Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:03, 18 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 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)

Why is arbitration still so slow?

I understand one of the big hopes people had with the last elections and enlargement of the committee was that it would finally get a bit faster and more efficient. But now I see we again have a case that has been in the "evidence" phase (a.k.a. mass mudslinging phase) for almost three months, no decision drafted, and no Arbcom input even to the workshop for the last three weeks. This is particularly hurtful as it draws out the existence of a "temporary injunction" that has been causing massive additional strife and led to multiple vindictive complaints, block shopping and actual blocks.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Some massive cases, sorry, it is rather alot of workload and the others are doing alot more than me. Try wading through 100 emails some nights....agree we need to be quicker, and we will try.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Massive cases are one aspect of it, and the need to move the overall reform agenda forward simultaneous to them is another. A third issue is that many of the cases are being drafted by the new arbitrators, who don't have much experience with writing decisions—particularly complex ones—and who thus need more time than usual to put forward a draft for voting. I expect the pace will pick up once the latter two items become less of an issue. Kirill  12:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need a twice-as-large ArbCom which is divided into two "chambers" (so to speak) and new cases are assigned equally, thus splitting the workload in two. Just an idea... SoWhy 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The workload is already being divvied out - generally arbs take it in turn to do alot of the legwork on each case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We've recently changed the way that we work. We are making more. These changes need time to work. I think by the end of the year, the Committee will be working more efficiently. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think you guys ought to change the whole structure of the evidence and workshop phase, radically. That could potentially save everybody, not just yourselves, a whole lot of work and stress. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What changes do you have in mind? Kirill  13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bit busy right now, will give you a fuller answer in an hour or two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't help that sometimes the parties make cases an absolute miserable experience. Not a lot of structural efficiency changes can solve that problem.--Tznkai (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration is not working. I say that with due respect to the very hard-working arbs. But frankly, every year a new crop of candidates criticise the pace of arbcom and promise that if they are elected it will change. They get elected and it does not. Rinse and repeat. The problem is not the personnel - the problem is the system is not upscaling. And the solution is not tweeking - but looking at drastic changes. My own thoughts are: A) that arbcom tries to combine a disciplinary/judicial role, with an administrative role (appointments), with a limited policy making role and in addition, in some cases, sometimes serves a policing role. This is too much and we need to examine things like a seperate appointments board, or limited policy board. B) that, no matter how many members it has, having only one tribunal, with all serving on it, is not good. Thought should be given to two sittings - so that each active arb needs only watch half the cases.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that we are making many changes to the process? For example, appointing subcommittees to handle ban reviews. I agree that we need a policy committee but I still think that ArbCom is needed to handle user conduct issues that the Community can not resolve. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes are being made...I predict some for the best and some not so much. But I find that where arbitration is failing, it is due to a whole series of problems that aren't limited to mere inacitivity. FloNight, seeing, you have responded here, I will point to a recent enough example. A handful of arbitrators are refusing to truly respond to the substantive (legitimate) concerns expressed by some members of the community. When I say responsive, I'm not expecting full or necessarily any agreement with that concern, but I note it doesn't involve merely (like you've done in Fof 4 variations in the MZM case) reading the concerns, and then trying a more forceful approach in opposing outstanding attempts to satisfy and resolve those concerns. It also doesn't mean responding with a series of commentary that is unbecoming of an arbitrator in so many ways (like another arbitrator did, though not you). If it has come to the point where any arbitrator decides on a remedy and then think about findings that would support that, then the community will have an immediate problem to address. It is particularly disappointing when arbitrators who are approaching the status of "arbitrator-emeritus" appear to engage in this sort of decision making. Instead, they should be making more firmer attempts to revise the relevant parts of their decision in the light of (blatant) inaccuracies or omissions in the very "facts" they thought they had found. I think it's quite reasonable for the community to maintain one expectation: a Fof is not inaccurate or devoid of necessary context. Supporting a finding that is, especially when opposing others that do a better job of addressing that issue, is not admirable. If it's an attempt to challenge whether the community will disregard those parts of the decision in completeness, so be it - the effect of undermining community confidence in those arbitrators has not been lost. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to consider...just maybe we both looked at the same information and came to different conclusions. I carefully read all the case pages, including the most recent comments on the workshop and PD talkpages, as well as the votes and comments by other arbs at the end of the case. I considered your comments but I simple do not think that you've made points that matter to my final decision. Sometimes I agree with you, and sometimes I don't. In this particular instance I don't. Surely, you don't think that everyone will agree with you in every instance. I don't have that expectation. This is a very big wiki where you are going to run into people that disagree with you sometimes. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that I just stated in clear English that "I'm not expecting full or necessarily any agreement with that concern", I'm not sure why you would detail something that isn't even the issue. Coming to different conclusions is fine; but you have an implied obligation to be clear in how you did so, especially when questioned in one way or another about it - a good arbitrator in response to my comment would've stayed grounded on the (clearly labelled) substantive concern and detailed why, in their opinion, my concern didn't matter. Instead you repeated yourself as if your opinion or decision is absolute. But, for the second time, I suggest it may be too difficult to explain a position if something about it is so clearly wrong to begin with. Still, an insightful discussion indeed. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you saw blatant inaccuracies and I didn't. We disagreed. You can't ask more of arbs than to read your concerns and make changes if they see something new that they need to address. It is unrealistic arbitrators will talk each case out with each user commenting until everyone agrees. That seems to be your expectation in this situation and many others where you give your opinion. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not my expectation as I've said before, but I note that your view is such that you refuse to think otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

NCMvocalist, seriously, you use to take matters personally. I'd really expect mutual respect between arbitrators and you (Wikipedians in general). You have to be very assured that calling someone in a derogatory manner, using terms like 'idiot', the 'other one' when calling the rest by their name in the same sentence is unproductive and when you get a feedback on those matters you label it as 'unbecoming'. This is endless drama. You are pursuing a wrong path. Nobody here at this page acts as you have been acting since a few months. If you have a problem, address it with people the correct way. We are all volunteers here and I totally agree with FloNight in that you don't have to expect the results you want to achieve because you are not always right as arbitrators are not always right. Acting like WP:DICK and expecting good feedback is illogical. Take your ironic first sentence above in response to FloNight as an example. Do you find it cool? Don't you like me telling you that calling someone as the 'other one' in a lowly manner is not a suave thing? We are not in a war here. Respect others so they'd address your point at ease the way you'd expect yourself to be treated. I'am not addressing your point here because if you re-read your full post above you'd find it very hidden. A good arbitrator is not necessarily the one who would hear about your rant every single day for months and still answer you the way you want with the result you want! I've never had any problems with somebody in my whole career on-wiki and I must confess to you that you are really someone I am starting to have problems with. Seriously. And if you'd like to consider me being this frank with you for the second time as 'unbecoming' then you are free but please, when addressing people try to refrain from aggressive, ironic and unnecessary language that is not helpful at all. Think about it and ask yourself if you could present your concerns in a productive way which you'd believe bring the results you want. You say many good thinks but they get quickly lost in the noise. -- FayssalF - 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I "use to take things too personally"? No FayssalF, I'm not taking anything too personally. This arbitration does not affect my editing, or my standing, or anything else to do with me. And everyone is well aware of the level of mutual respect we have for one another; obviously not so harsh at community-level. While you may intend to be making a criticism, your comment gives all appearances of being a vague unsubstantiated accusation. Can you link me too to where I have noted and subsequently maintained (even after feedback) that any arbitrator is an "idiot"? No. I respect that you are sensitive to the phrase "stupid decision", but really, I thought that even that was resolved. Can you link me to where an arbitrator was called "the other one"? A wrong path? Endless drama? Please! Some arbitrators have embarked on an endless tirade against some users that have so much as displeased them by daring to question something they've said or done, whether it's once twice or many times. But I'm not interested in disclosing past private discussions to demonstrate this.

It is not illogical to expect an arbitrator to respond to the actual issue and effectively read past the noise, the crap, or whatever other trivial nonsense they perceive in a complaint, criticism or comment. That's a fundamental part of dispute resolution, whether it's in reading evidence or otherwise. And it goes without saying; a person is expected to listen because when you do something and you ignore it, then later the issue resurfaces and it comes to community attention that the issue was overlooked, then that fault is solely the arbitrator's. It's a given with your office. If any arbitrator want to be treated like just anyone else, where crap-tolerance levels can be a basic zero, then you need to step aside so that someone who is capable can be left to the position.

Do you think people post here (or anywhere else) with the intention of being "cool"? I personally think that way of looking at things is more on the immature side, but if you think if that's what matters, then that's your choice. The same with any "e-wars". My ironic first sentence? There's nothing cool about someone replying by saying something, and ignoring a clear statement that already addressed that issue. Having to highlight a problem like this at this level of dispute resolution says more about the arbitrator who responded than the editor who raised the concern, no matter what sort of rhetoric the concern was raised in, or however much the arbitrator imagined it in. If you can't separate the light from the heat (if there is any), that's your problem - not mine. If you were to refuse to separate the light from the heat for reasons of personal bias or some other reason, that's a problem that is far more disruptive to the project than anything else raised here, and certainly, I've never seen a problem as grave as this. Of course, these are just scenarios and I'm not accusing you of anything just now.

At this point, unless you cannot answer my requests in para 1, contrary to your assumptions which are yet again off base, I don't see anything substantially unbecoming about your post. Though, I think the last few lines in particular are the only real bit of value in the discussion. I'm open to criticism re: the harshness of my criticisms, and I've recently said that I will be more considerate of others views given that I agree that they can be harsh at times. But this is nothing outside of the ordinary when it comes to my participation in arbitration since early to mid 2008. I note that I'm not the only user to criticise certain arbitrators and issues with their decision making (see for example below); I personally thought it would be more constructive to narrow it down to individual instances where possible, than roundly criticise ArbCom as a whole, particularly when other arbitrators don't deserve necessarily any o fthe blame. If you prefer the latter approach, then please don't hesitate to mention it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Ncmvocalist. I believe you understand my stance as much as I undertand yours. Hope the skies are much clearer now and sorry for that. -- FayssalF - 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I am gobsmacked at the incredible lack of input into the date delinking case (see my proddings for news above). It is almost as if most of the arbcom are refusing to acknowledge that the case exists at all; comments from arbitrators in the workshop or elsewhere are virtually nil (especially when compared to the volume of text from everyone else). Attempts to discern what you people are up to have been met with handwaving, claims of external discussion and vague, still-unfulfilled promises.

Is it because of the topic? I'm sure some big flame war over the name of a country or something to do with religion would get worked on hard and fast. But we of WP:ARBDATE have been left to fester miserably.

This is what Misplaced Pages has to offer as its highest level of dispute resolution? It's a bloody mockery. -- Earle Martin 18:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, the amount of text and drama generation seems to be completetly irrelevant to the actual topic.--Tznkai (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If I heard right, the case that Future Perfect was referring to doesn't even have a PD drafted yet? I've heard so many things about this case that I don't know what to believe anymore. Can I get a straight answer? How much longer for the date case to be settled, or at least the PD drafted? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Should 'fast track' proposals be on the Agenda for this Year or Next Year?

I'm going to say 'No'. Let's put this on the Agenda for next Year.

My reasoning is that we already have a huge process reform agenda, it's being worked on now, and the workload from that, plus the transition from ad-hoc to more established procedures is going to need time to settle in. I'm more than willing to give a one-time 'pass' for Arbcom's case processing times this year while they cope with all that.

Timely case management is an issue, but it's not an issue we can safely address this year since we don't know how the current reforms are going to settle out. Putting in a fast-track system could, and probably will trigger unintended consequences, until we can plan it around how the new Arbcom will end up working.

Let's return to this in a year. --Barberio (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be posting an updated agenda in the next few days, so people can take a look at how to schedule things at that point. The latter half of the year is pretty much open as far as pursuing new ideas is concerned; the last (non-transition) item on the agenda is set for July 1.

We're also looking at opening a more general RFC on what we've done so far this year, and where people would like to see us focus our efforts; there will hopefully be more information on that by early next week. Kirill  14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a long stretch of operation of the new committee without any big changes in how it works first to identify what the work flow of the new system is going to be like, before we start in with changes aimed at 'fast track' or timely case management. Hence my push to get reform issues settled as quickly as possible. --Barberio (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts. We've been working on loads of new stuff and it will be good to let some of the newer changes take hold before we make loads of new changes that are not already on the agenda. And hopefully this will help us catch up and stay more current on our case work. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:59, 9 April 2009 (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)

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)