Arbitrary[edit]

The funny thing is that some people recently started calling ArbCom the Arbitrary Committee, and I thought they were being original. I was very surprised to see the same disparaging comments made in the original arbcom ratification vote! Carcharoth (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing lists[edit]

Actually, it seems this did change at some point, but the committee forgot to update the relevant pages - there is, it seems, one mailing list for all the current and former arbs, and one for the current ones - might be a moot point, because I think public mail sent to arb-l goes to the one seen by all arbs and former arbs). Carcharoth (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the incoming mail is moderated, and the moderator is an arbitrator, not a former arbitrator. Also, I think that each case is drafted up outside of this wiki, and there may be discussion of the draft decisions there. Not to mention IRC, Gmail chat, and other off-wiki discussion fora. In fairness, when something needs to be done on a very urgent basis, it's probably easier to do it in a group chat than on a mailing list. Risker (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The moderator is now an arbitrator not a former arbitrator? I definitely missed something. Was it always like that, or am I confusing things with David Gerard moderating stuff like the wiki-en-l mailing list? If I'm not confusing things, was this change mentioned on-wiki? Carcharoth (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard used to be the moderator for arbcom-L too; now it is Kirill Lokshin and FT2. I suspect that one or more of the former arbs have moderating privileges, as well, simply because it's such a busy list and some of the stuff has to be sorted and forwarded elsewhere (i.e., oversighters, checkusers). Risker (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For related ramblings and a possible step forward, see User:Mackensen/Devolution. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for arbitration:C68-FM-SV[edit]

Nosy Obvious question[edit]

Would there be a link that would help me understand your non-objectivity? (feel free to delete this if it bugs you). Risker (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<serious mode> I suspect you're just tweaking my nose, as you are sadly prone to do, errant child.</serious> I don't have a link. I just love Slim like a brother from another mother. I have my faults, she has hers, but I'm self-aware enough to know that I will not be objective when discussing hers. I've got no problem extolling at length, but that's really the long and the short of it. - brenneman 04:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't actually tweaking you; the two of you have both been editing here much longer than have I, and believe me there are huge gaps in my knowledge of community history. I was just wondering if it was a giant edit war somewhere, or a huge and nasty RfC or something obvious like that. The rest all makes sense. There are some people here I know I'm unlikely to be objective about too, although they probably aren't the ones most people would guess. Risker (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts on the concept of armchair quarterbacking[edit]

To be honest, I think it's a good idea, and I'd even considered doing something along these lines for this case (which I deliberately have not followed on a daily basis). First off, writers think better when writing. Secondly, it helps crystallise one's thoughts on the subject. Finally, those who have not been immersed in the hand-to-hand combat that an arbcom case inevitably becomes are usually able to see things from a more dispassionate perspective. I'll give further feedback once it matures. Risker (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence[edit]

Fully concur with you about evidence. The last case I gave a statement on was the Tango arbcom, and I gave *evidence* in my statement (well, technically, I linked to a userpage because it was too long to put on the page). Then I further developed that evidence for the evidence page. I have no idea why they accept most of the cases they do, because there sure isn't the evidence on which to base the decision. Risker (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem here is with the community as much as it is with the arbitration committee. They insist on presenting opinion as evidence, and not much pavlovian slapping around the head and shoulders goes on to discourage it. It can be difficult sometime to think about what has actually happened, as opposed to what people say happened. *cough* [1] *cough*

I don't want to go too much into slaggin' the current committee, so I'll leave possible reasons for accepting things sans evidence as an excercise for the reader.

brenneman 06:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts[edit]

A few things:

Maybe that evidence page in FM's userspace got oversighted? Anyhow, Moulton was smart enough to Special:Export it before it got deleted. He's posted the contents of that deleted page here.
As a side note, there is a lot more going on here than meets the eye. I now look back at it and see it should have been rejected, because it has become quite clear that FeloniousMonk's only purpose was to preempt and disrupt Cla68's attempt to bring a RfC on SlimVirgin to the community. Short-circuiting the dispute resolution process has been quite commonplace, as has gaming the system. Talk to Lar as he, more than anyone else, can fill you in on the missing pieces.
Guy has changed, a lot. The level of paranoia combined with an unhealthy bunker mentality had led him to be very rash and rude when dealing with others who disagreed with him. I Can't say if his wikibreak will help, but that might explain the poor quality of his evidence.

Otherwise, I think you are fairly spot on. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

I'm a bit of a fetishist: I like to know the provenance of data. Nothing to do with Moulten, just me, but I'd not even look at that link unless I had no other choice. We are all puppets to our own preconceptions, and I want to keep mine clean for now if you know what I mean?
I used to spend heaps of time thinking about what motivated others, now I try to only respond to their edits.
- I agree that the short-circuiting is a problem though. The whole of my statement to the Aaron Brenneman admonished request for arbitration was "How about an RfC first? - brenneman(t)(c) 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)"
- The idea is building in the back of my brain on the "problem" with arbitration. We see the sludge spewing out of the pipe onto the pristine shoreline, while the sewage plant is miles away. Or something.
I've not actually seen Guy since I've been back, only his tracks on the sand. So I won't comment on that any further now.

Thanks for the input, I'm going to attempt to keep this up. It will also help me understand exactly how much time it takes, so I'll be able to say with confidence what level of activity people can expect if they decide to support me.

brenneman 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to note that FT2 requested early on that a detailed history be presented. Cla68 can be very thorough at times, but detail isn't always bad, especially if you are trying to establish a pattern. He's not working on his 25th FA for nothing, you know? Understanding motives is important, otherwise you can not see that somebody might be intentionally trying to game the system. I'm not sure what your analogy is trying to say, but if I interpret it right, you think that the problems are merely symptoms of something more dysfunctional? --Dragon695 (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian[edit]

In case anyone cares. - brenneman 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]