Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
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.

Does my topic ban (details [1]) applies for posting evidence and commenting? If so, I would like to have it waived for that purposes, please. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: Since your topic ban is not under consideration at this case, this is not one of the valid exemptions listed at WP:BANEX. However, you are welcome to submit evidence by email to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. – bradv🍁 20:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Thank you, I'll forward my evidence and testimony by e-mail. Best Regards GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: - can I receive a copy of this private evidence by GizzyCatBella  ? I will note I considered naming GizzyCatBella as a party to the case (due to the circumstances leading to their ban, and some of their edits afterwards) - but did not in light of their already existing ban (which excludes them from much, but not all, of the topic). Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I'll pass along this request to the committee. Regards, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since in accepting the case the ArbCom acknowledged that WP:AE has been unable to resolve the dispute because it is so involved and complicated I'm unclear how a 1000 word limit will do anything... that AE can't do (AE is 500). The dispute spans two years and involves long term abuse (yes, by Icewhiz), including numerous BLP violations across many articles (using Wikipedia articles to attack authors of sources who don't fit his POV). To establish this, one must show a pattern. And showing a long term pattern is going to take more than 1000 words and 100 diffs.

Additionally, since we're expect to offer rebuttals in our own sections on the evidence page, there is just no way that 1000 words is adequate. As I've said over and over again - it is much harder, and it takes a lot more words, to explain why something is a lie, than to lie in the first place.

Basically, with the present word limit, this case is likely to be just a glorified version of a WP:AE report and about as effective/competent in addressing the dispute. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, the goal of the word limits is to encourage brevity, not to create an undue burden on participants in the case or prevent evidence from being submitted. Please feel free to put together your evidence as concisely as possible, and if it needs to be shortened further we will let you know. – bradv🍁 13:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question - do the rebuttals also go into our own evidence section (which will burn up the word limit and limit how much evidence we can present ourselves) or do they go somewhere else, like the Workshop? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, per the instructions at the top of the page, rebuttals go in your own section. – bradv🍁 15:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? So basically whoever makes the most attacks on another editor, and whoever makes them as hyperbolic as possible, is given the advantage here, in terms of space? And this is suppose to... help resolve disputes and reduce WP:BATTLEGROUND? Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, the idea is to reduce the back-and-forth between participants and to stick to the facts of the case (which should mostly take the form of diffs). The arbitrators are quite capable of discounting unsupported allegations on their own. – bradv🍁 15:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Btw Brad, as much as I disagree with how this is conducted, I do very much appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]