No. Yes. Yes.
SilkTork (
talk) 17:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
[reply]I've just looked at Robert McClenon's response to this question. You've altered the wording slightly to make it less obvious, but he did pick up the clues that this is likely to refer to an actual case. If you're just asking for general principles, the answer is No. Yes. Yes. But if you have a particular case in mind which I don't know about, then it would be inappropriate for me to comment out of context. There may well have been valid reasons for whatever happened in that case which we don't know about.
SilkTork (
talk) 18:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
[reply]OK. It appears you're asking about the
2015 case as that fits the description. I'll reflect first on your question about evidence being produced during the proposed decision phase. It is quite common for diffs to be supplied in the PD phase by those drafting findings of fact, and it is not uncommon for other Committee members to produce more diffs in order to fine tune the evidence. This is something that has happened in numerous cases. The diffs are to support the general principles which have already been outlined during the evidence and workshop phase. Several Committee members may add or amend the diffs at this stage. And while the Workshop page is there to start to build the Proposed decisions with the aid of the community, the PD page is where the Committee as a whole gets working on the case, and it can develop differently there than it has in the Workshop. I'm not going to comment at this point directly on your case, but I think you've touched on an aspect that is worth considering. I am clear in my mind that it is helpful and appropriate that new diffs and new solutions are sought during the full Committee Proposed Decision phase, and this may include considering new evidence. The PD talkpage is open during this stage for those involved in the case and the community to comment, and an alert Committee will keep an eye on that page. However, I don't think there is a formal requirement for the Committee to consider when they may have introduced new and significant evidence that may have a valid explanation or justify a response by the parties, and to then formally allow parties to the case to respond to this evidence. The Committee would rely on observers drawing attention to the situation. It might be worth opening a discussion that Clerks should warm the Committee when significant new evidence has been entered in the PD stage that might require a response from one or more parties.
To return to your first two questions. The assumption during the request and the case is that parties are given time to respond, and I'm aware of times when the Committee has paused to allow a user time to respond before accepting a case. In the 2015 case, the request had been made on March 18 and opened on March 23, and you stopped editing Wikipedia on April 6, so you had time to write this essay
Wikipedia:Wikipedia and shipwrights and distribute it to several users, including Jimbo Wales:
[12]. During the request you made no mention of personal matters you had to attend, nor asked for time to present your evidence, instead saying: " I specifically decline to participate in a witch-hunt", then ask that the Committee examine your edits, saying "I trust my requests will be met as otherwise there is to be no evidence at all to be presented by me" concluding "These should not be onerous requests as otherwise I shall be mute. As such is the case, I am done with this case, come what will. Here I stand". Which appears to read that you intend no offer no evidence. Then you say on the 5th April, right at the end of the evidence phase, that you would need, partly due to the weight of evidence against you and personal commitments, until June 1st to provide an adequate response:
[13], and the next day you stop editing Wikipedia until two weeks after the case has finished, leaving a Wiki-break message: "I am attending to personal business including medical and other issues and planned events etc. until roughly 15 June 2014"
[14]. You may have done, but I can't see if you requested the case be paused, nor can I see if you privately contacted the Committee to keep them informed of what you were doing. Not that you needed to, but if your question relates to this case, then on the evidence I see, the Committee would not have been aware until the day you left that you intended to leave, and by that time the Evidence phase had closed, and the drafters would have started the Workshop phase. You had left your statement on the Evidence page and then went off to deal with your personal affairs. Unless there is more evidence, it seems, given the circumstances, that the Committee were simply doing what they were supposed to, and completing the case they had been asked to look into. If you feel I have got any of this wrong, then please let me know and I'll look again.
My impression, looking at that case, is that you felt victimised and stressed, and did not accept the complaints against you. And you may still feel that way. None of us are perfect, and we all at times do things inappropriately, unaware that what we are doing is not acceptable to the community. And sometimes it can take time to accept that we were in the wrong. We rationalise it to ourselves, and convince ourselves that we were right. It has happened to me, so I understand the feeling. It can sometimes take time, and a lot of soul searching, to come round to accepting we were wrong. I have not examined the case closely, but there is a weight of evidence to support the findings which it may be worth you digesting rather than fighting. Believe me, you will feel better in yourself when you come to accept that some things you do the community don't like. You did them not because you're a bad person, but because you were not aware that the community didn't like them. Now those things have been pointed out to you, it's time to start examining them closely, and resolving to do things differently in future.
SilkTork (
talk) 04:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
[reply]