Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

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
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
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.

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Active:

1. Aoidh (talk · contribs)
2. Barkeep49 (talk · contribs)
3. Cabayi (talk · contribs)
4. CaptainEek (talk · contribs)
5. Firefly (talk · contribs)
6. Guerillero (talk · contribs)
7. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)
8. Maxim (talk · contribs)
9. Moneytrees (talk · contribs)
10. Sdrqaz (talk · contribs)
11. Z1720 (talk · contribs)

Inactive:

1. L235 (talk · contribs)

Recused:

1. Primefac (talk · contribs)
2. ToBeFree (talk · contribs)

I had thought the committee should include a principle regarding evidence obtained from other wikimedia projects since that was a decent concern expressed during the case, even by an arbitrator during the workshop.

About Proposed Remedy 1, New VRT queue established, you might want to spell out Volunteer Response Team in the first sentence of the text. Also, Barkeep49 asked for feedback, so I'll say that I think this is a good idea (and said so in my evidence). The only issue that I can think of in the proposal is whether admins, as opposed to functionaries, should be involved at all. But I think that the requirement for a "functionary-like" appointment process solves that concern to my satisfaction. One alternative that I can think of is to make ArbCom itself the body to receive reports, but I agree that ArbCom taking this on alone might be an excessive commitment. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]