| Revision as of 01:33, 1 August 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 8) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,339 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 == | ||
| I am expected to appeal my restrictions in the Infoboxes case, so said ] who seems to {{diff|User talk:Iridescent|613214037|613139421|follow me everywhere}}. I will not meet the expectation. I came to like my restrictions so much that I decided that I can live and die with them (look for red on my user page). Sometimes I walk away after two comments to a discussion even if I don't have to. It saves time. - I try to stick to the restriction of not adding an infobox to an article that I didn't create, however sometimes I remember the work I put into an article so well that I forget that I didn't "create" it, for example {{diff|Victor Bruns|585207810|585190394|Victor Bruns}}, {{diff|Polish Requiem|597019704|596987919|Polish Requiem}}, {{diff|Richard Adeney|611325313|611290129|Richard Adeney}}, - apologies. - Can we perhaps invent a template explaining for our readers: "This composition by Penderecki has no infobox - as ] - because the main contributor is restricted"? | |||
| On Canadian Independence Day, Nikkimaria made an edit that I didn't understand, out of the blue {{diff|Symphony No. 8 (Bruckner)|615153441|613153915|collapsing}} three items of information in a long established infobox and removing details. I don't know why. It's ] where I walked away. Is that the expected behaviour with a "level of professionalism" mentioned in the decision? - Dreaming of a bit more ], --] (]) 14:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, knowing when to walk away is one of the skills to learn if one wishes to edit with a "level of professionalism", especially if one constantly edits in and around contentious areas. | |||
| :Personally, I rarely edit in contentious areas, but I also carefully avoid any semblance of professionalism, as is appropriate for an amateur. (In the old days, they used to divide us into ].) --] (]) 23:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{diff|Talk:Richard Wagner|557417907||Yes}} (by ], 29 May 2013), --] (]) 06:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: ], DYK? --] (]) 11:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications == | |||
| 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) | |||
| This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the ] will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the ] ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of ] and ] privileges on the English Misplaced Pages. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are ], ], and ], whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee. | |||
| :@] 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? == | |||
| Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted. | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email {{NoSpam|arbcom-en-c|lists.wikimedia.org}} with your nomination statement to start the application procedure for an appointment ending '''31 August 2015'''. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available ]. | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:28, 29 July 2014 (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)