Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Arbitration policy and Arbitration guide: new section |
+ |
||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
You said: ''"This case will open in 24 hours per the Arbitration policy, unless we receive direction from arbitrators to expedite the opening of this case."'' In fact, the 24 hours opening things is part of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]] (''"Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes."''), not [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy]]. Pedantic, I know, but having looked closely at the history of those pages recently, it is quite instructive to see how the processes evolved. Also, the extra caveat should be that if the net vote changes in that 24 hours to less than four, then the case doesn't open, presumably? Otherwise case opening could be decided by the first four available arbitrators, rather than those who might not have seen the request yet? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
You said: ''"This case will open in 24 hours per the Arbitration policy, unless we receive direction from arbitrators to expedite the opening of this case."'' In fact, the 24 hours opening things is part of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]] (''"Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes."''), not [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy]]. Pedantic, I know, but having looked closely at the history of those pages recently, it is quite instructive to see how the processes evolved. Also, the extra caveat should be that if the net vote changes in that 24 hours to less than four, then the case doesn't open, presumably? Otherwise case opening could be decided by the first four available arbitrators, rather than those who might not have seen the request yet? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Yes, obviously if the votes change then the case won't be opened. Also, like [[law]] is to [[case law]], "Arbitration policy" is to both [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy]] and the general built up procedure from conventions and supporting documents :) [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel#top|talk]]) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:54, 2 July 2008
width="270px" align="left" valign="top" style="border:solid #User:Daniel/Colour I 1px; font-size:95%; padding: 3pt; background:white"|
|
Icelanders GA Sweeps Review: On HoldAs part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Icelanders and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
User:PlyhmrpI suspect that this user could be User:Punk Boi 8 evading his block through sock puppetry again. He has edited few pages, shows signs of wanting to follow the rules and be nice, but just can't seem to do it. I realize that his subject matter edits don't match, but the behavior is very similar: removing warnings, editing Wikipedia and other namespaces rather than contributing to articles, leaving vandalistic type attacks on groups he doesn't like, etc). In any case I would appreciate it if you would keep an eye on him. See these examples of his behavior:
Thx in adv --Trödel 01:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
AFD closureQueen of Bollywood was relisted and then closed by you less than 24 hours later. I don't know the protocol, but isn't that a bit unusually, especially as there were more !votes for keep after the relisting than delete (2 to 1)? Hobit (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I see you and MediationBot1 (talk · contribs) have been edit-warring on Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Current Nominations, so I just wanted to remind you of the 3RR. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) -- tariqabjotu 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Trott and JohnsonHi Daniel. Thanks for your comments on the Harry Trott article, they helped improve the article immensely. Unfortunately (or fortunately I should say) it has been promoted to FA status, however if you have a chance, Ian Johnson (cricketer) is at peer review if you can find some time to make some suggestions. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 11:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Sajjad KarimDaniel, I'm disappointed that you have removed the only part of this article with references. I originally deleted that part of the article for being unreferenced, the two references were then forthcoming from balancing sources and as the MEP himself has not denied the story I let it stand. It has been periodically removed without any explanation by a user within the European Parliament, a user I have been trying to engage in discussion as to the content by starting a discussion at Talk:Sajjad Karim Now we have an article with no remaining referenced information left. I can only reiterate my disappointment - Galloglass 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It may not be the Wikipedia Weekly, and it may not even be weekly - but it's scheduled for less than 24 hours time! - all the info is at the wiki page, and be sure to hang in all the usual places for help and guidance in hooking up the conference call! - feel free to ask me any questions, otherwise I look forward to chatting tomorrow morning (my time!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Arbitration policy and Arbitration guideYou said: "This case will open in 24 hours per the Arbitration policy, unless we receive direction from arbitrators to expedite the opening of this case." In fact, the 24 hours opening things is part of Wikipedia:Arbitration guide ("Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes."), not Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. Pedantic, I know, but having looked closely at the history of those pages recently, it is quite instructive to see how the processes evolved. Also, the extra caveat should be that if the net vote changes in that 24 hours to less than four, then the case doesn't open, presumably? Otherwise case opening could be decided by the first four available arbitrators, rather than those who might not have seen the request yet? Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
|