→Policy on voting: cmt |
|||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:Shit. Mea culpa, I thought I had voted on all the Mathsci findings of facts, but I seemingly missed the crucial one. I'm actually stumped at what the pricedural process is now... [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 05:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
:Shit. Mea culpa, I thought I had voted on all the Mathsci findings of facts, but I seemingly missed the crucial one. I'm actually stumped at what the pricedural process is now... [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 05:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route, [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
::Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route, [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::I am relieved that Roger Davies and other arbitrators have addressed and will further address the problem of proxy-editing. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)<small> duplicated and unnecessary comments refactored from here - apologies to Roger Davies and other arbitrators</small> |
|||
:::I would request that even at this late stage arbitrators rephrase that finding, since, even if Courcelles made a slip, it was not passing clearly. The evidence of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam shows neither a pattern of personal attacks (which diffs?) nor any ideological stance that I supposedly have (which diffs?). My understanding is that the diffs they gathered were a catalogue of the times that I had mentioned either Captain Occam or Ferahgo the Assassin on wikipedia: for example on the AE2011 election page of Jclemens, where I responded to a question of Casliber, and on the workshop page of the abortion arbcom case. It is true that the finding echos what Captain Occam stated on wikipedia on [[User talk:Ludwigs2]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=prev&oldid=423209894][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=prev&oldid=423229296] and similar statements posted by the pair on external websites. These are extreme and unbalanced statements by two users who have been actively involved in [[WP:gaming the system]] for two years now (since May 2010). Now that the review has closed, it is evident that the pair were irritated to be found out and were reluctant to accept any reponsibility for their own actions even up to the end. I am relieved that Roger Davies and other arbitrators have addressed and will further address the problem of proxy-editing. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Duplicatory. Please keep discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review/Proposed decision|'''centralised here''']]. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
:::Duplicatory. Please keep discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review/Proposed decision|'''centralised here''']]. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::I have replied there. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 09:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
::::I have replied there. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 09:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:13, 14 May 2012
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Edit request
On Template:Casenav please change "Decision posted" in second line section to "Proposed decision" to be consistent with T:AC Nobody Ent 12:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
So arbcom passed a remedy admonishing Mathsci for battlefield conduct without actually passing a finding of fact saying that he engaged in battlefield conduct. Heh. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Shit. Mea culpa, I thought I had voted on all the Mathsci findings of facts, but I seemingly missed the crucial one. I'm actually stumped at what the pricedural process is now... Courcelles 05:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route, Roger Davies talk 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am relieved that Roger Davies and other arbitrators have addressed and will further address the problem of proxy-editing. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC) duplicated and unnecessary comments refactored from here - apologies to Roger Davies and other arbitrators
- Duplicatory. Please keep discussion centralised here. Roger Davies talk 08:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route, Roger Davies talk 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Policy on voting
How far back can arbiters change their vote? Do they need approval from the committee to make such a change? Where in the rules is the right to change ones vote after the close ensconced? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the above incident, there was no change of vote. Courcelles voted on the remedy along with a comment which showed his intent, and his understanding of the issue, but had forgotten to sign off the finding. The guideline for the Clerks is "If there are any ambiguities concerning which proposals have been adopted, the Clerk should identify them so the Arbitrators have an opportunity to clarify them before the decision is finalized and announced". Slips happen, and now that the matter has been identified appropriate action has been taken. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Right, so how far back can arbiters go back and realize they voted wrongly? I have a very specific vote in mind where an arbiter very specifically complained about how they would have voted differently in a circumstance, so I want to know if that complaint was before or after the deadline. Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know which case you have in mind but there's a very big difference between changing your mind and promptly correcting an error or omission. There isn't arbitration-specific policy on this but the ""Not" policy says "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request". Roger Davies talk 12:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- How does the committee determine that something is "changing your mind and promptly correcting an error or omission," vs "changing your vote?" What is there to protect users from someone going back 3 years to change their vote on something? Can ex-arbs change their votes in closed cases? How about disgraced ex-arbs? Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's OK to change one's mind about something - indeed, it can be a sign of reflection. I am quite comfortable with the notion that an arbiter makes a vote for an action and then changes it during a case. Indeed, I did it myself in the just closed Race & Intelligence case when more information was presented. When the case is closed then a vote itself cannot be changed, but the arbiter may later change their mind about making the vote, and is entitled to say so. For reasons of stability of the project, Committee decisions are binding, but that does not mean they are always right, nor that everyone in the Committee agrees with them, nor that a Committee member will not have regrets about voting for a particular remedy. A request for amendment can be made if a remedy appears to be inappropriate, though there is an expectation that - depending on the amendment request - a reasonable time is given to allow the effects of the remedy to be felt. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- It appears to me that one can change their mind on something right up until the point a decision is made, and then you can't. Perhaps you disagree - as in this case, where you obviously disagree, in that you believe someone can change their vote after a decision was made, undoing the decision and reforming it in a different way. How long before a decision requires a "request for amendment," as opposed to just canvassing arbs that you think might change their vote after decision are made? Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not an arb, but I would compare this to the practice of judges correcting an opinion after issuing it but prior to publication with issuing an order amending the prior opinion. Either way works, but the correcting prior to publication works only so long as it hasn't been published. Translating that to the wiki-world, I would say that after the point the decision has been archived from WP:AC/N, it should require an amendment to change as it has been "published to the archive," while the notice page itself is a bit like a slip opinion. MBisanz talk 17:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Quick question
Hello, just a quick question. It appears Risker gave the net fourth vote on closing the Rich Farmbrough case a bit of 24 hours ago. Could an arbitrator clarify whether it will be closed within the next, say, 12 hours? I'm asking so I know whether to list the RF case as closed for my Signpost article. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably not, as it's a weekday and the clerks may not be immediately available to do it. Roger Davies talk 13:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- All right. Thanks! -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I might try to get to it today or tonight. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- All right. Thanks! -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)