 | The Arbitration Committee has directed that discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC) |
| This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Cameron11598 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos ( Talk) & KrakatoaKatie ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| 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've started adding content to the workshop but not sure I have it all right; happy to fix or remove if needed. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ Pppery: I'll switch finding of facts and principles later tonight. its been a while since I've done one of these... rushing right now. Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Please give your proposals short titles instead of leaving 'Template' in place. Thanks. :-) Katie talk 11:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have cleaned up. Sorry about the messes I left in place. I spent the weekend with a daughter in hospital who had an appendicitis operation. I was more tired than I thought. Littleolive oil ( talk) 14:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything that needs to be done here. There is no evidence of any issue that the community can't solve through the regular rules of engagement, or that would have been handled better if discretionary sanctions were applied. Nor is there any evidence of significant violations by any of the parties that would require intervention. I would suggest that ArbCom reaffirm some of the principles around neutral point of view and civility, which will serve to remind all the parties that we must work together to write good content. – bradv 🍁 02:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Moved from #Comments by Bradv
The article has been completely stalemated for weeks. I've refrained from editing it because it's become clear even minor edits (such as the non-removal moving of an inline cite) will become another contentious, circular, exhausting talk page "discussion". "No action" would be a disaster for this article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"Analysis of evidence"
I'm having trouble trying to understand the protocols here. What is an appropriate use of the "Analysis of evidence" section? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ Curly Turkey: The section is a holdover from previous years when parties and observers centralized their analysis and conclusions much more than now, when analysis comes (for the most part) through threaded-ish discussion of workshop proposals and sectioned discussion on the PD talk page (when applicable). You are welcome to use the space to, for example, explain the context and significance of a series of diffs, or comment more fully on conflicting perspectives and evidence. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The workshop phase will close in about 24 hours. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 14:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
| The Arbitration Committee has directed that discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC) |
| This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Cameron11598 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos ( Talk) & KrakatoaKatie ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| 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've started adding content to the workshop but not sure I have it all right; happy to fix or remove if needed. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ Pppery: I'll switch finding of facts and principles later tonight. its been a while since I've done one of these... rushing right now. Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Please give your proposals short titles instead of leaving 'Template' in place. Thanks. :-) Katie talk 11:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have cleaned up. Sorry about the messes I left in place. I spent the weekend with a daughter in hospital who had an appendicitis operation. I was more tired than I thought. Littleolive oil ( talk) 14:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything that needs to be done here. There is no evidence of any issue that the community can't solve through the regular rules of engagement, or that would have been handled better if discretionary sanctions were applied. Nor is there any evidence of significant violations by any of the parties that would require intervention. I would suggest that ArbCom reaffirm some of the principles around neutral point of view and civility, which will serve to remind all the parties that we must work together to write good content. – bradv 🍁 02:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Moved from #Comments by Bradv
The article has been completely stalemated for weeks. I've refrained from editing it because it's become clear even minor edits (such as the non-removal moving of an inline cite) will become another contentious, circular, exhausting talk page "discussion". "No action" would be a disaster for this article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"Analysis of evidence"
I'm having trouble trying to understand the protocols here. What is an appropriate use of the "Analysis of evidence" section? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ Curly Turkey: The section is a holdover from previous years when parties and observers centralized their analysis and conclusions much more than now, when analysis comes (for the most part) through threaded-ish discussion of workshop proposals and sectioned discussion on the PD talk page (when applicable). You are welcome to use the space to, for example, explain the context and significance of a series of diffs, or comment more fully on conflicting perspectives and evidence. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The workshop phase will close in about 24 hours. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 14:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)