Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports

Case name
Why is this case called "Motorsports"? as far as I can tell, it is not in any reasonable respect about that subject, it's about a content dispute between two individual editors, and behavior that dispute has engendered. It would more clearly be titled "Mclarenfan17 and Tvx1", would it not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We have repeatedly been asked not to title cases after the names of individual editors when a reasonable alternative is available. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To add to what NYB says, it is also customary to name dispute resolution cases after the topic area containing the dispute. This does not imply that the entire topic area has been affected by this dispute, that the dispute extends much beyond these two editors, nor that the dispute is entirely limited to this topic area. The name is just a convenient means of contextualizing the dispute in a more-or-less neutral manner. – bradv  🍁  13:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been around for a bit, and I understand those things, I simply think that it was an inappropriate choice for this particular set of circumstances. There is a reason that the other case open at this time is called "Kudpung", and not "Administrator accountability and behavior", and the same reason applies here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Administrator accountability and behaviour" could have been used as a title for 8 out of the past 12 arbitration cases. We have had no other cases named "Kudpung", nor have we had any named "Motorsports". Insofar as a title is used to distinguish between various different things, this system appears to be working. – bradv  🍁  15:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the current example is not "working" as it implies that the case is about something related to the subject of motorsports, while any conclusions will actually not be about that subject, but about the behavior of the two editors involved. The name is confusing and misleading and should be changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Beyond My Ken - I respectfully disagree. The case is about motorsports, and about disputes that are partly about content and partly about conduct in the area of motorsports, mostly involving these two editors, over the last three years.  It is about these editors, because they quarrel about motorsports, but it is reasonably named Motorsports.  I am sure that the arbitrators want to avoid having Motorsports 2.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will add that cases involving conflict between two editors in a given area have usually been named for the area of conflict. There was a case a few years ago on the War of the Pacific.  It was not named for the two editors who were re-fighting that war.  Also, sometimes a case in an area may be opened to include other editors.  One of the parties in this case is introducing evidence that the other party in the case has conflicts with other editors in the area of motorsports.  This case really should be about motorsports, because there may be other parties, and there will be evidence of conflict with other editors besides the two named parties.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Notification
Now that this case been accepted fully I was wondering wether it is appropriate/desired/required to notify the relevant WikiProjects about this proceedings so as to allow their regulars to weigh in their experience with interacting with us so as to be able to have as much evidence as possible? I have no experience whatsoever with arbitration cases so I don't know what the general practice is with regards to that. In any case the affected common editing areas of me and the other party are within WP:MOTOR. Its child projects WP:RALLY and WP:F1 are the more specific one we tend to contribute both to. I myself have also contributed to lesser extent to other Motorsports wikiprojects like WP:SCR and WP:AOWR.Tvx1 22:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:APPNOTE, a limited neutral and open notification of WikiProjects whose editors might be able to contribute evidence for this case is generally unproblematic. I'm not aware of any special rules for Arbitration. For example, when Volvlogia was admonished for canvassing in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, the reason was not that they sent messages but that they did so in violation of the Canvassing policy by targeting only editors they believed would provide evidence against one of the parties. Regards So  Why  14:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Status
I would like to query where we stand now. If I understand the timing right, the evidence supplying phase is over. So what do we do now?Tvx1 17:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the next phase is the workshop, where the findings and remedies can be discussed. Have a look at WP:Guide to arbitration for a bit of help WormTT(talk) 17:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , if I'm not mistaken the workshop phase is supposed to end today (or might have already ended at midnight, not sure whether March 20 is included). Yet not a single thing has been posted on the workshop page. This makes me wonder whether this case is still really active. How do we proceed if nothing is posted on the workshop page.Tvx1 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Since no one posted anything on the workshop, the drafters will have to come up with their own principles/findings/remedies. –xenotalk 14:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , as Xeno says - as nothing was posted there, we will simply go by the evidence and our judgement. WormTT(talk) 21:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As this is the very first time I have been at the Arbitration committee, I'm a bit confused how the timing actually works. Is the advertised close date of a phase include in that phase or do they end at the start of the closure date? I was planning to post some suggestions after all today but than suddenly noticed a closed banner had been added halfway through the day (in my time zone that is).Tvx1 21:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , and ; a decision was supposed to be proposed by today according to the timeline, but nothing has been posted in this case at all since the end of the evidence phase. I'm really thinking this case been somewhat forgotten, which wouldn't really surprise me given all what has been happening around the world. I'm wondering thow how we move on now?Tvx1 15:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , we're working on a proposed decision and still hope to have something out today. – bradv  🍁  15:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Now posted at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Proposed decision. The arbs will vote on the proposed findings/remedies, and then enact them after a consensus is reached. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)