Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 1

Examples of "extension of remedy", for reference:

A user exploits some loophole in the wording, or extends their problematic activities to new kinds of action (especially, actions anticipated in the case but not addressed at that time).
The remedy or enforcement proves too limited in effect to readily handle their conduct.
An absentee party who received no sanction due to absence, recommences editing. (See for example: this case from 2007, in which the absentee user AWeidman, the evidenced sockmaster, received no remedies in the case, but was dealt with upon reappearance, by the community in this case.)

Prompted by the Mantanmoreland case, which made me think we don't explain to users what might be involved or why extension may be sought, fully. Thoughts? Is some kind of brief clarification needed? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal

Possible description:

"Arbitration requires an ability to look at the evidence neutrally and without fixed preconceptions. It would not matter in fact, whether the preconception matched the community's view, or differed from it. A fixed bias would be a problem of whichever kind. The standard to apply is roughly, that an arbitrator would usually decide to recuse if there are issues which would prevent them assessing and deciding the case neutrally, or if the perception is such that it will be hard for a reasonable uninvolved/impartial person to believe they can truly consider the evidence neutrally. That is a decision Arbitrators are usually expected to make for themselves, since it is based on their own inner view amongst other things."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronising this and the clerks page

Could the clerks look at synchronising this page and some of the useful information at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks? I was recently discussing this with one of the clerks, as I was unclear on the point at which rejected requests get removed. Comparing the two pages, they say (respectively): "Cases that have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page." and "Removing rejected cases from the main page within the 10-day period for consideration (a Clerk or Arbitrator may remove a case that has been listed for less than 10 days if there is a clear majority to reject and no chance of acceptance; helpers should only remove rejected cases after ten days)" - this is a case where the guide should indicate when and why a request (not a case) might be removed after less than 10 days. The discussion I had with the clerk, for reference, is at User talk:Daniel/Archive/67#Rejected 0/4?. Other bits may need synchronising as well. Cross-posting a note to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

Shouldn't this have some sort of {{subcat guideline}} tag on it? MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good Fred Bauder 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice page. I'd have two suggestions... first, expand a bit about the ArbCom not caring overly much about rules. In particular, wikilawyering will not get you anywhere, and a motion to move the discussion to the U.S. Supreme Court will only get you laughed at. And second, given the nature of some people ending up before the ArbCom, I think this page could benefit from a concise point-by-point summary of short and simple sentences, at the top. HTH! R adiant _>|< 23:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a more positive way to say "They do not care about process"? Such as "They are uninterested in letting process interfere with Wikipedia's mission to build a high quality encyclopedia"? Maybe shorter, but you get the idea. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "They care more about product than process." - David Gerard 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Essay

Recently saw this {{featured essay}} template used on User:Raul654/Raul's laws. Was thinking I would add it to this essay as well; however, "featured" has generally meant the article has passed some kind of quality check - so I am not sure it is the right word for this kind of essay. However, it would be nice to be able to have a place to easily find these kind of commentaries on wikipedia. Trödel 13:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After discussions on CfD and TfD that raised these very objections, the template has been renamed to {{popular essay}}. I hope it's okay now. Loom91 09:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples?

Cut from page:

For example, a blatant WP:3RR violation is preferred to one where the page was being vandalized at the same time and reversions might be confused: The first requires no explanation at all, the latter requires sifting through reversions and determining if it was revert warring or vandalism fixing.

I'd suggest examples be left out altogether. This page is really a guideline that offers clues to the clueful. (But it's not stamped 'guideline' because, really, if you're not smart enough to follow its advice anyway then you're too stupid or clueless to breathe while editing.) As a general guideline, it's about the idea of acting sensibly, not a how-to as such (again, despite the intro). The less specific the better. IMO.

Does any current or ex-arbitrator feel otherwise and that it should have examples? - David Gerard 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm neither of the above, but wanted to get in on the discussion) While the above isn't the best sort of example, immediately understandable ones can help immensely in getting the point across. 68.39.174.238 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mention content somewhere?

I'm not sure where exactly to add this, but wouldn't something about not filing an arbitration request solely over a dispute in content? I can't call any names to mind, but the RfAr page regularly has atleast one sitting there where the Comments and Replies are about nothing but content. 68.39.174.238 22:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat ridiculous that the page on Jesus HAS to appear with the Islamic view of Jesus right near the top. Then, to cover the Muslims' intentions, they try to post all different religons' views of Jesus, although most have no views.

When I go to the page on Muhammad, or Islam, no other viewpoint is allowed. The process to go through and equalize the freedom of information, or to limit the Muslims' postings on everything Chrisitan, is almost insurmountable. They have a few wikinazis who do nothing but keep editing the Christian information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juliew20 (talk • contribs).