Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 8

message: It has 4 accept votes; why hasn't something been done with it? I realize the filer has been blocked (which might cause some trouble), and the issues it relates to have passed (to my knowledge), but it just bugs me to have it moldering at the bottom of the page. ~~ N (t/c) 19:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn’t just DreamGuy. There are four unopened cases, including Ultramarine, whose case has been sitting there for nearly a month. Susvolans ⇔ 07:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do. Fred Bauder 16:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "sitting there for nearly a month" And yet Ed Poor's case was opened and closed in a week. FuelWagon 19:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DreamGuy case just sitting there 

message: Is there a reason that cases waiting to be accepted aren't transcluded as separate pages?  Not only would it allow people to watchlist only the cases they're interested in, it would serve as an easy way to see how long a case has sat unedited.  -- Norvy (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that suggestion.  Since many of the RfArs become lengthy, this page is not really scrollable, and has to be navigated by branching to sections anyway.  Why not branch to subpages?  Robert McClenon 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitrators need to use it to vote, once branched off it will be hard to locate the cases and vote on them. And yes, arbitrators have lost cases and thus neglected to attend to them. Fred Bauder 22:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This may not be a good idea, but what about including only the names of the principals and the arbitrators' views on accepting the case on the main page, and transcluding the statements by the parties?  Robert McClenon 23:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is convenient for us to have them both on the same page so you can view the presentation, then vote. (However, actually deciding involves a lot of jumping around to take looks at what the parties are talking about). I think the actual problem is the failure of the Arbitrators to promptly decided the various matters one way or the other and move them off. Fred Bauder 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion 

message: The revert warring of the Ted Kennedy article, and gaming of the 3RR system by sockpuppets, has resumed.  Should I add the details to the RfAr, or is the mention here sufficient?  Robert McClenon 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recused myself. "Fat turd" seems appropriate to me, but your efforts to influence the decision need to be brought to the attention of those arbitrators who have not yet voted. putting it here is not likely to influence them. Fred Bauder 19:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thought better of this and accepted the case as it is about the anonymous user, not Ted Kennedy Fred Bauder 16:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 24.147.97.230 Update

message: Is anything happening here? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one seems to have gotten to it yet, but I think the upstream logjam has finally been broken. Fred Bauder 12:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stevertigo 

message: Just curious, but from the two new recent cases involving the Polygamy article — they went through mediation with Andre, and it failed. Because the arbitration policy states that "The Arbitrators will hear disputes that have been referred to Arbitration by the Mediation Committee.", does that mean that all cases referred to by the MedCom will automatically be accepted? I'm not making any comment on the current case, but as a mediator, I'm just curious and would like to know for future reference. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  14:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion acceptance would not be automatic but almost certain. Fred Bauder 15:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Was polygamy referred to arbitration by MedCom?  Sort of, perhaps. If one party refuses mediation, does that reduce the odds of that person having arbitration accepted? I am involved with the polygamy dispute, so I am biased here.  There is reason to bring polygamy to arbitration, unfortunately. So the answer to the question will probably not affect this case. Nereocystis 17:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that one person refusing mediation should be seen as a way of mediation failing to resolve the dispute.  Clearly, if mediation succeeds, there is no need for arbitration.  The effect on the dispute is the same if one person refuses mediation, or if the mediation fails because the principals do not agree on the scope of the mediation, or if the mediator concludes that there is an impasse.  Actually, in the case in point, it appears to me that it was not a case of a user refusing mediation, but of failure to agree on what would be mediated.  All of the steps prior to arbitration have been tried.  Robert McClenon 20:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Your description of the current impasse is better, and more neutral than mine. Nereocystis 20:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just curious... 

message: FYI: Gabrielsimon (AKA Gavin the Chosen), the block from his Arb case having expired, is back and editing under the name . ~~ N (t/c) 18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gabrielsimon back 

message: I agree with Carbonite.  The concept of a jury system is implausible although not impossible.  Also, if FuelWagon is suggesting that a jury trial system could eliminate the need for an ArbCom, then he misses a basic point about jury trial works.  The jury only decides the facts.  The judge instructs the jury as to what the standards are for deciding the facts.  In particular, in a criminal case, the judge instructs the jury as to what the elements of each criminal charge are and how the law should be considered.  There is one judge in a jury trial, in addition to the six or twelve jurors.  Jury trial does not eliminate the need for judges (arbitrators).  It only changes their duties somewhat.  
Also, jury trial works best when the legal standards have already been well established.  In 2005, judges have clear well-defined precedents on what the difference is between first-degree murder and second-degree murder, or what the difference is between misdemeanor assault and felonious assault (in any given state, province, or country).  The ArbCom is still in the process of defining its principles.  Usually an ArbCom decision results in a restatement of principles that have been previously stated, but sometimes also in new statements of principles.  The development of precedents is not done by jurors, but by judges.  
Jury systems have occasionally been used without judges, such as in ancient Athens.  Socrates was tried by a jury of 500 citizens, and was sentenced to death by poison.  I think that most students of that case consider it to have been mob rule disguised as justice.  I think that the idea of a jury system without judges is an experiment that has already been tried and should be concluded to be a failure.
If the intention is to speed up arbitration, then the solution might be (as I mentioned earlier) to assign one arbitrator to each case.  This would resemble the way that a traffic court, for instance, is conducted in most states of the United States: trial by one judge, with the right to appeal, that is rarely exercised.  
There is one situation in which a jury system might be useful.  Since a jury is called on to decide facts, not law, it might be an interesting idea to consider whether content disputes could be mediated or arbitrated by jury, that is, by a panel of uninvolved but responsible Wikipedians.  That sort of jury duty could be voluntary.  I think that some Wikipedians who do not want to serve on the MedCom or ArbCom might volunteer to be called for panels to resolve factual issues.  Robert McClenon 22:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Socrates was condemned to death, therefore juries don't work? How about people who put other people on their "killfile" are generally not the best folks to decide facts of a case? If someone has a long enough history with another person, their opinion of any action being considered for judgement will be colored by a long history with that editor. This goes both for and against the editor being judged. The arbcom specifically mention Ed Poor's long history of contributions to wikipedia in deciding whether or not he broke a specific policy in recent events. And admins guilty of pov pushing have learned it is most productive to travel in packs to resist opposition on the talk page, to support each other if an RfC is filed, and to suggest arbcom not accept a case if it gets to that point. Wikipedia's dispute resolution system rewards those who travel in packs, those who support each other without question regardless of actual policy. The side with the greatest numbers wins, regardless of whether or not those same numbers, those same editors, show up consistently on multiple pages, backing each other up on all sorts of disputes. Arbcom themselves has favoritism based on how long the editor has been contributing, that they cannot always be trusted to decide facts from a completely neutral point of view. The fact of a current event should not be colored by how long the person has been contributing. The facts of a current dispute should not be determined by how many revert-buddies an editor has accumulated over time. The facts of a case need be determined by editors who are not involved with either side, and who play no favoritism to how long someone has been contributing or how many revert-buddies the editor in dispute has accumuulated. FuelWagon 15:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that juries don't work.  I said that juries without judges to instruct them run the risk of mob rule.  If you are arguing for a jury system without judges (as it appeared that you were), then please at least propose some sort of concept or framework that can be brainstormed.  If you are arguing for a jury system with a presiding judge, then please at least propose some sort of concept or framework that can be brainstormed.  Robert McClenon 18:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I said that when a subjective interpretation of policy is needed, you could use a jury and wouldn't need arbcom. I meant you wouldn't need arbcom to make the interpretation. If you want to have some poeple who are familiar with policy give the jurors instructions on applicable policies, that's fine. but you don't need arbcom to make the interpretation as to whether or not someone violated "harrassment". It is a subjective interpretation that would best be made by jurors. The idea would basically be that a case brought to arbitration would have the same form it always has, all the evidence would be presented by all the parties. You could either have some "judges" or "jurors" acting as judges to simply decide on matters of form, whether something is admissable or not, whether some evidence is relevant or not, whatever. Then when the form is complete, when all the evidence is submitted, you could generate a jury pool to make the actual finding of fact. At that point, you would know all the parties involved, and could apply some sort of objective metric on editors to find out how much interaction they've had to determine whether they can be a juror for a particular case. I proposed an automatic tool for determining this interrelationship between editors here. You could make policy stating that any editor with some number (500?) of edits could be a potential juror. Then they submit their name to this tool, which then looks at all the pending arbitration cases, compares their interactions with the interactions of the editors involved, and assigns them to an arbitration case. Randomness is also an important factor in generating a jury. You don't want silent friends or enemies to be able to sign up for the case they want to judge. You need to have a juror apply to the system and get randomly assigned a case that they are not involved with. If a juror says "I want to decide this case", then its a bit of a sign that they have some sort of investment in the outcome and shouldn't be making the decision there. FuelWagon 18:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments on jury trial idea

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor2 looks like it's being used as ammunition in a battle over "who's right" in the evolution-creation debate. Uncle Ed 13:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  It is incomplete both procedurally and substantively.  It is filed in the wrong place, and it fails to present any case.  Ignore it.  Robert McClenon 20:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolutionism isn't even a word, why does he get to make up words? this is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to use words that really exist, not just made up words that make fun of science, yet he creates articles based on these made up words, such as, oh I don't know.. evolutionism a non-word with its own article, oh and evolutionist, and whole host of other non-words with articles, created/defended by guess who--Bah' 00:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for fun: "The Poverty of Evolutionism: A Critique of Teubner’s Case for Reflexive Law." Law and Society Review (1986) 18, s. 273-289. "Complex Adaptive Systems, Evolutionism, and Ecology within Anthropology: Interdisciplinary Research for Understanding Cultural and Ecological Dynamics," Georgia Journal of Ecological Anthropology, Vol. 2 1998. Cohn, Frederick. Evolutionism and idealism in ethics  Omaha, Neb., Press of Douglas printing co., 1909. "Evolutionism, yesterday and tomorrow", Kaleidoscopic past: proceedings of the 5th Nordic TAG Conference, Göteborg, 2-5 April 1997, edited by Anna-Carin Andersson, et al., Göteborg University, Dept. of Archaeology, 1998. El_C 03:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: evolutionist n. a person who believes in evolution as explaiing the origin of species. evolutionism n. evolutionistic adj. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition). And Evolutionism is a separate article from Evolution why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 05:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a separate article now? Well I'll be hounded by felines! Sorry, that's felines! El_C 05:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I'm looking forward to playing the abovetitled Creation sim. It's like you're a god, except that you're science! Of course, evolution is used in other natural and social scientific, cultural and artistic contexts. El_C 05:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationsim

message: I will be out of regular Internet access as of 19 October, for nearly 3 weeks.  If the polygamy cases are accepted soon, I can present my evidence quickly, then allow other evidence gathering to take place in my absence. Otherwise, there will be a 3 week delay before I can present my evidence.
I request that polygamy be accepted quickly, but can live with a delay. I understand that the arbitrators are busy. Nereocystis 16:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Today. Goto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence and start in. Fred Bauder 16:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of Internet access soon, request acceptance of polygamy cases

message: What if they gave an arbitration and nobody came?  I see that one case was accepted for arbitration in late September 2004 and no evidence has been entered yet.  
This is sort of a self-answering question.  Either evidence will be entered, or the ArbCom will answer the question in how they deal with the case.  Robert McClenon 22:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this be the "Louis Epstein" case? The impression I got was that, although the user's habits were unusual, he wasn't actively sabotaging Wikipedia and would have been a tricky customer to deal with fairly. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the Louis Epstein case.  I considered it to be a silly punctuation war.  I think that the filing parties thought that damage was being done because every time he edited a page, he reformatted it to be consistent with his standards, which are not the same as the Wikipedia Manual of Style.  I agree that it would have been a difficult and subtle case.  However, the ArbCom did accept the case, and so presumably was prepared to have to address those subtleties.  However, the filing parties have not entered any evidence.  The complaining parties went to the effort of filing the RfC and then the RfAr, and now have not entered any evidence.  It is true that that means that the arbitrators do not have to decide how to deal with this user.  Robert McClenon 15:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An Off-the-Wall Question

message: I requested that a case be opened for arbitration.  It has been opened.  If I would like to suggest that the ArbCom state certain principles about what Wikipedia is and is not as the basis for how the case is decided, is there a specific means for doing this?  Can I enter suggested principles in the Workshop subpage, or should I propose them on a talk page?  Robert McClenon 22:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may put them directly on the /Workshop page. Fred Bauder 00:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Not-So-Off-the-Wall Question

message: Can we get this case worked on, please? I understand ArbCom is busy, but once the block against him and MSJapan expires for violating 3RR, the edit war will continue, and it's very frustrating. He doesn't listen to consensus, he just does whatever it is he wants to push his POV. Thanks. -- Spinboy 21:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A temporary injunction is being discussed on this case's workshop. Kelly Martin 00:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Lightbringer]] on [[Freemasonry]]

message: I was wondering... I understand and respect the fact that the ArbCom takes their time to examine the evidence and draw conclusions. However, I notice that even when a motion or proposed remedy has sufficient votes to pass, it is often not acted upon for several weeks. I can understand waiting for a couple days for the other AC'ers opinion, but waiting for weeks seems over the top. Wouldn't it make sense to put in a motion to close at such a point? Or am I missing something? Radiant_>|< 23:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Name a case Fred Bauder 01:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was already blocked indefinitely Fred Bauder 13:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Two contradictory remedies have passed; we remain deadlocked in our discussion Fred Bauder 13:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Just reopened Fred Bauder 13:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Usually we are discussing something Fred Bauder 13:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that these questions are typical of concerns that the ArbCom process is slow.  I see several unavoidable reasons for its slowness.  First is the fact that the arbitrators are volunteers who have other things to do also.  Second is the fact that the arbitrators take their work seriously and act with deliberation.  There are also reasons that are the result of the current ArbCom system that could possibly be addressed by changes, such as having cases heard by panels rather than the entire ArbCom.  I don't know whether this is the right talk page to discuss such ideas.  What do the arbitrators think?  Robert McClenon 11:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right page. Not sure what the practical effect of panels would be. Fred Bauder 13:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the long wait? 

message: What a fair hearing I received here.  Here's my response, complete with an order issued by the United States District Court, Utah Division from Judge Kimball.  You have 3 days to remove the page Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey from this site after Wales is served.  If it's not down by then, I will file an order to show cause.  Thanks for the fair treatment and hearing in this matter (NOT!).   
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, UTAH DIVISION
10/20/2005
PROCESS OF SERVICE JIMMY WALES
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION
Certified Receipt Number 7004 2890 0004 7705 2544
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
1058 East 50 South
Lindon, Utah 84042
Telephone: (801)427-3547
Facsimile: (801)427-3547
Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION 
JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY
Plaintiff
PLAINTIFF JEFFREY VERNON  
MERKEY'S NOTICE OF COURT
ORDER TO JIMMY WALES AND
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND
WIKIPEDIA
vs. 
Case No:  2:05-cv-521 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Honorable Magistrate Samuel Alba
AL PETROFSKY a.k.a. SCOFACTS.OR, et. al.
 
Defendant. 
TO THE PARTIES NAMED WE SEND GREETINGS:
Jimmy Wales
Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia.com
200 2nd Ave. South Suite 348
St. Petersburg, FL  33701-4313
Plaintiff Jeffrey Vernon Merkey respectfully serves notice of an order filed in United States District Court placing the Novell/TRG Settlement Agreement under Seal of the Court which is attached at Exhibit 1.    It has come to our attention that various individuals on the Internet have posted the terms and excerpts from this sealed document to your website, Wikipedia.com.  These materials are strewn throughout the page Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey and the history and talk pages for this article on your website.  It appears that Alan P. Petrofsky has been using your site in concert with one of your administrators, Frank V. Waveren, a member of the Linux Community residing on the Netherlands to post and distribute these materials.
You are served with Notice that these materials are confidential and are subject to an order sealing their contents by the United States District Court.  You are respectfully requested to remove such materials immediately from your site.  Please feel free to contact me directly at 801-427-3547 for information detailing the specific pages contained on your site which contain these materials.  
We thank you in advance for your prompt attention in this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
	DATED this 20th day of October, 2005.
JEFFREY VERNON MERKEY, Plaintiff
-----------------------
Information for arbitration: This is typical behavior for Jeff Merkey... if he does not get what he wants he threatens with lawsuits. See  http://scofacts.org/merkey.html for his previous attempt.
--Kebron 00:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem. If the Novell/TRG Settlement Agreement is confidential and notice is served on us that the confidentiality order applies to us, we should comply. The situation was somewhat ambiguous previously; now it is cleared up. Notice that he "respectfully serves notice". Seems to be a gentleman. Fred Bauder 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I looked at the notice again, I wonder how the confidentiality order could apply to us if we were not parties to the case. Fred Bauder 01:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: At any rate, it quite clear we have absolutely no business trying to arbitrate this matter Fred Bauder 01:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though he can't seem to actually get the address of this site right; it's wikipedia.org, not wikipedia.com. *Dan T.* 01:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It is quite possible information from the agreement is on Wikipedia, but this is the kind of complicated question of fact and law we are not equipped to resolve. Fred Bauder 02:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.  I have changed my vote to "reject," this matter has grown beyond our ambit. Merkey is banned for life or until all legal matters are cleared up (including this alleged order), whichever comes first. As a banned user, he is estopped from bringing arbitration cases.  ➥the Epopt 14:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text moved from [[User:Gadugi]] vs. [[User:Fvw]]