| Revision as of 06:58, 30 June 2008 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 22, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 21.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:09, 4 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,820 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 20) (bot | ||
| 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:Requests |
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{/Front matter}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | |||
| == Archived request == | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| Can I ask why before any decision was taken by the arbitrators?--] (]) 13:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I archived the case because it was stale - there had been no comments from arbitrators for 3 weeks, and it didn't look like there was going to be a real attempt to create an unban motion. Two arbitrators said no to an unbanning, two were vice versa - but given the lack of further comments, it was archived. ] 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your reply, but I would like to understand better how these things work. Who had the right to create an "unban motion"?--] (]) 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's the arbitrators that do that. Given that the request was open for a long time, with no comments for three weeks, I presume it's because no-one felt strongly enough that an unban was warrented, or perhaps they were just too busy to look at it. You could always request a new clarification and request an unban - maybe more arbitrators would comment on the side of unbanning and choose to take it to voting. ] 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are you sure I can? In the past I have been accused of forum shopping when I tried to re-ask a request which was archived before any formal conclusion was reached (actually there were admins who suggested I could have been punished for that).--] (]) 16:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Repeating the exact same request for the third time in what, a month, is pointless. It's clear the Arbs are not ready to unblock him at the current time. If they feel like they want to unblock him before some reasonable amount of time has passed (I suggest three months w/o socking, then unblock with restrictions), I'm sure they will let us know. - ] (]) 01:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If the arbs are not ready to unblock why didn't they reject the request?--] (]) 06:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The new case was rejected. The motion was rejected in the sense that the Arbs chose to take no action on it. This is what happens to many motions. You seem to think they are not aware of SoD's situation. They are, and have said they are discussing it. Badgering them for the nth time about the issue will do no good. Bring it up again in a couple months when the passage of time will have made a material difference, or let them come to a decision internally. - ] (]) 14:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm not supposed to think anything about their awareness or interest about the case, even if a third person say he know what is happening behind the scene. The decision of the arbs are the result of their vote. If there is no vote there is no decision. Why didn't the arbs voted to reject if there was cosnensus on rejecting?--] (]) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::We generally don't do that -- there's no such thing as a vote to reject -- there's just the absence of, or the impossibility of, a vote to accept. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Ok but I still do not think it is appropriate to speak about "rejection" when a request recieved few comments without a clear consensus: rejection means "I disagree", not "I'm not going to express on this".--] (]) 08:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Egad == | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'd appreicate some comments in the above thread, regards - ] 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| == Question == | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3#Misplaced Pages:ACCR}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In ], {{user|Privatemusings}} was restricted from editing any ] due to apparent past issues, but now in ] he has stated that | |||
| <blockquote>'m now going to edit BLPs in what I consider an uncontroversial manner - removing unsourced material, adding pic.s etc. - I started doing this shortly after this application, actually, and am glad that it's all working out ok thus far. After a month from today, should all go well, I will post freely to BLP talk pages, and after a further month I will consider myself unrestricted. I hope this works out ok for all.</blockquote> | |||
| is an individual really able to overturn an arbcom restriction merely because they think they have changed their own behavior? I'll note that 3 arbitrators seem to agree with continuing the restriction, can someone clue me in as to what is going on here? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've warned him about editing BLP's. The remedy is still in effect and he can't lift the sanction himself. Hopefully that will be the end of it. ] 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd tend to agree... PM is a good guy, someone I greatly respect for his perseverance and his attempts to add value in a lot of novel ways, but even PM can't just ignore a ruling/sanction. If no admin chose to enforce the sanction, it would be unenforced, but Ryan has already said he's warned him. I would support a block over this, with some considerable regret. PM, don't do it. Appeal the sanction and ask that it be lifted early, instead. I think you'd get massive support for that. ++]: ]/] 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was not aware he was violating his restriction (hey, no one can watch every wiki edit ;-). No editor can overturn their own restriction. If he violates again, let one of us know.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <- I'm a bit bummed at the way my request for the sanction to be lifted has worked out :-( - I get the impression (for example from Lar above) that some people who might have wanted to comment hadn't noticed it - although I was very grateful for the comments it did receive. I think it was pretty active up until today - maybe it could be restored, allowing the 3 arb.s who've commented to date to respond further, and the other arb.s to comment if they wish...? thoughts and advice most welcome. cheers, ] (]) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :ps. I certainly won't edit BLPs at all. ] (]) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd support not archiving it just yet, I suppose. However 3 arbs commented "not yet" to you, more or less. I can recall repeatedly pleading to get some sort of feedback on a matter where I was implementing a ruling that was rather novel/controversial/contentious, and was delighted to get even ''one'' arbitrator to comment. So 3 is rather a lot, really. They all said the same thing really. Keep doing what you're doing and the restriction should be lifted. Hopefully soon. ++]: ]/] 03:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| At the request of retiring ] I have moved this page from his user space to Misplaced Pages namespace and brought it live. I have notified Jimbo Wales of this at his user talk page and invited him to make a statement. Likewise, I encourage the members of the Committee (past and present) who have not yet commented publicly to make a statement. Although it is probably impossible to arrange a comprehensive statement on short notice, a short provisional declaration signed by as many people are available tonight may provide a welcome stabilizing force. The community would like input from the people who know the background on today's developments. A baseline statement would help settle the present confusion. With respect, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| What's the last figure? I think it goes accept/reject/recuse/what? ] (]) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :accept/reject/recue/comment - the latter is if an arbitrator doesn't make a decision on whether to accept the case, and simply wants to make a comment or ask a question. ] 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Waiting for further input. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec) Thanks ] (]) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:09, 4 January 2025
| 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 |
Egad
Is there a clerk around -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages:ACCR" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Misplaced Pages:ACCR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3 § Misplaced Pages:ACCR until a consensus is reached. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)