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 13:00, 2 October 2009 editTarc (talk | contribs)24,217 edits →Biased and bad enforcement?: - round and round he goes← 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)

:The other question is why CoM was never reblocked, as all of the committee that weighed in agreed with the original block, if not the length. Another skating-by with a wrist-slap, unfortunately. ] (]) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
===Biased and bad enforcement?===
The real question is why Tarc wasn't blocked or banned after all his incivility, after repeatedly trying to censor by deletion numerous articles he disagreed with, and why he was allowed to edit war and violate 3RR in 24 hours with only a short block that an admin helped edit war to prevent it being recorded in the log? But I got some massive punishement for 4 edits over two days with talk page discussion inbetween. It is strange isn't it.

Has Tarc ever written an article? I do new page patrol a lot, and I haven't seen any. But he must have some value because if all he did was cause disruption I'm sure one of our illustrious admisn would step in to stop him. ] (]) 04:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

:/facepalm
:ChildofMidnight, as I have asked you numerous times, if there was a time or place where I was uncivil or caused disruption then please file a complaint in the proper venue (] I assume), with the ] so that I may respond to these charges properly. You do this...make vague accusations with zero proof...in just about every venue where we happen to cross paths, and I think the fact that you refuse to "put up or shut up" as the saying goes shines more of a curious light on your own behavior than it does on my own. Simply making a claim does not make it true; you have to support your position.
:Yes I edit-warred, and got a time-out, but really have nothing to say on your "massive punishment", as ] speaks for itself. Here, I was weighing in with the opinion that you should have been re-blocked, since the AC people that commented on the proposed case indicated that the block itself was proper, since you (once again), violated the Obama ArbCom restrictions. ] (]) 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

==Will Connolley's continued trouble making==
{{collapsetop|Issues should be addressed at ], ], or ], not here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)}}
Probably needs to be addressed. Is he not banned yet? ] (]) 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

: ]. But since you're here, please clearly state your connection with The undertow, or deny that any such connection exists ] (]) 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

::What's it to you? ] (]) 22:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for restoring this thread Connolley. I'm sure Tznakai meant well, but this is clearly an important issue that Arbcom should be addressing, as opposed to the silliness above. Would you like to comment on the activities of your cabal with Dabelstein and Schulz? ] (]) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
::: ]. The propriety of Law / The undertows unblock of you is relevant to the RFAr. It would be helpful if you could clarify the situation rather than evading it ] (]) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}
::::Why does this section keep getting removed or collapsed? ] (]) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
==Connolley's involvement in mailing list conspiracy==
I see from his talk page that Connolley was in private communication with the Eastern European mailing list members. Will we have full disclosure of his involvement in this conspiracy on Wiki? Did it play a role in his desysop or was that based on other inappropriate behavior? ] (]) 00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
:There is a very problematic side concerning your inquiry here. You have to make us understand why you are interested in knowing because as I understand it you seem to be asking just because you have some issues with WMC in relation to another dispute (see thread(s) above). Anyway, the answer to your first question is "wait and see". And the answer to your last question is obvious; WMC was desysopped before the EEML case was filed. -- ] - <small>]</small> 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
::Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most (all?) Arb hearings comprised of score settling? Why would my inquiries be problematic, but those of WMC and Tarc (or any of the other smear mongers and trouble makers) be appropriate? I'm missing the logic. Is there any? Seriously. Is there some logic?

::And, as an aside, are the Arbs that knew about a fellow Arb's editing history going to step down for not disclosing what they knew at that editor's RfA, or at the RfArb, or after becoming aware of a fellow Arb with an undisclosed history?

::Anyway, I'm in favor of reining in the whole circus as much as possible. I'm here to edit and improve the encyclopedia and dealing with all the drama mongering is a real drag. That Arb is encouraging it all is especially disturbing, so if you want to start quashing score settling and discourage the use of Arb proceedings (and other admin noticeboards) by abusive editors using them to win content disputes by blocking and banning adversaries, that would be fantastic.

::I'm happy to edit and collaborate with anyone who abides by our policies, so having the focus returned to encyclopedia work would really be a huge improvement and a step in the right direction!. Woo hoo!!! I can't wait. :) ] (]) 04:52, 2 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)