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 13:23, 29 April 2013 editSm8900 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers63,868 edits →Mandated Jerusalem discussion appears to be a bureaucratic morass← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,352 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 = 7 |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__ __TOC__
⚫ == note ==


== Motion 2b ==
hi there. I left a note for anyone in Arbcomm, ]. feel free to write back if you wish. --] (]) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:Apologies for the delayed reply. These pages don't get much traffic and are not watched closely, but they should be. I've asked my fellow arbitrators and the clerks to keep an eye on these pages. The short answer here is that the page you left that note on is a closed case page, and the wrong place to ask that question. I see a similar question has been asked below (this page and ] are both suitable for minor requests and questions). For a full and formal clarification, it is best to go to ] (the clarifications and amendments page). I see someone has filed a clarification request there, and hopefully over the coming days I and other arbitrators will find time to look at that. Apologies again it took so long to find the right place. ] (]) 18:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
::Perhaps it would be useful to have a "closed case page" template that directed people to the right place to ask questions? ] (]) 21:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Thank-you. If you could suggest this at the clerks noticeboard (]), or point them here, that would be best. Clerks are generally responsible for that sort of thing, both doing it and assessing whether something like that is feasible. ] (]) 22:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Suggested. See ]. Thanks, ] (]) 00:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::hey, thanks for your replies on that. I understand. thanks. I also appreciate the actions you have taken on this, as you have described above. thanks. --] (]) 11:06, 29 April 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)
== Mandated Jerusalem discussion appears to be a bureaucratic morass ==


:. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The issue here is the same one raised in the previous section, but I would like to try to explain what seems to have happened in a way that people who haven't followed the process can understand.
:@] 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)
#On , ArbCom resolved that a community discussion should be held to determine a consensus on wording for the ] article.
#On , ArbCom named an editor to moderate the discussion, and three admins who would have the duty of closing the discussion at the appropriate time.
#A discussion was begin at ] to decide on wording for an RfC.
#Preliminaries and the first three steps have been completed and archived (at great length), the last of them on 5 March 2013.
#Per the schedule at ], there are still four steps to go, three having indeterminate duration.
#At that point, if it ever comes to pass, an actual RfC will commence.


== Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? ==
This is absurd. Can the current ArbCom do anything about it?


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)
(For what it's worth, I am totally uninvolved here. I wasn't even aware that this process existed until yesterday, and am trying to act as a neutral reporter.) ] (]) 18:00, 25 April 2013 (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)
::Looie496, thank you so much for your input on this. by the way, for the record, my concern level is rising slightly, owing partly to the fact that not only have I not gotten any replies, but there also seems to be almost no activity at all, even on other topics, at several of the pages where I have posted some mild queries. that includes this arbcomm page, and also some others as well. thanks. --] (]) 19:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


⚫ == Egad ==
:::Thank you both for posting here (see also my reply above). Steve, I can check your contributions history to see where else you left questions, but I think the reply above and this one will answer it. The right place to ask for clarification is ], so that is the best place to convene, providing all the people that need to be aware of this have been notified. ] (]) 19:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
::::hi there.sounds fine!! thanks for your reply. I have already done so. thanks!!! --] (]) 04:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
for the record, here are the other talk pages where I left queries about this. this includes the personal talk pages for several members of Arbcomm, and others.
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


thanks. --] (]) 13:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 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)