Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:07, 30 May 2008

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 wikipedia 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)

TTN

Is an arb going to clarify anything regarding TTN's case? Hiding T 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently yes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is Kirill's proposals regarding User:Kww completely inappropriate? Kww was given no restrictions during the cases, and hasn't had so much as an RfC or an AN/I thread. I'm not even sure if ArbCom is allowed to make restrictions like this, outside of a case under the guise of clarification. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A related discussion at User talk:Ned Scott#TTN might be of some interest to some people here. Please feel free to comment, even if you disagree with my comments to Kirill (a sanity check, perhaps). I'm very troubled by the proposals being made here for the EC case. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only one, Ned. SirFozzie (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kww thing was a surprise to me. I probably don't have all the relevant pages watchlisted so I'm curious as to how the Kww thing happened. Anyone know? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kirill's statement is As far as Kww goes, you may feel that equating the editors that worked on Bulbasaur with penis spammers is acceptable, but I do not. Were it up to me, he'd be off the project for that little burst of odiousness alone. The least I can do is keep him away from the areas where he's likely to actually put such an ideology into practice. I suspect that my frequent advocacy in favor of TTN weighs in as well, as well as my opinion that the sanctions from E&C2 are being misapplied, and my vocalness in that regard.

As for the evil comment itself, I'm surprised that people skip over that word would. I would, but I won't, because I can't. I campaigned for a while to get "article is about a single television episode" added as a CSD category. Didn't work, so I don't go nominating episode articles for deletion. I obey process, even when I believe it to be wrong.

As for Bulbasaur, it and Dammit, Janet! are two of the worst articles on Misplaced Pages, and I won't apologise for thinking that way. At least when an article reads Fred discovers the secret of the ultra-gamma-neutron device, and brings the Emerald Space Station into danger you know you aren't reading a real encyclopedia article. When you read something with 40 or 50 footnotes, you assume you are reading the real deal. Very few readers take the time to actually check the footnotes out. In both cases, you would quickly find that the outside world references are nothing but passing mentions that do little or nothing to support the information presented. In Bulbasaur's case, they are nearly 100% self-published references, from official game guides and graphic novels. I've taken Dammit, Janet! to AFD, and filed an ANI report when Bulbasaur was unredirected while under protection. Have I edit warred? No. Have I vandalised the articles in question? No. Do I participate discussions that will hopefully someday change the rules so that both articles can be removed? Absolutely yes.

My contributions speak for themselves. I spend most of my day undoing vandalism (even to Bulbasaur, when it occurs). I keep an eye on articles about the Netherlands Antilles, because I like the articles about my home to be accurate. I keep unsourced and slanderous material out of pop culture articles. When I see articles like Lindsay Lohan's untitled, unannounced new album that I heard a great rumor about, I nominate it for deletion. I keep an eye out for edits by User:JoshGotti, User:Soccermeko, and User:Editor652, and report their latest socks when they occur. I rarely wander into television episodes, but I have been involved in the Scrubs mess. Don't think anyone would consider my contribution there to be disruptive, however.Kww (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

It is important to understand that the Arbitration committee does not do a good job of handling large, sprawling unfocused cases. Remember that they know next to nothing about the dispute, while you have been involved in it for months. A request for comment against a group of editors is somewhat non-traditional, but where the usual goal is to persuade someone by force of argument to change their behavior, here the goal is to develop a focused presentation of alleged harms and desired outcomes. For example, if you have a diff of User:Smith telling another editor, "Your contributions are not welcome and will always be reverted, go away!" you don't want to dilute the impact by including ten diffs of Smith calling editors "poopyheads." Likewise you want to focus on good editors with proven track records on other topics being driven away, and not so much on SPAs who really aren't here to learn the system and follow the rules. I would suggest opening a RFC on group conduct. Build it collaboratively in user space for a few days. Organize it logically, "Biography problems", "Hostility toward other editors", etc. Present the best evidence, filtered and focused. Don't use the process for revenge, but aim toward improvement of the encyclopedia. Try to present some remedies and desired outcomes that flow logically and proportionally from the evidence. (Arbcom will not indef ban for calling another editor a "poopyhead" for example.) Then move it to project space and ask for comments, opposing views, and so forth. Be respectful of all opposing views, and mindful of conditional or partial endorsements. You may find that the community considers some of your allegations to be weightier than others, and editors to be more or less culpable, in which case refocus the case on issues the community considers most serious. And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating. Thatcher 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)