| Revision as of 14:47, 26 March 2012 editShuki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,955 edits →Notify editor Dlv999: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,307 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}} | ||
| == Increase participation by allowing non-admins to help decide on sanctions == | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| The lack of participation by admins is inhibiting effective operation of this board (I know there are several reasons for this, but this discussion isn't about that). I propose allowing uninvolved, non-admin editors, as well as uninvolved admins, to participate in deciding sanctions in the "Result concerning..." section. Then, an admin can impose the sanction. This will allow these enforcement actions to close more quickly and receive more attention in the results section. ] (]) 01:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Absolutely not! I would have to say that such a move would increase drama, result in a more difficult time reaching decisions and lead to general anarchy.--] 02:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh indeed. Let's go with this option. But why stop here? Why don't we privatise all dispute resolution to cronies from Misplaced Pages Review? I'll start drawing up the paperwork now. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Have to agree with Mongo, it's just AN/I at that point. ] (]) 02:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Motion 2b == | |||
| == Comments subject to WP:V and diffs? == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Since nearly every edit in Misplaced Pages is recorded, should some editors' comments concerning other editors meet the same levels of scrutiny and reliability as the rest of Misplaced Pages, and be subject to WP:V? In other words, is it a fair expectation that allegations should be accompanied by diffs (primary sources!), and not just by links to earlier allegations (secondary sources) unless they include diffs? --] (]) 12:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be a best practice to include diffs. I don't think the arbitration committee is in the habit of adopting findings of fact based on allegations unsupported by diffs, although not all the diffs that are considered in drafting such a finding need necessarily be included in that finding. In the last case in which I had a hand in evaluating evidence and drafting findings, the TimidGuy appeal case, various unsupported allegations were made, and the deltas between what was asserted in the case and what was actually in the record when we examined it played a non-trivial part in how the case was ultimately resolved. Make no mistake: failure to present good evidence appropriately will reduce the chance of a favorable outcome in arbitration. ] (]) 17:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I would expect nothing less of the Admins, I have found in the past that other editors tend to forget diffs, or link to information where diffs are often assumed, but absent. --] (]) 23:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == By the by == | |||
| :@] 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? == | |||
| The ongoing Muhammad RfC is an amusing case of ]. I could also call it ]. The ArbCom instructions to argue with sources etc. have been completely ignored. In fact I was told by one of the mediation participants that surveying sources is "synthesis" forbidden by the 5 pillars. I've decided not waste my time on the topic anymore, or with Misplaced Pages for that matter. ] (]) 20:16, 23 March 2012 (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) | |||
| == Notify editor Dlv999 == | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| Please kindly add ] to the ]. Unfortunately, the editor seems to not have learned that we want to keep A/I conflict articles civil and not bring back the battleground. His recent skirting of 1RR by six minutes at ] is suspicious yet, I'll choose to AGF at this time, and merely request a notification rather than stirring up an AE action. | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| * 13:03, 25 March 2012 | |||
| * 13:09, 26 March 2012 | |||
| 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)