468:
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.
134:
967:
seen a ban as necessary. It is my opinion that I am interpreting the existing ArbCom ruling correctly, that the discussions on the talkpage are moving slowly forward in a mostly productive manner, and that once the RM is allowed to reach its natural conclusion in a few days, that things should simmer down. Of course, if ArbCom would like to modify the case remedies, I will adapt my monitoring to match. --
1048:
The purpose of my diff was not to complain about the language used but to point out that
Blackash's comment was simply her opinion on what other practitioners thought. We do not base decisions in WP on what one person thinks another thinks, we base them on what reliable sources say. The problem with
808:
In practice this is being taken to mean that the Topic Banned parties are able to comment on any RfM, any RfC, or any other new topic as it comes up. In effect not just putting forth their proposals at the beginning of the discussion but their views on the proposals of others. Also
Blackash is being
1154:
As long as Elonka keeps a close watch on the potential trouble makers (myself included)and is not shy about editing (as done) and blocking if needed, I trust the participating editors will embrace the spirit of, if the letter of the ban. Sometimes a little controlled venting let's the pressure off.
941:
was filed, I allowed each of the three banned editors to make one statement, no more than 500 words, and am allowing them to reply to specific questions. Colincbn, however, disagrees strongly, and is of the opinion that this is not what ArbCom intended, and that the three banned editors should have
864:
Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, to participate in all RfMs, RfCs, or other threads related to the topic, and to answer any queries addressed to them, so long as they keep their posts to 500 words
1123:
If the word arborsculpture was independent of
Slowart, what anyone says about it wouldn't matter. Yet here is Martin concerned about "the detriment of ... Slowart". Shows he knows that arborsculpture is not independent of Slowart. To use this word as the title would go against the core policy of
966:
have been filed, and though there is a possible connection since the account is in the same city as Sydney
Bluegum, the account is using a different ISP/computer. I have been monitoring ?oygul's behavior closely, and issued a couple warnings, but ?oygul has been adapting to requests so I have not
873:
This would be an accurate description of the current situation, and I would no longer have any issues with its interpretation (the lined out section is simply intended to note that it should be struck, I would not expect that section to actually remain lined out). Not amending this section simply
467:
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
1033:
shows what she thinks other practitioners of the art think about the name of the art, to the detriment of her personal and business rival
Slowart. Discussion should not be about this but about what reliable sources say about the name. That discussion has already taken place and there is strong
1014:
I support Elonka's concerns about ?oygul. There does seem to be an element of gaming the system in which ?oygul allows
Blackash to continue her business and personal rivalry with Slowart by asking her specific questions, thus giving her the right to respond. This is not conducive to a rational
992:
So the version that Martin diffed, is not the one that is currently on the live page. Which doesn't mean that
Blackash's initial comment was okay, but it does mean that the banned editors appear to be responding fairly well to the ArbCom-authorized administrative supervision. I, as monitoring
1192:
I see nothing objectively unreasonable in Elonka's interpretation. The point of the remedy was to tone things down so that discussion could continue, without silencing these editors entirely. I'd be interested in hearing if and how the participation that has been allowed has disrupted the
802:
Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the
1228:
Elonka is implementing the remedy in the way that I anticipated when I first wrote it - the editors concerned had their opportunity to put their view, but every discussion did not degenerate into walls of text. I note that a RM was submitted recently, and turned down by
1216:
On balance I agree with Elonka. The remedy's aim was to prevent good-faith comments from being squelched but cut down on opportunities for disruption, and keeping discussions of the involved editors short and succint seems to be the best interpretation of that.
942:
been limited to participating in the RfC, but not in the RM. There have also been concerns expressed by some of the editors on the page that Sydney
Bluegum is a SPA, and should not be allowed to participate at all. A further concern is that one of the editors,
816:". These comments are not proposals, they are not background rational for their proposals, and they are not being made at the commencement of the discussion (note there is a section specifically set aside for this purpose that they have opted not to use).
874:
means the ruling, as it stands now, is being ignored. I honestly don't have any problem with the current state of the page, just that the ArbCom ruling specifically spells out what is to happen, yet that is not what is happening.
72:
936:
as meaning that
Slowart, Sydney Bluegum, and Blackash are banned from discussing the naming issue, but are each allowed to make a single statement in those discussions, and then reply to specific queries. As such, when a
1030:@Jclemens:I think that the comments of Blackash have disrupted the encyclopedia-building process by once again focusing on personal and business rivalry rather than what reliable sources say. Blackash's latest response
67:
61:
50:
355:
392:
224:
56:
45:
157:
386:
1015:
discussion, neither do I think it is what Arbcom had in mind when they allowed the banned editors to respond to questions because of 'their experience and familiarity with the area'.
960:
913:
to be an accurate reflection of this position. I think the wording suggested above is appropriate. Currently the remedy is worded much more strictly than it is being interpreted as.
888:
Also, the only way we can know your desired result is if you tell us what it is. If the current situation is in fact the desired result the wording should be modified to show that.
963:
957:
350:
933:
908:
809:
asked "direct questions" on her views of the posts of others by a new SPA, thereby allowing her to make her case in response without Slowart being given the same courtesy.
795:
551:
382:
178:
170:
34:
324:
344:
189:
167:
377:
315:
234:
162:
932:
Colincbn is in disagreement with how the ArbCom ruling is being interpreted. As an uninvolved administrator monitoring the article, I have interpreted the
906:
So far all the arbitrators who have commented here have agreed with the current implementation, I have no problem with that. However I hope you will amend
750:
320:
25:
330:
310:
193:
826:
I do not think this was the original intended outcome of this ruling, but if it is I am more than happy to stand by that ruling if it is made clear.
335:
248:
229:
451:
369:
260:
293:
219:
148:
21:
648:
599:
1120:
Martin has repeatedly stated at Tree shaping he only cares about policy. It appears to me he is not just here for wikipedia policy. Example:
986:
I am in agreement that Blackash's language was not appropriate. However, I would also point out that I contacted Blackash with my concerns,
744:
699:
1233:
on the grounds that it was premature, which I think it was, but I thought that on the whole the discussion was proceeding productively.--
993:
administrator, have only needed to offer some general nudges and cautions, and no additional bans or blocks have been required so far. --
285:
125:
1251:
has asked if she can post a response to Martin Hogbin above. This would be acceptable under the terms of the remedy as intended. --
271:
214:
1114:
Then I give my knowledge about the different practitioners, and whats is happening in the art, which is why I'm allow to comment.
206:
256:
154:
642:
593:
266:
184:
953:
693:
17:
1000:
974:
768:
444:
1207:
I agree that Elonka's interpretation of the remedy is eminently reasonable and in line with the committee's intent. —
1256:
1238:
114:
1274:
1260:
1242:
1223:
1211:
1202:
1164:
1139:
1086:
1058:
1049:
allowing this kind of input, especially from a banned editor, is that it disrupts proper discussion on the subject.
1043:
1024:
1003:
977:
922:
897:
883:
850:
835:
571:
756:
305:
89:
409:
738:
144:
1054:
1039:
1020:
437:
1252:
1234:
823:" seems to rule out Sydney Bluegum as he is not an expert nor has he, or anyone else, ever claimed he is.
666:
617:
109:
1110:
Please note in my comment that Martin refers to I address the references first and what is said in them.
717:
956:) is a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet and should therefore be banned from the discussion. However,
654:
605:
100:
84:
1230:
577:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
733:
705:
1198:
1132:
1079:
1050:
1035:
1034:
agreement amongst both regular and uninvolved editors that the sources support 'arborsculpture'.
1016:
918:
893:
879:
846:
831:
636:
587:
564:
947:
1160:
938:
687:
1270:
1218:
997:
971:
411:
1124:
neutrality. Martin has consistently ignored or dismissed this policy when it is point to.
814:
allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion
95:
1117:
I'm going to try and point out Martin's inconsistency please note that and not the topic.
414:
983:
Just as a point of clarification: Regarding Martin Hogbin's diff of Blackash's comment,
1193:
encyclopedia-building process and has therefore failed to achieve our desired result.
1248:
1194:
1125:
1072:
914:
889:
875:
842:
827:
631:
582:
560:
1156:
943:
682:
989:
and she voluntarily edited her post within the hour, to more appropriate language.
413:
133:
841:
Elonka's statement below is an accurate and concise assessment of the situation.
1266:
994:
968:
1208:
867:
This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
821:
This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
1181:
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
1265:
Looks as though this is being interpreted in the manner intended.
1071:
I believe Elonka's interpretation of Remedy 4) seems to working.
415:
859:@Jclemens I would then request the ruling is amended to say:
812:
I have noted that in the above ruling it clearly states "
1111:
1107:. This lead to Colincbn asking for clarification here.
1104:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1031:
990:
987:
984:
779:
774:
762:
728:
723:
711:
677:
672:
660:
623:
611:
425:
340:
298:
174:
1103:. After no reply for a few days, ?oygul then asked me
552:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping
1093:Please note ?oygul asked Slowart a question first
445:
8:
452:
438:
121:
124:
1099:, ?oygul then rephrased it to Slowart
1089:In reply to Martin's comments above.
7:
225:Clarification and Amendment requests
1096:then when Slowart wouldn't answer
32:
934:Article and subject scope remedy
532:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
132:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration
1187:Arbitrator views and discussion
472:Arbitrators active on this case
1:
911:4) Article and subject scope
798:4) Article and subject scope
356:Conflict of interest reports
1275:00:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
1261:23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1243:23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1224:17:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
1212:21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1203:06:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1165:19:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1140:00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1087:00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1059:08:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
1044:10:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1025:11:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1004:18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
978:06:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
923:10:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
898:07:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
884:06:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
851:06:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
836:05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
793:I request clarification of
572:05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
550:Request for clarification:
185:Search archived proceedings
126:Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration
1291:
1010:Statement by Martin Hogbin
230:Arbitrator motion requests
1220:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1170:Statement by other user
465:Behaviour on this page:
1067:Statement by Blackash
819:Also the statement: "
789:Statement by colincbn
426:Track related changes
286:Arbitration Committee
1150:Statement by Slowart
235:Enforcement requests
163:Guide to arbitration
928:Statement by Elonka
106:Drafting arbitrator
257:Contentious topics
155:Arbitration policy
1253:Elen of the Roads
1247:Further to this,
1235:Elen of the Roads
800:. Specifically: "
494:Elen of the Roads
462:
461:
429:
397:
267:General sanctions
215:All open requests
145:About arbitration
118:
110:Elen of the Roads
104:
93:
76:
68:Proposed decision
65:
54:
43:
1282:
1221:
1137:
1130:
1084:
1077:
778:
751:deleted contribs
727:
700:deleted contribs
676:
649:deleted contribs
627:
600:deleted contribs
454:
447:
440:
428:
423:
416:
395:
351:Clerk procedures
343:
301:
272:Editor sanctions
249:Active sanctions
207:Open proceedings
177:
136:
122:
112:
98:
87:
70:
59:
48:
37:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1219:
1189:
1177:
1172:
1152:
1133:
1126:
1080:
1073:
1069:
1012:
930:
791:
736:
685:
634:
585:
555:
545:John Vandenberg
474:
458:
424:
418:
417:
412:
402:
401:
400:
389:
372:
362:
361:
360:
347:
339:
327:
302:
297:
288:
278:
277:
276:
251:
241:
240:
239:
209:
199:
196:
181:
173:
151:
120:
85:Salvio giuliano
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
1288:
1286:
1278:
1277:
1263:
1245:
1226:
1214:
1205:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1176:
1173:
1171:
1168:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1121:
1118:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1006:
939:Requested Move
929:
926:
905:
903:
902:
901:
900:
886:
871:
860:
854:
853:
790:
787:
785:
783:
782:
734:Sydney Bluegum
731:
680:
629:
554:
548:
547:
546:
537:
536:
533:
525:
523:
522:
519:
516:
513:
510:
507:
504:
503:Kirill Lokshin
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
485:Cool Hand Luke
483:
473:
470:
460:
459:
457:
456:
449:
442:
434:
431:
430:
420:
419:
410:
408:
407:
404:
403:
399:
398:
390:
385:
380:
374:
373:
368:
367:
364:
363:
359:
358:
353:
348:
338:
333:
328:
323:
318:
313:
308:
303:
296:
290:
289:
284:
283:
280:
279:
275:
274:
269:
264:
253:
252:
247:
246:
243:
242:
238:
237:
232:
227:
222:
217:
211:
210:
205:
204:
201:
200:
198:
197:
192:
187:
182:
172:
165:
160:
152:
147:
141:
138:
137:
129:
128:
35:Main case page
33:
31:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1287:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1215:
1213:
1210:
1206:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1149:
1141:
1138:
1136:
1131:
1129:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1078:
1076:
1066:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1051:Martin Hogbin
1047:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:Martin Hogbin
1032:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1017:Martin Hogbin
1009:
1005:
1002:
999:
996:
991:
988:
985:
982:
981:
980:
979:
976:
973:
970:
965:
962:
959:
955:
952:
949:
945:
940:
935:
927:
925:
924:
920:
916:
912:
910:
899:
895:
891:
887:
885:
881:
877:
872:
869:
868:
861:
858:
857:
856:
855:
852:
848:
844:
840:
839:
838:
837:
833:
829:
824:
822:
817:
815:
810:
806:
804:
799:
797:
788:
786:
781:
776:
773:
770:
767:
764:
761:
758:
755:
752:
749:
746:
743:
740:
735:
732:
730:
725:
722:
719:
716:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
684:
681:
679:
674:
671:
668:
665:
662:
659:
656:
653:
650:
647:
644:
641:
638:
633:
630:
625:
622:
619:
616:
613:
610:
607:
604:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
584:
581:
580:
579:
578:
574:
573:
570:
566:
562:
559:
558:Initiated by
553:
549:
544:
543:
542:
541:
534:
531:
530:
529:
528:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
506:Mailer diablo
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
481:
480:
479:
478:
471:
469:
466:
455:
450:
448:
443:
441:
436:
435:
433:
432:
427:
422:
421:
406:
405:
394:
391:
388:
384:
381:
379:
376:
375:
371:
366:
365:
357:
354:
352:
349:
346:
342:
337:
334:
332:
329:
326:
322:
319:
317:
314:
312:
309:
307:
304:
300:
295:
292:
291:
287:
282:
281:
273:
270:
268:
265:
262:
258:
255:
254:
250:
245:
244:
236:
233:
231:
228:
226:
223:
221:
220:Case requests
218:
216:
213:
212:
208:
203:
202:
195:
191:
188:
186:
183:
180:
176:
171:
169:
166:
164:
161:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
142:
140:
139:
135:
131:
130:
127:
123:
119:
116:
111:
107:
102:
97:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
69:
63:
58:
52:
47:
41:
36:
27:
23:
19:
1180:
1153:
1134:
1127:
1081:
1074:
1070:
1013:
950:
931:
907:
904:
866:
863:
825:
820:
818:
813:
811:
807:
801:
794:
792:
784:
771:
765:
759:
753:
747:
741:
720:
714:
708:
702:
696:
690:
669:
663:
657:
651:
645:
639:
620:
614:
608:
602:
596:
590:
576:
575:
568:
557:
556:
539:
538:
526:
524:
518:Roger Davies
476:
475:
464:
463:
105:
80:
79:
77:
39:
1175:Clerk notes
1135:have a chat
1082:have a chat
628:(initiator)
509:Newyorkbrad
491:David Fuchs
190:Ban appeals
168:Noticeboard
81:Case clerks
769:block user
763:filter log
718:block user
712:filter log
667:block user
661:filter log
618:block user
612:filter log
512:PhilKnight
497:Iridescent
396:(pre-2016)
383:Statistics
316:Procedures
96:Dougweller
1231:Silk Tork
961:checkuser
865:or less.
775:block log
724:block log
673:block log
624:block log
521:SirFozzie
321:Elections
1249:Blackash
1195:Jclemens
1128:Blackash
1075:Blackash
964:requests
958:multiple
954:contribs
915:Colincbn
890:Colincbn
876:Colincbn
843:Colincbn
828:Colincbn
796:Remedies
780:Notified
745:contribs
729:Notified
694:contribs
678:Notified
643:contribs
632:Blackash
594:contribs
583:colincbn
561:Colincbn
527:Inactive
500:Jclemens
482:Casliber
57:Workshop
46:Evidence
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
1157:Slowart
683:Slowart
540:Recused
477:Active:
393:Reports
331:History
311:Members
306:Contact
294:Discuss
158:(CU/OS)
1267:Risker
944:?oygul
909:Remedy
515:Risker
336:Clerks
194:Report
94:&
1209:Coren
803:area.
488:Coren
370:Audit
16:<
1271:talk
1257:talk
1239:talk
1199:talk
1161:talk
1112:diff
1105:diff
1101:diff
1055:talk
1040:talk
1021:talk
948:talk
919:talk
894:talk
880:talk
847:talk
832:talk
757:logs
739:talk
706:logs
688:talk
655:logs
637:talk
606:logs
588:talk
565:talk
535:Xeno
387:Talk
378:Talk
345:Talk
325:Talk
179:Talk
149:Talk
115:Talk
101:Talk
90:Talk
73:Talk
62:Talk
51:Talk
40:Talk
26:Case
261:Log
1273:)
1259:)
1241:)
1201:)
1163:)
1057:)
1042:)
1023:)
1001:ka
998:on
995:El
975:ka
972:on
969:El
921:)
896:)
882:)
849:)
834:)
805:"
569:at
567:)
108::
83::
66:—
55:—
44:—
1269:(
1255:(
1237:(
1197:(
1159:(
1053:(
1038:(
1019:(
951:·
946:(
917:(
892:(
878:(
870:"
862:"
845:(
830:(
777:)
772:·
766:·
760:·
754:·
748:·
742:·
737:(
726:)
721:·
715:·
709:·
703:·
697:·
691:·
686:(
675:)
670:·
664:·
658:·
652:·
646:·
640:·
635:(
626:)
621:·
615:·
609:·
603:·
597:·
591:·
586:(
563:(
453:e
446:t
439:v
341:+
299:+
263:)
259:(
175:+
117:)
113:(
103:)
99:(
92:)
88:(
75:)
71:(
64:)
60:(
53:)
49:(
42:)
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
