Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 2

message: I've partially un-done Cunc's wildly unpopular refactoring of this page. He was correct in that this page is becoming far, far too chatty. In general, the ONLY people who should be posting here is the complainer and the arbitrators. Everyone else (including the person against whom the complaint is being lodged) should discuss on a seperate page. Thus, the new format is: 
* Complaint
* Link to page for dicussion
* Votes by arbitrators. →Raul654 07:26, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
:I like the partially-unrefactored version, but with one problem; my entire participation in the VeryVerily RfA has now been left orphaned at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/VeryVerily. Perhaps a link to that subpage could be included? Bryan 23:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactoring, pt 2

message: Argh! Way too much duplication in this set of pages. Let's start reducing this by getting rid of the 'Matters currently in Arbitration' section and just use Template:ArbCommOpenTasks instead. If there are no objections, I will implement this myself in a few days. --mav 04:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just keep the link to the templates (which was already at the top of this page). --mav 01:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Matters currently in Arbitration' section is redundant 

message: Upon the designated date (January 1?) for taking office the new arbitrators are full arbitrators, but become active, and thus counted in the total, when they begin to participate by voting on a request for arbitration, adding to or voting on a proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitrators#Active. They are immediately able to vote on all pending cases, but have quite a bit of catching up to do. Optimally, they have done a bit of homework before the election. Hopefully, they can help to break some of the deadlocks in pending cases such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gene_Poole_vs._Samboy/Proposed_decision. Arbitrators who have not been re-elected or have resigned are no longer arbitrators and cannot vote to accept cases, change prior votes or add to proposed decisions after the end of their term or date they resign.
Note that I propose that votes previously cast by a retiring arbitrator count. And that all new arbitrators can participate in all pending cases.
As a practical matter, it takes a bit of work to cast even one vote on anything. In practice it involves doing research on the evidence the parties have presented which can take a half hour or more. So regardless of any rule we might make a new arbitrator will ease into their role at the pace they set for themselves. There is no requirement that an active arbitrator vote on any particular case. The only consequence of not voting is that since an arbitrator not voting is counted in the total of active arbitrators the number of votes required is increased. Fred Bauder 13:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
:I am happy with Fred's proposal, or with any proposal that will mean I never have to cast an arbitrator's vote again. :-) I am more than happy to remain involved in discussions concerning cases as an Arbitrator Emeritus or whatever you all want to call me (other than Late for Dinner), especially if any new arbitrator feels they would benefit from the ideas/perceptions/perspective of someone who's been on the AC.  I am also more than happy to not see RfAr again for six months or more. :-)  Whatever will be best -- but the sooner I'm completely free, the happier I'll be. Jwrosenzweig 20:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a reason I picked a one-year term rather than two ... - David Gerard 23:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fred's proposal for dealing with changeover

message: We're having trouble with Jimmyvanthach who is breaking his ban and whose behaviour IMHO merits a hard ban.  Can we go back and rerequest arbitration decision?  Can we ban him anyway? Dunc|☺ 18:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunc, I'm afraid that, if the ability to temp-ban Jimmy for reinserting edits on prohibited articles is insufficient to stop his behavioral issues, you do have to file a second case.  The cases against Irismeister may serve as an example -- he was taken to arbitration three times, as the consequences imposed the first and second times were insufficient (in the eyes of the complainants and the AC, ultimately) to stop the problem. Jwrosenzweig 01:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rerequesting 

message: CheeseDreams has opened up the RfA page already, without any decision to accept the case (and it appears his "case" will be rejected). Furthermore, he has copied the RfC on him on to it, without anyone agreeing to move the RfC to the RfA. Is this not a violation of multiple policies?--Josiah 03:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
:RfAr page darling. Note the last letter. CheeseDreams 10:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CheeseDreams (again) 

message: Antifinnugor has been removed from "Current requests for Arbitration", but I can't find it under "Matters currently in Arbitration", or any other heading (although it does appear at the top of the Template:ArbCommOpenTasks, under "Evidence"). I suppose a slip? --Bishonen | Talk 17:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor/Evidence|''Antifinnugor'']]?