Template:User thoughts before AE

 Thoughts before enforcing arbitration or asking for it 

I dream of a Wikipedia where AE is not needed and offer small steps in the direction. Imagine you see something I did which you think breaches my restrictions.
 * You reflect if it really needs correction. You have the option to decide no.
 * If yes:


 * You talk to me if I am aware of a breach and willing to revert or correct.
 * If no:


 * You look really hard if the situation is a breach. I could tell you examples where it wasn't but want to be gentle with people who easily say "It's a clear violation".
 * If you think yes:


 * You reflect if a correction via AE is worth the amount of time it takes. Please stay away if no.
 * Only then you file or act.


 * 1) I have seen "peanuts" arrive at AE, and I suggest to make the step "talk to the user in question before you file" mandatory.
 * 2) Once filed, I think that a time for comments of 24 hours is not asking too much in cases where Wikipedia is not at stake. The key question should be: will pursuing the request will help Wikipedia? Dispute resolution might offer a better approach.
 * 3) I suggest that admins who are known to be close to the filer or the other editor stay away from closing.
 * 4) I suggest to seriously think about a different sanction than blocks. I was close several times and always thought that a block wouldn't be my loss but Wikipedia's, One day blocked may equal to one article not expanded to GA, or several stubs not created, several incidents of vandalism not managed. I hope you don't expect me to change my mind because of a block ;)

I read today "If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama ...".  Gerda Arendt 30 June 2015