Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & X! (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: SirFozzie (Talk) & Elen of the Roads (Talk)

Uninvolved statements

Statement by Alanyst

To expedite the arbitration process I propose the following:

1. The evidence and workshop phases are skipped.
2. The arbitration committee drafts offwiki and encrypts three proposed decisions and accompanying sanctions. Two of these are extraordinarily harsh towards the parties, and one is extraordinarily lenient.
3. The parties collectively choose one of the encrypted decisions to apply to them. The committee then reveals the text of one of the remaining harsh decisions and asks the parties to collectively decide whether to switch their decision to the remaining unrevealed decision.
4. Space and time collapse into an ironic self-referential loop and the arbitration committee and the rest of us taste the sweet peace of oblivion.

I cannot see how this can possibly go wrong. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've just fallen in love. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem, Alanyst. I'm ready to decide to switch now. Or after we've chosen one of the three decisions/sanctions. Or anytime, really. Other editors will *insist* we wait until after a harsh decision/sanction has actually been revealed, before we can make our decision. But you've already given me the rules. I'm a thinking, sentient being, why *can't* I decide at some point in advance? Plenty of reliably sourced teams of editors make the decision without regard for *which* harsh decision/sanction is revealed.

By the way, will the decision/sanctions be assigned random #s in order to eliminate confusion and ambiguity? And if we select the lenient decision/sanction, how will the arbitrators decide which harsh decision/sanction to reveal? Will they choose 'uniformly at random? Will they have a bias towards one or the other? Will they share this bias with the MHP editors? This is mighty important, don't you know? Glkanter (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bravo. AGK [•] 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How is this different from usual? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Are the two harsh proposals going to be both equally harsh against all parties, or maybe each against a different set? I'm just wondering whether it would be possible to spice the process up with just a hint of prisoner's dilemma or something of that sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

@Alanyst, may I publish this in my next masterpiece in the Annals of MHP Studies? Richard Gill (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by kibbitzer Wehwalt

I see no solution to this case which does not involved the Arbitration Committee going on the show. After all, they probably won't need to get costumes ... just sayin'.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Glkanter clarifying question

I would benefit from some clarification. Was the vote 12/0/0/0 to look into sanctioning Glkanter and/or some other editors, or was the vote 12/0/0/0 to bring the 14 month old mediation to an end? Glkanter (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The 12/0/0/0 vote was to accept the case. The case is now open, so evidence can be submitted. (X! · talk)  · @263  ·  05:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a little difficult. The 14 month mediation talk pages have been disappeared. The only things I, or any involved editor, can refer to are either diffs older than 14 months, or are diffs made to either the MHP talk page or user talk pages.

• A lot of my 'defense' is not available to me.
• A lot of 'mitigating factors' are not available.
• A lot of 'context' explaining the available diffs is not available.
• The mediation talk pages were likely the vast majority of MHP related diffs for the last 14 months.
• An editor who was aware of the request for arbitration *may* have strategically made out-of-bounds diffs on the mediation page. This 'strategy' would not have been available to the other editors.

So, whatever it is I'm being charged with, and that's not clear to me at all, happened prior to 2010, or is a grossly incomplete picture of the last 14 months.

Please advise. Glkanter (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Further, I'm not clear on why this qualifies as an arbitration matter. A simple RfC requires 2 editors who have attempted to address the same issue with the trouble-maker in order to be accepted. It would seem that an arbitration case should, at a minimum, meet that same standard. That has not been demonstrated here. Nor has it been shown why arbitration, rather than an RfC is appropriate.

By the way, what am I supposed to provide evidence of? Rick Block offered up some old diffs, but what am I being 'charged' with, anyways? All I can see is that I disagree with Rick Block, and he doesn't appreciate that. Well, I don't appreciate his Gamesmanship, Wikilawyering, or Ownership of the article. Nor do I appreciate the disregard for basic Wikipedia policy demonstrated by Rick Block's ally, Nijdam, as he has already demonstrated in this arbitration. He unapologetically fails to offer the AGF to me and my edits, and he makes no effort to discuss or edit based on reliable sources. This has been going on for over 2 years. During the mediation, AGK agreed with my assessment/complaint of Nijdam's lack of responsiveness to my edits.

The 6 comments left with the acceptances all seemed to refer to the content dispute, not my conduct. Sorry, I don't 'get it'.

Please advise. Glkanter (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)