| Revision as of 22:37, 28 December 2006 editWknight94 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users89,452 edits →Should there be something about "consensus can change"?: I think we agree← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:26, 1 January 2007 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits arbsNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :::By ], I mostly meant ] or ], which are the <s>early stages of that process</s> middle stages of that process, after negotiation with the existing parties. ] 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | :::By ], I mostly meant ] or ], which are the <s>early stages of that process</s> middle stages of that process, after negotiation with the existing parties. ] 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::It sounds like we're on the same page. I think most people ''know'' when they're getting disruptive. The ones that don't - well - end up at ArbCom a lot. —] (]) 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | ::::It sounds like we're on the same page. I think most people ''know'' when they're getting disruptive. The ones that don't - well - end up at ArbCom a lot. —] (]) 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Arbitrators == | |||
| ;Arbitrators active on this case | |||
| *Fred Bauder | |||
| *Jdforrester | |||
| *Morven | |||
| *Charles Matthews | |||
| *Dmcdevit | |||
| *Raul654 | |||
| *SimonP | |||
| ;New arbitrators inactive on this case | |||
| The newly appointed arbitrators are assumed by default to be recused from cases already open at the time they took office. If an arbitrator becomes active on this case (by declaration or activity), his/her name will be moved to the active list and the majority adjusted accordingly. | |||
| *Flcelloguy | |||
| *Kirill Lokshin | |||
| *Paul August | |||
| *UninvitedCompany | |||
| *Jpgordon | |||
| *FloNight | |||
| *Blnguyen | |||
| ;Arbitrators whose term expired | |||
| Jayjg and The Epopt, who were active when this case was opened, are assumed by default to be no longer active. However, they are still entitled to case a vote if they desire. If they do so, the active list above and the majority tally will be adjusted accordingly. | |||
Revision as of 01:26, 1 January 2007
Should there be something about "consensus can change"?
Fred, do you think the proposed decision should contain some reference to consensus can change -- i.e., some discussion of whether minority editors can continue to argue against a consensus through the talk pages or dispute resolution and how to recognise when a consensus has changed? If I come to some page and make some bold edits and am told that the local editors reached consensus on the issue several months ago, I assume I'm not in trouble. TheronJ 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously, it depends on how you behave at the time. If ten editors jump on you, then consensus hasn't changed, and if you fail to recognize this and edit disruptively, you may be blocked. If you say, "Whoops, sorry, I missed the old discussion, never mind" then you're OK. If a couple of editors jump on you but a couple more indicate that it might be time to rethink the old decision, then consensus may have changed, or at least drifted, and a new discussion is in order. The decision here seems to be mainly about empowering uninvolved admins to adminster situations where there is no formal mechanism to declare consensus and move on. Thatcher131 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds fantastic. I assume there is no mechanism like this in place now, right? I'm trying to retrace steps to see what should have been done differently and I don't come up with much. If one person yells loud enough, they could force any issue all the way up to the top of the food chain like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- If ten editors jump on me, but I think they're all wrong, I assume I'm free to argue to change consensus on the talk page or to pursue dispute resolution, so long as I don't do it disruptively. Ne? TheronJ 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would think the non-disruptive way to do that would be go to WP:VPP or some other public forum. Find someone who might agree with you. Jumping straight to WP:DR with no other support seems like a disruption in itself. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- By WP:DR, I mostly meant requests for comment or third opinions, which are the
early stages of that processmiddle stages of that process, after negotiation with the existing parties. TheronJ 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)- It sounds like we're on the same page. I think most people know when they're getting disruptive. The ones that don't - well - end up at ArbCom a lot. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- By WP:DR, I mostly meant requests for comment or third opinions, which are the
- I would think the non-disruptive way to do that would be go to WP:VPP or some other public forum. Find someone who might agree with you. Jumping straight to WP:DR with no other support seems like a disruption in itself. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Arbitrators
- Arbitrators active on this case
- Fred Bauder
- Jdforrester
- Morven
- Charles Matthews
- Dmcdevit
- Raul654
- SimonP
- New arbitrators inactive on this case
The newly appointed arbitrators are assumed by default to be recused from cases already open at the time they took office. If an arbitrator becomes active on this case (by declaration or activity), his/her name will be moved to the active list and the majority adjusted accordingly.
- Flcelloguy
- Kirill Lokshin
- Paul August
- UninvitedCompany
- Jpgordon
- FloNight
- Blnguyen
- Arbitrators whose term expired
Jayjg and The Epopt, who were active when this case was opened, are assumed by default to be no longer active. However, they are still entitled to case a vote if they desire. If they do so, the active list above and the majority tally will be adjusted accordingly.