Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop

Case name

What's with the cryptic case name? I have seen many past cases that use actual usernames of the main parties involved, and some that do not. Was there a request for such a cryptic name in this case? I scanned what I thought were the relevant pages but missed it. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no request for a cryptic name. The arbs didnt give much indication why they accepted the case, so the current list of parties may not be sufficient. I didnt see any previous cases where more than two parties were listed in the name, and I didnt want to pick only the initial two parties. An arb is more than welcome to suggest a rename, and I have no objection to a motion to rename the case, however I would like to see some comment from the arbs before a new name is given. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words it was your judgement call, perfectly innocuous, rather than some nefarious plot involving the events of August 19, 1994? Thanks for clearing that up! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I recognise the logic behind the naming, I don't think the initialising the party list for use as the case name is appropriate. Historically, to the best of my knowledge, arbitration cases are either named using the full accounts of the party (eg., Asgardian-Tenebrae), as they stood at the time of opening, or, more commonly (and more appropriately, in my opinion) the subject area in which the dispute is centred (eg., Palestine-Israel articles) or the nature of the incident (e.g., Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war).

I think a rename may be in order; although it's not of an urgent priority, it is warranted here.

Anthøny 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing sinister is going on here; move along please. :P

If the evidence and workshopping appears to be primarily about the named parties, "Cla68-FeloniousMonk-SlimVirgin" is a bit long, but acceptable. It is possible that this case is going to revolve around two groups of editors, and it is also possible that this is going to be about "Userspace RFCs". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We often rename cases at the close, or as they progress, when it's becoming obvious what the focus will be and who's central to it. There's still ambiguity there, so treat the current name as a "working name", for now, and change it later if needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clear impression created that the name of this case has been chosen to protect certain members of the project and brush legitimate concerns under the carpet. I'm acutely aware of this practice of misleading names, since there is an ArbCom case that bears my name, which actually concerned a false (even fraudulent) perma-block on me and the likely gross abuse by the administrator who called for it (who is not named in the title). This naming both badly distorted the subsequent discussion and case, and has encouraged editors (some perhaps innocently) to bring it up again at intervals as if it concerned me. PR^talk 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current name was not to protect anyone. I used it because it was short, and I suspected that the case was going to be renamed as it progressed, or that the case would involve many more parties than initially named. I did not want the case name to restrict the scope at this stage - I have explained my reasoning above. Please AGF - I acted alone in naming this arbcom case, and selected a name I thought was best at the time, without any discussion with any arbitrator - trust me, I would have liked to have been able to discuss it with them, but there was an urgency to open it as it was overdue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy to AGF you as clerk trying to do your best. However, now you're informed that naming of ArbCom cases has been used in a highly contentious and apparently abusive fashion in the past (as I think I've demonstrated above), I would invite you to re-consider your action and remove the suspicion that will otherwise cloud this case. PR^talk 11:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not rename the case to "Cla68-FeloniousMonk-SlimVirgin" at this state, just so that the names are more explicit. As I have explained, and FT2 has commented on, the case may yet be renamed when the crux of the case has been identified.

Just because you have had a case named after you, with possible undesirable ramifications following, doesnt mean this case needs to be named after three parties that have been declared as parties.

I am quite surprised you would be wanting the name of the case to even mention the parties, since you seem unhappy to have a case named after you. I would be just as happy with a naming scheme like "2008-26" or "2008/26", for the 26th case in 2008, as the name of the case is too often misinterpreted.

The suspicion will only continue if people think that I am part of a sinister plot, and that I would lie about my rationale on the current naming of the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your reasoning and good-faith. Please be aware that (as my rejected evidence pointed out), this ArbCom concerns individuals who may have acted without personal integrity. If the case looks tainted by the partisan actions of administrators at this stage, a severe chill will be cast over later stages. PR^talk 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: JzG

To be found here...

Given that the RfAR specifically about JzG seems to be going to merged into this one, I would like to direct people to my comment there... discussion should, I guess, take place there rather than here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley section removed

As clerk, I have removed the William M. Connolley section from the Workshop page as it isnt remotely based on the evidence provided so far, and it seems to be a drive-by snipe at an Ncmvocalist, who is contributing to the case. If Ncmvocalist's contributions to this case are seen as a problem, that should be discussed on the talk page here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility remedy

I still haven't decided whether to remove the civility parole remedy or not. I understand (and am concerned by) the fact that it can be challenging to enforce the remedy, despite the intention for it to be simple and effective in application. But an ongoing problem of incivility needs to be dealt with somehow, and rather than having nothing, civility parole is probably best.

However, I do want to invite discussion on other suggestions worth considering - remedies that will be simple and effective in application in combatting incivility in particular. What else can be used to achieve the intended effect? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the intended effect? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]