| Revision as of 15:07, 30 May 2008 editThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →Intelligent Design: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,352 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 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{/Front matter}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| __TOC__ | |||
| Is an arb going to clarify anything regarding TTN's case? ] <small>] </small> 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : ] ] 00:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it just me, or is Kirill's proposals regarding ] completely inappropriate? Kww was given no restrictions during the cases, and hasn't had so much as an RfC or an AN/I thread. I'm not even sure if ArbCom is allowed to make restrictions like this, outside of a case under the guise of clarification. -- ] 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::A related discussion at ] might be of some interest to some people here. Please feel free to comment, even if you disagree with my comments to Kirill (a sanity check, perhaps). I'm very troubled by the proposals being made here for the EC case. -- ] 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're not the only one, Ned. ] (]) 07:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The Kww thing was a surprise to me. I probably don't have all the relevant pages watchlisted so I'm curious as to how the Kww thing happened. Anyone know? - ] (]) 07:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, Kirill's statement is ''As far as Kww goes, you may feel that equating the editors that worked on Bulbasaur with penis spammers is acceptable, but I do not. Were it up to me, he'd be off the project for that little burst of odiousness alone. The least I can do is keep him away from the areas where he's likely to actually put such an ideology into practice.'' I suspect that my frequent advocacy in favor of TTN weighs in as well, as well as my opinion that the sanctions from E&C2 are being misapplied, and my vocalness in that regard. | |||
| :As for the evil comment itself, I'm surprised that people skip over that word ''would''. I ''would'', but I ''won't'', because I ''can't''. I campaigned for a while to get "article is about a single television episode" added as a CSD category. Didn't work, so I don't go nominating episode articles for deletion. I obey process, even when I believe it to be wrong. | |||
| :As for ], it and ] are two of the worst articles on Misplaced Pages, and I won't apologise for thinking that way. At least when an article reads ''Fred discovers the secret of the ultra-gamma-neutron device, and brings the Emerald Space Station into danger'' you know you aren't reading a real encyclopedia article. When you read something with 40 or 50 footnotes, you assume you are reading the real deal. Very few readers take the time to actually check the footnotes out. In both cases, you would quickly find that the outside world references are nothing but passing mentions that do little or nothing to support the information presented. In Bulbasaur's case, they are nearly 100% self-published references, from official game guides and graphic novels. I've taken ] to AFD, and filed an ANI report when Bulbasaur was unredirected while under protection. Have I edit warred? No. Have I vandalised the articles in question? No. Do I participate discussions that will hopefully someday change the rules so that both articles can be removed? Absolutely yes. | |||
| :My contributions speak for themselves. I spend most of my day undoing vandalism (even to Bulbasaur, when it occurs). I keep an eye on articles about the Netherlands Antilles, because I like the articles about my home to be accurate. I keep unsourced and slanderous material out of pop culture articles. When I see articles like ''Lindsay Lohan's untitled, unannounced new album that I heard a great rumor about'', I nominate it for deletion. I keep an eye out for edits by ], ], and ], and report their latest socks when they occur. I rarely wander into television episodes, but I have been involved in the ] mess. Don't think anyone would consider my contribution there to be disruptive, however.] (]) 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== 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) | |||
| It is important to understand that the Arbitration committee does not do a good job of handling large, sprawling unfocused cases. Remember that they know next to nothing about the dispute, while you have been involved in it for months. A request for comment against a group of editors is somewhat non-traditional, but where the usual goal is to persuade someone by force of argument to change their behavior, here the goal is to develop a focused presentation of alleged harms and desired outcomes. For example, if you have a diff of User:Smith telling another editor, "Your contributions are not welcome and will always be reverted, go away!" you don't want to dilute the impact by including ten diffs of Smith calling editors "poopyheads." Likewise you want to focus on good editors with proven track records on other topics being driven away, and not so much on SPAs who really aren't here to learn the system and follow the rules. I would suggest opening a RFC on group conduct. Build it collaboratively in user space for a few days. Organize it logically, "Biography problems", "Hostility toward other editors", etc. Present the best evidence, filtered and focused. Don't use the process for revenge, but aim toward improvement of the encyclopedia. Try to present some remedies and desired outcomes that flow logically and proportionally from the evidence. (Arbcom will not indef ban for calling another editor a "poopyhead" for example.) Then move it to project space and ask for comments, opposing views, and so forth. Be respectful of all opposing views, and mindful of conditional or partial endorsements. You may find that the community considers some of your allegations to be weightier than others, and editors to be more or less culpable, in which case refocus the case on issues the community considers most serious. And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating. ] 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (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? == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :@] 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 == | ||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (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)