Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & NativeForeigner (Talk)

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.

Extension of workshop phase

The Workshop phase for this case will be extended to Friday and the overall schedule adjusted accordingly. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Workshop closed

The Workshop phase of this case is now closed. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I visited the "Evidence" section expecting to see some rancid logic...

Unproductive. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 11:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...and was not disappointed. The very first thing I looked at was a claim that User:Arzel was contacted by an IP editor who lives in Kansas and is therefore quite obviously a paid operative of the Koch brothers. Is this to be taken seriously? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC) I cannot see who it could be, unless the IP can be directly linked to the system at the Koch Brothers evil lair home domain or something.--MONGO 20:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC) I was going to not remark on this even though Casprings has wild conspiracy theories about me. Plus I was a little annoyed that Casprings did not even do the basic minimum of letting me know that they were going to allude to some nefarious deed, especially now that I have been TBAN'd from American Politics anyway. As for the IP, some IP did post on my page asking for me to activate my mail. I did try, but don't think I was successful. I have never received any mail from anyone on WP. Arzel (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not say anything to Arzel simply because I didn't see any reason to. I didn't see any behavior problem from him. As he noted, he did try to receive the email. [1] . That said, I simply thought it was a curious edit and might be something someone might want to look into.Casprings (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed decision?

None of the proposed decisions appear to have community input as ArbCom ignored the workshop phase and is late by over a month (and the place didn't erupt into flames with nary a chatter on ANI involving MONGO). Perhaps Jimbo Wales might want to weigh in on the workshop if we are now truly an autocratic bureaucracy that cares little about community input instead of a deliberative community writing an encyclopedia. Note that all MONGO's FA work on national parks, forests and glaciers will be broadly construed as "political" since they are by nature political acts to create national forests and parks. Military serviceman will also be "political" as is shown in the diffs provided about defending the BLP policy for a now deceased, non-political veteran. This is a very misguided and unorthodox way to handle issues that haven't even shown up in other dispute resolution fora. A handful of diffs over a 10 year editing career is being used to railroad a substantial member of the community. Maybe someone will see fit to involve the community before the trainwreck. Did the Arbcom process really devolve so dramatically when reasoned and skilled arbitrators left the committee? --DHeyward (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)