259:
considered that unethical. However, if one of the ArbCom members is recused, presumably due to a conflict of interest or other similar reasons that makes him judge the case inappropriate, should not he be expected to abstain from trying to influence the non-recused members in any way? If he does discuss the case and shares his opinions in private forums, that still gives him/her the strong influence over the case outcome. Also, former ArbCom members, it appears, have an access to the list. It is probably a good idea. Former ArbComers may become ArbComers again and they are experienced in the matter which is also useful. However, according to the common sense the case needs to be decided by the sitting non-recused arbcomers. There are some reasons why some ArbComers are current and some are former ones.
64:"The Arbitrators will accept a case if four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it; unless otherwise specified by the Arbitrator's votes, a minimum twenty-four hour grace period will be granted between the fourth vote to open the case and the actual opening of the case. The Arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed without this occurring AND four or more Arbitrators have voted not to hear it, or if all but three active Arbitrators have voted to reject the case. Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested."
411:, I suppose I mean the ArbCom) to give the Arbitration Committee scope over deciding the outcome of ArbCom-mandated re-RfAs (following desysopings, votes of confidence to retain the bit, etc). It might make things a bit less arbitrary, as what we have right now is a "ArbCom-takes-away, any-b'crat-who-comes-upon-it-first-gives-back" system that is gameable, to an extent, since b'crats don't have to formally recuse if they are an involved party. If it took the form of a simple adendum to the existing case which led to it, it probably wouldn't blow up the system too much. --
31:
337:
If we had a system where the sitting arbitrators were not supposed to discuss the case in private with anyone but those sitting arbitrators, then what you are proposing would make sense - a recused or retired arbitrator should not be allowed access that others don't have. This is like the real-world
212:
Despite the template on top warns that editing the page should be given a considerable forethought and reach a consensus agreement, I don't see how this addition may be objected. If, however, my edit is reverted, I would take it that the consensus agreement is not reached. Then, please consider this
321:
Disenfranchising is the decision to recuse not the policy. Recusal is supposed to be disenfranchising, does not it? Retired arbitrators are supposed to be disenfranchised anyway at the moment of retirement, aren't they? I don't see it insulting as explained above, please elaborated how this insults
216:
I am adding this text believing in good faith that my addition is non-controversial, even presumed, likely followed anyway. But I think that stating this explicitly will assure a better balance between the understandable need to hold the arbitrators' deliberations privately and meeting a reasonable
206:
Recused arbitrators are not expected to discuss the case with other arbitrators when they act through the private communication channels such as ArbCom mailing list, email, IRC and personal communications. At the same time, they are not explicitly prohibited from joining the case, such as making an
121:
I raised a query on the interpretation of the phrase "voted not to hear it." it seems straightforward but I wondered if one should also count recusals as well as rejections. Mindspillage says that her interpretation is that recusals don't count, only rejections. So perhaps the wording could be
392:
I'm not trying to burden the committee with more process, and in general think admins lacking the ability to count votes is probably a good thing, but isn't some clarification needed here? If an uninvolved editor can't figure out the voting procedure, a involved party may find it more troubling.
258:
Let me explain my reasoning. Being able to share one views in the
Arbitrator's mailing list gives any participant a significant influence towards the case outcome. For instance I would have never contacted an Arbitrator personally if I were, god forbid, the party of the case because I would have
266:
the arbiters arrive to certain decision. I am not advocating switching to public deliberations at all. But we normally expect to know who is deciding on the case and we expect them to be currently sitting non-recused arbitrators. As such, it seems that the such a gag on the private discussions
550:
You can attempt to contact Jimbo via email or his talk page. To appeal to the committee, you can file it like a regular case. I suggest that appealing at the present time would be fruitless, since your case was just decided. After several months of demonstrated good editing (or if you can
280:
I object to it. I believe that it is an unnecessary rule; that it excludes only one group of the many that can contact the arbcom in private about open cases, all of whom may be persuasive and biased; that it insults the integrity of the sitting arbitration committee; and lastly, that it is
186:
page, which includes "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" and "Other users who endorse this summary." Then there are all of the editors for the article in dispute, some of which aren't involved with those other pages. I'm sure what "community" means or what constitutes "consensus."
496:
This was raised on the
Village Pump, but I'll ask it here. The page currently says: "Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to veto by, Jimbo Wales." ... is this still the case? I thought that Jimbo had more or less removed himself from such matters. --
300:
As for non-enforceability, I agree. It would have to rely on the code of honour. I don't see how it insults the integrity though. To the contrary, having a provision that can only be based on the code of honour emphasizes the integrity rather than insults it.
382:, and as a hopefully disinterested observer, i found the committee's voting procedures a bit hard to follow. The case seems to have opened and closed with eleven members available to vote, yet as the case progressed various members became active or inactive
393:
Maybe if committee members were to declare their availability for a particular case—and await a quorum—then voting would be easier to follow. Wouldn't that be a simpler procedure that the current overall tracking of active/inactive members?
232:
There is currently I believe no prohibition on anyone discussing a case in private forums with sitting arbcom members, whether they are recusing arbcom members, people involved in the case or the
Knowledge (XXG) public in general.
551:
demonstrate that others are taking improper advantage of the case) an appeal might be considered. I am only aware of two appeals granted in the last year by Arbcom, and none by Jimbo, although I might have missed some.
70:
here, we have the problem that if none of the remaining
Arbitators vote to reject, it's possible that this will neever be accepted or rejected. (I'm not saying it could happen here, just noticing it's a potential flaw.)
322:
you. Impractical or not is a matter of opinion. Unnecessary or not is a matter of opinion as well. I explained the rational above. Please explain what's wrong with it. Anyway, let's see what the community says on it. --
118:"The Arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed without this occurring AND four or more Arbitrators have voted not to hear it, or if all but three active Arbitrators have voted to reject the case."
431:
The talk page here has gotten kinda long... I was going to archive but wanted to make sure it wasn't supposed to stay in one place (perhaps for historical or reference reasons). What say ye? /
332:
Recusal and retirement are not supposed to disenfranchise people compared to every other
Knowledge (XXG) editor/admin. They just mean that one doesn't get to decide arbitration cases.
389:
when members abstain from voting on a particular remedy. What would have happened if members had voted in the final decision and then had become inactive before the case closed?
179:
379:
84:
We always have a contingency plan of use common sense. In the unlikely event of such a situation occuring we will discuss the matter and come to a decision.
74:
Is this deliberate, causing a wait for more
Arbitrators to become inactive, a flaw in the system, or is it something which there is a contingency plan for?
385:
and two of the members inactive when the case started ended up voting in the final decision. There also seems to be a question about what constitutes a
207:
outside statement or collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages as an ordinary party, while such practice may often seem controversial.
183:
182:, where arbitration was initiated, and that group is probably different from those who actually contributed arguments to that page. Then there's the
421:
170:
The project page says "The
Arbitrators will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus."
460:
Is there any need for policy remedies given to editors, to be commensurate with "Findings of fact", or any other part of the process?
174:
case is in mediation. There's one group of people participating on that page, but there's a different group of people listed in the
343:
That isn't what we have. Restricting recused/retired arbitrators more than random members of the public does not make sense.
125:"The Arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed without this occurring AND four or more Arbitrators have voted
47:
17:
352:
290:
242:
535:
507:
I believe it is still the case, even though his official title is now "Chairman
Emeritus." I guess it's sort of like
531:
533:
255:
What would be the opinion of the sitting arbitrators to implement such a proposal and make it part of the policy?
146:"a majority of Arbitrators active on the case" not likely to be a big problem in any given case, but eventually...
38:
361:
I agree. A recused/retired arbitrator should be treated the same as any other well-established non-ArbCon editor.
151:
89:
252:
Thanks for the response. This is useful to know. I contacted arbitrators exactly to obtain the consensus.
67:
If we have a situation where we have 10 active
Arbitrators, 2 recuse and 3 reject As is currently the case
133:
479:
171:
552:
442:
267:
between the recused (possibly due to a conflict of interest) and non-recused arbitrators seems proper.
148:
417:
270:
Does any of the sitting arbitrators object to this ammendment and the reasons behind it? Thanks, --
102:
75:
85:
555:
541:
519:
501:
486:
467:
445:
435:
397:
365:
356:
326:
315:
305:
294:
274:
246:
221:
191:
136:
105:
92:
78:
530:
one goes about an appeal? I note that some
Arbitration case just state that they are an appeal
338:
court system, in which judges are restricted in their conversing with others regarding a case.
515:
the leader, but the leader in reality. (No offense meant by the comparison there, Jimbo.)
348:
286:
238:
538:
483:
464:
386:
457:
Is there any requirement for a policy remedy to be explained, ie. why it has been given?
413:
508:
432:
498:
188:
344:
311:
I agree with Morven; unnecessary, disenfranchising, insulting, and impractical.
282:
234:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
394:
362:
323:
312:
302:
271:
227:
I reverted your change. Please get consensus before editing, don't assume it.
218:
516:
217:
expectation of the community for the clarity of the ArbCom procedures. --
156:
129:, or if all but three active Arbitrators have voted to reject the case."
61:
The section on request procedure for RFA's seems to have a slight flaw:
482:
and Caution? (I can find nothing on Caution, and its implications) --
281:
impractical, since its compliance cannot be monitored in any event.
159:
25:
101:
I thought it would be that. Thank you for your prompt reply.
383:
68:
463:
Is there any procedure to appeal a policy remedy? --
114:Procedural interpretation of rejection criterion
8:
262:The community does not need to know exactly
201:I added directly to the page the following.
374:Active committee members and majority votes
441:I archived everything earlier than 2006.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
537:. Is this all that is required? --
407:Has it occurred to anyone (and by
24:
29:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration
478:What's the difference between
398:16:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
357:22:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
327:20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
316:20:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
306:19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
295:19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
275:19:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
247:18:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
222:06:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
556:14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
542:13:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
520:06:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
502:05:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
468:19:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
446:19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
366:19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
487:16:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
436:09:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
422:13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
106:09:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
93:08:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
79:08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
574:
511:in his heyday, officially
137:19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
192:01:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
57:Requests - infinite loop
213:as a proposed change.
166:Definition of community
378:I stumbled across the
345:Matthew Brown (Morven)
283:Matthew Brown (Morven)
235:Matthew Brown (Morven)
474:Probation vs Caution?
42:of past discussions.
526:Does anyone know
403:scope for re-RfAs
54:
53:
48:current talk page
565:
33:
32:
26:
573:
572:
568:
567:
566:
564:
563:
562:
494:
476:
454:
452:Policy remedies
429:
405:
387:simple majority
380:Intangible case
376:
199:
168:
144:
116:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
571:
569:
561:
560:
559:
558:
545:
544:
523:
522:
493:
490:
475:
472:
471:
470:
461:
458:
453:
450:
449:
448:
428:
425:
404:
401:
375:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
340:
339:
334:
333:
319:
318:
298:
297:
250:
249:
229:
228:
210:
209:
198:
195:
176:Who's involved
167:
164:
143:
140:
122:clarified to:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
108:
96:
95:
90:Taste the Korn
58:
55:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
570:
557:
554:
549:
548:
547:
546:
543:
540:
536:
534:
532:
529:
525:
524:
521:
518:
514:
510:
509:Deng Xiaoping
506:
505:
504:
503:
500:
491:
489:
488:
485:
481:
473:
469:
466:
462:
459:
456:
455:
451:
447:
444:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
426:
424:
423:
420:
419:
415:
410:
402:
400:
399:
396:
390:
388:
384:
381:
373:
367:
364:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
336:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
317:
314:
310:
309:
308:
307:
304:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
277:
276:
273:
268:
265:
260:
256:
253:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
230:
226:
225:
224:
223:
220:
214:
208:
204:
203:
202:
196:
194:
193:
190:
185:
181:
177:
173:
165:
163:
161:
158:
154:
153:
150:
141:
139:
138:
135:
130:
128:
123:
119:
113:
107:
104:
100:
99:
98:
97:
94:
91:
87:
86:Theresa Knott
83:
82:
81:
80:
77:
72:
69:
65:
62:
56:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
527:
512:
495:
477:
430:
412:
408:
406:
391:
377:
320:
299:
269:
263:
261:
257:
254:
251:
215:
211:
205:
200:
175:
169:
147:
145:
134:Tony Sidaway
131:
126:
124:
120:
117:
73:
66:
63:
60:
43:
37:
553:Thatcher131
443:Thatcher131
36:This is an
539:Iantresman
484:Iantresman
465:Iantresman
152:Farmbrough
480:Probation
427:Archiving
157:29 March
127:to reject
433:Blaxthos
197:Recusals
178:section
499:Visviva
189:-Barry-
162:(UTC).
39:archive
492:Appeal
409:anyone
313:Jayjg
155:13:43
142:Fluffy
395:EricR
363:Perel
324:Irpen
303:Irpen
272:Irpen
219:Irpen
149:Rich
103:J•A•K
76:J•A•K
16:<
517:6SJ7
418:blis
180:here
172:This
160:2006
528:how
513:not
414:nae
264:how
184:RfC
355:)
301:--
293:)
245:)
132:--
88:|
416:'
353:C
351::
349:T
347:(
291:C
289::
287:T
285:(
243:C
241::
239:T
237:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.