User talk:Grue/howto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dispute resolution

This page as it currently stand is spectacularly un-useful. However, despite the sob-optimal manner in which it is presented, it's core claim appears to merit further consideration. Let us presume that talking hasn't worked, as that's the preferred resolution method. Presuming further that RfC hasn't worked...

The parties involved could have another request for comment raised. There has been a previous attempt at getting this matter before the arbitration committee. (Nice to have link to where is was removed from the page as rejected, if anyone is willing to did it up.) An important distinction might be in examining this as part of a larger issue, e.g. Ongoing disruption over trivial issues.

If there is sufficient commitment to this issue, a well-prepared arbitration request is required.

• Move this page to something like User:Grue/Requests for arbitration/Long term disruption,
• Create at the same time something like User:Grue/Requests for arbitration/Long term disruption/Evidence,
• Start populating this collaboratively.

Three possibilities:

1. After putting everything together in a dispassionate manner, it becomes clear there's nothing to it,
2. After piling the evidence up in a calm and civil manner, it becomes impossible to deny there is a problem,
3. Half way through everyone who has edited the pages get an escalating series of blocks leading to indef and talk page protection.

The best way to begin would be to consider accepted principles from previous arbitration cases. If, for example, civility was perceived as an issue:

1. Link explicitly to a recent principle that talks about civility,
2. If they exist, link to previous RfC or ArbCom finding about civility for the individuals in question,
3. Create a timeline of diffs of continuing incivility.

The thing to avoid is injecting any overly emotive language into the mix. Don't rise to the bait, as it were. If things are as this page claims, calmly laying out the facts will suffice. Note also that there may be a new, different ArbCom by the time that the request is polished enough to become live.

CygnetSaIad 04:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not a party involved in Template:Spoiler dispute. I have never added or removed this template from any page. That's why I have no intention to start RfAr or RfCs about this stuff. However the problem of deletionists ruining Wikipedia needs to be highlighted and that's why I use satire here to make fun of them. Since ArbCom case on this seems to have failed, this is in fact the only remaining option.  Grue  10:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I appear to not be making myself clear. Firstly, one does not have to be "party" to an event to do something about it. Secondly, the fact that one ArbCom request has failed doesn't mean that another will as well. Finally, there appears to be some opinion that this "skirmish" was only part of an ongoing pattern of disruption-for-fun. Oh, yeah, and extra-finally, the page in its current form is sure to be deleted. - CygnetSaIad 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)