| Revision as of 00:47, 14 January 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,652 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 7) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:09, 4 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,652 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 20) (bot | ||
| (999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| 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:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == |
== Egad == | ||
| There's currently a series of disputes that the community has repeatedly failed to resolve. These disputes are all over Misplaced Pages, from ], ], ], ] to ] and are a huge drain on the community's resources. However, no involved editor has of yet filed a request for an ArbCom case. What's ArbCom's feeling about third-parties filing requests for arbitration? My understanding is that this is frowned upon, but the community has clearly failed to resolved the disputes despite numerous attempts, and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. Thoughts? ] (]) 02:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've been wondering about this myself. I know of one dispute in particular that was the subject of a past ArbCom case but the behavior of many of the parties is just as nasty now as it was then. I think none of the involved parties wants to request a case because they are scared of the scrutiny that would result. In this case, is it ok for a third party or marginally involved party to request a case? ] (]) 02:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've filed third party requests successfully. The pattern to use is, "I noticed this conflict. It's disrupting my ability to improve these articles (list them). Efforts have been made to resolve it through Dispute Resolution (list discussions), but that hasn't work. Can you help put an end to this nonsense?" You don't have to be involved as a disputant in the conflict. If you tried to mediate it, or if the conflict is impacting you in any way, I think the Committee would seriously consider the request. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is certainly possible to file the case as a third party. However, the challenge is presenting the dispute in a clear way, since you aren't involved in the dispute and may not be the most familiar with it. --''']]]''' 03:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Involved editors have often lost perspective, or else they would have resolved the dispute themselves. It can be very useful for somebody uninvolved to present a neutral summary of the problem. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Perhaps a clarification of what is meant by "involved" and "uninvolved" editors is in order. Editors who are parties to a dispute, as Jehochman says, are likely to have lost perspective, in that they do not see the case objectively or neutrally. In many cases, an editor who is not a direct party to the dispute but has observed the dispute, and possibly attempted to resolve it until they concluded that conduct issues prevented the content issue from being resolved, can best explain what is wrong. Many ArbCom cases involve a combination of a content dispute, which ArbCom does not resolve, and conduct issues that prevent resolution of the content dispute. I agree that third-party filing may sometimes be useful. ] (]) 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, AQFK and Cla68, what are the disputes in question?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. What are the particular issues being referred to? Are they disputes that combine a content dispute and conduct issues? ] (]) 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == AE history / charter == | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The context of my question is ]; what policy / precedent / RFC / what have you lead to the creation of ] and the protocols under which it operates? I only found a reference on the ] section. <small>]</small> 23:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| 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) | |||
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)