Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editors/Merger proposal

This is an initial attempt at merging Tendentious editors and Expert Retention/Burden of proof. Still needs work:

Issues, as I see it:


 * One contradiction needs resolving--how much dispute resolution is needed before blocking/banning may be imposed? Under ER/BoP, very little; under TE, some dispute resolution must be had, and some formal warnings issued, before blocks may occur.
 * This policy appears to formally introduce some element of stare decisis into Wikipedia editing. While I in general support article stability--ties should often go to the current version--this might be a sufficiently substantial change.  Perhaps I'm interpreting it incorrectly.
 * As it stands, it's a bit wordy and can be trimmed quite a bit.

--EngineerScotty 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The nutshell is way too big :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  20:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought so too. We should change the picture from an acorn or whatever to a coconut.  :) --EngineerScotty 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're saying coconuts are migratory?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps with an African swallow. ;) Durova 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Or was that a European swallow? --EngineerScotty 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, wait, I don't know that! AAAAAaaaaaarrrggghhhh!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the merger
I guess the one thing I'd like to see before editors resort to the admin noticeboard is some impartial feedback at a disputed page. I'd be willing to jettison the warning templates and other stuff, but the key to getting this into practical form seems to be WP:RFC or WP:3O. Otherwise the admin noticeboard is likely to get cluttered with frivolous requests. Does that sound fair? Durova 02:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tweaking
Tweaked the rationale slightly, mainly to remove reference to normal editors and hence make less divisive Viv Hamilton 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Partial ban
Something that didn't make it over from BoP (because it wasn't explicit) was that the offender should be considered banned from editing the article (but not its talk page) until the dispute is resolved. I propose this on the principle that the article should remain stable while the issue is being pursued, rather than being used as a battleground. This would be a community-enforced ban, with blocking being used for those who won't honor the principle. Mangoe 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Treading on eggshells
I intend to take a back seat on the merger process. Mainly I'm concerned that my edits to Tendentious editors may have been perceived as overly aggressive and inadvertently divisive. A lot of editors have input here and I may have already had my share. Unless it's specifically stated to me that my perception is mistaken, I'll offer a few comments and let other editors hammer this out. Durova 06:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)