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.

I proposed an option/issue. Please let me know if I've done this incorrectly Buffs (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: Proposed remedies go on the workshop, not here. I would recommend moving your remedies there instead. SkyWarrior 19:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Buffs (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, you've asked for a time extension, and while I'm amenable to the idea, there's still 3 days for the evidence phase and 10 days for the workshop (which is the more important part of the two for this case). How much of an extension are you hoping for? My recommendation is that you see what you can get done in the time allotted and then give us an idea of how much more time you'd need. I really don't want this case to drag on forever! Worm^TT(talk) 11:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned What I plan is to comment on each aspect of the current rules and propose limited changes. If that is fine in the Workshop page, I can do it by that deadline. My suggestions will mosly come from my experience of editing in the area for a long time rather than from specific incidents. Zero^talk 11:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, That sounds very much like something that fits in the workshop. Participation is important bin a case like, especially from those who are doing the work, so if there's anyone you are surprised isn't here, feel free to give them a nudge. Worm^TT(talk) 11:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully propose that 2 months is more than ample time. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence phase will be closing within the next few hours. The workshop will remain open for another week. – bradv🍁 18:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK: when the arbiters passed the March 2019 amendments, I don't think they had any idea as to what was the consequences (namely that no-one could get sanctioned without an editnotice being in place on the article in question.) (Please correct me if I'm wrong, and that you actually knew the consequences.)

Now, when the rules have become too complicated even for the rule-makers: something needs to be done. Namely to simplify the rules. I think we should start with what we need, and what work well. I think most of us "regulars" in the area thinks that the 30/500 rules has merit, and should stay. But I, for one, am at a loss to see why we need two set of rules (for articles 'reasonably construed' vs 'broadly construed' being under ARBPIA): I would put all under 'broadly construed'. (If there is something my years editing here has taught me, it is that one should never, ever underestimate what can be quarrelled about. I'm surprised not more ARBPIA quarrels have made it to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars...(but at least Hummus and Falafel gets (dis-)honourable mention), Huldra (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]