Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:42, 14 July 2015

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

GoldenRing's section

Despite being entirely uninvolved in this mess, I've added some proposals as I think many of the existing proposals are going the wrong way. The process doesn't need tinkering with, the presenting circumstances need dealing with.

Complicating this is the fact that the committee has pronounced, unwisely in my view, an amnesty to all involved. This should be rescinded if at all possible.

I can add evidence to the proposed findings of fact if required, but I hope it's all pretty obvious; the facts of the case are not disputed. Unusually, even which facts are relevant is not really in dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Casenav}}
+== GoldenRing's section ==
+Despite being entirely uninvolved in this mess, I've added some proposals as I think many of the existing proposals are going the wrong way.  The process doesn't need tinkering with, the presenting circumstances need dealing with.
+Complicating this is the fact that the committee has pronounced, unwisely in my view, an amnesty to all involved.  This should be rescinded if at all possible.
+I can add evidence to the proposed findings of fact if required, but I hope it's all pretty obvious; the facts of the case are not disputed.  Unusually, even which facts are relevant is not really in dispute.  [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 23:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)