Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop

This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

.

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.

This is just a quick notification that the Arbs have asked us to keep the workshop open for now, even though we're past the originally planned close date. The fact that it is still open is not an error or omission on our part. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Lankiveil. Do you have any clue about how long this "for now" is planed to last by the Arbs ? One week, one month, just before the elections (of the new ArbCom, of course) or what else ? In any case, thanks for telling. Pldx1 (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: Not past the posting of the PD - I'd have thought that was obvious. I think that Workshops should stay open until we post the PD unless there are other factors in play, eg serious disruption. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have posted a lot, so I believe that more evaluation is needed before ArbCom decides to open the Proposed Decision phase and then close the Workshop. Extend the date to several days later? --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I don't intend to extend this case beyond its initial schedule. I am not concerned that myself or the other people helping to draft this case will not have time to review your proposals, and arbitrators may take as much time as they wish after the PD is posted to review the evidence and workshops before voting, or add new proposals to the PD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't see any reason to extend the PD beyond it's scheduled due date. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]