| Revision as of 14:35, 25 September 2014 editCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →GGTF: it would be great if this Arbitration ''could be used to set some boundaries on disruption of Wikiprojects,'' and Arbitrators demand editors stay strictly on topic and not make it maid civility issues and personal attack agenda← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,311 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'm wondering whether I placed my new request in the wrong place. The instructions say to place the request template "below the first header" when editing–which I thought I had done, though the page is showing a repeated, red-bordered "To make an arbitration case request:" instruction block. I'm unsure whether it is supposed to have that block repeated, and apologies if my insertion broke something. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:35, 20 September 2014 (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) | |||
| ==GGTF== | |||
| Noting that since the 13th it appears that an accept is numerically impossible, unless the "other" or a "decline" vote changes, can this be closed? Dedicated Wikipedians are welcome to visit the task force talk page and make postiivee non-confrontational contributions, which might help the underlying issues. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>20:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm a bit concerned to see that this is being accepted. The issues seem to have calmed down, at least as far as that page is concerned, and we're getting on with things in a constructive way. Pinging {{U|Carcharoth}}, {{U|Newyorkbrad}} and {{U|GorillaWarfare}} (only because, I believe, you were the three accepts that changed the outcome). I know there are broader issues that could be examined (e.g. incivility, sexism), but the accept comments are quite a mixed bag, and it's not clear what direction is envisaged. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:45, 24 September 2014 (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 can be seen from Carcharoth's accept comment, it would be a mistake to assume that the behaviour complained about by the original arbitation request is the only issue. It may have "calmed down". The behaviour of the complainants will also be under scrutiny. ] (]) 21:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::DeCausa is correct. All those involved will be under scrutiny. My view is that things are not calming down. An example is , where things appear (to some extent) to be escalating. SlimVirgin is right, though, to say that the accept comments are quite a mixed bag. ] (]) 22:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? == | |||
| ::::Thanks for the reply, {{U|Carcharoth}}, and the link. I hadn't seen that discussion, although it's not really related to the GGTF. I'm worried because the GGTF talk page is meant to be a relaxed place where people feel comfortable swapping ideas. At one point a small group tried to stir things up, but they've either departed or they're interacting constructively now, so all is currently well there. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::Some of the Arb comments imply that people might be sanctioned for having reacted poorly to the earlier situation. That would be an unfortunate outcome. If the committee has a particular direction in mind, that's one thing, but if it's "let's open this and see where it goes," it risks creating weeks or months of people being furious with each other for no clear benefit. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:54, 24 September 2014 (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) | |||
| :::::I take your point that things are calming down at the GGTF talk page. My point in linking to that thread on a user talk page was that the dispute between some of those active in the previous dispute seems to have changed location (and people are continuing to react poorly and with a battleground attitude). I know that came off the back of an ANI thread where the message was 'people have leeway on their talk pages', but have things really got to the stage where it is acceptable to talk about another editor the way people are talking on that user talk page? If you have a problem with someone, you go and talk to them about it, or try and sort it out at some other stage of dispute resolution (the irony here is that the RfC/U option was mentioned in the previous section, but ignored). You don't engage in a 'what shall we do about this editor' discussion on someone else's user talk page, though I see the same sort of thing happening at Jimmy's user talk page. There's been too much of that sort of thing going on recently. Too much dispute escalation and too little dispute resolution. ] (]) 00:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| ::::I tend to agree with {{U|SlimVirgin}} here - this could get really ugly and we have to weigh up the benefits and risks - WRT role of conflict resolution vs governance FWIW. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not believe this case should be limited to the issues that have occurred or are occurring on the GGTF page. It should discuss the behavior of those involved regardless of the venue. Although things may have calmed down at the GGTF page, I agree with Carcharoth that these issues have been cropping up elsewhere. ] <small>]</small> 01:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with ] broadly as to my rationale for accepting. The issue is cropping up all over the place, and I think a review of all the conduct that's taken place is necessary here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Let me predict what will happen, whether those 6 parties are only ones or even if others are added). Three editors and hordes of their supporters will scream "It's all Carolmooredc's fault" and maybe a couple other gender gappers. Other more rational people will list those 3 parties faults and/or defend the attacked gender gappers. (Oh, yuk. I'm not even going to read evidence until right before the deadline.) Maybe a rational point or two will be raised, mostly about issues that are no longer relevant. Then a few arbitrators will slog through all the evidence and rhetoric, list some nice principles which admins largely will ignore and deal with a few people, leaving dozens of others out there unscathed to continue to fight the battles. IMHO, you should have taken the Civility Arbitration, cause this is just Civility Arbitration #2. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 03:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Of course, it would be great if this Arbitration ''could be used to set some boundaries on disruption of Wikiprojects,'' in case someone starts "CounteringSystemicBiaS/African-Americans Task force" or rejuventates Wikiprojects Latino and discusses things that attract vehement critics. Thus arbitrators should specify editors only present evidence on what happened on the GGTF page and previous outside discussions explicitly mentioning GGTF. | |||
| :::::::Otherwise expect long discussions of the uses of personal attacks like "stupid" and "idiot" and "f*ck you" in edit summaries ''elsewhere''; or long discussions (as opposed to a few diffs) related to C*nt-gate or CMDC-Biography-gate or GunBarrel-gate or DogsPeeingAnalogyOnUserTalkPage-gate, or PornographyEditWarring or 4 year old Israel-Palestine ANIs, and this month's ] ("IAC") ANI (bad rs or racist deletionism run riot?; socks or all those damned women recruited by the Indian Gender Gap project?; is Carolmooredc an IAC operative?) etc. | |||
| :::::::That's how absurd it is out there, so thus my heartily rejecting the idea of an Arbitration on this. Additionally annoying is that one individual (and his friends, no doubt) wants this Arbitration to focus on getting me site banned for being a rabble rousing female who's a "libertarian" just like that awful Jimmy Wales.(I have several such explicit diffs.) | |||
| :::::::Keep the arbitration tightly focused on facts of principles that should guide Wikiproject discussions (and critics of any project) and evidence on what happened on that Wikiproject task force. Then it won't be just Civility Arbitration #2 - or something far uglier. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 14:35, 25 September 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)