Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pretty good Fred Bauder 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice page. I'd have two suggestions... first, expand a bit about the ArbCom not caring overly much about rules. In particular, wikilawyering will not get you anywhere, and a motion to move the discussion to the U.S. Supreme Court will only get you laughed at. And second, given the nature of some people ending up before the ArbCom, I think this page could benefit from a concise point-by-point summary of short and simple sentences, at the top. HTH! Radiant_>|< 23:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you find a more positive way to say "They do not care about process"? Such as "They are uninterested in letting process interfere with Wikipedia's mission to build a high quality encyclopedia"? Maybe shorter, but you get the idea. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- I changed it to "They care more about product than process." - David Gerard 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Featured Essay
Recently saw this {{featured essay}} template used on User:Raul654/Raul's laws. Was thinking I would add it to this essay as well; however, "featured" has generally meant the article has passed some kind of quality check - so I am not sure it is the right word for this kind of essay. However, it would be nice to be able to have a place to easily find these kind of commentaries on wikipedia. Trödel 13:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- After discussions on CfD and TfD that raised these very objections, the template has been renamed to {{popular essay}}. I hope it's okay now. Loom91 09:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Examples?
Cut from page:
- For example, a blatant WP:3RR violation is preferred to one where the page was being vandalized at the same time and reversions might be confused: The first requires no explanation at all, the latter requires sifting through reversions and determining if it was revert warring or vandalism fixing.
I'd suggest examples be left out altogether. This page is really a guideline that offers clues to the clueful. (But it's not stamped 'guideline' because, really, if you're not smart enough to follow its advice anyway then you're too stupid or clueless to breathe while editing.) As a general guideline, it's about the idea of acting sensibly, not a how-to as such (again, despite the intro). The less specific the better. IMO.
Does any current or ex-arbitrator feel otherwise and that it should have examples? - David Gerard 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- (I'm neither of the above, but wanted to get in on the discussion) While the above isn't the best sort of example, immediately understandable ones can help immensely in getting the point across. 68.39.174.238 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mention content somewhere?
I'm not sure where exactly to add this, but wouldn't something about not filing an arbitration request solely over a dispute in content? I can't call any names to mind, but the RfAr page regularly has atleast one sitting there where the Comments and Replies are about nothing but content. 68.39.174.238 22:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
