UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration Timelimit: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→For) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
#'''For''' - Arbitration rulings concerning a user's behaviour shouldn't be hanging over their heads for ever <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:08 29 October 2008 (BST)</small> | #'''For''' - Arbitration rulings concerning a user's behaviour shouldn't be hanging over their heads for ever <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:08 29 October 2008 (BST)</small> | ||
#'''For''' Because Arbys is broken. --[[User:House of Usher|House of Usher]] 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | #'''For''' Because Arbys is broken. --[[User:House of Usher|House of Usher]] 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
#'''For''' As boxy --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
===Against=== | ===Against=== | ||
Revision as of 02:59, 30 October 2008
This policy was originally meant to complement Cheese's Arbitration policy, but this is a much needed limitation and works on its own even with Cheese's policy withdrawn.
The Policy
No restriction placed on a person by an arbitration ruling may extend beyond six weeks. For ordinary cases it is recommended that they are shorter than four weeks.
This policy does not affect the parts of rulings which concern the content of pages.
Retrospective Application
This applies retrospectively to all previous rulings, with the six weeks counted from the moment the ruling was originally announced.
Voting Section
| Voting Rules |
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop. |
| The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote. |
For
- For - Because an arbitrator should not be able to limit a user's behaviour for excessively long periods of time. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- For - Arbitration rulings concerning a user's behaviour shouldn't be hanging over their heads for ever -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:08 29 October 2008 (BST)
- For Because Arbys is broken. --House of Usher 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- For As boxy --– Nubis NWO 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Against
- Attempting to fix a problem that does not exist. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- - This is pure stupidity, filtered through unnecessity and topped off with a hint of irrelevance. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC) - There is so many things wrong with this wiki, but this ain't one of them.--xoxo 10:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Arbitration cannot be limited if it is to be of any use in actually solving problems. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- As above.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 20:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- What's the point of making a decision if it's just going to vanish six weeks later? --JaredV 01:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
