| Revision as of 04:15, 24 January 2014 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits →Message for the Arbitrators: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,365 edits →Egad: new section Is there a clerk aroundTag: New topic | ||
| (999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| 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 == | |||
| == No semicolon to bold, please == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Throughout ], semicolons are used in the code to bold headers. This is not a good idea in terms of accessibility for screen readers, see ] --] (]) 12:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Message for the Arbitrators == | |||
| :@] 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? == | |||
| This is a message for the Arbitrators. If you are not one of them, please refrain from saying anything. The less is said, the better. | |||
| 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) | |||
| More than six months ago I requested an arbitration for a case that became known as "]". For the ones who are not familiar with the topic, it was about the outrageous use of Fascist sources across several articles related to Latin American history. In the end the Arbitrators agreed with me. | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| Well, six months ago that case is still not dead. For some reason that I really cannot understand the Arbitrators have refused to do something about it. When I made a comment sometime ago which began with "''I asked for an interaction ban regarding Marshal and Cambalachero, but since this has direct relation to the ArbCom which we were part of I believe I'm allowed to comment. If not, let me know''" I was blocked. Instead of someone explaining me that I was not allowed to make any comment even in the ArbCom case which I was part of and that I shouldn't do that I was blocked for a month by Sandstein. An entire month. | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| No one among the Arbitrators did anything to oppose the arbitrary use of powers by Sandstein. A one month-block for a good faith comment by an experienced user who made invaluable contributions for this encyclopaedia is "okay". I saw vandals, disruptive editors and other people get countless warnings or at most a 24h block. I was blocked for a month. But that had nothing to with the source of problems related to the Argentine History case. | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Still, the Argentine History case still lives. Month after month it's still giving headaches to people around. The case was settled. The Arbitrators supposedly gave their final saying and punishments. But the case is still around. Why? Will there be a moment when anyone among the arbitrators will wake up and do something? Will someone tell that the case is done and that the result has to be accepted once for and for all? Or are you just going to sit idle and pretend that nothing is going on? --] (]) 00:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I was very disturbed by that block and stated at the time that if you had appealed it to us, I would likely have voted to reverse it. ] (]) 04:15, 24 January 2014 (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)