Wikinews talk:Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious

Comment

At this point I'm just going to present what many will see as a cop-out for MrM, and query whether or not someone can reject arbcom decisions. Does the authority of ArbCom need confirmed by the board? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it will matter much, Wikinews:Arbitration_Committee#Remedies affords blocks for failing to comply with remedies. Secondly, ArbCom was suggested by the board if I am correct see:

The arbitration committee, on the other hand, can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e. basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values. [1] - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

After examining [2] it would appear this move is another attempt to push MrM's own agenda and I urge the ArbCom to take this into account - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And, after examining the proposed policy message on the Arbcom page here, I'm given the choice on following it or not. Guess what? I'm not following it. Why? Because nothing I see here is anything more than a few users whining about not getting their way. Continue to feed it out - I don't care. None of the participants here are interested in any type of decision reached to that is short of a long-time block of myself, or the removal of sysop status. So, here's me following policy - I'm not going to follow this proposed policy. I have always opposed this, so don't say it's anything about "pushing an agenda". You have no basis for that accusation. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

While I understand your position, MrMiscellanious, the community has discussed this and developed a consensus agreement to accept the ArbCom. Should you violate the ArbCom's remedies, whatever they may be, there are clear repercussions which will be applied. The ArbCom has been empowered by the community to make the remedies; they will act within that responsibility and it will be the responsibility of any admin to enforce their decisions. I would encourage you to reconsider your position regarding this. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 05:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I will accept those reprocussions as a violation of policy, and will hold those who perform them accountable based on our site policy. Your statement, however, has no basis. The Arbcom is not the governing body here, and will not make decisions that users have to follow during this period. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The community has chosen to give the ArbCom authority here, as they give admins authority as well, through policy. The ArbCom is not a governing body, but an arbitration body. The ArbCom has also been recognized by members of the Board of Trustees as a community tool to apply policy. It does have the authority to make determinations. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

However, your statement is incorrect. The community has not yet given the ArbCom any authority other than recognition as a proposed policy. There has been no formal process of inducting the proposition into becoming official policy. As of now, it is powerless and non-binding of any decisions put forward by the members. Enforcing a set of rules that are not policy is in violation of site policy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy is built by doing. The community discussed the policy on the Water cooler and the talk page of the proposed policy. They held a consensus election which involved a wide part of the active contributors. The ArbCom has heard a case, and worked some of the bugs out of the system, as well as building communications tools. It has completed that case, including remedies, which are currently being followed by the community as witnessed by multiple proposals to build policy which will supercede that remedy. It is clear this is a policy. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 05:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The community discussed, but there was never a formal process to induct it as official policy. The present form of it is proposed policy, and I have the right to disregard the policy. It is not a policy yet, and will not be policy until it a consensus poll is completed. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Most Wikinews policies are developed through consensus. Consensus might be developed through discussion and polls, but more often it develops through established practice. In most cases the policy is not even written formally, but is simply the community norms which have developed over time. WN:PG

I yield to you last word. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 05:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"This is a proposed policy. You can choose to follow it." The unwillingness of users to subject this to a poll also raises great concern to me. This is still proposed. I will fight any sort of action it tries to impose on me during its time still as a proposed policy, as policy gives me that option. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

MrM, these complaints of attacks really are getting old. The proof is there. If you have similar complaints make them. The complaints are not because a few users are not getting their own way, the complaints amount to possible policy breaches, harassment and disruption. I am not interested in a long-term block of yourself, that would be a loss to the community, but at the same time the current situation can not continue. You have ignored previous attempts to resolve other's issues. I will continue to believe that you are pushing an agenda, you are opposed to ArbCom and your "I refuse to participate" statement appears to be an attempt to force ArbCom into a corner. May I ask in you opinion who is the governing body here? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 06:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If you were indeed interested in a mediation, then you wouldn't be using this medium as an excuse to attack users. But, the fact is all parties here would gladly see nothing but the total demise of me. So, in a week, I'll be gone - that's simple, it's fact, and all users know it. And that's why this case is approved. And you know what? I am opposed to Arbcom. Want to write a policy for me to be banned for that? --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, where is your proof of these attacks? You keep saying this without proof. I have done everything possible to resolve this with you and get nowhere, you just shrug it off as attacks. Again I dont want to see your demise, I am just fed up with the bullsh*t that goes on. Frankly, I cant be bothered arguing anymore, it is pointless. I'll see what ArbCom decide - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see your talk page - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that every single policy was changed from official to proposed policy a while back (with exception on NPOV). My impression of that is you still have to follow it. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Does ArbCom have the power to enforce its rulings? In the final analysis, the only issue is whether the Stewards will honor a request from ArbCom to desysop someone. Since it is an arbitration board appointed by the community, they will. That person can then take it up with the Foundation, if desired. StrangerInParadise 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As an administrator I will enforce the arbcom rulings. Because I'm sick of arguing over this, lets just poll (eventhough we already did that) - Wikinews:Polls/Arbcom→official. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a Recuse Request re; CSpurrier on the table

"The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response." This issue must be dealt with prior to any Arbcom activity on this arbitration; which is why I eagerly await CSpurrier's response.

Will all the committee members please consider the request and render a decision before CSpurrier becomes involved in this arbitration,please.

Recuse policy

In addition, the policy refers to the possibility of an arbitrator being "required" to recuse themselves for non-trivial conflicts. These are non-trivial bias indicators, therefore I respectfully request all arbitrators to consider whether CSpurrier should be recused. Neutralizer 01:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Contacted CSpurrier and Chiacomo re; request for CSpurrier's recusal

I have put this note on their talk pages (Chiacomo's because he showed me the recusal policy) so hopefully there will be a response from Craig (as required by our policy) and this recusal matter can be quickly put behind us so the really important work can begin. Neutralizer 14:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The only policy binding on this ArbCom is WN:ARBCOM, by the way. The WP policies are helpful as guidelines. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 15:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiacomo, I disagree; we(you) refer to WP policies all the time. If CSpurrier plans to ignore this request, I expect you and the other Arbcom members to require his recusal in order to keep the process honest and reputable. His past behavior towards MrM and me shows blatant bias. Neutralizer 17:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

ok; I have included the WP policy verbatim in our WN:ARBCOM as a starting point; as I'm sure most agree we should have a recusal policy. Neutralizer 18:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out I did reply, perhaps if you had not posted this in so many places, you would be able to find it --Cspurrier

CSpurrier has put a 1 line non-committal response on the evidence page. His bias is blatant( 6 months block of me; labeling concerns about MrM as "attacks") and I must assume CSpurrier will,shamefully, not do the honourable thing by recusing himself voluntarily. Hopefully the rest of Arbcom will ask him to either recuse himself or require him to do so for the sake of the integrity of this important arbitration; I can do no more with this recusal request. I will remove the recuse request from the evidence page( per Chiacomo request) and leave it as a matter of record on the request page. Neutralizer 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Recusals

I noticed that there is one (are several?) recent recusal requests. I find it a little late to discuss recusals at this time. Arbcom members have already cast votes on several items and any recusal request at this point might raise the suspicion that the requesting party might simply try to get rid of unfavorable votes. This is not helpful to the process. If there is no policy in place at what time recusal requests should and should not be made, then it is the time to establish it now. --vonbergm 03:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A request for recusal can be made at any time. It is possible that an ArbCom member could become involved or a conflict arise very late in an arbitration. The ArbCom member's vote would be left in place but stricken and (not counted). --Chiacomo ^(talk) 03:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Chiacomo, could you point me to the policy that states this? --vonbergm 03:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy -- well, that would be nice... :) There is no policy covering this particular issue -- certainly not in the depth I've described. I am perhaps speaking out of turn as to specifics (how a recusal late in arbitration would be handled), but leaving the votes in place but discounting them seems to be the most reasonable solution. The Arbitration Committee would, of course, address this if the situation arose. I can't imagine a situation where an abritrator's vote would not be discounted after recusal.

I would not be in favor of developing hard and fast rules on recusals. At this time, ArbCom members are permitted great latitude in choosing to recuse themselves. This latitude is essential, I think, in fostering a free and unfettered judiciary committee. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee's policies for dealing with recusals, after which ours is fashioned, have worked well for them. They are somewhat vague, and with reason I think.

Were I and User:JohnDoe to become embroiled in a dispute late in an arbitration involving him, I would of course recuse myself. Of course, the nature of the dispute might be important. Hopefully, we have elected arbitrators that we trust can seperate themselves from personal bias. If I did not recuse myself -- if requested and with good reason -- I would expect my fellow ArbCom members to pressure me to recuse myself. If I still did not recuse myself, there are several procedural maneauvers which might be initiated by other Abitration Committee members (or perhaps the community). I'd prefer not to speak any further of hypotheticals at this point, however.

I have a tendency to ramble and I think I've started -- forgive me. I hope the above is helpful. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 03:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)