Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 11

message: How will the possible changeover of some ArbCom seats affect the currently-requested cases? android79 18:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last few times this has happened, we presumed all new arbitrators were recused on cases opened prior to their arrival on the committee, unless they explicitely unrecused themselves for a particular case. Raul654 20:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this also effect the 1 week 4 votes policy?  There has been heinous NPA violations directly on my RFa by some of those whom I have named in my RFa.  There are 2 "Accepts" but those were given a while ago.  From this two things seem clear: 1 - The ArbCom is currently inundated with RFAs  2 - My RFA has not been read in some time as is evidenced by the lack of Admin warnings etc towards those who have egregiously violated NPA and CIV right here on the RFA page.  Will leniency be given to current RFAs regarding the '1 week 4 votes policy'?  I mean, just skim my RFA (Tommstein), it is clear that immediate, official, intercession is desperately needed.  Duffer 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we informally agreed to keep it at 4 for the time being. Raul654 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election questions 

message: Duffer identifies a recent problem.  Many recent RfArs, which typically cite a pattern of personal attacks and incivility, demonstrate the problem of personal attacks and incivility.  I think that the point that Duffer is trying to make is a reasonable one.  If one of the parties to an RfAr uses the RfAr as a vehicle for further personal attacks (either on the other parties or on the Wikipedia "cabal"), I would suggest that the ArbCom should take note that the incivility shows that there is a problematical editor.  Robert McClenon 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do. We count anything done during arbitration as evidence. Fred Bauder 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. EffK 11:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Attacks and Incivility in RfArs

message: (In regard to Benon's Motion for consideration; moved from the main page) -- Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may speak, I oppose this.  Benon should frankly back off, as he is too personally involved in siding with T-man.  I am editing in cooperation with many other editors on Enemies of Batman and Batman, and have been doing so since long before T-Man.  My edits and comments since my block have been nothing but civil and courteous, and in fact as you can see I decided it was fair to reincorporate the sense of T-man's recent edit right after I removed it.  There will be no flames or smoke from me, sir; I will control my frustration, although frankly I am by far not the only one trying to do so: see here. Blocking me from editing when the very legitimacy of my block is still under question is manifestly unjust. Dyslexic agnostic 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not motioning against just you but both of you. Benon 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate it's not personal, but I also see it as a drastic request. If either of us act uncivil or inappropriately, then a block will suffice. For my part, I confirm again that I have no intent to ever be uncivil to T-man again. Dyslexic agnostic 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry to say, but he deserves to edit the Enemies of Batman Page. I hate blind reversing To me that means,to reverse deleting, not to reverse adding. Is blind reversing a blind reverse really blind reversing? I always try to meet my blind reverser in the middle point by changing the blind reversed info at least a little. I read somewhere that the actual right thing to do is always to copyedit and rephrase, which I always do. 
However I checked the pages' history and he fixes links there before I went there. He was also first on the Batman and Superman page and he also deserves to keep editing there.I do apologise for believing he followed me there. He din't. Although, he follow me to some users' talk pages and that was frustrating. He admited to me to check on me "3rd thing on the morning" and to be monitoring me. He also admited not knowing about the topic on some articles where he always blind reverts me with insults on the summary. My advocate will provide those proves and some others about his ignorance of the topics if necessary. --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 03:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, T-Man.  I will meet you in the middle whenever I can.  I likewise do not support a ban on T-Man's ability to edit Enemies of Batman, or any other page. Dyslexic agnostic 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is proof that I am really trying to work with T-Man... see his message to me regarding Enemies of Batman, and my reply... Dyslexic agnostic 06:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved discussion re Dylexic agnostic and T-Man 

message: The RfAr with which I'm currently involved is listed as being against User:Danteferno, but several parties have brought evidence (partially, or only) against User:Leyasu in their statements.  Should the case be listed as Danteferno v. Leyasu or Leyasu v. Danteferno, rather than just Danteferno?  It looks like it's shaping up to be an RfAr regarding the conduct of both parties. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The naming of one of the current cases... 

message: I am glad to see that Raul654 has been discussing dispute resolution reform with Jimbo and will be working on it.  Is this talk page an appropriate space for making suggestions about what the reforms should be?  Robert McClenon 13:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, no - everything is still coming together in my head. Raul654 18:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Resolution Update

message: I posted some comments on the talk page of the EffK arbitration case, as I had read that arbitrators would read and take account of discussion there. No arbitrator however has replied to any of my comments. Is this arbitrators' usual practice? Or did I put my comments in the wrong place? Having taken the time to comment on, to my mind, serious issues involved in the case it would be nice to at least know that someone had considered what I had to say. Bengalski 14:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitrators are very busy deciding cases.  It has been my observation that they seldom respond to comments on talk pages, but I assume that they do read them.  That does not mean that they have to act on them.  There are also comments on the same page respectfully disagreeing with your comments.  I would assume that the arbitrators have taken your comments and mine into account.  We can continue this discussion further on the case talk page.  Robert McClenon 16:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in case you think that the proposed ArbCom action is too harsh, check his recent posting history in which he was attempting to blank all of the talk page archives and has been temporarily blocked for vandalism.  Robert McClenon 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on arbitration talk pages