| Revision as of 00:43, 22 August 2011 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits →Real world factions: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:44, 22 August 2011 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits →Information asymmetry and moral hazard: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
| :'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' | :'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' | ||
| ::I do not understand specifically what you are driving at with this proposal. Please explain in a bit more detail (but only a ''bit'' more, please). ] (]) 00:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| :'''Comment by parties:''' | :'''Comment by parties:''' | ||
Revision as of 00:44, 22 August 2011
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Motions and requests by the parties
| This is neither a motion nor a request as currently formulated. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Unbiased enforcement of standards.1) Even though the concept of "unbiased enforcement" is quite subjective, it is still something important to keep in mind for all parties involved (especially for those with administrative authority). A main frustration I have is that there are highly involved authority figures who have consistently imposed their judgement on others in a highly selective manner. It's fine if everyone who jaywalks gets criticized, but it's discrimination if a few out of all substantial offenders are consistently selected for criticism. In our context, some people even went further than this. Namely, they would game the system to prevent certain parties from being sanctioned or simply refuse to scrutinize other parties' behaviours by summoning various excuses. In a practical perspective, these types of actions undermines the moral authority of people who engage biased enforcement of standards and render them less likely to be trusted by parties whom they exerted unjustified biases against. This can in turn contribute to factionalism and a loss of cooperative spirit. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposals by Tenmei
Proposed principles
Purpose of Misplaced Pages
1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create and maintain a high-quality encyclopedia using a process of collaborative editing
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Credibility and accuracy
2) The credibility and accuracy of our content is extremely important. Our policy of verifiability requires that article content which is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributable to a reliable source supporting the information presented.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
ArbCom's failure
1) This case is a direct consequence of ArbCom's past failures to act.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I do not understand this proposal. I don't believe this dispute was ever raised with the Arbitration Committee until this request was filed, whereupon we accepted it fairly quickly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Gaming the system
2) Instances of "gaming the system" highlight flaws which are susceptible to amelioration, mitigation, repair.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
These are not all my words, but I propose them as if they were my own. --Tenmei (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Real world factions
1) ArbCom acknowledges real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- We are well aware that this is another example of an ethnic-national dispute of a type that gives rise to a great number of disputes on Misplaced Pages, including a significant portion of arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Rules and policies as weapons
2) ArbCom acknowledges "polite disruption" by those who misuse our rules and policies as weapons.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Vested toxic warriors
3) ArbCom acknowledges toxic long-term warriors who are misconstrued as "vested" contributors.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Information asymmetry and moral hazard
4) ArbCom acknowledges the marriage of "content" and "conduct" informed by the related concepts of Information asymmetry (ja:情報の非対称性) and Moral hazard (zh:道德风); and this means less timidity in addressing issues related to content including POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty, etc.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I do not understand specifically what you are driving at with this proposal. Please explain in a bit more detail (but only a bit more, please). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Curtailing content disputes
5) ArbCom acknowledges that failure to curtail content disputes has unintended consequences. Misplaced Pages fails when academic integrity is not a priority, e.g., unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing affects the credibility of our work.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Transparency
6) ArbCom acknowledges that inadequate transparency in the dispute resolution process limits the ability of the community to find ways to mitigate future problems.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Reasons and justification
7) ArbCom acknowledges that there is a need for ArbCom to explain decision-making, including reasons and justification.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User2
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Example 3
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: