Wikinews:Requests for arbitration

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WN:RfAr

If you have tried all steps of Wikinews:Dispute resolution without success, you may make a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee will look at your case and decide whether or not to hear it. If the case is heard, the committee will collect evidence and seek remedies, through consensus if possible.

In your request for arbitration, please provide links demonstrating your attempts at dispute resolution prior to petitioning the Arbitration Committee. Requests without such links will be denied.

Contents

[edit] Current requests

When requesting arbitration, please use the template contained in this section. It will be visible when you click the "edit" link.


[edit] Proposal to suspend Arbitration Committee

[edit] Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Best done by the ArbCom itself.

[edit] Statement by Messedrocker

The ArbCom is now pointless, okay? It was useful when we had more problems on Wikinews, but now it's nothing but bureaucracy masturbation with exactly zero point. Until the committee is needed again, I recommend a suspension of all operations, including elections and the like. There'd be a point if there were like, conflicts and such. MessedRocker (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by JoshuaZ

As long as the drama is kept to a minimum having a standing committee makes more sense since we don't know in advance when we will need it to decide something. If we have a large-scale issue that requires an Arbitration hearing all of a sudden that will be a really bad time to elect a new commitee. The overhead to keeping a commitee operational strikes me as minimal. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Cirt

I agree with everything said above by JoshuaZ (talk · contribs). I also agree with the point made below by Doldrums (talk · contribs) that this type of decision should be made by the community and not by the Arbitration Committee. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on accepting request

  • Comment while cutting down on the process of electing arbitrators is a worthwhile goal, waiting until a case arises to set up a committee is not a good idea. perhaps keeping the tenure period flexible and electing new arbitrators using a process similar to the RfA process (and on that page) will help cut down process. in any case, this is something for the community to decide rather than for the 'com itself. and finally, as the song goes, ♪ Bureaucratic masturbation makes the world go round ♪ –Doldrums(talk) 07:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to reject any proposal to shut down arbcom. When it is needed we do not need associated drama convening it. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Seriously, what's going on here? I fail to understand why a discussion about whether or not to keep an Arbitration Committee is being presented as a case within the dispute resolution framework. It also gives the incorrect impression that this decision is one for the Committee. It is up to the community. I suggest that this discussion undergo a process of refactoring to move it to Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee or the Watercooler as appropriate. My personal opinion would be that it would be very unwise to try to form an Arb Com in response to a dispute. To do so during a period of already high drama would be difficult and I'd also be worried about whether the community would find themselves electing not those individuals that have demonstrated good judgement and dispute resolution but those whose decision in the current case will be inline with their opinion. Adambro (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We may not always agree, but I 100% endorse this statement. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
As do I. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should not be done away with, but Messed is right. We don't have the issues on WN, at the moment, that require the needs of ArbCom. But that is not to say we won't need it in the future. I propose that the seats of members be extended indefinitely. Putting together an ArbCom when we need it is much harder than setting up an election. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That type of proposal would also be something the community should decide, not ArbCom (though that probably goes without saying). Cirt (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: We cannot start this time around, but we can begin the process. Half the comm. gets a 1 year extension starting now, but only 1 year. That way half the comm goes up for election instead of all, and then we can extend the year to the other half, once the offset is complete. So essentially only half the comm is up for election each year, and also means a hell of a lot less wasted time.
I think this needs to be mostly up to ArbCom because we already started to elect and plus in one year who will be around to do this? Who knows. So as it stands, we waste about a month or more out of every year to hold elections on a committee that is rarely used, if ever. That is a complete waste of valuable time we could be using to write news and such. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In any event it appears there is consensus that at the very least this is not the appropriate venue for this type of discussion, so an arbitrator should probably close it or move it to a different location (talkpage, etc.) Cirt (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about whether ArbCom needs to be suspended indefinitely, but maybe taking disputes to Meta is a workable solution as I see it. --Kalspring (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closed cases

Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Requests_for_arbitration"
Personal tools