Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:25, 27 May 2011

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)

Article permission request

I'd like to write an article about Israeli medical high pressure bandages please. This article is not falling under my topic ban restrictions as they were specified here There are not going to be any single word about the conflict, and I mean this.user:Gatoclass requested I consult him about my new articles, if I have a doubt about the topic. I have zero doubts, but I did ask Gato, and he eventually agreed that I could write this article without violating my topic ban. I also asked my banning administrator , and he declined my request, but kindly allowed me to ask for a review of my proposal at AE, so here I am.

If I am to write the article, I will write it in my user space and present it for review before it is moved to main space. I will not touch the article and its discussion page after it is moved to the main space. I will not nominate it on DYK, and, if somebody else will I will not comment on the nomination.

IMO it is important for a topicbanned editors to be allowed to write such articles in their user spaces, the articles that are not violating their topic bans at all, but might be seen as borderline. Why it is important? It is important because it teaches an editor to behave in the topic he/she is banned for. It is a very harsh punishment not to be able to edit and/or to comment on your own articles, it is very difficult not to watch what's going on there, but it does teach to be patient and more tolerant to other users opinions.

May I please write this article? Thanks --Mbz1 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the fact that no one seems to have responded to this request (this is partly because you posted on the talkpage rather than on the actual requests page, but still, one of us should have noticed this before now). Have you received a response in another venue? If not, I'll follow up and make sure this is reviewed quickly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologize for. It was my fault nobody responded because I posted it in a wrong venue. It was reviewed, and I am really touched by your comment. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Case acceptance question

I have a question about procedure: according to arbitration policy, four net accept votes, or accept votes from an "absolute majority" of arbitrators, are required to open a case. What does "absolute majority" mean here (the linked article isn't clear):

Majority of all arbs, active and inactive? (currently 10 votes needed)

Majority of all active arbs? (currently 8 votes needed)

Majority of all active arbs that aren't recused on that particular case?

Something else?

Thanks, TotientDragooned (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Door number 3. (Majority of all active arbs that aren't recused on that particular case) — Coren  00:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:AC/PR#Calculation of votes. Kirill  00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that that wording could be clearer, though; in most voting contexts "absolute majority" does mean "50% of those qualified to participate", not "50% of the turnout". – iridescent 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking at "Arbitration Policy" and didn't think to check "Rules and Procedures." TotientDragooned (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify: to open a case, there must be 4 net accept votes, not an absolute majority. See Misplaced Pages:AC/PR#Opening_of_proceedings. Risker (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait... Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Requests specifically lists "absolute majority" as an alternative to 4 net accept votes. Has it been superceded? TotientDragooned (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as the link I provided was approved and posted just over a month ago. Risker (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-organisation of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee#Re-organisation of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, because this page seems (per #Article permission request) to receive very little attention. AGK 21:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering

Where does the existence of this notice in the "Results" section at WP:AE come from: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.? As far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong about this, there's nothing in the original ArbCom ruling which says that such a section must exist, or that it is somehow necessary to forcibly exclude non-admin editors, many of whom are more familiar with a particular topic area than the AE-admin-regulars, from the general discussion.

Admins ARE the only people who can enact bans/blocks and discretionary sanctions, but there is nothing here which says that non-admins cannot participate in the discussion of the proposed results. We are still a community of Misplaced Pages editors, even if some of us are admins and others aren't.

I could just as well make a notice which says that This section is to be edited only by right handed editors. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. and remove statements made by anyone I suspect of being a southpaw.

Why is that there? Honest question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Length of statements

Statements posted on requests for arbitration are supposed to be a maximum of 500 words long, with a certain non-specified extra allowance per the judgment of the clerks, where needed. However... FT2's statement in the Mindbunny request is 2,000 words. Is this ridiculous length a special dispensation for former arbs? Or is it a tacit acknowledgement that FT2 is unable to restrain himself, length-wise, and must therefore be indulged? Or have the clerks decided to drive us all mad? Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 17:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC).