Wikinews talk:Requests for arbitration/Withdrawn or Rejected/Archive 1

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Arbitration procedure[edit]

So how should we do it? Follow the WP example and split it up into Evidence, Workshop and Proposed Decision pages or just put it all together? --Deprifry|+T+ 15:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to work for them -- but we must also be willing to stray from their model if we don't like something. I'll work on formulating the subpages (and templates) later today. --Chiacomo (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have created the template pages and created the case pages for the pending arbitration.... If you don't like it modify it or tell me -- actually, tell me either way so I can modify the underlying templates. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks fine, thanks. --Deprifry|+T+ 10:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ArbCom committee has been active in looking into this arbitration request. Since this is its first request to be acted upon, new procedures are being adopted by the committee to address the issue. It seems like a slow process to this user, but the methods to report information such as Principles | Findings of fact | Remedies | Enforcement | Analysis of evidence and such are being established so they can be made published to the community. -Edbrown05 08:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Cartman02au v User:Mrmiscellanious[edit]

As involved part in the dispute resolution (DR) effort named I support this requests for arbitration (RFAr). Mrm:s unwillingness to participate, even by just deny the problem, is quite describing of the Mrm:s behavour in itself that is one of the reasons for the dispute. The question is if the RfAr is enough to bring Mrm to the DR effort or if the whole dispute should formally be a RFAr which I think is happening now. If so should I and other in The DR make separate or a joint statement? International 13:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added my name as an involved party. Neutralizer 14:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, Cartman02au:s statment is a good sum up. Lets see if Mrm like to get involved this time. International 14:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Cartman02au's statement sums up the concerns very well, I will not clutter this up with another similar statement. More detailed statemens can be found on the corresponding dispute resolution pages. If Arbcom members feel that infividual statement or a condensed joint statement would be helpful at any stage I would be happy provde more detailed information. --vonbergm 19:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the first section of the template, someone needs to summarize the basis of the request for Arbitration... This should fall before the "Confirmation" section but after "Involved parties". This addition need not be signed. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just want to point out that MrM is on vacation at present [1] - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we please have an accept/reject discussion[edit]

I would ask all arbiters to indicate whether they accept/reject our request - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I still would like for some Arbcom members to respond to the motion I have placed concerning this on the page, instead of voting on proposed decisions first. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whats the point[edit]

Whats the point of having a case about the other days 'admin war'. I cannot forsee any changes comming from it. We need to work on policy, change policy so this will never hapen again. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree...but the abuse of admin powers must be handled...its the same as violating policy. Jason Safoutin 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO in past cases the arbcom have showen that they dont't seem to care. In the userbox case, the admin who did a mass deletion of them 3 times, got off scotfree. I sure hope this case will work far better. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an arbitrator, I have to say you're basicly right. Basicly what we did was delay it t'll its not an issue anymore. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 04:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I treat what happened as just like recent happenings on Wikipedia. While the blocking policy isn't as clear as it should be, it is clear enough to without a doubt condemn blocking users whom you're in a dispute with, etc. If admins can get in a wheel war and get off with a short block and the changing of policy, then something's wrong. Ral315 (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

election Time[edit]

(cross post) It's time for a election, 3 members terms expire (Bawolff, Craig Spurrier and Deprifry). I propose Pre-Election and Nomination Period from Jan 11, 2007 - Jan 17, 2007, and the Arbitration Committee Elections running from Jan 18, 2007 - Jan 31, 2007. thoughts? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently we're using User:Chiacomo/Arbitration notes/Elections 2 ( Me and EdBrown05 change places) 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Bawolff, Craig Spurrier and Deprifry terms expire, so they must be re-elected, or replaced. But, thats where I got the dates from for the election anyway :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if I switch place with Ed, they're exactly the same. user:Bawolff 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad Spelling[edit]

"and it better stays that way" has a defective plural in it. 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]