Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions
→Statement by uninvolved...: collect needs to do the honourable thing here and stop claiming uninvolvement in issues he is knee deep in |
Count Iblis (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 285: | Line 285: | ||
[http://bp3.blogger.com/_21IvgE1FJU4/RplcFI0sYQI/AAAAAAAAAD0/nmMUglNw2A8/s1600-h/Quantum+Cheney.jpg] [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 20:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
[http://bp3.blogger.com/_21IvgE1FJU4/RplcFI0sYQI/AAAAAAAAAD0/nmMUglNw2A8/s1600-h/Quantum+Cheney.jpg] [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 20:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance... would you enlighten me please? [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 20:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
:I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance... would you enlighten me please? [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 20:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
[[User:Collect]] needs to be rebutted. He can either do the honourable thing and admit that he has misused and been dishonest about being "uninvolved" in the very recent past, or I am happy to provide diffs to clearly demonstrate this. If he is unaware of what I am talking about, he should refer to a recent AE discussion. [[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Let's dialogue]]</sup> 22:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
[[User:Collect]] needs to be rebutted. He can either do the honourable thing and admit that he has misused and been dishonest about being "uninvolved" in the very recent past, or I am happy to provide diffs to clearly demonstrate this. If he is unaware of what I am talking about, he should refer to a recent AE discussion. [[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Let's dialogue]]</sup> 22:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:To also answer Deryck Chan, when [[User:Collect]] posts at some ArbCom page, saying he is uninvolved, he is like [[Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester|the photon here arriving at detector C]]. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 00:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:30, 11 October 2011
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. |
Arbitration talk page archives |
---|
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
Various archives (2004–2011) |
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
WT:RFAR subpages |
Archive of prior proceedings |
Arbitrator abstention votes
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Background
The use of abstention in arbitrator voting has been causing elements of arbitration cases and motions to technically pass or fail while the abstain section contains many arbitrator votes consisting of comments heavily leaning for or against. The Arbitration Committee needs to review its use of abstention in order to ensure that the committee position on an issue is clear and that they have the requisite support to provide legitimacy for that position. Initiating arbitrator: John Vandenberg (chat) 11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
General discussion
- Well, I probably would have gone for discussion before writing motions, but meh. My own preference would be a separate section for each voting proposal called "Comments" where arbitrators who are not yet ready to cast a vote, or who have a broader question about a specific point, could comment. Placing these in the "abstain" column has an adverse effect on the outcome of a vote, in that it reduces the level of support required for a vote to pass. I would go so far as to say that we need to examine whether or not to permit any proposal to pass with less support than the majority of active arbitrators, so that we do not have a perverse outcome such as we very nearly had with the "public email list" vote. I also call upon my colleagues to commit themselves to either supporting or opposing motions more regularly, and eschewing abstention in almost all cases. Risker (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am happy to remove the motions if you think they are distracting. I hope that arbitrators can commit to either one of those. Of course the recent overuse of abstain can be curbed without these procedure changes, however arbs would soon fall back to using abstains again in order to avoid hurting anyones feelings. I agree that we should look at minimum support levels here, as abstentions are the reason this fluctuates and falls to ridiculous levels. The related procedures are Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Committee_resolutions and Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Voting_on_proposed_decisions. We can either say 'abstain' votes do not count for the total, or that a vote doesnt pass without a minimum level of support. (slightly different results) IMO the minimum level is the right way to go, and it should be a percentage of all non-recused arbs, including inactive arbs. If we have a bunch of arbs become inactive, the rest need to put in the time to vote. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- My concern is that the proposed motions would force an arbitrator to simply not vote on a particular item if they were not willing to support or oppose, which will hold up voting and potentially prevent items from being passed. –xenotalk 12:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- (snicker) that does kind of defeat the purpose of removing abstentions, doesn't it? I am much, much more in favor of a per-item quorum, even as high as half the non-recused, non-inactive arbs... but to require an absolute majority rather than a plurality is dooming many things to non-resolution, and is completely unworkable in any motion where there are more than two competing choices... unless we go back and actually establish how our tiebreaking amongst multiple passing competitive motions works. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, Xeno, I don't think it is necessarily bad that comparatively unsupported matters fail to pass. I would much rather see a proposal "die on the paper" than pass one that, for example, sanctions a user, or has broad longterm implications because people were unwilling to try to work together to find a better solution. We're supposed to be modeling effective dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- #Motion 5 Add a "Not voting" section for arbitrators to signify they reviewed the element and do not wish to change the voting count or calculation, along with whatever comments they had about how the item could be improved. We should also take each other up on the suggestion to copy edit directly; with a note explaining changes. –xenotalk 02:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- My concern is that the proposed motions would force an arbitrator to simply not vote on a particular item if they were not willing to support or oppose, which will hold up voting and potentially prevent items from being passed. –xenotalk 12:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am happy to remove the motions if you think they are distracting. I hope that arbitrators can commit to either one of those. Of course the recent overuse of abstain can be curbed without these procedure changes, however arbs would soon fall back to using abstains again in order to avoid hurting anyones feelings. I agree that we should look at minimum support levels here, as abstentions are the reason this fluctuates and falls to ridiculous levels. The related procedures are Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Committee_resolutions and Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Voting_on_proposed_decisions. We can either say 'abstain' votes do not count for the total, or that a vote doesnt pass without a minimum level of support. (slightly different results) IMO the minimum level is the right way to go, and it should be a percentage of all non-recused arbs, including inactive arbs. If we have a bunch of arbs become inactive, the rest need to put in the time to vote. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is important to consider how Abstentions affect the overall count and process. Please allow me to make an example: If there are 17 ARBs and 1 Supports and 16 Abstain, I believe that a motion (or anything other than something requiring "4 Net") would pass in this case. I would recommend something that has the effect of "any measure with at least 1/4 or maybe 1/3 of the active, non-recused ARBs abstaining remains in a voting state of not yet having achieved consensus". My wording might be awkward here, but hopefully the "jist" of what I am suggesting is understood. --After Midnight 0001 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to be you are proposing some sort of quorum, which makes a great deal of sense IMO. Where the problem lies is that the number of active arbitrators (as opposed to those who voted) is rather variable and a fixed quorum is a difficult proposition — in particular if we end up like the end of 2009 where a number of circumstances came together to make us end up with barely 7-8 active arbitrators for a while.
The solution might be to have some fraction of arbs considered quorum (as you suggested), but that would make vote counting even more complicated than it ends up now with abstentions. I'm not sure there is a better solution than "try to use abstentions sparingly". — Coren (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to be you are proposing some sort of quorum, which makes a great deal of sense IMO. Where the problem lies is that the number of active arbitrators (as opposed to those who voted) is rather variable and a fixed quorum is a difficult proposition — in particular if we end up like the end of 2009 where a number of circumstances came together to make us end up with barely 7-8 active arbitrators for a while.
Clerk notes
- Motions passing: 5.1
- Motions failed: 1, 2, 3a, 5 (by virtue of 5.1 having greater support)
- Motions in question: 3 (4-7), 4 (7-3)
Additionally, I would like to make a clerk motion that the Committee adopt one consistent form of alternate numbering; this 3a/5.1 stuff isn't going to fly ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrators' vote
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Failed motions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Motion 1That Arbitration Committee members should not use abstain votes as a vehicle for comment.
Motion 2That where Arbitration Committee members make comments to accompany abstain votes, the comments should be limited to providing a rationale for the abstention (for instance, to recuse on a particular aspect of a case).
Motion 3A motion will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. This applies to both motions proposed as part of an arbitration case and those proposed independent of any arbitration case, with the exception of a motion to close an arbitration case, and is applicable regardless of the venue in which the motion was proposed.
Motion 3aA motion will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. This applies to both motions proposed as part of an arbitration case and those proposed independent of any arbitration case, and is applicable regardless of the venue in which the motion was proposed.
Motion 4A proposal made as part of a proposed decision will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators.
Motion 5That a section entitled "Not voting" be used in addition to 'Abstain'; for arbitrators to comment or signify that they have reviewed the item and do not wish to alter the voting count or calculation method.
|
Motion 5.1
That in voting sections of proposed decisions as well as of freestanding motions, an additional "Comments" section will be included following the Support, Oppose, and Abstain sections. This section may be used only by arbitrators for comments on the proposal and for discussion of fellow arbitrators' comments. Posting a comment on a proposal does not constitute a vote on the proposal or change the required majority for the proposal. The use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments, while ultimately within each arbitrator's discretion, is not recommended. Generally, an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed. The Arbitration Committee will reevaluate this change of procedures and consider whether any additional changes are warranted in three months.
Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support
-
- First choice over 5. I believe this should address most of the concerns that have brought about this series of motions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Added a word, as discussed below.
Second choice overEqual preference with 5.These are quite close in effect, almost indistinguishable. –xenotalk 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)strikethroughaddition 02:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)- I've subsequently realized that 5 and 5.1 are not mutually exclusive (nor are they exclusive with the other currently undecided motions). I would be fine with both 5.0 and 5.1 passing. –xenotalk 14:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- My intention was that they be alternatives: that we try 5.1 first and see after awhile whether any further change is necessary. I don't think it would be desirable to implement both 5 and 5.1 at the same time. I'll switch my vote on 5 to oppose, if necessary, to make my view more clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sure - there is a case to be made for minimal incremental changes. –xenotalk 15:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've made a note that a "Second choice" indication on 5.0 should be considered an 'oppose' except in the unlikely event that this motion does not pass. –xenotalk 15:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- My intention was that they be alternatives: that we try 5.1 first and see after awhile whether any further change is necessary. I don't think it would be desirable to implement both 5 and 5.1 at the same time. I'll switch my vote on 5 to oppose, if necessary, to make my view more clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've subsequently realized that 5 and 5.1 are not mutually exclusive (nor are they exclusive with the other currently undecided motions). I would be fine with both 5.0 and 5.1 passing. –xenotalk 14:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- This appears to be reasonable. In the first instance an arb can comment on a proposal, and then later support/oppose/abstain as appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- SirFozzie (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Let's start with this before revamping everything, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Equal preference with 5. Risker (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Prefer 5. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Roger Davies talk 10:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- This also works for me and is more felicitous in its wording than 5. It's almost as though Brad has had formal training in writings things of this nature! :-) — Coren (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Mailer Diablo 06:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
- Comments
- Is "An arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed." necessary? Generally active arbitrators are expected to vote on items, but I think we should leave the option to withhold voting, for whatever reason. –xenotalk 19:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's worthwhile to include the sentence in the motion as a statement of expectations, but I don't think it's indispensible. I also wouldn't object to adding a qualifier such as "generally" or the like. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - have added "Generally" to the start of the sentence. –xenotalk 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's worthwhile to include the sentence in the motion as a statement of expectations, but I don't think it's indispensible. I also wouldn't object to adding a qualifier such as "generally" or the like. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
essay on AE
Wikipedia:A_request_for_enforcement_over_a_salad--Cerejota (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved...
- Statement by uninvolved [editor]
It's not uncommon to see editors post comments under a heading which declares their lack of previous involvement. Yet in many of those cases there has been some significant involvement, with either the disputed topic or the editors involved in the dispute. In other cases, editors who have no real involvement post their statements without making such a declaration. Is it helpful or distracting to have editors declare uninvolvement? What about when other editors disagree over involvement, creating a fresh dispute in the midst of an ArbCom request? Will Beback talk 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, although I suspect the origin is more a short-hand for "Statement by non-party [editor]" (as opposed to "Statement by party [editor]") rather than as a declaration of (un)involvement per se. Personally, I don't see any real value to having headers indicate either editors' perceptions of their own involvement or their status as parties; can anyone think of a good reason to retain them? Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would regard "involved" to indicate an involvement in the dispute before the committee. "Uninvolved" to indicate that they have no meansurable involvement in the issues before the committee. Clearly admins and others frequently have some overlap in editing articles with just about any random editor one can find, but I would not consider that "involved." For example, I have on the order of two thousand pages I have edited - if my overlap with another editor is on, say, a half-dozen minor pages, I would likely know virtually nothing about that editor. If the overlap were on sixty pages, the I would find it to be a significant overlap. I suppose there is no absolute determinant, but the past history on the arbcom pages seems quite in accord with my understanding. I would not use "non-party" as in one case a plenitude of editors were named as parties, despite there being no significant connection for many of them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Statement by uninvolved [...]" is shorthand for "I want to make a statement. I haven't been listed as a party, and have no intention of becoming one." This shorthand was invented primarily because there was a line of instruction along the lines of "please do not edit this section unless you'd like to be an involved party" or something like that. I don't think the shorthand detracts us from discussions anyway. If a very involved editor claims to be uninvolved, someone will say this is not right and list that editor as a party. Deryck C. 14:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Speaking for myself only (I haven't discussed this with my colleagues or the clerks), I don't typically worry very much about the labels on the sections in terms of figuring out (if necessary) who is involved or should be a party or not. As Kirill suggests, if someone posts "Statement by X" as opposed to "Statement by uninvolved X", it's not as if I'm going to leap to the conclusion that X is a party to the dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Also only speaking for myself, I've always mostly taken the "uninvolved" label here at RfAR as meaning no more than "not involved as a named editor in this dispute." Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see varying responses: that it's not given attention; that it is used by people who do not want to become parties to a current case, even if they're involved with either the topic or the other editors; and that it is actually meant to convey a lack of involvement. I see a response which says incorrect claims of uninvolvement should be disputed by the parties. In that case either an editor who's already posted would need to add an addendum questioning the claim or a previously 'uninvolved' editor would have to jump in just to make that point. In cases where there are already multiple or complicated disputes, and strict limits on total length, having an unnecessary source of fresh disputes seems unwise.
- Does allowing editors to add this comment to section headings serve a real purpose? We otherwise implictly restrict people to writing "Statement by [editor]". Would it also be acceptable to write a section header, like "[Editor]: Why user:JohnDoe is a threat to Wikipedia" or some other editorial comment? Or would it be better to ask contributors to just post their name and leave the commentary to the text? Will Beback talk 10:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- How many articles of overlap make one editor "involved" with every other editor on those articles? 5% of the articles edited? 1%? .1%? I have looked at many times in the past where the term "uninvolved" was used, and in every single case there was some "overlap" if one uses an absolute standard as you appear to argue for. And in every case the person was "uninvolved" in the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Uninvolved" is undefined. The main question is, what purpose is served by making that assertion? Collect, you personally used the term in a ercent filing. What was your purpose? Yet I see that you have quite a bit of overlap with William M. Connolley and with Climate Change.[1] How do you define the term? Will Beback talk 04:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Quite a bit of overlap"? Shirley you jest! And with "Climate Change"? My total overlap with WMC (from well over two thousand pages) is 12 articles. On none of which have I made any substantive edits about "Climate Change." Your overlap with WMC, by comparison, is on 119 articles with substantial edits on Climate Change. The deduction is left to the reader as to who is "uninvolved" and who is 'heavily involved". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes indeedy, User;Will Beback has a massive article overlap with WMC compared to Collect. I think that such simple comparisons have almost no value without deeper investigation, as long tern editors are usually all over the project helping out as much as they can. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't labeled myself "uninvolved" so my edit overlaps with editors here is irrelevant to the issue, which is what benefit is gained by adding this assertion to headers. Some folks above have suggested that it is sometimes used in full cases by people who wish to comment but don't want to become parties to a case. However that isn't an issue when it's just a request for amendment or clarification, such as the WMC request. So that leaves the question, why do editors insist on making the assertion and what happens when editors disagree with the assertion (as has happened in the WMC request)? Forcing editors in a dispute to go to the trouble of contradicting a false claim seems like adding fuel to the fire. It seems simplest to just ask people to avoid putting anything in the heading other than their username. Will Beback talk 23:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes indeedy, User;Will Beback has a massive article overlap with WMC compared to Collect. I think that such simple comparisons have almost no value without deeper investigation, as long tern editors are usually all over the project helping out as much as they can. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Quite a bit of overlap"? Shirley you jest! And with "Climate Change"? My total overlap with WMC (from well over two thousand pages) is 12 articles. On none of which have I made any substantive edits about "Climate Change." Your overlap with WMC, by comparison, is on 119 articles with substantial edits on Climate Change. The deduction is left to the reader as to who is "uninvolved" and who is 'heavily involved". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Uninvolved" is undefined. The main question is, what purpose is served by making that assertion? Collect, you personally used the term in a ercent filing. What was your purpose? Yet I see that you have quite a bit of overlap with William M. Connolley and with Climate Change.[1] How do you define the term? Will Beback talk 04:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- How many articles of overlap make one editor "involved" with every other editor on those articles? 5% of the articles edited? 1%? .1%? I have looked at many times in the past where the term "uninvolved" was used, and in every single case there was some "overlap" if one uses an absolute standard as you appear to argue for. And in every case the person was "uninvolved" in the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have also noticed these uninvolved and involved user claims being imo misstated and I don't see any value in them in the headers. Make a case in your comment rather than a header. Arbs and users that are involved enough to make a comment are also aware of who is who. As I see it, in a way you are becoming involved by making an opinionated statement. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bingo! The man in the Pelé T-shirt wins the can opener and the iron with our compliments. Claims as to uninvolved status are ill-defined, often gamed and serve no useful purpose. The format should simply be "Statement by [User X]" and clerks should quietly remove any claim of status one way or the other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Boris - thanks for this comment, it had me laughing out loud in support this morning. I think this should be a shoe in. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bingo! The man in the Pelé T-shirt wins the can opener and the iron with our compliments. Claims as to uninvolved status are ill-defined, often gamed and serve no useful purpose. The format should simply be "Statement by [User X]" and clerks should quietly remove any claim of status one way or the other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I still don't agree that the use of "uninvolved" causes any confusion. The editor claiming "uninvolvement" is merely asserting that they haven't been listed as a party, and is not interested in becoming one. If a party of the requested case doubts their uninvolvement, they can always request that the commenting editor be added as a party. The use of "Statement by uninvolved ..." doesn't inherently cause problems, and there is no need to fix it. Deryck C. 21:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- But what do other editors do when an editor is indeed involved? Ignore it? If everyone ignores it, then what's the point of adding it? Parties should be added to cases based on their actual invovlement in disputes, not their claims one way or the other. Will Beback talk 23:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- If the editor is indeed very involved, then someone can challenge the "uninvolved" claim. The point of adding it is for the commenting editor to express disinterest in becoming a party, or even a request not to be added as a party. Parties should be added based on their actual involvement, but the line of actual involvement isn't black and white (as has been pointed out above), and "uninvolved" helps editors express where they think they are.
- Hypothetical example:
- User:Example is an active editor of Article.
- There is an ongoing multi-party edit war on Article, in which User:Example didn't take part.
- The dispute escalates to RfArb.
- User:Example wants to comment on the request to offer his observation. If he simply commented, someone may come along and say "wait, you're an active editor, and should be added as a party."
- User:Example now claims to be "uninvolved User:Example". The listed parties of the dispute see this, and are reminded, "oh yea, he's been editing a lot, but isn't actually involved in the dispute", and therefore do not add User:Example as a party.
- Deryck C. 08:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- But what do other editors do when an editor is indeed involved? Ignore it? If everyone ignores it, then what's the point of adding it? Parties should be added to cases based on their actual invovlement in disputes, not their claims one way or the other. Will Beback talk 23:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have also noticed these uninvolved and involved user claims being imo misstated and I don't see any value in them in the headers. Make a case in your comment rather than a header. Arbs and users that are involved enough to make a comment are also aware of who is who. As I see it, in a way you are becoming involved by making an opinionated statement. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
[2] Count Iblis (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance... would you enlighten me please? Deryck C. 20:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Collect needs to be rebutted. He can either do the honourable thing and admit that he has misused and been dishonest about being "uninvolved" in the very recent past, or I am happy to provide diffs to clearly demonstrate this. If he is unaware of what I am talking about, he should refer to a recent AE discussion. Russavia Let's dialogue 22:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- To also answer Deryck Chan, when User:Collect posts at some ArbCom page, saying he is uninvolved, he is like the photon here arriving at detector C. Count Iblis (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)