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.

Per Committee consensus I've removed CambridgeBayWeather as a party to this case, because:

• minimal involvement in any of the matters under consideration;
• no significant evidence submitted by them, or about them, in the case request or Evidence section; and
• on what has been submitted, there is no reason to believe they will feature in the remainder of proceedings.

The purpose of removing a party from the case is simply to give that person peace of mind that they are not considered "involved."

This comes with two disclaimers. First, removal doesn't prevent anyone from mentioning CBW or referring to anything they did or didn't do. Second, removing this one party but not any other does not mean that all the remaining parties will feature any further, or have findings relevant to them. generally, it means that the remaining parties are either central players in the case, have submitted useful evidence, or have featured in some significant way in the dispute.

Happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the opinions of arbitrators re: establishing more general remedies like those set up in other cases? Is this something that's considered necessary only in cases where there's been previous community sanctions and/or disruption by a large number of users? (Disruptive editing to articles in this topic area is not uncommon, but most of the culprits give up pretty quickly.) I have no opinion on whether or not they're necessary, this isn't meant to be a leading question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions, edit notices, ...? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open to argument but am not presently seeing justification for DS. --Euryalus (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extending the dates 3 days - there's new material and editors and Arbs need a chance to comment. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here for the information of all participants in this case that User:Euryalus has had to go inactive and have been removing as a drafting arbitrator from this case, per their request. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi arbitrators - as the workshop is soon to close, I just wanted to check if there were any more answers, clarifications, edits, or proposals that you needed from me. I'll do my best to be on for the remainder if you need to reach me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]