| Revision as of 23:13, 23 March 2012 editIantresman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 edits →Comments subject to WP:V and diffs?← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:52, 24 March 2012 edit undoMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 3, Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 4.Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | ||
| ⚫ | == Increase participation by allowing non-admins to help decide on sanctions == | ||
| == Category discussion == | |||
| Will someone please have a look at the discussion of this category and resolve it? . While I freely admit I may not have followed all of the policies for renaming the categories of Art conservation, what I've done is try and make some sense out of a rarely edited set of articles that should be categorized similarly. What I've encountered in this process is a set of random editors that appear more interested in citing rules, doing absurd searches in Google, and setting out personal attacks against my well-intentioned work. This discussion has been going on for a week and it's gone no where. Please help. --] (]) 12:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:ANA == | |||
| Any clue why WP:ANA redirects to ]? ] (]) 20:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : According to its initial edit it was originally pointing to a sub-page of WP:AN, and named "along the same lines as ANI and AN3". ] ] 21:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah. Seeing as it is not even listed on the /Enforcement as a shortcut, I'd say it is safe to use it for something else (if there is another part of the project that wants to use it). ] <sup>]</sup> 21:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yep, only ever managed to gather two incoming links. ] ] 21:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ==Increase participation by allowing non-admins to help decide on sanctions== | ||
| The lack of participation by admins is inhibiting effective operation of this board (I know there are several reasons for this, but this discussion isn't about that). I propose allowing uninvolved, non-admin editors, as well as uninvolved admins, to participate in deciding sanctions in the "Result concerning..." section. Then, an admin can impose the sanction. This will allow these enforcement actions to close more quickly and receive more attention in the results section. ] (]) 01:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | The lack of participation by admins is inhibiting effective operation of this board (I know there are several reasons for this, but this discussion isn't about that). I propose allowing uninvolved, non-admin editors, as well as uninvolved admins, to participate in deciding sanctions in the "Result concerning..." section. Then, an admin can impose the sanction. This will allow these enforcement actions to close more quickly and receive more attention in the results section. ] (]) 01:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Absolutely not! I would have to say that such a move would increase drama, result in a more difficult time reaching decisions and lead to general anarchy.--] 02:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | :Absolutely not! I would have to say that such a move would increase drama, result in a more difficult time reaching decisions and lead to general anarchy.--] 02:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Line 28: | Line 16: | ||
| :Have to agree with Mongo, it's just AN/I at that point. ] (]) 02:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | :Have to agree with Mongo, it's just AN/I at that point. ] (]) 02:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ==Comments subject to WP:V and diffs?== | == Comments subject to WP:V and diffs? == | ||
| Since nearly every edit in Misplaced Pages is recorded, should some editors' comments concerning other editors meet the same levels of scrutiny and reliability as the rest of Misplaced Pages, and be subject to WP:V? In other words, is it a fair expectation that allegations should be accompanied by diffs (primary sources!), and not just by links to earlier allegations (secondary sources) unless they include diffs? --] (]) 12:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | Since nearly every edit in Misplaced Pages is recorded, should some editors' comments concerning other editors meet the same levels of scrutiny and reliability as the rest of Misplaced Pages, and be subject to WP:V? In other words, is it a fair expectation that allegations should be accompanied by diffs (primary sources!), and not just by links to earlier allegations (secondary sources) unless they include diffs? --] (]) 12:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :It would be a best practice to include diffs. I don't think the arbitration committee is in the habit of adopting findings of fact based on allegations unsupported by diffs, although not all the diffs that are considered in drafting such a finding need necessarily be included in that finding. In the last case in which I had a hand in evaluating evidence and drafting findings, the TimidGuy appeal case, various unsupported allegations were made, and the deltas between what was asserted in the case and what was actually in the record when we examined it played a non-trivial part in how the case was ultimately resolved. Make no mistake: failure to present good evidence appropriately will reduce the chance of a favorable outcome in arbitration. ] (]) 17:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | :It would be a best practice to include diffs. I don't think the arbitration committee is in the habit of adopting findings of fact based on allegations unsupported by diffs, although not all the diffs that are considered in drafting such a finding need necessarily be included in that finding. In the last case in which I had a hand in evaluating evidence and drafting findings, the TimidGuy appeal case, various unsupported allegations were made, and the deltas between what was asserted in the case and what was actually in the record when we examined it played a non-trivial part in how the case was ultimately resolved. Make no mistake: failure to present good evidence appropriately will reduce the chance of a favorable outcome in arbitration. ] (]) 17:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:52, 24 March 2012
| Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. Please click here to file an arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to arbitration | Shortcuts |
| Arbitration talk page archives |
|---|
| WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
| Various archives (2004–2011) |
| Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
| WT:RFAR subpages |
| Archive of prior proceedings |
Increase participation by allowing non-admins to help decide on sanctions
The lack of participation by admins is inhibiting effective operation of this board (I know there are several reasons for this, but this discussion isn't about that). I propose allowing uninvolved, non-admin editors, as well as uninvolved admins, to participate in deciding sanctions in the "Result concerning..." section. Then, an admin can impose the sanction. This will allow these enforcement actions to close more quickly and receive more attention in the results section. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely not! I would have to say that such a move would increase drama, result in a more difficult time reaching decisions and lead to general anarchy.--MONGO 02:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh indeed. Let's go with this option. But why stop here? Why don't we privatise all dispute resolution to cronies from Misplaced Pages Review? I'll start drawing up the paperwork now. Russavia 02:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Have to agree with Mongo, it's just AN/I at that point. Arkon (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments subject to WP:V and diffs?
Since nearly every edit in Misplaced Pages is recorded, should some editors' comments concerning other editors meet the same levels of scrutiny and reliability as the rest of Misplaced Pages, and be subject to WP:V? In other words, is it a fair expectation that allegations should be accompanied by diffs (primary sources!), and not just by links to earlier allegations (secondary sources) unless they include diffs? --Iantresman (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- It would be a best practice to include diffs. I don't think the arbitration committee is in the habit of adopting findings of fact based on allegations unsupported by diffs, although not all the diffs that are considered in drafting such a finding need necessarily be included in that finding. In the last case in which I had a hand in evaluating evidence and drafting findings, the TimidGuy appeal case, various unsupported allegations were made, and the deltas between what was asserted in the case and what was actually in the record when we examined it played a non-trivial part in how the case was ultimately resolved. Make no mistake: failure to present good evidence appropriately will reduce the chance of a favorable outcome in arbitration. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- While I would expect nothing less of the Admins, I have found in the past that other editors tend to forget diffs, or link to information where diffs are often assumed, but absent. --Iantresman (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
By the by
The ongoing Muhammad RfC is an amusing case of vox populi. I could also call it jury nullification. The ArbCom instructions to argue with sources etc. have been completely ignored. In fact I was told by one of the mediation participants that surveying sources is "synthesis" forbidden by the 5 pillars. I've decided not waste my time on the topic anymore, or with Misplaced Pages for that matter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)