Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy proposed updating and Bistrița River (Iza): Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
The Anomebot2 (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,037,728 edits
Adding geodata: {{coord missing|Romania}}
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Geobox River
==Introduction==
<!-- *** Name section *** -->
| name = Bistriţa River
| native_name =
| other_name =
| other_name1 =
<!-- *** Image *** --->
| image =
| image_size =
| image_caption =
<!-- *** Country etc. *** -->
| country_type = Countries
| state_type =
| region_type =
| district_type = Counties
| city_type = Villages
| country = [[Romania]]
| country1 =
| state =
| state1 =
| region =
| region1 =
| district = [[Maramureş County]]
| district1 =
| city = [[Săcel, Maramureş|Săcel]]
| city1 =
<!-- *** Geography *** -->
| length =
| watershed =
| discharge_location =
| discharge =
| discharge_max =
| discharge_min =
| discharge1_location =
| discharge1 =
<!-- *** Source *** -->
| source_name =
| source_location = [[Ţibleş Mountains]]
| source_district =
| source_region =
| source_state =
| source_country =
| source_lat_d =
| source_lat_m =
| source_lat_s =
| source_lat_NS =
| source_long_d =
| source_long_m =
| source_long_s =
| source_long_EW =
| source_elevation =
| source_length =
<!-- *** Mouth *** -->
| mouth_name = [[Iza River|Iza]]
| mouth_location = [[Săcel, Maramureş|Săcel]]
| mouth_district =
| mouth_region =
| mouth_state =
| mouth_country =
| mouth_lat_d =
| mouth_lat_m =
| mouth_lat_s =
| mouth_lat_NS =
| mouth_long_d =
| mouth_long_m =
| mouth_long_s =
| mouth_long_EW =
| mouth_elevation =
<!-- *** Tributaries *** -->
| tributary_left =
| tributary_left1 =
| tributary_right =
| tributary_right1 =
<!-- *** Free fields *** -->
| free =
| free_type = Official River Code
<!-- *** Map section *** -->
| map =
| map_size =
| map_caption =
}}


The '''Bistriţa River''' is a [[tributary]] of the [[Iza River]] in [[Romania]].
This page represents a ''proposed discussion draft'' for community revision and updating of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy]]. In addition to a general updating of the policy in light of experience in the four years since it was drafted, I have incorporated some of the input from the RfC on the Arbitration Committee that took place over this past summer. Issues relating to the selection of arbitrators (in particular, length of term) are discussed on [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]] but can also be discussed on this talkpage for consideration of a modification of that page.


===References===
In order that all editors can work off the same discussion draft, I suggest that for a few days, editors refrain from editing the proposed policy, except for correcting any typographical or formal errors. Once we have a consensus on whether the discussion draft provides a basis for updating the policy, and what areas require further work, the revised policy can then be opened for consensus editing under the ordinary wiki model. In the interim, I suggest that comments be placed on this page and arranged by topic so that we can see whether we have a consensus or not for any change.


* Administraţia Naţională Apelor Române - Cadastrul Apelor - Bucureşti
I will add that although I mentioned that I would be undertaking this project to my colleagues on the Arbitration Committee, and some of the ideas I would be raising, the proposed revision is my own work product. No claim is made that other arbitrators support it or any of it, and I expect to see sitting and former arbitrators, along with lots of other editors, here to comment on various aspects. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
* Institutul de Meteorologie şi Hidrologie - Rîurile României - Bucureşti 1971
:At first glance, I like this, will spend cycles digesting it. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 19:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


===Maps===
:I've now read it three times, and I like what I am seeing overall. I believe this is a workable and reasonable proposal that takes into account the majority of relevant issues raised separately. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


* Harta judeţului Maramureş [http://www.harta-turistica.ro/map.php?ID=36&harta=Judetul%20Maramures]
==Procedural discussion concerning the revision process==
* Harta munţii Maramureş [http://www.muntiimaramuresului.ro/pics/hartamm.jpg]
* Harta munţii Rodnei [http://harti.mielu.ro/rodnei.html]


{{coord missing|Romania}}
==Comments concerning specific drafting and policy issues==
===Issue 1: Case opening criteria and calculation of majority===
I agree with the change to the rule on how cases are deemed ripe for opening; I had suggested substantially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_policy&diff=prev&oldid=236268789 the same change] some time ago (to little feedback).


{{DEFAULTSORT:Bistrita River}}
I still think that my second change is worth consideration; specifically, that arbitrators are not considered active on a case unless and until they either positively state they are or act on the case. The ''presumption'' that all arbs not otherwise specifically recused or marked inactive are, in fact, actively monitoring and considering the proposed decisions has been shown to be inaccurate in practice; and cases have often languished without a decision for lack of arbitrator participation, making attaining the requisite absolute majority of sitting arbs difficult or impossible.
[[Category:Rivers of Romania]]
[[Category:Rivers of the Tisa-Iza-Vişeu subbasin]]
[[Category:Rivers of Maramureş County]]


{{Maramureş-geo-stub}}
It seems perverse that if the only, say, six arbitrators that have actively participated on a case unanimously agree on a proposed decision that it would then been scuttled because of lack of interest/participation by the other arbitrators (whatever the reason(s) might be). &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 21:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:Although the first change you reference (from "net four" back to "four accepts") may not have received a lot of feedback when you raised it, rest assured that it has been discussed in great detail a number of times. I believe can probably find a number of the discussions, if you are interested, in the archives of [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration]].
:Your second proposed change has been discussed from time to time as well. In my experience, there have been relatively few cases in which arbitrator inactivity has wound up ultimately affecting the result. More common is that cases sit around well after they should have been closed, waiting for the last few arbitrators to straggle in. But the latecomers often do contribute valuable comments or additional proposals when they arrive, I'd rather see more active and prompt participation brought about by the presumptive time limits, rather than making it easier to count the additional arbitrators out of the cases altogether. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::The problem is that, as currently worded, the proposed policy doesn't create actual deadlines so much as a statement of intent to keep the cases under certain timelines &mdash; not that I would support strict deadlines either, mind you, since that leaves little room for extending the deliberations when the case is genuinely complex or difficult to reach consensus on.
::Is it really that much of an imposition to require that, for an arbitrator to be counted when calculating majorities, they need to have made one positive act at some point in the case? (Whether by opining on the case opening, voting on one of the measures or simply stating somewhere that "I am active on this case")?
::I don't want to sound callous, but frankly if an arbitrator can't be bothered to write a one-liner ''at some point during the case'', the presumption that they are not paying attention to it is certainly warranted. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


[[ro:Râul Bistriţa, Iza]]
===Issue 2: Jimbo-related policies ===
[[simple:Bistriţa River (Iza)]]
Prefacing with absolute wonderful work, Brad. This took lots of time and I think you did a great job.

The one tiny bone I'd pick-- if I ran the circus, phrases like "may be appealed to Jimbo Wales" would be replaced with "may be appealed to the individual delegated by the Wikimedia Foundation Board to handle such appeals, Wikimedia Chairman Emeritus Jimbo Wales."

It's a minor thing, but you don't have to go far to hear accusations of dictatorship at Wikipedia. My own experience is that these accusations are '''utterly baseless'''. No such dictator exists, Jimbo has exercised his authority with total responsibility.

But, as long as we're getting sitting down to write one article in the constitution of Wikipedia, we might pause for just a second to put our best foot forward.

In the current draft, it's unclear why arbcom appeals go to Jimbo. A reader could ask "''Why Jimbo? Why him? Why not somebody else???''"

The answer is, of course, that he's the person we all trust-- he is THE most trusted neutral broker the project has. It's not just that he was a founder-- it's that time and again he has earned the trust of those around him.

It would cost us nothing to spell this out by explicitly-- by mentioning that appeals go to the person who is the most trusted member of Wikipedia-- the person who has been entrusted by the board (and the community!) to handle such appeals.

It's pure semantics, but semantics do matter. People like leaders who lead by example and have earned respect and trust. People '''despise''' dictators who have the final say for no apparent reason. Let us make it clear at every opportunity what we in the community already know-- Jimbo leads with earned respect and trust.

When weighing how much participation dedicate to the project, when deciding how much money to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, or when writing up a news story that will influence the opinions of the public-- perceptions and semantics DO matter.

If the allegations were true-- if Jimbo were a secret tyrant who clings to power at all costs, well, we'd just have to hope for the best, try and sweep the issue under the rug. But that's not the case. But the allegation are NOT true in the slightest. Jimbo has not dictated his role, he has had his role thrust upon him by virtue of the trust he as earned.

So, let's take half a sentence clause, here and there, to state the truth that makes reflects positively on the project and the foundation-- that Jimbo has been rightfully entrusted with his role by his colleagues, and that he has not simply dictated his role (which, as former owner, he certainly once could have done). --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 23:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the kind words. As for the Jimbo Wales issue, I understand your semantic point completely. But as a historical matter, it really isn't true that Jimbo is "the individual delegated by the Wikimedia Foundation Board to handle such appeals." To the best of my knowledge, the Board has made no such delegation nor has anyone asked them to (and in fact, the Board would be very unlikely to take an action of this type that would affect just one project). As I understand it, Jimbo's special role here, whatever it is, is a function of history and community acceptance rather than of Board action. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I stand corrected-- I realized the board had never explicitly said so, but I assumed that was their position and that were Jimbo to overrule Arbcom, he would do so on behalf of the board.

:::Though the answer isn't as simple as I like, I think it would be excellent if we could find some sort of explanatory language to give the reader an answer the question of why Arbcom rulings can be appealed to one particular individual. An answer beyond "That's sorta just how it's always been."

:::So why CAN arbcom decisions be appealed to Jimbo? Is it because the board or the bylaws says so? Is it because community consensus says so? Or to put a finer point on it-- if the board wanted to end Jimbo's ability to overrule arbcom, could they? If the community wanted to end Jimbo's ability to overrule arbcom, could they?

:::It doesn't much matter to me which the answer is, but I think somehow we should find an answer and write it down. The important thing is to debunk the smear I see, from time to time, that Jimbo simply "owns" Wikipedia and can do whatever he wants just because he started it. That's not the way Jimbo himself wants it, that's not the way EnWikipedia works, that's not the way the Wikimedia Foundation runs things. The further we can get from that urban legend, the better. --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 23:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::::The genesis of Jimbo's role is that he founded wikipedia and gave himself final authority. The continuation of Jimbo's role is that the community has at no point reached a consensus that it wants to change this traditional status-quo. But it is entirely a matter for the English wikipedia project and its community, not for the board. If you can get a consensus to have someone or some process other than Jimbo as a "final authority" then that's what would happen.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]] ([[User talk:Scott MacDonald|talk]]) 00:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::So I ask the audience: "Is Scott right?". I hope so-- I think that's a great answer-- "delegated by community consensus to handle appeals" is even less 'dictatorial' than "delegated by the board to handle appeals", and encoding that in policy would go along way towards killing the "jimbo is an evil dictator" meme. --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I didn't say it was delegated by the community. That would imply the community had a power and decided to give it to Jimbo. That's not what happened. Jimbo had the power from the beginning, and the community has never changed that status-quo (which, in theory, it could by consensus).--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]] ([[User talk:Scott MacDonald|talk]]) 00:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Granted-- I'm making a minor leap of logic there to assume that the community has made such a delegation through consensus just by it's inaction and overall endorsement of the status quo. I don't think there's any doubt that Jimbo's appeal power does have consensus-- but if we wanted to be sticklers, we could always make a proposal to ratify that power so there's no doubt whatsoever it has consensus-- such a proposal would probably pass without a singe opposition !vote. If we all agree that Jimbo's arbcom appeal power is community-determined, I'd just as soon ignore-all-rules and declare it to have consensus, rather than go through the extra step of asking the community a question we already know the answer to. --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 00:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::No, I think you'd get lots of objections. However, again that's the wrong way round, it does not need consensus. We don't ratify the status-quo; rather it is anyone looking to change it need to get the consensus. There are many parts of wiki-process that wouldn't pass "ratification of consensus" but they remain until some alternative does pass it.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]] ([[User talk:Scott MacDonald|talk]]) 00:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Well, this complexity underscores how important it is for us to figure out what the deal with Jimbo's arbcom-appeal power is and enshrine it in policy. There are a lot of anti-wikipedia pages (which I shan't link to) which put forward the jimbo-as-dictator meme. Since we're all here writing a policy which mentions Jimbo's arbcom appeal power, now would be a great opportunity for us to cut that smear off at the knees. --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 01:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Em? You'll never stop such sites. We don't need to "figure out what do to with Jimbo's appeal power" - it exists. It will continue to exist unless someone gets consensus to do something else.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]] ([[User talk:Scott MacDonald|talk]]) 01:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::By "figure out what to do with Jimbo's appeal power", I just mean-- get it written down somewhere what you said earlier-- that "yes, community consensus could decide whether to grantJimbo that power or not."

:::::::::::The alternative view is that "No, Jimbo's appeal power comes from the nature of the foundation, the nature of the project, or the decision of the board, and is not up for alteration by community policy".

:::::::::::I've heard both views expressed on-wiki at one point or the other-- I don't know what the answer is-- but WHATEVER the answer is, this is a great place to write it down, so that people will know in the future. --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 05:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

===Should we propose a JIMBO policy?===
As best I can tell, Jimbo has two "special powers" on EnWP that he alone possesses-- he can override Arbcom decisions and he can veto Arbcom candidates. The current draft does not specify why this is so. I had thought these were granted by the foundation board, but apparently not. I had also thought it might be by community consensus, but apparently the community never actually enacted such a policy, so perhaps we can't say it's due to community consensus?

What would people think about just proposing a policy that says should have the powers he has now: Arbcom Appeal and Arbcom Candidate Veto? It would certainly reach consensus, and the matter would be settled.

Or is such a step unnecessary? Perhaps it's just abundantly evident that yes, Jimbo's powers do in fact, have community consensus, and we can just state it as such without hopping through the hoop of a formal ratification?
--[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 10:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::<small>(and I know, yes, it's kind of a minor point, but as long as we're updating the Arbcom Policy page, let's make it absolutely as good as possible). </small> --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 10:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

===Issue 3: Off wiki-deliberation===
:''The arbitrators may discuss and deliberate on cases on their private mailing list, particularly where warranted by privacy or similar factors, but the substantive basis for the final decision should be apparent from the decision itself or from arbitrators' comments on it.''

This seems to mean that arbs don't have to discuss on-wiki at all, as long as final decision is clear on-wiki. Sometimes it can seem like there are two discussions, one on the workshop without much arb involvement and one behind closed doors - where arbs try to get agreement before proposing decisions. I would have thought that 1) arbs should engage with community discussion on the workshop where they can and 2) they should show their working (including disagreements) on the proposed decision page. That is DO NOT initially make proposals on a mailing list, make them on wiki!!! The proposed decision page is the arbcom's workshop, not merely a place to disclose what's been thrashed out in secret. (I am here speaking of cases where no privacy is involved.)

I'd suggest changing this to:
:''Where warranted by privacy or similar factors, the arbitrators may discuss and deliberate on cases on their private mailing list. Beyond that, where practical, deliberation and discussion by arbitrators should mainly be either on the workshop, or on proposed decision page.''

Even that is an encouragement to on-wiki discussion rather than an imperative.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]] ([[User talk:Scott MacDonald|talk]]) 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:I see no problem with them discussing the issue in secret. I believe that as long as the final decision is made on wiki, and can be veirfied by looking at the history of the page, their internal discussions should be allowed to take place in secret. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 09:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

===Issue 4: Scope, evidence, private communications===
Nothing here addresses the scope of cases. Because no formal charges are brought, an editor may not realize that some aspect of his or her actions are being scrutinized and that rebuttal evidence is needed. By the time that the decision is drafted and charges are laid out, it is essentially too late. It would be helpful to parties if the ArbCom could at some point or points explain which issues they are addressing. It might be at the beginning, when a case is accepted, and/or midway, after initial evidence is presented and reviewed but while there is still time to add more evidence.

In a related manner, this policy allows for the private submission of evidence but it doesn't mention sharing that evidence with involved parties. So a party could have evidence presented against him or her but not even be aware of the accusations much less have an opportunity to rebut them. While some evidence may be so confidential that it can't be shared in its entirety, the confidential parts could be redacted or the evidence summarized. Communications with the ArbCom are a topic that seems to generate frustration - parties don't know who to email, and they may not receive replies or even acknowledgements. Would it make sense to designate an ArbCom member or two as the point of contact for emails?

Lastly, an unrelated item - the 7-day periods appear to be illusory. To make editors hurry to gather evidence within a week, and then to have the ArbCom spend months deciding the case is unfair to volunteer editors. If the ArbCom cannot follow schedules like this it's better not to raise expectations. I don't see anything in this proposal which will help the ArbCom handle cases more expeditiously than it has in the past. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 23:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Issue 5: (case duration) ===
I realize the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV|WP:RFAR/Everybody and their dog]] case went on for way too long, but that doesn't mean you have to over-correct by imposing firm time limits (either 2 or 3 weeks depending on how I read this). A month and a half is fine, so is two months, as long as there's steady progress being made. Really, it depends on the case. The number of people involved will in most cases exponentially increase the time needed. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

=== Issue 6: (topic) ===

=== Issue 7: (topic) ===

==Comments concerning non-policy issue(s)==
===(S)electing arbitrators===
It is not clear if most issues relating to ArbCom properly belong to the Committee, to the Community, or to Wales. Ironically, the group of items that it is clearest do '''not''' belong to the committee, that is election frequency, eligibility, term length, etc, that group of issues is absent. Where does that discussion belong? [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:Per my comments at the top of this page, on a revision of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]]. I'll hopefully get work up a proposed discussion draft for revising that page, as a companion to this one, in a day or two. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, I missed it. And for this draft... which demands a close read. [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, as I think about it, it would probably be better off to have the term-length discussion here. My own view is that there is no need at all to change the current terms or selection process. However, a reasonable alternative would be to go to two-year rather than three-year terms (meaning tranches of seven or eight arbitrators). I could not support any reduction of the term length below two years, as it takes time for some of the arbitrators to get up to speed, and I could not support holding ArbCom elections more often than once a year given the amount of community time and attention they divert from other work. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::::It is important that you mention the time to get up to speed; the opposite poll of discussion is the awful attrition rate. If I read the chart correctly, only three arbitrators have completed 3 year terms ([[user:The Epopt|The Epopt]], [[user:Raul654|Raul654]] and [[user:Neutrality|Neutrality]], though three more are only 12 weeks away [[user:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]], [[user:Morven|Morven]], and [[user:Jdforrester|James F.]]. (Raul and James F. remarkably have over three years each.) The tension between learning curve and attrition pushes me to think that "no less than two years, no more than 3 years" contains as close to the 'right' answer as we will get. [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 20:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, arbitrator certainly is one of the more draining assignments we have, there is no doubt about that, as any sitting or former arbitrator can attest from experience. What we ''really'' need is 15 (or however many) fully participating arbitrators to spread the workload around, but for a variety of real-world and on-wiki reasons that can never be guaranteed. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I suspect [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Policy_Changes&diff=242200113&oldid=242198699 Sam Korn nailed it] when predicting two-year terms, yearly elections. I've heard a lot of support for 18 month terms, but the election schedules get hectic and the sittings arbs seem pretty unanimous in that 18 months is just too short.

::::::In addition to election schedule and term duration, the other big question is how many seats. Aside from noting that it's widely held we need more arbs in order to get more active arbs, I haven't the foggiest clue how to even begin to suggest what that number should be. I start by assuming how many active arbs we need, the multiply that by the product of term length and arb attrition rate, divide by a constant, then get a headache.

::::::As such, I'd urge NYB to [[wp:BEBOLD|be bold]] and just pick a number of seats, based on his own experience and judgment, and shout it out. (Of course, this is probably what he was already gonna do before I and my longwinded comments suggested he do it-- but, you can never have enough 'Huzzahs of Confidence' urging you to be bold, so, I'll add one more.) --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 00:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::The current number is probably about right. With more arbitrators, we would never come to a consensus or majority decision on anything (unless we started acting by panels or subcommittees, but there's no reason to consider doing that given the current low caseload). With fewer, there wouldn't be enough people to do the work given that a few arbs are always inactive or busy at any given time. Somewhere between 12 and 15 is probably optimal and we are at 15 now so I don't see a need for any change. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Groovy by me. I had interpreted your earlier comment to suggest that you thought the total seats should be inflated to try to guarantee a solid 15 active arbs. hehehe but when looking over the discussion to see who brought up adding more arbs, I guess in fact _I_ did-- so... just ignore that. :) --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 00:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:59, 12 October 2008

Template:Geobox River

The Bistriţa River is a tributary of the Iza River in Romania.

References

  • Administraţia Naţională Apelor Române - Cadastrul Apelor - Bucureşti
  • Institutul de Meteorologie şi Hidrologie - Rîurile României - Bucureşti 1971

Maps

  • Harta judeţului Maramureş [1]
  • Harta munţii Maramureş [2]
  • Harta munţii Rodnei [3]

Stub icon

This Maramureș County location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_policy_proposed_updating&oldid=244767129"