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 17:32, 26 March 2013 editGuy Macon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,287 edits →Against the 25 March 2013 block of Rich Farmbrough: Deleting a quotation mark while missing the matching mark on the other side of the word.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,319 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 = 3 |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__
== Structural improvements to AE threads ==

This relates to ]. As T. Canens , "if you let an AE thread drag on for too long, it tends to get filled with assorted walls of text, most of which are of questionable relevance, but all of which have to be read. As a result, you'll get very, very few admins who would be willing to look at it." To remedy this problem, I suggest that we add the following directions to the instructions box and to the enforcement request template:
:"Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statements must be made in separate sections. They may only be made (a) by the user against whom enforcement is requested, or (b) by other users exclusively for the purpose of supplying additional relevant evidence in the form of explained and dated diffs, or for other statements by request of a reviewing administrator. Noncompliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks."
This would prevent threads from derailing into walls of texts or disputes among involved editors, or from attracting a peanut gallery of opponents and supporters of the involved editors, whose opinions about the proper outcome of the request are in most cases not helpful to the reviewing administrators. Because AE is neither a community-based nor a consensus-based process, but rather a workflow tool for helping individual administrators decide about taking enforcement action, contributions by editors other than those directly affected or the reviewing administrators are in principle not needed. The 500 word limit is taken from ArbCom's case and evidence submission rules. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
:My biggest grip with AE is that important evidence can get lost in all the noise. If there were a more structured way of presenting evidence that would help make AE more equitable and practical.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
::That can be a problem too. The enforcement request template directs that evidence be presented in a numbered list in the "date - explanation" form (e.g., " Personal attack by calling me a "blind mole-rat"), but that's not always observed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I mean when people commenting on the case present evidence. Sometimes a case become a free-for-all with diffs and accusations flying everywhere from multiple people, making it difficult to sort things out reasonably and fairly.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
* It will come as no surprise to those who have seen me clerking, hatting, and advising editors that I strongly '''support''' this. My only change is that I would up the number of allowed diffs to 50, although I doubt it will be used. We tend to get too much text and not enough diffs as it is. We get walls of text, people threading conversations with arguments, etc. This makes it far more difficult to handle the actual report. The signal-to-noise ratio on some cases has been problematic. Thanks to Sandstein for suggesting this. ]] 01:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
*:Thanks for your feedback. There was ] with something like 50 diffs, and I and another reviewer felt that this was far too much. I therefore suggest that we see if we run into any practical problems with 20. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
*::50 is a lot, but limiting to 20 may be too little. What do you think of 30 or 35? ]] 21:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
*:::OK, we can try that, as far as I'm concerned. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
*::::Sounds reasonable to me. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, it would be possible to institute some sort of guideline or policy to the effect that, if an AE request gets so complicated that it requires more than three dozen or so diffs, that it might, maybe, not really be something that should be handled by AE, but might better be sent to ArbCom directly or some form of more semi-official mid-tier "appeals court". ] (]) 16:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
**Signal-to-noise ratio at AE is atrocious; I generally hardly looked at discussions for that reason. I'm sure I often missed good stuff doing that, but what else are you going to do? Read all of the nonsense that gets posted? Anything that might help should be tried. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
***I agree that the signal to noise is atrocious, but, honestly, I wonder whether it's any better at ArbCom itself. I remember The Blade of the Northern Lights saying once that he regularly spent ''several hours'' reviewing some of the individual matters he dealt with on the AE noticeboard, and it seems to me, unfortunately, that in at least some cases that might be the only way to really be able to see everything required. Yeah, that is more work and time than most people would want to spend on this, but sometimes, and evidently, according to him, fairly often, that's what it takes. BTW, if anyone else thinks it worthwhile to try to persuade him to become active here again, I would very, very, very strongly support that. ] (]) 16:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
* Is it intended that we don't want people to comment on the diffs brought by the complainant without permission? It isn't allowed by (b). ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:*Yes, if they are just statements of opinion (e.g. "Yes please ban X because he's a vandal"). Administrators are perfectly capable of evaluating the evidence on their own. In practice, the only editors offering opinions about AE threads are those who are involved in the underlying dispute, and they rarely offer opinions that help administrators in deciding what to do. Most often, their opinions are just noise, and sometimes they further inflame the dispute or require additional administrative action. <u>However</u>, this wouldn't exclude users from supplying ''relevant evidence'', that is, explained diffs of edits, either in the defendant's favor ("but here he did stop edit-warring after being warned") or in support of the enforcement request. Such submissions are useful and shouldn't be excluded. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
::* I don't disagree with you in principle, but simple useful comments like "the two reverts were consecutive so they only count as one" are forbidden by your proposed rules. Your own example "but here he did stop edit-warring after being warned" is also forbidden by your rules since it is not "in the form of explained and dated diffs" (can't give diffs for the absence of edits). I think your wording is too restrictive. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:::*Well, it is possible to word either example as an explained diff: "After the warning on , he stopped edit warring as apparent in the ", or "the reverts of and are consecutive and count as one". But I see what you mean. There may be some observations of this type that may be helpful and would be disallowed, but in most cases such circumstances will be evident to reviewers anyway, and either of the two parties to the request is free to make such observations as part of their statement. I think what we should focus on is allowing concise submissions of ''evidence'' and disallowing long statements of ''opinion''; perhaps the wording can be improved to make this clearer. We could also just provide that admins may remove "unhelpful" contributions, but then there will certainly long disputes about what's unhelpful... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My initial response would be that in general I am not in favour of wordcount restrictions in evidence, as some issues are complex and require a fair amount of explanation; at the very least I would have to check on what 500 words looks like before supporting such a restriction. Some of the other proposed restrictions sound useful in theory but I wonder whether they might not unduly restrict worthwhile evidence in practice; for example, I found the comments posted by a number of users in (qualified) support of SMcCandlish's contribution history to be useful in forming a judgement in that case. I do dislike the way some evidence devolves into conversational threads however and would be inclined to support the notion that users confine evidence to their own sections. ] (]) 05:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:Well, the 500 word limit seems to work for ArbCom cases and evidence submissions, and we can always grant permission for longer submissions if they are really needed. And if issues are ''really'' complicated then we at AE are probably ill-equipped to deal with them anyway and need to refer the case to the Committee. I agree that we shouldn't exclude any worthwhile evidence, but with the emphasis on ''evidence'' (that is, diffs), rather than just statements of opinion. In evaluating requests, we should focus on the actual edits that were made and on the policies and sanctions at issue, not on whatever opinion the friends or foes of the involved users may hold. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

:: A lot of opinions are completely partisan and can readily be discounted, but opinions from reputable editors in good standing can sometimes be very useful. So in spite of the inconvenience, I would be reluctant to prohibit users from simply expressing opinions. ] (]) 15:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

*'''Support''' ] (]) 05:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
* If there is a desire to enforce brevity in enforcement requests (I certainly think it's a good idea), I don't mind proposing a motion that codifies a general word limit into the ArbCom procedures. ] ]] 13:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:I wouldn't object to that, it might make the limit easier to enforce. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the above, my impression is that the one-section-per-statement rule and (with one exception) the length limit are not objected to. I've therefore taken the liberty of updating ], {{tl|Sanction enforcement request header}} and {{tl|Sanction enforcement request footer}} accordingly. I suggest we see how this works and remain open to adjusting the limits in the event of any difficulties. <p>We don't have agreement yet about whether it would also help with improving the signal-to-noise ratio to limit third-party statements to evidence submissions. I'd welcome more comments about this aspect of the proposal. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

: I just saw this... Like some others, I don't see the point in strict word or diff counts; the phrasing of the rule should be (in RFC-speak) SHOULD, not MUST. Indeed, adding such strict rules while the top of the red box still says ''(please use this format!)'', implying it's optional as a whole, makes the whole thing look schizophrenic. The whole huge-red-box-above-the-ToC concept is already annoying enough in and of itself. I wouldn't be surprised most people would prefer free-form ] to well-structured ] because this all looks ''literally'' like red tape. That problem should not be exacerbated. --] (]) 22:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

*I like this proposal, as well as the idea floated to somehow limit third-party statements. Many times these discussions turn into wall-of-text vs. wall-of-text. This makes it no only difficult for administrators to ensure they've reviewed everything, but difficult for the other commenting editors who want to give an honest third opinion. I'm not stuck to any specific number for how we implement this limit at the moment, but I do give tentative support for the proposal advanced at the beginning of this thread. --''']''' ~ (]) 00:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

:I don't like the lengthy limits actually, maybe I should have said that. This has been discussed before and I objected to it then because some of us, despite all our efforts, have difficulty staying within such narrow word limits. My concern is, as I said, with the potential for evidence to be lost in a sea of statements. What I would prefer is if the named parties of an enforcement request could all get their own little sections similar to the editor requesting enforcement. They can all present their evidence in defense of their actions or point out any issue of clean hands. You also add a little section below that where third-parties can add some evidence, which would be placed above a section for third-party statements. There is an annoying tendency for AE to serve more as an interrogation of the subject where the filer essentially has all the power to make or break the case rather than an investigation of the dispute.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::I find the idea of an section for "evidence submitted by others" interesting, but experience shows it's often difficult to separate a submission of evidence from its discussion. I suggest that we implement this idea in such a way that all statements by others are subdivided into an "evidence" and a "discussion" subsection, the way the request is now. This would also facilitate the removal of statements that contain no new evidence, if we decide to disallow these. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
*Thanks for initiating this discussion, Sandstein. For AE, I'd suggest an even more stringent limit, something along 250 words and 15 diffs; after all, matters brought to AE should be related to a very limited set of interactions (as opposed to longterm reviews in the full arbcom cases), and I very much support the idea of supporting the administrators who make the effort to help out at AE; I'd hope that tighter limits will make the requests easier to consider and make decisions. ] (]) 06:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:*Obvious issues may be possible to deal with in 250 words, but many disputes that are taken to AE are not that simple, but are still not complicated enough to merit a re-run of arbitration.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::*My view is somewhere in between: there are (a minority of) valid requests that address longterm misconduct, and these will need somewhat more room for explanation; see again ]. For most standard requests 250 words may well be enough. As an AE admin, my principal concern is (a) avoiding excessively long walls of text and (b) avoiding evidence-less statements of opinion by involved bystanders. Both of these types of contributions make the work of reviewers more difficult and can cause additional problems because people respond angrily to each other, generating more walls of text, continuing the underlying dispute at AE or requiring administrators to take disciplinary action, all of which further complicates the case. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:Hey all, I know I haven't been at AE, or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages, much lately, but wanted to weigh in here. Yes, we should rein in the walls of text. Exactly where to place the limits I'm not sure just yet, though KillerChihuahua's ideas seem pretty reasonable to me. I'll keep thinking and maybe post again (after a good night's sleep, hopefully!) Regardless of the details, I support the basic idea of this. ] ] 14:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::Fully support the changes made by Sandstein. There is still the matter of what to do with the cases that might be a bit complicated for AE, but not necessarily meriting full ArbCom involvement. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, what might be useful would be to set up some sort of "night court" Arbitration option, like Durova and a few others have supported or suggested over the years. We already have it now that each individual ArbCom case has two lead arbitrators assigned to it, and maybe one option for the rather few cases that require more than AE, but possibly less than ArbCom, would be to have some sort of procedure instituted which would allow for single-page cases (as opposed to multiple pages like ArbCom currently has) where admins (and/or maybe others) who have been specifically approved to function in this capacity by ArbCom can review the matters under discussion and arrive at a conclusion, which each page/case under the supervision of one or more elected arbitrators who might get "assigned" (maybe on a rotation basis) to oversee a page/case with final approval of any decisions made? ] (]) 16:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I've made a similar suggestion under your statement regarding the recent Tea Party case request. There may be a need for special procedures for requests that are too simple for a full case but too complex for AE. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

* Another concern I have is that if users feel muzzled by these rules, they are going to end up lobbying adjudicating admins on their talk pages instead, which IMO would be likely to be even more irritating and time-consuming than having them comment on the evidence page. ] (]) 17:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:*True, but that already happens (to me at least). My standard practice is to just refer everyone to ]. I've never had a problem with that. It's ultimately up to admins whether to accept such requests, as ] does not require the use of ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

::: I don't mean they will end up coming to admin talk pages rather than opening formal requests. I mean, they will end up posting their views on your talk page because they can no longer post them in the evidence section of a current case. Or else, be pestering you for permission to add statements to a request. So this change could well turn out to make more work for admins rather than less. ] (]) 10:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Yes, that's possible, but it's up to admins whether to react to, or even retain, clearly meritless messages on their talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

*Agree with & support Sandstein's changes and I'd echo Risker, KC and Heimstern the walls of text need to stop. I think TDA is right 250 words might be too short ''for some'' issues but could be a good guideline. AE sysops could always ask for a second statement of 250 words for clarity--] <sup>]</sup> 20:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

:: Have you checked what 250 words actually ''looks'' like? I just ran a check myself, on the last enforcement request by Enric Naval (the SMcCandlish case). Naval supplied seven diffs of evidence, plus a short paragraph documenting previous warnings and a few extra words in the "additional comments" section. Not an excessive submission by any means, yet it totals 879 words. If there is going to be a limit placed on length of enforcement requests, IMO it should not be less than 1000 words. ] (]) 10:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I did check as I assume Risker ''et al'' did too (and frankly it's a very reasonable length given that 500 is the word limit at RFAR). Eric's AE report is only over 800 words long because he quoted from the diffs - he didn't need to do this. Without those quotes his submission (including his 2 follow up comments) was 260 words. I agree its a tight limit but that's the point. All they need to do in an AE report is 1) State which RFAR ruling was breached 2) How 3) Whether the user in question has been warned or sanction previously. Everything else is unnecessary - sysops don't usually need users to interpret diffs for them but if they do they ask for an additional statement--] <sup>]</sup> 10:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:::: Enric may not have needed to quote from the diffs, but it was arguably better that he did so because it made clear precisely what statements he found objectionable, so admins didn't have to try and figure it out for themselves. Regarding the 500 word limit at RFAR, that is only for preliminary statements - the limit on the actual evidence page is 1000 words and 100 diffs, though users can request permission to add longer statements. However, in addition to that, the evidence page has its own talk page where users can give expression to their views at length, then there is a workshop page and a workshop talk page, then a proposed decision page and a proposed decision talk page. Obviously, we don't need all that at AE, but my point is that users have a plethora of venues to express their views at length at RFAR, but only ''one'' page - the evidence page - at AE. And I'm concerned that if we have too tight a limit there, either evidence is going to spill over to random pages, like admin talk pages, or admins are going to spend even more time having to decide what is and isn't acceptable evidence, or useful evidence is simply going to be lost. ] (]) 11:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

::: I suggest that the complainant be given a generous limit, and other people making comments a smaller limit. If the problem being reported is a long-term one, 500 words may be insufficient to describe it properly. Unfortunately I think that limits will only help a little bit, but it is worth a try. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

=== Follow-up proposal ===

* I still think a 500-word limit for the original complainant and respondent is too short and it should be 1000 words. Other than that, rather than engage in an extended debate about the other clauses in Sandstein's proposal, the implications of which are still not entirely clear to me, I will instead propose that if these clauses are adopted, then AE should get its own dedicated talk page so that users have a venue for commenting on a request beyond the evidentiary restrictions imposed on the request itself. ] (]) 12:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
:No objection to a separate talk page, though I suppose that ArbCom "owns" these pages and may need to agree. As to the word limit, if somebody has the time, a table containing the effective length of the most recent requests and responses would be interesting. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
::Actually, after consideration, I don't think that we should open a talk page to allow threaded discussion of cases. Freeform threaded discussion will quickly cause cases to derail in back-and-forths, and would be a step back from the relatively structured system we have now. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll start data gathering here. Word count is the output of including signatures.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! ''In re'' !! Request (words) !! Response (words) !! Notes
|-
| SMcCandlish || 902 || 6320 || The request appears not overly long, though the quotes could have been briefer. The response is too long by an order of magnitude. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|-
| Konullu || 503 || 515 || Request could probably be shortened. Response is of reasonable level of detail. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|-
| ] || 35 || 22 || The brevity of both statements seemed to present no problem. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|-
| ] || 838 || 756 || Request would have been 495 words but for the replies to others. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|-
| ] || 357 || 0 || Closed without reply for lack of jurisdiction. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|-
| ] || 525 || 2019 || Response is needlessly wordy. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|-
| ] || 649 || 395 || –
|-
| ] || 123 || 155 || The relative brevity of both statements seemed to present no problem. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|-
| ] || 131 || 0 || Counting JohnBlackburne's statement as the request, as the original submitter did not make one. No reply by the defendant.
|-
| ] || 57 || 3194 || Response is too long by an order of magnitude. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|-
| '''Average of the 10 most recent requests''' || '''412''' || '''1338''' || The average response would have been 644 words long if one omits the two empty responses and the two excessively long ones. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
|}

In view of the data gathered above, I consider that 500 words is a practicable limit. All statements in the above case were either shorter, or could have been shortened to 500 without much trouble, or were the sort of wall of text that the restriction is precisely trying to prevent. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

::Indeed as Sandstein shows and as an examination of the threads at AE over the last 2 years will show the problem is the volume of discussion by others (usually not the filer or the subject of the report). Opening a talk page only moves the problem and replicates the issue of sysops not seeing evidence due to walls of text. If editors take it to sysops pages those threads need simply to be closed. AE isn't RFAR if they really need to go into such detail they need to open a new RFAR. On teh basis of Sandstein's evidence I'd be happy to agree to 500 word limit or at max 750--] <sup>]</sup> 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:: Responses are always likely to be longer because it's often more difficult to explain why a charge is wrong than to make a charge in the first place. IMO there is a case to be made for allowing responses to be longer than requests. ] (]) 07:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand the objection to having a dedicated talk page for AE. Sandstein states that ''Freeform threaded discussion will quickly cause cases to derail in back-and-forths'', but a talk page isn't officially part of a case at all, and there is no requirement for adjudicating admins to participate in talk page discussions or even read them. But they are still there for users to comment on a case in any manner they desire, and those comments ''may'' be taken into consideration by adjudicators. The point is that with a dedicated talk page, the case itself can be confined to actual evidence, while admins can where necessary move comments deemed irrelevant to the talk page instead of just deleting them. If we don't give users a venue for expressing their views, as opposed to just adding evidence, I think the likely result is that those views will just get expressed randomly across other pages, like admin talk pages.

Apart from which, I've felt for a while that AE could do with a dedicated talk page, it's always seemed unhelpful to me that it doesn't have one, because means it's easy to miss AE-related discussions if you fail to make the association between the two pages in your watchlist. ] (]) 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein's list of sizes suggests to me that 500 words is ''not'' enough for submissions or responses. We should outlaw multi-thousand-word responses but a limit of 500 is overkill. Responding inherently needs more words than complaining: a "violating diff" can be presented with a few words, but explaining why it is not a violation takes a few sentences. I propose that complaints and responses be limited to 1000 words, while comments from other people should be limited to 500. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

: I'm still not keen on the idea of arbitrary limits, but if we are going to have them, they sound like more reasonable limits to me. ] (]) 10:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

::I'm not normally involved in any of this and came here quite randomly, but after reading the discussion and Sandstein's list of sizes I agree with Zero that 500 words seems to clearly be not enough. Zero's proposed alternate limits seem to be far more appropriate. As for the proposal of a Talk page, I can see both advantages and disadvantages. Any system that claims to be fair and just should allow for open commentary and discussion on the process that's taking place. On the other hand, having such a place for open commentary and discussion may give the confusing false impression that such discussion is actually part of the process, when in fact it's not. &mdash;] (]) 17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

:Five hundred is too little for most cases. It's pointless to set an arbitrary limit when the amount of content needed will vary greatly depending on case (or request or whatever you want to call it). In the AE request I semi-recently filed, Sandstein chose to truncate my request down 500 words (and AE now says there is such a limit, despite there clearly being no consensus at all here for a limit that small). This had the effect, if not the actual intent (I don't read minds), of badly censoring the request, by cutting out almost all of the evidence in it and explanation of the evidence. Regardless of Sandstein's actual intent in my particular case, the obvious fact is that a 500 or 1000 word limit, can (when more is needed for coherency) very easily be ]d at AE to hamstring any complex request/case someone doesn't like. The ''sub-rosa'' implication that the limit would apply not just to the request and someone's initial response to it, but be a cumulative total for each party means it could be gamed in even worse ways, e.g. by proposing sanctions against the requester on some questionable basis, yet not permitting the newly-accused any reasonable means of defense, at least not without rescinding and hatting the original request to "make room" for a suddenly needed defense. There is no lack of room, nor any strong tradition of making participants remain silent unless asked something from on high; this is not a paper venue and is not a court of law. If page length and "MEGO" are problematic, use {{tlx|collapse top}} and {{tlx|collapse bottom}} or the like to "roll up" longer blocks of content. I've done this myself at both the AE I filed and the one someone filed against me a few weeks ago, and it seemed to work well. Perhaps require outlines for longer pieces, too. As I find myself saying about a lot of things at AE, not every problem is a nail, and whacking every problem, like "TL;DR" and whoever someone feels is being longwinded, with what amounts to a "STFU!" gag is misusing a very crude hammer. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 07:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

===This is only about control===
{{hat|Flagrant ''argumenta ad hominems'' that have no place in a community discussion. If you have a specific complaint about those administrators, bring it to the appropriate venue. ] ]] 20:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)}}
This whole string is nothing but a way to control the discussion to unfairly limit the responses by those who are trying to defend themselves. It doesn't really matter what happens. Sandstein is the only one who does anything here, they rarely listen to the comments of others and they generally do whatever they want anyway. This Arbitration enforcement board is just as broken and badly run as the Arbcom itself. It does nothing but perpetuate the problems of the culture on this site. It gives a venue for the bullies to bully, it gives a conduit for the trolls to snipe their comments about the users, it emphasizes the growing us and them mentality that exists between editors and admins. If you want to make this process better this is not the way. If you want this process to be '''easier''' to control and easier for the lone admin Sandstein to be able to do whatever they want, then this is a great idea. Please insert the necessary amount of sarcasm into that last statement. There is no need for me to sign this comment. You already know who it is. Maybe if you start trying to fix some of the problems with the site and the culture to actually get back to building an encyclopedia I will start logging in again and contributing to something other than discussions. As long as you continue to waste time in enabling bullies like ] and ] and others and quite protecting the bad admins while eliminating the good ones and banning the most prolific content editors this place will actually turn around. As it is, the populace is beginning to feel, at an increasing pace, that they don't matter, that they are second class citizens and that too many people in power around here are only interested in keeping it and gaining more. ] (]) 02:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
:I would also note the hypocrisy in desysopping ] for unblocking Cla but Sarek was blocked multiple times and did some extremely underhanded things to try and force Doncram into a blockable situation, is well known for harsh and overly fast blocks but gets an admonishment? That makes absolutely no sense. You want to know how this is interpreted by the community, that some admins are above reproach! That they are allowed to do what they want because they are in favor while others that keep their heads down and stay off the radar are expendable. Well done folks, well done!] (]) 03:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Hab}}

:''The hatted thread's two original comments have below been refactored to remove ad hominem comments, but preserve the bulk of the posts, which are about ARBCOM process and problems with it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)''

This whole is nothing but a way to control the discussion to unfairly limit the responses by those who are trying to defend themselves. It doesn't really matter what happens. only one who does anything here . This Arbitration enforcement board is just as broken and badly run as the Arbcom itself. It does nothing but perpetuate the problems of the culture on this site. It gives a venue for the bullies to bully, it gives a conduit for the trolls to snipe their comments about the users, it emphasizes the growing 'us and them' mentality that exists between editors and admins. If you want to make this process better this is not the way. If you want this process to be '''easier''' to control and easier for lone admin to be able to do whatever they want, then this is a great idea. Please insert the necessary amount of sarcasm into that last statement. There is no need for me to sign this comment. You already know who it is. Maybe if you start trying to fix some of the problems with the site and the culture to actually get back to building an encyclopedia I will start logging in again and contributing to something other than discussions. As long as you continue to waste time in enabling bullies and quite protecting the bad admins while eliminating the good ones and banning the most prolific content editors this place will actually turn around. As it is, the populace is beginning to feel, at an increasing pace, that they don't matter, that they are second class citizens and that too many people in power around here are only interested in keeping it and gaining more. ] (]) 02:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC) <small>Refactored to remove ad hominem commentary — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)</small>

:I would also note the hypocrisy in desysopping ] for unblocking Cla but Sarek was blocked multiple times and force Doncram into a blockable situation ... but gets an admonishment? That makes absolutely no sense. You want to know how this is interpreted by the community, that some admins are above reproach! That they are allowed to do what they want because they are in favor while others that keep their heads down and stay off the radar are expendable. Well done folks, well done!] (]) 03:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC) <small>]''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)]</small>

::I can concur, for starters, that these are in fact common and growing perceptions and concerns. I used to almost never get Misplaced Pages-related e-mail; now I get it nearly daily. It lately consists mostly not of article improvement ideas, but of concerns about WP:AE/WP:AN/WP:ANI and some of their "regulars", about ARBCOM/RFARB, and about abusive behavior by administrators and their backing each other up if they're part of the "right" circles, and similar perceived problems. The content of this e-mail stream indicates that editors with possibly legitimate concerns are increasingly actually {{em|afraid}} to discuss any of them on-wiki because they are certain they will immediately be pilloried, censured and ritually wiki-sacrificed for doing so. External sources that write about Misplaced Pages are increasingly covering broad perceptions of administrative abuses, editors leaving and good admins quitting. What AE and ARBCOM are doing and how it's being done needs to be rethought, badly, and is under a lot of internal and external scrutiny. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:I have to agree, if Sandstein can't be bothered to read and understand a discussion (which seems to be the case anyway), then he should simply leave enforcement to someone who will be more diligent. Being "The Enforcer" and blocking people over petty complaints does not help the project anyway, far better to have admins who will take a sane balanced approach to the role. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>07:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC).</small><br />
::It seems that Sandstein's trend of not listening and not caring about comments in discussions have reached a new high. He recently left a notice stating as much on the Voluneer Marek enforcement in the last couple days. If the Arbcom enforcement board is to be taken seriously then these cases need to be handled by more than one editor aspiring to be Arbcom (Sandstein). It makes absolutely no sense for one editor with a reputation for blocking first, asking no questions and ignoring comments to be the sole caretaker of the process. ] (]) 15:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

== Next Steps ==

ArbCom appears to be defying the community. Assuming that they continue to do so, what are out next steps? Should we open an RfC? Call for a new election? All options are open. ] (]) 03:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:Commenting only on the procedure, assuming the Arbs don't agree to what ever your proposing, you would be forced to amend the arbitration policy to implement. ] requires a petition with 100 signatures to initiate a ratification if the committee does not support it. You would probably want an RFC to develop a proposal if it is to have any chance of passing ratification. ]] 03:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::Hm, a certain amount of entrenchment is in place. Not surprising - and maybe not a wholly bad thing - but very un-wiki. Consensus should be the requirement, not some random number. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>07:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC).</small><br />

== If an appeal fails ==

What happens to an editor ''if'' his/her appeal of a block, topic-ban, etc etc, isn't successful? ] (]) 19:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:Nothing. The appealed sanction remains in force. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::Is this the same with Arbcom restrictions? ] (]) 19:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Yes. ] (]) 19:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Just wanted to be sure that such blocks, topic bans and/or restrictions, weren't increased, due to failure of an appeal. ] (]) 19:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::I suppose in theory a reviewing administrator ''could'' decide that the appealed sanction is insufficient, and extend it, but I haven't seen that happen yet. Also, of course, if sanctionable misconduct (such as personal attacks) occurs by way of a statement of appeal, then that misconduct can be grounds for additional sanctions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Understood. ] (]) 20:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::{{EC}}No, they don't get increased simply for losing an appeal. Sometimes limits are placed on how often you can appeal. IIRC, in the CC case that I was a party to, editors had to wait 6 months before filing an appeal and then were only allowed to file one appeal every 3 months. And obviously, if an appealer does something stupid like make PAs or edit-wars during their appeal, they might get additional restrictions. ] (]) 19:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Okie Dokie. ] (]) 20:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

== Where does one make appeals ==

Where does one go, to appeal one's topic-ban and/or Arbcom restriction? ] (]) 21:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:] (not sure if that includes those imposed by arbcom directly, but presumably you can appeal to arbcom). Jimbo also reserves the right to overrule the committee ]. ] (]) 22:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::If the Arbcom restriction was the result of an arbitration case or motion, you can file a ]. --] (]) 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a less complicated way of appealing a topic ban? This form is long, confusing and frustrating. ] (]) 00:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

*Previous ] have gone unanswered. It seems that a (topic) ban cannot be reversed or reduced without community discussion or a Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) decision, but there seem to be no guides to the former.
*Arbcom (BASC) is probably reluctant to overturn AN "community" topic bans—it appears that such bans should at least initially be appealed at AN. Arbcom is supposed to be for problems that the community has not been able to solve.
*Admins at AE seem much fairer and more lenient about topic bans than the "community" is about AN topic bans. Recently somebody was given a one-month topic ban at AE, whereas at AN people have routinely been given indefinite "community" topic bans—without due rationale, process (due diligence), or discussion (a bare 24 hours on a holiday weekend)—for very much less disruption in essentially the same topic area. Lots of people who participate in ANI topic ban discussions seem to be just there to participate in a lynching (they don't have any knowledge of the topic or person)—this is the reason that I put "community" in quotes above: I don't think "community" has anything to do with lynching mobs. It takes courage for an admin. to implement a fair decision (and take flack for it), but it doesn't take any courage to participate in a lynching.
*If GoodDay's "mentor" does not support lifting of his topic ban, then perhaps he could look for a new mentor. ] (]) 02:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've much to think about in the coming hours. ] (]) 03:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:<small>As I like to say, "]"</small> But I have seen at least once, ANI (or was it AN?) overturn an ill-conceived and ill-thought-out topic-ban given at AE. ] (]) 10:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::From what I've read, there's a way to appeal a block for allegedly violating a Arbcom restriction. However, I'm not seeing how one can appeal the Arbcom restriction ''itself''. ] (]) 14:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You need to make an amendment request. ] (]) 14:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:::What is AE? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::AE = Arbitration Enforcement. ] (]) 14:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure if there are any hard rules about this, but you probably should appeal to the same venue that (or higher) applied to the restrictions. Although, as I pointed out earlier, there's at least one case where an AE applied sanction was over turned by the community. ] (]) 14:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::AN topic-banned me yesterday. What would be the point of appealing there? ] (]) 14:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Actually it was a community ban. Try respecting the ban for a minimum of 6 month and the return to AN and request an community un-ban. You jumped straight to Arbcom (which I understand was suggested from your request of how appeal) but you did it immediately after the actual decision was made. If you can't accept it then maybe you are to attached and interested in these subjects to see your own bias. I really suggest working with the community as the best route to take at this point.--] (]) 00:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

== What is about the Arbitration Request in my opinion ==

In the last four years I wrote 12 Featured Articles for Misplaced Pages. It was a hard job, it took me a lot of time, but I did it because I really believe in the idea behind this encyclopedia. However, I never saw much in return for my honest efforts. In fact, I saw nothing.

For three years now I have been trying to warn everyone that there are two editors writing several articles using books written by Fascists. Books written for the sole purpose of advocating a political agenda in the 1920s-1940s when authoritarian regimes were on the high. It's "content dispute", everyone says. If there was a Neo-Nazi writing ] denying that any killings occurred and that ] was a liberal democrat everyone would have reacted quickly. No would say "it's two opposing points of views, write them both in the article".

I did everything an honest editor should have done: discussed in the talk page, requested 3O, RfC, went to the Dispute resolution noticeboard and finally requested Mediation. Then, for my surprise, I was told that the Mediation was voluntary and that if the other party did not want to take part in it there was nothing it could be done. A collaborative encyclopedia has no measure to enforce editors to sit down and accept a mediation. In fact, it has no possible way to resolve content dispute (since this is how you people insist on seeing it) if one of the parties do not want to.

It's frustrating. It's humiliating. I look like a fool running from one place to the other warning everyone that Misplaced Pages's reliability is at stake. No one listens to an experience editor who wrote more than a dozen FAs. I came to the ArbCom and I got four arbitrators declining to do anything when they are warned that someone is pushing a political agenda advocated by Fascists while at the same time removing anything written by mainstream authors. One arbitrator said "''I'm seeing this as a content dispute''". Since when Neo-Nazi are regarded legitimate sources to be considered part of a "content dispute"? The same arbitrator also said: "ArbCom ''looks into conduct disputes, and I'm not seeing where there are conduct issues.''" When an editor uses Fascist sources to promote a Fascist political agenda at the same time he removes anything said by mainstream authors (the ones who are legitimate) is not considered "conduct issues"?

Another arbitrator said "''particularly at this stage, an arbitration case is not the best way to resolve this dispute''". Then what else can I do? I tried the talk page, 30, RfC, Dispute resolution noticeboards and Mediation. None worked. The editor is still writing several articles according to what Fascists wrote. ´

A third arbitrator said: "''Unless at least one other editor is willing to state that they agree with Lecen's statement, I am inclined to decline the request.''" An experienced editor who also wrote more than a dozen FAs stepped in, gave his point of view and was ignored!

And finally, another arbitrator said: "I ''encourage all parties to try the mediation route once again''". This is not content dispute. We are not talking about two point of views advocated by honest, serious, respected authors. We are talking about Fascists who are dead for over 35 years. People who asked for dictatorships, for the killing of Jews. Their point of view cannot be regarded as legitimate and acceptable as "content dispute".

What place is this? What is its purpose, then? While you are ignoring my pleas Cambalachero and MarshalN20 have been '''retaliating''' me opposing anything I do for the past three years, harassing me for the purpose of getting me out of here. They were in one of my FAC to oppose it even though they had never edited the article nor its talk page and have never been FAC reviewers. They take the other side on move requests I was part of even though they never edited any of those articles before.

Content dispute? Two users who are promoting a Fascist agenda on several articles and who have been '''harassing''' the sole editor who has reported them? You regard this behavior a mere "content dispute"? What is "user conduct", then? Do they have to threaten me on real life? For Christ's sake, open your eyes! --] (]) 15:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

:* Really Lecen, what do you expect from the Misplaced Pages administration. It has build for itself a comfortable parallel system which works very nicely for its members, but does not seem to be here to connect with content building or content builders in any facilitating way. Content builders who get earnest trying to do a good job set themselves up to get blocked. --] (]) 00:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I wore ] last Halloween.--] | ] 04:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


== Motion 2b ==
== Against the 25 March 2013 block of Rich Farmbrough ==
Fram and Sandstein have again gone .
#The block discussion was closed too soon, without adequate time for response by ''anyone''. 10:29 to 23:04 is just too damned short. The alleged offense simply does not rise to the level of an ''emergency response''.
#I disagree with the Request for Arbitration, the block, the logic of it, the short timing of it, the "gang of two" mentality, and the lack of actual discussion (replaced by a monologue). Its implicit rejection of the notion of Misplaced Pages as a ''socially constructed'' encyclopedia shocks the conscience. Farmbrough's contributions have so completely outweighed his errors and typos, that this blocking action is just wiltingly, shoulder-stoopingly, depressingly beneath us all. This block is a shameful embarrassment to the project. Of course I wouldn't DARE to unclose the "discussion", but if wikilawyering is what you do, wikilawyering is what you'll get back: '''Search and replace IS NOT EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN in the precise language of the linked ], as alleged by Sandtein.''' Those words do not appear in "the decision". Sandstein wants us to believe they do, but they don't. Decisions are standalone and are atomic; they cannot be arbitrarily expanded at will. Sandstein's rationale cannot stand. It's void. He should not be permitted to fabricate extensions to "the decision". Period.
#While we're at it, let's have an interaction ban between Fram and Sandstein, to break up this mini-cabal against Farmbrough. No team of two editors should ever be allowed to so egregiously, so repeatedly wage war against a productive, civil, enthusiastic (overenthusiastic) editor. '''''IMHO'''''.
#Smarter would have been to send notice of all of Farmbrough's "mistakes" to ''my attention''. I'd fix them for the rest of my tenure as a Misplaced Pages editor. That's a ''constructive, non-punitive solution.'' --] (]) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC) ''revised to clarify too-short time before sudden action --] (]) 10:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)''


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)
:An interaction ban between me and Sandstein? I have hardly ever interacted with him. I don't choose who does AE enforcement and who doesn't. Your request doesn't make any sense. ] (]) 09:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Well, I've seen prose by the two of you, in time sequence. Gee, where? Oh yeah, the other complaints against Farmbrough, and those blocks of Farmbrough. My request will make sense to people who aren't you, apparently, so it's ok. --] (]) 10:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Fram does have a point here; if you file an AE request about ''anything'' then it is very likely Sandstein will be involved. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


:. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:As for the rest of your comments: "to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the button and typing changes into the editing window);" is the relevant part of the sanction. So it seems to me as if "search and replace" is explicitly forbidden after all. ] (]) 10:00, 26 March 2013 (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)
::''As for'' your false equivalence, search is ctrl-F, and is legal. Search again is F3 (on PCs), and is legal. Copy (ctrl-c) of say, ' ' ', is legal. Paste (ctrl-V) of say, ' ', is legal. Anything I can type in the edit window is legal. None of these are automatic. ''So it seems'' your conclusion that the errors could only have been created offline can be demonstrated false, by a series of human errors while searching ''in the edit window'', ' ' ' again and pasting ' '. You would punish me for coffee jitters, wouldn't you? Your concocted re-imagining of circumstance, without actual literal proof, for the sole purpose of hounding, blocking, and hoping to get an editor banned for ''editing normally'', is not what we expect or want of Misplaced Pages editors. If you don't mind, please stop. --] (]) 10:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
:::The conversation above piqued my interest, so I looked into the evidence of violation. I believe that I have the skills to distinguish between automated, manual, and cannot-tell edits, plus I have had no interactions with anyone involved in this.
:::A human typing changes into the editing window does not accidentally change into multiple times without ever accidentally changing into . No conceivable sequence of cuts and pastes would result in that pattern or errors (not to mention that pasting is not typing, and thus is not allowed) Clearly some sort of automated editing was used, and the result pasted into the edit window. --] (]) 11:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
:::: Yes, but on that basis, copying and pasting a URL into the edit window (or the cite tool) as part of creating a reference would also be disallowed, and I'm sure no-one is going to claim that's an automated edit. This falls into a grey area, IMO. ] (]) 11:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::For me personally, cut-and-paste is indeed not part of automation (not only the example you give, but e.g. also swapping two sections or some such should still be allowed); what is disallowed is everything repetitive that isn't done one at a time, but appears to be done with the aid of some tool, which has the result that all errors are repeated multiple times as well (which was the basis of the ArbCom case and restriction). Whether this is in one page or over multiple pages is to me not relevant here (although obviously I'ld rather have errors in one place than all over the place). ] (]) 14:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I don't think it requires too much imagination to see how the single quotes could get messed up with entirely manual edits. I make almost exactly that kind of mistake myself. In this case, there was a rare angled quote right inside the double single quote for italics. Rich was trying to convert triple-single quotes to double-single quotes (bold to italics) so it's easy to see how he might have found a few tripled single quotes and replaced them. I am not convinced this was done using search and replace. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 16:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


== Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? ==
:::::::Please look at and () and search for the following phrases (without the square brackets) in each version:<br />
:::::::''''''<br />
:::::::''''''<br />
:::::::''''''<br />
:::::::''''''<br />
:::::::''''''<br />


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)
:::::::Notice the word to the left of each search phrase? None of these errors are consistent with your "there was a rare angled quote right inside the double single quote for italics" theory. Nor are they consistent with manual editing. No reasonable human removes a quotation mark standing alone with no nearby bold or italic wikimarkup to confuse the issue and misses the matching quotation mark on the other side of the word.


:@] 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)
:::::::Now look at the text after '''''' and before '''''' in each version. A big chunk of the article is gone,replaced by a big red cite error. The same mistake was made on the word Sunday ''inside the cite error''. How does a human making manual edits miss the fact that entire sections are missing and replaced with a cite error and yet manage -- inside the missing text -- to delete a quotation mark while missing the matching quotation mark on the other side of the word? Those edits were made by a computer program and no human looked at the preview before saving. --] (]) 17:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


== Egad ==
Note project canvassing by Lexein: . ] (]) 11:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


Blocked until March 2014? That's too severe, folks. ] (]) 11:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
: Indeed; 1 year blocks should not be used, ever, in cases like this where so little, if any, harm is being done. Ever. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 16:14, 26 March 2013 (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)