Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: HouseBlaster (Talk) & SilverLocust (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & Aoidh (Talk) & Z1720 (Talk)

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Sir Kenneth Kho

Proposed principles

Stealth Canvassing

1) If an editor announces a dispute on social media in order to tip the scale in their favour, it could be seen as stealth canvassing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't know whether this occurred, could be contingent on whether some parrots get caught (see below), looking at Number 57 evidence, much of the issue is apparently stylistic, and not partisan, so the followers might have different tastes, some preferring infoboxes that show images of major party leaders, some preferring infoboxes that include numbers of seats held by small parties. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I've never seen the phrase "stealth canvassing" used in reference to off-site attempts at influencing the outcome of on-site discussions. I think just calling it canvassing—or, to be more specific, off-site canvassing—is sufficient. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

2) If an editor only edits a topic soon after canvassing occurred, and did not give independent thought except for parroting the canvasser, it could be seen as meatpuppetry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See WP:TAGTEAM "Meatpuppetry ... disparate users, who do not normally participate in that topic area, showing up to parrot support or opposition for a particular proposal".

I think this is as far as we can go, as we are not going to find anything through checkuser, maybe some parrots will get caught with this criteria. It is different from sockpuppetry, where in the worst case imaginable, we still could technically require that only editors who have submitted to checkuser and passed could edit in the area. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Red-tailed hawk

Proposed principles

Appropriate and inappropriate notification

1) When soliciting participation from third parties in content discussions, appropriate notifications must be neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief. When messages that solicit participation in a particular discussion are biased, presented disproportionately to a partisan audience, or performed in secret, they are considered to be inappropriate notifications, and may be disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Canvassing

2) Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stealth canvassing via social media

3) Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of social media to solicit participation in particular content discussions is strongly discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

N/A

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. N/A

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: