Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:56, 24 June 2008 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 22, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 21.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Homeopathy /Evidence

Would some arbitrator/clerk/etc. be willing to make a scrubbed version of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence? Given the significance of some proposed decisions, it seems a little odd to have so much of the case carried out in secret. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

apologies for failing in the template stuff

I've just filed a request - but have singularly failed to correctly fill in the templates, and copy them to the correct places etc. - sincere apologies for any hassle this causes - I just found it very challenging technically to work out which bits to cut, paste, copy, etc. etc. - any assistance from the wonderful clerks (or anyone else!) is hugely appreciated! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I labeled it a request to amend, but it might be more accurate to call it an appeal? If someone knows better, please correct me. --InkSplotch (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No current requests?

Has this happened before? Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of times earlier in the year. Dunno before that. The fact that there are five open clarifications spoils it a tad :) Daniel (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope of Arbitration powers to create policy. (Moved from project page)

Moved this material here, from the main page. Altho I do agree with Celarnor's points, it's best to keep outside discussion here, and focus on getting clarification and response from the arbitration committee on the project page. --Barberio (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say they are limited not to? Until(1 == 2) 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly hope that would be implied. INDEF doesn't say I can't indef-block a user based on his choice of operating systems; does that mean its a good idea, or that I'm explicitly allowed to? I think not. Going through the arbitration policy, I don't see anything to suggest that they have the power to do things of this nature. Celarnor 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

During deliberations, the Committee will construct a consensus opinion made out of Principles (general statements about policy), Findings of Fact (findings specific to the case), Remedies (binding Decrees on what should be done), and Enforcements (conditional Decrees on what can further be done if the terms are met).

Examples are given of both remedies and enforcements. Neither create the impression that they can craft new policy binding to the entire userbase and project. They create they impression that they can do exactly what they're meant to do; deal with dispute resolution that no one else has been able to deal with, develop a remedy binding to a subset of users involved in the dispute, and appropriate enforcement against those users. Nowhere does it hint at the ability to create policy by fiat or weaken the power of consensus in the community. Celarnor 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Although a lot of the principles are similar to common arbitration, their rulings are not limited to parties to a dispute - the binding nature extends to all users on this encyclopedia. This will not change until the Committee is dissolved - realistically, this is not going to happen until the encyclopedia no longer exists. By now, it should be clear and obvious: a lot of the norms and generally accepted principles are unwritten. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Unwritten rules are a very bad thing in a society that has over a thousand members. It leads to self appointed bureaucrats running the show. Allowing it to raise to this level has been very bad for Misplaced Pages, generated many kilobytes of drama, pushing out productive editors, and giving Misplaced Pages a very bad name as packed to the gills with officious empire builders and petty bureaucrats.

And what's sad I think, is that if you try and get these 'unwritten rules' clarified, or try to put in place clear boundaries and acountability, you get shouted down for trying to 'introduce more bureacracy' when you're trying to reduce the hidden bureacracy, and called a 'wikilawyer' if you dare ask for clarity and thought to how new policies might be abused.

And then there's the Coup De Grace, of being told that it's all okay, because 'Policy is Normative, not Prescriptive'. After questioning a new policy introduced by fiat and without any community consultation at all! That is near the definition of Prescriptive Policy!

Perhaps I should send the Arbitration comity a Dictionary?--Barberio (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're reading into things that don't exist. Unwritten rules exist because reasonable people find it somewhat obvious or common-sense - moreso than the codified rules. Asking for clarification is not going to be frowned upon, but demanding codification, specific boundaries, accountability etc. is not always possible, if at all - it's often unique to each case's circumstances, and codified rules always find themselves not having enough 'exception' provisions or clauses anyway.

In essence, all rules (no matter what form - be it laws or policies or the like) are merely a means of resolving disputes - they are not fool proof, and there is a long history/tradition of both humans and non-humans having trouble following them, even where codified.

No new policy has been introduced as far as I am aware by the Committee. Of course, extra requirements and the like are sometimes imposed on existing policy for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it is to avoid the need for future cases in relation to certain matters that are more novel and can be more easily resolved if delegated to certain groups of users, or the community in general - in "Arbitrators' view and discussion", Kirill has further elaborated this to more specific examples. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Archived request

Can I ask why this trequest was archived before any decision was taken by the arbitrators?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)