Cross-wiki arbitration committee (2007 proposal)/Accepted cases/Example
|Cross-wiki arbitration committee (arbitration case)|
|This is a proposed process to resolve disputes such as the Yiddish Wikipedia case. It is not currently active. This is an arbitration case concerning a dispute on the Yiddish Wikipedia. Do not edit this page unless you've read and understood the arbitration process. All content on this page may be edited by arbiters to maintain format and order.|
|Brief summary||Yidel alleges that Schmaltz has abused his administrator access on the Yiddish Wikipedia. Schmaltz alleges that Yidel is disruptive.|
Phase one: presentationEdit
Summary of disputeEdit
Describe the case below very briefly (in no more than four average-sized paragraphs). This should be a fair summary of the case, presenting no arguments and making no judgments as to the validity of any user's positions.
Attempts at resolutionEdit
Briefly list previous attempts to reach agreement through the dispute resolution process.
Agreement to arbitrateEdit
All users must agree that any decision taken by the arbitration committee is binding and final. Although the committee may modify a decision if new evidence is provided, it has no obligation to do so. If you agree to abide by said decision, sign your name below by typing "* ~~~".
Phase two: argumentationEdit
Only edit this section if you are involved in the dispute (you must add your name in the above section). Place your arguments and your own opinions of the dispute in a new section. Do not edit any other user's section. Your statement should be a single text, not a series of comments; you may expand it as much as you'd like.
Comments by uninvolved usersEdit
If you are uninvolved in the case but would like to make a comment that would aid in the arbiters' understanding of the case, please add a new section below. Your statement should be a single text, not a series of comments; you may expand it as much as you'd like. Do not respond to comments; if necessary, summarize your response in a single sentence and link to the discussion.''
Phase three: considerationEdit
Any user may briefly propose decisions that would aid the situation. However, this is not a discussion. Do not address other users' proposals; the arbiters will make their own judgments of the usefulness of a decision.
Phase four: final decisionEdit
Events following decisionEdit