User:Robertinventor/Proposals to help ensure it complies with WM:NOT

This is a page for proposed future rules for the section of the ESN Mockup about WM:NOT.

PLEASE NOTE the RfC to set up the board is not an RfC on any proposals on this page. I include this mainly to show that we have discussed how to make the board easy to run, low maintenance, and to ensure it complies with WM:NOT. There may be many ways to do this. As with other boards, the rules would evolve with time and based on experience, based on future RfCs where necessary.

Other proposals also welcome - do feel free to add your own suggestions to this page. Interested in any and all suggestions of ways to help make sure the board complies with WM:NOT in as easy and trouble free fashion as possible.

Proposal (by Robert Walker) - you have control of your own section

• On this board only, an editor can remove or strike out comments in their own section that they find unhelpful. They can't however edit anyone else's comment or just remove part of it, and can't remove comments from other sections

Note that it is a proposal only for this board. I can't think of anywhere else on wikipedia where this rule would be useful. But no rulings are made here, and it is not a place to resolve or mediate in disputes, or to discuss content of article pages. It's just a source of information and a place for topic banned editors to go for help. In this very special case I think it might help a lot. It's because if you come here for help, on this board only, it is all about helping you.

Just an idea. Please see the sample discussions below to see why I think it would help. This example is based on one of the many topics listed in Lamest edit wars

Sample Section - Topic banned for Aluminum / Aluminium (without the proposed rule)

Hi there, I'm here because I've just been topic banned for moving the Aluminium article to Aluminum. I kept trying to move it and every time it got reverted. I think it was unfair of them to topic ban me for this as I feel passionately about it. What do you think, do I have a case for appeal? GoofyNewbie

Your editing of wikipedia is very disruptive because Aluminium is the established spelling everywhere in the world except the US and Canada and this debate was settled long ago, please stop putting forward your ridiculous proposal to rename it to Aluminum IrritatedVeteran

Your aggressive attitude doesn't help. This is exactly why it goes so wrong, I've explained the reasons for moving to Aluminum over and over and now you've even got the admins to topic ban me and won't listen GoofyNewbie

It's you that are being stupid here, how stupid can you be, to try to change it when the consensus is that it has to be spelt Aluminium. It's people like you who are destroying wikipedia. We decided this long ago and there are pages and pages of archives about it. It's no wonder you were topic banned. IrritatedVeteran

Well whatever, I'm just here to ask for help, I don't want to rehash all those old arguments GoofyNewbie

(continues below collapsed)...

Extended content
You are not, you are only here to defend your stupid views. Look, you are at it again. If this was anywhere else except the ESN board you'd be sanctioned already IrritatedVeteran Please someone help, I'm just here to ask questions, I'm not here to fight the battle over again GoofyNewbie Don't listen to GoofyNewbie, they've been arguing with the rest of us for days now, and they are stubborn and stupid and I think must need medical treatment for this obsessiveness about the spelling of the Aluminium article IrritatedVeteran I've never said anything bad about you, that's an ad hominem argument, and nothing to do with Aluminum / Aluminium, and what about you, if I'm obsessive, then what are you? GoofyNewbie I'm not being obsessive because I'm just upholding the community decision and defending wikipedia. IrritatedVeteran

etc etc, we've all probably seen arguments like this so that's enough to get the idea.

Now lets see how the same situation might continue with the new rule:

Sample Section - Topic banned for Aluminum / Aluminium (with the proposed new rule)

Hi there, I'm here because I've just been topic banned for moving the Aluminium article to Aluminum. I kept trying to move it and every time it gets reverted. I think it was unfair of them to topic ban me for this as I feel passionately about it. What do you think, do I have a case for appeal? GoofyNewbie

Your editing of wikipedia is very disruptive because Aluminium is the established spelling everywhere in the world except the US and Canada and this debate was settled long ago, please stop putting forward your ridiculous proposal to rename it to Aluminum IrritatedVeteran

@GoofyNewbie - we are interested to know how we can help you. We are not interested in the topic discussion itself. Reminder, you can strike out or remove any posts you think are unhelpful from your section. Also, @IrritatedVeteran - if you have come here for help yourself, please start another section, and the same rule applies to you, you can remove or strike out any comments in your section that you find unhelpful. HelpfulEditor

Thanks, yes I am not here to rehash the arguments, I just want to know if there is any chance of appeal GoofyNewbie

[HelpfulEditor along with others then give advice on whether you can appeal and how likely it is to succeed etc ]

And this is IrritatedVeteran in a new section:

Sample Section 2 - More extensive topic ban question Aluminum / Aluminium (with the proposed rule)

Hi there, yes I did come here for a reason. this is not the only case of GoofyNewbie making controversial spelling changes and I think that GoofyNewbie should be banned from making any spelling related edits on wikipedia. I think the topic ban was not broad enough. Can I take them to AN again with a new proposal after they have been topic banned already? IrritatedVeteran

[HelpfulEditor along with others then gives advice on whether it is possible to apply for a more extensive topic ban immediately after a more restricted one, and likelihood of success if it is possible]

---

The principle here is that those trying to help don't judge the other editors, even if they may think that their views are silly, but just focus on the question they asked. This is not the place to try to decide if they are justified in their views on the dispute. The editors who are trying to help just want to know enough for context to understand the questions they have, and then answer their questions as simply and directly as they can and keep bringing focus back on how they can help.

Idea behind this proposal

I modeled this proposal on the way users can manage their own facebook timeline which works very well there. With this rule,

• Battling will be hard to impossible.
• Seeking advice and help will be encouraged.
• Editors with opposing views can still discuss the issues that brought them to the board with each other - but will do it in a way that is mutually acceptable, just as is the case for facebook friends with opposing views. E.g. editors who helped bring about the ban may well have helpful suggestions about how the banned editor can modify their behaviour - and so long as the topic banned editor finds their suggestions helpful, no problem.
• It requires the minimum of administrative work. Users would enforce it themselves.

This rule would not be a cause for bias. If a topic banned editor comes here, and the editors who brought out the action against them follow, the other editors can also start their own tickets and say what they like in those about the dispute. And the banning editors could of course equally delete any comments by the editor they banned from their own tickets.

I think with this rule, people who come here would soon calm down and could be encouraged to look in a constructive way at what their future options are rather than get stuck in the past. It would also help timid editors who may be scared to talk at all because of abusive or distracting comments that they get from their opponents. And especially so after they are topic banned, as it can be a scary experience for some people.

Though it is a novel rule, I think that once in place editors would soon get used to it, and understand why it is used on this board, especially if they come to an up and running functioning board where everyone else is already using this rule, and so long as it is stated clearly.