The lack of participation by admins is inhibiting effective operation of this board (I know there are several reasons for this, but this discussion isn't about that). I propose allowing uninvolved, non-admin editors, as well as uninvolved admins, to participate in deciding sanctions in the "Result concerning..." section. Then, an admin can impose the sanction. This will allow these enforcement actions to close more quickly and receive more attention in the results section. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! I would have to say that such a move would increase drama, result in a more difficult time reaching decisions and lead to general anarchy.--MONGO 02:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh indeed. Let's go with this option. But why stop here? Why don't we privatise all dispute resolution to cronies from Wikipedia Review? I'll start drawing up the paperwork now. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Mongo, it's just AN/I at that point. Arkon (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since nearly every edit in Wikipedia is recorded, should some editors' comments concerning other editors meet the same levels of scrutiny and reliability as the rest of Wikipedia, and be subject to WP:V? In other words, is it a fair expectation that allegations should be accompanied by diffs (primary sources!), and not just by links to earlier allegations (secondary sources) unless they include diffs? --Iantresman (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a best practice to include diffs. I don't think the arbitration committee is in the habit of adopting findings of fact based on allegations unsupported by diffs, although not all the diffs that are considered in drafting such a finding need necessarily be included in that finding. In the last case in which I had a hand in evaluating evidence and drafting findings, the TimidGuy appeal case, various unsupported allegations were made, and the deltas between what was asserted in the case and what was actually in the record when we examined it played a non-trivial part in how the case was ultimately resolved. Make no mistake: failure to present good evidence appropriately will reduce the chance of a favorable outcome in arbitration. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I would expect nothing less of the Admins, I have found in the past that other editors tend to forget diffs, or link to information where diffs are often assumed, but absent. --Iantresman (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ongoing Muhammad RfC is an amusing case of vox populi. I could also call it jury nullification. The ArbCom instructions to argue with sources etc. have been completely ignored. In fact I was told by one of the mediation participants that surveying sources is "synthesis" forbidden by the 5 pillars. I've decided not waste my time on the topic anymore, or with Wikipedia for that matter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly add User:Dlv999 to the AE notifications. Unfortunately, the editor seems to not have learned that we want to keep A/I conflict articles civil and not bring back the battleground. His recent skirting of 1RR by six minutes at Israeli settlement is suspicious yet, I'll choose to AGF at this time, and merely request a notification rather than stirring up an AE action.

• diff1 13:03, 25 March 2012
• diff2 13:09, 26 March 2012

Thank you --Shuki (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]