Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168

Discussion prior to acceptance of the case
What is the status? Kingturtle 01:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Mediation was declared over, on the 29th of February and transfered to arbitration, at the request of 168 (reported by User:Anthere and seconded by Maveric (see Mav second).
 * Following these recommandations (actually preceding them, but do not make a fuss about it :-)), the help of an advocate was requested by Anthere, on the 9th of march. Discussion is under way.
 * The community is now waiting for arbitration to decide whether to accept or to reject the case. -anthere


 * Does that mean the ball is in Jimbo's court? Or is Jimbo out of the process now? Kingturtle 00:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * As it says above, "Currently, the arbitrators accept referrals from Jimbo Wales only". This will soon change (I know I keep saying that, but it really will--as soon as the arbitration policy has got a stamp of approval from the Wikipedia community and Jimbo himself, in fact), but at the moment, we're still only dealing with cases referred through Jimbo. --Camembert


 * According to jurisdiction, you should be taking the cases directly ? ant


 * Not to speak for the AC, but Anthere, I believe what Camembert is saying (and what I've understood the case to be) is that the Arbitration Policy page is a document that is agreed to by the AC but not yet approved by the community at large, although we have been invited to respond on its talk page, and if there are no objections, the AC will put that page's policies into effect very soon. Jwrosenzweig 00:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That's correct. I'll see if I can tweak the policy page to make this clearer. --Camembert 01:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Why isn't Jimbo referring this case? Kingturtle 00:50, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No idea; obviously, it's not my place to speak for him, but he's very busy. We may well ratify and move to an all-comers referral system quite soon, though.
 * James F. (talk) 01:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Where is the stamp of approval taking place? Kingturtle 00:50, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Just at the moment, we're asking for comments and suggestions on Wikipedia talk:arbitration policy comments regarding the arbitration policy itself. Once everybody has had time to comment on the proposed guidelines there, and they've been revised to reflect any concerns, we'll likely have a simple "yes" or "no" vote among the whole community as to whether to accept the policy - this will most likely also take place on Wikipedia talk:arbitration policy. If it's a "yes", and Jimbo has no objections, then we'll be fully functional, and won't need to wait for Jimbo to refer cases (at that point, we can consider whether to accept the 168 case independently if it's not already been referred to us). --Camembert 01:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "The stamp of approval for the AP will be a vote for ratification of it; we haven't set one up yet, as we're dealing with people's suggestions before the need to fail a vote comes up." (from my IRC comment)
 * James F. (talk) 01:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Upon referral by Jimbo, or the arbitration policy going live (whichever occurs first), I intend to vote to hear this case. Martin 13:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Ditto.
 * James F. (talk) 15:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The question may be moot. 168... is MIA. By the time the committee is ready to hear the case, 168... might be long gone. This process is taking much too much time. If Jimbo is so busy, he really should hand power over to the committee immediately. And we, as a community, should really stop discussing the minor points of the process, and approve the process once and for all. Kingturtle 17:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I second King on this. Also meant to mention that I was still in contact with 168, but that indeed, hopes of him coming back are limited due to the lack of reaction of the community, first to what he considers as subvandalism from Lir, and second from his perception the whole community considers the current case only having to do with his unsysoping, which is not the case. FirmLittleFluffyThing


 * Well the arbitrators can now vote to hear this if they want... Anthere are you still in contact with 168? fabiform | talk 22:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Last exchange I had with him was on the 31th of march. I put part of it on the mailing list . :::::He wrote in particular ''...However, I have to tell you that I'm not returning. Ultimately, it's not because of Mav or my reputation. It's mostly just that on the whole I don't see my work (my edits or my dialogues) leading to lasting contributions in an even slightly efficient or reliable way. And most often it's a source of grief instead of fun or satisfaction. In other words, it doesn't feel like a

worthwhile way to spend my time even though it has introduced me to nice people like you. I wish the best for you in and outside the project...''.
 * I think there is a time for everything, a time to participate, a time to despair and to cry for help, a time to talk, a time to smile again or a time to leave. I'll put a word to him, in respect for you having succeeded to fix your rules :-) But I think the time of talk is long gone. I would like to ask you, if so, not to delete the relevant pages in question, but to link them somewhere FirmLittleFluffyThing 15:26, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If people think arbitration on this matter would still be worthwhile, could they please say so. Otherwise we'll probably let it go. --Camembert 15:17, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * 168 answered my mail, and said he would agree to participate to arbitration, provided that it does not take too much time (say no more than 1 hour every 4 days), practically, it means he would not necessarily answer questions or provide information within the day of request. Given the amount of text already written on the topic, I think most of the arbitration could occur without needing too much input from him. What do you think ? SweetLittleFluffyThing


 * That's about all the time we spend on it, so not a problem. I'll vote to accept the case. Fred Bauder 10:40, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment/168 and Mav

page protected time
"It is unclear when the page was protected." Look at my summary again please. It shows exactly when 168 protected DNA - it was the same minute he reverted that article to his favored version. I also don't see anything in the findings of fact about his abuse of the deletion policy. --mav 08:34, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)