Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:24, 29 July 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)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley

I'm just wondering why the Giano wheelwar case was opened when it was? It's supposed to be after 24 hours after four net votes are cast - well, yes it was at 4 net votes to accept 24 hours ago, but this has changed throughout the day. Surely it should be 24 hours after the current four net votes to accept? I'm not sure I understand the logic otherise - we have a 24 hour grace period to make sure no other arbitrators are going to reject the case and this was clearly a case where more arbitrators could have rejected it. I did bring this up with Daniel privately, but he said this is how it's always been done - I'm not sure it has though, but if so, it might be time for a change. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the arbs are at pains to find a case that would enable them to shove the OM bruhaha under the carpet as quickly and quietly as possible. This is a familiar tactic. It's astounding how many devoted wikipedians the arbs ousted from the project (where's Worldtraveller, Bishonen, anyone?) The only way out of the current spiral is to resign. The guys know it and cling to their position for what it's worth. Can you blame them? Not me. --Ghirla 11:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to explain to me how Worldtraveller's departure is the Committee's fault (maybe you meant InShaneee (talk · contribs)?); as for Bishonen, she appears remarkably active for someone who left the project. Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The last time it was under 4 net votes was, I believe, 0145. It's fluctuated between 2 and 5 net votes to accept, but hasn't fallen below 4 for nearly 18 hours. Given that, the fact that all bar two active arbitrators have commented (with the only other two being Jdforrester who hasn't edited for two weeks, and FT2 who hasn't participated in arbitration matters on this page as an arbitrator since the incident), and the fact that the four net votes counter starts from the first time it rezches four net votes (the idea is to ensure that it isn't opened without everyone from the Committee having a chance to look, not simply to have 24 hours since the last net vote for having the time period's sake), meant that it is (and has always been) acceptable to open cases in such situations. Daniel (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the counter starts from the point that it first reaches 4 net votes, or at least I don't believe it should be that way. When arbitrators accept a case, there should be a 24 hour period from when it last reaches 4 net votes before a case is opened. I can't recall a case where this has happened before, or where it's written in the arbitration procedures that it should be from where the first net 4 occured. Logic would suggest it should be 24 hours after the latest 4 net votes. Of course some arbitrators haven't commented yet, but that doesn't mean they aren't going to. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The 24 hour period is given to ensure all arbitrators have a chance to look at the case. The mere fact that it dips in and out of 4 votes for a very short period of time does not mean that, all of a sudden, those non-commenting arbitrators need another 4 hours. Their reading time doesn't need to fluctuate in the occurance of when a voting suddenly falls below 4 votes to accept and then jumps straight back up again. Furthermore, I find it worrisome you haven't declared your COI here. Daniel (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate outside comments here so we can clarify this for the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure this particular scenario comes up often enough that we have a very well-defined approach to it. The written documents are of little help, unfortunately; the arbitration policy calls for the case to be opened 24 hours after the fourth vote to open, rather than the fourth net vote to open, and makes no mention of when the net-four is to be attained. Our procedure for closing cases, which uses a similar net-four setup, allows for a closing 24 hours after the first vote, so long as the votes are present. Personally, I think Daniel's approach is a reasonable one (if not, perhaps, the most elegant that could in theory be devised).

(It's also not clear how many votes are needed for an expedited opening, so this whole setup is something of a mess in any case.) Kirill 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did find the motion to close procedure to be the persuasive authority here, given the lack of explicit documented procedure for opening with regards to this circumstances. They share many similarities, so it made sense to extend the principle to opens. That, plus this is how we've always done it. Daniel (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The requirement to open a case has fluctuated between 4 votes (regardless of opposition) and 4 "net" votes. There has never been a serious public discussion of the opening procedures in my memory. I gather it was probably originally set up by the first Arbcom (who did all their own paperwork for the first year) then shifted to the clerks. We/they have adapted and tweaked things here and there, but the principle is as Daniel indicated; a delay to make sure any arbitrators who want to have a say can have it. There has never been a set precedent on whether the 24 hour clock resets if the tally drops; here with nearly all active arbitrators voting one way or the other, Daniel's action seems reasonable. Thatcher 02:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't this be discussed at the clerk noticeboard? And what COI? Avruch 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The clerk noticeboard is for coordinating and discussion clerk tasks; here, where the task impacts the community and since it has been raised here, this seems reasonable. (It's not a question of which clerk is available to pick up a specific case, but rather are the clerks acting correctly and within their overall discretion accorded them by Arbcom. Thatcher 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Ryan has unblocked Giano II in the not-too-recent past. From my interpretation this makes him favour rejecting the case. Daniel (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't seen my other past interaction with Giano then - it's not pretty. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it could, but I wanted to clarify it for everyone and I'm not acting as a clerk in this - I have a "declared conflict of interest" because I unblocked Giano - not sure what it has to do with this case and the fact I'm just asking a question.... Ryan Postlethwaite 02:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ex-clerk speaking; it is usually based on the judgment of the clerk. If the situation is stable with no new information added to the case then opening sooner is okay. If the community is posting new information, for example that the user in question is given a community sanction or banned, then the clerks wait to see if arbs change their votes. This is even if 24 hours are up. The time period is suppose to reflect enough time for it to be obvious that arbitrators are interested in hearing the case based on the information given by the community. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that was certainly a consideration that I acknowledged and acted upon; "all bar two active arbitrators have commented (with the only other two being Jdforrester who hasn't edited for two weeks, and FT2 who hasn't participated in arbitration matters on this page as an arbitrator since the incident)". Otherwise, per Thatcher below, I would have probably let this go beyond 24 hours by either definition, rather than opening per the first one. Daniel (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) to Ryan, no reason not to ask the question, no matter what hat you are wearing today. Thatcher 02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In re Flo, yes, sometimes cases are held longer than 24 hours if the matter is in flux. It is a matter of judgement, and I recall at least one time where the clerk was corrected for opening a case too soon. (It opened the next day, which rendered the exercise somewhat silly in my view, but there it is. Thatcher 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Daniel and Kirill and Thatcher are all correct, the current policy is after the 4th net vote and the policy is hazy as to what happens when it fluctuates. I say it was a good opening. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Could whatever is decided here actually be used to update the policies and guidelines? Several people in this thread (especially Kirill and Thatcher) have pointed out that the written pages are unclear or contradictory. I raised this point with a clerk yesterday on a related matter (when to remove a rejected request - specifically the OrangeMarlin request, which was initially removed at 0/4 and then restored, commented on some more, and has now been removed at 1/6/0/0). After some discussion on that clerk's talk page, I posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks and Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration guide. As yet, there has been no response there. I have also added a section there asking about the right place to ask an arbitration clerk about their actions (case page, noticeboard, clerk guideline page, clerk noticeboard?). This issue of where to discuss a clerk's actions has come up in this thread as well. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration guide#Synchronising this and the clerks page and Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Asking arbitration clerks about their actions to comment on what should be done in the general cases. Carcharoth (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A word or two from another former arbitration clerk.

One significant point is that last year the criteria for deciding whether, and when, a case has been accepted changed radically, apparently after some discussion on the arbitration committee mailing list. The procedures are undoubtedly in some disarray because prior to that there was a different criterion where the declines did not subtract from the accepts, so the question of what to do when the vote goes up to acceptance level and then dips down again never arose. I agree that the current procedure of opening twenty-four hours after the first time it reaches four net accepts (which makes sense to me as explained by Daniel) should probably be written down somewhere. --Jenny 13:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, changing to 4 net votes officially changed the quickness that cases opened. But the timing has always depended just as much on what is happening in the comments of the involved parties and the community, as well as the votes and comments of the arbs. If one arb strikes there accept vote based on new information, or giving a compelling reason for a reject; then the clerks should generally wait past the 24 hour deadline to see if more changes in votes will happen. In my opinion, the 24 hours was never suppose to be a rigid policy, rather it was a reasonable time period to use in most cases. The wording that is used need to allow for flexibility based on breaking events. As for the opening of Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley, it was done properly since the active arbs had voted and it was unlikely for a change to happen. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested acceptance method

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A simple way to ensure a modicum of dignity in the speed at which requests are accepted and cases opened is to say that there should also be a minimum of 24 or 48 hours before a request can be accepted, even if this "net four" votes is reached before then. This realistically gives all arbitrators a chance to comment, rather than letting the first four arbitrators to arrive to decide whether a request is accepted. After this initial period of 24 or 48 hours, the "net four" condition is applied, and when that is reached (or if it has been reached already), then the request is accepted and a case opened (roughly) 24 hours later. If the "net four" level was reached before the initial period was up, then the 24 hour thing can be retrospectively applied (or not, see below). This would allow expedited openings if four arbitrators speedily accepted (as happened here), and no other arbitrators commented in the initial period. A more radical alternative is to allow the first 24 hours for the request to "develop" and for statements to be made by the parties and others, and for arbitrators to not vote before that initial period is up - and then apply "net four" from that point on, as presumably most active arbitrators will have had a chance to see the request by then. At the moment, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide says: "After a request is made, the active Arbitrators vote on whether to accept or decline the case..." - this says nothing about whether arbitrators normally wait or not before voting, or whether the request will be given time to develop. The only other guidance, other than the mechanics of acceptance votes, is the figure of 10 days before a request is removed. I did find: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Pruning WP:RfAr, which says: "A case is only opened after one day of four (net) Arbitrators accepting it; that is, four more accept than reject votes. Cases that have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days should be removed from the page." If that is not correct, it needs changing or updating.

Looking at what specifically happened in the request here (or rather, the request above, the "Geogre-William M. Connolley" one - I initially wrote this as part of a response in that thread): the request was added at 23:21, 1 July 2008, and four net votes to accept was reached with Kirill's vote at 00:36, 2 July 2008. I make that 1 hour and 15 minutes. Daniel's clerk action noting acceptance of the request was timed at 00:38, 2 July 2008, which is two minutes after Kirill's vote and 1 hour and 17 minutes after the request was made.

Anyway, having looked at that, I'd like to lay out my logic again for what I proposed above:

• (1) The primary delay should be to allow all active arbitrators (and parties and others) a chance to become aware of and follow a developing request, to add statements, and then vote. This delay should be timed from the moment the request is filed. I suggest either 24 hours or 48 hours to allow all active arbitrators to become aware of a request. All "counting of votes" should be delayed until this period has elapsed. This delay would also allow parties and others to add statements to the request if needed.
• (2) Another type of delay could be applied to arbitrator voting to ensure enough time for the parties and others to respond to the request before arbitrator voting starts, though this could be same length of time. Whether a delay of this sort is adopted would affect point 3 below.
• (3) The final delay is the one between the acceptance of a request and the opening of the case, which is presumably a cooling off period in case events change, and time to allow people to prepare statements and evidence. This should not be confused with the other delays mentioned above. This is currently 24 hours.

My suggestion for managing the third delay is that any tally of votes is delayed until the initial period (see point 1) expires. This theoretically ensures that all active arbitrators have had a chance to see the request and vote. Only once the initial period has expired and the net votes have reached four, would the request be accepted. "Net four" before the initial period expires would not be counted, as other arbitrators might arrive and change the net vote. Once "net four" has been reached after the initial period has expired, a clerk could note the request as provisionally accepted. Regardless of the fluctuation in the next 24 hours, if the net was still four at the time the case was due to open, then it gets opened. Though of course there would still be room for judgment and flexibility for requests where the voting fluctuated wildly (hopefully that wouldn't happen too often).

I think that covers all my thoughts on this! Does that sound workable in practice? Point two could be adopted voluntarily by arbitrators as they wished. It is probably good practice to wait before voting, but I know some arbitrators do like to set their vote out early on some requests, and this can lead to productive interaction with the community and people weigh in on either side to appeal to the arbitrators who have and haven't voted, and early votes can guide the community as well, so point 2 could be dropped as too inflexible. I do think the idea of an initial delay before anything is done, would be good. Kind of like a "cooling off period" following the filing of a case. Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Forgive; I've merely scanned your proposal, and I have a possibly contrapuntal suggestion. What's badly needed here is the option for Arbcom to issue a stay; a modified preliminary injunction to the effect of "whatever it is you're doing stop now while we figure out what's going on." Quick acceptance of a case has a similar effect but, as you and others have noted, carries with it all sorts of evil connotations. Of course, I doubt this most recent case will roll forward with anything approximating haste. Mackensen (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The idea of a "stay" could also be adopted. The two are not mutually exclusive. You are right in that four arbitrators voting to accept in just over an hour is more like a "OMG, stop it now!" statement. Of course, what arbitrators might call a stay, we would call a trout. There does also need to be some recognition that more time should be spent on matters directly relating to the encyclopedia, rather than managing the community. I would much prefer issues like the Christianity-Buddhism one that Jehochman has recently raised, and the issues at Misplaced Pages talk:Plagiarism (not an ArbCom issue, but I'm trying to get more eyes there) were discussed and progressed, rather than the time spent on this case. Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I like your idea, Carcharoth, and also yours, Mackensen. There would be a distinct advantage in Arbcom being able to issue something to the effect of a cease and desist order from the bench, especially in situations like the most recently accepted case, while deciding whether or not there is really something to be arbitrated. Your last sentence had me nodding in agreement, Mackensen. Risker (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Personally, I always thought that if the net vote number becomes four but goes below four at any later time the clock is reset and the new count starts after threshold is achieved again (which may as well be never). The reasons of the delay was everything Carch listed plus to allow the time for arbs to change their votes in view of late developments or their own contemplating. The propensity of arbs to change their votes vary from never (eg. Kirill Lokshin) to very often (eg. Flo). Since the event of a vote change is not very rare, it seems sensible that the policy accommodates this properly. --Irpen 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to the following:

"A simple way to ensure a modicum of dignity in the speed at which requests are accepted and cases opened is to say that there should also be a minimum of 24 or 48 hours before a request can be accepted, even if this "net four" votes is reached before then. This realistically gives all arbitrators a chance to comment, rather than letting the first four arbitrators to arrive to decide whether a request is accepted. After this initial period of 24 or 48 hours, the "net four" condition is applied, and when that is reached (or if it has been reached already), then the request is accepted and a case opened (roughly) 24 hours later."

There has to be at least 24 hours, given a case doesn't open until 24 hours after the first instance of four net votes to accept being present (provided four net to accept still exists). Your comment implies that this case didn't wait the necessary 24 hours after the first instance of four net votes to accept, when it fact it did; it wasn't speedy opened, as 24 hours from the fourth net vote to accept was given. The consensus above from Arbitrators and clerks is that the clock doesn't reset if the votes dip below four during the intervening period, but rather clerks exercise discretion in the circumstances about whether the votes are likely to change/benefit from being left for another X hours (which in this case I didn't, per the current status of the two other arbitrators). Daniel (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, please do not mix such fundamentally different by weight things as "consensus from Arbitrators" and "of clerks" and especially don't top it off by such a fundamentally nonsensial term as "clerk's discretion". Clerkship position is to stuff papers around, send notices, page placeholders, follow the straightforward procedures and arbitrator's orders. There is nothing like "clerkship discretion" unlike, say, abritrator's or even administrator's discretion. While arbs and admins are elected based specifically on the trust of the community (that is to exercise reasonable discretion) clerks are appointed based on their desire to hold this position, knowing the policies they are expected to follow and the ability to be organized well enough to not mess simple paperwork. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the clerk's are entrusted by the community to use any discretion. If the policy is ambiguous, it needs to be fixed, so that it is entirely clear what clerks have to do, at least in not uncommon situations. --Irpen 02:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The basis of my comment was FloNight's at 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC). Have you any arbitrator statement which counters it? Daniel (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) That's not too kind a thing to say. And Clerks are appointed by ArbCom, just as CheckUsers and Oversighters are appointed by ArbCom. That doesn't mean that Clerks, CUs, or oversighters are discretion-less. That would just be silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The discretion of the arbitrators includes authorizing the clerks to carry out their responsibilities as appropriate. So long as the Committee is in agreement with what is being done, it matters not one bit whether it's one of us or a clerk that's doing the paperwork. Kirill 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) MZM, all I am saying is that I am aware of several instances of plainly bad conduct of the editors who are or were among the clerks and I am not aware of such instances among the recently arbcom-appointed checkusers. There must be a reason and the reason is that the ArbCom is very careful in the latter appointments making the best effort that it is given only in users ArbCom views trusted by the community. --Irpen 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, you are confusing acceptance of a request and opening of the case. I'm saying there should be a minimum period before a case can even be accepted (in order to let those interested say something, no matter how many arbitrators have voted), and that this should be independent of and before considerations of how soon after acceptance the case opens. I never said the case was speedily opened, I said that the case was speedily accepted. It is the distinction between requests and acceptance of requests, and cases and opening of cases, that is being lost here. Your point about a "consensus above from Arbitrators and clerks that the clock doesn't reset" is true, but you miss the point that I'm not trying to pick holes in how this case was opened - I'm suggesting a new (though not very different) system for opening cases. That's why I put this in a new section. Kirill did say that the current system is "not, perhaps, the most elegant that could in theory be devised", so I made this suggestion in the hope that it was more elegant, and to address the problem of not enough time between filing and acceptance. Also note that once the initial period expires, the current system takes over again. It is only during that initial period that votes could reach "net four" and then dip back below four, with the request not being accepted because this initial "consultation" (if you like) period has not yet expired. I'd be happy to discuss this further if this is still not clear. Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And just to get the terminology and stages clear: (a) Filing point (someone turns up and files a request and notifies the parties); (b) Consideration period (including addition of statements by parties and others and arbitrator questions and interim actions, such as emergency stays); (c) Voting period (when the arbitrators look over a mature request and decide whether to accept or reject - in some systems, the voting period overlaps with the consideration period, ie. voting can start straightaway, and in my proposal, the consideration period has to lapse before the vote comes into effect); (d) Acceptance point (decided by a clerk at some point after, but not before, the consideration period ends - in some systems, the case would open immediately at that point, in others, there is a period of respite before the case starts); (e) Interim period (between acceptance and opening, to allow people a short time to start preparing their case, to allow the clerks time to discuss administrative matters, to allow for further statements and evidence that might change things, and to allow last-ditch resolutions of disputes); (f) Case opening point (the point at which the case opens). It might seem overly bureaucratic, but in fact it is, from what I can see, a simple and elegant system that only slightly extends the way things work at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)