Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:27, 2 October 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)

MOS review per WP:ARBDATE?

One of the enforcement provisions of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking was that after three months passed from the case's closure, the Committee would review the manual of style for stability (remedy). Is this still going to happen? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

try WT:AC/N--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, have done so (link). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page display bug

The project page header overprints itself in Safari. In Firefox at least it doesn't overprint, but it still looks weird. I've debugged the problem but the page is protected. Please replace the {{ArbCom notice banner}} in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Header with the following:

{| style="text-align: left; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid silver; padding: 1em; margin:auto; font-size: 10pt;"
| Please make your request in the appropriate section:
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
* ''']'''
*: <small>This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed</small>
* ''']'''
* ''']''' 
*: <small>Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a case</small>
|}

The new box displays as:

The result is much more clear, the box repositions nicely as the browser window width is adjusted, and it looks the same in both Safari and Firefox. I could also do without the ArbComOpenTasks to the right of the TOC (above would be nicer), but a little scrolling won't kill me when I'm not in full screen mode. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done this, although it still looks a little inconsistent between Opera and IE (the only browsers I have handy here). Please direct any further requests of this nature to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks, as it's more heavily monitored and one of the clerks is likely to see it much sooner! Lankiveil 12:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

Actually it doesn't display as above in Firefox, the text in the box is centred and the squares (they must have a proper name, they are created by the asterisks I presume), look very odd. Chrome looks pretty bad. It looks to me as though there is room for the 'Please make your request' stuff below the text with the info boxes to the right of those links, which would tidy up the page, but I'm not very good at markup. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have completed the fixes. The page should look good on all browsers. The root problem with the open case box being cut off on the right side of the screen was that the TOC now has entries such as "Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#ChildofMidnight_and_Wikidemon_restricted". The underscores don't allow the TOC entry to break to a new line, which forces the TOC to get so wide that it displaces anything to the right of it. Seeing that we have other wide TOC entries as well, and since the open case box is now pretty wide on its own, I decided it was better to make it look good for everybody and just put the TOC under the open cases. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for drawing up the code fix, Douggie. A/R is, at the best of times, horrific in terms of the quality of its code—as all such unwieldy pages are prone to be—so any improvements are appreciated. And yes, as Lankiveil notes, requests of this nature will be most quickly noticed if placed in the appropriate section of the clerk noticeboard. AGK 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The undertow / Law / CoM

This keeps coming up: that Law's otherwise inexplicable unblock of CoM is explicable once you know about interactions between The undertow and CoM. But for those of us not familiar with the prehistory, someone please say what those interactions were. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The other question is why CoM was never reblocked, as all of the committee that weighed in agreed with the original block, if not the length. Another skating-by with a wrist-slap, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased and bad enforcement?

The real question is why Tarc wasn't blocked or banned after all his incivility, after repeatedly trying to censor by deletion numerous articles he disagreed with, and why he was allowed to edit war and violate 3RR in 24 hours with only a short block that an admin helped edit war to prevent it being recorded in the log? But I got some massive punishement for 4 edits over two days with talk page discussion inbetween. It is strange isn't it.

Has Tarc ever written an article? I do new page patrol a lot, and I haven't seen any. But he must have some value because if all he did was cause disruption I'm sure one of our illustrious admisn would step in to stop him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

/facepalm

ChildofMidnight, as I have asked you numerous times, if there was a time or place where I was uncivil or caused disruption then please file a complaint in the proper venue (WP:WQA I assume), with the appropriate evidence so that I may respond to these charges properly. You do this...make vague accusations with zero proof...in just about every venue where we happen to cross paths, and I think the fact that you refuse to "put up or shut up" as the saying goes shines more of a curious light on your own behavior than it does on my own. Simply making a claim does not make it true; you have to support your position.

Yes I edit-warred, and got a time-out, but really have nothing to say on your "massive punishment", as the case speaks for itself. Here, I was weighing in with the opinion that you should have been re-blocked, since the AC people that commented on the proposed case indicated that the block itself was proper, since you (once again), violated the Obama ArbCom restrictions. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't violated the Obama restrictions, which were misguided in the first place. Stalkers and harassers continue to use noticeboards to go after those they disagree with and have sought to extend the bogus restrictions imposed by a dysfunctional Arbcom to an ever widening circle of articles. This ridiculous disruption has been caused and encouraged by you and other POV pushers and is very damaging to Misplaced Pages, just as your deleting of articles you don't like, incivility, and lack of content contributions are unhelpful. I'm not going to spend my time digging up more diffs. Plenty were presented in the original Arbcom proceeding per Wizardman's request and your inappropriate behavior is obvious to anyone who looks through your contribution history. Please refrain from engaging in false smears against me, stop violating our core policies, and cease damaging the encyclopedia with your disruptions and acts of censorship. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Connolley's continued trouble making

Why does this section keep getting removed or collapsed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Connolley's involvement in mailing list conspiracy

I see from his talk page that Connolley was in private communication with the Eastern European mailing list members. Will we have full disclosure of his involvement in this conspiracy on Wiki? Did it play a role in his desysop or was that based on other inappropriate behavior? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a very problematic side concerning your inquiry here. You have to make us understand why you are interested in knowing because as I understand it you seem to be asking just because you have some issues with WMC in relation to another dispute (see thread(s) above). Anyway, the answer to your first question is "wait and see". And the answer to your last question is obvious; WMC was desysopped before the EEML case was filed. -- FayssalF - 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most (all?) Arb hearings comprised of score settling? Why would my inquiries be problematic, but those of WMC and Tarc (or any of the other smear mongers and trouble makers) be appropriate? I'm missing the logic. Is there any? Seriously. Is there some logic?

And, as an aside, are the Arbs that knew about a fellow Arb's editing history going to step down for not disclosing what they knew at that editor's RfA, or at the RfArb, or after becoming aware of a fellow Arb with an undisclosed history?

Anyway, I'm in favor of reining in the whole circus as much as possible. I'm here to edit and improve the encyclopedia and dealing with all the drama mongering is a real drag. That Arb is encouraging it all is especially disturbing, so if you want to start quashing score settling and discourage the use of Arb proceedings (and other admin noticeboards) by abusive editors using them to win content disputes by blocking and banning adversaries, that would be fantastic.

I'm happy to edit and collaborate with anyone who abides by our policies, so having the focus returned to encyclopedia work would really be a huge improvement and a step in the right direction!. Woo hoo!!! I can't wait. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)