| Revision as of 06:52, 24 March 2012 editMiszaBot 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.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:47, 26 March 2012 edit undoShuki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,955 edits →Notify editor Dlv999: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| The ongoing Muhammad RfC is an amusing case of ]. I could also call it ]. 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. ] (]) 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | The ongoing Muhammad RfC is an amusing case of ]. I could also call it ]. 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. ] (]) 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Notify editor Dlv999 == | |||
| Please kindly add ] to the ]. Unfortunately, the editor seems to not have learned that we want to keep A/I conflict articles civil and not bring back the battleground. His recent skirting of 1RR by six minutes at ] is suspicious yet, I'll choose to AGF at this time, and merely request a notification rather than stirring up an AE action. | |||
| * 13:03, 25 March 2012 | |||
| * 13:09, 26 March 2012 | |||
| Thank you --] (]) 14:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:47, 26 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)
Notify editor Dlv999
Please kindly add User:Dlv999 to the AE notifications. Unfortunately, the editor seems to not have learned that we want to keep A/I conflict articles civil and not bring back the battleground. His recent skirting of 1RR by six minutes at Israeli settlement is suspicious yet, I'll choose to AGF at this time, and merely request a notification rather than stirring up an AE action.
Thank you --Shuki (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)