User talk:Ries42

Or Red talk pages.

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ries42! Thank you for your contributions. I am Avono and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Avono (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposals for ArbCom

I'm not sure if you saw the comments in response to your thread about proposals, but I think everyone here would be more than welcome to know what if any proposals you might have. This is a very contentious issue among the editors involved, and I don't think anyone would mind your suggesting anything you might think resonable. Fresh eyes are sometimes the best prepared to see things others might miss. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: Thank you for the welcoming :). I would only participate if I could find enough time to do the topic justice, which I'm not 100% certain I'll have at the moment. But if I do, I'm quite fascinated with the Arbitration procedures. If anything, I'm curious why it appears that Arbitration is so... limited. I wonder why there aren't "lower" arbitrators who handle topics of first impression, and should an issue not be completely resolved, be appealed to the Committee as a whole where the ArbCom Committee would have mostly appellate jurisdiction rather than original jurisdiction.

I see that Admins and other procedures functionally fill this role, leaving the ArbCom as a "method of last result" in practice, I just wonder why there isn't something between full ArbCom and the current more informal dispute resolution procedures. As far as I can see, there is no one empowered to make a 'final binding decision' outside of ArbCom, although my experience is woefully inadequate to say that with complete certainty. Ries42 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There actually are the noticeboards, such as WP:AN and WP:ANI, which are more or less the "community" taking action on its own, independent of ArbCom. There have been, and, actually, at virtually any given time, generally are active proposals for reform of some sort of the current arbitration process. The only really specific roles ArbCom has that are harder for the community to implement are involuntary removal of sysop/admin privileges by a ruling to that effect and declaring discretionary sanctions which are in a sense enforceable. The policies regarding arbitration and the dispute resolution process are bewildering even to a lot of established editors, but while the community can at AN or ANI declare discretionary sanctions, those are more or less by the community, sanctions imposed in accord with discretionary sanctions levied by ArbCom are not reversible without very serious risk of admin privileges to the admin seeking to overturn that sanction.

Pretty much everyone agrees the current system doesn't work all that well, including a lot of current and past arbitrators, but the community as a whole has never gotten together enough support for any alternative proposals for any of them to be enacted. John Carter (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: I see. I did happen upon WP:AN and WP:ANI and briefly read through as much as I could handle in one sitting, and I tend to agree that while in many cases it may be enough to solve disputes, there are also much room for abuse and allowing issues to fester. If anything, the Gamergate issue is more symptomatic of the fact that outside of ArbCom, I'm not sure that anything could "end" the dispute among WP's current dispute resolution policies...

All of that is to say, another solution or proposal to assist ArbCom could be developed, but would be outside of the scope of this particular dispute. Although perhaps this could be an example of why the current system is inadequate and help gather support for needed reforms. I'll think on that more later. In the mean time, I'll look into this quagmire here and maybe offer my insight, whatever little that might be. If anything, failure to heed WP:Civil and a startling lack of decorum and respect is discouraging. Ries42 (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And I will add, those who have shown civility and respect, such as yourself to a 'lowly' WP:SPA, are all the more appreciated. Ries42 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate sanctions

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision deletion

I noticed you asked a couple of questions about revel on the GamerGate proposed deletion talk page. As that section has been closed, I will reply here. Wikipedia:Revision deletion is the page that contains all the information about the feature and the policy surrounding its use. The answer to your basic question though is that any administrator can see material that has been revdelled. I have viewed the edit in question and as I stated in the discussion it contained an unsourced allegation related to a living person. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Alright. Is there anyway a non-Admin can review the material? Ries42 (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The point of revdel is to hide it from non-admins. If non-admins could review rev-deleted material then there wouldn't be much point in it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I understand the intent of revdel is to remove certain information deemed inappropriate to be publicly published on Wikipedia from the site. That is different from a private review of such information, for other purposes, including appeal and discussion of the appropriateness of such actions. I understand that admins can review this material; however, I am curious if there is a process for a non-Admin to review such material in certain cases, or to request to personally review the material. If there is not such a process, I would be interested in knowing why not. Except when such material is illegal to be published, even privately (such as copyright or criminally linked content, such as 'Silk Road' or something similar), I am failing to find a reason for a complete ban on such non-admin review if it is requested. Ries42 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You can ask an admin to review the material from Wikipedia:Revision deletion "Users who have concerns about any particular use of RevisionDelete may ask any administrator to review the matter, but again administrators listed in that category may be particularly well placed to do so. When contacting editors about sensitive material, prefer email to public talk messages, to avoid exposing information to more readers.", the reviewing admin may be willing to email you a synopsis of the edit but are not required to do so. If you feel the process is lacking you could try the talk page for the policy or WP:VP. — Strongjam (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI Template:ping only works if the edit that inserts the template also includes the signature tildes ~~~~ — Strongjam (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Ah, thanks on the reply. I'll see if there is an Admin that is willing to look into it I suppose. Ries42 (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ref tags

Hey, I just reverted your edit, for a couple reasons. One, I don't think we need that much detail about the tweets, but that's the most minor reason, and I'm not a going to edit war over that. The bigger reasons is that 2) Adobe never pulled sponsorship as they weren't a sponsor and three when adding a reference that is already used on the page you should use a named reftag, in this case the CJR article can be referenced with <ref name="columbia journalism review" />. If you want to put the details of the tweets back in I'll leave it as-is, just remember to include the proper reftag. Cheers. — Strongjam (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: The reference wasn't already on the page. I was working on adding it when you reverted me. I hadn't even finished figuring out how to do references properly before you had already reverted the whole thing. While I don't personally know the details of the Adobe deal (to be honest, most of this is news to me) I thought I found a very good article that I hadn't found elsewise in the article yet. I really do not appreciate the hair trigger revert. As such, the CJR article is now completely removed from the article. I would appreciate if you reverted your own revert and then edited the Adobe section if you feel it should be fixed rather than fully revert my edits. Ries42 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

One sec, I'll fix up the tags and we'll have a decent place to start. — Strongjam (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Sounds like a plan. :P Ries42 (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Left out the bit about Adobe pulling sponsorship since we have sources that conflict with that. I suspect what happened is the CJR published their piece before it was clarified that adobe wasn't a current sponsor. — Strongjam (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam:I looked into it a bit more. I think its a bit of column A, and a bit of column B. It looks like Gawker had listed Adobe in the "Sponsors" or "Advertisers" portion of their site, despite Adobe not being an active advertiser (or perhaps ever advertising with Gawker). It may be truthful to both say, Adobe asked them to remove the Adobe logo from the "Sponsors" page of the site, while at the same time, Adobe was never truly a "sponsor." I'm thinking of adding that 1-2 word clarification, what do you think? Ries42 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, probably something like what business insider wrote. asked Gawker to remove its logo from Gawker's advertising page, there was a reason why there was confusion over whether adobe was an advertiser or not. — Strongjam (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that was the same story I read that lead me to that conclusion. Ries42 (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this, I thought I'd reply here since instead of muddling the talk page to answer "I'm not sure how it works though when we're allowed to contradict a reliable source and when we're not.". A good essay on this is WP:VNT, especially the "If it's written in a book, it must be true!" section. In short, sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, in this case after CJR published their article, Adobe put out a statement (archive.org link as blog.adobe.com is dead at the moment for me,) which clarifies "We were mistakenly listed as an advertiser on the Gawker website (which we are not), so we asked Gawker to remove our logo (which they did)." In cases like this we should just ignore the mistakes in the source, even if it is reliable. Hope that helps, Cheers! — Strongjam (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Ah, sorry, that comment was actually a slight at NBSB. We had a previous argument that, and despite all the evidence I brought that CJR was likely unreliable in a specific instance he wanted to use it for, he refused to budge and made accusations against me of a conspiratorial nature. Basically his argument was "how dare I question CJR" and that ruffled my feathers. My comment in context was probably inappropriate, but I was being a bit salty. Ries42 (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Reinserting quotes on the Gamergate draft

Hi. I'm removing your reinsertion of the quotes of Sam Biddle's tweets to the article. They are, ultimately, a footnote in a minor occurence, and the article suffers heavily from the overuse of quotes as it is. The contents of the tweets are not particularly necessary to understand what they were about or the consequence thereof. On Wikipedia, consensus is important- please do not make actions that go against consensus without first at least discussing them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Might be WP:UNDUE

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp

Just want to make sure people don't get blamed for other's actions. What do you think of this?209.141.202.62 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@209.141.202.62: In what context? You'll have to give me an argument that you're attempting to support with that source before I can judge your argument. Ries42 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@209.141.202.62: Read the article, read the draft. While the draft may not be perfectly tight, ultimately it does state affirmatively that the reason Ms. Sarkeesian canceled was because of the Utah Concealed Carry laws, not the threats themselves. There could be some cleanup, but the articles cited there are NYTimes and BBC, two incredibly reliable sources. They also reported at least a week after the article you cited me, implying they would be in a better position to look back at what occurred. Even if this article contradicts one of them, and without reading those articles in depth I couldn't tell you if that occurred, the contradiction would likely be ruled in favor of the NY Times and BBC over the Salt Lake Tribune. The relevant section in the draft:

Sarkeesian canceled a speaking appearance at Utah State University after the school received several anonymous terrorist threats, at least one of which claimed affiliation with Gamergate.[47] The threats included allusions to the École Polytechnique massacre, a 1989 mass shooting motivated by anti-feminism. Though Sarkeesian had spoken before at other events in the wake of Gamergate which had received similar threats, she opted to cancel when the school could not keep concealed weapons permit holders from carrying weapons under existing Utah state weapons laws.[7][48][49][50]

From what I can see, the only sentence that might need to be examined more closely is the middle one. It makes a claim without a direct citation, but its possible its sourced from one of the other sources and just not referenced properly. But even then, its a toss up and not likely one worth pursuing. Ultimately, I don't see any need for this source or to significantly edit that particular line. Thanks for the source, and be safe. Ries42 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times referred to the threat as "the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture."[7] The FBI is actively investigating the threat to attack Sarkeesian at USU,[51] as well as documenting police investigations related to activities related to the #gamergate hashtag

In the draft, the way this is written is that the threat that prompt the investigation is from #gamergate. Right now in the draft this is the sourced article http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58529300-78/sarkeesian-threats-usu-austin.html.csp That states one of the threats is from GG but this source claims the threat that prompt the investigations was from a USU student http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp.

   The most detailed threat, which has prompted an FBI investigation, does not identify as a GamerGate action but rather a USU student attacking feminism.

They are both from the same publication and last edited on the same day/time. It's me probably being nit picky but that section could be written better as not to blame a #tag for the FBI investigation in USU when the cause for it was a USU student. In situations like this, which source is usable? Would WP:BOLD and add a bit of coherence but don't want to get yelled at so I'll ask you to take the heat <3. Luck mate 209.141.202.62 (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into it, thanks. Ries42 (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ries42: they blamed a USU student. Don't let jerks twist your words and try to shame you into concessions. DOTO masterrace and Good bless you mate. Stay strong through the unwarranted abuse <3 209.141.202.62 (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Answer to your question on ArbCom Case

Replying here as that whole thread should be hatted. What you're describing is called joe jobbing. Though I think Bosstopher is wrong about WP:IMPERSONATE, unless the username is meant to be a real name. The whole thing is probably academic anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I enjoy poking people who don't think through their own logic. It amuses me to turn an argument against the person who uses it but doesn't actually fully think through it to its ultimate conclusion. Mostly academic. :) Ries42 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Argument might be made for WP:COS if a user is editing GG articles and is also mod for a forum that is one of the "hubs" of the movement. Been pondering it myself and not sure, although I'm sure if it does become a problem (and even if it doesn't) someone will bring it up. — Strongjam (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

An argument that hinges on a WP account admitting to something that they haven't admitted to. That being said, its hard to say there is a COI when currently there is no article on this "movement" technically. The case is more difficult to make while several editors hold the opinion that there is no "movement" and only a bunch of harassment that is blamed on something that doesn't exist. I have difficulty keeping up with the mental gymnastics sometimes. Ries42 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why I removed your new comment section from Talk:Gamergate controversy

The argumentation of the section is fine. Please restore it. But write in impersonal language, don't make it a personal attack on some other editor.

I removed the section rather than hatting it because the section heading itself is a personal attack.

If another editor is edit warring or otherwise going against policy, please use the dispute resolution process. Don't try to resolve conduct issues on the talk page, it makes the atmosphere worse and hampers harmonious editing. --TS 15:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: I disagree that it is a personal attack. I am directly addressing RedPen, but I am not attacking him. Ries42 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

TS is right. You're accusing another editor of warring in the section title. I've renamed the section to be about what you're discussing and not about RedPen. What you want to discuss is fine, just be careful of the tone and try to comment on the content not the editor. — Strongjam (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: RedPen continues to make edits to the lede to remove "movement" and isn't responding in Talk. How should I proceed? Ries42 (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For now I'd suggest just taking a break and wait for discussion. I doubt the changes will stick once other editors come online. — Strongjam (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I'll take your advice and go watch Star Ladder for the time being. Ries42 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't falsely blame me for something that I'm not doing

I am not continuously editing the draft page The second edit came after one where I pressed enter by accident. Plus I stopped. At this point your trying to get me banned because you disagree or you are misunderstanding. I've made no further edits. Singdavion (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not falsely blaming you for anything. You attempted three times to do something and were reverted by 3 different people. If you're going to voluntarily stop, then there is no issue. But 3 is a pattern and generally one to act on. Additionally, I can never know when you made an edit "by accident". Ries42 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Singdavion

I can understand your problems with Singdavion's recent edit warring, but I noticed that he had no comments on his talk page before today, despite numerous previous edits on this topic. This suggests to me that he's new and has received little guidance. That's why I'm adopting a friendly approach.

The situation escalated into an edit war while I was writing my greeting message, and I edit-conflicted on their user talk page with numerous templates of increasing irateness. I think on balance that that response was incommensurate with the scale of the problem, and the edit warring reflects poorly on us as much as this inexperienced and misguided but good faith editor. --TS 17:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: Once is a mistake, Three times is a pattern. I agree that if he voluntarily stops that is preferable. I was just stating my support for escalating if he decided not to do that. Ries42 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I could easily have taken that tack had I witnessed events as a third party. As it happens I was the first to revert so I was busy with my explanation when matters escalated.

For reasons I outlined above, and which would not have been apparent to me if I hadn't looked at the user's talk page and editing history, I viewed this as a situation where a friendly, mentor-like approach could work if given a chance.

A minor point: I don't know what the reply template is intended to do, but whatever it does is unnecessary. I'll find your comments if I look for them; if you think I need to see something for the purposes of the encyclopaedia, please write it on my user talk. This isn't a social website so my personal opinion shouldn't get the way of your (or anybody else's) attempts to make Wikipedia better. --TS 18:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: Reply does two things. It pings you so if I'm addressing you directly you have notice and the opportunity to respond, and it makes it clear that the response is directed at you. Likely because you asked me a question on a previous point, or I want to directly address a point you made. I think its appropriate in certain circumstances, especially when it is not on encyclopedic page, (i.e., a talk page). Ries42 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion from Talk:Gamergate Controversy

Probably best if we move the more abstract discussion about sourcing here. In the case of a scientist publishing a study on the blog, the reliability would depend on a couple things. Often researchers will post on their personal blogs copies of studies that they've published in journals. In those cases we can cite the journal and provide a link to the reader to the study on the blog. If that's not the case then WP:SPS applies. To use it as a reference the writer must be an established expert in the relevant field (relevant is important, no citing chemists on climate change for example,) and who's work in the field has been previously published by reliable sources. Care should be taken though to avoid WP:UNDUE though, as WP:SPS says "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Hope that helps. — Strongjam (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Request

Please stop using the talk page to continue to fling thinly veiled accusations about other editors [1]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenofDoom: I am not intending to accuse anyone of anything. I'm intentionally not using names because of the reasons I stated in my last post (which I had written and posted before this request). With that being said, I apologize if you believe I was circumspectly accusing you or anyone else of wrongdoing. I am trying to address an elephant in the room as head on as possible, without hurting anyones feelings and sometimes its easy to read into the things I say. I wish you to know that I am not trying to imply that anyone is at fault or completely responsible, but that we all share collective responsibility with working toward fixing it. I am more than happy to discuss any specifics, or work toward a dialogue. I personally have no ill will or hard feelings toward any editor that lasts more than a few hours. I get heated sometimes. I got heated with you, and I want you to know I regret letting my emotions get the better of me and I am sorry for the way I acted, irrespective of your actions. Ries42 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I too am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the direction the discussion is taking. I think it would be as well to hat it to discourage further drift. Would you do it, Ries42? I'd appreciate that as a show of good faith. --TS 01:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ries42 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

THank you!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the start of the hat past comments by Tarc and Masem which were all or nearly all on topic. It was my comment after that that veered off course. --TS 02:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions request

I have requested that your recent conduct be reviewed by an administrator at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement#Ries42. You are welcome to respond. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm

there is a {{Sarcasm}} inline template you can use for the unambiguous. Avono (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Avono: OH BOY. This. Changes. Everything! Haha, I fear if I used this too much though I might be too damn salty and I really would hate to be accused of a battlefield mentality should I do so. Thanks though, I may use this every once in a blue moon. Ries42 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On Gamergate

Your are seeking to create a new draft, great, consider for a moment the inconsistent themes and styles of the English version verse say the Spanish version in your draft. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fes.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGamergate&edit-text=&act=url BerserkerBen (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversion

You have reverted Gamergate controversy at least 2, but probably 3 times - I can't be bothered to figure out if there's a previous reversion for your first whitewash. If you do not stop revert warring on the article, I will seek administrative intervention. Hipocrite (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: I have only ever reverted when someone has immediately changed something that was discussed on talk before the change was made. Perhaps you should, instead of just making your changes to areas that are at issue, go to the talk page before making your edits. I tend to not make any changes before discussing them on the talk page. Just recently that occurred, and you then very quickly made a much bigger change before even heading to the talk page. Additionally, I made several talk page comments to your change, and did not immediately revert it. After the conversation ended, it appeared that my suggestions were uncontroversial and so I made the edits. Each time I have said what I think is best, waited, and then edited. You have edited, and then gone to the talk page. Your accusations are clearly erroneous and you are not acting civil in regards to your editing where I am concerned. Your latest edit still has Synth concerns that numerous editors have brought up. Ries42 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Where did you discuss removing or changing the word "while," and where did you see consensus for that? Be specific. Hipocrite (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Each and everyone of the posts before I titled it. I did not get a consensus "Vote" each time, but neither did you. I made the edits after making talk page comments to their specific degree. I waited several hours after my last one, and after no response, I made the edit. Where is your specific talk page consensus that you are requiring of me? Ries42 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Where do I write "specific talk page consensus," please? I'm asking you to merely wait for someone to respond before you go reverting 3 (yeah, you're at 3rr) times in like 4 hours. Hipocrite (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You are not reading the talk page or my posts before making your edits. Edits which are against the very discussions you did not appear to read or contribute to. I've reverted once. If some language was removed in other cases, it was removed only after discussions on the talk page to edit those sections. Please stop accusing me of bad faith. Ries42 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

On my hatting

Hi Ries42, I just hatted your section over at the GG talk page. I appreciate your frustration, but I fear the whole thing is just going to turn into other editors sniping back and forth at each other. If you feel I'm out of line go ahead and revert, I won't take it personally and it was with some reluctance I did hat. — Strongjam (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I really don't care. I'm moving on. Ries42 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Voting Changes

After reviewing the ArbCom process, it does not appear that there is allowance to change votes EXCEPT as provided by the Conditional Vote process. While it is true that clerks are the ones to formally close a case, nothing indicates that Arbitrators are allowed to keep flipping their votes freely about prior to that time --- in fact, doing so would allow a single Arbitrator to hold proceedings on any close vote open indefinitely via what amounts to "vote-filibustering". In fact, this time is clearly reserved for matters of review:

If the Arbitrators are satisfied that the final decision reflects the consensus of the committee, an Arbitrator will make a motion to close the case. The Motion to Close phase allows the Arbitrators a final opportunity to review the case and the voting, to make sure that any conditional votes have been interpreted correctly and that the outcome of the case reflects their intent. Arbitrators may object to closing a case if they feel the decision is not clear, the interpretation is not correct, or to allow time for other Arbitrators to cast their votes.

It would appear that, since a Motion to Close was already made and supported, those who wish a different outcome must instead object for purposes of clarification and interpretation --- not merely to switch sides at the last moment.Calbeck (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. I can't even begin to wonder how that would change the outcome of this decision if it were attempted to be enforced. I personally thought once the case was "closed" it was sort of auto-enforcaeable. Sort of like, once the condition of majority is reach, its over. No more changes. But this is even odder. I wonder if a lawyer has finely pruned through all the rules and updated them or at least evaluated them. Ries42 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there seems to be a habit on the part of many editors in general to simply skim through the rules when necessary and go by memory other times... which IMHO seems to be what led to a lot of the edit-warring. No, I agree that this enforcement wouldn't change anything (in fact, I didn't realize I would be posting within minutes of the case formally being closed). Mainly I brought up the point because, well, to be honest I'm something of a rules-lawyer. Regardless of outcome, I want things to follow the existing process, and if changes need to be made, there's processes for that too. I do note that Arbitration is NOT a legal process per se, and so perhaps a lawyer would not be called for --- but I'd suggest perhaps hiring a professional parliamentarian for reviewing the rules might be in order. Beyond that, it might be best to simply promote more attention to rules comprehension amongst editors seeking to invoke them.Calbeck (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I don't want to insert myself into the AE request, but saw your comment about how they would have know about the sanctions. Arbcom ruling explicitly "upgraded" all GG general sanction notices to discretionary sanction notices. So if the editor got a general sanctions notice they don't need to receive an discretionary notice. — Strongjam (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: The GG sanctions were over a subject area, not specific parties. This is targeted at a specific user interaction, not a specific subject area. This issue is likely under the ArbCom sanctions because it involves two parties, but may not be under the letter or spirit of the GG sanctions. Therefore, the ArbCom notification timing is indeed important. Not to mention, this request is borderline bad faith to begin with. Ries42 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Afd

Your Afd is reaching WP:SNOWCLOSE. Mind doing the sensible thing to withdraw? Thanks Avono (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)