Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Workshop
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Expected standards of behavior
- 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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
- Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
- Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
- Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
- Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
- Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.
Proposed final decision
Proposals by Sir Kenneth Kho
Proposed principles
Stealth Canvassing
1) If an editor announces a dispute on social media in order to tip the scale in their favour, it could be seen as stealth canvassing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I don't know whether this occurred, could be contingent on whether some parrots get caught (see below), looking at Number 57 evidence, much of the issue is apparently stylistic, and not partisan, so the followers might have different tastes, some preferring infoboxes that show images of major party leaders, some preferring infoboxes that include numbers of seats held by small parties. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I've never seen the phrase "stealth canvassing" used in reference to off-site attempts at influencing the outcome of on-site discussions. I think just calling it canvassing—or, to be more specific, off-site canvassing—is sufficient. Kurtis (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry
2) If an editor only edits a topic soon after canvassing occurred, and did not give independent thought except for parroting the canvasser, it could be seen as meatpuppetry.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- See WP:TAGTEAM "Meatpuppetry ... disparate users, who do not normally participate in that topic area, showing up to parrot support or opposition for a particular proposal".
- I think this is as far as we can go, as we are not going to find anything through checkuser, maybe some parrots will get caught with this criteria. It is different from sockpuppetry, where in the worst case imaginable, we still could technically require that only editors who have submitted to checkuser and passed could edit in the area. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by Red-tailed hawk
Proposed principles
Appropriate and inappropriate notification
1) When soliciting participation from third parties in content discussions, appropriate notifications must be neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief. When messages that solicit participation in a particular discussion are biased, presented disproportionately to a partisan audience, or performed in secret, they are considered to be inappropriate notifications, and may be disruptive.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Canvassing
2) Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Stealth canvassing via social media
3) Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of social media to solicit participation in particular content discussions is strongly discouraged.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
N/A
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. N/A
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Example 3
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: