| Revision as of 17:50, 3 June 2020 editTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,625 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed: some feedback about how the case was processed← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:45, 13 January 2025 edit undoL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators27,367 editsm →Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators: edit additionTag: CD | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}} | <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}}{{ArbCom navigation}} | ||
| <!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. --> | <!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. --> | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 500k | |maxarchivesize = 500k | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 52 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 13: | Line 19: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators == | |||
| == Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020) == | |||
| : ]<!-- ] (]) |
: ]<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | ||
| *Good! I'm glad that you did this. --] (]) 02:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : First, I would like to thank the arbs for this motion. Second, it is quite possible that we soon start getting questions similar to ARBPIA: which articles are eligible, and who may add notices at talk pages. Should we assume that the answers to these questions are the same as ARBPIA4?--] (]) 20:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd like to thank the Committee for its action here. The Committee's workflow challenges have long been a substantial concern and this could be a meaningful step in addressing them. When the Committee appoints the coordinating arbitrator(s), I would ask that the Committee announce who those arbitrators are; I think it would help the community (e.g., at ACE) to know who might be spending extra time on coordination efforts and may have less time for other arbitrator tasks. {{pb}} I also appreciate arbitrator comments such as ] by {{U|Daniel}}, which suggest that if this motion is eventually seen as insufficient, the Committee will reconsider Motion 1. I certainly hope that the Committee will continue actively exploring ways to deliver workflow improvements that help arbs increase capacity and spend time resolving substantive issues. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *My thanks to the arbs as well. I'm cautiously hopeful this will help. ] (]) 20:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point ({{tqq|1=Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters}}), I strongly urge the coordinating arbitrator to assign an ID to each non-spam communication, akin to the ticket number in a VRTS thread. (Whether and how to group related threads or emails together is a question on which I'll defer.) {{pb}} When I was on the committee, many of the balls we dropped had not gotten to the voting stage or even the "this is a problem we've decided to deal with" stage. Instead, they were stray emails that requested or alerted the committee to possible action that were then not followed up upon. Assigning identifiers allows the coordinating arbitrators to say not only "Votes are needed on matters X, Y, and Z" (on which there is already a proposed action or vote), but also "Threads 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 need triage and initial action." in the tracking function. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Since World War II in Poland is generally considered to have started in 1939, I just wanted to ask: was "1933-1945" intentional or a typo? ] (]) 00:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was the original scope of the Antisemitism in Poland restriction, but also matches the sanctions from ] scope, which was 1932-1945. I proposed the wording on the ARBGWE sanction that defines it 1932-1945, and the reason for that was to broadly define the WW2 era to include anything involving the Nazi German government, its rise to power, and the war. It's very difficult to talk about the history of Europe in the 1930s ''without'' the context of what happened 1939-1945, and I think Misplaced Pages using a broad definition of 1932/33-1945 is likely a good way to handle it. Basically you can think of it as ''The World War II era'' or ''The Nazi era''. The events of that terrible period in human history were set in motion in the early 1930s, and it's very difficult to understand the events of the War without understanding the decade prior. ] (]) 00:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::It may be a good idea regardless, since a good part of present-day Poland was in Germany in 1933.--] (]) 00:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == ] closed == | |||
| : ]<!-- ] (]) 15:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| The evidence does not match the remedy. ] pointed out there is an evidence-remedy mismatch. See ]. No editor or admin responded to the concerns. ] (]) 17:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I left some feedback to ArbCom here on the PD talk page: , but I think it's worth repeating two points here. First, the decision to eliminate word count and diff count limits was an experiment that should not be repeated. (No problem with the normal practice of extending limits on individual request, case-by-case.) Some editors just threw everything at the wall to see what would stick, and there was too much tit-for-tat. Also, too many editors used the evidence page to post opinion essays instead of evidence with diffs. --] (]) 17:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:45, 13 January 2025
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. |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.
Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators
- Good! I'm glad that you did this. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank the Committee for its action here. The Committee's workflow challenges have long been a substantial concern and this could be a meaningful step in addressing them. When the Committee appoints the coordinating arbitrator(s), I would ask that the Committee announce who those arbitrators are; I think it would help the community (e.g., at ACE) to know who might be spending extra time on coordination efforts and may have less time for other arbitrator tasks. I also appreciate arbitrator comments such as this one by Daniel, which suggest that if this motion is eventually seen as insufficient, the Committee will reconsider Motion 1. I certainly hope that the Committee will continue actively exploring ways to deliver workflow improvements that help arbs increase capacity and spend time resolving substantive issues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point (
Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters
), I strongly urge the coordinating arbitrator to assign an ID to each non-spam communication, akin to the ticket number in a VRTS thread. (Whether and how to group related threads or emails together is a question on which I'll defer.) When I was on the committee, many of the balls we dropped had not gotten to the voting stage or even the "this is a problem we've decided to deal with" stage. Instead, they were stray emails that requested or alerted the committee to possible action that were then not followed up upon. Assigning identifiers allows the coordinating arbitrators to say not only "Votes are needed on matters X, Y, and Z" (on which there is already a proposed action or vote), but also "Threads 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 need triage and initial action." in the tracking function. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point (