Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:29, 25 February 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 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)

CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended

In light of the concerns expressed by numerous members of the community regarding the voting method selected for the CheckUser and Oversight elections, the Committee has amended the election policy to allow votes both for and against a candidate, and to specify appointments based on percentage of support rather than raw support.

The measure authorizing this amendment was passed 10/0:

• Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
• Opposing: None
• Abstaining: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, Jayvdb, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

It should additionally be noted that this matter was dealt with on a quite urgent basis, and a number of arbitrators have not yet had the opportunity to enter formal votes on the measure; we expect that the tally above will be updated once this has occurred.

For the Committee, Kirill  04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration statistics

I've just posted some arbitration data I've been collecting at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Statistics. They cover arbitration activity from January 1, 2009 onward. Perhaps someone will find this useful. Comments, suggestions, corrections, etc. welcomed. Lots of hand work here so plenty of opportunity for error, other eyes appreciated. Paul August ☎ 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for involvement

On the behalf of all the participants in the date delinking arbitration, I would like to request that the ArbCom spend a little time on our case. I am well aware that there are several open cases at present, and that the arbitrators have a lot on their plates; however, we have now been locked in this arbitration for weeks with virtually no arbitrator presence beside a very few comments added some time ago by Cool Hand Luke. We are starting to get cabin fever.

Thank you. -- Earle Martin 13:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some work going on in the background with regards to this case. I'm recused, so I can't get too involved, but I will bring your comment to the attention of the other arbitrators, and suggest some involvement at the workshop page. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. -- Earle Martin 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As an update, Newyorkbrad said to me that the arbs would reach a decision in a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposed decision is on the way; voting can be quick or slow depending on how obvious the arbitrators find the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an estimate of when the proposed decision would be posted on the corresponding page? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS RfC

Yo clerks, perhaps rootology's RfC on the recent elections ought to go in the Requests for clarification etc. template at the foot of WP:RFARB; several arbitrators have yet to reply. Sincerely, Skomorokh 08:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement RfC

The Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions, will be closing at 0200 UTC on 21 February, 2009. All editors are encouraged to review the RfC and participate before its close. After the closing, the Arbitration Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.

For the Committee, --Vassyana (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD for page used as evidence in an RfAr clarification request.

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/JzG. Nomination by JzG:

The context was apparently Abd being asked to provide evidence for a discussion at WP:RFAR. That discussion was brief, and my action in topic-banning Jed Rothwell was resoundingly endorsed (to the point that the arbitrators were in some doubt as to why I had even bothered bringing such an obvious action to their notice). The introductory sentence actually reads as if it was me on trial. False. It was a request for review of a topic-ban of a long-term tendentious editor, and it was endorsed by every arbitrator who commented.

Abd seems to want to keep this laundry list of grudges, every one of which has been raised multiple times and in multiple venues, and has failed to gain any traction in any of these venues. Complaints have been closed in several venues, in one case citing WP:DEADHORSE. Eventually, when a user repeats the same assertions time after time and they are consistently rejected, it becomes time for them to stop making such assertions. Right now, Abd is doing the opposite. He's actively citing this userspace essay - from which he removed my comments, in violation of WP:OWN - and asserting once again as if they were fact, all the same rejected arguments. Endless repetition of repeatedly rejected complaints is not a valid use of Misplaced Pages user space. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Links: User:Abd/JzG, permanent link to RfAr before closure. --Abd (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• You forgot to mention that the clarification request was closed some time ago as resoundingly endorsed, so the "need" for this, and the similar User:Abd/Notices, was over almost before the page was created. You also forgot to mention tjhat you have raised the same complaint here, at AN, at the spam blacklists and elsewhere, and in every single case your complaint has failed to gain any traction. At all. In fact, your user space is positively littered with memorials to your version of complaints which have failed to gain traction - see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Abd. You also forgot to mention that you removed my "argumentative" comments from your argumentative user page, in clear defiance of WP:OWN. Oh, and you also failed to mention that there is no ongoing problem, the RFAR clarification and the arbitration itself have attracted many more editors and neutrality is steadily being achieved. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)