Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 6:
: Perhaps the appropriate sanction for all the melee participants is to make them wait indefinitely (not infinitely) for the proposed decision to be rendered. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 14:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:: I think there's a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, although perhaps that doesn't apply here. On a serious note, while I can quite sympathetic to the complexity of the case, and the need to take the time to get it right, the last we heard (IIRC) is a notice on the 19th that it would be 48 hours. Surely an update is warranted, even if only to say we don't know.--<
:::48 hours ''minimum''. ~ <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small></font> 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:::: Fair point, but I don't think it is an unreasonable request to have someone say A. We are close - we hope within a day or so but no promises or B - this is tough, it will be several days at least. --<
:Leaving a contentious area in limbo is potentially harmful. There was a recent incident where some well-meaning Arbs (including one of the drafters of the PD) started making unilateral proposals for some pretty sweeping sanctions and remedies on one of the case talk pages, and a recused Arb started suggesting out-of-scope directives to case clerks. An Arb declared that "''The Climate Change Topic board, AN/I, etcetera, no matter their original intent, have been co-opted by the various members of these disputes to be battlegrounds''", so we're really running out of venues in which to seek any sort of dispute resolution at all. Obviously, this is a problem. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Line 63:
:::::::Interesting. Just a couple of posts above, you said "I'm in a better position to know what's on the arbitrators' minds than you," and now you're saying "I wouldn't know, I'm recused." [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::The arbcom mailing list is open to all arbs, regardless of whether they are recused or not. I suspect that the mailing list is not being used for specific discussion for individual cases, which would nicely explain why CHL has a good idea of the general state of mind of the arbs without knowing exactly when they will put up a proposed decision. '''[[User:Horologium|<font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium</font>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]]</small> 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you for resolving the apparent contradiction. I did not realize this was how the mailing list worked.Yeah you did know, you liar. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Several of the arbitrators are a sort of drafting task force for this case. I don't know what they're up to, or what their plans are (although it's plainly obvious that the decision is not written yet, let alone preordained). As for Jimbo emailing arbcom-l about AGW or this case, it hasn't happened. I suppose you couldn't rule out covert individual lobbying, if you really insist on assuming bad faith, but I haven't seen any evidence of it whatsoever. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 16:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Jimbo did make a ruling relevant to climate change and the editing of Wikipedia [[WP:Waste of Time|see here]]. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 15:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Line 345:
:I'm tempted to ask if the decision took 6 years. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
::I'm tempted to ask for a copy of the decision... In all seriousness, I'm posting here by way of an update to say that work on the proposed decision ''is'' progressing, but it will likely be a few more days to a week before anything is ready for posting. I'm not saying this as a drafting arbitrator, but as an arbitrator looking over the shoulder of those working on the proposed decision (i.e. if a drafting arbitrator posts something that contradicts this, then ignore what I said). Having said that, my proposal to re-open the workshop still stands, but I'll post about that below. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 23:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
::: Thanks for the update. While the delay is frustrating, and unclear timelines are frustrating, lack of information is even more frustrating (at least to me). Even this limited information means I can plan to work on something this weekend that I might not otherwise have wanted to start. --<
::::Carcharoth: Yesterday, Rlevse said they "''should (hope ;-) ) to have have a PD up this week.''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse&diff=prev&oldid=378417686] and Risker said "''I expect we're looking at Friday night or Saturday for posting''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARisker&action=historysubmit&diff=378387850&oldid=378383224] Has something changed since then? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 23:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Line 392:
*In the "bad old days" (2 or 3 years ago :) ) sometimes cases would go for many months from the start of posting workshop stuff to the end. Way longer than this one has. However in the "bad old days" we never had the working set pages locked down. I can imagine why some folk are happy with no decision... they are the folk who are going to be reined in so of course they're in no rush. Me, the Proposed Decision can't come soon enough and I think, as I have said multiple times already, and perhaps will say multiple times again, the arbs should post what they have so far, and they should drop the stifle. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
::Concur with Lar please post the decision and we can all get to sorting out the issues. A month is too long. [[User:Polargeo|Polargeo]] ([[User talk:Polargeo|talk]]) 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
::: ''the arbs should post what they have so far.'' I've thought about that but can see some potential problems. Suppose the arbs are in agreement that three editors (all skeptics) should be banned for three months. But they are deadlocked regarding three editors who are not in the skeptic group. Some think those editors should be banned for a year, others think those editors should be applauded for persevering the face of pressure. (I hope this is unrealistic, but just trying to make a point). If they simply post the proposed ban for skeptic editors and are silent about other editors, it may be difficult to react appropriately. --<
::::Any hypothetical stuff you mention should have been sorted out in the last month. This is no excuse. [[User:Polargeo|Polargeo]] ([[User talk:Polargeo|talk]]) 16:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Line 400:
:* If it is 90 hours, don't sweat the open enforcement requests. If it is 90 days, then they should be addressed as if there were no arb case.
:* If it is 90 hours, then a voluntary break from editing CC articles is an admirable step, even if some choose not to include themselves. Make it 90 days, and you're opening yourselves up for trouble.
:* If it is going to be 90 days, for goodness sake, let us know, so we can plan accordingly.--<
[[Image:SiegeofAntioch.jpeg|thumb|right|150px|Another way, perhaps, to think about how complaining editors may be coming across]]
*I'm very sympathetic to the desire to find out what is coming, and I agree that it would be helpful if arbiters would post some of what they have and/or provide more information on what to expect about the revised time frame. But, that said, I think the complaining here appears strident, and insensitive to the fact that the drafters are three volunteers, one of whom has had a death in the family, and all of whom are human beings with multiple demands on their time. It would be a good idea to follow the advice of some editors above, and find something else to do, instead of demanding that heads roll. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Line 427:
::::::How about people treat each other as if they were in the same room, and there was a danger of getting trounced for obnoxious behavior? [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Polargeo's edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dago_dazzler&action=historysubmit&diff=379214919&oldid=379186992 here] amounted to vandalism because it left the article in an odd state. Add that he did it because he's following someone he's in a dispute with. Then add that ''he's an admin''. So yes, a 24-hour block at a minimum, but Polar really needs to stop this kind of thing, or face desysopping or banning. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
::::::::I'm appalled that you believe the mindreader someone sold you works reliably over the internet. Or do you have other sources of absolute [[WP:TRUTH]] like "he did it because he's following someone he's in a dispute with" (which literally makes not sense, and under reasonable interpretation shows a bad failure to assume good faith)? --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::That I appall you notwithstanding, he followed John there because of a dispute that's currently before ArbCom, and he made a disruptive edit, which has led to this discussion, and it's all a bit childish, so he should quit it. And you should quit defending it. Not to mention that that mindreader was one of my more sensible purchases. [[User:SlimVirgin|<
::::::::::I'm not defending it, I'm reserving judgement until PG has had a chance to comment. I think you should do the same and not call for <s>stoning</s>blocking before you have more than one sided speculations. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::You aren't defending it? I'm surprised. WMC has also followed me around to several esoteric non-CC related articles to either revert me or take the opposite position. This seems like more of the same, but a rather clear-cut example. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
<-- The slap on the wrist by Jimbo may not resolve all the issues, but it's a start.--<
: Or more likely, just an odd coincidence.--<
::He asked for it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=379212644] And he's askin' for it in this case. -- [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] ([[User talk:JohnWBarber|talk]]) 00:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
*Sorry I genuinely felt that my edit was legitimate. The section was a completely unreferenced dicdef it looked very like original research to me. However, as there has been a complaint I will happily leave the article alone and be extremely careful not to have contact with [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]]. I would like to add that I had no contact with him that I know of before he popped up in this case and started asking for me to be desysopped, blocked and banned with some venom. He obviously has some personal hatred of me and I really don't understand where he got it from. [[User:Polargeo|Polargeo]] ([[User talk:Polargeo|talk]]) 12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
== Page about to be archived ==
| |||