| Revision as of 18:43, 27 June 2007 editLsi john (talk | contribs)6,364 editsm →Durova: npov - meant NOT neutral point of view.. my bad.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,313 edits →Egad: new section Is there a clerk aroundTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 20 | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests |
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | |||
| {{Arbcom-talk|requests for arbitration process}} | |||
| {{shortcut|]}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
| |- | |||
| !align="center"|]: | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| == |
== Motion 2b == | ||
| Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging {{ping|Chess|Selfstudier}} who's discussion made me think of this. ] (]) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Time to contact the ISP methinks. I've checked out five of the IPs used and all return ]. ] ] 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Meh. Some stupidity between the socialist web sites workforall.org and workforall.net. I don't understand why the .net guy keeps spamming his request here. Does he think that the 50 times it has been removed were all accidents, and the case will suddenly be accepted on the 51st attempt? Bottom line (since he is probably reading this) is the following: | |||
| :#The Arbitration committee does not decide content issues, only serious editor conduct problems. | |||
| :#The removal of WorkForAll.net links is an editorial decision made by multiple editors and there is no evidence that policies were violated. | |||
| :#Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. If you think the decision to remove the links was wrong, you should start with a ] to solicit the views of additional editors. | |||
| :#Misplaced Pages should not be used as a vehicle to promote private web sites. The fact that some articles have inappropriate links to some web sites is a reason to find and remove them, not to add more ("Other crap exists so mine should too" is not an acceptable argument here). | |||
| :#If you persist, you will be reverted and blocked. You are way outnumbered by the recent changes patrol, by the way. If necessary, we can block your entire ISP, which is bound to make them take notice of you. So please stop. ] 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :He's taken to vandalizing the talk pages of users who remove his "request". He got me and {{userlinks|Calton}} this morning (Thanks to {{userlinks|Lectonar}} for cleaning it up!). ] 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I reproteced the page again today with an expiry of 2 weeks. Seems he reposted as soon as the expiry went away last time. Hope I wasn't out of line in doing this. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| :The IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Might be time to start writing that email to Belgacom. ] ] 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::He can reset his IP quite easily it seems. ] 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? == | |||
| Two weeks seems like a long time. I wonder if we should put a notice on the page advising users to contact a clerk for help. On the other hand, I have never seen a legitimate request filed by an IP editor. Hmmm. ] 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think if an IP editor did have a legitimate request (ie: they know enough about policy to know what would be appropriate), they would know enough to ask on this page or a clerk for help. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Please remember to restore move=sysop permanently every time; protects w/ expiration dates potentially leave pages vulnerable to attacks. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 09:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Although Thatcher seems to be on the money, I must say that I have seen some fairly good IP statements on proposed cases. That note may not be astray. ''']''' 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Imo, per the principle of ], no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| ⚫ | == Egad == | ||
| Durova, you may want to discuss here instead of on the main page. I get from the instructions that we are not to get into discussions there and your responding to my statement invites continued back and forth discussion. My only question for you is what does this mean? ''"Per Justanother, alternative methods of resolution are not available."'' You are implying that I said what, exactly? --] 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's customary at RFAR to respond to another editor's statement by appending one's own. The particular comment of yours that comment responded to is ''I should mention that I am not looking for any WP:DR vis-a-vis Durova for her actions.'' I'd already recommended DR repeatedly before opening this request. Unfortunately for this situation, user conduct ] would be difficult to pursue with this many editors and mediation requires the consent of all parties. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Druova, that makes your method a self-fulfilling prophesy. You say it's too many people for an RfC, I disagree. I doubt that I would even be involved in an RfC on COFS. And, I don't see any reason for Justanother to be involved in an RfC on COFS either. My only reason for involvement was to try and stop the high speed railroading witch hunt that was out to HANG '''those people''' that '''have tried our patience long enough'''. The entire situation was based on multiple repeated usage of prior one-sided 'reports' of suspicion and innuendo. Anyone who looks at it fairly, will see that COFS does not have a horrible block log. COFS has 2 blocks for 3RR. The other blocks were for 'suspicion' and were unblocked. COFS has not been given a fair due-process. From what I can tell, COFS doesn't even edit all that much. | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Johochman clearly doesn't like '''those people''' (Scientologists). And, because your apprentice fast tracked it out of COIN, where it belonged, and into CSN where it didn't belong, and then because you two (reinforced by each other's posts) effectively tag-teamed COFS and ram rodded your own personal consensus, you forced me to be involved, in order to try to slow things down and to try to inject reason. But it was clearly too late, as you had already made up your mind. And, in the end, you 'declared' a non-existent 'consensus' for your ruling, and requested another admin on AN/I close the ticket and bless your decree. I don't think it was intentional, I think you just got caught up in your own personal views, the two of you reinforced each other, and it got out of control. (Note: your indef block of Bus stop, where numerous editors posted on your talkpage in surprise of your drastic measures. Bus stop may need a community ban, but he hasn't had proper WP:DR either. You took that from him.) | |||
| ::I believe that, as a team, either you or Johochman should have recused yourselves from commenting. Based on your own remarks on your talkpage, you are clearly very proud of your 'personally trained wiki-sleuths'. It makes perfect sense that Johochman would want to impress you with his tenacious attack. It also explains his attack on me (defending you) with his AN/I post, after I did everything he asked me to do. Whether or not you technically violated any wiki-rules or policy, or whether it technically qualified as anything like meat puppets, I don't know. But it certainly was a bit unethical from my perspective. | |||
| ::Smee and Anynobody have been a driving force against COFS for POV reasons, from the beginning. They continue to throw out the same 'sock puppet check' (because that is all they really have). And what they don't point out is that, during their 'witch hunt', an admin finally told them to '''knock off the fishing''', when they finally went too far and added me to the list. Then you and Johochman (] duped by the numerous 'reports') effectively team up with them and rammed this through. (Granted they did not arrive ''in this situation'' at the beginning, but they have been involved in the campaign from the beginning, and they have certainly jumped in and proudly displayed their socks check and argued for banning). | |||
| ::There isn't any ''evidence'' of misconduct that I saw presented. There is only evidence of ''reports of suspicion'', filed time and again, for the most part by anti-Scientologists. If you honestly take time to read through it, taking yours and Johochman's comments out, there is not a lot left. If you two were truly NEUTRAL, then why did you dominate the conversation? Why did Johochman produce '2 fresh diffs' (25 hours old and 10 hours apart) to justify your views of warring? A neutral admin, with no 'adjenda', would have listened to the case being presented and then ruled. Johochman steered it to the CSN, and then both you and Johochman took very active roles in prosecuting the case. And THAT is why I got involved. There was no evidence of a neutral party. '''those people have tried our patience long enough'''. | |||
| ::What, exactly, is the question of the dispute? | |||
| ::#COI? then it should have been on COIN. How strict a definition of COI are we going to apply to these articles? And, are we willing to apply it across the board evenly to both sides? | |||
| ::#Disruption? There is no evidence of disruption. | |||
| ::#POV? Scientology articles are full of pov editors on both sides. | |||
| ::I've said it twice before and I'll repeat it here: '''If we are going to take a bite of the apple, we better be prepared to eat the whole damned apple'''. The tension over the Scientology articles won't be resolved by banning the editors from either side, who aggressively remove POV, unless our goal is to allow the Scientology articles to be written POV. | |||
| ::And the really funny part about all this, if there is a funny part, is that I have unanswered concerns about COFS too. You called me a defender, which I find funny. Because '''not once have I defended a single action of COFS'''. My efforts have been to slow things down, get them into the correct venue, and make sure that we don't mis-convict someone. You concluded means I am guilty of some unidentified off-line collusion, and then tied an apology to some action on my part to 'apologize to your apprentice'. And you accused me of being a long-term vandal with a new account, who will be 'discovered' by thorough investigation by your sleuths. (Simply because I voiced firm opposition to you?) Tag-team attack COFS, Tag-team defend each other. | |||
| ::Durova, we got off to a bad start, and for that I'm sorry. You have said this is a hobby for you, and you clearly enjoy the investigations and banning. But the people here are real. They are not simply a hobby. The views being expressed in these articles are real and they stir up very strong emotional and powerful feelings. Scientology is a religion. It isn't mine, but it is a religion. Some of the pro-Scientologists are fanatics, AND some of the anti-Scientologists are fanatics. Some simply are here to defend their religion against attack and some are here to attack that religion (though they may not accept that it is a religion). When someone defends against a fanatic, their actions may seem extreme. Upon reflection, perhaps that's why my actions seemed extreme to you? | |||
| ::Personally, I believe you got a bit carried away here. I think you might want to consider taking a break from the CSN board, and reflect on what you want to contribute to wikipedia, and how that can and does impact real lives. Maybe even take a short break from 'training sleuths' and look at your motivation for doing it. | |||
| ::I don't know what the future will bring. But I do know that I hope it brings a peaceful resolution to this entire situation, so that we can return to writing articles. After all, that is the reason for wikipedia. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024
| Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. Please click here to file an arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to arbitration | Shortcuts |
| Arbitration talk page archives |
|---|
| WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
| Various archives (2004–2011) |
| Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
| WT:RFAR subpages |
| Archive of prior proceedings |
Motion 2b
Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging @Chess and Selfstudier: who's discussion made me think of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- HJM seems to think so. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect?
There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Chess Imo, per the principle of ex post facto, no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Egad
Is there a clerk around -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)