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 have a question about placement of comments. I'm a party to this case. Am I correct in understanding that if I respond to an arbitrator or "other" the comment must remain in the "parties" section and not be threaded? But if I respond to a comment by another party, can it be threaded (because they are in the same section)? Courtesy ping to @Moneytrees:.

Also these comments[1][2] by @Stefka Bulgaria: (courtesy ping) might be in the wrong place. VR _talk 14:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, If you want to respond to something an arbitrator said in the "Arbitrators" section it should be in the "parties" section. If you respond to something said in the "others" section, it doesn't really matter whether it's in the "parties" or "others" section. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: I would prefer if participants kept their comments in their own appropriate section, regardless of whether they're responding to someone in a different section. This isn't a huge deal – clerks can fix it when it comes up, no warnings needed – because the sections here (arb, party, non-party) are for identification and convenience, not for conflict-reduction as other sectioning requirements are. However, the drafters may have a different view. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since lots of folks (including myself) are not very familiar with arbitration, I just want to ping everyone who provided evidence but has not participated at Workshop yet. The workshop closes on Aug 24. @Mhhossein:, @Idealigic:, @Eostrix:, @MarioGom:, @Ghazaalch:, @Red Phoenix:, @Adoring nanny:. This current page that you see right now is the Workshop talk page. The actual Workshop page is here where I encourage everyone to participate.

To arbs and clerks, I apologize if the above pings are inappropriate. I notice that the workshop closes in a mere 4 days!VR _talk 14:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly request arbitrators to extend the deadline of the Workshop phase. This will allow uninvolved users a greater chance to participate who might be battling a backlog or otherwise busy. Barkeep49 asked a very important question that merits a full discussion but right now we only have 4 days. I have been making proposals for which I would like more feedback from uninvolved users. Thanks for considering this request.VR _talk 19:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is ultimately up to the drafters, but personally I'd be open to an extension. The workshop for this case has been unusually fruitful and productive relative to the average case, especially related to the MEK RfCs. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The drafting arbitrators have approved a one-week extension to the workshop phase; I will update the case dates shortly. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!VR _talk 02:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can an Arb please tell me if new evidences are allowed to be inserted here during the discussion course. I am talking about comments like this. I am asking this in light of this comment, specifically. I know one needs to refer to some new diffs when participating the workshop stage, but the question is if there is a borderline for it. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop discussions should utilize the existing evidence presented. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David Fuchs. I wonder if this is a Workshop comment. I don't know if I should even respond to these accusations? I think this would make the case more complicated than before. Best. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, see this discussion at User talk:L235. I'll try to remember to update this link later if necessary.VR _talk 00:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]