Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:54, 27 August 2021

Revision as of 12:20, 15 September 2021

Line 340:

:I suggest that it is because the voluntary absenteeism was that, voluntary. This is the place where the hard and binding decisions are made, where lines are drawn, editors blocked or banned, and such decisions made that can only be overturned by appeal to this body (or Jimbo, although that is now deprecated). The language of suggestion and compromise was appropriate for the voluntary process - and note that there were exceptions included with some agreeing parties statements - but here there should be intent and firmness. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

::Agree entirely. After a dispute is so exacerbated that is comes to ArbCom, it should be dealt with firmly, hopefully once and for all. These remedies merely push the issue until the first person asked to avoid the issue doesn't, as Lar points out. '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<fontb colorstyle="color:navy;">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</fontb>''']] ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk]]</fontspan>]])'' 22:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

:(after E/C with Lar) Because that was a temporary resolution, until the arbitrators formed their decision. It wasn't intended to be a long-term solution to the atmosphere surrounding the topic.

Line 408:

::::::Oh, come on. Don't go there. Much as I disagree with the PD, that is not a way forward. '''[[User:Horologium|<font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium</font>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]]</small> 22:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

*Let's calm the rhetoric down, shall we? '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<fontb colorstyle="color:navy;">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</fontb>''']] ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk]]</fontspan>]])'' 22:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

::I don't see rhetoric, I see a statement of fact ("waste of time") and disillusionment over Kirill's statements that he can't be bothered to read the evidence. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">[[User:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:110%;font-family:Mistral">GregJackP</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:GregJackP|<span style="color:#900;font-size:60%">Boomer!</span>]]</span> 02:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Consider that perhaps people might see evidence differently than yourself, especially if you are an uninvolved party. Rather than seeing Kirill's statement as he couldn't be bothered to read the evidence, have you considered that he may instead feel it is not ArbCom's place to analyze a set of individual diffs so closely looking for borderline calls? Calls for desysopping, removal from the case, and even removal from ArbCom (Kirill is a reelected Arbitrators &ndash; no mean feat by itself &ndash; and even so received one of the highest supports at the last election!) should be entirely out of the question. Horologium and Tony Sidaway say it much more concisely than I. '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|<fontb colorstyle="color:navy;">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</fontb>''']] ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk]]</fontspan>]])'' 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

*Please extend good faith to Kirill's approach. As arbitrators, we occasionally propose an entirely different way forward from a conflict, in the hopes of finding a better mousetrap in complicated problems. Some proposals may end up being rejected, or tweaked beyond recognition, or may end up being the Holy Grail; but that doesn't mean they should not be put forward and proposed because they ''might'' not get traction. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]} 23:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)