Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop

message: My understanding of the purpose fulfilled by this procedure is more to provide guidance, and not summarily ban anyone proven to have a WP:COI. Instead this would be like an explanation to anyone found by the arbcom in need of correction. I want to make it a principle that nobody will be banned based on what has happened and what is cited in evidence, not even COFS. I get the feeling this case has increased tension among contentious editors which is counterproductive and unnecessary if my perception is correct.
As I understand it a WP:BAN would only be something explored if any of the participants (myself included of course) continue acting contrary whatever the ruling is, assuming the arbcom finds that a problem exists. If so, nobody needs to worry about judgment coming in and have been banned for a period of time or forever.
Is there a way to work this principle into a part of the workshop? Anynobody 05:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I interject?  Last night I asked Newyorkbrad about WP:BAN in connection to this case from another angle: despite the Committee's previous endorsement of the community's right to impose topic bans, current banning policy language makes no mention of topic bans.  Part of my notes includes a specific statement from Justanother after the topic ban proposal on COFS closed: Justanother read over the policy and reached a reasonable conclusion that community bans are the same thing as sitebans (since that's what current policy implies), that I was out of process in proposing a brief topic ban, and that I shouldn't have allowed the community sanction thread to continue at all.  This angle dovetails with some vigorous disagreements from March and April 2007 at the talk pages of WP:BAN and WP:DE and the recently rejected spoiler warning arbitration request - particularly Fred Bauder's question about whether policy should be written by whoever is most aggressive: all mention of topic bans got deleted from the policy even though I identified the GordonWatts arbitration precedent.  My perspective probably isn't entirely objective, but it sure looks to me like group of editors were setting themselves above the Committee. DurovaCharge! 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Purpose of the case is to stop disruptive editing so that editors can get back to our core mission of writing an encyclopedia. ArbCom might ban an user(s) during this case without warning first if that is seen as the best way to deal with the disruption caused by breaking policies. Not saying that we are going to ban anyone in this case. Just that it is possible. It would not be for breaking the Wikipedia rules related to COI since those do not prohibit someone with a COI from editing. The ban would be for the breaches in policy that often come from editing with a COI. FloNight 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's my belief that previous attempts to resolve the problem at WP:COIN and WP:CSN failed to achieve consensus because multiple disruptive editors on both sides of the issue engaged in tactics to delay and obstruct process.  Hopefully Arbcom will judge the participants according to how they have behaved and set strict limits so there is no further disruption.  Do I need to state this in the workshop, or is it completely obvious? Jehochman  Talk 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First there needs to be specific evidence placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence. Then write proposed Principles, Findning of Fact, and Remedies for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop to address the evidence. I suggest that you look through other cases where disruptive editing is addressed to get ideas about what ArbCom has done in similar situations. FloNight 14:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not keen to get a bunch of editors banned when it would be much simpler for them to back off and play nice, but given the way this arbitration has been going, there is no indication that they get the message.  I am disappointed and feel sad that it's come to this.  Jehochman  Talk 14:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My posts above were really requests to the arbitrators for advisement.  I hope they will express the appropriate scope of the case and the Committee's mandate.  In a nutshell, I'd like to demonstrate how some aggressive changes at the policy and guideline level were partially responsible for precipitating this case.  One element of that at the policy level disregarded an existing arbitration precedent. DurovaCharge! 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify intent/purpose

message: This started as a response to Durova but it is better placed as a motion and so I will post it there. --Justanother 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My posts above were really requests to the arbitrators for advisement.  I hope they will express the appropriate scope of the case and the Committee's mandate.  In a nutshell, I'd like to demonstrate how some aggressive changes at the policy and guideline level were partially responsible for precipitating this case.  One element of that at the policy level disregarded an existing arbitration precedent. DurovaCharge! 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct use of [[WP:CSN]] and inclusion of that in this arbitration 

message: By making this edit here [], does that mean you're making yourself a party to this arbitration?HubcapD 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F451, on your recent edit 

message: On the whole this seems to need a more focused set of findings of fact.  The proposed ones are vague, contradictory and worded like policy items, not facts of the case.  After those are cleared up one can talk about remedy's.  --Rocksanddirt 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the whole...