Arbcom case: Conduct in Deletion Discussions

Arishok · Unread post by **Arishok** » Fri Jun 17, 2022 4:20 am

Case request page as of this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1093520360

With 9 accepts this is pretty clearly going to happen, so here's a public thread for it.

Seems that, at the very least, Lugnuts (T-C-L) and Johnpacklambert (T-C-L) are going to be parties. There seems to be some interest among the arbs in adding TenPoundHammer (T-C-L) as well. Others have been suggested but I'm not seeing much publicly stated interest among the arbs for it.

I don't have much prediction as to how this will go other than that there's definitely going to be some inclusionist vs deletionist bickering.

(Also, right now the case name doesn't end in an S, but Mhawk10 (T-C-L) has asked for the S to be added; the merge motion that was enacted said to call the case "Conduct in deletion discussions" so the missing S is probably just a clerking typo).

ArmasRebane · Unread post by **ArmasRebane** » Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:32 pm

While I think there's merits to a case looking at behavior at AfD, I don't have much faith in the case doing much. "There's problems here so let's have an ill-defined and broad case" generally don't work well, especially if you don't get a broad input of evidence.

Arishok · Unread post by **Arishok** » Fri Jun 17, 2022 3:56 pm

Looking at JPL's recent postings, it seems he's sparred with Floquenbeam (T-C-L) on the still-open ANI thread, and then gone to about five various users' talkpages to complain about Floq.

I get the strong sense that he hasn't followed the RFAR at all since his initial post there and still has no clue that it's already got a majority of accept votes.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:38 am

Quoting myself on Wikipedia:

Arbs, please note. On his Facebook, John Pack Lambert, a real name account, has requested that he be referred to as "Mr. Lambert" rather than reduced to an acronym he does not like. He regards it as a matter of courtesy. I pass this along for your information. —Carrite.

Beebs, please note. He is a peculiar fellow with a very high need to be shown courtesy.

t

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:41 am

I am a committed inclusionist and look forward to making Arbcom statements in support of my past nemesises Ten Pound Hammer and John Pack Lambert.

This is a fucking potential witchburning and it must not be allowed to happen.

I agree with neither, but they are COMMITTED Wikipedians who should be treasured, warts and all.

t

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:45 am

Here's my recommended sanction for JPL:

Make him fix that unsourced first paragraph of [[Sealing (Mormonism) (T-H-L)]]. That has been flagged for sources since 2007!!! It is a FUNDAMENTAL article for the Mormons’ peculiar religion.

JPL has spent HUNDREDS of hours arguing for deletions at AFD. He needs to spend one hour BUILDING THE ENCYCLOPEDIA instead of trying to tear it down.

t

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 8:36 am

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:41 am
I agree with neither, but they are COMMITTED Wikipedians who should be treasured, warts and all.

Are you sure you didn't mean to type "they're treasured warts on Wikipedia who should be committed"? I've been noticing a lot of people making typos lately.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 11:08 am

Those two are 100% wart.

Arishok · Unread post by **Arishok** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 11:46 am

Case now opened as Conduct in Deletion-Related Editing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ed_editing

The parties are the three I mentioned above, plus WP:ARS (T-H-L) member 7&6=thirteen (T-C-L).

Giraffe Stapler · Unread post by **Giraffe Stapler** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:08 pm

Quoting Floquenbeam from a recent ANI comment:

After his previous indef block, I attempted to intervene on his behalf because he appeared so distraught that he was indef blocked, but he does not seem willing to change the stubborn behavior and thin-ice-skating that could lead to another indef block. I won't actively propose an indef block/ban here, because there is an active ArbCom case request and that would complicate the discussion too much. But JPL should not be surprised if he is indef blocked should he keep this up, and I will certainly never attempt to intervene on his behalf again; it doesn't make sense that I put more effort into preventing him from being distraught than he is, and I certainly in retrospect feel like I've been played for a sap.

On Facebook, Mr Lambert demonstrates his ability for self-reflection:

Every time I think things are going to improve on Wikipedia they just get worse. People find new and more ingenious ways to punish me and attack me. Now it is treated as "attacking" that I nominate one of the 93,567 articles created by Lugnuts for deletion. This is just plain wrong. There is no justice. Only an unjust system, such as the one of Wikipedia, makes it perfectly acceptable to punish victims.

Arishok · Unread post by **Arishok** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:34 pm

The first comment anywhere in the case comes on the main case talk page from ARS member FeydHuxtable, with the most

bits bolded by me:

FeydHuxtable wrote:It was perplexing to see editor 13 added as a party. He's not a high volume editor like the other 3, nor does he appear on ANI anywhere near as frequently. The last ANI against 13 all but exonerated him, and was much closer to ending in a boomerang for the filer. 13 had generally conducted himself well at the AfD which triggered the ANI, improving the article and not cluttering up the page with lengthy analyses for the WP:GNG pass, which had already been provided by others. Im now assuming the committee added 13 as you see the benefit in giving him a more official exoneration like you did in the Portals case. I'm happy to step up to submit evidence pointing to that remedy.

Have to say though I have mixed feelings about this. I hope this case isn't going to end with a crushing defeat for the delete side as was the case with portals. Many of who argued for the pro portal editors also specifically said we didnt want to see severe sanctions like desysops for the anti portal side. It's a huge mistake to think one can improve the atmosphere at AfD by severe sanctions against the most prolific Deletionists. The Del v Inc tension is a feature, not a problem that can be removed. Even the most staunch inclusionists recognise there needs to be editors on the delete side, and removing the most extreme editors just means a different set of editors will sit at the extreme. So I hope we wont be seeing sanctions more severe than cautions or short time limited topic bans. The latest ANI against 13 should already serve as a strong waring to Deletionists that the community won't accept the view that improving articles at AfD is bad. The WMF inclusion of a prohibition against the "repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content" in the UCoC is another useful check against deletion. It could be counter productive to send too strong a message against deletionists, who are a very necessary part of the community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's totally it! 13 was added just to exonerate him, totally not to examine his behavior for possible sanctions or anything like that! And Arbcom, secret batch of fellow diehard inclusionists that they are, would surely be inclined to pass remedies such as "Deletionists are evil and must be purged" or "Lugnuts is the best and his articles are awesome, all hail Emperor Lugnuts" were it not for the measured words of FeydHuxtable dissuading them from such immoderate statements.

...

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:51 pm

I saw that and shook my head three times to clear it.
It didn't help.

I went for my morning tea and saw you had the same reaction.

Who is this cretin?

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 3:21 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:51 pm
Who is this cretin?

A tank engine? Perhaps?

I'm bad at search:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11009&p=297870&hili ... le#p297870

Arishok · Unread post by **Arishok** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:51 pm

13 wrote: I am perplexed. Am I now a target?

The true, if somewhat impolitic, answer to this question is "yes". That's what it means to be added as a party; it means editors may present evidence against you and the arbs will review that evidence to determine what, if any, sanction is merited. Being a party does not always mean a sanction will ensue, but there's a pretty friggin' high correlation, as somwhat implied by Barkeep pointing out individual examples of case parties that weren't sanctioned.

But at least you get to say more words than other individuals on the evidence page. So you got that going for you, which is nice.

That said, I highly doubt a siteban (which 13 seems to worry about later in that thread) is on the table for him. AfD topic ban is probably the harshest he could get, unless he implodes during the case itself, which is of course always a possibility.

Mr. Lambert, on the other hand, should certainly fear a siteban, now that Ritchie33 has come out of the gate pointing out his two previous indef blocks. "Indeffed on two prior occasions, and brought before Arbcom for recent misbehavior" is not a recipe for a bright WP future. He may well make it through even this case without a siteban, but he also might, well, not.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:38 pm

lol

Feyd has a sad

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:48 pm

Who is this dingbat?

User:7&6=thirteen

WPO search failed me.

Koala Claw Cuts · Unread post by **Koala Claw Cuts** » Sat Jun 18, 2022 8:42 pm

7&6=thirteen posted about the case being opened and once before to Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron (T-H-L). I would find it hilarious if some joker adds the case or the parties to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (T-H-L).

ArmasRebane · Unread post by **ArmasRebane** » Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:47 am

It's never canvassing when the ARS rounds up the posse, is it? Always very neutral notices that certainly aren't trying to gin up a certain outcome.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sun Jun 19, 2022 4:48 am

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:48 pm
Who is this dingbat?

User:7&6=thirteen

WPO search failed me.

He first started editing as an IP on articles like Humanure (T-H-L), Outhouse (T-H-L) and Urinal (T-H-L).

FelinaLavandula · Unread post by **FelinaLavandula** » Sun Jun 19, 2022 6:32 pm

Koala Claw Cuts wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 18, 2022 8:42 pm
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (T-H-L).

Deeply, deeply funny page.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Sun Jun 19, 2022 9:07 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:38 pm
lol

Feyd has a sad

FeydHuxtable wrote:Deletionists are a thing

Oh, yes we are. We very much are.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Sun Jun 19, 2022 11:02 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:48 pm
Who is this dingbat?

User:7&6=thirteen

WPO search failed me.

One of the few (him, FeydHuxtable, JClemens, Dream focus) of the old-school ARSehole Brigade still left.

Of note is his (and Feyd's egging on) bitching over being added as a party to the case and his demand of the Arbs for a bill of particulars (T-H-L). Cheers to Barkeep49 for basically telling him to shut the fuck up and cope.

Arishok · Unread post by **Arishok** » Sun Jun 19, 2022 11:13 pm

I'm actually pretty surprised that, with all the evidence submitted so far, no one's submitted so much as a diff against Lugnuts yet, especially given that the genesis of the whole case was an ANI filed against him.

I'm sure that'll change before too long, but it's still unexpected even at this stage given the previous tenor of the ANI threads.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Thu Jun 23, 2022 8:01 pm

GreenC (T-C-L) doesn't like us:

There has long been direct evidence of dog whistling at Wikipediocracy, for example most recently related to this ongoing ArbCom case: [133] ("the old-school ARSehole Brigade still left") in which 7&6 is singled out. It is a constant thing at Wikipediocracy, ARS members such as 7&6 have been the target of some of the most vicious ex-users of our community.

Ming has to wonder how it is dog-whistling when everyone can hear plainly, but whatever.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:14 pm

As usual I can't comment on the case itself, but it is amusing to me how many people will go out of their way to say how awful and horrible this website is, and that everyone here is a banned troll, while at the same clearly following it very closely and being fully aware that there are quite a number of active WP users here.

If you really think this is what this website is, why even bother looking at it? Like, I'm vaguely aware that Sucks has like 15 threads just about me personally, but I don't read them because I know it's just garbage with no value.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:54 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:14 pm
As usual I can't comment on the case itself, but it is amusing to me how many people will go out of their way to say how awful and horrible this website is, and that everyone here is a banned troll, while at the same clearly following it very closely and being fully aware that there are quite a number of active WP users here.

If you really think this is what this website is, why even bother looking at it? Like, I'm vaguely aware that Sucks has like 15 threads just about me personally, but I don't read them because I know it's just garbage with no value.

They're WO-curious.

Arishok · Unread post by **Arishok** » Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:53 pm

Is that meant to be a canvassing accusation? I don't really know what else "dog-whistling" could even plausibly be referring to here. The comment in question (Tarc's) is really quite direct, if you ask me.

I found this website in the first place via similar accusations. It's amusing to me how the very people who most object to what goes on here seem to be the most eager to provide direct-links that the out-of-the-loop readers can use to find it.

Incidentally, finally some evidence came in against Lugnuts; now all four have some evidence against them, but not one of them has posted in Evidence themselves yet.

EDIT: From the evidence talkpage:

I am moved to wonder at the vague allegations made concerning Wikipediocracy's members. If there is some actual evidence of off-site coordination going on, it should be produced, but the passage gives off a strong air of "anyone they attack can't be all bad." It doesn't seem to me that a link to one comment by one person whom I believe active on this project is evidence at all, much less evidence relevant to this case. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Mangoe's got it basically right here (though I'm not sure about Tarc being active on WP).

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:38 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:14 pm
Like, I'm vaguely aware that Sucks has like 15 threads just about me personally, but I don't read them because I know it's just garbage with no value.

Actually, 47 threads, all but two started by you-know-whom, 27 of which have no replies. Ming must admit to ego-googling the place just to see if (a) there is any fresh rantage at Ming, (b) to see if there is rantage at me, and (c) if they have ever got a clue as to Ming's identity. The answers are (a) not since 2018, (b) no, and (c) no.

Ming guesses that there's not much fun cawing at Ming when Ming isn't around to answer back.

WikipediaGuy · Unread post by **WikipediaGuy** » Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:42 pm

Arishok wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:53 pm
I found this website in the first place via similar accusations. It's amusing to me how the very people who most object to what goes on here seem to be the most eager to provide direct-links that the out-of-the-poop readers can use to find it.

Hi, I found this website from S Marshall's link at Arbcom.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:44 pm

WikipediaGuy wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:42 pm

Arishok wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:53 pm
I found this website in the first place via similar accusations. It's amusing to me how the very people who most object to what goes on here seem to be the most eager to provide direct-links that the out-of-the-poop readers can use to find it.
Hi, I found this website from S Marshall's link at Arbcom.

bagofworms · Unread post by **bagofworms** » Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:23 am

Ming wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:38 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:14 pm
Like, I'm vaguely aware that Sucks has like 15 threads just about me personally, but I don't read them because I know it's just garbage with no value.
Actually, 47 threads, all but two started by you-know-whom, 27 of which have no replies. Ming must admit to ego-googling the place just to see if (a) there is any fresh rantage at Ming, (b) to see if there is rantage at me, and (c) if they have ever got a clue as to Ming's identity. The answers are (a) not since 2018, (b) no, and (c) no. Ming guesses that there's not much fun cawing at Ming when Ming isn't around to answer back.

Does the Ming persona ever accidentally make its way into off-WPO conversation? Sometimes I catch myself signing emails with tildes...

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:59 am

Arishok wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:53 pm
Is that meant to be a canvassing accusation? I don't really know what else "dog-whistling" could even plausibly be referring to here. The comment in question (Tarc's) is really quite direct, if you ask me.

Oh my, they really did not like me dredging up the old "ARSehole" epithet, it seems. Most of the Brigade was/is slime, and the way they still have a (virtual, hopefully) orgasm every time one of their venerated saints, I/Okip or A Nobody, is mentioned, is just kinda pathetic really. ARS never existed to write articles, they existed to win deletion discussions with cite-bombing. When they "won", the result was inevitably a puffed-up article on a random hill in Shrewsbury or the 3rd bassist in a obscure polka/metal fusion band.

Let's not forget that admin and once-Arb JClemens wrote a BLP policy-flaunting essay to be weaponized in XfDs... Wikipedia:CRYBLP (T-H-L)

I think Mangoe's got it basically right here (though I'm not sure about Tarc being active on WP).

This is basic Alinsky; "Power is not only what you have, but also what the enemy thinks you have". It doesn't matter if I am there or not, just the spectre is enough to spook them. One would of course assume that I'd love to have a hand in a deletion-inclusion Arbcom.

I don't consider myself to be terribly important in the grand pantheon of Wiki-critics...I'm more Daguenet than King Arthur...but goddamn, some people over there really still have their dicks in a pickle about me.

WikipediaGuy · Unread post by **WikipediaGuy** » Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:15 pm

Tarc wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:59 am
Let's not forget that admin and once-Arb JClemens wrote a BLP policy-flaunting essay to be weaponized in XfDs... Wikipedia:CRYBLP (T-H-L)

once-admin and once-Arb Jclemens

pre-emptively resigned the bit after being hauled to Arbcom for too forcefully using his admin rights to save a precious article (Henry Earl (T-H-L)) from wrongful deletion.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Sun Jun 26, 2022 1:59 am

WikipediaGuy wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:15 pm
pre-emptively resigned the bit after being hauled to Arbcom for too forcefully using his admin rights to save a precious article (Henry Earl (T-H-L)) from wrongful deletion.

Well that was a stroll down memory lane. I'd entirely forgotten how much of a dick Cyclopia (another sadly still-active ARSehole) was, and also how far back S. Marshall's anti-WO hissy fits stretch to. Obsession isn't just a fragrance anymore

Guerillero · Unread post by **Guerillero** » Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm

Tarc wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 25, 2022 1:59 am

I think Mangoe's got it basically right here (though I'm not sure about Tarc being active on WP).
This is basic Alinsky; "Power is not only what you have, but also what the enemy thinks you have". It doesn't matter if I am there or not, just the spectre is enough to spook them. One would of course assume that I'd love to have a hand in a deletion-inclusion Arbcom.

I don't consider myself to be terribly important in the grand pantheon of Wiki-critics...I'm more Daguenet than King Arthur...but goddamn, some people over there really still have their dicks in a pickle about me.

We probably need a thread of Tarc-isms. Here are some of my favorites:

I'm not even sure how to react at this point, I haven't had a conversation turn this weird since I dropped a tab one Homecoming Week and thought the checkerboard tablecloths in the cafe were singing Here Comes the Sun.

This is an encyclopedia project, not a hand-holding therapy retreat. All this talk about alternatives to deletion to avoid hurt feelings is just ridiculous.

How this project works now is like a big empty parking lot, a bunch of brand new cars being unloaded, and people who have never driven before are being given keys and told to go park without error.

The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win. Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table". If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:41 pm

Tarc can certainly make some memorable observations.

I enjoyed this one: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=11586&p=284721#p284721

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:36 pm

Jim wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:41 pm
Tarc can certainly make some memorable observations.

I enjoyed this one: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=11586&p=284721#p284721

Sadly, The Cat [never] Came Back.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:39 am

Getting many proposals on the workshop page to enshrine inclusionist principles.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:21 am

Ming wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:39 am
Getting many proposals on the workshop page to enshrine inclusionist principles.

Can't see ArbCom doing that. They have neither the mandate nor the motivation to do so. The whole thing is becoming exactly the unfocussed mess I predicted earlier. link

They'll end up making vague statements about how to behave in AfD discussions etc, and maybe pick out a few offenders (from both 'sides' for balance) for admonishments or whatever. And then it'll be back to business as usual....

ArmasRebane · Unread post by **ArmasRebane** » Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:46 pm

Can't knock Jclemens for trying, I guess, but it's extra-laughable when the useless workshop proposals are coming from a former arb who should know better.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:36 pm

Again, can't comment on the specifics of an ongoing case, but I can assure you that nobody on the committee is interested in balancing sanctions between sides.

ScotFinnRadish · Unread post by **ScotFinnRadish** » Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:47 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:36 pm
Again, can't comment on the specifics of an ongoing case, but I can assure you that nobody on the committee is interested in balancing sanctions between sides.

Sounds like a tacit admission that Jclemens' slate of proposals will be adopted wholesale.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:00 am

Guerillero wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm
We probably need a thread of Tarc-isms. Here are some of my favorites:

Like Randal, "I am usually full of shit, but have been known to squeeze out a nugget of truth on occasion.

ScotFinnRadish wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:47 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:36 pm
Again, can't comment on the specifics of an ongoing case, but I can assure you that nobody on the committee is interested in balancing sanctions between sides.
Sounds like a tacit admission that Jclemens' slate of proposals will be adopted wholesale.

I took it to mean that they think Clemens is being kind of a fuckboy.

Wikiguy.DC · Unread post by **Wikiguy.DC** » Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:56 pm

How many times do arbs have to say “we’re not taking action against the ARS” before people stop proposing sanctions against it?

WikipediaGuy · Unread post by **WikipediaGuy** » Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:59 pm

Tarc wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:00 am
I took it to mean that they think Clemens is being kind of a fuckboy.

Jclemens says, "My love for you is ticking clock BERZERKER"

ArmasRebane · Unread post by **ArmasRebane** » Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:29 pm

Wikiguy.DC wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:56 pm
How many times do arbs have to say “we’re not taking action against the ARS” before people stop proposing sanctions against it?

I get that arbitration really only barely touches the vast majority of editors in any tangible way (and mostly that's just discretionary sanctions which they probably mostly never really understand) but it does amaze me constantly how much parties at arbitration rarely seem to understand its scope.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:40 pm

ArmasRebane wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:29 pm
it does amaze me constantly how much parties at arbitration rarely seem to understand its scope.

Which is clearly defined where, again, for future reference? (I lost my notes...)

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:12 pm

Jim wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:40 pm

ArmasRebane wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:29 pm
it does amaze me constantly how much parties at arbitration rarely seem to understand its scope.
Which is clearly defined where, again, for future reference? (I lost my notes...)

The case scope is in fact posted at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing (T-H-L)

Conduct in deletion-related editing, with a specific focus on named parties.

.

Now, the evidence phase was extended, so that persons who thought there should be more named parties could make their case, but as of right now there remain only the four original parties.

As I commented therelink, what we're seeing is not unusual in the workshop and part of the reason I believe we don't need the workshop in many if not most cases.

The real workshopping has been being done on the arbwiki for at least a decade.

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:43 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:12 pm

The real workshopping has been being done on the arbwiki for at least a decade.

Wow. A present perfect continuous passive in the wild.

You don't see that every day.

Giraffe Stapler · Unread post by **Giraffe Stapler** » Sat Jul 23, 2022 9:44 pm

Johnpacklambert dropped in for some rare weekend edits.

Panic

I am feeling panic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess that means he has seen the proposed decisions in this case.