Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iasson/Proposed decision

==POLL: What version of arbitration_proposed_decision's  voting rules do you prefer? ==
 * POLL OPTION:With accurate voting rules. Define what exactly majority means and who is the electorate, also define how long a passed or rejected decision should be valid. Define also accurately whether the votes of the inactives or baned electors should be considered valid ones or not and whether any decision taken based on those votes should remain a valid decision or not.
 * YES VOTE:Iasson 08:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * POLL OPTION: With inaccurate voting rules. Neither majority nor the electorate should be defined accurately, and especially we should not define the rule which determines how long the passed or rejected decision should be valid. We should NOT also define what happens to the votes of the electors that are inactives or baned, neither define wheither any decision based at those inactives or baned votes is still considered to be valid decision or not.
 * POLL OPTION: Other
 * POLL OPTION: I dislike this poll
 * POLL OPTION: Iasson should receive a 24-hour ban for repeatedly vandalizing the proposed decision page.
 * COMMENT: I thought this was a poll option, if you disagree you may change the prefix to "POLL", instead of "POLL_OPTION". Also if you think your poll is related to my poll (conditional poll), you may leave it here as a branch, otherwise you may create a new poll tree. Iasson 11:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * NO VOTE: Iasson 11:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL:

 * 1) silsor 17:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Wow, this looks familiar. humblefool&reg; 02:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I dislike this troll.  -- Scott  ei&#960; + 1 = 0  02:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, good sir, this is not the same Iasson from kuro5hin. Iasson said it, so it must be true! --Deathphoenix 03:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) It is classic editing style of Iasson to produce such complicated polls that they are difficult or impossible to understand. Thryduulf 08:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What exactly you dont understand? Arbitrators are about to take a decision to ban me for one year. My question is: how long their decision will be valid, and whether they are allowed to change their mind or not. Because if their decision to punish me for one year remains for one week, then the arbitrators suddently change their mind, then only one week I will remain punished. Also my question is what happens in the duration of my punishement in case new arbitrators arrive and have a different opinion about me. Are new arbitrators allowed to change the decisions of the old ones? And what happens in case an arbitrator who voted for my punishement leaves wikipedia or maybe is also punished? Is his vote still  a valid one and I have to remain in prison until the end, or not?Iasson 10:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No need to reinvent the wheel. Read this and this.   -- Scott  ei&#960;  10:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I read it carefully, and there is no answer to my questions. Does this sentence "Former decisions will not be binding on the Arbitrators - rather, they intend to learn from experience" means that they are allowed to change their mind whenever they want and repeal their vote on any open or closed case or means that they are allowed to punish two persons having done the same crime with different punishments? And what about the votes of the inactives or banned arbitrators? Do their votes remain valid ones and they continue to support the decision taken or do their votes vanish together with them so that all prisoners imprisoned due to their vote are set free? Where is this mentioned in the policy you pointed? Iasson 11:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll bite for now. What it means is this: When they say you are banned for a year, that means you are banned for a year. Period. You "remain in prison", as you so succinctly put it, for an entire year. There is no parole unless they explicitly say there is a parole. The arbitration process has been used in many cases, and there is no reason for them to change the rules for you. If an arbitrator leaves, their final vote remains. This has happened in the past when an arbitrator left in the middle of the vote. That arbitrator's vote still stands, but any time the arbitrator didn't vote, the majority amount is reduced by one. In other words, whether an arbitrator leaves or not, their vote remains. If they decide that you are to be banned for a year, your ban takes effect for a year. If people find that you broke your ban, your time gets reset and you have to wait a full year from the time of your last offense. Also, if a few more of their decisions carry through, this ban also applies to all the Faethon public accounts as well. You are responsible for those as well, and any actions by those accounts that break your ban will reset that ban as well. So if Faethon is truly your friend and not you, you'd better tell him to behave, because for this case, you and he are treated as one and the same. --Deathphoenix 13:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * An arbitrator may change their vote until the case is closed.
 * An arbitrator may not change their vote once the case is closed.
 * All temporary injunctions last until the close of the case, unless
 * They are explicitly time-limited, and this time expires before the end of the case.
 * They are explicitly repealed before the case is closed.
 * All penalties imposed when the case is closed remain in effect for the duration specified, unless the resolution is explicitly repealed. For this to happen, an appeal must be made to either the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo.
 * For appeals to the arbcom:
 * A request to hear the appeal is made to the committee.
 * If the appeal is denied, the resolution stands. The person bringing the appeal can then appeal to Jimbo (I beleive)
 * If the appeal is accepted, the committee will re-examine the case, and may overturn, reduce or extend the time period, modify the resolution, pass a different resolution, or simply endorse the original decision with no changes. I think an appeal to Jimbo is available to either side after the result.
 * For appeals to Jimbo:
 * Jimbo can decide to reject the appeal.
 * Jimbo can decide to accept the reppeal, in this case I believe that the case would pass back to the Arbitration Committee as above (but with more dialogue between the committee and Jimbo I would hope).
 * Changes in personal at the arbitration committee do not affect the result of any closed cases.
 * I don't know of a case where an arbitrator has been banned, but if one were and the user feelt the arbitrators actions were not of the standard expected, then the user should put in an appeal. This can be done by email if they're banned from wikipedia. If that arbitrator was not involved with the case (e.g. if they were recused) then the appeal will almost certianly be denied (unless there are other reasons for the appeal).
 * For appeals, I would expect any arbitrators involved with the original case to recuse themselves. However the rules state that if (more than) half the committee who are active at that point are recused, then all recusals are canceled and all active arbitrators will hear the case.
 * The non-binding precedents rule does allow different punishments for the same crime. In practice I would suspect that the punishments would be very similar. Also, no two crimes are exactly the same, e.g. BadUser1 might have vandalised the same number of articles the same number of times in the same method as BadUser2, but as the other people invovled with the dispute would be different (I don't watch the Frank Bruno article for example, and so the cances are I wouldn't be aware of a dispute there. In much the same way there will be the associate dispute will be different. I expect) users who watch the Frank Buno article who wouldn't be aware of a dispute about the Tyne and Wear Metro article, which I do watch. I will probably react differently to a to the way Fbd or Toytoy would (those users chosen only for being at the top of the recent changes list).
 * I haven't researched all of these answers, so I could be wrong, but I would be suprised if I got anything majorly wrong. Thryduulf 13:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) LOL! Jayjg (talk)  19:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On a more serious note
I've changed the blocking policy to point out that altering the password to a "public" account is just as effective as blocking the account indefinitely, and often creates less fuss. I would appreciate it if the ruling would take this into account. --Michael Snow 23:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)