Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 2.3

message: The section on request procedure for RFA's seems to have a slight flaw: 
"The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it; unless otherwise specified by the Arbitrator's votes, a minimum twenty-four hour grace period will be granted between the fourth vote to open the case and the actual opening of the case. The Arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed without this occurring AND four or more Arbitrators have voted not to hear it, or if all but three active Arbitrators have voted to reject the case. Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested."
If we have a situation where we have 10 active Arbitrators, 2 recuse and 3 reject As is currently the case  here, we have the problem that if none of the remaining Arbitators vote to reject, it's possible that this will neever be accepted or rejected. (I'm not saying it could happen here, just noticing it's a potential flaw.)
Is this deliberate, causing a wait for more Arbitrators to become inactive, a flaw in the system, or is it something which there is a contingency plan for?J•A•K 08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We always have a contingency plan of use common sense. In the unlikely event of such a situation occuring we will discuss the matter and come to a decision. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought it would be that. Thank you for your prompt reply. J•A•K 09:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests - infinite loop 

message: "The Arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed without this occurring AND four or more Arbitrators have voted not to hear it, or if all but three active Arbitrators have voted to reject the case."
I raised a query on the interpretation of the phrase "voted not to hear it."  it seems straightforward but I wondered if one should also count recusals as well as rejections.  Mindspillage says that her interpretation is that recusals don't count, only rejections.  So perhaps the wording could be clarified to:
"The Arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed without this occurring AND four or more Arbitrators have voted to reject, or if all but three active Arbitrators have voted to reject the case."
--Tony Sidaway 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Procedural interpretation of rejection criterion

message: The project page says "The Arbitrators will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus." This case is in mediation. There's one group of people participating on that page, but there's a different group of people listed in the Who's involved section here, where arbitration was initiated, and that group is probably different from those who actually contributed arguments to that page. Then there's the RfC page, which includes "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" and "Other users who endorse this summary." Then there are all of the editors for the article in dispute, some of which aren't involved with those other pages. I'm sure what "community" means or what constitutes "consensus." -Barry- 01:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of community 

message: I stumbled across the Intangible case, and as a hopefully disinterested observer, i found the committee's voting procedures a bit hard to follow. The case seems to have opened and closed with eleven members available to vote, yet as the case progressed various members became active or inactive and two of the members inactive when the case started ended up voting in the final decision. There also seems to be a question about what constitutes a simple majority when members abstain from voting on a particular remedy. What would have happened if members had voted in the final decision and then had become inactive before the case closed?
I'm not trying to burden the committee with more process, and in general think admins lacking the ability to count votes is probably a good thing, but isn't some clarification needed here? If an uninvolved editor can't figure out the voting procedure, a involved party may find it more troubling. Maybe if committee members were to declare their availability for a particular case—and await a quorum—then voting would be easier to follow. Wouldn't that be a simpler procedure that the current overall tracking of active/inactive members?EricR 16:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active committee members and majority votes 

message: Has it occurred to anyone (and by anyone, I suppose I mean the ArbCom) to give the Arbitration Committee scope over deciding the outcome of ArbCom-mandated re-RfAs (following desysopings, votes of confidence to retain the bit, etc). It might make things a bit less arbitrary, as what we have right now is a "ArbCom-takes-away, any-b'crat-who-comes-upon-it-first-gives-back" system that is gameable, to an extent, since b'crats don't have to formally recuse if they are an involved party. If it took the form of a simple adendum to the existing case which led to it, it probably wouldn't blow up the system too much. -- nae'blis 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scope for re-RfAs 

message: The talk page here has gotten kinda long... I was going to archive but wanted to make sure it wasn't supposed to stay in one place (perhaps for historical or reference reasons).  What say ye?  /Blaxthos 09:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived everything earlier than 2006. Thatcher131 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: *Is there any requirement for a policy remedy to be explained, ie. why it has been given?
*Is there any need for policy remedies given to editors, to be commensurate with "Findings of fact", or any other part of the process?
*Is there any procedure to appeal a policy remedy?  --Iantresman 19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy remedies

message: What's the difference between Probation and Caution? (I can find nothing on Caution, and its implications) --Iantresman 16:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Probation vs Caution?

message: This was raised on the Village Pump, but I'll ask it here.  The page currently says: "Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to veto by, Jimbo Wales." ... is this still the case?  I thought that Jimbo had more or less removed himself from such matters.  -- Visviva 05:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is still the case, even though his official title is now "Chairman Emeritus."  I guess it's sort of like Deng Xiaoping in his heyday, officially not the leader, but the leader in reality.  (No offense meant by the comparison there, Jimbo.)   6SJ7 06:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can attempt to contact Jimbo via email or his talk page.  To appeal to the committee, you can file it like a regular case.  I suggest that appealing at the present time would be fruitless, since your case was just decided.  After several months of demonstrated good editing (or if you can demonstrate that others are taking improper advantage of the case) an appeal might be considered.  I am only aware of two appeals granted in the last year by Arbcom, and none by Jimbo, although I might have missed some. Thatcher131 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal