| Revision as of 05:43, 19 December 2005 editBenjamin Gatti (talk | contribs)2,835 edits →[]: ideas← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:45, 19 December 2005 edit undoBenjamin Gatti (talk | contribs)2,835 edits →Propose to add exclusion clause to the Principle of Prior EffortsNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| == Propose to add exclusion clause to the Principle of Prior Efforts == | == 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 personal nature, the consensus of the Arbcom appears to be in favor of lowering the expectation of prior resolution efforts, thus is proposed this additional section to handle witchhunts efficeintly: | Given the recently accepted Arbcom ] and noting that there is no ] by the same name, nor any attempts at mediation of a personal nature, the consensus of the Arbcom appears to be in favor of lowering the expectation of prior resolution efforts, thus is proposed this additional section to handle such witchhunts more efficeintly: | ||
| ''"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 targetted witchhunt of individual users (for which no RfC or Mediation has been attempted) and by that means reduce the numbers in the opposing camp as a means to secure the promotion of the popular point of view (regardless of its factual accuracy). Include a myriad of reasonable edits, served with 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 surely substitute popularity contests for hard work and reason."'' | ''"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 targetted witchhunt of individual users (for which no RfC or Mediation has been attempted) and by that means reduce the numbers in the opposing camp as a means to secure the promotion of the popular point of view (regardless of its factual accuracy). Include a myriad of reasonable edits, served with 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 surely substitute popularity contests for hard work and reason."'' | ||
Revision as of 05:45, 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)
- Current mediation relies to a great deal on ex-post-facto principles, which would not be binding on a prior agreement. Procedures must be "well-established and regularly enforced" in order to be upheld as a bar to future litigation. (A federal court precedent which might be a useful standard here.) Benjamin Gatti 05:43, 19 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 personal nature, the consensus of the Arbcom appears to be in favor of lowering the expectation of prior resolution efforts, thus is proposed this additional section to handle such witchhunts more efficeintly:
"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 targetted witchhunt of individual users (for which no RfC or Mediation has been attempted) and by that means reduce the numbers in the opposing camp as a means to secure the promotion of the popular point of view (regardless of its factual accuracy). Include a myriad of reasonable edits, served with 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 surely substitute popularity contests for hard work and reason."
Votes for consensus: