This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:27, 27 July 2014 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 8) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:27, 27 July 2014 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 8) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| 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 |
Liberté
I am expected to appeal my restrictions in the Infoboxes case, so said Nikkimaria who seems to 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 Victor Bruns, Polish Requiem, Richard Adeney, - apologies. - Can we perhaps invent a template explaining for our readers: "This composition by Penderecki has no infobox - as other of his compositions - because the main contributor is restricted"?
On Canadian Independence Day, Nikkimaria made an edit that I didn't understand, out of the blue collapsing three items of information in a long established infobox and removing details. I don't know why. It's one of these discussions where I walked away. Is that the expected behaviour with a "level of professionalism" mentioned in the decision? - Dreaming of a bit more egalité, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 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 Gentlemen and players.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes (by Agnosticaphid, 29 May 2013), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Peace music on the Main page, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Confusing layout
Concerning the boxes "Misplaced Pages Arbitration" and "Arbitration Committee Proceedings":
"Recently Closed Cases" is misnamed because it links, as far as I can see, to all historical cases, even those closed a long time ago.
Duplicate, overlapping, and slightly-differently-worded links to the same information, overlapping information, or different presentation of the same information is confusing. There should be exactly one clear link to every relevant sub-page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.7.119 (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
AUSC appointments: nominate now
The 2014 appointments to AUSC are now open. The AUSC is an ArbCom body that inspects and regulates the use of CheckUser and Oversight.
All administrators are eligible to volunteer this year. To volunteer, read WP:AUSC to understand the role; the appointments page to understand the process; then email the committee with a nomination statement. You will be presented for community comments and a Q&A in August.
Questions are very welcome on any arbitrator's talk page, or by email.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 13:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)