User talk:BU Rob13

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

If you sent me an email, there's no need to notify me here. I check my email regularly and will respond as time permits.

Yo Ho Ho

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

The Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Gun_control Survey

Could you enlighten me as to how that survey reads C as the outcome? Because from what I can see, there's 1 A, 3 B, 2 C, and one that is "A/sorta C" with the explanation that it's a clear A as their "sorta C" is about allowing the deletion, but they directly say that the community can overturn, so clearly it's not an AE action then and thus, clearly an A vote... How does then C win with less votes? Even if it was a C vote, it would still be B or C, so why would then C win and not B? Not saying it's wrong but I'm really not understanding how it would become like that as it currently feels like you're proposing to set forth a motion to the effect of declaring that 1+1=3 84.219.252.47 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The set of deletions that C allows is a subset of what B would allow. If B does not pass, presumably everyone supporting B would then support C as a second choice. When you reallocate all B votes to C, the consensus is fairly clear. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

While I understand why C would pass if you just reassign all B votes to C, but why would you reassign them? It being a subset doesn't really make sense since then the argument is just as valid to reassign all C to B, and as I said already, B already is the majority so it's not like you're reassigning a minority number of votes to a majority to make it a bigger majority either. It's reassigning votes from a majority, to a minority in order for that minority to win that I don't understand.84.219.252.47 (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Those arguing B (allow all deletions, subject only to deletions being overturned at AE) would certainly agree to C (allow only those deletions allowable under the deletion policy) if B was off the table. Those arguing C would likely not agree to B, since it allows some deletions they perceive to be against policy. If we held a straight up-down vote on B and C, you would almost certainly see B defeated by a majority and C successful due to "second choice" votes. B does not have a majority, because those voting either A or C would likely oppose it. That's why I've said what I did. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that it's not actually a 3 option vote, it's a 2 round elimination vote, and you're just assuming what the outcome of the second round would be? That seems... Odd. Especially since there's no reason to eliminate option A rather than C in that case since they have the same number of votes. I'm also not convinced the majority of those voting B would support C, rather than say, move to amend the policies on the matter to implement option B and deferring to option A in the meantime. I mean, those things would be possible to discern had the voters actually provided arguments behind their vote, but nothing in the discussion above from those users seem to suggest one way or the other on that and it only becomes clear in your case due to this discussion. 84.219.252.47 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a vote at all currently. Any motion to change WP:AC/DS for clarification would be an up-down vote of whatever change we wished to make to the page, so it would necessarily be a "Yes" or "No" to some particular change. It's obvious that those advocating for A would oppose both B and C. It's equally obvious to me that those supporting B would accept a compromise of C over A, since A is the outcome farthest away from B. Perhaps the "obviousness" of that fact comes at least partially from having worked with the other arbitrators for some time and knowing how the process of compromise tends to work. The outcomes are rather clearly on a continuum from A -- C -- B, and it's not terribly surprising to me that we would fall in the middle. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a motion to change anything though. The question posed is after all in regards to what it currently is. So talk about compromise just doesn't make sense to me. And if it was so easy and obvious what other arbs think... Why does arbcom cases even exist? It would reduce the time significantly if we just did away with it and just implemented what was obvious that the majority of the arbs think anyway right? I'm sorry but coming from a legal background (yes I know, I know, arbcom is not a court), it seems... Absolutely wacky to make any sort of decision, based on what seems obvious to the one doing it, in regards to what others think. Because it's obvious to a prosecutor prosecuting someone that they are guilty and thus should be convicted. Yet, just over half of all trials, result in a conviction. Clearly, what seems obvious, even to a well trained prosecutor, is still just barely better than pure random. Even if we look at the best case in the US, you have federal conviction rate of 85%, and then we're talking the absolute best of the best in terms of prosecutors, and they're still wrong in 15% of the cases. Compared to arbcom that, for better or worse, has no formal training at all.84.219.252.47 (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A few points. An 85% conviction rate does not at all mean the prosecutor was "wrong" in 15% of cases. It means they had insufficient evidence. I'm not making a unilateral decision. I'm proposing a possible motion, and seeing if the other arbitrators agree with where I think the consensus lies. My assessment of the consensus isn't based on magical knowledge of all other arbs' thinking; it's based on their public statements on this issue, both in the survey and above it in the discussion section. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We're not talking about if they were right or wrong in the case itself, because then we'd also have false convictions. But we're talking about that a prosecutor should only be prosecuting when they feel that a conviction is going to be the outcome. As in, they think conviction is the obvious outcome. That does mean that in 15% of the cases, they ARE wrong on the count of it being an obvious conviction. And I'm sorry but I don't see ANYTHING mentioned from any of the others, that they would switch their support to C if B was not an option. Your assessment of that is IMO, very insufficient for any decision. As for you just making a proposal for a possible motion, is in the end a decision. But even if we ignore that for a second, what motion? From what I'm reading, motions are about changes to policy, previous decisions and such... You're discussing what the current situation is, not what it should be. So what would the motion be then? See this is where I'm not getting why you would move votes around.84.219.252.47 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not moving anything. I'm saying what I see the rough consensus to be, and offering arbitrators the opportunity to let me know if I'm off the mark. If no-one indicates I am soon, the proposed motion will be to change the text of WP:AC/DS to match our intent. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You are moving votes from B to C. That's even your own words on it that C will win if you get to move all B votes to C. It seems weird to do the "if no one complains then it's fine", rather than, "let people say if they want their votes moved", because from previous cases and AE talks, assigning intent to someone else and assuming that's correct unless they correct it, is a HUGE no no that for multiple editors have lead to sanctions for NPA. That doesn't seem fine to be doing then here either it seems to me. While the opinion being assigned is ofc less extreme but the principle is still that you're basically telling others things like "Well you hate X", and putting the onus on them to correct that they don't. It seems to me a lot better to if it's about clarifying. Propose "are we ready to move on to a motion?" and try the option with most votes first. It will fail if you read consensus correctly, in which case you try the next option. Remember, there is no hurry.84.219.252.47 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)