feel like some phases/actions were a bit "rushed"). WP:NODEADLINE is relevant I think. It is more important to "get it right" rather than to "get it fast". Ad astra per aspera. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Gtoffoletto, I owe you an apology for the extended uncertainty. It was silly that you didn't know what you would be accused of or have an opportunity to defend yourself. Part of the problem was the drafting was delayed for a while, so I wouldn't have had anything to say except "we have not decided yet what to accuse you of and we don't know when there will be updates". I guess even that would've helped. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate the followup. Your option two is correct. I agree that it would be an unfair process if the scope was conduct in the topic area. This may seem to contradict my previous message. When I said
- Because I care about the fairness of the process, I have some follow-up questions. If I look at it from Gtoffoletto's perspective, and I try to combine the ideas of "there's a nonzero chance you end up somewhere in the proposed decision" and "you aren't currently being accused of anything", there are two opposing ways I can play that out. One is that the party will simply be mentioned in a Finding of Fact, and nothing more. The other is that they aren't currently being accused of anything, but those accusations will appear when the Proposed Decision gets posted. It can, potentially, be an unfair process when the case scope gets changed after the Evidence phase is over (and more so when there is no Workshop). I keep coming back to the facts (and am repeating myself) that what ArbCom received from the community was simply an administrator conduct request, and ArbCom has received zero credible evidence that AE has been unable to deal with ongoing problems under the GMO CTs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good questions, and apologies for the delayed response. You don't have to do anything at this point; all the evidence is in. (You can comment on the proposed decision when we post it as well.) You were added as a party just because, to be completely transparent, there's a nonzero chance you end up somewhere in the proposed decision, but you aren't currently being accused of anything. The scope is still interactions between Leyo and KoA, but you and other users show up in those interactions. We can amend the scope to make that more clear; I'll look into that. To reiterate, there's nothing you currently have to do or stop doing. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Guerillero I usually like linking to WP:NODEADLINE. However I am very confused here. What does my addition to this case mean? I was hoping the new scope would clear things up. Given the current scope why am I a "party" in a case regarding
- (For the record, I have now removed "[Pending update]" from the scope.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)