Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flcelloguy (talk | contribs) at 01:15, 8 February 2007 (→This issue still needs to be resolved: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Arbcom-talk

• ]

Archives

January 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – January 2005 January 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 June 2005 – July 2005 June 2005 – July 2005 July 2005 – September 2005 September 2005 – October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 – open

Proposed new voting schemes

Since it looks like we really want the voting scheme for accepting cases changed, I'm going to list the one's that have been put up for consideration here. If I've missed one, add it in. Keep all comments in a separate section, this one is just for listing the proposed alternative methods. --Barberio 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1. "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after receiving four net 'accept' votes (i.e., accept minus reject votes) or has accept votes from a majority of the total number of active, non-recused arbitrators. Otherwise, a case will be opened if it has received more accept than reject votes as of 10 days after filing."
2. "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after at least six committee members have voted and there is a majority of votes. Requests not accepted after ten days will be removed."
3. "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after two net accept votes are cast; that is, two more accept than reject votes. Requests not accepted after ten days will be removed."
4. "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after at least four accept votes are cast, and two net accept votes are cast; that is, two more accept than reject votes. Requests not accepted after ten days will be removed."
5. "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. Requests not accepted after ten days will be removed."

Discussion of wording of alternatives

Removed "expeditiously." The clerks will always observe a 24 hour waiting period. Additional arbitrators may wish to vote (affect the net total) or there may be private discussion that would result in changed votes. Thatcher131 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. By expeditiously, I didn't mean "instantaneously," I meant "without waiting for ten days." Newyorkbrad 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbiero, you left out, four "accept" votes and two "net accept" votes, with both being required for case acceptance. This proposal seemed to have some support earlier. It avoids the acceptance of cases by a "bare majority" but allows acceptance in several situations where a case would now be rejected, such as 4-1, 5-2, 5-3, 6-3, 6-4, 7-4, 7-5, etc. Proposal #3 above would have the same result but, because it has no minimum number of total acceptances, it would also allow acceptances with votes of 2-0, 3-0 and 3-1, which I have not seen any support for. In effect, the two-part proposal (4 total accepts and 2 net accepts) separates the "quorum" requirement from the "vote" requirement, which is fairly typical in decision-making systems. 6SJ7 16:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been resolved by Barbiero's addition of what is now alternative # 4. (Thank you.) 6SJ7 16:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on alternatives

There are 15 arbitrators on ArbCom, but you will rarely see more than 8 voting... -- Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but that may or may not last as the new arbitrators get more active. Newyorkbrad 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue still needs to be resolved

This discussion has petered out again, which remains understandable, since there are far more interesting things to be discussed, both on the arbitration pages and in the actual encyclopedia. Still, I would urge that the Arbitration Committee revisit the issue of the required majority to accept a case and resolve it. As of now, the "four net accept votes" rule remains in effect, even though I suspect that of the alternatives above it would enjoy the least support.

If the matter isn't addressed, the issue will blow up when some hugely controversial case gets a vote of something like 8-5 to accept it, and an arbitrator removes the case from the page with the comment that the case was rejected/declined because it didn't have 4 net support votes, and at that point someone will say he or she didn't know that was the rule, and there will be a long discussion about the matter, except then everyone's comments will be suspect because there will be a feeling that they are driven by views of the underlying case rather than the abstract vote-counting issue. And if the rule is changed then, there will be protests about "changing the rules in the middle of the game," which always become heated and emotional. I know the committee has a more than full plate to deal with, but I still urge that this be addressed now. Newyorkbrad 20:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Sorting it now makes a lot more sense than waiting until it causes problems. Trebor 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. This needs to be looked at now, since there has already been a case that might have been accepted under other methods, and it's rejection appears controversial rejection of a majority opinion. --Barberio 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I'll bring this up on the mailing list for some more discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(Just an update: this is being actively discussed. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like most of us favored the status quo, although several (myself included) did prefer other acceptance schemes. (I thought that option number four - the two net votes with a minimum of four accept - was the best choice.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Appeal removal

My appeal request was removed on the grounds that, at 5-2, it was mathematically impossible to get approval to accept it. I will accept the math on faith, but it seems that, if there is at least significant minority support for reconsidering the penalties, the ArbCom should be willing to tell me a time when it would be willing to listen to another appeal request, assuming that the ArbCom finds none of my behavior objectionable in the meantime. Everyking 04:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not dismissed with any prejudice, so you can always relist it if you feel circumstances have improved. It may be better to get in touch with a few of the arbitrators before relisting to get their opinion on the matter - testing the waters, so to speak. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually did "test the waters" prior to the appeal request and got a favorable response, which is why I made the request. And the only way circumstances could improve is through the passage of time (by further increasing the length of my uncontroversial record), which is why I'm asking the arbitrators if they can specify a certain length of time they would like to pass before I make another request. Frankly, I don't feel your comments pertaining to my case (here and in the request discussion) are informed enough to be useful, and considering the sensitivity of the situation I find it difficult to avoid taking offense at them, rightly or wrongly. Everyking 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem lies in the fact that really, such a matter is entirely subjective, and does not lend itself to hard-and-fast numbers. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say no appeal is appropriate before the ban runs its course. Fred Bauder 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So why did you vote to accept the appeal? Everyking 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, if you did not feel an appeal is appropriate, then why did you put forth agreement to hear it? I'm assuming good faith that your opinion has changed or something needs clarification ... but that seems off to me. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume that, although Fred voted to accept the appeal, now that the appeal has been rejected, he believes no further appeal would be "appropriate before the ban runs its course." Paul August ☎ 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Some feedback would be appreciated. If the ArbCom is discussing this in private, please say so, because I'm getting the feeling this is being ignored. Everyking 07:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As said above, I don't believe that the rejection of the appeal means that you can't re-appeal at any time. However, even as one who voted to accept the appeal, I would strongly recommend you wait some time to strongly demonstrate why the current restrictions should be lifted, or why the situation has changed since we last looked at it. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said: I intend to wait some time, but I'm hoping the ArbCom will give me a ballpark figure about how long a period this should be. There is a key problem, though: did the ArbCom reject the case because not enough time has passed, or is the amount of time irrelevant because, as Raul argued, I have not repented? Only Raul was explicit about this; I don't know whether the other arbitrators fall into the "wait longer" or "thought crime" groups. Everyking 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If the arbitrators refuse to give me a ballpark figure or give me any information whatsoever about what will satisfy them, they could at least say that so I don't sit here waiting for a response for days and days. What is the point of not responding? Are they just trying to annoy me? Well, it works, but I would like to think the arbitrators are above that kind of thing and can at least deal with people honestly. Everyking 10:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyking I sympathize with your obvious frustration. Can you please be more specific about exactly what response you are waiting for? Do you want every arbiter to respond to your questions? Here is mine. First, I do not know of any ongoing discussions on this matter. Second, I have made no judgments on the merits of your recent appeal or any future appeal. Third, a new appeal in the near future would be inappropriate. If you want a ballpark figure, I would recommend waiting several months. Regards Paul August ☎ 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I was specific; I said I was hoping to be told how long a time should pass before I make another appeal. The other issue is that I am concerned that some arbitrators (Raul specifically, but others may hold his view as well) may not be willing to accept an appeal at any time, regardless of my actions or lack thereof, because they want me to say that the ArbCom's judgments in past cases have been correct, which is something I cannot truthfully do. But according to Raul, if I do not say this it is likely that I will go back to doing whatever the ArbCom did not like before as soon as the restrictions are lifted. My reply to this is that my less controversial behavior is due to prudence and a concern with getting effective results, and there is no reason why that would change if the restrictions were lifted. If the ArbCom is going to reject any future appeal, regardless of how much time passes, simply cause I will not confess make-believe sins, then I would really like to know that now, as opposed to finding it out the hard way upon making another appeal in three or six months. Everyking 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that I cannot speak for the rest of the ArbCom, have I answered your question adequately? Paul August ☎ 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you say "several months", I guess that means you think that the passage of time without controversial behavior should lead to lifting of the sanctions? Everyking 00:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(I also hope that I've answered your questions adequately, being one who voted to accept your appeal. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)