| Revision as of 15:29, 17 December 2005 editBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,459,520 editsm →Arbitration clause: link arbitration clause← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:30, 19 December 2005 edit undoBenjamin Gatti (talk | contribs)2,835 edits Propose to add exclusion clause to the Principle of Prior EffortsNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| As I stated there, I believe this will head off legal threats of all stripes, as the courts (in the U.S., at least) are keen to enforce arbitration clauses, thereby reducing their caseloads. I'd like to get some wider input from the community before implementing such a change - currently, nothing binds disputants to our internal dispute resolution processes, which I think would be to our benefit. ] ] 04:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC) | As I stated there, I believe this will head off legal threats of all stripes, as the courts (in the U.S., at least) are keen to enforce arbitration clauses, thereby reducing their caseloads. I'd like to get some wider input from the community before implementing such a change - currently, nothing binds disputants to our internal dispute resolution processes, which I think would be to our benefit. ] ] 04:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Propose to add exclusion clause to the Principle of Prior Efforts == | |||
| Given the recently accepted Arbcom ] and noting that there is no ] by the same name, nor any attempts at mediation of a paersonal nature, the consensus of the Arbcom appears to be that importance of prior efforts may be overstated here, thus is proposed this additional section to handle witchhunts effeciently: | |||
| ''"In any content dispute between a plurality of editors, where RfC and Mediation have only served to increase the number of people who disagree, it may be helpful to engage in a witchhunt of single users (for which no RfC or Mediation has ben attempted) and by that means reduce those of opposing views and in the end succeed to promoting one's preferred point of view. Include a myriad of reasonable edits, served wwith plenty of conclusorary statements - such as - this is all lies and POV - even if it is well sourced. It is helpful to recruit echoes to reinterate the conclusorary statements as many in fatigue of the merits will substitute popularity contests for reason."'' | |||
| Votes for consensus: | |||
| # ] 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| ] 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:30, 19 December 2005
I am stating my intent to fork this article - turning this into an overview article, while making Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution (now a redirect) an article reserved for explaining the formal dispute resolution process. -St|eve 08:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration clause
I have proposed at MediaWiki talk:Edittools to add the following to the bottom of that section of the edit page:
- By clicking to save the above edit, you agree to the binding resolution of any disputes that arise as a result of your participation in Misplaced Pages through the dispute resolution processes available here .
As I stated there, I believe this will head off legal threats of all stripes, as the courts (in the U.S., at least) are keen to enforce arbitration clauses, thereby reducing their caseloads. I'd like to get some wider input from the community before implementing such a change - currently, nothing binds disputants to our internal dispute resolution processes, which I think would be to our benefit. BDAbramson T 04:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Propose to add exclusion clause to the Principle of Prior Efforts
Given the recently accepted Arbcom user:Benjamin Gatti and noting that there is no RfC by the same name, nor any attempts at mediation of a paersonal nature, the consensus of the Arbcom appears to be that importance of prior efforts may be overstated here, thus is proposed this additional section to handle witchhunts effeciently:
"In any content dispute between a plurality of editors, where RfC and Mediation have only served to increase the number of people who disagree, it may be helpful to engage in a witchhunt of single users (for which no RfC or Mediation has ben attempted) and by that means reduce those of opposing views and in the end succeed to promoting one's preferred point of view. Include a myriad of reasonable edits, served wwith plenty of conclusorary statements - such as - this is all lies and POV - even if it is well sourced. It is helpful to recruit echoes to reinterate the conclusorary statements as many in fatigue of the merits will substitute popularity contests for reason."
Votes for consensus: