Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop

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.

Will Arbcom contribute?

One week in and Arbcom have made no contribution to this workshop. I'm sure they're beavering away behind the scenes, but it would be good to get some indication that the various proposals they will come up with will have sufficient time for the community to assess before we move to the workshop closure in one week's time. Is there any reason why Arbcom aren't making visible their progress on this (and my emailed request on a different matter)? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been waiting for the community and the involved parties to contribute to the workshop first. Since the evidentiary phase was fairly quiet, I wanted to see where people were at with this case and what potential proposals for resolution would emerge. Generally speaking, it is a fundamental practice in most mediation and arbitration processes that an arbiter/mediator would not lead with first proposals. This is for the parties involved, and other stakeholders, to provide first. The very meaning of 'arbitration' is based around decision principles, not producing agreements and leading negotiations. Other cases may have been handled differently, but that is how I would like this case to run, save for any documentation that requires otherwise.

Separately, there has been an aspect of this case where there appears to be a diminished or unwilling interest. It's not for the arbitration process or arbiters themselves to keep it going and ultimately form and impose an agreement with the parties in absentia. Mkdw ^talk 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)