| Revision as of 14:29, 5 September 2013 editAnaniujitha (talk | contribs)920 edits →How do we post our thoughts/comments on cases here?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,309 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__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Motion 2b == | |||
| == Talk:1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine == | |||
| I am just placing a note here to encourage taking a look at what is happening at ]. I don't want to report anyone and I am not asking for any specific sanction; I just want someone to keep an eye on a what looks like a brewing problem. | |||
| I ran into this page after a case was filed at ], where I am a volunteer, and later one of the participants expressed dissatisfaction with DRN. I and another DRN volunteer tried to point them in the right direction (simple stuff like "go to ] instead of repeatedly accusing another editor of sockpuppetry on the article talk page") but at that point I realized that there is an ongoing raging battle with accusations and counteraccusations flying and that I am completely out of my league. --] (]) 07:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Chelsea/Bradley Manning mess == | |||
| Not a formal RFAR, just a heads up. As some of you are already aware this content dispute is displaying nearly every type of undesirable behavior we have a name for, up to and including wheel warring, so it is more or less inevitable that it is going to end up on the committee's doorstep at some point. Enjoy. ] (]) 20:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :There is also a discussion here: ]. ] (]) 21:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::And like five other places, it's pretty much a at this point. ] (]) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah I saw that, I think I have about 4 on my watchlist but I'm sure there are more. That's not even counting the discussions on the site which shall not be named. I almost commented at a couple but there are already so many people fighting over this my voice would just be lost in the crowd anyway It baffles me that we have all these things to fight about in this project and all kinds of important issues like RFA, Visual Editor, editor attrition and this silly case is what everyone is mad about. I have thought for a while that some of our editors have lost perspective and this case pretty much verified that. Simply appalling. ] (]) 02:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The "wiki forest fire" of mention does fully illustrate the larger issue of wiki dysfunction; hell, they may as well be discussing infoboxes! '':)'' ] (]) 03:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I think that there is something that Arbcom can do to help here. | |||
| Someone needs to give us a definitive answer to the argument that ] does not apply to article titles. Comments from the ongoing RfC: | |||
| :"This is not a BLP issue. | |||
| :"MOS:IDENTITY is not about article titles, and I don't think there is a BLP issue." | |||
| :"The appeal to WP:BLP as a reason to keep the article at Chelsea Manning (and to immediately undo any reversion to Bradley Manning is baseless. The BLP policy has nothing to do with the use of Bradley in the article title. The BLP policy is about protecting Misplaced Pages from defamation suits." | |||
| :"At what point will you acknowledge that your invocation of BLP was off-base, and restore the original title?" | |||
| :"This article name change dispute isn't affected by the BLP policy at all. There's no basis for applying it." | |||
| :"Why exactly does 'WP:BLP trump WP:ARTICLENAME'? Many participants use this argument (or a similar one) during this discussion, but I have to admit that I can't see any primary/secondary ranking of the Misplaced Pages policies." | |||
| :"WP:BLP does not apply, WP:MOSIDENTITY deals with pronouns not article titles, in fact it says in there to refer to policy when it comes to article titles." | |||
| :"The interpretation of BLP in this manner runs counter to consensus on Misplaced Pages." | |||
| :"I cannot even begin to imagine why people are citing WP:BLP. There are no BLP concerns affecting this discussion from what I can see." | |||
| :"I would also like to ask editors who say this is a BLP (as opposed to style) issue to justify that claim. | |||
| :"That interpretation of BLP is, quite frankly, bunk. The article should be restored to the person's actual name, and mention of the Bradley-to-Chelsea wish is certainly notable enough to mention in the article. But not to the point where it dictates what this project actually titles the article, or what pronouns are used to refer to the person in the article." | |||
| :"I don't see why BLP mandates that we use the name Chelsea in the title." | |||
| :"Those who are opposing as said are citing WP:BLP with nothing in that policy that mentions title changes, it says in MOS that title changes are referred to in the Title changes policy, nobody has been able to counter this argument."- | |||
| :"There is nothing on WP:BLP that comes out and says anything against the article title change to Bradley Manning" | |||
| :"So I think that this part of WP:BLP does not apply to our case." | |||
| :"Again there is NOTHING in WP:BLP that covers this and under WP:IDENTITY it points to policies including WP:TITLECHANGES as this does not have to do with article content but an article's title." | |||
| :"Those who have cited WP:BLP as an exception here have yet to back it up." | |||
| My opinion is that BLP applies to anything on Misplaced Pages that involves a living person. --] (]) 18:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It does apply. However, many think that titling an article by a person's legal, given name, the name that they are ], when it may not be what the subject prefers, is not at odds with BLP policy. ] (]) 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The grey area here is that BLP policy is to use whatever the self identification is used by the subject. However that is in regards to sexual identity, not a name. However, we do allow such self sourced content on Misplaced Pages. "Verifiability not truth' is no longer the standard. If the subject declares that they are identifying themselves with a name, we can use it per the source being the subject. Verifiable names do NOT always match the common names. This is a matter of consensus to me as the policies and guidelines should not override common sense.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> 18:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Verifiability not truth" does apply - it needs to be verifiable what the subject's gender and name preferences are before we title an article based on them. In the case of Chelsea Manning, that verifiability is not in doubt though, so there is no question what name the article should be at based on our policies. ] (]) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well....not really. You see we no longer have such a policy as "Verifiability not truth". And even the policy page itself still contains language that contradicts other policies and guidelines. The subject has made a public declaration. Is that verifiable? Some might say yes, while others would say that a public declaration must be found in a reliable source. While it certainly strengthens the claim it is not a requirement. It could well be an OTRS ticket or an simple mention in the official website or could simply be a declaration proven to have come from the source. It becomes a matter of consensus really, but the subject can indeed simply state that their name is "such and such" and just because the documented and verifiable information may not show this information we do have to take into consideration such claims being made directly from the subject. Issues of name and DOB are not as complicated as some may wish to make them.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> 19:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As much as this may or may not be a BLP issue (I believe it is), it is worth mentioning that enforcing BLP applies to the broadest imaginable scope as it relates to the living person affected by matters of disregard. Therefor a section heading is as much an issue as another if the living person is left to carry the burden of angst it derives. The argument that an article title contravenes BLP sensitivities unravels if the same sensitivity is not apparent in the name published for a talk page section; in my opinion. '':)'' ] (]) 20:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Uh...no. The talk page may use speculation (Original Research) in order to further a debate or argument. It is not at the same level of as the article itself.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> 20:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Sigh. I was hoping that this would not become a duplicate of the huge fight going on at the article and instead we could focus in on my specific question. In particular, the "is not at odds with BLP policy" argument above and the replies to it have nothing to do with the question of whether BLP applies to article titles. If anyone wants to argue that BLP does indeed apply to article titles but this particular case is not a BLP violation, that's fine, but could you please start another thread for that rather than hijacking this one? --] (]) 20:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry. I have no idea what the discussion is at the talk page but I will say that neither myself or the other editor appear to be hijacking this thread Guy. And frankly I am a little disappointed that you would accuse editors of such when the natural flow of the discussion does not include your quandary. Couldn't you simply re-state your question instead of accusing editors of such behavior?--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> 20:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] does not apply to article titles: True or False? | |||
| :: Whatever the answer to is, I can name 200 editors who violently disagree. Can we get a definitive ruling on this? Do I need to file an Arbcom request to get one? --] (]) 22:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I cannot possibly see how Arbcom could simply rule that 'WP:BLP policy does not apply to article titles' without opening a gaping hole in the entire WP:BLP policy - one that would surely conflict with the WMF's resolution on the matter . As to '''how''' it applies regarding the particular issue under discussion, that is another matter. If Arbcom is to become involved, surely it is better to ask a question that is actually likely to resolve the issue? ] (]) 23:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wonder {{u|Guy Macon}}, are our policies only explicit or is there some implicit information that would guide editors towards the right way to handle the situation, regardless of the varying opinions. I know that when something is not spelled out word for word, we sometimes have to look to other guidelines to understand how situations could be handled with what guides we have.--<font face="Mistral" size="3;" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">]</font> 23:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| In my opinion, when I see hundreds of editors disagreeing on a fundamental matter of policy interpretation, and then I see several administrators wheel warring over the same fundamental matter of policy interpretation, I am allowed to ask the arbitration committee for a ruling on whether ] applies to article titles. They may decline to rule on that, but I am allowed to ask. | |||
| If you want to ask a question other than ''"] does not apply to article titles: True or False?"'', feel free. I am still allowed to ask ''my'' question. | |||
| If you think that some answer other than an Arbcom ruling will convince a couple of hundred editors at ] that's fine. I am still allowed to ask the arbitration committee for a ruling on whether ] applies to article titles. | |||
| If you think that somewhere other than Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests (or Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard; it was moved here from there) is the right place for me to ask the arbitration committee to consider ruling on whether ] applies to article titles, please tell me where I should make that request. | |||
| If you are not a member of the Arbitration Committee and have an opinion as to whether on whether ] applies to article titles, is there any way that I can convince you to discuss it someplace that does not interfere with me asking the arbitration committee to consider ruling on whether ] applies to article titles? ] might be a good place for that, but just starting another thread on this page and letting me ask my question and wait for an answer from arbcom will do nicely. --] (]) 03:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Guy, I wrote this before I saw your latest post, so I hope you don't mind me going ahead and posting it anyway. BLP applies to everything about living persons on Misplaced Pages. The : "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." It doesn't mention titles explicitly, but note that it says "including," so that was never intended to be an exhaustive list of the things it applies to. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Well, Guy, some years back the Committee attempted to bring forward a subcommittee, made up almost entirely of community members, who would advise the committee on content and other issues so that we would be in a position to answer a question such as yours; the intention was to get it going and then cut it loose to community control, so that it would act as a parallel to the Arbitration Committee with respect to content issues. That was, however, kiboshed by the community, which has steadfastly refused to consider over the intervening years that maybe it would be a good idea. (Full disclosure: I voted against creating that subcommittee because I was fairly sure its creation would not be accepted by the community.) So, here we are, with a single "Arbitration Committee" that is precluded by policy to answer a question such as yours, absent a case built around the actions of individuals. And really, the people you'd wind up bringing here would be the admins who moved the article back and forth between a couple of titles. We might be in a position to rule on whether or not either title was a BLP violation, but only in the context of whether or not an administrator moving the article had reason to believe that there was a BLP violation, and whether or not said administrator should be sanctioned. But you should know that the Arbitration Committee, through every single iteration since about 2006, has been very strongly supportive of the all-encompassing application of the BLP policy, over and above almost all other policies. One would have to present a really phenomenal argument that an administrator moving the article because the original title was a BLP violation did not actually believe that it was true, and was acting maliciously, in order to obtain any sanction here; and I'm not sure that the case would be accepted if there was no reasonable prospect of someone being sanctioned. Oh, and, yes...article titles are subject to ]; I don't understand why you might have any doubt about that. ] (]) 04:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:The issue is that ] contains a BLP exception for deleting material that contravenes ], but does not explicitly authorize any other BLP related Wheel exceptions, such as here, where its alleged that the title itself is a BLP violation. So in that very limited sense, BLP does not apply to titles, at least as policy is currently written. ]] 04:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *::You honestly think that? BLP applies everywhere on the project, as is stated right in the BLP policy. ] (]) 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *::I would have thought that a more mainstream view was that BLP applies to article titles, but there is dispute as to whether in this case BLP is being breached. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 06:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It seems patently obvious to me that BLP policy applies to anything that affects the LPs. The normal sort of "does not apply" argument goes something like "BLP does not apply because John Wilkes Booth is dead" or "BLP does not apply because Eric Cartman isn't living or a person". When I saw hundred of comments saying "BLP does not apply to article titles" with "prove it!" responses when someone disagrees (noting that there are other arguments such as "BLP applies but isn't being violated in this case" that I am purposely not addressing) it made me want to ask for some sort of official ruling. Alas, as Risker pointed out, Arbcom is a lot like the US Supreme Court, set up to deal with specific situations, not the kind of policy question I am asking about. So, as a practical matter, is there anything else that I can do? For example, I could file an Arbcom case on the alleged wheel warring even though I think that it was a legitimate application of BLP policy. If it was accepted and if the ruling went the way I think it would, I would have an official ruling that BLP applies to article titles. That sound OK on paper, but dragging some poor admin to Arbcom when I don't think she/he did anything wrong? No. I can't do it. Maybe if they volunteered to be a test case... Is it even worth asking them? --] (]) 06:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Arbcom exists primarily to address matters where the community has been shown incapable of resolving by some other preferred means. Why should Arbcom be your first recourse? Have you entirely lost faith in community consensus? You can not suggest that you have tried. '':)'' ] (]) 06:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I can't speak for the Arbitration Committee but will offer my view. Seconding a couple of other people above, the BLP policy ''clearly'' applies to article titles, as it does everywhere else. For example, in the (hopefully unlikely) event that an article title contained unsourced negative information about a living person, this would need to be addressed, either by reliably sourcing the information (if true) or changing the article name or both. I doubt that many experienced Wikipedians, on reflection, would disagree with that. | |||
| The question of whether this article should be at "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning" at this moment seems to me to be at some distance from the crux of the BLP policy, however. It also seems to me that it is receiving a quite disproportionate amount of the community's time and attention. ] (]) 06:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *As a ], let's presume that someone writes an article about someone with a common name, and, as is common in such cases, adds a parenthetical disambiguation. Let us further presume that the disambiguation they use is ], and doesn't support that classification. I certainly hope we could all agree that would be covered by BLP, despite being in the title. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Actually, as I think about it, this type of situation has come up, as when we sometimes move an article from "Murder of X" to "Death of X" when there's an issue as to whether it was a murder or not. (The living person in question there, of course, being not X but the suspect.) ] (]) 23:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **You don't need a hypothetical example: ] - ] (]) 22:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **] (not murder). BLP certainly does apply to article titles, but I don't think it's relevant to Bradley Manning or Chelsea Manning because there are plenty of sources using both, and neither is derrogatory. If Manning were to file an OTRS request saying she felt very insulted with being called Bradley Manning, we might even switch it as a courtesy, but that hasn't happened as far as I know. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :''Disproportionate''? Given that Misplaced Pages is an entirely voluntary activity that prohibits many behaviors but actually requires few it's unclear to me how the ''proportionate'' amount of discussion could be determined. If folks want to express opinions about the specific issue and the broader difficulties involved in writing articles related to transgender individuals, I'd classify that as forming consensus, not disproportionate. Besides, there are {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} active users -- so if, conservatively, 300 folks have commented, that's only a proportion of 0.0023. <small>]</small> 13:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I have personally moved articles due to BLP issues in the title before and received no complaints whatsoever. BLP clearly applies to article titles. <span style="color:orange">]<sup>]</sup></span> 13:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == record? == | |||
| I'm slightly flabberghasted at the size of this, already. (Only ''slightly''.) Is there a record for the number of statements an an Arb request? ] (]) 21:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh there probably is. This one isn't close so far (I think we had over 50 statements a few times), although it does have the unique feature of being the first one where Sue Gardner has posted. ] (]) 21:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::117 on ]. (115 on talk + 2 on main case page). <small>]</small> 13:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removal of relevant comments== | |||
| I'm concerned about various relevant comments being removed, such as . The global living persons policy draft that ] mentioned seems particularly relevant to a broad examination of this case, and the removal makes it unclear what we are actually discussing, if not trying to establish how BLP or fundamental principles along those lines apply to this case. ] (]) 12:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed. What's going on here? One of the biggest problems in the original dispute was selective silencing and erasure - ] (]) 13:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is the first place where you should inquire about this. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 13:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Keegan's comment for example, was targeted at someone who had left a statement and not about the content of that statement. If someone (Keegan included) wishes to make a comment related to the global living persons policy draft, and their comment is relevant to the case being accepted or not, then that's fine. But the statements need to be relevant to the case. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I'm concerned about the removal of statements as well. All of the removed statements were addressing some element of the case. You could have dropped a note on Keegan's talk page asking him to rephrase; as it is, it appears his input is entirely unwelcome and this is surely not appropriate. Ditto for whatever your objection was to other statements. ]] 14:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The removal of DHeyward's statement was done at my request and a summary of why I requested it is on DH's talk page. As far as Keegan's post goes, perhaps I ought not to comment considering that the page history tells me I originally wrote the global living persons policy draft. (I have little recollection of the task force actually). But I see why Callanecc removed it; it does seem like something that belongs better on ] than ]. As far as Adam Cuerden's comment goes: Callanecc, could you explain further please why you removed it? I don't necessarily disagree with the removal at this time; I would just like to hear your explanation. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Removing Keegan's comment especially strikes me as a mistake. Actually, given that BLP issues are centrally related to the reasons I see for accepting a case, I disagree with both removals, and thought both comments were rather relevant to the broader issues in play here. ] 18:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Keegan's and Adam Cuerden's, IMO, should not have been removed. I can see the rationale behind possibly asking Keegan to rephrase some of his statement, but I cannot see any reason for removal of Cuerden's statement, and in looking at it, don't even see any reason for any of it to be rephrased. ]] 18:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Keegan's was directed at Sue and was a criticism of her regarding the global living persons policy draft. I should have mentioned in the message I left Keegan that there was no problem making another statement, and should have said the same thing in the message I left Adam Cuerden. Looking at Adam Cuerden's again I can see where everyone is coming from and it is very borderline, so I probably didn't need to remove it. However the reason I did is this, the statement is a criticism of editors in general, as well as ] comment more specifically, and seemed to me like it was just being used as a place for Adam to make a comment rather than relating to specifically to the case. However I can see where everyone is coming from and I'm happy to add it back if that's what people would rather. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::FWIW, my statement was not a criticism of Sue. She doesn't get to set or really influence the Board's agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if she was unaware of the global Living People Policy draft languishing on strategy; she's a busy women. It would be beneficial if she has seen it now. Anyway, it's all moot now, I've adjusted the framing to make it pointedly relevant to this case. ] (]) 00:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The removal of my comments were described as a soapbox and offensive. As I didn't intend it to be a soapbox or offensive, I am at a loss for understanding the reaction. I came at the subject from a different point of view, but it was never intended to be offensive. My intent was only to point out that there are BLP concerns at the individual level as well as BLP concerns for many in similar situations and catering to stereotypes in the name of BLP could be more harmful and a larger BLP violation overall. Since no one was approaching it in the same direction as I did, I felt it necessary to explain it. Some comments are on my talk page and those that wish to read the original post can do so with diff's as I won't repost without understanding the offense and refine it so it is not. -] (]) 02:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Jehochman}} - the average editor wouldn't think of it as a BLP violation, but, looking at the !votes, the average editor thinks comparing transgender people to dogs is apposite. (Why's it always ''dogs?'') I would have hoped we could do better - ] (]) 16:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Alphabetic ordering == | |||
| The large number of the comments by editors in the Manning RFAR makes it difficult to quickly look up comments from certain editors. Why not order all the entries alphabetically? The comments by the initiatior of the RFAR would then still come first, perhaps in a higher level section, the rest should be ordered alphabetically below that. ] (]) 13:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Control-F. --] (]) 13:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that will also work :). ] (]) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Floquenbeam, solving all of Misplaced Pages's problems one user at at time.'' --] (]) 14:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat}} | |||
| ::Bigoted, pro-Windows post. Per ], shortcuts should be referred to by the preference of the operating system (in my case, that's ⌘ -F) <small>]</small> 02:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Macphobic? ] (]) 03:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Translinux. And I remind you that nobody switches to linux. --] (]) 03:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do you guys see how it might be possible that this is kind of an offensive joke? ] (]) 11:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In functional terms, it is a class of incivility that is difficult to distinguish from deliberate boundary testing when done on an arbcom page. I'm sure a good-faith explanation could be constructed - ] (]) 14:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::LOL. ] (]) 14:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| {{od}}I'm still surprised that Arbcom doesn't use a separate page for each case request. How hard would it be? | |||
| One non-trivial side advantage is that individual comments would be naturally be in the TOC. While one could force them to be in this format, with multiple cases on a single page, it would make the TOC unmanageable. Much better if on a separate page. As a compromise, if in fact it is common to have several small case requests, most of which are rejected, and a single page is fine, then break out whenever a case request exceeds some size.--]] 14:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] provides a TOC. ] does not (presumably because the actual cases page is transcluded). ] (]) 15:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, I think I missed that distinction.--]] 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC - Edit-warring == | |||
| I invite community feedback regarding this RfC. Thanks. ] (]) 00:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == This is a Great Example of Tribal Warfare == | |||
| My suggestion to the arbitrators is to go through all the editors involved here and especially the admins and take some actions to protect the integrity of Misplaced Pages. They have put themselves in the spotlight here and this provides an excellent opportunity to conduct further investigations of all involved. These are among the most agenda pushing, edit warring, defaming bunch of wickipedians to be found. This has provided an excellent opportunity to take some drastic yet severely needed actions. Pulling some admins, warning some editors and suspending others would definitely clean up wiki for awhile. Yes, more would come in the future but I am sure there will be other opportunities like this to weed them out.] (]) 03:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC) My 2 cents worth. | |||
| :I'm not sure there's been an arbitration since 2004 someone wouldn't apply that paragraph to - ] (]) 06:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == How do we post our thoughts/comments on cases here? == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I had been an occasional editor for years, but only signed up after Chelsea Manning's page had been moved back to "Bradley Manning." I don't know if this will be helpful. | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Background: | |||
| :@] 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? == | |||
| I am an occasional but previously-unregistered Misplaced Pages editor. I looked at the talk page after Chelsea Manning's page was moved to her own name, but backed away from the transphobia. I returned after seeing that her page had been moved to her boyname, and was and am shocked by this decision. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Biases: | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| I am a survivor of anti-trans violence. I do not deal well with transphobia, because I believe it contributes to anti-trans violence, and because of the trauma. I have commented elsewhere condemning the move-back. | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| Comments: | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I wonder how many other editors backed away because of the transphobia. Apparently, the margin was based on a very narrow majority, rather than consensus, and the hostility, or canvassing on either side, could have tilted the balance. I don't think people who don't experience transphobia are always able to recognize what is or isn't transphobic; more of the transphobia may come from misunderstanding than from hate; but that's a good reason for an appropriate committee to go over this and hash out guidelines for similar situations. And yes, I think this a issue of basic human dignity, and not only that, I fear that disrespecting trans people's identities may encourage anti-trans violence. ] (]) 14:28, 5 September 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)