Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iasson/Proposed decision

POLL: What version [1] of arbitration_proposed_decision's [2] voting rules do you prefer?

POLL OPTION:With accurate voting rules. Define what exactly majority means and who is the electorate[3] , also define how long a passed or rejected decision should be valid. Define also accurately whether the votes of the inactives or baned electors should be considered valid ones or not and whether any decision taken based on those votes should remain a valid decision or not.

1. YES VOTE:Iasson 08:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POLL OPTION: With inaccurate voting rules. Neither majority nor the electorate should be defined accurately, and especially we should not define the rule which determines how long the passed or rejected decision should be valid. We should NOT also define what happens to the votes of the electors that are inactives or baned, neither define wheither any decision based at those inactives or baned votes is still considered to be valid decision or not.

POLL OPTION: Other

POLL OPTION: I dislike this poll

POLL OPTION: Iasson should receive a 24-hour ban for repeatedly vandalizing the proposed decision page. [4] [5] [6]

COMMENT: I thought this was a poll option, if you disagree you may change the prefix to "POLL", instead of "POLL_OPTION". Also if you think your poll is related to my poll (conditional poll), you may leave it here as a branch, otherwise you may create a new poll tree. Iasson 11:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. NO VOTE: Iasson 11:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL:

1. silsor 17:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
2. Wow, this looks familiar. humblefool® 02:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. I dislike this troll. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 02:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
4. No, good sir, this is not the same Iasson from kuro5hin. Iasson said it, so it must be true! --Deathphoenix 03:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5. It is classic editing style of Iasson to produce such complicated polls that they are difficult or impossible to understand. Thryduulf 08:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What exactly you dont understand? Arbitrators are about to take a decision to ban me for one year. My question is: how long their decision will be valid, and whether they are allowed to change their mind or not. Because if their decision to punish me for one year remains for one week, then the arbitrators suddently change their mind, then only one week I will remain punished. Also my question is what happens in the duration of my punishement in case new arbitrators arrive and have a different opinion about me. Are new arbitrators allowed to change the decisions of the old ones? And what happens in case an arbitrator who voted for my punishement leaves wikipedia or maybe is also punished? Is his vote still a valid one and I have to remain in prison until the end , or not?Iasson 10:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No need to reinvent the wheel. Read this and this. -- Scott e^iπ 10:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I read it carefully, and there is no answer to my questions. Does this sentence "Former decisions will not be binding on the Arbitrators - rather, they intend to learn from experience" means that they are allowed to change their mind whenever they want and repeal their vote on any open or closed case or means that they are allowed to punish two persons having done the same crime with different punishments? And what about the votes of the inactives or banned arbitrators? Do their votes remain valid ones and they continue to support the decision taken or do their votes vanish together with them so that all prisoners imprisoned due to their vote are set free? Where is this mentioned in the policy you pointed? Iasson 11:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. LOL! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On a more serious note

I've changed the blocking policy to point out that altering the password to a "public" account is just as effective as blocking the account indefinitely, and often creates less fuss. I would appreciate it if the ruling would take this into account. --Michael Snow 23:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)