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]

• Hello GeneralNotability. I was unable to participate as much due to life circumstances. I don't know if I can ask for a 3 days long extension to the workshop phase considering that I have made some proposals. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mhhossein, I'm not making the decisions, just implementing them. Moneytrees has brought your request up on the clerk mailing list so that the arbitrators can make a decision. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mhhossein, per discussion with the arbs I have extended the workshop and proposed decision due date by three days. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 19:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:10, 2 September 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]

In July Vanamonde93 named 7 more parties: BarcrMac, Ghazaalch, Ypatch, Alex-h, MA Javadi, Bahar1397 and perhaps Nika2020. But arbcom only extended the parties list to BarcrMac and Alex-h. This seemed to have affected Vanamonde's later evidence, where he focused only on named parties. It probably affected others' evidence too because, for example, the evidence page presents almost nothing against Ypatch even though the GS log shows Ypatch was blocked for editwarring at MEK and tbanned from it for 3 months.

May I ask the reason ArbCom decided not to include 5 of the 7 parties Vanamonde mentioned?

I ask because Levivich suggested the removal of bad apples and that would require examining the conduct of all involved parties.VR _talk 14:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding parties at this late stage might not be the most efficient way forward. The removal of "bad apples" as I suggested doesn't have to be done by arbcom right now, it can also be done by admins in the future (building on the "ground work" laid out by arbcom in its decision). There is something to be said for a "clean start": let arbcom make its decision with its principles and findings and remedies, and then judge editors on how they behave going forward. There is something to be said for bringing the case to a close even if it doesn't address 100% of the problems. Reopening evidence with twice the number of parties at this late point might exhaust the arbs (and other editors) and result in a worse decision (less detailed, less carefully thought through, due to people being exhausted or overwhelmed) than we might otherwise get. Levivich 14:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having huge number of parties to a case presents its own challenges - people have limits and so having to divide up those word and diff counts among a larger number of editors, or else needed more words/diffs, can mean an incomplete picture is presented for everyone. In a dispute like this, ArbCom is not going to be able to solve the dispute. Instead what we are hoping to do is create conditions that ameliorates (again not solves) the dispute and allows for positive editing in the future. Put another way, a case like this is primarily focused on disruption to the topic area, with a secondary focus on individual editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Levivich and Barkeep49, both of your explanations are helpful. I just realized that Barkeep had explained this before.VR _talk 16:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I was pinged: yes, of course it affected the evidence I provided, but I'm not necessarily upset about that. The patterns in this dispute are repetitive, even if individual editors differ. I would have preferred that ARBCOM deal with all the actors involved, but I'm equally happy to let ARBCOM exercise its judgement, and to try to follow similar principles in dealing with subsequent (or even current) disruption. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an example of current disruption. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bulgaria has constantly been adding more evidence to the page during the workshop[3][4]. This behavior was noted by El_C[5] and Mhhossein too[6]. I would have loved to add more evidence too, such as examples of disruption by certain users. I have (tried to) limit myself to either discussing proposals or analyzing existing evidences. I just want to point out that when one user continues to add new evidence, while the other restrains himself to existing evidence, that creates a one-sided picture. This is especially the case given that we don't have a level playing field to begin with (Vanamonde's evidence mentioned 8 pro-MEK users and 3 anti-MEK users, for lack of better term). VR _talk 23:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new evidence I provided about VR is meant to outline the current problem with misrepresentation of sources despite all that's been said about this in the Evidence and Workshop phases. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear about two things. First, only evidence present in the evidence phase will be considered by Arbitrators when making their final decision. It is the only evidence that will be used in the proposed decision. The evidence in this case was extensive - just the talk pages submitted by Vanamonde took considerable time to read. Second, the idea that one side doesn't have a "level playing field" because of the number of editors on one side vs another reflects battleground mentality that is why there is an arbitration case in the first place. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]