Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:11, 19 April 2009

cs interwiki request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english[REDACTED] has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Misplaced Pages (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the ] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

• One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

MZMcBride

In regards to the outcome of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride, I'd like the following pages restored:User:Allstarecho/bothhands, User:Allstarecho/lefthand and User:Allstarecho/righthand. All 3 were originally deleted by MZMcBride per csd t1, which only apply to template space, not userspace. Upon my restoration of all pages, User:Ryan Postlethwaite took User:Allstarecho/lefthand to DRV, where deletion of that page was upheld, even though csd t1 policy did not apply and therefore the pages should have never been deleted in the first place and therefore, shouldn't have even been up for discussion at DRV. Additionally, the DRV thread only dealt with User:Allstarecho/lefthand and not User:Allstarecho/bothhands or User:Allstarecho/righthand but MZMcBride went on and deleted them as well anyway. Thanks. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 21:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there an encyclopedic reason to have those pages? It's hard to see how they'd help the project.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no remedy which states those pages need to be undeleted. That said, MZMcBride has said that he is willing to undelete any of those pages which people have dispute with. As such, I recommend you contact him on his talk page first, as would be the proper way to handle it in the first place. Tiptoety 21:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you forgetting that MZM is not capable of undeletion anymore since he resigned his adminship? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@ Will - userspace doesn't have to be encyclopedic. And since MZMcBride isn't an admin currently, he can't restore the pages. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So why was this brought here as opposed to DRV or an administrator noticeboard? Are you trying to appeal the DRV community decision to ArbCom? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the Arb pages says to bring it here, from what I read when researching the best place to post. It's associated with MZMcBride's arbcom in regards to his deletion of pages. And as I said above, it should have never went to DRV in the first place because of it being deleted under csd t1, which only applies to template space. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 21:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really want the pages restored I'm sure any admin here will do so; though their next edit will almost certainly be to MfD the restored pages. I don't see that as a particularly productive use of everyone's time, to be honest, especially as the DRV endorsed deletion even if it didn't endorse the deletion method. Black Kite 21:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Black Kite. Further, the case is closed - I don't believe it's ongoing, so I'm not sure that this talk page would be the venue according to those instructions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not, the deletions are totally unrelated to his arbitration case and the suggestion that outcome of the case vacates his previous actions is simply insulting. The deletions were even upheld by community consensus, which as we all know overrides policy. Misplaced Pages is also not a is not a bureaucracy nor a court room, to suggest that community consensus should be ignored because of how it came about goes against the very foundation of the project. Finally stating that a userbox about masturbating with your left hand is any different than one about your right hand is just disingenuous. BJ 21:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

To you maybe. They are totally related as the arbcom case specifically address his deletion of userpages as well as deletion of such userpages without any kind of notification. The community "consensus" is null and void since it should have never been on DRV in the first place because it never should have been deleted in the first place, at least not without MfD. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is process wonking for nothing. I've no idea what's on those pages. However, despite the fact the deletion was wrong procedurally, the community consensus at DRV was that they should NOT be restored. That's the end of it. If you think DRV got it wrong, go back and make your case for their merits again, but don't try an endrun around consensus by wonkery.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Again, community concensus at the DRV is void since it shouldn't have been there in the first place. MZMcBride's deletion of userspace pages was the jist of the arbcom case. How's that wonkery? Blah blah blah. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is textbook wonking.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just nevermind, close this.. i'll recreate them myself. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 22:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they were so bad that DRV declined to undelete, then please listen to consensus. Otherwise MfD is sure to kill them again.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Folks? I'm a little late mentioning this, I know, but wrong page.--Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agenda as of April 8

The Arbitration Committee's agenda as of April 8 has now been published, and may be viewed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Agenda.

In order to provide the community with a more up-to-date understanding of the Committee's plans, the published agenda will now be updated on a regular schedule (nominally once a week). Future updates will not be formally announced; editors interested in following the agenda may wish to watchlist it. The agenda will also remain displayed at the top of the Committee's noticeboard.

In the near future, we anticipate adding cases in progress and the associated milestone dates to the agenda.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 22:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

This committee agenda contains no less than twenty items, few of which pertain whatsoever to actually resolving disputes. We have such important problems as how to name arbitration pages, dedicating more time to how the committee should be handling its mail, and again attempting to come up with bureaucratic procedures for emergency rights removal, despite having been basically mocked by the community for wasting time on this barely two months ago.

The arbitration committee was created to resolve disputes. Yet this committee can find twenty other things to dedicate their time to than actually delving into the mire of cases and sorting them out. You can't even satirise this. Rebecca (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca, you raise a good point but, like it or not, this committee has several important administrative jobs that need to be handled in a timely manner. In the case of mail, it's very frustrating when editors send messages to the committee without receiving responsea, which often happened in the past. In most parts of Misplaced Pages, if one person doesn't do a job then either it doesn't get done or someone else eventually does it. That approach doesn't work for the Arbom. The "buck stops" with them. Time spent improving the internal procedures now, if done right, will save countless hours and frustrations later. It's a task that's long overdue.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Last year's Committee had a number of shortcomings, one of which was that they lurched from crisis to crisis. Due to insufficient organization some things fell between the cracks that shouldn't have. Correcting those structural shortcomings would make them more efficient. Durova 06:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee established

To provide better monitoring and oversight, the Arbitration Committee has decided to establish an Audit Subcommittee, which will investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Misplaced Pages. The subcommittee shall consist of three arbitrators appointed by the Committee and three editors elected by the community. The Committee shall designate an initial slate of three editors until elections can be held.

The initial membership, the procedures for the subcommittee, and more details on the election process will be published in the near future.

For the Committee, Kirill  22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Tallies

Could someone remind me what the order is in the tallies (e.g. "tally now 7/0/0/1")? I ask because I can see 7 accepts in the Macedonia issue, but no other votes, so have no idea who or what the 1 is. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Accept/decline/recuse/other comment. (Don't worry, I had to develop a mnemonic to help me remember. ) Risker (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - would it be too much to ask for them to be labelled? DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Right now they are defined in the last line of the red box in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Requesting_Arbitration. It would be possible to label them, but right now they are used in a section heading and the arbs have indicated in the past they like it being in a section heading, and any label would make the section heading so long as to mess up the table of contents. MBisanz 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, well thanks anyway - any bright sparks with a way of both clarifying for the ordinary reader and maintaining the integrity of the ToC please make suggestions! DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "7s/0d/0r/1o"? Only adds 4 characters, which I'm sure the ToC can cope with, and makes it far easier to work out what it all means (I've forgotten the order at times as well, it's very annoying!). It still requires a little existing knowledge to know what the letters stand for, but I expect most people hanging around RfAr can cope with that. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Discipline during Arbcom hearings

Since the new Macedonia case seems now unavoidable, I would like to make a very serious plea in advance: can we please, please have very tight surveillance of the case pages against disruptive debate behaviour? I am thinking of one particular user especially, Avg (talk · contribs), who has been all over Talk:Greece, Talk:Macedonia and related pages for weeks now, with an incessant stream of repetitive, petulant, aggressive and inane wikilawyering. If this user is allowed to swamp the Arbcom pages with the same type of material, no rational discussion among other users will be possible. When this page goes ahead I will demand some space somewhere where I can converse with reasonable people in a reasonable fashion without this person's permanent bile, or I will have no part in the process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of threats and intimidation I allude to in my statement. This person is preemptively trying to discredit my opinion and the evidence I will present.--Avg (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll want to talk to the case clerks (Tiptoety and Knightlago) about this, who I expect will make fairly clear what conduct is acceptable and what is not.--Tznkai (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't discourage anyone from participating (or allow anyone to feel that they can't participate effectively). Perhaps the clerks could look at some way of ensuring that any threaded discussions are actively managed to ensure that they don't get out of hand. I feel that the main focus should be on the presentations of evidence, proposed principles and findings of fact, without bogging down in threaded wrangling between editors. The current Samaria case evidence talk page is a perfect example of how it should not be done. Do we actually need threaded discussions in the first place? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Headers

The current layout is as follows:

1. Prior steps
2. Requesting Arbitration
   1. Current requests
      1. {name of proposed case}
         1. Involved parties
         2. {Statement by {user}}
         3. etc.
3. Clarifications and other requests
   1. {name of proposed request}
      1. {Statement by {user}}
      2. etc.

This layout is unlogical. What bothers me most is that the titles of the proposed cases are level 3 headers, and the titles of the comments are level 4 headers. Because the fonts of the level 3 and level 4 headers look a like, it is difficult to see where one proposed case ends and where the next one begins. I say we get rid of the "Current requests" header (what's the point of that header anyway?), so that we can turn the titles of the cases into level 2 headers, providing them with nice horizontal lines.

My proposal:

1. Current requests for arbitration
   1. {name of proposed case}
      1. Involved parties
      2. {Statement by {user}}
2. Current requests for clarifications and other requests
   1. {name of proposed request}
      1. {Statement by {user}}
      2. etc.

Agreed? - theFace 19:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)