Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:35, 2 August 2010

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Update?

Not to be rude, or pushy, and I know we're all busy people and this is a hobby, but can we get updated expectations as to when a proposed decision might come down the pike? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the appropriate sanction for all the melee participants is to make them wait indefinitely (not infinitely) for the proposed decision to be rendered. Jehochman 14:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, although perhaps that doesn't apply here. On a serious note, while I can quite sympathetic to the complexity of the case, and the need to take the time to get it right, the last we heard (IIRC) is a notice on the 19th that it would be 48 hours. Surely an update is warranted, even if only to say we don't know.--SPhilbrickT 14:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

48 hours minimum. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but I don't think it is an unreasonable request to have someone say A. We are close - we hope within a day or so but no promises or B - this is tough, it will be several days at least. --SPhilbrickT 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaving a contentious area in limbo is potentially harmful. There was a recent incident where some well-meaning Arbs (including one of the drafters of the PD) started making unilateral proposals for some pretty sweeping sanctions and remedies on one of the case talk pages, and a recused Arb started suggesting out-of-scope directives to case clerks. An Arb declared that "The Climate Change Topic board, AN/I, etcetera, no matter their original intent, have been co-opted by the various members of these disputes to be battlegrounds", so we're really running out of venues in which to seek any sort of dispute resolution at all. Obviously, this is a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom will decide when arbcom decides. I suspect that behind the scenes they're negotiating and arm-twisting on, um, a "certain issue." Anyway, don't get too invested in this stuff -- it's only a website. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But I'm not sure why that "certain issue" (and I know what you're talking about) prevents them from posting a proposed decision. If the whole thing is just going to be a presented as a fait accompli, there's no point to having a PD — we should just go straight to voting. Getting some community input might be helpful; it could tell them what points they've missed (this is a big and complex case). Finally, it would give us an idea of what the Arbs think this case is about. There's been a great deal of reluctance to limit or even describe the case's scope. Meanwhile, strict evidence length limits have left large gaps as editors try to guess what the Arbs will decide to look at. Once the Arbs actually tell us what is important to them, we might be able to address their concerns or present relevant evidence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that it would take ArbCom of the order of 90 days to carefully examine all the facts, deliberate, and draft proposed decisions. When I saw the 48 hours notice, I was very surprised. Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect they're stalling intentionally, waiting for the ice caps to melt and make this whole conflict moot. ;-) ATren (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that Global Warming Arbcom Decision Denial?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop the presses. ArbCom's e-mails have just been leaked on the Internet. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Link? Jehochman 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They're up on Wikileaks.org. MastCell  20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Encyclopedia Dramatica which is the most reliable source on such matters, has not yet reported anything yet.... Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, owing to circumstances not under their lack of control they are still sober and unable to find any aspect that can be tenuously linked to anal sex; or they are now off school for the summer and do not have anonymous internet access... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I saw them here, but maybe they've been oversighted or reverted or something. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Anybody up for a beer and a plate of onion rings? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No alcohol here.. but make it some fried clams and a soda, I'm in :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

that would really hit the spot. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, I can't believe MastCell rickrolled me! May the flees of a thousand camels infest your armpits! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the best such line I've ever heard is: "May you bite the southbound end of a northbound Camel". SirFozzie (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just lost my appetite. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm really impressed with the parties' (with one glaring exception) willingness and dedication to observing the voluntary topic ban until the PD is posted. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are either not very observant or easily impressed. On the other hand, given that the "voluntary topic ban" has been invented in some remote corner of some remote talk page somewhere I don't remember, and has been communicated at best using some variant of Chinese whispers, any level of observance is surprising. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Decision timing

Finalization and posting of the proposed decision has been somewhat delayed because I have been on vacation for the past 10 days. I had understood that I would have ready internet access during this time period and had planned to work on my portion of the decision, but this turned out not to be the case.

I am sorry for this delay and especially that I did not anticipate it beforehand, as it appears that there is some inaccurate speculation going on about reasons for the hold-up. I am now back home and anticipate that I will be finalizing my portion of the proposed decision and consulting with the other drafting arbitrators over this coming weekend, so I hope that proposals will be on-wiki soon after that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-Up

Not to be rude, or pushy, and I know we're all busy people and this is a hobby, but can we get updated expectations as to when a proposed decision might come down the pike? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious too.--*Kat* (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Que sera sera. Jimbo gave the broad outlines of the decision a couple months before the case opened, so it's no great mystery. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Link? Jehochman 14:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That was posted on April 1. Jehochman 15:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Jimbo has advocated anything about this case in public or private, and this is the first time I've seen that diff (which, incidentally, does not mention climate change). Cool Hand Luke 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of posts later in the same thread, Jimbo explicitly states "climate change as a subject area was very much on my mind as I was writing that." This is the reason I offered almost no evidence in the case and made only a few workshop proposals: why bother, when the outcome appears to be preordained? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What was that "extremely unpleasant experience" Jimbo is referring to there? Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably the time that he waded into Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy declaring that the "-gate" name was his personal preference for the article title, despite specific WP:NPOV reasons why Misplaced Pages articles generally avoid "-gate" namings. Some editors heralded this as the gospel come forth, while others (rightly) simply considered it the same as any other editor's opinion on the matter, counting no more or no less. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

His edits to the above mentioned page were late March so I'd agree that that was clearly the experience he was refering too.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, because it's not at all preordained to the arbitrators? Several arbitrators are working on this decision; if it were preordained, I imagine the decision would have been written in advance, at least in principle. It is not. Your conspiratorial theory is news to me, and I'm in a better position to know what's on the arbitrators' minds than you. Cool Hand Luke 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct and I am reading more into Jimbo's comments than he intended. Time will tell. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. But would you consider addressing the original question? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I'm recused on this case. Cool Hand Luke 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo did make a ruling relevant to climate change and the editing of Misplaced Pages see here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

snort Well Played, sir Iblis. Though I agree with SBHB, the proposed decision will be lots of year long topic bans, a couple of instructions for the type of probation and monitoring of it, and perhaps a special review panel for 'scibaby' issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment from arbitors - please review

Not to be rude, or pushy, and I know we're all busy people and this is a hobby, and I know I've asked this three times, but each time keeps getting hijacked by people asking something else, but can we get updated expectations as to when a proposed decision might come down the pike? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

Before the heat death of the universe, and some time after lunch. Jehochman 17:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When you admit to being rude and pushy. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Moi? Jehochman 17:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Soon after that. "That" being defined to be this past weekend. Since we've gotten past the "that" stage, we're now into soon. :-) Bill Huffman (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious too. --*Kat* (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand why some editors are so anxious for a decision. The danger is a misreading or failure to explore the quality of the evidence. What's the rush? They should take their time. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anybody is going to get a barnstar or "thanks". More likely the des(s)erts being served will be rather sour. Jehochman 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If not arid and sandy... MastCell  17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: Hipocrite didn't ask for a proposed decision, he asked for an updated ETA. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, but that could be construed as putting pressure on the arbiters. My advice, for what it's worth, is to cool it. If they're taking their time, so much the better. My only concern is that the arbitrators hear both sides of the story, especially for last-minute workshop proposals, and that they read all diffs provided on the evidence pages. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, we still don't know what the case is actually about — at least, not in detail. The Arbitrators have given very little feedback to the parties on which proposals they might consider, and we don't even have a clear statement of the case's scope. We have a large number of statements from parties – from the very general to the excruciatingly specific – about what needs to be done, but no specific guidance to speak of from the Committee. Aside from a few comments by Carcharoth (and a very few notes from Rlevse), I see no comments by Arbs on the workshop proposals.

Whatever comes out of the sausage mill will be a proposed decision, not a final one. I expect that there will be (and hope that the Arbs will be receptive to) room for modification of the draft decision once it is revealed to the community. I sincerely hope that there will not be a rush to voting on the proposals, and that there will be an opportunity for parties to respond to (and rebut, where necessary) findings that are proposed. The combination of 'massive case', 'unspecified scope', and 'negligible feedback on workshop proposals' with 'strict enforcement of evidence length' means that parties' submissions (especially of evidence) are scattered and incomplete, and I think that's a poor basis on which to build a final decision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

NYB said "finalizing... and consulting with the other drafting arbitrators over this coming weekend, so I hope that proposals will be on-wiki soon after that."(emphasis added) He said soon after the weekend, not during the weekend. The New York weekend ended 16 hours ago - give the folks a little more credit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Who are you responding to? I don't see anyone that said NYB said it would be posted over the weekend.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but when I read "updated ETA" twice in one day I think the implication is that the previous one has proven to be false. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a far less hostile interpretation is that the request is that since the weekend is over he's hoping for an ETA a little more specific than "soon". And there are two threads because the first degenerated on a tangent.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cube lurkers inptrpretation is correct, and I believe I made that clear when I wrote "but each time keeps getting hijacked by people asking something else." It would be really nice if an arb would give us an update on the estimate time. Hipocrite (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)