Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

Robert McClenon proposed a 'revision of guidelines' as a remedy. What would this entail and how would it be carried out? I'm unfamiliar with such processes myself. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what has been proposed; the proposal is for ArbCom to advise the community to separately do so. Community revisions of guidelines usually happen on the guidelines' talk pages and/or at WP:VPP. Perhaps Robert McClenon can clarify, but I'd guess he doesn't have a specific bureaucratic process in mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ixtal - User:ToBeFree is right. I am proposing that ArbCom advise the community to hold a discussion, which could be at Village Pump or the Neutral POV Talk Page. The non-bureaucratic process may be discussion. The subsequent bureaucratic process may be RFC to add clarifying language to the guidelines. The issue, as I have tried to explain, has to do with the difference between a biased source, which can be used with explanation, and an unreliable source, which should only be used in special circumstances. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guerillero, Moneytrees, and Wugapodes, apologies for ping, as the drafting arbitrators, I wanted to know if additional parties may be added to the case at its current stage? Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 12:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Olympian: We are not going to add additional parties at this time -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The workshop phase will be closed in about 24 hours, but not before 20:30 UTC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree I had just noticed workshop closed an hour ago. I thought it would be open for all of the 28th, similar to how evidence was open for all of the 21st. Can my statements remain? If not, I understand if they need to be reverted. --Dallavid (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes. The closure of the Evidence phase had caused a similar issue (/Evidence#Evidence phase closed), but I thought this was because I hadn't written a notification 24 hours in advance.

It turns out that "by [date]" means "including the entire day" and that just adding 7*24 hours to the opening time of the phase isn't sufficient. Future closes will happen after 0:00 UTC of the next day; I wasn't aware of this procedure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my apologies as well. I knew TBF had closed the Workshop and so reverted the addition. Not being in UTC I hadn't paid attention to what time it was and so had failed to notice that it was closed too early. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is now a UTC date of March 1, should the workshop phase be closed? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, Barkeep49 I'd like to note that there have been comments made past Workshop close 0:00 UTC of the next day [1]. And regarding the allegation of 3RR here: I did make reverts in the single article at the time, but I didn't violate 3RR neither did the closing admin conclude that [2]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to sleep at weekdays 0 UTC. The phase has now been closed, which is "after 0:00 UTC".

Comments made while the phase was not closed are not removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree Am I misunderstanding you? The comments were made after 0:00 UTC of the next day (1 May) [3]; my point isn't that Workshop ought to be closed at exact 00.00 but any comments made after the indicated deadline are removed, no? Similarly to here (though later clarified and restored as it was before close time, unlike the recent comments). In any case, I thought to comment and notify for the sake of rules/consistency. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The indicated deadline was first an incorrect "in about 24 hours" referring to a time before 0:00 UTC. This was implemented and undone, as people have reasonably expected a closure after 0:00 UTC. No fixed deadline has been announced since.

I would normally have asked someone else to perform a closure closer to 0:00 UTC than I was able to. I didn't do so for two reasons:

• I was not aware of 0:00 UTC closures being a fixed procedure until it was practically too late
• I had closed the phase too early, so I wasn't really in a position to complain about comments being made slightly after 0:00 UTC. Keeping the phase open for a few additional hours seemed to be a fine compensation for the incorrect early closure.

I have to admit that I didn't expect someone to continue editing the Workshop page after noticing and pointing out that the UTC day has ended, but that has happened and won't be reverted. The situation is already chaotic enough without further action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough ToBeFree. I have to admit that I didn't expect someone to continue editing the Workshop page after noticing and pointing out that the UTC day has ended – this was my thought process as well hence I commented here. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. --Dallavid (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging drafting arbitrators @Guerillero, Moneytrees, Wugapodes: As far as I can tell, no evidence was presented regarding me during the Evidence phase. In addition, there has been no misconduct on my part since my topic ban five months ago that would justify my inclusion as a party in this case. I haven't done anything wrong that hasn't already been dealt with. Therefore, I would like to be removed as a party from this case. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: No. You have been topic banned twice within the area of conflict within the past 2 years. We are not going to remove you as a party. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]