This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi.

Why is the arbitration system a vote-based setup, anyway? Why doesn't the arb.com. go and discuss itself into a consensus when working? How does this not conflict with Wikipedia's overall negative stance on voting? 74.38.35.171 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee was set up like this in order to facilitate the process - see the Signpost's article from last September, which I wrote, that provides some history and background of the committee. It should also be noted that the ArbCom is usually in agreement with one another, with many votes being unanimous. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request." Can someone point out to me the policy text justifying this claim? I honestly can't find it. — Random83220070125T041503 UT C(01/24 23:15EST)

The warning, I believe, is just there to remind people that any and all comments left will be considered, and if someone is part of a dispute that is in Arbitration, then that person's actions may be examined as part of the case. In no way should that statement discourage anyone from leaving their comments; we value other people's opinions and feedback, even if they're not directly involved with the case. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

People interested in commenting on a case without becoming participants can comment on the talk page, post evidence to the evidence page, and make proposals on the workshop page. It's only the main case page that generally is edited only by the parties to the case. Newyorkbrad 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration policy section on Transparency currently says "Each Arbitrator will make their own decision about how much personal information about themselves they are willing to share, both publicly, and with the rest of the Committee." I propose to change it to Arbcom will establish and maintain and over time improve: a policy on transparency that will provide for accountability of Arbcom members through public knowledge, that increases over time, of the identities of Arbcom members. WAS 4.250 19:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt guage community support on this and related proposals is going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. Please participate. Thank you. WAS 4.250 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In the #Hearing section, the policy states that cases involving two people will be named "[UsernameA] v. [UsernameB];" however, Newyorkbrad recently renamed a case the from this "v." from to "-" form, saying it is less adversarial (which it is). Should this be standardized? Does it matter? Picaroon 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that the title of the cases should be a big deal; the point is to allow everyone an easy reference to a case, and of course have a name for the subpages of the case. In general, if a case name is presenting a problem, I don't have a problem renaming it so long as it still accomplishes the tasks. Thanks for pointing this out, though. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 21:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before on this page (I'm sure someone has a compilation of all the links from the archives). There has been a strong consensus not to use adversarial names (User:X v. User:Y), and where possible to use article titles or general subject-matters as opposed to individual usernames. Though not applicable in this instance, we also try to shorten argumentative names to something neutral. As Flcelloguy says, the basic idea is to be able to quickly identify what the case is about. Newyorkbrad 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've updated the page to use the dash form as opposed to the v. form. Picaroon 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Correction for anyone looking for the links, the prior threads would be in the RfAr talk archives, not this page's. Newyorkbrad 01:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the " versus" form might make it clearer to onlookers that the case title refers specifically to a dispute between two users rather than something broader. I don't think it would be unduly "adversarial", especially if it was filed by one of the those users anyway. Of course cases initiated by a third party should probably follow a different system. — CharlotteWebb 11:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request the addition of the ar interwiki link:

[[ar:ويكيبيديا:سياسة مجلس التحكيم]]

Please note that the Arabic language is written from right to left. Thank you. -- Meno25 12:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done James086 ^{Talk | Email} 12:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another similar request: nl:Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Reglementen interwiki link to rules for Dutch-language arbcom. Otto 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Remember to add {{ editprotected}} to make sure admins know about your requests; I only saw this because the page is on my watchlist. Picaroon (Talk) 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

{{ editprotected}} Please modify the hatnote "WP:AP redirects here. For article probation, see Wikipedia:Article probation." to ""WP:AP" redirects here. For article probation, see Wikipedia:Article probation. For attack pages, see Wikipedia:Attack page." Also, please uncapitalise the word "mediation" in "Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation". Sala Skan 18:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - Nihiltres^{( t. l)} 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)