| Revision as of 05:07, 20 February 2018 editIsaacl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,422 edits →Aliases for arbitration cases: with this implementation, all aliases must have a common prefix format, such as year← 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 = |
|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 == | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018 == | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case|answered=yes}} | |||
| I started editing at the french wikipedia, at the psychology project as I am psychoanalyst, PhD, university teachning, and have scientific responsabilities at a very high international level. The psychology team of the WikiPedia.fr is hold by Pierrette13, and two other psychologists Cathroterdam (experimental) and Bruynek (auto-declared psychoanalyst). They didn't like my arrival and I was new and didn't kno at this moment how to edit, they started treating me agressively, every time I tried to contribute I was forced out, two request at the administers were sold out by my blocking, and now again they are forcing a global block. | |||
| During all previous attempts to discuss and explane myself my diff wasn't take into account. It is troue that when they agress me I am pointing out. For exemple they errased my page yelling on my and making fun etc, etc. They are following me and interfere to my editing, and then they pretend that I am following them. Could you check the history ? I will be willing to send you more details and diffs, but honestly I am not sure any more that someone could examine my request.Could you help me please? --] (]) 21:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ] (]) 21:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :] '''Not done:''' The English Misplaced Pages has no control over anything that happens on the French Misplaced Pages pages, you would need to raise this in the appropriate venue there. ] (])(]) 21:12, 4 February 2018 (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) | |||
| == Dates on 2018 Motions == | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The motions in the 2018 section appear to have 2017 dates. I think the dates are wrong, not the header. Alternatively, I could have completely misunderstood as a new editor. Thank you, ] (]) 16:39, 8 February 2018 (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) | |||
| == Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? == | |||
| :That is, in the motions archive, seeing this is a central talk page. Thanks, ] (]) 16:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is, the four entries in should have '2017' replaced by '2018' in the 'Date enacted' column. ] (]) 16:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Surely mere mortals can change this instead of asking clerks to do it? Right? I've fixed it. Thanks, ]. --] (]) 16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks both. ] (]) 17:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Aliases for arbitration cases == | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| Following up on the discussion at ], I created a proof-of-concept template to create aliases for the cases opened in 2017 and 2018. Thus the following wiki markup will result in the following: | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! Wiki markup | |||
| ! Result | |||
| |- | |||
| | <nowiki>{{ArbCase|{{User:Isaacl/ArbCaseAlias|2017-001}}}}</nowiki> | |||
| | {{ArbCase|{{User:Isaacl/ArbCaseAlias|2017-001}}}} | |||
| |- | |||
| | <nowiki>{{ArbCase|{{User:Isaacl/ArbCaseAlias|2017001}}}}</nowiki> | |||
| | {{ArbCase|{{User:Isaacl/ArbCaseAlias|2017001}}}} | |||
| |- | |||
| | <nowiki>{{ArbCase|{{User:Isaacl/ArbCaseAlias|2017-red}}}}</nowiki> | |||
| | {{ArbCase|{{User:Isaacl/ArbCaseAlias|2017-red}}}} | |||
| |- | |||
| | <nowiki>{{ArbCase|{{User:Isaacl/ArbCaseAlias|2018-002}}}}</nowiki> | |||
| | {{ArbCase|{{User:Isaacl/ArbCaseAlias|2018-002}}}} | |||
| |- | |||
| | <nowiki>{{ArbCase|{{User:Isaacl/ArbCaseAlias|2018-orange}}}}</nowiki> | |||
| | {{ArbCase|{{User:Isaacl/ArbCaseAlias|2018-orange}}}} | |||
| |} | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] contains the lookup table that needs to be kept up to date. So if anyone is eager to start using their own preferred labelling scheme now, it can be done. As an optimization, with this implementation, all of the aliases need to have a common prefix format, such as year. This could be made more flexible, but at the cost of having to search through every single case alias for a match. ] (]) 05:06, 20 February 2018 (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)