Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 2

Refactoring of RFAR

Whose bright idea was it to remove everything bar the links from the RFAR page itself? Considering the slow pace of the AC, I've appreciated being able to bookmark the main page and see the status (at least until the time of accepting or rejecting the case) of proceedings. Now, I'd have to bookmark another whole load of pages unnecessarily. I really don't see the purpose of the new design. Ambi 08:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Cunctator. VeryVerily 09:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, I agree there is an added inconvenience with this structure. But I also see Cunc's reasoning -- a lot of people are turning arbitration requests into a chance to renew the entire argument here. So each case fills at amazing speed with snide remarks, quips, outrage, and threats to leave. It overwhelms the page. Granted, I don't know if this new way is any better. I'm more than happy to hear other people's opinions, as I'm undecided myself. Jwrosenzweig 13:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious to know just how long the Arbitration Committee takes even to vote on a request. Shorne 16:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I too dislike the new structure. A lot. I think I'm going to revert unless someone comes in and presents better reasons to keep it. →Raul654 16:25, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. It may be worth adding in a link to some sort of comments page for requests that have still yet to be accepted as a case. Sometimes, discussion is necessary, but it's not good if it creates huge lag on this page. But the way it is now is a pretty poor solution. Ambi 09:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Gzornenplatz/Shorne/VeryVerily request

As a supplemental note, I would like to add that I believe if the Arbitration Committee hears and decides this case as presented, this would allow the Committee to dispense with several of the other requests that are currently pending. --Michael Snow 05:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the hearing of my case will resolve yours (or most of it). I refuse to coöperate with this case until my prior one is heard, and I find it scandalous that yours got a vote within seven minutes when mine hasn't had any attention in the three days since I posted it. Shorne 05:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, yours has nothing to do with Gzornenplatz. I would venture that the difference in how the requests are received is because I went to considerable lengths to present my request clearly - by specifically identifying the issue I'm complaining about, presenting the evidence, and saying what remedy I'm looking for. As to whether you "cooperate" or not, that's your choice. --Michael Snow 05:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mine is quite clear, as others have already agreed, and extensively documented as well. It continues to be ignored despite several requests for an answer. I suspect some sort of partiality. Shorne 06:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that requests should be processed in the order that they are recieved.

I would like to join the Gz, Shorne, VV arbitration. I have engaged in revert wars and have violated the 3RR on multiple occasions. Kevin Baas | talk 16:40, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

I've added you. Thanks. Shorne 19:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am currently involved in the mediation of a (potententially related) dispute between Kevin Bass and Gzornenplatz vs. VeryVerily. If the parties would please advise if this arbitration trumps the current mediation, I'd greatly appreciate it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:11, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring, pt 2

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)

'Matters currently in Arbitration' section is redundant

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)

It is helpful to have this section, although troublesome to keep up to date. The link to the templates is vital to set up the pages for a new case. I have restored it. Fred Bauder 13:01, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Just keep the link to the templates (which was already at the top of this page). --mav 01:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New requirements for evidence pages

One of the largest complaints about arbitration is that it is too slow. In an attempt to remedy this, the arbitration committee has decided to require that all evidence on evidence pages be formatted chronologically, with concise summaries of events and links to page diffs. User:Raul654/Plautus should serve as an example. Evidence not formatted this way may be summarily deleted.

The reasoning behind this is as follows - the slowest part of arbitration is arbitrators trying to understand what happened in a dispute. All too often, disputants do 'mental dumps' onto the evidence pages, making the job of sorting it out extremely difficult and time consuming. This requirement should serve to make this step it easier and faster. →Raul654 02:16, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I presume this applies to new requests, not to existing ones, right? Gady 02:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It applies to all cases that have not yet been opened, and (speaking for myself) it will be applied retroactively if there is a particular need for it (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence comes to mind). →Raul654 02:31, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Could the Arbitrators please incorporate this guideline into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence, so that future requests have a better framework to start from? -- Netoholic @ 17:36, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Yes, at some point, I'll endevour to do that, unless someone beats me to it. →Raul654 05:34, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Tried to do it. Thoughts? James F. (talk) 01:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dealing with the changeover

In a couple of weeks, there'll be seven new members, and at least two people presently active in voting upon cases will no longer be arbitrators. How are cases going to be handled where they've already voted? I can see potential quorum problems here. Ambi 00:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest the current AC deal with all cases that have been started before the changeover date. The New AC should only deal with requests started after that date. This means the old AC will still be active for a while and those who want to retire will not be able to do so immediately. But it will give the new members a nice clean slate. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the method I used was the best - let the new arbitrators decide which cases they want to get involved in instead of forcing them to get caught up on a dozen that are already in progress. →Raul654 02:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

That may work - but don't forget that when you came in there were only two of you newbies. This time there will be 7. As long as the old AC hang aroung for a bit, there shouldn't be any problems. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think your idea works, Theresa. It's probably the easiest way to handle this. Ambi 11:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not to be needlessly attentive to detail, but Theresa, it may be that the number of newbies is noticeably smaller than 7. There are three arbitrators running for reelection -- if all are voted in, that would leave only 4 new positions. It may not affect the argument much, but I thought I'd point out that it is at least premature (and possibly inaccurate) to say there will be 7 new faces. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doh - I never thought of that! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fred's proposal for dealing with changeover

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)

There's a reason I picked a one-year term rather than two ... - David Gerard 23:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Query concerning complaint against CheeseDreams

There is a new complaint against CheeseDreams, and I am listed as one of the complainants. However, I did not make this complaint. Someone suggested that it is actually CheeseDreams who is making the complaint. But I am confused. I looked at the template for requests and tried to make sense, but I can't -- The complaint is against CheeseDreams and has a list of signitaries such as Jayjg and John K. If CheeseDreams were making the complaint, wouldn't the complaint be against me and be signed by CheeseDreams? I do not want to screw up the process. If CheeseDreams is asking for arbitration against me, so be it. But I would appreciate it if Fred or someone on the AC could clear this up. It looks like I am supposed to be making a complaint right now, but I am not (I have put in a request for mediation, though). Slrubenstein 00:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A note - the list of "signatories" is part of the list of people who signed their support of the complaint on the RfC page. If you do not wish to be considered part of the issue, please remove your signature from the RfC page. If it is read carefully, this RfAr actually does not state that these people necessarily support the RfAr, merely that they hold the view, which the RfC page clearly states. CheeseDreams 01:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh no, I really have no problem with the "request for comment" page and am happy to sign my name to a comment there. But I did not sign my name to a request for arbitration. Right now there is a complaint against Cheesedreams on the RfA page and my name was attached. But I have not requested arbitration. I will keep my complaints to the RfC page, thank you very much! Slrubenstein

So you are stating that you do not want arbitration against me? This runs contrary to the statement you made within the last two days on the Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus page. Please explain. CheeseDreams 01:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am stating that it was not I who wrote the complaint against you currently on the RfA page, and that although my name was attached to the request I removed it because I have not officially requested arbitration -- that is all I am saying (that, plus I did comment on the request for comment page, but that is another matter). Slrubenstein

CheeseDreams wrote the entire RfA. No one, but himself, signed it. If you will notice, I responded to the RfA and requested it be denied on the grounds that he had neither fulfilled the basic requirments for opening an RfA, nor had he utilized any other dispute resolution. After reading the comments he added later, I am confused as to whether he is opening an RfA on the multiple people listed (who he did not notify), or if he is opening one against himself.--Josiah 01:31, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I am confused then, it isn't the RfA template. Are you saying CheeseDreams has forged a complaint by us against him? I am confused. Slrubenstein

No, I'm saying I'm getting confused against who he is making the RfA against. Is he wanting against us, or is he wanting a ruling about himself? (and listing our names, since we are the ones who have brought the RfC & RfM against him in the past/present.)--Josiah 03:04, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

That's the question I'd like answered as well; is CheeseDreams bringing an RfAR against us, or is he insisting that we bring one against him? It appears the former. Jayjg 03:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. The correct answer is I am bringing an RfAr against you AND one against me. Remember what the consequences are if one against me is rejected, or your side of the argument lose it. CheeseDreams 01:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are no consequences if a case against you isn't accepted, especially if you yourself bring the case. I can't understand your assertion -- in neither the American nor the British legal systems (nor any other I know) can someone sue themselves on behalf of another party, and certainly anyone who tried to couldn't ask for any consequences to be levied against that other party if the suit was dismissed. Your line of reasoning does not make any sense to me. What consequences did you envision would result? Jwrosenzweig 01:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is beginning to look like CheeseDreams is working toward one silent goal: the subversion of Wikipedia. He/she has made over 2500 edits in the course of a few weeks, most of them leading to confusion and contention, not only in article bodies but in namespaces, titles, dispute pages, etc.,. The current action against himself/herself is just the latest wrinkle. This is not just a case of a moody editor who gets into a lot of tussles. It looks like a conscious effort to get dozens of Wikipedians chasing after loose ends to divert them from the real work of Wikipedia. I think we need a sysop to refer this confidentially to Jimbo. JDG 06:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see, an attempt to subvert the whole RfAr process. Very grown up. CheeseDreams 10:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rerequesting

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)

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)

Has he been temporarily banned and if so, how many times and for how long? Fred Bauder 12:33, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams (again)

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)

We usually do add the material from RfC's to the case, but as it seems unlikely the case will be accepted he is just wasting his time not breaking policies. Fred Bauder 12:37, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistent selections?

Recent accept/reject decisions on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration seem to present a pattern:

• The RFAr User:ExplorerCDT, major charge "vandalism", is being rejected ("... failure to use earlier steps in dispute resolution process Fred Bauder 12:08, Dec 6, 2004") (UTC)"
• The RFAr Jayjg, charged "misuse of sysop powers", was rejected ("... violated policy, it was an isolated event not a pattern of wrongful actions. Fred Bauder 13:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)")
• The RFAr Arminius and Darrien, charges "misuse of sysop powers", was rejected ("... please request mediation.... Fred Bauder 12:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)")
• The RFAr Quadell, charging "abuse of sysop powers", has been rejected (" please follow the dispute resolution procedure rather than trying to taking this straight to arbitration. Fred Bauder 22:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)"), even though the complaint cited dispute resolution attempts.
• The RFAr CheeseDreams vs. a-cabal-of-"fundamentalists", charging "POV, revert wars, harassment... ", not accepted (except, Fred Bauder would accept "based on the need to examine [complainant's] behavior").

On the other hand:

• The RFAr Alberuni, charging "personal attacks", has been accepted, even though no mediation attempt is mentioned in the complaint.
• The RFAr CheeseDreams, charging "personal attacks", has been accepted, even though an RfC has just been opened, and there was no mediation by a mediator acceptable to both sides yet.

HistoryBuffEr 20:51, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

What is the point here? Everyone knows that I an CheeseDreams have been going at each other with multiple reversions and protected pages for well over five weeks; there have been extensive comments on the Request for Comment, and there was a mediation that failed. He misunderstand my comment about the mediation -- and I apologize if I mesled anyone else -- but we all accepted the mediator, mediation was attempted, Amgine and CheeseDreams withdrew because of their disatisfaction with the mediator, we cannot agree on another mediator -- this is what you call failed mediation. OBVIOUSLY if the mediation succeeded we wouldn't have to ask for arbitration. But you must be the only one on the WWW who is not sick and tired of my conflict with CheeseDreams and hoping for a speedy arbitration that will put an end to it! Slrubenstein

I share your dissatisfaction with the highly bureaucratic dispute resolution process (I was repeatedly unjustly blocked by a sysop abusing powers to settle personal scores, but was denied a hearing by this ArbCom). However, this post is only about the consistency of accept/reject decisions. HistoryBuffEr 21:33, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

HBE, Sorry, you misunderstand me. I am tired of CheeseDreams, but I am not tired of the dispute resolution proces which I do not regard as highly bureaucratic. Ideally, informal community processes would be enough to resolve disputes here, but as the community has grown, with many new members who are unfamiliar with the culture of the community, there developed a need for more formal processes. I think we actually came up with a pretty good system. I really don't understand your point about the consistency of decisions -- they aren't arbitrary, they reflect the judgement of people who have a very good sense of what is going on around here. You used my case as an example of one accepted for arbitration even though we have not exhausted other dispute-resolution mechanisms, when you are simply mistaken about the facts and the process. The record of our trying to resolve this dispute through others' comments and mediation is clear, and I think virtually every member of the community knows that, all other attempts having failed, arbitration is the only recourse. Slrubenstein

If you like the process then why not try mediation with an impartial mediator, as rules require? HistoryBuffEr 21:59, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

You must be tired or there must be some other reason why you do not understand what happened. If it really matters to you, wait until you have all your wits about you and go through the record of events carefully. We followed the rules step by step, and they led here. Why are you complaining? Slrubenstein

Different facts call for different solutions. Remember, they all come to arbitration in the end. Fred Bauder 21:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but evidence above suggests that cases of "sysop abuse" are regularly rejected and bounced back to DR (even if DR was attempted), while charges of "personal attacks" are promptly accepted without having to go through normal DR channels. HistoryBuffEr 21:59, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Personal attacks are a very serious matter that need to be dealt with promptly and firmly while claims of sysop abuse are often ambiguous and usually involve isolated instances. Fred Bauder 22:34, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming what evidence suggests. However, the rules do not state that "personal attacks" are more serious than "sysop abuse", and many would argue the opposite. Also, the rules do not specify exemption from DR for either class, so the double standard is doubly troubling.

Incidentally, your response confirms the validity of objections in my case and justifies my call for recusal.

HistoryBuffEr 23:52, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Err. No personal attacks was the first ever inter-personal policy on Wikipedia, handed down by Jimbo as fiat. It is, by far, the most important rule about behaviour (as opposed to actions, IYSWIM), and trumps anything else, pretty much.

Requirement for attempts at dispute resolution is something that we can hand down at our discretion, not something we are required to do in any and all cases; it is not a double standard per se, merely a reflexion of the importance which we feel the primary requires and deserves.

Further, the Arbitration policy is a guide to what we do, not a straight-jacket binding our primary job: to use common sense and policy to protect the project from harmful internal forces.

James F. (talk) 13:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are claiming a carte blanche for the ArbCom to do anything they please, with no rules or accountability. That is not likely to inspire much confidence in the arbitration process by the community. HistoryBuffEr 01:29, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

This is a gross oversimplification and distortion of what James said. We don't claim carte blanche -- rather, we reserve the right to exercise our own good judgment concerning how to apply policy to contingencies. We were elected for this very purpose. If arbitration consisted merely of consulting a guideline and applying the stated penalty, we wouldn't need arbitrators -- an AC is needed because each case is different. I have to believe that you know the difference between carte blanche (essentially no accountability) and allowing arbitrators the flexibility to respond differently to different cases. Jwrosenzweig 23:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• HB, I believe the reason the initial RfA concerning CheeseDreams was rejected is quite simply, the request was a mess. Additionally, he did not fulfill the basic requirement for a case to be accepted: He did not notify the users he was opening an RfA against. I was under the impression that all other methods of dispute resolution had been used with Alberuni. Outside of Mediation, what had not been done?--Josiah 01:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Election transition

Here is how we are going to handle the arbitration committee come January 1st, when all the new arbitrators' terms begin. We're going to assume they are recused from all cases started prior to their terms, unless they explicetely un-recuse themselves by voting in the case. This should allow them to ease into the workload instead of being thrown into the deepend like Jwros...g and I were in August.

Also, to determine term lengths, we are going to figure out which tranches are open (and thus, how manys seats of which term lengths are open), and give the new arbitrators the choice in order of their placement - thus, Theresa Knott gets first pick, followed by myself, followed by Ambi, etc. →Raul654 01:04, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, and probably every other editor knows this already, but of the following, who will actually be an abitrator as of January? All 15? Sorry if this is obvious. I'm having a bit of a slow day. Slim 05:42, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

As of 12/19

• Mark, aka Delirium -- delirium at rufus.d2g.com
• Fred Bauder -- fredbaud at ctelco.net
• James Forrester, aka Jdforrester -- james at jdforrester.org
• Sean Barrett, aka The Epopt -- sean at epoptic.org
• Mark, aka Raul654 -- mapellegrini at comcast.net
• James W. Rosenzweig, -- jwrosenzweig at yahoo.com (Access to Internet improving, but still somewhat limited.)
• The Cunctator -- cunctator at kband.com -- the Requests for Arbitration page is utterly confusing
• Lee Pilich, aka Camembert -- lee at audiblerecords.com
• Daniel Mayer, aka Maveric149 -- maveric149 at yahoo.com
• Nohat

Arbitrators-elect; take office January 1

• Theresa Knott
• Rebecca, aka Ambi - misfitgirl at gmail.com
• Sannse - sannse at tiscali.co.uk
• Ben, aka Neutrality
• David Gerard
• Steven Melenchuk, aka Grunt -- crazyr2 at shaw.ca

I have now fixed the list. All the uncrossed names will be the arbcom members come Jan 1. →Raul654 11:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Raul. Slim 21:54, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Who will be allowed to vote after Jan 1 on cases started prior to Jan 1 ? CheeseDreams 21:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And in connection with the above, what happens to the votes of those who cease to become arbitrators? CheeseDreams 21:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To repeat what I said above when I started this discussion = Here is how we are going to handle the arbitration committee come January 1st, when all the new arbitrators' terms begin. We're going to assume they are recused from all cases started prior to their terms, unless they explicetely un-recuse themselves by voting in the case.. By implication, all the old votes stay attached to each case. →Raul654 21:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

So how does that cope with the fact that the 50% margin on such cases after January 1st would be 2 votes? CheeseDreams 00:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to state that I am categorically opposed to allowing ANY of the new arbitrators to arbitrate on issues that were opened prior to the beginning of their terms, whether or not they "un-recuse" themselves. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:26, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Why? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tough. The arbitrators that were defeated/resigned have now ended their terms, and cannot hear any more cases, and these aren't going to sit in the void forever. FTR, Theresa and I both suggested that the outgoing arbitrators finish all existing cases, but this was opposed by several of them, such as Jwrozenzweig. In any case, it's too late to be having this discussion now. Ambi 00:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for complicating matters -- my fatigue was great. Certainly when Raul and I arrived we were expected to pick up cases mid-stream, and I don't recall there being any objections at that time. I do respect Dante's opinions (I'd say "Tough." was a little too brusque, Ambi, but that's between you and Dante), and I wish he'd said something earlier. If there were reasonable concerns about us old AC members not hearnig the cases we accepted, I would have gladly considered the issue and perhaps not have been so hasty to leave. The only objections I was seeing were logistics (which I thought was easily solved) and whether or not the new AC could get up to speed on the cases (but I didn't see why not -- two weeks was more than enough time to at least understand the principles in the cases, and I think enough time to cast well-considered votes). I agree, however, that at this point the bird has flown. Jwrosenzweig 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the old arbitrators should have finished out their terms by finishing what they had started. I wasn't aware that this had been suggested and rejected, mostly because I can't find any place that this was discussed. Forgive me for assuming that this would be the sort of important discussion that would have taken place openly and obviously. As for "tough", I'm so terribly glad to see the attitude of at least one of the people we so wisely elected as an arbitrator, I look forward to your rational and polite attitude towards case work, Ambi. My suggestion at this point is that, given the old arbitrators are NOT continuing, their votes be removed from any still ongoing cases. They can't both leave AND vote... that's clearly not fair. So, they need to make up their minds. Finish what they started, OR get out of dodge and remove their votes. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Dante, I'm sorry you're angry, but since arbitrators have "terms", I don't think anyone should have assumed that they would continue to serve after a term expired. The point about votes is well made, and I would ask that none of my votes be considered valid for any open cases. If necessary I will take the time to find them and strike them through, but I hope a simple declaration will be sufficient. Jwrosenzweig 03:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly angry, except perhaps with Ambi. I'm certainly satisfied if the exiting Arbitrators are removed from the votes of ongoing cases, I was just seeing a "have your cake and eat it too" sort of situation, but it's been remedied at this point. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:57, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

If you had stated this in the beginning, instead of being quite so rude, I think you would have found a significantly less brusque response, Dante. Ambi 01:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so VERY sorry, Ambi, I looked over my earlier message and I saw how terribly rude I was. I can't BELIEVE I had the audacity to state my opinion. Can you ever forgive me? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

My goodness!

I'm quite surprised at how quickly and eagerly the new arbitrators are working through the caseload. Just today, in fact, they closed two cases. I guess all those cases needed was a fresh pair of eyes, or several. Peter O. (Talk) 19:28, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Personally I find the over-eagerness to use their new powers somewhat unsettling. I know they have had a few days since the results came out to mull over all of those cases, but one wonders how much mulling they all did, particularly as many of them having been voting for far harsher sanctions than we've had previously. The year long ban on CheeseDreams, who seems to have much to offer (but has been going the wrong way about offering it) is extreme - why can't they encourage people to adopt Wikiquette rather than shoving them off the website? The case where Fred Bauder, one of the older ArbCom members, noted that there was, in fact, no supporting evidence for their decisions is particularly concerning. They are the new guards, but may I ask Et quis custodes custodiet? jguk 21:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not that there is no evidence; they just haven't cited examples in their findings of fact. Fred Bauder 00:15, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we need some sort of official Arbcom ombudsman? Neutrality^talk 22:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

That is indeed disappointing. A year-long ban from editing a whole range of articles? That's not what Wikipedia is about. Are arbitrators trying to outdo each other in harshness? They should try to outdo each other in tolerance. Everyking 00:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that the swift decision-making is probably motivated by this community's constant calls for arbitration to be more swift and less namby-pamby. I'm not claiming that I would have voted in support of all of the measures the new AC has decided upon, but I really think the community is seeing arbitrators who heard what the people were saying and are doing their best to fulfill the expectations of the electorate. If the community has, in fact, desired more care and tolerance in the AC's decision-making, I can assure you it has never been made known to the arbitrators (all I ever heard was how dreadfully slow and soft we all were). As someone who felt the criticism was always a little off-base, I would agree that they have moved more quickly and decisively than I would have advised, but they are responsible to those who elected them, and I applaud them for their commitment to do this. If the community desires something else from their arbitrators, then I hope the community will be far more clear in the future about what it wants, exactly, from its arbitrators (and I mean no offense at all to the fine names above me -- I'm not saying your opinions have no merit, and indeed I hope it's clear that I share them to some extent.....but having been on the other side of the line, I also know exactly what many many voices have urged the AC to do, and as far as I can tell they're simply following what they perceive to be the general will). Jwrosenzweig 02:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Of course it cannot be forgotten that all Wikipedians have the right of appeal to a higher power, and if anyone feels wronged by a ruling, I am sure an intelligent and rational note (that is low on ranting and Kentucky cuss words) would at least be given consideration. Jwrosenzweig 02:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think you're mostly right; I too often see that people want the rulings to be more swift and severe. But I worry that's mainly from a relatively small number of the most active Wikipedians, and I worry about politics replacing evenhanded fairness. We really need to respect the time and energy people put into this project. A one-year ban on editing all articles on a subject that is of particular interest to a person, in addition to a few other one-week bans and such, just seems excessive to me. I don't believe in that kind of treatment, and it depresses me to see it. It just doesn't seem constructive. Everyking 02:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. On the other hand, as someone who has had to deal with an extremely disruptive user before, I can say firsthand that long bans and subject-related bans can be effective. →Raul654 02:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying they aren't effective, I'm saying that the penalties that are being applied are frequently too harsh. Of course there are people that do little but cause trouble, and some degree of harshness may be required in those cases, but I see a trend towards stepping over the line. You guys came within an inch of applying a two month ban to three contributors just for revert warring. Everyking 03:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Just"?

Mind you, it's a case of being faced with a mountain of shite to deal with. I appreciate Dante Alighieri's views - old arbs for old cases, new arbs for new cases - but as far as I recall, the new arbs were always expected to help clear the old cases ... and that that was how it was done last time around.

We do have a pile of things to deal with (have you seen the evidence page in Jayjg and HistoryBuffEr? Just imagine you have to account for that lot in a fair manner), but we're trying to do it properly - David Gerard 23:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where's Antifinnugor?

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)

Yes, not sure who removed it or why but it is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor Fred Bauder 18:27, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)