Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:16, 31 December 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)

Jehochman

The Jehochman case request was removed as not mathematically possible to accept. How does that work? I thought less than half the Arbcom had voted (accept,decline or recuse) so surely it would still be possible to accept, even without anyone changing their vote? 78.130.56.146 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A case needs four more supports than declines to open. I assume based on those who voted that it was impossible to reach net four supporting even if all of the non-voting arbs supported opening. MBisanz 01:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare at AE

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare is getting out of hand. I ask that an administrator take control of the discussion.

The only questions to be decided at AE, based on Brews ohare's arbitration sanctions, are:

1. Is the article that Brews edited (indeed, created) physics-related, and therefore within his topic ban? (This is the only question that the request for enforcement raised.)
2. Was Brews' editing of the article and talk page discussion disruptive or tendentious? (Brews' detractors added this issue after the answer to the first question became so clear.)

The answer to both questions is, No. However, discussion has spiraled off in other directions. There is now a debate between pure mathematicians and applied mathematicians (those who use the math, such engineers and physicists) about the article's approach; the mathematicians actually disdain the use of sources, among other differences. And this has degenerated into name-calling and questioning one another's good faith and motives. David Tombe's arguments in Brews' support are not helping Brews or the process: Tombe was sanctioned in the same arbitration as Brews (which diminishes his credibility) and his manner is combative. Could an administrator please step in to take control of this melee? Thank you.—Finell 05:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change

I don't want to make my comment in the case request too long, and some of this is better on this page than that one:

Scientific research is commonly frustrating, especially for the researchers. This is a damn good corrective to the arrogant attitude that we just need to accept one point of view on all topics related to ongoing research (summary: scientists and other human beings find contradictory data extremely difficult to accept). Given the political controversy on top of the inevitable scientific research frustrations on an important issue, this is bound to be controversial for some time to come, so an ongoing monitoring/enforcement committee is prudent. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Two research laboratories were working on the same topic. One, filled with better experts on the subject, took forever to come up with the right answer to contradictory evidence. The other, with people from different backgrounds who were not experts in the field, did better:

The diverse lab, in contrast, mulled the problem at a group meeting. None of the scientists were protein experts, so they began a wide-ranging discussion of possible solutions. At first, the conversation seemed rather useless. But then, as the chemists traded ideas with the biologists and the biologists bounced ideas off the med students, potential answers began to emerge. “After another 10 minutes of talking, the protein problem was solved,” Dunbar says. “They made it look easy.” This is why other people are so helpful: They shock us out of our cognitive box. “I saw this happen all the time,” Dunbar says. “A scientist would be trying to describe their approach, and they’d be getting a little defensive, and then they’d get this quizzical look on their face. It was like they’d finally understood what was important.”

It's useful for scientists to have to explain themselves in order to resolve the problems of contradictory data. And until they do that, the common reaction is to ignore the contradictions. In a public-policy matter, that just kicks the can of controversy down the road. In a controversial Misplaced Pages article, we're also trying to resolve contradictions about evidence, and we should consider it a blessing that we should be forced to explain our reasoning to people who don't have similar backgrounds -- so that we can be shaken up enough to confront ideas we'd be far more comfortable ignoring. It's how research actually advances, and it's how Misplaced Pages articles actually get better, too. Not through silence or fighting, but through discussion. It's the only way when the article subject is a big controversy. We need to be able to do that better and find ways of encouraging editors to do that better. In this case, as I say, with a monitoring committee, but perhaps ultimately with a better set of policies and guidelines for controversial articles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• And the great Whitewash has begun... (by the admins and ArbCom members, not JohnWBarber) oh well. Misplaced Pages's community simply continues to be dysfunctional; it's reputation continues to rightfully be maligned by the public; Content warriors keep doing their thing; etc... In the meantime, I'm just going to crawl back in my hole and continue to ignoring most of this stuff and mistrusting all of you.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I suspect admins and ArbCom members sometimes refrain from acting in cases like this where they don't think they're going to be able to do much good. It's hard, often impossible, to counter POV mobs, but they can be held to strict standards of conduct, and that can help. I think Ryan Postlethwaite's proposal over at AN is a sincere attempt to start coming to grips with the problem. Arbs and admins only have so many tools, and the POV mountains are so big. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)