| Revision as of 19:49, 3 February 2012 editAlpha Quadrant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Rollbackers39,980 edits →Olive's post: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,333 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:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Word limit on request pages == | |||
| ]. ] ] 04:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This is just an informal FYI, rather than a noticeboard filing. Two IPs have replaced "Israel" with "Palestine", which I have reverted, citing the source which uses "Israel". I noted that such edits may fall under the scope of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Arbitration ruling, and provided links to the ruling using the associated templates. | |||
| An outside review of my edits wouldn't hurt. (I trust that this is a quickly resolved issue.) | |||
| BTW, ] played the of the ] ] on ''Star Trek: The Next Generation''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : I don't know why you needed to post this here instead of the article talk page, but I have reverted to "Palestine" as the source is clearly in error - Israel did not exist until 1948 - although the source itself does mention that the family "migrated to Palestine". ] (]) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3== | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC){{z48}} | |||
| == |
== 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) | |||
| Would someone care to take a look at on ]? When I notified ] that I was discussing their edits, I noticed from ] about ARBSCI/BLP issues. (I asked Sandstein to take a look, but they said ''"I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement because I consider it a waste of time due to insufficient support on the part of the Arbitration Committee"''. I can certainly relate to that.) Thanks. ] (]) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Olive's post == | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| *'''' | |||
| I'll say up front I have no idea about the specific situation under review. | |||
| == Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? == | |||
| but I think Olive's points about this negative trend of interacting (to use a nicer word than what tends to happen) with other editors. are things which should be addressed by ''somebody''. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Yes, there can a clique-ish nature to most boards and Misplaced Pages process areas. simply that those more involved in a specific area tend to have a better idea of what goes on there (for good or ill). But they also have the easiest route to abuse that knowledge for subtly (or even less than subtly) gaming the system. Or even if it's shoot first and ask questions later (or even no questions, just link some diffs out of context and rile up the masses). | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| Is every Wikipedian like this? I surely hope not. But we do have more than our fair share I think. | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| So I think discussion of this, and finding ways forward would be a boon. If we let the negative editors drive the positive ones away, we're going to be left with more and more negative, and less and less positive. And I would hope that that is not a situation that we're striving for. | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I welcome anyone's thoughts on this. And better, any ideas to alter this seeming trend. - <b>]</b> 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I fully agree. This has become a major problem. A few negative editors have been able to drive away some of our best editors and many new editors with just a few out of context diffs. There are too many editors at AN/I that enjoy supporting sanctions/bans/indefinite blocks. There is no longer any tolerance for mistakes, which makes it very difficult for new editors to become long-term editors. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, mistakes can be easily fixed so there shouldn't be any problem with mistakes. Yes, many websites mirror Misplaced Pages, presenting potential difficulties in correcting offsite mistakes. However, it isn't our responsibility to make sure those mirrors are correct. We have ] for this purpose. ] ] 19:49, 3 February 2012 (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)