Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:53, 16 April 2008

Any evidence subpages for this new page?

This wisely broken-out page will prove very useful. However it is apparent that in one or more clarification requests, the process difference between opening and reopening cases, as described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide, may be leading to confusion. Unlike a new case, there appears no provision for extending (500-word) summaries of reopened requests into evidence subpages, as I alluded on this page. Perhaps this is deliberate and/or there is a standard methodology already in place of which I am unaware.

In the Franco-Mongol case, perhaps due to this omission, several users have exceeded 500 words, possibly relying on an inference I observed somewhere that responses to other users may not necessarily be counted within the limit; and, incredibly, one user has already been refactored by three clerks, limiting the amount of summary material available for presenting a case. Also the clarification case has become a harbor for several violently opposed amendment proposals.

I recognize that discussing lacunae in a policy may be questionable when offered from a party simultaneously in a process covered by the policy, but it appears that in this heavily attended case an ad hoc standard may be better than leaving the question open. The process as-is seems to suggest that clarifications of rulings should be straightforward enough that ArbCom input can be safely predicated solely upon summaries and not upon extended evidence. The current case may not be that easily handled.

I note that four arbiters have already considered this ripe for reopening, which in an ordinary case would be grounds for creating an evidence subpage subject to the wider restrictions of generally 1000 words or 100 diffs, with some leeway. I would appreciate some clerk or arbiter statement as to whether the several involved editors should feel free to use some fresh page (such as this talk page) for expansion of their summary comments at this time, as it appears several of the involved editors by their actions express a silent consensus that the summary limit is exceedible in this case and that the floodgates may be opened. Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of requests

My understanding is that the new requests are supposed to be listed first, and the oldest requests are supposed to be listed last. Is that correct? The instructions say, "Click the link to the right of this section, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests."

Since the request about me seems to be the oldest, shouldn't it be at the bottom?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that when a request for clarification leads to arbitrators voting on proposals (which doesn't always happen), it gets moved to the bottom. As there haven't been any motions made as of now on your request for clarification, but others have, it's not at the bottom. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Hopefully there will be some kind of resolution of this Request at some future time before I get old and die. Not that I'm impatient, of course. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oldest requests should be at the bottom, whether or not they require voting doesn't matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of the PHG motion

Should it really be "and/or" between the two sections? I'm not sure what it means. I also wonder if 'articles' would be better than 'his articles'.--Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording to eliminate "his articles". "and/or" means that PHG can use one or both ways to meet the requirement. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)