| Revision as of 01:59, 17 July 2009 editAbd (talk | contribs)14,259 edits →Addition of parties to a pending RfAr: Don't moon the jury. And if someone does, don't point to it.← 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( |
|algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{/Front matter}} | |||
| <inputbox> | |||
| bgcolor= | |||
| type=fulltext | |||
| prefix=Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration | |||
| break=yes | |||
| width=60 | |||
| searchbuttonlabel=Search archives | |||
| </inputbox> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | |||
| == Definition of an (un)involved admin == | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| Since my comments were moved (, ) under a claim that I am somehow involved in a discussion, I'd like to ask were is the applicable definition of the (un)involved admin? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : When the arbitration enforcement thread mentions a case that bears your username, that is probably a sign you are involved as least in the eyes of the users who seek to apply that case. Even if they are completely wrong, it would be beneficial for you to let your peers handle such matters. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Which case in question bears my username? Digwuren or EE? EE was renamed ''exactly'' because people got confused about this. The EE arbcom case did not mention anything about my judgment not being sound; in fact the majority of findings and rulings involved other editors, not me. That I am from EE doesn't mean I am involved in all the editing going there; I make comments as uninvolved admin in cases where I have not participated in a particular editing conflict. If there is some other criteria for determining (un)involvement, it should be clearly stated somewhere. Please note that I have never attempted to use my admin tools to close a debate or pass / enforce a decision. However, I believe I have the right to be seen as neutral for the purpose of discussion. That I am from EE or that somebody cries "he is involved" without citing any evidence is no reason to disqualify someone (I could just as well claim you are involved because we interacted in the past and you made comments about editors from EE... which I won't, because that would be ABF and plain ridiculous). Finally, please read my essay on ]. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Piotrus, if your level of involvement in these areas were to be the benchmark for uninvolvedness we might as well delete ]. I think you should just respect the judgment and intelligence of guys like Jehochmen when they say you are involved. They are no fools, and so trying to argue around it will be rather pointless I think. ] (<small>]</small>) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The argument "You are involved because you are Piotrus" somehow fails to convince me. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Well Piotrus, the whole purpose of a ] is that it's supposed to be thoroughly unconvincing. ;) ] (<small>]</small>) 04:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Piotrus, as you were the subject of substantive findings in both the ''Digwuren'' and ''Eastern European disputes'' cases, you are considered involved ''per se'' for the purposes of any enforcement matter stemming from either case. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 04:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. Are there any other <s>arbitrators</s> administrators who are involved in a similar fashion, or am I the only one? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Assuming you mean "administrators", I believe Deacon of Pndapetzim is the only other one to be the subject of findings in these cases (or at least the only one I recall being an administrator at the time the findings were written). ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 04:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I refrain from admin involvement when I know in my heart I can't act fairly, and I think we should be able to trust admins to do this. Other rules of thumb are gameable and unworthy. You stay out when you can't be fair. By extension, if Piotrus was interested there'd be no reason why he couldn't act as an admin in a dispute between Bulgarian and Macedonian nationalists, or two Russian nationalists, but the rule of thumb above seems to prevent this. I suppose we have to live in reality though. ] (<small>]</small>) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: The fallacy here is that every admin who becomes involved in those issues will be eventually listed as a party to some arbcom and will thus find himself unable to act on AE... I find it a bit strange. Still, the above clarification is helpful - at least now we know were we are standing. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: That would be true if the criterion were merely being listed as a party, but that's not the point I'm making. Other administrators (e.g. Alex Bakharev) were parties to the case, but there were no (adverse) findings about them in the decisions issued. In your case, however, and in Deacon's, the case resulted in substantive and adverse findings about your conduct. | |||
| :::::::: I have no problem, generally speaking, if administrators who are merely listed as parties, for whatever reason, continue to work in enforcement after the case concludes; but it's not a good idea, in my view, for someone who was actually found to have acted improperly to do so. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: "Substantive"? ] (<small>]</small>) 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: As opposed to findings which did not really say anything about the subject's editing, such as the various "no evidence has been presented" findings in ''Eastern European disputes''. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 15:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: Alright ... thanks. I think "adverse" on its own would have covered it. ] (<small>]</small>) 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: That's probably true. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: Does the "you've had an adverse finding in a ArbCom case" in your view rule out any admin involvement in the topic area generally, or is it just for AE matters? ] (<small>]</small>) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: I'm content to leave that up to the individual administrator's good judgment and the normal policies about admin involvement. Unless we do something like explicitly prohibiting you from taking admin actions in an area as part of a remedy (which I believe we've done in the past?), you can assume that we're not taking a stance on general admin activity. The involvement with the case itself presumptively covers discussions directly related to the case (i.e. enforcement threads for it), but not necessarily anything broader than that. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::: And how long since the case's end one is considered involved? Would one need to feel a new arbcom case or such and ask arbcom to consider his recent edits (let's say from a year after the case) to reevaluate this, for example? Or is it a permanent stigma? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::: Well, your involvement is with the case itself; it'll stop being relevant if or when the case is no longer central to the discussion (e.g. if the case is superseded by another, and is no longer used as the basis of enforcement decisions), but I can't see how that involvement could actually end short of the findings concerning you being rescinded (which is not something that's going to be done merely on the basis of good behavior since the end of the case). ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 16:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Motion 2b == | |||
| === Uninvolved requires a requesting editor open their request for action === | |||
| 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) | |||
| I would respectfully suggest that in the future admins refrain from opening arbitration enforcement requests based on editor lobbying{{mdash}}and instead suggest the editor do so themselves so that editor's role in such actions is not, however unintentionally, obscured, nor their position appear to be given more credence ''a priori''. If an admin independently observes untoward behavior, they would obviously not be prevented in any way from requesting appropriate action.] <SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;"> </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;"> </FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;"> </FONT> ]</SMALL> 21:01, 5 July 2009 (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? == | |||
| How do I get arbcom to review this banning ? An admin has stepped in and unilaterally banned everyone on one side of an editing dispute. This seems problematic. ] (]) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that page is very interesting. It discusses all the processes that the admin neglected to follow before banning a group of editors on one side of a content dispute without any evidence of disruption or consensus that a unilateral and one sided enforcement measure of that sort would be appropriate. So, could an arbcom have a look and suggest how to have this admin abuse fixed so that further disruption is avoided? Thanks. ] (]) 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Arbcom generally takes cases as a last resort after community efforts to resolve an issue. Has anything at all besides this thread be tried? You may want to try ] at this point. Right now I'm not seeing the need for arbcom to jump into this case. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As is often the case once Arbcom decisions and remedies are invoked, arbcom is looked to for help resolving related issues. There is a very extensive ANI discussion starting here ], as well as some discussion on editor talk pages. But I think the main question is whether it's appropriate for an admin to unilaterally block a group of editors on one side a content dispute, without any evidence or consensus, based on the discretion given in Arbcom's adopted remedies. The answer seems quite clear to me, but now that it's been done, resolution is needed from arbcom on whether this action is warranted and appropriate. I would suggest nipping the problem in the bud and avoiding the bad precedent it sets, not to mention the disruption it's going to cause, by simply undoing the inappropriate banning and encouraging those involved to use dispute resolution first. But maybe you have other ideas? ] (]) 02:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here's the article in question ]. ] (]) 02:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As an uninvolved admin (I have not commented on or acted in any part of this dispute) I only note that community consensus seems clear that this be sent to ] for further review and clarification. Several people commenting on the tl;dr thread above cited by CoM recommended this venue for resolving this issue. Since it is part of the enforcement of the Dbachmann arbcom case, this seems like a logical path towards resolution. --].].] 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm still waiting on an answer to whether it's appropriate for an admin to unilaterally block a group of editors on one side a content dispute, without any evidence or consensus, based on the discretion given in Arbcom's adopted remedies. The admin has refused to provide diffs and says the bans are based on a pattern of behavior. How can this determination, which I totally disagree with, be reviewed? The editors who were banned don't even agree on the basic content issues, they simply agree that an admin rolling in and reverting months of their collaborative work and then having other admins ban them is improper. Surely this isn't how we do things here??? ] (]) 08:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As noted by Jayron32 above, reasonable suggestions were provided by a number of editors in the ANI thread. ] is an appropriate venue for a review of sanctions imposed under arbitration rules. As per its explicit purpose, and also suggested in the ANI thread, ] is an suitable mechanism for soliciting community feedback about admin actions and general editor behavior. I also recommend utilizing the ] and ] noticeboards to shed light on the situation. Indeed, clarifying some of the content points in relation to fringe theories and NPOV would aid in the review of the situation, as the views on both sides of the dispute (over the bans) are heavily based on such considerations. --] (]) 09:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Addition of parties to a pending RfAr == | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| With ], after the process began but before formal acceptance, it became clear to me that certain editors were continuing to be highly involved in the primary matter (WMC's actions around cold fusion and me and my ban), so I added them as parties. One had already added himself. '''Mathsci edit warred to keep his name and the proof of notice out.''' On the one hand, those names were not there when arbitrator voting began; on the other, I was not aware that one could refuse to be a subject of arbitration, and I know of an editor who was added, at one point, while he vigorously objected. Names can also be added during the process, but I'm not clear on procedure. I added the names, not to widen the arbitration into a cold fusion arbitration, though I think all of the editors have edited cold fusion, but solely in connection with the behavioral disruptions and the ban. --] (]) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Note, the names were added after it was a clear accept and several parties had already commented. I'm feel this is an abuse of process, and an unnecessary widening of scope of the request after most votes had been placed, and feel the names added by Abd should be removed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Also note Abd has been warned for his editwarring on the page, a fact he neglects to mention in his summary. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Typical for Verbal. There was a lot I didn't mention in the summary, that's why it's called a "summary." I didn't edit war. When I was adding the notification diffs as required, I saw that Mathsci's name was missing. It never occurred to me that he would have removed it, so I assumed that I'd made some mistake, and put it back. It was only later that I saw Mathsci's edits. Mathsci, on the other hand, did edit war, repeatedly removing the name. If you count my replacement as a revert -- dicey but possible -- that's 1RR. Mathsci, I count 3RR, but counts can be misleading, it could be 2RR. And purely disruptive, with no actual effect on whether he ends up as a party or not, except probably to encourage that outcome. --] (]) 19:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The notification on your talk page by AGK calls it editwarring. It is typical of me to get things right :) No need to argue about this, and as an established editor I was also unaware until seeing this that you can't simply remove your name if added by another editor rather than a clerk or arb after the initial posting. The substance of my first comment hasn't been addressed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure, it could look like edit warring -- a single revert -- though, Verbal, I would never conceal a revert under addition of new material. I'd make two separate edits. I do respond to the "first comment" below. --] (]) 20:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I think, rather than adding parties after the case is leaning towards acceptance, you should have instead suggested certain parties be added to the case and arbitrators could make the decision whether or not to add them. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *: That suggestion sounds reasonable. Another course would be for Abd to have proposed it on the talk and awaited a response. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 17:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::Simplicity. The alternative would ''not'' be to discuss it here, this isn't a place where ArbComm makes decisions. No, the alternative would have been to file a motion during the case. Which would require notice to the parties. Six of one, half dozen of the other. I think earlier is better, and that's why I didn't wait. To request that a party be added, add the party to the request, if it hasn't been closed, otherwise present a motion. I could well understand if the arbitrators decide to reduce the list. However, the statements the added editors made before the committee should be adequate to show involvement in the dispute, particularly with my assertion that these statements aren't from neutral editors popping in with a fresh opinion. The one exception is Hipocrite, who is inactive, and who thus made no statement, but who was clearly in up to his eyeballs, possibly deliberately trolling for me to act in a sanctionable way. If I broke some procedure by adding names when I did, I'm sure I'll be told. I can say for certain that I have no such intention. --] (]) 20:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::: Out of respect to arbcom I'm not going to respond to these kinds of posts any more. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 20:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{clerk note}} If the case is accepted the arbs, and only the arbs, will decide who is a party to the case. Further edit warring will result in blocks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Egad == | ||
| ] (]) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| WMC's edit summary: ''(rv yet another addition by Abd. You've been told to stop doing this.)'' No, WMC, the community was told that any further edit warring would result in a block. You just edit warred. I did not. I added a new party, which I'm allowed to do, it's part of the filing and no uninvolved editor has told me I can't do it. There has been no consensus that the names added were edit warring, they are original content, relevant to the case, and the removal by Mathsci was considered edit warring, as must, now, be yours. Fascinating. --] (]) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If Adb or WMC continue this silly edit war, I'll block them myself. This is totally silly and lame. And one of you is an admin.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks, Rlevse. My first re-addition of Mathsci's name was a pure accident. Since then I have reverted nothing. There appears to be no rule contrary to adding names before the RfAr closes, but if I'm wrong about that, I'd certainly appreciate knowing. As it stands, four names were added: Mathsci, Verbal, Stephan Schulz, and, latest, Hipocrite, who really should have been first! Mathsci revert warred his name and notification out, WMC reverted Hipocrite out. The other two stand, so far. If AGK intended to consider my addition of new names to be "edit warring," it wasn't stated, I assumed, and nobody contradicted me, that it referred to the first, accidental restoration of Mathsci. Likewise, MBisanz didn't indicate that addition of names was a problem. And your warning to me on my Talk page isn't specific, either. Were you giving a general warning, or were you indicating that I had actually edit warred? It's moot, because if I restored the names now, it ''would'' be edit warring, and I have difficulty imagining any other names to add! ArbComm will decide what to do with this mess. I was even more surprised by WMC's revert than by Mathsci's reversions, I'd not have dreamed he'd dare to do it. Without any justification or reason, either, except, "You've been told to stop," which, if that happened, I didn't see. Again, if I missed it, someone tell me! Please! --] (]) 22:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think Abd should not have removed Xeno's comment. I don't at all understand why Abd's "accidental edits" had edit summaries attached to them. I'm also sure that he's perfectly aware that I have made 0 edits to ] and 16 edits to the talk page, although the actual number of posts is probably more like 10, because I usually make corrections. With so few edits, some even placed into huge collapse boxes by Abd, I am surprised that he included me. It's hard to guess what his motives might be, although there are some obvious possibilities. It's also hard to get contribution statistics for Abd on these pages since he hasn't enabled article breakdown. However his namespace article contributions sit at '''16%''', whereas mine sit at '''58%''' ] (]) 00:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Hasn't enabled article breakdown.'' What's that? How would I enable it? As to collapse boxes, I think those were placed by others, generally, not by me, normally I only put my own discussion in collapse, though it could look like I did it, because I took a huge collapse box Hipocrite had made to cover many discussion sections and posts by many editors, and I broke it up into individual collapse boxes by section title, so the individual discussions could be found in the table of contents. As to inclusion as a party, that's basically moot now, the request was withdrawn, but the reason can be seen simply by reading Mathsci's arguments in the request, now at . He has a huge axe to grind, and is thus clearly involved, and his edit warring to keep himself from being named as a party will have no effect, in the end, except that he deprived himself of preferred position in debates on the Workshop page. He will be mentioned, not mentioned, reprimanded, or sanctioned, whether he is now a party or not. --] (]) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Enabling article breakdown" means creating a subpage like this ], which I did back in Nov 2008. It can be useful. ] (]) 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Why everything touched by Abd becomes such a complicated mess?.... --] (]) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Because I will do something simple and obvious to me, and, whether it was right or wrong, it gets reverted, debated to death, or otherwise disrupted, often obviously on the basis that it was me who did it or suggested it. Above, I'm criticized for removing Xeno's request for me to sign my edit, since it was now moot. That removal was done exactly correctly, with a request in the summary to Xeno to revert it if there was any objection, and I made it a separate edit precisely to make that easy in the unlikely event that it was considered improper. (Perhaps someone wants to show that I make mistakes? Okay by me, I plead guilty before the charges.) But someone looking for reasons to criticize and condemn will find them. Always. | |||
| :Adding parties, when they have already been notified, only has two real consequences: they get preferred position in discussion, that's the main one, and they are also thereby reminded of what was already true and which remains true whether they are parties or not: they can be held responsible for their behavior. Being named as a party has no negative consequence in itself, and it establishes no blame, and sometimes the contrary. So I'm amused in one way and a bit sad in another that an editor objected so strongly to being named that he would risk a block by revert warring before ArbComm. --] (]) 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::FWIW, I don't mind that my prompt for Abd to sign his edit-whilst-logged out was removed. It was indeed moot and would've just been a distraction. A non-issue. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec) Abd received a block warning from AGK, which he ignored. A second block warning from Rlevse referred to his subsequent "silly edit war". I think that's what Enric Naval means by "mess". Rather than premature gloating and ], it's probably best for Abd to stay silent: remember ]. ] (]) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::To be fair, the waring by AGK was issued mainly because Mathsci initiated the "silly" edit-warning almost up to 3RR, so Mathsci was warned for the disruption. So ] saying hello to the pot? Not wise.--] 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Rlevse's second warning to AGK is . In which diff did AGK use the word "silly"? Here is our dialogue: some conducted by email ]. No need to make things up Caspian blue: in fact I'm not quite sure what you're doing here. ] (]) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your edit warring to remove your name from the list is indeed "silly", so my comment is to "remind" you that you are not in the position to "be quiet" to your opponent regarding the waring issued by AGK that you received together. Think about what good you're getting by making disparaging comments here.--] 20:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Isn't it past your bedtime Caspian blue? ] (]) 20:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not quite, Mathsci, and not even a good try. However, this is obviously "your bed time" for sure.--] 20:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes it's now 3 in the morning in France, so you're quite right. Since you seem to have involved yourself in this ArbCom case now, perhaps you should be given the opportunity to respond to the question posed to all contributors to the request page by Jehochman: how old are you exactly? (On the basis of your editing record I have placed you between 12 and 23, but this is only approximate.) ] (]) 01:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Not as much as your involvement in the ArbCom. As for the age thing, 12 years old? Mathsci, you're pushing your luck repeatedly with typical "ad hominem attacks". You're warned by the clerk as one arbitrator told him to do so. If you do the same thing one more time, I of course let the clerks to handle you with the final warning. Since you're fishing to figure out where I live and how old I am, you're planing to do the same thing (]) to A.K Nole? Always, not nice try.--] 01:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Where you live: how so? Please answer Jehochman's question. My estimate is based only on what you write. I would love to be 23 years old again. I responded to his question immediately and even gave the year of my Ph.D. and my Ivy League University (this actually identifies me precisely). Please stop this ]ing or you are likely to be blocked. You seem to be trolling here. ] (]) 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Mathsci, I let Rlevse know of your ad hominem attacks, and baiting, and fishing that I've received enough from you not only here. And you switched the "'''12''' years old" with '''23''' and erased "what I write". Not nice try since we can still get the diffs.--] 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Both of you: ] And if someone does, don't point at it. --] (]) 01:59, 17 July 2009 (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)