382:
members/followers editing
Knowledge have serious ownership issues, and are frequently uncivil to anyone who opposes them. I was disturbed to read IMJ's evidence of off-wiki coordination, which shows them escalating their attitudes towards other editors online as a group. It appears rather clearly that they feel like they can act like this with impunity because they have the "truth" on their side. A wake up call is necessary. Few of these individuals edit outside of the walled garden, and when they come into contact with those who do they are often abrasive and uncivil. It's time to let them know that Knowledge's more general rules and conventions apply to their little kingdom as well. Cheers.
214:
this ArbCom case have also been "disappeared". JJB is reluctant to make the edits to fix these errors, for obvious reasons. While I haven't been the subject of the proposed decision on the workshop page to the degree JJB has, I, too am reluctant to fix this error. But the error obscures some important material to the future of the WOP project and completely erases some even more important material at the crux of this dispute, at least as to
Brendanology. Please read JJB's description of the problem on my talk page and then the edit in question. Then, please advise. Thanks.
230:
interim, it will require clerically merging the current fork and the former fork, which is why I was looking for an immediate response from anyone, anyone. It's a two-minute job, and I think my direct involvement would be rather silly, as being colorable as not directly related to the case. (No, David in DC, you're not degrading.)
336:
Brad is correct; I've proposed sanctions against the two editors whom I considered to have been the key players in instigating this conflict. I'm hopeful that the two proposed bans will be all that is necessary to restore some semblance of order here; but, if that's not sufficient, the discretionary
307:
I can't speak for Kirill, but presumably he included in the decision sanctions against those parties he believes need to be sanctioned at this time. Beyond that, please see my comment on the
Discretionary sanctions remedy in the proposed decision. The committee expects that going forward, all editors
213:
has archived some material on the WOP talk page, but has also deleted a fair amount of material. He's noticed, for instance, that some material posted by IMJ has disappeared. I've since gone to the page and noticed that parts of one discussion, involving
Brendanology, that are clearly the subject of
292:
I wouldn't say it's too late; I'd suggest you alert all of the active arbs. Of course, you can't know what they are thinking if they did not comment on the proposals; it's possible they don't agree with the substance or it might be they missed parts of it due to the way the proposals are structured
243:
I think I must have missed something. There are multiple diffs to show problematic behaviour on the part of a number of editors other than JJBulten and Ryoung122. Yet it is only against those editors that any sanctions are proposed. I'm concerned that the case will be over and meatpuppetry will
229:
Well, I think it's a clear-cut case of an editor who added a paragraph to an old version of the page, thinking that the current version was being edited, thus wiping out the intervening comments inadvertently. The solution is still clear, as I said, but if the talk page further degrades in the
381:
Though I believe I was named as a party originally I chose not to participate here because my interaction with this was quite limited. I have followed the arbitration off and on however, and I would like to second David's urging. My impression of this situation has always been the GRG
308:
on these articles will abide by the principles set forth in the decision. Significant sanctions, including topic-bans, may be imposed through the
Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard if problematic behavior by any party to the case continues, or by any other editors begins.
263:, particularly if workshop proposals were already made about the other editors you are alluding to (and if those proposals did not receive comments). Or haven't workshop proposals been made about the other editors you are alluding to (and if so, why not)?
277:
Workshop proposals were made by party JJBulten in relation to
DerbycountyinNZ and Nick Ornstein, but those weren't followed up in the proposals made by Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin. Should I address this to Kirill? Is it too late anyway?
188:
I think we understand what remedy Ryoung122 would feel appropriate for JJBulten, and vice versa. Further comments by either of them about the other are not necessary. There should be a proposed decision in this case coming soon.
183:
253:
260:
80:
363:
140:
This page is little more than JJBulten continuing with his POV-pushing. There are several serious problems with the current approach that ensure failure under the present circumstances:
375:
341:
331:
317:
302:
287:
272:
75:
391:
198:
210:
166:
58:
152:
Where is the judgment on JJBulten's continued egregious misbeahavior? He continually "concludes" discussions to which he is an involved party. Something is wrong here.
238:
223:
64:
53:
149:
In fact, Knowledge editors like
Brendanology started off on Knowledge, but because they create an outside blog, that's a "conflict of interest"? I think not.
366:
to beef up the decision sections that discuss civility. The post suggests that this part of the decision is not yet sufficiently robust. I'm just sayin'...
357:
47:
29:
146:
2. Instead of a discussion of misbehavior by each side, instead we have a witch-hunt blacklist against those interested in supercentenarians.
42:
135:
177:
293:(JJB has not structured them so that each remedy corresponds to a finding; rather, each finding seem to be involving multiple users).
25:
173:
21:
172:
Come up with a proposed remedy for John J. Bulten and everyone else, then; that's the whole point of this workshop.
337:
sanctions are included as a "second-tier" remedy that will potentially apply to anyone who persists in misbehaving.
204:
231:
17:
121:
107:
96:
244:
continue. Could someone talk me through what happens next in regard to other editors? thanks.
371:
327:
313:
298:
283:
268:
249:
219:
194:
8:
387:
338:
116:
102:
91:
367:
323:
309:
294:
279:
264:
245:
215:
190:
383:
158:
209:
I'm flummoxed. On my talk page, JJB has alerted me that he's noticed that
143:
1. JJBulten has done most of the project-building (COI)
155:Where is the analysis or proposed remedy for JJB?
239:Potential sanctions against other parties in case
362:I'd urge the arbs to take the opportunity of
259:This question may be better directed at
14:
136:This project page is out of control
35:
37:
36:
403:
358:"Can you actually read English?"
174:The Blade of the Northern Lights
13:
1:
392:14:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
376:13:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
342:01:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
332:17:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
318:16:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
303:16:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
288:15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
273:15:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
254:15:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
234:18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
224:11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
199:11:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
184:04:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
167:01:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
7:
10:
408:
18:Knowledge talk:Arbitration
322:This helps, thank you.
364:this latest incivility
205:Disappeared material
113:Drafting arbitrator
130:
129:
125:
111:
100:
84:
76:Proposed decision
73:
62:
51:
399:
261:the Pd talk page
180:
164:
161:
119:
105:
94:
78:
67:
56:
45:
38:
407:
406:
402:
401:
400:
398:
397:
396:
360:
241:
207:
178:
162:
159:
138:
34:
33:
32:
12:
11:
5:
405:
395:
394:
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
240:
237:
236:
235:
206:
203:
202:
201:
186:
137:
134:
132:
128:
127:
117:Kirill Lokshin
103:AlexandrDmitri
92:NuclearWarfare
43:Main case page
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
404:
393:
389:
385:
380:
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
343:
340:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
321:
320:
319:
315:
311:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
291:
290:
289:
285:
281:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
257:
256:
255:
251:
247:
233:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
212:
200:
196:
192:
187:
185:
181:
175:
171:
170:
169:
168:
165:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
133:
126:
123:
118:
114:
109:
104:
98:
93:
89:
85:
82:
77:
71:
66:
60:
55:
49:
44:
40:
39:
31:
27:
23:
19:
361:
242:
208:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
131:
112:
87:
86:
69:
41:
368:David in DC
324:Itsmejudith
310:Newyorkbrad
295:Ncmvocalist
280:Itsmejudith
265:Ncmvocalist
246:Itsmejudith
216:David in DC
191:Newyorkbrad
88:Case clerks
384:Griswaldo
211:this edit
30:Longevity
65:Workshop
54:Evidence
28: |
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
339:Kirill
179:θ©±γγ¦δΈγγ
160:Ryoung
101:&
16:<
388:talk
372:talk
328:talk
314:talk
299:talk
284:talk
269:talk
250:talk
220:talk
195:talk
122:Talk
108:Talk
97:Talk
81:Talk
70:Talk
59:Talk
48:Talk
26:Case
232:JJB
163:122
390:)
374:)
330:)
316:)
301:)
286:)
271:)
252:)
222:)
197:)
182:)
115::
90::
74:β
63:β
52:β
386:(
370:(
326:(
312:(
297:(
282:(
267:(
248:(
218:(
193:(
176:(
124:)
120:(
110:)
106:(
99:)
95:(
83:)
79:(
72:)
68:(
61:)
57:(
50:)
46:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.