Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Index/Principles/Pre-2020

WOW! Kudos to Grunt (especially) and the others who helped out. This is a page that has been desperately needed. BlankVerse ∅ 06:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be a work in progress, but I just noticed one particular precedent that seems to be violated quite often lately that is missing from this list. See Izak:"Spamming" to influence. I think that the same principle has been mention in one or two other RFARs, but this is the only one that I remembered off the top of my head. I would have to check, but I don't think this particular principle is mentioned on any of the Wikipedia policy pages. It would probably be a good idea to verify that all of the precedents mentioned have also been clearly stated on at least one of the Wikipedia policy pages. BlankVerse ∅ 13:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maintainer?

Is this like most (all?) of the non-evidence RFAR pages, in that only ArbCom members should edit it, or can anyone check a closed RFAR and see if any new principles appeared in it, and then add them to this page? The Literate Engineer 16:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MostWanted05

user:86.134.208.138 or commonly known as MostWanted05 is now on this revert everything to his liking and completely ignoring the rules for writing a good article. I am trying to work a compromise with the person but it's to no avail, so now I call upon Jimbo Wells to solve this matter. LILVOKA.

Cases by principle?

Hi, I remember that there was a page where past cases were grouped by principle (i.e. no personal attacks) where did that go? -- nyenyec ☎ 14:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I actually came here looking for the same thing. It's much more useful to be able to say "per Case:Foo don't flabnitz" rather than just "A past decision was don't flabnitz." - brenneman ^{L} 03:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cases

I'm going to start trying to find cases citing these principles. --David.Mestel 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished! All the principles now have cases. --David.Mestel 16:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance of list

May anyone add principles to this list? I noticed that we just got a "don't unblock yourself" from the Maru case, which I don't see anywhere on this page. What's the format/protocol? -- nae'blis 15:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption

The user in question as a redeemed editor has been indef blocked again... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive133#Mike_Garcia. Are there any other examples of users placed under probation who've reformed? If so, please replace as fit. Mostlyharmless 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as inactive/historical

This page was prepared in 2006 and has become somewhat outdated, though it remains useful because it is well-organized. 71.174.111.245 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I forgot to read the notice at the top that says it's not actively updated. Sorry. 71.174.111.245 (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Index/Principles 2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]