| Revision as of 17:09, 8 February 2018 editGreyGreenWhy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users965 edits →Dates on 2018 Motions: Thank you.Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:46, 10 February 2018 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,789 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 12) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == civility issues request == | |||
| {{editprotected|answered=yes}} | |||
| Could someone kindly add the following to the civility issues request? Thanks. | |||
| ===Remark from uninvolved 173.228.123.121 === | |||
| Maybe I'm missing something, but nobody seems to have mentioned this so I guess I will. | |||
| Several people have referred to infobox disagreements as content disputes, or have said BRD should apply to the addition or removal of infoboxes. On the other hand, several others have pointed to a place in the MOS where it says infoboxes are optional. So there's unclarity about whether box inclusion is a a content matter or a style matter. | |||
| If infoboxes are indeed under the purview of the MOS, then I'd expect ] to apply to their inclusion/noninclusion, i.e. the opposite of BRD. That means fly-by additions and removals should stop, they should be reverted immediately when they happen, and editors who make them persistently should be sanctioned. | |||
| It does seem to me that in most of the articles that attract these disputes, they are primarily a style matter, which (keeping with MOS dispute tradition) might explain the intensity of the conflicts over them. In other sorts of articles like those about chemical elements, they're more properly content and sure enough, there are fewer disputes about their inclusion. | |||
| I do notice that quite a lot of britannica.com articles have boxes (someone said they didn't). | |||
| Disclosure: of the other statements here, I'm sympathetic to Dr. Blofeld's and similar ones. An arb case, if opened, should cover a fairly wide range. It can't be purely about Cassianto. ] (]) 18:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> —<span style="color:#808080">]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">]</span></sup> 18:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. ] (]) 22:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Case Nomenclature Inconsistency Observation == | |||
| I don't know if this is just me noticing something that isn't meant to be noticed, or noticing something that doesn't have an explanation. However, there seems to be an inconsistency in the naming of the two cases that were filed in late January 2018. Both of them were originally designated by the filing parties as referring to particular editors. Because there is a preconception among some (but not all) editors and arbitrators that the name of a case predetermines whether the subject editor will be sanctioned, one of the cases has been renamed, but not the other. The case that was filed against Cassianto has been renamed "Civility Issues". However, there is disagreement as to whether it is really about civility issues; or about infoboxes, and how to decide when articles should have infoboxes; or both. The other case is, at least to my view, unmistakably about civility, about an identified editor who is sometimes sanctioned for incivility, and about other editors who provoke him, and about how to deal with taunting and baiting of irascible editors. Both cases involve civility issues, but the one that has the name of an editor is entirely about civility issues, and the one that was renamed also involves a content issue (that results in conduct issues). I was just wondering if anyone else wondered why the second case was renamed, and not the first. ] (]) 22:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| By the way, I think that the answer to the question of infobox wars is to mandate the use of the ] when there is no pre-existing local consensus, so that failure to use the RFC option should be considered ]. That is my opinion. ] (]) 22:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *I think the reason for the difference is that in the first case, the conduct being examined is that of a single editor (or a single editor and the conduct of those interacting with them, I'm not following that case in detail) but in the second its the conduct of multiple editors that most commenters (including me) believe needs examining. The second request was initially also to look at a single individual, possibly because the filer was unaware of the extent of the wider dispute, but was renamed when it became clear to a clerk (probably after a request from an arb) that the actual request was broader. This doesn't necessarily mean that both decisions about naming were correct (although I'm very much in the camp that believes any prejudice from case naming is unproven at best as other factors are not being controlled for in those that have looked at it). ] (]) 15:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018 == | == Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018 == | ||
Revision as of 02:46, 10 February 2018
| 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 |
Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018
 | This edit request to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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? --Marloen (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) Marloen (talk) 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. Amortias (T)(C) 21:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Dates on 2018 Motions
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, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- That is, in the motions archive, seeing this is a central talk page. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- That is, the four entries in the motion table for 2018 should have '2017' replaced by '2018' in the 'Date enacted' column. EdJohnston (talk) 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, User:GreyGreenWhy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks both. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Surely mere mortals can change this instead of asking clerks to do it? Right? I've fixed it. Thanks, User:GreyGreenWhy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- That is, the four entries in the motion table for 2018 should have '2017' replaced by '2018' in the 'Date enacted' column. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)