| Revision as of 15:45, 26 November 2007 editHannibalormaybejustrex (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,830 edits drama← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:15, 26 November 2007 edit undoFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits →Finding 2 and remedy 2: ; replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| In particular, a finding is only as good as the evidence upon which it is based. I suggest that finding 2 should be refined so as to give specific examples, so that those at whom the remedy is aimed will better understand what constitutes "unseemly and provocative behavior". There seems to be some confusion about this on the workshop. --] 15:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | In particular, a finding is only as good as the evidence upon which it is based. I suggest that finding 2 should be refined so as to give specific examples, so that those at whom the remedy is aimed will better understand what constitutes "unseemly and provocative behavior". There seems to be some confusion about this on the workshop. --] 15:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I agree totally. I think my (3, I think?) comments on AN/I about this issue were in good faith and productive. Now I'm being admonished? I think the majority of people who commented were in step with AN/I standards and did not show "unseemly and provocative behavior" but we're all being lumped together. --] 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | :I agree totally. I think my (3, I think?) comments on AN/I about this issue were in good faith and productive. Now I'm being admonished? I think the majority of people who commented were in step with AN/I standards and did not show "unseemly and provocative behavior" but we're all being lumped together. --] 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::We can tweak the wording a bit but I'm not in favor of us explicitly noting individual users since we are not going to give out individual remedies. We are asking for self-reflection from individuals about the way they participated in the discussion. Suggestions? ]] 16:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Drama== | ==Drama== | ||
Revision as of 16:15, 26 November 2007
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.
Finding 2 and remedy 2
In my opinion the major risk of fallout from this case lies in the discussion of the block, which got out of hand in numerous instances. In the circumstances, I would venture that if they were to pass in their current form we might at a future date look back with regret for the vague wording of finding 2 and remedy 2.
In particular, a finding is only as good as the evidence upon which it is based. I suggest that finding 2 should be refined so as to give specific examples, so that those at whom the remedy is aimed will better understand what constitutes "unseemly and provocative behavior". There seems to be some confusion about this on the workshop. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree totally. I think my (3, I think?) comments on AN/I about this issue were in good faith and productive. Now I'm being admonished? I think the majority of people who commented were in step with AN/I standards and did not show "unseemly and provocative behavior" but we're all being lumped together. --W.marsh 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- We can tweak the wording a bit but I'm not in favor of us explicitly noting individual users since we are not going to give out individual remedies. We are asking for self-reflection from individuals about the way they participated in the discussion. Suggestions? FloNight♥♥♥ 16:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Drama
"Avoid excessive drama" sounds a bit euphemistic. Could this be worded in a clearer way? Catchpole (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)