note about the March 13 arbitration report |
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 413: | Line 413: | ||
==[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-13/Arbitration report]]== |
==[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-13/Arbitration report]]== |
||
Just a note. The [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2]] arbitration case closed three days ago (a few hours after you wrote your report). I really appreciate your work on the Signpost by the way. I look forward to reading it every week. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface|talk]]) 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
Just a note. The [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2]] arbitration case closed three days ago (a few hours after you wrote your report). I really appreciate your work on the Signpost by the way. I look forward to reading it every week. --[[User:Pixelface|Pixelface]] ([[User talk:Pixelface|talk]]) 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:David is also an [[WP:AC/C|arbitration clerk]] and would know that the case closed. I've made comments like this to him sometimes too and the answer is that there has to be a cut-off point sometime or the report will never be finished. I'm sure he'll be reporting on the final decision in this case next week. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:34, 13 March 2008
See Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6 and Archive 7.
Signpost
Hello, I've noticed that your arbitration report says that NE2 ignored consensus at WP:HWY. This is not correct; this took place at WP:USRD. Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. Too many damn wikiprojects! David Mestel(Talk) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost
The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-07/Arbitration report says that five new cases were opened, but lists only four. (Sorry to bother you with this - and thanks for all your good work!). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Dbachmann RfAr Case
Hi, would you mind explaining your summary on the project page, or point me to where the procedure is explained? It has to do with Proposed Remedies #3 and #3.1, of which you transfered only 3.1, even though both passed. Does the numbering convention require that only one of any such grouping is to be included in the final decision, and if so how is the choice made among multiple passed versions? Thanks! (Please reply here, I'll check back.) rudra (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good question. There is currently no well-defined system for determining which of alternative proposals pass (all proposals with subsidiary numbering, like for example 3, 3.1 and 3.2, are alternative to each other), although I have set out some thoughts about what such a system should be here. Generally, clerks set out their thoughts on closure in the "Implementation notes" section, to be commented upon by arbitrators. In my close, I relied upon the fact that Daniel commented "finding of fact 4.1 ... appears from first reading to have a stronger "first choice" preference ... with remedy 3.1 being in a similar situation to finding of fact 4.1", to which no arbitrators. Additionally, both proposals appeared to have the same number of first choice votes (five), and 3.1 is more recent and has fewer opposes. David Mestel(Talk) 15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- A few things, in no particular order:
- Excellent start with the essay. The lack of a formal procedure is definitely a hole in the arb process, inviting snafus such as inadvertent exercise of judgment by the clerk based on implicit assumptions (that is, the clerk isn't aware that he should really ask the arbitrators about something, because the answer seems "obvious", when in fact it isn't) and the potentially severe problems with any resolution mechanism that arise in the (albeit rare) situations where more than two alternatives exist (see, e.g., Arrow's impossibility theorem.) Explicit rules are certainly preferable. I'd like to see your essay aired for feedback and eventual inclusion in the process pages.
- I think Daniel was referring to 4.1 and 3.1 being similar in neither of them having yet passed at that point, rather than in apparent strength of preference. In any case, it may be a good idea to add a note on your reasoning to the Implementation Notes section, just for completeness.
- I'm not so sure about your late addition to the rule-set with respect to times, especially when the times aren't far enough apart: if they're both part of the same login/edit session, the one further down the page could have a later time-stamp simply by virtue of one's working habits. OTOH, if the arbitrators were aware of your rule in advance, and consciously took it into account, then it could work, as they could obviate a default "wrong" choice by adding an explicit indication. I realize that you used the rule to break the tie in this particular case (James F.'s votes), but there's room to argue that this could have been an "obvious answer that really wasn't".
- One final detail, on a completely different matter, having to do with archiving. The FoF:4/4.1 cite evidence in the /Evidence page that exists only virtually, by template. It may be good idea if you, as the clerk for the case, subst-ed it to get the actual contents into the page history, lest the evidence morph in the future.
- Thanks for the reply! rudra (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- A few things, in no particular order:
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI
You may be interested discussion concerning vote-counting procedures regarding Everyking's appeal, now being discussed on WP:RfAr and on User talk:Thatcher. I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Commented on WP:RfAr David Mestel(Talk) 16:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
--Nadir D Steinmetz 09:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks :-) David Mestel(Talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
--SMS Talk 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 18:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Bah, I missed it! Happy birthday, David. Now GET BACK TO WORK! :) Ral315 (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, thanks to all. Much appreciated :-) David Mestel(Talk) 18:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note. The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case closed three days ago (a few hours after you wrote your report). I really appreciate your work on the Signpost by the way. I look forward to reading it every week. --Pixelface (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- David is also an arbitration clerk and would know that the case closed. I've made comments like this to him sometimes too and the answer is that there has to be a cut-off point sometime or the report will never be finished. I'm sure he'll be reporting on the final decision in this case next week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)