Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:28, 1 October 2009 editChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:31, 3 January 2025 edit undoJJPMaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Rollbackers10,663 edits Notification: listing of Misplaced Pages:ACCR at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 23 |counter = 20
|algo = old(4d) |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}}
== MOS review per ]? ==


__TOC__
One of the enforcement provisions of ] was that after three months passed from the case's closure, the Committee would review the ] for stability (]). Is this still going to happen? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue. ] (]) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:try WT:AC/N--] (]) 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks, have done so (). ] (]) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


== Page display bug == == 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)
{{resolved}}
The project page header overprints itself in Safari. In Firefox at least it doesn't overprint, but it still looks weird. I've debugged the problem but the page is protected. Please replace the <nowiki>{{ArbCom notice banner}}</nowiki> in ] with the following:


:. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
<pre>
:@] 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)
{| style="text-align: left; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid silver; padding: 1em; margin:auto; font-size: 10pt;"
| Please make your request in the appropriate section:
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
*: <small>This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed</small>
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
*: <small>Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a case</small>
|}
</pre>


== Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? ==
The new box displays as:
{| style="text-align: left; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid silver; padding: 1em; margin:auto; font-size: 10pt;"
| Please make your request in the appropriate section:
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
*: <small>This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed</small>
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
*: <small>Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a case</small>
|}


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)
The result is much more clear, the box repositions nicely as the browser window width is adjusted, and it looks the same in both Safari and Firefox. I could also do without the ArbComOpenTasks to the right of the TOC (above would be nicer), but a little scrolling won't kill me when I'm not in full screen mode. ] (]) 05:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
:I have done this, although it still looks a little inconsistent between Opera and IE (the only browsers I have handy here). Please direct any further requests of this nature to ], as it's more heavily monitored and one of the clerks is likely to see it much sooner! ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:46, 23 September 2009 (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)
:Actually it doesn't display as above in Firefox, the text in the box is centred and the squares (they must have a proper name, they are created by the asterisks I presume), look very odd. Chrome looks pretty bad. It looks to me as though there is room for the 'Please make your request' stuff below the text with the info boxes to the right of those links, which would tidy up the page, but I'm not very good at markup. ] (]) 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


== Egad ==
::I have completed the fixes. The page should look good on all browsers. The root problem with the open case box being cut off on the right side of the screen was that the TOC now has entries such as "Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#ChildofMidnight_and_Wikidemon_restricted". The underscores don't allow the TOC entry to break to a new line, which forces the TOC to get so wide that it displaces anything to the right of it. Seeing that we have other wide TOC entries as well, and since the open case box is now pretty wide on its own, I decided it was better to make it look good for everybody and just put the TOC under the open cases. ] (]) 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
* Thank you for drawing up the code fix, Douggie. A/R is, at the best of times, horrific in terms of the quality of its code—as all such unwieldy pages are prone to be—so any improvements are appreciated. And yes, as Lankiveil notes, requests of this nature will be most quickly noticed if placed in the appropriate section of the ]. ] 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
== The undertow / Law / CoM ==
== "]" listed at ] ==

]
This keeps coming up: that Law's otherwise inexplicable unblock of CoM is explicable once you know about interactions between The undertow and CoM. But for those of us not familiar with the prehistory, someone please say what those interactions were. ] (]) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3#Misplaced Pages:ACCR}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

==Will Connolley's continued trouble making==
Probably needs to be addressed. Is he not banned yet? ] (]) 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:31, 3 January 2025

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)

"Misplaced Pages:ACCR" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Misplaced Pages:ACCR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3 § Misplaced Pages:ACCR until a consensus is reached. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)