Vested contributors arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 13:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps there's an interesting metaphor in the fact that they can't even figure out what they want to call the impending mob action. Maybe it should simply be "The Committee for Civility versus the Main Enemy of the State" and they could synchronize the ban to take effect on Jimbo's birthday as an offering to the supreme leader... Intothatdarkness 19:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Turbulent Priests ‑ iridescent 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Or just "The Spanish Inquisition" a'la Monty Python...since that's about how ridiculous they look. Intothatdarkness 19:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: I think you'll find that should be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Turbulent Priest, singular. It all reminds me of the first play I ever appeared in, Shaw's The Shewing-Up of Blanco Posnet. I played the Foreman of the jury, and I only had one line: "Hang 'im". --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It was simple. The drafter came up with a case title, some editors said it was biased, and so the title was changed within the day. It was about being responsive to editors' comments. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting journey. I suppose, as Juliet once said, "What's in a name? that which we call a rose, ... ", would be apt. Quite fascinating as well, is the abandonment of the workshop. Perhaps a quick and merciful end is at hand? Although I'd like to think there would be a few dissenting voices willing to speak their minds. — Ched : ? 16:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- The cynic in me says the workshop is unnecessary because the actual decision has already been taken on Arbwiki so this case is just going through the motions, and none of the arbs want the hassle of a workshop. (Keeping track of a fast-changing workshop page is one of the most soul-destroying parts of being an arb, as you end up having to read the same passages 30 or 40 times as people make minor changes to it or comments about it.) I've commented in the past about how in the Golden Age of Wikipedia we used to get arbcom cases in which it was possible to predict the outcome before a word had been typed, just by looking at the named parties and examining their previous history with each of the arbs; this case looks set to be a return to the Spirit of '07. (Assuming the Active list doesn't change and GW stays recused, "Eric banned" defeated 3-8, "Kirill desysopped" defeated 0-11, "Yngvadottir's bit restored" passes 5-4 with a few abstentions, "Eric and Yngvadottir admonished" passed unanimously, "Kirill admonished" defeated unanimously or 1-10, "Black Kite desysopped" locked at 4-4 and too close to call which way it will tilt.) ‑ iridescent 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting journey. I suppose, as Juliet once said, "What's in a name? that which we call a rose, ... ", would be apt. Quite fascinating as well, is the abandonment of the workshop. Perhaps a quick and merciful end is at hand? Although I'd like to think there would be a few dissenting voices willing to speak their minds. — Ched : ? 16:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Turbulent Priests ‑ iridescent 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I suspect you are quite accurate. I wouldn't have predicted the Yngvadottir bit restoration; like judges, Arbs don't like to be disrespected, but I do hope it's accurate. I agree that Black Kite may be reaching the end of his EC:rope, but I'm not sure there's anything actionable in this case. I would hope that there's enough support to allow Eric to continue his work here. Given the squatter's rights possession, and recent declaration - I'd also think it's still a matter of borrowed time.
- To be honest, I've always had reservations about the "workshop", as it seemed to serve more as a vehicle for venting than a productive step in resolution. I've never been convinced that all the arbs actually do read all the evidence, let alone the workshops posts. There always seem to be a few quick votes based on preconceived impressions, often followed by the "what he said - she said" variety. I won't knock any of the individuals, but this particular committee may well exceed the '07' achievements(?). While the "out of the box" thinking can be great - with all the constant format changes and such, it's certainly confused many a editor. — Ched : ? 17:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not something I expected ever to say, but this committee is seriously missing NYB and Risker. I may not have agreed with them often, but they had the ability to keep discussions on-track and to rein other arbs in when they started seeing themselves as masters rather than servants. (There are others on the committee who get this, but none who are as good as those two at articulating it.) I stand by my comments here; I get a distinct feeling there are too many people on this iteration of Arbcom who see Arbcom as some kind of Supreme Court of Wikipedia, with themselves as petty gods and the clerks as their high priests, and are trying to use it as a tool to shape Wikipedia into what they think it ought to be, rather than "a panel of editors with the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors". Thinking about the people who are likely to stand, I have a horrible feeling next year's incarnation will make the current batch look like Solomon—particularly if this proposal goes ahead, there will be a lot of people voting who don't already know the people involved and don't care enough to read all the statements, which will probably mean victory for whichever candidates shout the loudest. ‑ iridescent 17:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, although it is seldom that I found myself in disagreement with NYB. I would also include Carcharoth; although, he was never as proactive in the art of persuasion. Frankly, I think perhaps the committee has grown too large/diverse in numbers as well. While diversity works well in content creation, I prefer a more singular and focused voice in authoritative positions. I am a bit torn on the "proposal",
asI believe in equality for all, and yet that's really not what the proposal is about. Still, I must admit to leaning toward your views as I've seen that poorly educated/informed voters often make very poor choices. (also, your post on NYB's page was indeed well said and researched) — Ched : ? 19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)- I tend to think that the current campaign to somehow increase the number of voters without first taking serious steps to include/attract better-qualified candidates will only accelerate the politicization of ArbCom. Intothatdarkness 15:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose we could offer free cell-phones, or perhaps see if anyone from wp:rip wants to vote. /sarcasm. — Ched : ? 15:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to think that the current campaign to somehow increase the number of voters without first taking serious steps to include/attract better-qualified candidates will only accelerate the politicization of ArbCom. Intothatdarkness 15:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, although it is seldom that I found myself in disagreement with NYB. I would also include Carcharoth; although, he was never as proactive in the art of persuasion. Frankly, I think perhaps the committee has grown too large/diverse in numbers as well. While diversity works well in content creation, I prefer a more singular and focused voice in authoritative positions. I am a bit torn on the "proposal",
- It's not something I expected ever to say, but this committee is seriously missing NYB and Risker. I may not have agreed with them often, but they had the ability to keep discussions on-track and to rein other arbs in when they started seeing themselves as masters rather than servants. (There are others on the committee who get this, but none who are as good as those two at articulating it.) I stand by my comments here; I get a distinct feeling there are too many people on this iteration of Arbcom who see Arbcom as some kind of Supreme Court of Wikipedia, with themselves as petty gods and the clerks as their high priests, and are trying to use it as a tool to shape Wikipedia into what they think it ought to be, rather than "a panel of editors with the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors". Thinking about the people who are likely to stand, I have a horrible feeling next year's incarnation will make the current batch look like Solomon—particularly if this proposal goes ahead, there will be a lot of people voting who don't already know the people involved and don't care enough to read all the statements, which will probably mean victory for whichever candidates shout the loudest. ‑ iridescent 17:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-