Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence
Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (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.
Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
- Casliber
- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
- Cool Hand Luke
- Coren
- David Fuchs
- Elen of the Roads
- Jclemens
- John Vandenberg
- Kirill Lokshin
- Mailer diablo
- Newyorkbrad
- PhilKnight
- Roger Davies
- Xeno
Inactive
- Risker
- SirFozzie
Recused
- Iridescent
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.
RE: Evidence from Chester Markel
Taking a look at the diffs alleging edit warring, at least some of them don't meet the accepted defination of edit warring. For example this was given. [1]. Look at the history of the article.
This doesn't come close to breaking 3rr per year. I believe CM needs to sift through his diffs and find examples of disruptive editing, and not just find every diff where MMN hit the revert button.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
SockpuppetAs Chester Markel (talk · contribs) is a sock of John254 (talk · contribs) should his section not now be removed from this gabfest? pablo 07:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
-
As DeCausa wrote, evidence is evidence and diffs are diffs, so I agree with the Committee's decision not to strike Cherter Merkel's evidence from the case, but the proposed remedies in the workshop are more in the nature of opinions and analysis, so I wonder if the Committee wouldn't want to consider removing Merkel's contributions there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Strike Chester Merkel's contributionsAll contributions made by the sockpuppet of the banned editor John254 should be struck through for clarity. None of his contributions, proposals, remedies etc should be considered, unless they are also raised by an editor in good standing on their own volition. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The main concern is that the system is too susceptible to abuse, and the procedures and policies need to clarify the exact expectations and the remedies when those expectations are not adhered to. So, using Community and ArbCom policy, and what is being suggested here, here's a summary in practice:
(1) Banned users are not permitted to edit on Wikipedia or participate in proceedings (except in limited situations involving an appeal of their ban). If banned user has edited the project, and they are discovered, they may be blocked, and their edits may be reverted or struck. (2) If an user is on a mission to influence a discussion, Wikipedia will provide a means for such an user to successfully do so (subject to condition 3 below). Banned users in particular have nothing to lose when going on such a mission seeing their contributions will be struck/removed and will be blocked anyway (which is of little difference to someone on a dynamic IP). Namely, the user can canvass editors through biased messages (campaigning), sending messages to a partisan audience of editors (votestacking), or sending messages in secret (stealth canvassing), or by mass-posting (spamming). (3) Even if through the user's message (before it is struck/removed), the editors have been made aware of the discussion or have been invited to push a particular position, those editors will be welcome to participate in the discussion and their comments will be treated no differently to other users who did not receive that message. This is because nobody's judgement has been "impaired" by it and there are no diffs to absolutely prove that the canvassed editors: (a) only participated in the discussion after being canvassed; (b) only pushed that particular position after being canvassed, and (c) presented those particular diff/s and allegation/s in the discussion after being canvassed. Is that an accurate summary of how Wikipedia is working in practice? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
|
Re: Evidence from Mjroots
Discussion closed. AGK [•] 10:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think the RFC initially appeared to work, and I certainly think it was worth a try. What's unfortunate is that Mick seems to have reverted to form. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the draft of the RfC that I had started re MickMacNee to allow the edit history to be examined, which will prove that I was beaten to the filing of the RfC by another editor, although I had started the draft first. Mjroots (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
|
(Clerk action) Discussion closed. Bickering won't help. AGK [•] 10:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Statement from clerks about the filing party being blocked
The clerks assigned to this case were recently asked what the effect will be of the filing party, Chester Markel (talk · contribs), being blocked indefinitely. After consulting with the drafting arbitrators for this case, we can confirm that the case will proceed as normal. As I understand it, this is how we would proceed anyway; the filing party's identity is in most respects irrelevant. I hope this clears up any confusion about this recent development. AGK [•] 19:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- His identity might be irrelevant, but the fact that until Sandstein decided to escalate it into an 'I told you so' soapbox against the committee and admins who undo his attempted unilateral bans, all the named parties in the case except this filing sock had declined to offer any evidence, and had said they wanted to take no part in the case, surely is. MickMacNee (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Rd232 evidence moved from main page
Discussion closed. AGK [•] 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Moving from main page as it's not really evidence, to make space. (And I don't want to simply delete it.)
I'm not exactly withdrawing this; I am sorry if I upset Mick somehow (which would help explain his behaviour towards me). However absolving Mick of all responsibility was going a bit far, and really a symptom of my wanting to have no further interaction with Mick at all, given what an unpleasant experience it had been for me. With a bit of time/distance, I'm making the effort to clarify a couple of things, so moving this here to make space. PS I'm slightly disappointed, though not entirely surprised (in fairness there's an awful lot going on), that in 40k of text (at time of writing) Mick didn't find space to acknowledge the apology. Rd232 public talk 17:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
|
(Clerk action) That's enough of this discussion, please. AGK [•] 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
On MMN's claims of not getting a fair shake
Now, as any reading of my contributions to this case will elucidate, I am by no means in the Mick camp. I see his interactions with others, both in general and certainly in some of the cases that have been presented here as problematic enough to warrant ArbCom intervention. That said, the man has a point. There's no way he could possibly respond to all the charges against him in 500 words, and the other discussions have been collapsed. We're seeing little, if any input from the arbs here. In a traditional arbitration, both sides will sit in front of an arbitrator and explain their case and provide evidence, and the arbitrator will question them on the evidence and actively participate in an effort to reach a just settlement. That's not happening here. Instead, the parties are locked in a room with the peanut gallery (guilty) giving their input and the arbs behind a one-way mirror privately saying who knows what, only to emerge and render a verdict from on high. This isn't the right way to do things. At the bare minimum, arbs should be active participants in the arbitration (perish the thought), and their discussions on a matter solely concerned with editor conduct in public spaces should be taking place in public. Again, perish the bloody thought. It would be nice if Mick were also able to defend himself with more than an essay one would write for a grade 9 english class. I don't fault AGK for adhering to the rules, but the rules are pretty dumb if they leave someone a couple of paragraphs to defend themselves against and explain their actions to a multitude of others. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Before AGK removed the link, he shortened MMN's evidence to 1500 words. It was a much better and more effective piece of work, from MMN's point of view, than his 6000 words. AGK did this by taking out MMN's verbosity and in so doing removed MMN's aggressive turn of phrase but retained MMN's key points. I expressed concern to AGK about taking out MMN's aggressive turn of phrase because I felt that MMN's inclusion of such language in his evidence was in fact part of the evidence. MMN didn't like what AGK had done and reverted it. The irony is that MMN would have been in a much stronger position in the arb with AGK's work instead of his own. MMN has made comments several times that he thinks the arbs are going to make a decision "against him". If I were being cynical, I might think that, with this expectation, MMN might prefer to put himself in a position where he could say he wasn't allowed to defend himself rather than have AGK's optimized "defence". DeCausa (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to see much more discussion from the Arbitrators here - its certainly poor that they haven't really got involved, but Mick was given a fair shake on this one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I hope that one or both clerks have consulted ArbCom on the length of evidence on user subpages. Previous cases, some directly involving more editors and far more complex, had extensive evidence on subpages (cases involving Abd for example). In WP:ARBR&I, Newyorkbrad admitted he had scanned my evidence spread across several user subpages (deleted as soon as the proposed decision had been settled). However, in that case advice was taken from clerks and a short summary appeared on the main evidence page. In this case, the evidence of Chester Markel/John645 seems overly long and much of it well outside the scope of the case. The main idea should surely be to aid ArbCom and also be fair to the main party. I hope that the evidence of MickMacNee on a subpage can be left in tact and linked to the evidence page, where he should provide his own short summary of that evidence in the standard form of between 1500 and 2000 words. The subpage can be deleted after the case has closed. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Chester Merkel's evidence is 872 words in length, which is much shorter than Mick's. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- At present MickMacNee's evidence on the evidence page is less than 500 words. I think this case is more analogous to single user cases like Ottava rima and ChildofMidnight. Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's because Mick decided he didn't like the shortened version AGK wrote for him. That's Mick's problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Really though, the case is about Mick and Mick alone. Oh, sure, Sandstein and HJ Mitchell might be "advised/reminded/encouraged to something or other" (even "cautioned" if the arbs are extra cranky), but the crux of the case is what happens to Mick. As such, he should be able to defend himself, especially seeing as the evidence provided was essentially 8 or 9 people against him, with Sandstein and HJ bickering over blocks. Are we really saying that he gets 62.5 words to defend himself against each accuser? Furthermore, if the general consensus is that letting Mick talk proves the case against him, why would anyone here who's spoken against him be opposed to letting him dig his own grave? Regardless, I'm still more concerned about lack of participation by the arbs. Where is everyone? I see a bunch of them writing and debating proposed courses of action, and very few actually talking to the people involved. That just seems broken. This really doesn't feel like dispute resolution so much as a group meeting to decide on the best wording for our flyer announcing our next group meeting. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) There is no reason why he should have liked AGK's summary. To help this case move forward and in the interests of fairness, I hope that MickMacNee will either adapt AGK's version or prepare his own. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The ball is in Mick's court. It's been said that the absolute limit is 1,000 words in exceptional cases. I'd say that this case qualifies as meeting that. Of course, Mick does not have to put forward any evidence at all if he does not want to. It's his choice. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a case of MMN getting 62.5 words per accuser. AGK cut his evidence down to 1600. He's been offered fexibility. I suspect if he cut it down to around the 2000 mark he'd probably get away with it. But the point is he's used 6000 words, which is way over the top. He doesn't need that much and the reason he's at that level is because of his verbose style. Having said that, I think it's appropriate that his evidence is presented in his usual style, because that's what this case is largely about. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- it would be nice to see some comments from the Arbitration committee here. The idea is to help solve the dispute and not just stay aloof. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)I agree. I also agree that the 500-word limit is very restrictive. I needed all of it just to cover the background of my involvement with Mick, and respond to his comments about that. It leaves me no space to actually present evidence as to Mick's pattern of uncollaborative behaviour, were I to change my mind and want to do that. (The saving grace is that Mick's behaviour in this arbcom case itself makes presenting evidence on that score fairly redundant, assuming arbs are paying attention to that as well as to the words on the Evidence page.) Rd232 public talk 12:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- it would be nice to see some comments from the Arbitration committee here. The idea is to help solve the dispute and not just stay aloof. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a case of MMN getting 62.5 words per accuser. AGK cut his evidence down to 1600. He's been offered fexibility. I suspect if he cut it down to around the 2000 mark he'd probably get away with it. But the point is he's used 6000 words, which is way over the top. He doesn't need that much and the reason he's at that level is because of his verbose style. Having said that, I think it's appropriate that his evidence is presented in his usual style, because that's what this case is largely about. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The ball is in Mick's court. It's been said that the absolute limit is 1,000 words in exceptional cases. I'd say that this case qualifies as meeting that. Of course, Mick does not have to put forward any evidence at all if he does not want to. It's his choice. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's because Mick decided he didn't like the shortened version AGK wrote for him. That's Mick's problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- At present MickMacNee's evidence on the evidence page is less than 500 words. I think this case is more analogous to single user cases like Ottava rima and ChildofMidnight. Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Chester Merkel's evidence is 872 words in length, which is much shorter than Mick's. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I hope that one or both clerks have consulted ArbCom on the length of evidence on user subpages. Previous cases, some directly involving more editors and far more complex, had extensive evidence on subpages (cases involving Abd for example). In WP:ARBR&I, Newyorkbrad admitted he had scanned my evidence spread across several user subpages (deleted as soon as the proposed decision had been settled). However, in that case advice was taken from clerks and a short summary appeared on the main evidence page. In this case, the evidence of Chester Markel/John645 seems overly long and much of it well outside the scope of the case. The main idea should surely be to aid ArbCom and also be fair to the main party. I hope that the evidence of MickMacNee on a subpage can be left in tact and linked to the evidence page, where he should provide his own short summary of that evidence in the standard form of between 1500 and 2000 words. The subpage can be deleted after the case has closed. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I support what AGK has done here, both in attempting to assist MMN in reducing the excessive length of evidence and then removing it when MMN decided he didn't like it. Kirill and I are still reading this, a lot of our attention is understandably elsewhere at the moment, due to the ongoing issues with the arbcom-l mailing list leak and trying to determine what happened and what was lost, etcetera. But we're still here, and we look over everything as we go (and again before we workshop/write a proposed decision). SirFozzie (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Doing it for Mick was a pretty bad idea - it ended up being "written the way I would write it" instead of the actual words, meanings, and emotion behind the original. This has, however, nothing to do with giving Mick a "fair shake", and it sounds instead like someone's asking for a procedural quashing of the entire thing.
- The simple reality is that no matter WHO submitted the case, it contained valid points - just like some anonymous tip line to the police. Each of those points still needs to be addressed. Rather than trying to refute evidence of what everyone already knows, Mick would have been better served acknowledging any past situations of WP:DICK, and proposing his own methods to address them in the future. Instead, ArbCom will be forced to enact them unilaterally instead. Putting one's fingers in one's ears and saying "lalalalalala I can't hear you" when being shown the problems with your behaviour does not bode well in a collegial editing atmosphere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, why don't you go and declare your interest & involvement is in this case by presenting your evidence, rather than doing what you've been doing for the past few months. Then I'll see if I can fit my response to your allegations in the allocated 60 or so words per complainent, alongside all the rest. I will be genuinely interested in how you intend to spin yourself as someone who isn't a DICK of the highest order, once the facts come out. Maybe I can get my word count down by lumping you and RD232 together and reffering to you collectively, as your failures in admin conduct and their underlying causes are strikingly similar. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mick, I'm neither involved nor am I your sworn enemy, as you seem to protray. Really, if you want to twist what I said above to somehow be against you instead of seeing the positives, then I think you do a great job of proving everybody's point all by yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're the only person to have actually sanctioned me since I was conned into signing up voluntalrily to an Rfc/U that I was assured would prevent lynchings like this in future, by putting the onus on my detractors to show I was actually doing something wrong before any future filing, such as by getting a consenus at ANI, or an approval from a truly uninvolved admin, instead of what's happened here, involved people gleefully jumping on some nutter sock's idea of first stage DR, off the back of a dead ANI being stoked by an involved admin. Of all the people who can be reasonably expected to have something to say here in terms of actual evidence, you are surely first in that line, given the allegations. But the truth is that your sanction was reduced as having been grossly excessive, and I chose not to contest it further on the facts and wider history, simply for the sake of my time. What a mistake that was. Everything you've ever said about me or to me since has been against me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Right, and the sanction provided was a response to your behaviour at the time, and based on the account history + the concept of escalating blocks. The time provided was in line with jurisprudence, and I made no arguments when a brief dicussion chose to reduce it. I have never spoken against you, only against behaviour, and have always treated every editor with similar behaviours exactly the same. I'm not part of your little paranoia-war against Wikipedia, nor do I even edit the same areas that you do - I'm the ultimate in detached and uninvolved, and trying to suck me further in the way you are is pretty weak. Be the adult that I believe you are, admit your own errors, and improve yourself before you point the finger elsewhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're the only person to have actually sanctioned me since I was conned into signing up voluntalrily to an Rfc/U that I was assured would prevent lynchings like this in future, by putting the onus on my detractors to show I was actually doing something wrong before any future filing, such as by getting a consenus at ANI, or an approval from a truly uninvolved admin, instead of what's happened here, involved people gleefully jumping on some nutter sock's idea of first stage DR, off the back of a dead ANI being stoked by an involved admin. Of all the people who can be reasonably expected to have something to say here in terms of actual evidence, you are surely first in that line, given the allegations. But the truth is that your sanction was reduced as having been grossly excessive, and I chose not to contest it further on the facts and wider history, simply for the sake of my time. What a mistake that was. Everything you've ever said about me or to me since has been against me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mick, I'm neither involved nor am I your sworn enemy, as you seem to protray. Really, if you want to twist what I said above to somehow be against you instead of seeing the positives, then I think you do a great job of proving everybody's point all by yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, why don't you go and declare your interest & involvement is in this case by presenting your evidence, rather than doing what you've been doing for the past few months. Then I'll see if I can fit my response to your allegations in the allocated 60 or so words per complainent, alongside all the rest. I will be genuinely interested in how you intend to spin yourself as someone who isn't a DICK of the highest order, once the facts come out. Maybe I can get my word count down by lumping you and RD232 together and reffering to you collectively, as your failures in admin conduct and their underlying causes are strikingly similar. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Clerks have traditionally allowed a reasonable degree of lattitude on lengths of statements; I for one do not feel that 6,000 words fits within the realms of reasonable. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Surely we can find a happy medium? 6000 is excessive, and 500 is insufficient. I'm fine with around 1500, but I can also understand why Mick wouldn't want to use AGK's version. It's basically like going to court with your case laid out, having the court look at it and say, "no, no, no. That's not what you meant. This is what you meant." I'm not saying AGK was wrong to try to pare down Mick's evidence, but man I'd be pissed too. Now, I'm not granting Mick a free pass here. It was his...loquaciousness that caused his evidence to runneth over in the first place. I dunno. I can see both sides, and I can't think of a good solution. I know if I were Mick I'd hate to have to re-write my evidence after putting all that time in. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I certainly think anything up to 2000 words is OK in my book. He could also have worked from AGK's version - there was room for expansion, and he could have re-written parts of it himself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Man, y'all suck. 6000 words is only 10-12 pages in Word and should not take that much effort to get through. Restricting people to 500 words on the main evidence page makes sense, to keep it from being overly long and spammy, but on a sub-page? Give me a break. That's ridiculous for a case involving someone with as much history as MMN. He'll probably need 500 words just to summarize everything that's going on.
Seriously it's not like Arbcom has any kind of special time limit on dealing with this case.
There's nothing wrong with someone having a lengthy evidence subpage as long as it's material germane to the case. If you don't want to read all that? Too bad. That's your job as an arbitrator-- to read over the available evidence and render a decision. ALL of the evidence. Jtrainor (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Pointing out a few potential problems
I've been following some parts of this case, and a few things strike me as potentially problematic about the way things have developed here. Maybe not individually, but taken collectively, things start to stack up.
- (1) The filing of the case by a now-blocked sock - I'm aware that this has been discussed and addressed elsewhere, but in conjunction with the other points below, it looks unfortunate. What should have happened when the filing by a sock was uncovered is for extra care to be taken with this case.
- (2) Jimbo's comment about the case when asked on his talk page. This seems to pre-judge any possible appeal to Jimbo after the case closes. It would have been better for Jimbo to say he would only comment after the case closes, and it might be an idea to make that a principle in this case.
- (3) Overly stringent evidence quotas. It should be clear that when you have a single party on whom the case centres, and multiple editors presenting evidence against that editor, enforcing the same evidence length on all parties is patently unfair. Unless responses to the evidence is allowed on the evidence talk page, with a link there from the relevant evidence section. The user's own evidence section shouldn't be taken up with rebuttals, but should be taken up with showing what benefit they bring to the encyclopedia (given that this case is clearly a 'net positive' or 'net negative' decision). It would also be fairer to require the 'opposing' parties to limit themselves to a collective 500 words on the same issues and not repeat themselves.
- (4) Clerks rewriting/shortening evidence for parties without permission. I accept that clerks have evidence quotas to enforce, and I can even accept that they may be best placed to rewrite/shorten evidence if a party agrees to this, but surely permission needs to be asked first? I've been reviewing the exchange here and AGK (the clerk enforcing the evidence guidelines) first says: "If you do not, or cannot, do so within 24 hours, a clerk will delete your evidence subpage or remove the link to it from the main evidence page" He then says "if you were to reduce your evidence to something as reasonable as 1000-1500 words, then I'd be fine with that. I am even okay with a submission that nudges 2000, if it is not repetitive". All fine so far. This is then followed by "From 6000 words, I shortened it to ~1700 words. Please review that and tell me if you are happy with my changes." MickMacNee then says "From the bits I examined, I wasn't happy with the rephrasing, so I've reverted the lot. I apologise if you're offended by that, but I wish you'd asked first." That is a perfectly reasonable response and objection - I would be horrified if anyone modified evidence I'd submitted without asking first (removal, fine, but not modification). Then, for some reason, the other parties to the case turn up and start participating in this conversation on MickMacNee's user talk page that they should have been told to stay out of. They try and paint MickMacNee's response as a "fail" - see the facepalm by Rd232. In my view, it would have been better for the evidence to be removed (as eventually happened), rather than allowing a messy sub-narrative of "attempted shortening" and peanut gallery commentary from other parties to the case, to muddy the waters.
- (5) The clerk note at the top of MickMacNee's evidence section currently says "MickMacNee's evidence submission comprises of over 6000 words, and the link to it can therefore not be included (as it was) because of the word count restriction.". However, the very next evidence section (the one by Rd232) includes links to the very page that MickMacNee is not allowed to link to! This seems slightly odd to me.
As I said, individually, the above points may not be too bad, but collectively it doesn't look good. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK... 1) yes... but concretely what? 2) agreed - make it a principle. I don't hold much truck with the "appeal to Jimbo" but as long it exists such a principle is necessary 3) there's been some discussion about this, and in some circumstances (like here) a subject clearly needs a higher quota than parties. (Not that I'm delighted with a 500-word quota for a party, mind you.) This should be formalised, as should handling of links to longer evidence subpages, which seem sometimes to have been allowed (with Evidence page shorter summary). 4) shortening without permission wasn't a good idea, but the same effect could have been had by providing the redraft on the talk page. Either way, not using that help as a basis for improving evidence seems facepalm territory to me. 5) Obviously I drafted that before removal of the linked section. If the substantive evidence I'm responding to isn't restored in some relevant form, I've wasted words I could have used for something more relevant to the core of the case. ... Now what? Extend the evidence period with a higher case-subject quota? Rd232 public talk 01:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly, yes, but that is not a decision you or I get to make. By all means suggest it to arbitrators and/or clerks and see what they say. One point you didn't respond to was the point I made about how other parties to the case (or those only looking in on the case) turned up on MickMacnee's talk page and jumped into a conversation between him and a clerk. I know that is easily done with the best of intentions, but do you think that was helpful? Best practice when leaving such notices on user talk pages is to include a note asking others to give the clerk and the user space and time to discuss the matter, and asking others to comment at the case pages (if at all) rather than to join in on such conversations, or to add comments in a separate section or subsection, and leave the clerk and user space to talk without added noise. I know it can be hard, as the convention in most spaces is that anyone can jump in on conversations in progress, but some conversations should be treated with a bit more circumspection. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why with more than usual circumspection? That's contrary to normal practice e.g. when someone is appealing a block, those who have views regularly add comments. I added a comment because I had an issue with AGK taking out MMNs usual aggressive style, which in is itself part of the evidence. Don't see why I shouldn't have posted that. Also, it's unclear how other posts would stop AGK and MMN didcussing whatever they want to discuss. DeCausa (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- (i) well I made the suggestion here. I don't know what else to do. (ii) "a bit more circumspection" - what makes you think this didn't happen? The discussion was among the most civil and collaborative we've had in this Arbcom case. iii) I'm unaware of such best practice, and there was no note from the clerk about that. Rd232 public talk 07:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly, yes, but that is not a decision you or I get to make. By all means suggest it to arbitrators and/or clerks and see what they say. One point you didn't respond to was the point I made about how other parties to the case (or those only looking in on the case) turned up on MickMacnee's talk page and jumped into a conversation between him and a clerk. I know that is easily done with the best of intentions, but do you think that was helpful? Best practice when leaving such notices on user talk pages is to include a note asking others to give the clerk and the user space and time to discuss the matter, and asking others to comment at the case pages (if at all) rather than to join in on such conversations, or to add comments in a separate section or subsection, and leave the clerk and user space to talk without added noise. I know it can be hard, as the convention in most spaces is that anyone can jump in on conversations in progress, but some conversations should be treated with a bit more circumspection. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Civility
Eraserhead says, "As a general point civility isn't taken seriously by the community and there are a small number of regular editors who seem to regularly behave in an uncivil way and essentially get away with it."
Wow, is that ever true. It's too bad that we've let things get that way, but it is undeniably true that (to give an unrelated example) this rude comment would result in an immediate block for a newbie, but the community consistently turns a blind eye to this editor's profanity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- While it is probably strictly outside the purview of this case it would be nice to see some input from the committee on this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Grade-A lameness
So evidence on Betacommand is supposed to be put into this case. Someone even did. All well and good-- except that the person who submitted the evidence was (justly) banned as a sock and had his evidence struck, MMN can't provide the evidence due to a draconian application of the evidence word limit, and no one else in the case cares about Beta.
So I look forward to this case being closed with absolutely no examination of his conduct whatsoever and the arbcom case filed against him being declined. The case itself is stale too, with no major edits to any of it's pages in more than a week. Jtrainor (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- LOL. Brilliant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Their evidence is collapsed - not struck. Others are free to add more evidence regarding Δ or proposals to the workshop. If MickMacNee has evidence he would like to submit, he can ask one of the drafting arbitrators for an exception to the word limit (given the expanded scope). –xenotalk 22:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- You guys have been pretty strict on the word limit. I complained about Mick's evidence when it reached 6000 words, but then the word limit looks to have been strictly enforced at 500 words. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have forgotten this conversation you were involved in a month ago, where AGK said "something as reasonable as 1000-1500 words, then I'd be fine with that. I am even okay with a submission that nudges 2000, if it is not repetitive." (That was in relation to User talk:MickMacNee/Arbitration evidence, since Mick originally just linked to that from the Evidence page.) Rd232 talk 09:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- True enough, but after that it looks to have been strictly enforced at 500 words. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have forgotten this conversation you were involved in a month ago, where AGK said "something as reasonable as 1000-1500 words, then I'd be fine with that. I am even okay with a submission that nudges 2000, if it is not repetitive." (That was in relation to User talk:MickMacNee/Arbitration evidence, since Mick originally just linked to that from the Evidence page.) Rd232 talk 09:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- You guys have been pretty strict on the word limit. I complained about Mick's evidence when it reached 6000 words, but then the word limit looks to have been strictly enforced at 500 words. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)