Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
→Arbcom incivility: All married men should be seasoned "waiters" |
→30 Jan: re Jclemens |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:::I'm with Balloonman: I'd far rather they took longer and got it ''absolutely right''. I do appreciate that sitting in the dock wondering whether the Judges are going to come back into Court wearing the benevolent smiles or the Black Caps of Execution is hard on the defendant(s), but as a teacher of sorts, I always give far better marks for getting your homework ''right'' than I do for handing it in on time. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]] …[[Special:Contributions/ThatPeskyCommoner|''stalk!'']]) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
:::I'm with Balloonman: I'd far rather they took longer and got it ''absolutely right''. I do appreciate that sitting in the dock wondering whether the Judges are going to come back into Court wearing the benevolent smiles or the Black Caps of Execution is hard on the defendant(s), but as a teacher of sorts, I always give far better marks for getting your homework ''right'' than I do for handing it in on time. [[User:ThatPeskyCommoner| <span style="color:#003300; font-family: cursive;">'''Pesky'''</span>]] ([[User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner|<span style="color:#336600;">talk</span>]] …[[Special:Contributions/ThatPeskyCommoner|''stalk!'']]) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:: You can call it whatever you want, Malleus, but since when is a target a promise? [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
:: You can call it whatever you want, Malleus, but since when is a target a promise? [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::The case page doesn't say "target date", it says "Proposed decision date 29 Jan 2012". In the time it took you to type the snotty comment above, you could have typed "We haven't reached a decision/Two of the committee are on holiday and we're waiting to come back/(insert any other reason), there's likely to be a delay of ''x'' days". Whatever you decide, will potentially have a huge impact both on a number of current editors and the future direction of Wikipedia; you can hardly blame people (on either side of the argument) from getting irritated that after having taken on this mess, Arbcom (both as an entity and as individuals) don't seem to have any clue what kind of impact the very fact of being involved in this case is having on all those involved. [[Special:Contributions/78.149.252.90|78.149.252.90]] ([[User talk:78.149.252.90|talk]]) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Arbcom incivility == |
== Arbcom incivility == |
Revision as of 16:01, 30 January 2012
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Extending the date for evidence
I put forth a motion to extend the date for evidence and workshop submissions but it is apparently untimely as well. Without making excuses, I was hoping recent developments like the emergence of late submissions, the sudden and overwhelming onset of the SOAP discussion and blackout, and comments by Risker that imply submissions appended throughout Friday would be timely. So I ask here if ArbCom will grant the request for the extension to become official and allow the disallowed submissions as well as anything posted before 00:01 January 21, 2012. Thank you for considering this comment and request. My76Strat (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have gathered the answer to this query by the actions of recent edits. I do believe an extension would have been a fair and proper way to handle the late submissions but accept the decision to allow some and not others. In fact it makes sense. My76Strat (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
An observation per IAR
Yes, I know that the time is passed for evidence, but per WP:IAR I'm drawing attention to this one diff. Any Committee members who wish to ignore it, please do so. [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
30 Jan
tick, tock, tick, tock - anybody here? 78.149.240.164 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Target deadline... this is a controversial topic... I'm certain something will be coming within the next few days...---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was promised today, not within "the next few days". Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- True... I kinda put that there as quasi-sarcastic... I originally was going to write, "Some time in the next month or so" but decided that would be too critical of arbcom... which isn't my point. But it doesn't surprise me that it's taking longer. I'd rather they do it right and take a little longer than blow it by rushing.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Giving benefit of the doubt, it's still 29 Jan in the USA. For something of this significance, they may deliberately be waiting until midnight at the International Date Line, so nobody can complain they weren't given the chance to say their piece before the deadline. 78.149.240.164 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence submission phase closed ages ago. Next excuse? Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fixing incivility across the board on Wikipedia is ArbCom's Kobayashi Maru. Nobody Ent 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's a fair analogy, but who is in Kirk's role here? My76Strat (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fixing incivility across the board on Wikipedia is ArbCom's Kobayashi Maru. Nobody Ent 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The evidence submission phase closed ages ago. Next excuse? Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Giving benefit of the doubt, it's still 29 Jan in the USA. For something of this significance, they may deliberately be waiting until midnight at the International Date Line, so nobody can complain they weren't given the chance to say their piece before the deadline. 78.149.240.164 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- True... I kinda put that there as quasi-sarcastic... I originally was going to write, "Some time in the next month or so" but decided that would be too critical of arbcom... which isn't my point. But it doesn't surprise me that it's taking longer. I'd rather they do it right and take a little longer than blow it by rushing.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- It was promised today, not within "the next few days". Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I call it dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BUTT. Jehochman Talk 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- A potentially interesting analogy that somewhat misses the point. Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm with Balloonman: I'd far rather they took longer and got it absolutely right. I do appreciate that sitting in the dock wondering whether the Judges are going to come back into Court wearing the benevolent smiles or the Black Caps of Execution is hard on the defendant(s), but as a teacher of sorts, I always give far better marks for getting your homework right than I do for handing it in on time. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can call it whatever you want, Malleus, but since when is a target a promise? Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The case page doesn't say "target date", it says "Proposed decision date 29 Jan 2012". In the time it took you to type the snotty comment above, you could have typed "We haven't reached a decision/Two of the committee are on holiday and we're waiting to come back/(insert any other reason), there's likely to be a delay of x days". Whatever you decide, will potentially have a huge impact both on a number of current editors and the future direction of Wikipedia; you can hardly blame people (on either side of the argument) from getting irritated that after having taken on this mess, Arbcom (both as an entity and as individuals) don't seem to have any clue what kind of impact the very fact of being involved in this case is having on all those involved. 78.149.252.90 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BUTT. Jehochman Talk 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom incivility
It does not bode well that on the proposed decision day of a case entitled "Civility enforcement" the first (in)action by the Arbitration Committee is itself incivil.
- Arbcom did not have to accept the case -- it's actually a pretty crappy test case due to the particular fact pattern. But they did.
- It's been 40 days. [2]
- Arbcom itself set the 29 January decision date.
To not issue a timely decision is unfortunate but forgivable: stuff happens. To not provide the community an update with a status and new expected decision date is just rude. It is also more evidence of the status based incivility which is tolerated/accepted on Wikipedia -- IPs get treated like crap, non-admin editors are second class citizens to the mops, admins incivility is frequently overlooked. I understand you're attempting to do the crappy jobs no one else could get done. You volunteered for this, and the community has put its trust in you. Fish or cut bait. Nobody Ent 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good grief. ArbCom decisions are never posted on time. Here's the update: they are working on it, nd a decision will be posted when it is ready. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm If we are going to call not meeting a deadline incivility or as Malleus did above "dishonesty" theh Malleus has no hope of avoiding the eternal flames of hell. This is not incivility or a lie... I know everybody is interested in what they have to say on this case, but they continue to be volunteers and real life does get in the way. Yes, this is an impossible situation that needs Capt Kirk to resolve, but let's hold off on the vindictives---unless you are intentionally trying to piss the Arbitrators off to get them to vote vindictively.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- This has now dragged on for 40 days, as Nobody Ent says above, and Jclemens' retort is just plain rude. Enough is enough. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I once waited 3 hours for the Stones to show up. When they did, the wait was worthwhile.```Buster Seven Talk 15:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- This has now dragged on for 40 days, as Nobody Ent says above, and Jclemens' retort is just plain rude. Enough is enough. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)