User talk:Abd/Pre-arbitration/Whig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Clarification request

The third paragraph may need to be rephrased for clarity, "A grievance or request for the consideration of an issue which cannot find a second (which can happen outside this process, this is one place where inoffensive canvassing (not mass canvassing, but personal contact from the originator of this process with other editors to identify support and bring it here), must be considered immature." -- I'm not sure what this means I am supposed to do, post a request for consideration and wait for someone to discover this page? Or did you mean that it would not be considered canvassing for me to make personal contact with other editors appropriate to identify support for a second? —Whig (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to review what I wrote after saving this.

I mean that I'm not going to take this on unless another user, not me and not you, signs off on it being worth considering. You may ask editors you think might be sympathetic, but I recommend you do this one at a time. In other words, don't do some kind of mass posting, it could get you in hot water. So: post a request, here, that outlines why you would want to go to ArbComm, and give enough evidence, perhaps a few of the "juiciest" diffs, to show that there is something worth considering. Then Talk with someone you think will be sympathetic and suggest that this person, if he or she agrees, second the petition. If the person declines or does not respond promptly, ask someone else. There is no harm if more than one sympathetic person shows up, just as there will be no harm later if others, not so sympathetic, show up.

This isn't going to be a vote and numbers coming here are almost irrelevant, as long as you come and it would help if at least one person from "the other side" comes. We will attempt to find what degree of common ground exists. We should be able to agree on the facts, first. Believe it or not, that, in itself, might accomplish a great deal. No matter where you go, you are going to have to start with an explanation of what happened and why you think it worthy of attention. So, do it here, and then look for a second. With a reference to what you've written here, you can, when you Talk with someone else, explain more. In other words, you may do what is sometimes considered a violation of WP:CANVASS, but don't do it en masse.

The point is procedural: it's an old principle to debate no question in an assembly before at least two people consider it worthwhile. If you have a motion that you thought up and nobody is going to understand it unless it is explained in detail, do this privately, you would not take up the time of an assembly unless it permits it. If you can't convince one person, privately, then how much chance do you have with a public process? Essentially, none.

So just start, see what happens. You stated your intention to go to ArbComm, consider this a chance to practice putting together the evidence; if nothing else, you will work out the kinks here. Then, once you have a second, I assume that you will invite Jehochman or whoever else you'd like to find agreement with, but ... I'd suggest you consult on this Talk page before going ahead with bringing in possible adverse parties. On the other hand, I assume that Jehochman has seen your Talk page and that he might show up here in any case.

My hope is to keep this efficient; one reason to confine initial work to the facts, with minimal interpretation, is to avoid the spinout that happens when premature conclusions are drawn and many people rush to make their "point." The first part, I expect, we will ultimately all agree on as being accurate before we proceed. After all, supposedly we all know how to write articles with NPOV. This is not an emergency process, you already tried the emergency process: WP:AN/I. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is I'd have to go find another editor and explain why I think it's a good idea to do it this way and right now I don't understand what the point of this is. I'm not going to present any diffs. I don't have a case to present right now. I just want my topic ban reviewed. Can you do that here? I don't think it can be done without going to the ArbCom. —Whig (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"A grievance or request for the consideration of an issue which cannot find a second must be considered immature." -- Is "immature" really the word you are looking for here? —Whig (talk)