Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 4

message: After talking with several other arbitrators, it has become apparent that the arbitration process has been the victim of hyper-instrucion creep. The number of arbitration pages has balloned (many of which are redundant), this page itself has become unnecessarily large with many unnecessary procedures, etc. I've gone ahead and pruned it down. I think this should make the process faster and smoother. →Raul654 21:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:Fine by me. Ambi 06:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration process losing weight

message: ===Statement by Tony Sidaway===
We try to be welcoming to newcomers here.  This is a good thing.  Sometimes it gets a bit absurd, though, and here we are indulging a person who has encountered no conceivable evidence of malice, but seems to bear a lot of extreme ill-feeling towards someone who seems to have acted with considerable courtesy.  I think SummerFR needs a wikibreak. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  SummerFR's talk page indicates that she has left Wikipedia. Of course she may choose to come back, but for now the matter is no longer urgent. FreplySpang (talk) 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SummerFR and BaronLarf

message: We try to be welcoming to newcomers here.  This is a good thing.  Sometimes it gets a bit absurd, though, and here we are indulging a person who has encountered no conceivable evidence of malice, but seems to bear a lot of extreme ill-feeling towards someone who seems to have acted with considerable courtesy.  I think SummerFR needs a wikibreak. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  SummerFR's talk page indicates that she has left Wikipedia. Of course she may choose to come back, but for now the matter is no longer urgent. FreplySpang (talk) 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]

message: Please could answered requests for clarifications to be archived onto the main page of the case it relates to for ease of future reference. (e.g. when discussion finally finishes on the RfClarification I made about the GRider case, could that be archived on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider please). Thanks, Thryduulf 16:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving requests for clarification

message: A recent ArbCom ruling: "User:John Gohde must read and acknowledge he has read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and write 200 words each on the implications of having custodians on Wikipedia and on the implications of allowing personal attacks on Wikipedia before being allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
First, I'd like to say I'm a big fan of the ArbCom, and I think they do a super job — thanks! However, I have some criticism: I think the above ruling is a mistake. I'm sure this user deserves his year long ban and parole, but...forced essay-writing? Let's not treat editors like wayward school-children (even if they behave that way). In my opinion, this lowers the dignity of the project as a whole.  As a volunteer project, Wikipedia never compels people to do things — we do, of course, restrict undesirable actions. This ruling seems to fly against that. I support creative approaches to dealing with problem users, but this...just feels very wrong. Again, great work, right decision against Gohde, but the essay-writing seems a farcical thing for grown-ups to be faffing around with. — Matt Crypto 01:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's amusing. Matt says that "essay-writing seems a farcical thing for grown-ups to be faffing around with". We are looking on the same website here, aren't we? Hmmm. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I hate to chime in with a "me too" comment, but I think MC has a point.  While I applaud ArbCom's bold willingness to think outside of the box, it might be a good idea in future to float a trial balloon with the community before imposing an entirely new form of punishment. Although Wikipedia policy (probably deliberately) imposes few restrictions on the Arbitration Committee's ability to set punishments, I don't know if it's a good idea to get creative.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an alternative way to look at it: A user might be banned indefinitely, but be eligible to  apply for reinstatement after one year, with the application for reinstatement to include the essay.  The idea would be that the essay would help determine whether the user understood the issues and would be in a position to avoid his or her previous misconduct.  That way, it's not an arbitrary punishment; instead, it's related to the underlying problem, and helps the ArbCom decide on the application for reinstatement.  Does that seem less farcical?. JamesMLane 06:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The essay was my idea (I just suggested it, I wasn't on the case) and probably not the best idea I've ever had. I think we can assume it's not really workable. Further suggestions for ways around just slapping long bans on people are welcomed. (Mentorship might work for some cases, but it was a lot of work finding mentors for Netoholic, for instance - people willing to put in that much work on one person who would actually be suitable for the job are really not easy to find.) - David Gerard 11:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text:  Maybe you can just require that the miscreant state that they read the policy and agree to abide by it.  Of course there would be an implied threat that violating it again in a serious way would get a longer ban.  --Zero 11:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That may be more workable - David Gerard 10:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As an admin, I've already used this with one persistent revert warrior, as a condition for removing a long block imposed by someone else.  It seemed to make him a little more cautious--a good result, because he is otherwise a pretty valuable editor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay writing punishments?

message: According to my quick glance at the record in the particular case of Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell, each of them edited the Artificial consciousness article on March 28, 2005 (each with sharply worded edit summaries), and Tkorrovi filed the RfAr later that same day.  The proponents of a statute of limitations should explain exactly what it would prohibit under such circumstances.  As an analogy, under New York law, if a patient was in the care of a particular physician, and later charges medical malpractice, the statute of limitations doesn't even begin to run as long there's a continuing course of care, i.e., as long as the patient is still being treated by that physician.  The patient could sue for alleged acts of malpractice that occurred early in the relationship, even if they were several years ago.  Would a Wikipedia statute of limitations follow the same rule?  If so, a statute of limitations would not have barred Tkorrovi's RfAr unless the statute were measured in hours. If, on the other hand, such a rule would not be followed, then the statute of limitations would have the effect of pushing people into arbitration, discouraging them from waiting to see if particular discussions on the talk page or in mediation might result in an acceptable resolution. JamesMLane 10:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, I don't know Jayjg, he never edited the article before, and I don't think that one must be punished for a single mistake. Yes the comment of his "minor" change was not very much better than yours, rather partly copied from yours, two people usually don't have so exactly the same opinion, unless they don't much think, and repeat what others do. You in your corresponding revert called "non-grammatical", "non-sequiter" (what that means? sequitur?) and "unfixable" a definition exactly copied from a peer-reviewed paper (with stated source). My that change was later partly restored by others.Tkorrovi 02:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg doesn't need defending by me but he does not go around copying what I do.  It must be an extraordinary coincidence if both of us made the same "mistake" in reverting Tkorrovi's edit and both of us refer to it as non-grammatical.  I suggest another explanation is more likely.  In any event, Tkorrovi does not show I made a "personal attack" on him 27/28 March.  Paul Beardsell 03:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, he likely did not think much, he added "incomprehensible", so he simply did not understand.Tkorrovi 03:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tk, you can create an RfA against him in 10 months time if you like but, in the meantime, please do answer the question I ask.  Paul Beardsell 03:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the evidence.Tkorrovi 03:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tk, with the greatest possible respect, you don't seem to have read my statement:  I am not admitting to having made unwarranted or punishable "personal attacks" against you.  I cannot therefore identify evidence of a "personal attack" without damaging my case.  Besides some of the evidence you present is complimentary of me.  I might be suspected of not picking the right evidence.  You have to answer:  When was the last time I made a "[personal attack]" against you?  Paul Beardsell 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: In the evidence I called that one, you so much talked about here, a consensus issue, you reverted my changes without explaining a deletion, I made different changes which I thought may please you more, you reverted these too, and your only explanation was an absurd negative comment.Tkorrovi 14:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That the disputants carry on above a civilised discussion about the facts of the case is not evidence of any on-going situation that needs arbcom intervention; it is simply the type of discussion that frequently occurs between contributors on all manner of topics on talk pages where some fact or other is queried. What we have above is Paul asking for cited instances of "personal attacks", with dates, so that a view can be taken of how long ago the last personal attack occurred, and Tkorrovi apparently misunderstanding this request, or at least not providing the sought after information. It's that simple. Matt Stan 07:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes this monkey thing was more precisely described there . Personal attack is not necessarily only one sentence or something which a person says in one place. Sometimes it is about what someone said together with his other statements, which makes it possible to interpret beyond doubt, what he meant by what he said.Tkorrovi 17:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing course of conduct

message: In the new RFAr against Jguk, Slrubenstein has said "I have not taken other steps because they would be pointless."  Surely it shouldn't therefore be allowed to proceed?  violet/riga (t) 22:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite - a lack of mediation/RFC may be a reason the ArbCom chooses not to accept a case, but said lack doesn't oblige us not to accept a case - David Gerard 21:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I have not taken other steps because they would be pointless." 

message: I'm sure there used to be a note somewhere on the page that explained that the x/x/x/x tally of arbitrtator's opinions refers to the number who have voted accept/reject/recuse/other. I would add this back in, as I think its rather useful, but I am not sure where it would be best (and can't remember where on the page it used to be). It should be before the current requests section, imho; however putting it in the template would mean it would get copied everywhere (adding to clutter, and making it pointless to have a separate tally and explanation rather than "0 accept/0 reject/0 recuse/0 other" - which imho is harder to read). Putting it immediately before the TOC would be a useful place, but look and feel rather out of place.
*Should we add this explnation back in?
*If so, where on the page should we put it? Thryduulf 15:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice that was taken out. Back in. Note that no arb com member is required to update that, and the numbers therefore may or may not be correct. --mav 22:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: accept/reject/recuse/other explanation

message: Mperel has asked me to convey this message to you: Mperel is preparing evidence for the Jguk case, but had to leave town for a funeral and will be off-line for a week.  MPerel asks for your patience, and will provide the evidence after the funeral.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk  13:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been rejected (and not because of lack of evidence), so I don't think there's any need to worry. Ambi 15:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are/were two RfArs against Jguk.  The one on his change of BCE/CE is hearing evidence.  The other one on style-usage was rejected because it was too content oriented.  I think Slrubenstein might be refering to the first. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:26, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
Lulu is correct — thanks for clarifying for me. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A message for the ArbCom 

message: Re: David Gerard's comments on this case, please see my idea for a possible (future) way to deal with this situation at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Short term blocking of anon users from a given ip range. Thryduulf 08:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: David pointed to MediaWiki bug 550 which apparently is an open feature request. Maybe refine this request and add your ideas there as well, as it would be better noticed (and discussed) there ? Lysy 09:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Zivinbudas