Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Hahc21 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

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.

Jimbo's talk page

I think this should be looked at a little more broadly.

Previously, I've seen that, for foundation people, they often have a caveat to not revert IPs and the like from their talk pages, because in this case their talkpages are a place for communicating concerns to the WMF foundation (a Foundation forum of a sort). For example, I remember seeing a note to this effect in the past at User talk:Philippe (WMF). If I am remembering incorrectly, please forgive my faulty memory : )

And as many have mentioned, JW's talk page is quite a different place than the typical user's talk page.

And by the way - policy is to be a reflection of consensual common practice, not the other way round : )

All that said, if this is agreed to be case in terms of his talk page, then it should probably be noted somehow at the top of his talk page. - jc37 19:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Continuing edits on this page after Sept. 23

I note that Tarc and others (apparently in response to Tarc) have continued to edit the workshop page after the Sept. 23 deadline. If I were allowed to edit the workshop page at this point, I would ask for an additional remedy against Tarc for flouting the instructions and the decorum of the page. Earlier problems include his use of plain diffs without any explanation of their meaning or context on the evidence page, multiple personal attacks on the workshop page, and now editing past the deadline. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to confess that I was not aware of the Sept. 23 deadline until you mentioned it. Seems I (inadvertently!) finished posting my workshop proposals exactly four minutes before the deadline. Are editors permitted to respond to workshop proposals after 9/23? Coretheapple (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, framing disagreements as personal attacks is not a productive use of our time. If there are specific comments that you object to, then I'm sure you'll be able to provide diffs to the arbs or clerks...as well as for the flouting instructions and decorum, whatever that is. I've already shrugged off your claim of a personal attack in the "Tarc edit wars to sabotage the enforcement of Mr. 2001's site-ban" section as nonsensical; short of performing Legilimency, you have to standing to delve into my mind and declare what I knew when. When the account was blocked, then I knew, same as you.

As for the date, I had not paid attention to any closing date either, as the page has been continuously active for several days now. As I recall from past Arb cases, when they truly wish to close up shop, the pages are set to full protection. Clarification would probably be a good idea now though, too see how much time we really have left. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I just emailed one of the clerks to find out what the story is. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Absent extensions, workshop and evidence pages close on the date listed. We don't protect pages unless parties are incapable of restraining themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well people are continuing to post. I would love to myself, but I get a big "stop" warning when I try. I guess some people don't care. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, someone's going to have to decide something soon, as Kww's ridiculous proposals deserve a response if they are going to be allowed to stay; if they'r going to be reverted, I won't bother. The edit notice was placed on 00:14, 26 September 2014, so IMO either rollback comments made after that time-stamp, or rollback all the way to 23:59 23 September 2014. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Either the material posted after Sept. 23 should be reverted or there should be an extended period of comment and reply. I'd actually like to post another principle. Coretheapple (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I bothered anyways. If they're all going to be sent down the memory hole, so be it. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)