| Revision as of 23:57, 9 September 2009 editBrews ohare (talk | contribs)47,831 edits →Note to Physchim62 and to parties generally← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:19, 12 September 2009 edit undoMatheuler (talk | contribs)257 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| :There already are guidelines: ] and ], but they are enforced erratically instead of upon ''all'' participants. They could be beefed up to state more clearly that critique of contributions should be based exclusively upon statements ''in the contributions'', not upon generalities brought to the table by the editors' imaginings. ], ], and ] should be prohibited. They cloud judgment and lead to a lynch mentality. ] (]) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | :There already are guidelines: ] and ], but they are enforced erratically instead of upon ''all'' participants. They could be beefed up to state more clearly that critique of contributions should be based exclusively upon statements ''in the contributions'', not upon generalities brought to the table by the editors' imaginings. ], ], and ] should be prohibited. They cloud judgment and lead to a lynch mentality. ] (]) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == General Question == | |||
| In reading through this arbitration case, I see posted a comment by one of the arbitrators that seems unclear to me. This is perhaps due to the fact that I do not have as long of a history of observing arbitration pages as other users may. Nonetheless, I thought I would point it out, and another user could perhaps clarify if they have time. The lead section of the workshop page says "Any user may edit this workshop page", which would imply that suggestions on effective solutions by ''uninvolved'' editors are welcome. On the other hand, the drafting arbitrator's comment that "Non-parties may only add a statement here with ''my permission'', and only if they can show a reasonable connection to the dispute" indicates that uninvolved suggestions are deprecated or prohibited. Either way is fine, it just seemed potentially confusing. —] 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:19, 12 September 2009
Note to Physchim62 and to parties generally
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. I assume that everyone would be willing to abide with ArbCom sanctions—I'm most curious about what sort of resolution parties would find helpful. I think I might have over-emphasized "concessions." I only mentioned it because parties sometimes acknowledge that their own behavior was problematic/over-aggressive, or whatever. In that case, they might be willing to set limits for themselves if their other concerns are addressed.
At any rate, I agree that there should be better guidelines for these sorts of disputes, and I would especially like to clear up the issue of community/admin topic or page bans. This issue also came up in the WMC-Abd arbitration, but it was very muddled in that case. I think this would be a better case for that issue. Cool Hand Luke 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- There already are guidelines: WP:NPA and WP:talk, but they are enforced erratically instead of upon all participants. They could be beefed up to state more clearly that critique of contributions should be based exclusively upon statements in the contributions, not upon generalities brought to the table by the editors' imaginings. Bandwagoning, snowballing, and gossip should be prohibited. They cloud judgment and lead to a lynch mentality. Brews ohare (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
General Question
In reading through this arbitration case, I see posted a comment by one of the arbitrators that seems unclear to me. This is perhaps due to the fact that I do not have as long of a history of observing arbitration pages as other users may. Nonetheless, I thought I would point it out, and another user could perhaps clarify if they have time. The lead section of the workshop page says "Any user may edit this workshop page", which would imply that suggestions on effective solutions by uninvolved editors are welcome. On the other hand, the drafting arbitrator's comment that "Non-parties may only add a statement here with my permission, and only if they can show a reasonable connection to the dispute" indicates that uninvolved suggestions are deprecated or prohibited. Either way is fine, it just seemed potentially confusing. —Matheuler 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)