Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Template/Proposed decision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can we get rid of the legalese please? No-one uses "aye" and "nay" in normal life. I'm sure Wikipedia will die in a lawsuit anyway, let's not encourage it by encouraging people to view Arbitration as a legal or quasi-legal procedure that they could take to a real Court of Law if they wanted to appeal it. I don't care what it's changed to, as long as it's not legalese, jguk 20:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Link change
I changed the link to the workshop to [[../Workshop|/Workshop]] because when you open cases you won't have to fix the links manually. If there's something wrong with this, please let me know and revert. Johnleemk | Talk 09:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Number of arbitrators and recusal
A sentence at the top of the template has until now read: "For this case, there are [N] arbitrators of whom [N] are recused, so [N] votes are a majority." From time to time, this has caused confusion in cases where there were recusals, because people still intuitively expect the majority to be based on the number of "active" arbitrators. The wording was also a bit self-contradictory, in that an arbitrator who is recused in a given case is clearly not active "for this case," even though he or she may be active on other cases pending at the same time. In addition, it is unnecessary to mention that there are no recusals in cases where there aren't any, as this would seem self-explanatory.
I have revised the template so that in cases where there are recusals, the wording will be "For this case, there are [N] active arbitrators (excluding [N] who are recused), so [N] are a majority." For cases with no recusals, the wording will simply be, "For this case, there are [N] active arbitrators, so [N] are a majority." Comments on this change are welcome and of course any arbitrator (or I suppose anyone else) is free to summarily revert. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Makes better sense to me as a reader not on the non-ArbCom, good idea. --Nema Fakei 00:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Kirill 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Better. Paul August ☎ 04:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- What about just say "For this case, x arbitrators are active. Of these x, y of them have recused, so the active number of voting arbitrators is x-y and majority is ceiling((x-y)/2)" ? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- More complicated than necessary, IMHO. :) Bear in mind that our current practice is to list all active/recused/inactive arbitrators on proposed decision talk anyway. Newyorkbrad 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
