| Revision as of 17:05, 13 September 2013 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 editsm Reverted edits by Jehochman (talk) to last version by AGK← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:42, 14 September 2013 edit undoMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 7.Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == 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) | |||
| == How do we post our thoughts/comments on cases here? == | |||
| I had been an occasional editor for years, but only registered after Chelsea Manning's page had been moved back to "Bradley Manning." I don't know if this will be helpful. | |||
| Background: | |||
| 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. | |||
| Biases: | |||
| 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. | |||
| Comments: | |||
| I wonder how many other editors backed away because of the transphobia. Apparently, I could be mistaken, 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) | |||
| :I see that you already found ], which is where this sort of statement would go. Thanks. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Swarmed with bad accounts == | |||
| So I've been active on wikipedia again this last week, and I'm being swarmed with either malicious or incompetent accounts and I'm wondering what to do about them. I see socks purposely misrepresenting sources - , accounts adding to an article information about a random youtube video - and engaging in falsifying history -, the ceaseless AndresHerutJaim socks - , accounts removing sources written by the article's subject themself because they have a hatred for the website hosting the source -, accounts removing multi-sourced statements because they dislike one of the sources -. I can do little against any of these accounts as they just keep reverting, making new accounts, ips, and if I revert they will take me here for edit warring or such. What can I do? Can anyone help me, at least block the worst? ] (]) 18:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You have included an edit of mine in your list of edits by "malicious or incompetent accounts" and "socks". I would like you to clarify: do you believe I am "malicious", "incompetent" or a "sock"? I would remind you that I have been active for nearly 9 years and have approximately 12,000 edits. ] (]) 05:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Discretionary sanctions review == | == Discretionary sanctions review == | ||
Revision as of 06:42, 14 September 2013
| 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 |
Discretionary sanctions review
Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here. Roger Davies 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions review
(This is a repeat of an earlier notice.) Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here. AGK 16:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)