Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Archives

January 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – January 2005 January 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 June 2005 – July 2005 June 2005 – July 2005 July 2005 – September 2005 September 2005 – October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 – open

iantresman (was "Bad"ministration)

Isn't it inappropriate for user:Raul654 to personally decided whether he is "inappropriately listed" as a party in this case? Isn't it inappropriate for him to vote against a case on which he is listed as a party?

I also consider it unfair to rename the case; it clear that I initiated the case, it is not now clear as to its subject matter, and perhaps gives the mistaken impression that I am. --Iantresman 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As the Clerk who renamed it, I would consider another short, reasonable name for the case. The one you chose was not appropriate, because it was perjorative, and also because it was not sufficiently descriptive of what your case was about (many cases involve an allegation of bad behavior by one or more administrators). Argue your case in the presentation, not in the name. But as I said, if you want to propose a different, sensible name, let me know. Newyorkbrad 00:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration; how about "Administration issues"?

Ironically the last ArbCom case in which I was involved, was also renamed: from "Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism)"[1] (non-pejorative) to just "pseudoscience"[2] (pejorative). --Iantresman 00:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And user:Raul654's appropriateness, described above? --Iantresman 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "administration issues" is that it could be the description of half the cases on the list! As for your second question, I'm just clerking the page, so I don't have a view on that. Issues of recusal traditionally have been addressed to each individual arbitrator to decide for himself or herself. Newyorkbrad 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So arbitrators aren't automatically recused when they are a party to the case? (and, my understanding is that he is, unless the committee votes to excuse him) --Random832 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

An arbitrator will of course recuse himself or herself when from the case when the arbitrator is appropriately named as a party—hopefully even in a borderline case. On the other hand, it is not appropriate to name an arbitrator as a party to a new case just because the filing user is dissatisfied with the arbitrator's statements or rulings in a previous case. Otherwise, it would be too easy for someone dissatisfied with the result of a case to seek to automatically disqualify any or all of the arbitrators. Whether that is what is happening in a given situation is for the arbitrator to determine. You may want to look at the mainspace article on recusal for some discussion of analogous principles in the real world. Newyorkbrad 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support Newyorkbrad's comment. Further, Iantresman listing Raul654 as a party seems totally inappropriate in this situation. IMO, it is this type of poor judgement that keeps Iantresman in the middle of disputes with other users. FloNight 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting to accept

Just a note to say that despite the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Archive_17#Number_of_votes_required_for_case_acceptance here, where the consensus was that the 'four votes net' system was fundamentally flawed and should be replaced, the 'four votes net' system is still in place and there appears to have been no consideration given to changing it. --Barberio 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Most recent discussion is here. Thatcher131 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the system is still fundamentally flawed, I will say that there was subsequent discussion. If memory serves correctly, no change was made and it was decided (decreed? *grin*) that the ArbCom themselves get to decide what acceptance mechanism is used. While I don't agree, I accepted their deicision as final (and is now the law).  :-( I'm glad they at least did some discussion on it, though. /Blaxthos 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It may well be something to be brought up later this year during the nomination process for new/returning arbcom members. --Barberio 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The same was said last time elections were on the horizon.  ;-) To be fair, newyorkbrad did follow through on that comment, IIRC. /Blaxthos 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I commented there, I myself did not prefer the current system, but most other Arbitrators seemed to disagree. I'm always open to changing it (indeed, considering I do not prefer the current way), but hopefully we can get some more opinions from other Arbitrators here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rejected RfM

Arbitration Committee Members, A case has recently come across our desk that I rejected, since it's not a situation that I believe could be properly solved through mediation. I am not referring this case formally to ArbCom, but I do recommend you look into it and see if it has merit of something that is worth being looked into. Thanks, and good evening.

On behalf of the Mediation Committee ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh joy. Thatcher131 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember V. Z. quite well from the RFCU move-war. Daniel Bryant 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA

Should we talk about WP:AMA arbcom Team? --CyclePat 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? (There is relevant discussion here and here. Thatcher131 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I confess that I haven't felt the need–convince me. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the above comments is that you have an interest to learn more about the Arbcom AMAT (AMA Team). What are the benefits? What are the services provided? Your above questions concerning AMA arbcom team are dully noted. I will forward your request to the team and ask them to prepare a proposal. An exemple question may be: "Should the project page to Request for arbitration include a small reference to guide wikipedians towards AMA Arbcom team?" Furthermore, our answer could talk about the 101's of publicity and market segmentation. In the mean time you may wish to learn more about the AMA Arbcom team by clicking going to the Arbcom AMA team project page. --CyclePat 13:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to defend the team. I'd personally like to see a minor cooperation between you and our team; who are we to know who is longing for an advocate or not? Put the link and let people decide... but give'em the chance! If users don't like us, we're useless; if people like our team, it would be common sense to leave a link. --Neigel von Teighen 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity, and the fact that we are now rehashing discussions that have already occurred multiple times, I'm going to cut right to the chase - The AMA has not shown itself to be useful at all during arbitration. The arbcom has no desire to add more work for itself, so we will not be doing anything jointly with the AMA. Much as they may fancy themselves to be part of the arbitration process, the AMA has no official status in arbitration. Prove yourselves useful using the process as is, and we may change our minds, but until then, kindly leave us alone. Raul654 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)