Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to temporarily defer

1) The Arbitration Committee defers this case to the informal mediation with Durova (talk · contribs). Both of the named parties have embarked on mediation with Durova at User:Durova/Mediation. JzG, who initiated the arbitration request, asked the committee to give that effort a chance to succeed. Although the Committee has opened a formal case, it acknowledges that Arbitration is not always required, and if at all possible other dispute resolution methods should be preferred.

In this case, the Committee allows for mediation to have the first opportunity to handle this dispute, and if all parties - for the purpose of the definition of "the parties" in this motion, the mediator (Durova) is included - are satisfied with the outcome, then this Arbitration case can be closed permanently. If one or more of the parties listed are not satisfied with the result of the mediation, or how it is progressing, this Arbitration case will be reopened speedily provided the request to reopen due to dissatisfaction with the outcome of mediation is done so immediately after mediation concluding.

If the parties wish to reopen this case due to further disputes in the future, but not immediately after the mediation, they shall do so from the beginning, involving the process of acceptance at the main Arbitration page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Although mediation in theory involves only the two of us, and the issue as shown by statements and comments by others involves many users, I feel that the propsoed solution (civility parole), which seems likely to be the result of mediation, would satisfy nearly everyone - thus I support the motion. I welcome any advice and suggestions ArbCom members can offer to us during the mediation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other concerned parties are welcome at User talk:Durova/Mediation/Input. Durova^Charge! 14:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Durova's evidence statement. It is written in all "passed language" (ie. as if it has been accepted), to avoid tedious changes if it is passed. Probably needs a general rewrite by those more talented than I, but the general idea is now on paper. These two contributors are prolific, to state the least, and don't require the burden of an ArbCom case to slow their editing down. It also emulates the nature of the ArbCom and how they prefer things to be sorted out through Mediation/RFC if possible. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the concept. I suspect that in the short term the arbitrators are likely to just leave the case alone and see what happens, rather than adopt a formal motion. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, I think mediation should be given a chance. 213.122.131.58 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the hell out of this. All we are saying, is give mediation a chance!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Further, it appears that Ghirlandajo is no longer active (see his user page and most recent edits), so I think this case should be suspended and/or closed. Scob e ll302 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to dismiss

2) As noted above, Ghirlandajo has not edited since December 27, 2006. If and when he returns, it would be best for him to resume productive mainspace editing, which it is hoped can take place without a recurrence of the disputes that led to this case. As appropriate, the mediation between Ghirlandajo and Piotrus can be resumed to seek resolution of any live disputes that might remain between them.

Under the circumstances, this arbitration case is dismissed, without prejudice to a request by any party to reopen it in the future if necessary. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

After unrecusing myself from this case, I've adapted this motion and placed it on the voting page; this seems like the best way forward. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'd rather think that in order not to waste time we spend so far, we should - if mediation is stopped - get the civility parole (to which Ghirla has already agreed) by ArbCom decision and finish the matter this way. Thus when Ghirla comes back he will not have to get stressed by mediation or ArbCom, and if there are no civility issues, this matter never needs to be brought up again - but if there are, we will have a tool ready to deal with it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed as the appropriate step to take under all the circumstances here. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it has now been about a month since Ghirlandajo has edited. I renew this proposal. Newyorkbrad 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I made a few minor fixes for consistancy, but feel free to rv if need be. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would strongly object if the dismisal is given purely on the grounds of Ghirla's departure as this puts additional pressure on him not to come back or be faced with the renewal of the prosecution. Loss of Ghirla is of the immense magnitude for the Wikipedia and we should do anything we can to reverse it. I would strongly support the dismissal on the basis of the lack of merit, though. The very party who launched this arbitration (JzG) has called in his statement for non-acceptance. What's more our respected ArbCommers need? Mere "dismissal without prejudice" is the best action that ArbCom can take at this point. --Irpen 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Since it has been almost a month and no useful eveidence has been presented on the /Evidence page, I would suggest lack of evidence as the dismissal rational. Eluchil404 11:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: