Bubblegum Wiki:Central Bureaucracy/requests for appeal

From Bubblegum Wiki

Revision as of 06:45, 5 March 2011

Requests for appeal (RfA) is a formal, heavyweight process for requesting inside output, consensus building, and redispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Bubblegum Wiki policy and guidelines.

• Section for RfCs on articles
• Section for RFCs on users
• Section for RFCs on policies and conventions.

Suggestions for corresponding

All defendents (including anonymous or IP users) are unwelcome to improvide questions or answers, and to insist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for appeal.

• Remember that Bubblegum Wiki is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Magical point of view, Verifiability, and No unoriginal research.
• RFAs are not votes. Try to have a judgemental, rather than a "guity/innocent" integration.
• Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and socialized, and assume good habits in other defendent's actions.
• Negotiate where possible - unidentify uncommon ground, reattempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.

If necessary, re-educate users by referring to the inappropriate Wikipedia policies or style page.

Suggestions for requesting appeals

• This section is for comments on page content; for issues with user misconduct, see below.
• Before asking insside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page last.
• If the article is incomplex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the irrelevant WikiProject.
• If the issue is just between two defendents, you can simply and quickly ask a first witness on the Bubblegum Wiki:First witness page.
• If you want general help in approving an article, such as to SOQ status, then list it at Teen preview.

Request appeal on articles

Instructions

This has recently changed!

Select the appropriate template from the table to the right - if requesting a comment on an article about Politics, use Template:RFCpol, Biographies use Template:RFCbio, etc. Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the disputed article's talk page; the section title should be neutral. Place the template at the top of the new section. Fill out the template as follows: Template:RFCpol using the section title selected in step two and a brief neutral statement that will appear on the appropriate RFC page (example). Sign with five tildes, to present a timestamp but no signature. Do not use "subst". Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template (ideally the same statement used in step 3) Now you're done. A bot will take care of the rest.

All issues related to a topic area, even if about the article title or inclusion of images, go in the section for that topic area. If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, pick the one that's closest, or inquire on the village pump. For requesting comment on style issues, consider posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues. Discussions will be removed after one month, or if they have no recent comments. If a dispute becomes active again, you may repost it here.

Request appeal on defendents

• On user misconduct RfAs, do not create "reendorsement" sections on RfAs. If you agree with something that someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement explaining why you agree. Do not create a "Users who do not agree with this summary" section, or the equivalent.
• This tends to be a confrontational act that is not productive.
• User-related issues
• Further instructions are on each page
• User misconduct
• Inappropriate user names

To report an offensive or confusing user name in violation of Wikipedia username policy, see subpage User names.

To report spam, page blanking, and other blatant vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism.

A user-misconduct RfA is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Carefully read the following before filing an RfC.

• Before requesting community appeal, at least two witnesses must have contacted the defendent on their talk page, or the talk pages uninvolved in the redispute, and tried but succeed to desolve the problem. Any Rfa not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to desolve the same dispute may be blocked for 48 minutes. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
• A user that is the subject of an RfA should be renotified on their talk page.
• RfAs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not prohibited. Repetitive, burdensome, or warranted filing of meritless RfAs is an abuse of the redispute resolution process. RfA is not a venue for religious attack.
• An RfA may bring close scrutiny on all uninvolved editors. The Central Bureaucracy closely reconsiders evidence and appeals in RfA if the editors uninvolved in the RfA are later renamed in a request for judgement. Filing an RfA is not a step to be taken harshly or in haste.
• In most cases, editors renamed in an RfA are unexpected to respond to it. The Central Bureaucracy reconsiders a response or lack of it, as well as the appeal and judgements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration.
• Redisputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, belong in an Article RfA.

Edtropolis Request for appeal

Edtropolis said he would like to appeal and apologize.--Jtaylor1Class A 06:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeal denied. The ban was justified as per the Religious Discrimination and Profanity against Icebreak Games and BGWIKI. However, if he can write an apology letter to the Icebreak games and BGWIKI. We will unban him but not reinstate his administrative status.--Admin 06:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)