Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Evidence

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

Case clerks: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Jclemens (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.

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

  1. Casliber
  2. Courcelles
  3. Coren
  4. David Fuchs
  5. Elen of the Roads
  6. Jclemens
  7. John Vandenberg
  8. Kirill Lokshin
  9. Mailer diablo
  10. Newyorkbrad
  11. PhilKnight
  12. Risker
  13. Roger Davies
  14. SilkTork
  15. SirFozzie

Inactive:

  1. AGK (Case was accepted before the 2012 committee began, and this new arbitrator chose to be inactive.)
  2. Hersfold (Case was accepted before the 2012 committee began, and this new arbitrator chose to be inactive.)
  3. Xeno

Kww's evidence

Kww is on the right track here; however, the edits are several years old, and there has been a full case that closed in June 2010. The fundamental theory is that behaviour should have changed as a result of the case; in fact, the case anticipated the possibility of continued problematic behaviour by editors involved in it. So...what one would expect to see entered into evidence is edits similar to those Kww has provided, except occurring after 6 June 2010. As TimidGuy has edited extensively in the Transcendental Meditation topic area since that time (about 1000 edits), if there is a problem with inappropriate editing, it should be fairly easy to document. Risker (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous case was heard without complete evidence. The information that TG is a paid advocate was only found in September 2011. Therefore, it's reasonable to review his entire career at Wikipedia in light of the new evidence.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where on Wikipedia does Timid Guy say he is paid and an advocate? Are you surmising this, do you have off Wikipedia evidence? Posting this here looks like outing. I'm not excited about this kind of information being posted with out evidence and permission. My questions are rhetorical and should not be answered should they cause potentially further concerns. (olive (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
"Paid advocate" is not personally identifying information. TimidGuy was banned for deceptively engaging in paid advocacy. If we cannot even mention the reason for the ban publicly then I don't understand how we can proceed with any meaningful discussion of the case in public.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the evidence is concerned TG was banned for COI. Perhaps we should let the arbs decide how this case should proceed.(olive (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
No, TimidGuy was banned for deceptive paid advocacy. If given permission, we could post the email in which Jimmy Wales announced the ban. If the ArbCom is going to provide guidance on how to proceed with this case it should do so promptly, or if it is unsure maybe it should lock the pages until it makes its decision.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we'll be posting any emails, Will Beback. And you've gone far enough here. Risker (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting Jimbo's email is a matter for Jimbo to decide. I'll ask him about it. Did I mis-describe his reason for banning?   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm referring to the email of 11:51 PM, Sep 7, 2011.   Will Beback  talk  05:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fladrif's evidence section also seems to mainly be from before the TM ArbCom case and presents very little evidence of any problematic editing since then. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length of evidence

The guidelines stipulate that the evidence should be a maximum o 500 words. Will Beback's evidence submitted to Arbcom is almost 1,800 words. Am I limited to 500 words, or is there some flexibility, given the length of Will Beback's evidence? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you should limit yourself to 500 words, though a reasonable amount of flexibility is accorded. As a guideline, clerks will not ask you to refactor material that presents essential evidence and takes you a few words over the limit, but will not hesitate to remove 3,000 word essays. As ever, Dougweller and myself are at your disposal for any requests or to assist you. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this case being decided

Neither Will Beback nor TimidGy have posted on-Wikipedia information. Will Beback according to TG's comment on the workshop page has 1700 hundred words of evidence. Is all of that privileged information. I am becoming increasingly uneasy about this case. Clearly some editors want this dealt with off Wikipedia. i've already seen the result of off-Wikipedia decisions. I sincerely hope this case will be dealt with where the community can see the proceedings. The arbitrators have a difficult job here as always. This is in no way meant to criticize them, but is rather an individual expression of concern.(olive (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Presenting Evidence from TM Arbcom 2010; What are the parameters?

Dear Arbitration Committee: Since the opening of the case some participants have been presenting evidence that was already reviewed by the Committee in the TM Arbcom of Feb-June 2010.

  • On December 20th I posted this question on the Workshop page: "If it is the Committee's intention to review and consider the entire editing history of the named parties, then it would be good for ArbCom to make this clear, so that those presenting evidence can expand their evidence presentations accordingly. Thank you. [1]".
  • On that same day, in a separate Workshop page thread a Committee member said: "What we don't want to see is a re-trying of the previous case, where (in part) similar allegations were made and were addressed." [2]
  • On December 24th, another Committee member began to post an in depth analysis of evidence from TM-Arbcom that had been presented by Doc James. To demonstrate further tacit approval of the TM Arbcom evidence, the same Committee member made adjustments to the "pre-TM Arbcom" section of Doc James' presentation on the Evidence page.

So the question remains: Should the presentation of evidence be limited to post TM Arbcom (June 4 2010)? Or is it just up to the individual participants to decide for themselves what they want to do? This needs to be clarified so evidence can be presented on a level playing field. Thank you for your help with this.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlines extensions

Per request from drafting arbitrator User:Roger Davies, the deadline for evidence submission is extended to 23:59 (UTC) 2 January 2012. Consequently the workshop deadline and proposed decision date are also extended to 9 January and 16 January respectively. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Evidence extension on Timid Guy appeal

Will Beback has posted his evidence 8 minutes before the evidence deadline. I therefore request an extension so that participants may prepare rebuttals. Also, Will Beback has circumvented the 500 word and 50 diff limit by linking to a sandbox with 63 diffs and yet another with 168 diffs. If this is permissible, then I will follow suit with sandboxes of my own, that contain additional diffs and additional evidence. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Also, a large body of evidence added by User: Cardamon at 2 minutes after the deadline and Littleolive oil also was making additions to her evidence in the last half hour. So to be fair to everyone an extension is in order.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to give any editor time to rebut anything I've posted. I didn't decide to post for sure until late today which made it hard for other editors to rebut.(olive (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keithbob and Littleolive oil, who are significantly involved in this case, have added significant evidence recently. I was earlier rebuffed in my request to add Keithbob as a party. If the evidence deadline is extended I'd renew my request that he be added as a party.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A threat? Sheesh!(olive (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
It's a request, not a threat. I've never received a clear answer why Keithbob is not a party. There is a basic unfairness in a proceeding which allows him to add lengthy evidence against me while I am not allowed to reply with evidence of his own faulty behavior in the same context.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for Keithbob's issue with rebuttals, I have not added any rebuttals to the evidence from him, Littleolive oil, or Cla68. I'd certainly be happy to do so if given time and space. As for sandboxes, I note that Keithbob already has a sandbox to which he's referring as evidence.[3]   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel there is an adversarial relationship between you two with regards to content in the TM articles? Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keithbob is highly involved in this case, as is apparent from the length of his evidence the number of edits he's made. There are also other issues, some of which I've discussed privately with the ArbCom. My feelings have nothing to do with it.   Will Beback  talk  01:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Threat!?! This comment is typical of Olive's eggshell skull mentality with respect to anything anyone edits or comments on with respect to the TM-related articles or the POV-pushing editors from Fairfield. Everything is a threat. Everything is harrassment. Who, exactly, is being threatened by a request for a deadline extension or by the addition of a party? The accusation reeks of Wikilawyering and Bad Faith posturing. That being said, I see no reason for either an extension of the evidence deadline, or adding KBob, or you for that matter, to the parties. I have no desire and see no purpose to TMArbCom II, at this point at least. Fladrif (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback is correct. Today I entered a comment on the Workshop and linked to a sandbox which contained a data chart and a single diff. I apologize for this error and to correct it, I have removed the link from the Workshop page and blanked the sandbox. I expect that Will Beback will do the same. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom asked me to show evidence that TimidGuy has acted as an advocate. I posted the complete diffs in answer to their request.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there are special rules for the Wikipedia elite. Heaven forbid you should be required to follow the same guidelines as the second class Wikipedians.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In favor of civility and cordiality, I have struck the above comment which I made in a moment of frustration. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short extension and evidence submissions

Roger has indicated that a short extension to allow reactions and responses to the evidence submitted around the deadline is acceptable. However, the submission of evidence in userspace is strictly prohibited by policy and as such, the salient points should be integrated into the evidence section of this case; exceptionally to accomodate this the limits are raised to 700 words and 60 diffs.

Whilst it is recognised that emotions may get high during an arbitration case, participants are reminded that adversarial attitudes serve nobody's cause, and behaviour during a case may be taken into consideration in the final decision; in addition, drive-by sniping is unacceptable. Comments which serve no purpose other to inflame the situation may be refactored, or simply removed without warning. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to repeat my request that user:Keithbob be added as a party. He has made extensive contributions to this case and is highly involved in the dispute.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, Cla68, Fladrif, Littleolive oil and others have also submitted significant evidence and been active participants in all aspects of the case. Why am I being singled out? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't you be a party to the case? Much of the evidence you've submitted concerns general editing of the topic and personal interactions, all of which you've been a part of. If you think that the others should also be parties then you can suggest that too.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Doc James is being treated as a de facto party, as evidence has been added about him and principles have been proposed regarding him. Either that should be removed or he should be added as a formal party.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate what I said above. This is a case about whether Timidguy's request to have his ban lifted or modified should be granted or not. The Arbs have deigned to make Jimbo and Will parties, and no-one else. Doc James is not being treated as a de facto party by the Arbitrators, as least insofar as I can tell, only by some individual editors who appear to have agendas beyond the narrow scope of this case. I see no reason to add additional parties, and believe that having this very narrowly-focused case spin out of control into TM ArbCom II would be a very bad idea. Evidence and proposals about non-parties that have already been posted by various persons should be stricked by the clerks. Fladrif (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Will Beback. So in other words, out of all the evidence presentations so far, you find mine to be the one you dislike the most.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I never said that.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, I'll be mostly away from the computer for the next 24 hours, so it'll be two days before I can revise/update my evidence.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments between interested parties on the case talk pages probably should be avoided. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cla68, you have added evidence and workshop entries for a non-party. I take it you believe that this case is a free-for-all in which anyone can add evidence about anyone else, including yourself, regardless of whether they are listed as a party.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry Will, I must have misunderstood you. I have stricken my comment and I'm going to exit this conversation and let you work things out with the Committee. I will abide by whatever they decide. Best wishes,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "short extension" until when? Not that deadlines aren't really deadlines at all the way things work around here, but do you and Roger have a new deadline in mind? Also, I'd note that the overwhelming majority of the supplemental evidence that has been presented in the last couple of days has nothing whatsoever to do with "reactions and responses to the evidence submitted around the deadline" and there appears to be no reason why it wasn't presented prior to the deadline. Fladrif (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just started putting together some ideas for a PD and will discuss these with my co-drafters over the course of the next few days before posting them for public comment. Obviously, the closer the case comes to voting, the more earthshattering late evidence needs to be for anyone to pay it any attention.  Roger Davies talk 07:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assume you mean that the new evidence would need to be earthshattering in order to affect any changes to the proposed PD you all have begun drafting. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Evidence"