This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 2 January 2017 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:03, 2 January 2017 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 33) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Shortcuts
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 3
- Original announcement
- Could a committee member or clerk clarify the effect of this announcement, i.e. what's different from before? It doesn't look any different from what I remember about the previous state of things, so I'm wondering if it's basically just giving an authoritative interpretation and additional details about something that was unclear before. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: It provides (a) clarification on what to do with new articles (or rather that we don't have to delete them), and more importantly, (b) clarification that the restriction does not apply to talk pages. The previous wording technically was equivalent to a topic ban, including talk pages, user talk, etc. ~ Rob13 14:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the details. I just would appreciate it if the Committee would provide some sort of one- or two-sentence preamble: "Because there's been confusion about X in our original decision, here's a clarification" or "Because Y in our original decision seemingly isn't needed anymore, here's a change". Obviously this wouldn't always be appropriate, e.g. one of those announcements that says "Remedy 8.1 in the Alice v. Bob case is repealed", but it would be helpful in cases like these when there are a bunch of statements. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good suggestion. It would definitely be clearer for folks who have not been following along at ARCA but who see the notices here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- And more to my point (selfishly :-), clearer for folks like me who pay no attention to Arbcom matters until they reach WP:AN; aside from one to which I was a party, I can't remember ever looking at a case that's in progress. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, the point remains that more descriptive notices could be valuable. :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- And more to my point (selfishly :-), clearer for folks like me who pay no attention to Arbcom matters until they reach WP:AN; aside from one to which I was a party, I can't remember ever looking at a case that's in progress. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good suggestion. It would definitely be clearer for folks who have not been following along at ARCA but who see the notices here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the details. I just would appreciate it if the Committee would provide some sort of one- or two-sentence preamble: "Because there's been confusion about X in our original decision, here's a clarification" or "Because Y in our original decision seemingly isn't needed anymore, here's a change". Obviously this wouldn't always be appropriate, e.g. one of those announcements that says "Remedy 8.1 in the Alice v. Bob case is repealed", but it would be helpful in cases like these when there are a bunch of statements. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: It provides (a) clarification on what to do with new articles (or rather that we don't have to delete them), and more importantly, (b) clarification that the restriction does not apply to talk pages. The previous wording technically was equivalent to a topic ban, including talk pages, user talk, etc. ~ Rob13 14:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Could a committee member or clerk clarify the effect of this announcement, i.e. what's different from before? It doesn't look any different from what I remember about the previous state of things, so I'm wondering if it's basically just giving an authoritative interpretation and additional details about something that was unclear before. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles
Arbitration motion regarding Captain Occam
- Original announcement
- It occurred to me that someone might ask, so: this is a decision of the 2016 committee that just hadn't been actioned till now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I assume this appeal was heard privately, so there is no visible Arbcom discussion? Even so, I recommend the result be logged in WP:ARBR&I. Otherwise there is no place admins can go to look up status of this ban. Also, when you say 'unbanned' I guess you are saying that the site-ban was lifted. So the R&I topic ban stays in place with a bit of wordsmithing (plus some interaction bans) but otherwise Captain Occam can resume editing Misplaced Pages. There is also a ban entry for Captain Occam in WP:EDR which should probably be updated with a link to the new motion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done by L235: , . Usually the clerks do that paperwork; I for one would screw it up ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I assume this appeal was heard privately, so there is no visible Arbcom discussion? Even so, I recommend the result be logged in WP:ARBR&I. Otherwise there is no place admins can go to look up status of this ban. Also, when you say 'unbanned' I guess you are saying that the site-ban was lifted. So the R&I topic ban stays in place with a bit of wordsmithing (plus some interaction bans) but otherwise Captain Occam can resume editing Misplaced Pages. There is also a ban entry for Captain Occam in WP:EDR which should probably be updated with a link to the new motion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- It occurred to me that someone might ask, so: this is a decision of the 2016 committee that just hadn't been actioned till now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Is there any reason WP:SHARE should not continue to apply to Occam & Ferahgo? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where I should be requesting this: could an admin please unprotect my userpage? It was fully protected while I was banned. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done - I guess it would have been nice to have an appeal open to the community, 'cause I think this decision of the committee is a rather bad one, and will not benefit Misplaced Pages. We shall see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)