Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 20 August 2010

Guidelines: This page is to be used to ask general questions about the case for arbitrators and clerks to answer. Please post the question you have below in a new section, but individual editors should not post a new question until their current question has been answered (i.e. one question per editor at a time). All discussion of the questions should go on the talk page. Arbitrators can also use this page to pose questions to those participating in this case. Please be civil when asking, discussing and answering questions. If you wish to retrieve a question from the archive of the proposed decision talk page, please do so and link back to the previous discussion(s). I will be aiming to visit this page once every 24 hours until the case closes, but please remember to keep the discussion here general. Discussion of the proposed decision should take place on the workshop page and proposed decision talk page, not here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Example question

QUESTION

Discuss this question

Remedies

So, which remedies are Arbitrators considering? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

All possible remedies are still being considered. Specific remedies can't be properly considered until the findings are clearer, and that involves going through a lot of evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this question

Interim actions

Several interim motions, clarifying questions and requests for temporary injunctions have been made. Can we expect that these will be dealt with soon? ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If something very urgent comes up, yes, but it is more likely that time will be spent pushing the case forward rather than dealing with existing requests for motions and injunctions. You can look at previous cases to see when injunctions and motions were applied - they tend to be used rarely. Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this question

Preparing PD discussion

What, if anything, should be done to prepare for discussion of the proposed decision? (This question is for clerks and arbitrators to answer here, though everyone needs to discuss this on the talk page at the link provided). Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this question

Ridiculous slow-motion train wreck

Is ArbCom likely to look at, and respond to, the ridiculous mess / pissing contest that is going on at the moment at ANI? WMC has been imposed with a sanction that is being interpreted in a preposterously literal way; unsurprisingly, he has responded provocatively and disappointingly several administrators (including a "recused" Arbitrator) aren't exercising good judgment and common sense. Please step in, declare that the incident will be resolved in the (hopefully) upcoming decision, and end this pissing contest before we get groups of admins fighting each other over an incident that should have been ignored in the first place. EdChem (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
PS and FYI: There wasn't a gigantic penis picture at the top of the ANI thread when I chose to use the phrase "pissing contest" in relation to this incident. EdChem (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We are aware of the incident and the ANI discussion (though we may miss other discussions unless they are explicitly pointed out). We don't have any special powers to stop slow-motion train wrecks, though my initial thoughts are that stuff like this happening is likely to delay the posting of a proposed decision, so those still butting heads over issues like this might like to consider that the next time they ask why the posting of the proposed decision is delayed. If there are many more incidents like this, I may propose an injunction on all participants in the case for not just a topic ban, but a non-interaction restriction as well. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this question

Inviolability of General Sanctions

In March 2010, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion on overturning measures taken by an admin pursuant to an ArbCom decision:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or

(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Could a Principle be added to the proposed decision indicating what the Arbitration Committee's position on properly established community General Sanctions is in relation to the March 2010 motion quoted above? If ArbCom considers them to be essentially the same thing as Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions, then could perhaps Request for Enforcement of General Sanctions and Arbitration Enforcement be merged into a single noticeboard? NW (Talk) 18:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

See below. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo discussion on the Proposal talk page

Is the committee aware of the discussion about Polargeo's conduct, now archived at the Proposed decision talk page (including the comment he added after the archiving)? (I've said on my talk page that I consider the incident over, but I do think his conduct worth considering by the committee as it contemplates possible sanctions against him.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: shouldn't you and NW add a "discuss this question" link below your questions? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)