Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 4 July 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)

Requesting advice re. Obama editing restriction

Is it is permissible under Obama articles remedy 11.1 (and by extension 11) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to unilaterally criticize each other? I am troubled by ongoing accusations of bad faith, trolling, and stalking made against me by an editor with whom I am not to interact. To keep my equanimity, and avoid running afoul myself of the editing restrictions, I will not follow suit, respond to the accusations, take this issue to forums other than Arbcom, or otherwise interact with the editor (hence my not mentioning them by name or notifying them). However, these personal attacks are troubling and I wish they would stop. They follow many similar accusations made both before and during the arbitration, and were themselves a subject of the arbitration. If the aim of the no-interaction remedy is to stop this, and restore a healthy editing environment, surely that remedy means to stop repeating the accusations, right?Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note - per advice I have received, I will make a request for clarification. Thanks all, Wikidemon (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Xenovatis

The editor seems to be intentionally mistyping my user name (changing the numbers).

2. neutrality disputed due to removal of sources and tendentious editing by user Jd2871
4. <-- this edit consists of nothing more than mistyping my username.

I don't know if it is intended to be annoying, rude, provocative, cute... But it should stop. Jd2718 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyking

The observation that editors desysopped by arbcom have trouble being resysopped through RFA is valid, but so what? The community's reluctance to have them back as admins is perfectly legitimate and arbcom shouldn't second-guess it. John VDB's suggestion of probationary re-sysopping during which EK is advised to do some consensus evaluations (I think this mostly means afd) prior to reconfirmation sounds unbeneficial.. EK could instead simply enter a voluntary mentorship with some admin without being resysopped. Under the mentorship, EK would do some non-admin AFD closures for a while, with the understanding that EK could close afd's as "delete" and the mentoring admin would perform the actual deletion (without necessarily endorsing it--the closures would be reviewable at DRV like any other afd closures). After doing this for a while, EK could start another RFA and invite participants to check out his recent afd closures. No temporary or probationary resysopping is required. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh!

Can someone please put the box that showed the status of all open arb cases at the upper right corner back? Removing it has made following Arbcom cases significantly more annoying. Jtrainor (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not been removed; it's just that now you have to scroll down below the TOC, and it's not pink anymore. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't find it either at 9.41 UTC. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of an (un)involved admin

Since my comments were moved (first time, second time) under a claim that I am somehow involved in a discussion, I'd like to ask were is the applicable definition of the (un)involved admin? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

When the arbitration enforcement thread mentions a case that bears your username, that is probably a sign you are involved as least in the eyes of the users who seek to apply that case. Even if they are completely wrong, it would be beneficial for you to let your peers handle such matters. Jehochman 04:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Which case in question bears my username? Digwuren or EE? EE was renamed exactly because people got confused about this. The EE arbcom case did not mention anything about my judgment not being sound; in fact the majority of findings and rulings involved other editors, not me. That I am from EE doesn't mean I am involved in all the editing going there; I make comments as uninvolved admin in cases where I have not participated in a particular editing conflict. If there is some other criteria for determining (un)involvement, it should be clearly stated somewhere. Please note that I have never attempted to use my admin tools to close a debate or pass / enforce a decision. However, I believe I have the right to be seen as neutral for the purpose of discussion. That I am from EE or that somebody cries "he is involved" without citing any evidence is no reason to disqualify someone (I could just as well claim you are involved because we interacted in the past and you made comments about editors from EE... which I won't, because that would be ABF and plain ridiculous). Finally, please read my essay on how active editors (like myself) are penalized simply for being well known. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, if your level of involvement in these areas were to be the benchmark for uninvolvedness we might as well delete WP:UNINVOLVED. I think you should just respect the judgment and intelligence of guys like Jehochmen when they say you are involved. They are no fools, and so trying to argue around it will be rather pointless I think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument "You are involved because you are Piotrus" somehow fails to convince me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Piotrus, the whole purpose of a straw man is that it's supposed to be thoroughly unconvincing. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, as you were the subject of substantive findings in both the Digwuren and Eastern European disputes cases, you are considered involved per se for the purposes of any enforcement matter stemming from either case. Kirill  04:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Are there any other arbitrators administrators who are involved in a similar fashion, or am I the only one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean "administrators", I believe Deacon of Pndapetzim is the only other one to be the subject of findings in these cases (or at least the only one I recall being an administrator at the time the findings were written). Kirill  04:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I refrain from admin involvement when I know in my heart I can't act fairly, and I think we should be able to trust admins to do this. Other rules of thumb are gameable and unworthy. You stay out when you can't be fair. By extension, if Piotrus was interested there'd be no reason why he couldn't act as an admin in a dispute between Bulgarian and Macedonian nationalists, or two Russian nationalists, but the rule of thumb above seems to prevent this. I suppose we have to live in reality though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The fallacy here is that every admin who becomes involved in those issues will be eventually listed as a party to some arbcom and will thus find himself unable to act on AE... I find it a bit strange. Still, the above clarification is helpful - at least now we know were we are standing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be true if the criterion were merely being listed as a party, but that's not the point I'm making. Other administrators (e.g. Alex Bakharev) were parties to the case, but there were no (adverse) findings about them in the decisions issued. In your case, however, and in Deacon's, the case resulted in substantive and adverse findings about your conduct.

I have no problem, generally speaking, if administrators who are merely listed as parties, for whatever reason, continue to work in enforcement after the case concludes; but it's not a good idea, in my view, for someone who was actually found to have acted improperly to do so. Kirill  15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Substantive"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to findings which did not really say anything about the subject's editing, such as the various "no evidence has been presented" findings in Eastern European disputes. Kirill  15:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright ... thanks. I think "adverse" on its own would have covered it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's probably true. Kirill  15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the "you've had an adverse finding in a ArbCom case" in your view rule out any admin involvement in the topic area generally, or is it just for AE matters? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm content to leave that up to the individual administrator's good judgment and the normal policies about admin involvement. Unless we do something like explicitly prohibiting you from taking admin actions in an area as part of a remedy (which I believe we've done in the past?), you can assume that we're not taking a stance on general admin activity. The involvement with the case itself presumptively covers discussions directly related to the case (i.e. enforcement threads for it), but not necessarily anything broader than that. Kirill  16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Who to name as parties?

Do I need to add other parties to the new request I have opened today re use of disputed/occupied territories etc.? I've not named anyone and what to focus on how to resolve this matter rather than on individuals. An option could be to name every contributor to the 19 threads I have identified this year, but that seems excessive. Also I have noticed several editors since topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine area among the previous contributors. On the other hand picking out individuals (the admin who closed the RfC? the editor who questioned his appropriateness as an impartial judge? etc) might seem invidious. I'm tempted just to flag this matter at the IPCOLL and the Wikiprojetcs for Israel, Palestine and Syria. Any views?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration statistics 2009 - half-year summary

Through the first half of 2009, the Arbitration Committee considered 111 requests, voted on 41 motions, publicly heard 19 cases, and drafted and voted on 928 case proposals.

There were 59 case requests, open on average for five days, with 63% declined, 29% accepted, 7% disposed by motion and one withdrawn. There were 52 clarifications and other requests, open on average for 11 days. Motions were open on average for four days, with 61% passing. Cases were open on average for 60 days, with the longest being open for nearly five and a half months.

With respect to case requests, Wizardman had the highest voting percentage of 93, followed closely by Casliber with 89, against an average of 61, and a low of zero. Coren and Stephen Bain shared the highest accept percentage of 53, and Vassyana had the highest decline percentage of 80. With respect to clarifications and other requests, Vassyana commented on the most (32). Overall, Carcharoth could be considered to have been the most active, with the lowest DNA (did not act) percentage of 18, against an average of 47 and a high of 86. With respect to motions, John Vandenberg had the highest voting percentage of 79, with many arbs following closely behind, against an average of 59 and a low of 18.

Wizardman drafted over a quarter of the cases (five) with Newyorkbrad drafting three, while John Vandenberg drafted the largest case, as measured by number of proposals (186, 100 passing), and Rlevse drafted the second largest (132, 98 passing). Six arbs were virtually tied for the highest case proposal voting percentage: Carcharoth and Sam Blacketer, (with 94) and FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, and Wizardman (with 93). Arguably, Rlevse was on average the quickest to act on case proposals, with Casliber second.

Comparing Apr-Jun with Jan-Mar, the number of case requests declined 36% and the percentage of cases accepted declined 15%, thus the number of cases accepted was almost halved. The number of clarifications and other requests increased 74%, the number of cases closed more than doubled, and the number of case proposals considered increased by more than five times.

Comparing the first half of 2009, with the first half of 2008, the number of case requests dropped dramatically from 105 to 59, continuing an apparent trend, and the number cases heard dropped from 27 to 19, while the average case duration nearly doubled from 32 days to 60.

For complete details see: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2009.

Paul August ☎ 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)