UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration
|
General Discussion
Do you like prunes?
I don't. But I do like to prune things occasionally. So, I'm wondering if anyone will mind if I remove a few names off the arbitrator list. Not like some mass raepage, just people who haven't made more than an edit or two in the past month or so, and leaving a snippet about it on their talk. Then I'll maintain the list and go about this the same as described. Sound good? Questions, comments, concerns, screams for me not to do it?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- One edit in the past two months should be enough for a user to mantain its name in the list. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's fine. Other people have used similar edits previously. Linkthewindow Talk 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
And done. I'll be checking back every month to maintain the list.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks SA. Someone had to do this :/. Linkthewindow Talk 06:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Time limit on cases
| Krazy Monkey said: |
| Cases that have not been edited by either involved party for longer than 7 days or cases in which no arbitrator has yet been agreed upon after 7 days shall be archived. |
Yeah, we need something like that, but isn't setting a limit on how long you have to choose an arbitrator a bit pedantic? On many cases it does take longer then that. What about after a week, something along the lines of "Choose an arbitrator now!" is said, and if no arbitrator is chosen within another week then, archived.
Secondly, I would rather there be fourteen days before any cases get archived (no edits,) but, meh. Linkthewindow Talk 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of Arbitration Cases
Iscariot vs Sgt Raiden
Discussion Move to archive
