Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 19:48, 28 May 2008 (→The JzG section is messed up: tagging as resolved, per comments and recent developments (see resolved tag notes for full info/)). 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)

For the sake of sanity, subpages please

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 21#For the sake of sanity, subpages please

Per past discussion I am considering moving ahead and chipping away Requests for clarification to its own page.

Page name I thought was Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration clarification and default shortcut WP:RFAC

-- Cat 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This has already been tried, concluded as unsuccessful, and reverted. Please do not do it. Daniel (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you link me to this unsuccessful attempt? -- Cat 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and discussion: talk page noticeboard. Given the consensus of arbitrators and clerks on the issue is to not have it to a subpage, I believe it'd be wise not to revert back to a subpaged method against this consensus. Daniel (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it mildly arbitrators and clerks do not get to have any say more than us regular users. Misplaced Pages is an anti-elitist community. Where was this discussion? I'd like to read it. -- Cat 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions - these requests ended up being neglected when split to a separate page. Our of sight, out of mind I guess.... It was moved back following a request by Jpgordon here. WjBscribe 15:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Though on refection you mean something different I think - still having them on the main page, just transcluded from a subpage for each motion? WjBscribe 15:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We archive motions and clarifications to the talk page of the initial request to keep everything in one place. Subpages as proposed for each motion or clarification is not necessary, given (as White Cat knows) most motions aren't actually carried. Daniel (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that separate pages for motions would be useful for participants - who can more easily check the progress of pages they participate in. On the other hand, arbitrators would need to remember to watchlist new pages. In both cases, I would hope the people concerned would actually visit the page regularly to read any new comments (rather than relying too heavily on watchlisting). WjBscribe 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think arbitrators need to "watchlist". It isn't like arbitrators watch discussions live. They read the whole thing and possible changes when they have the time. Subpages would makeit easier for arbitrators to follow discussions. For example, if an arbitrator knows the timestamp of the last time he looked at a certain case, he can load the difference from that time to current and see all the changes. Right now it is very chaotic. -- Cat 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"arbitrators... do not get to have any say". It's actually quite the opposite. The requests for arbitration system is under the control of the Committee, for the sole purpose that all arbitration pages , their titles, and every aspect of the process therein, are under the control of the Committee. The arbcom requires control of those pages in order to "do its job", and hence controls whatever happens. It's a harsh reality, but the arbitrators (or, rather, the committee as a whole) do, ultimately, have much more of a say in the operations of the system. Anthøny 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not acceptable. If wikipedia is the 💕 it claims to be, I get a say on the matter as much as the next person. That is the actual harsh reality. If arbitrators aren't aware of that they do not fit to the position they are occupying.

I am tired of monitoring countless other cases when I am only interested in my own case. The main WP:RFAR is too large for me to effectively load it. You have any idea how long it takes to load the freaking page on a GPRS connection?

-- Cat 22:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, we have now crossed the boundary into rant, and I think this discussion needs to conclude. You're clearly irked (and that's definitely understandable), but precedent has shown threads from your part of this nature go nowhere. My two pence is, with respect, it's time for you to tail off this thread. Anthøny 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said AGK. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats it, I am definitely continuing this. How dare you call my post a rant?

Who granted such privilege to ArbCom? Did Jimbo do this while forming ArbCom?

-- Cat 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now arbitrators are giving a long discussion on weather or not to unban/unblock a user that stalked me for 3 years - which is fine. Believe it or not that aspect does not bother me one bit. If Arbcom chooses to unban/unblock him making sure I do not ever deal with more stalking/harassment it would be fine by me. What aggravates me is them ignoring me when I appeal. I am a person with nothing to loose at the moment so threats of any kind will not work on me. Just clarifying in advance.

I'd prefer to work collaboratively but if arbcom will not do that then there is something broken and needs a fix. No one should take arbcom seriously if they ask others to work collaboratively and yet arbitrators themselves make it a habit of avoiding collaboration and discussion.

-- Cat 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi guys. There's a current request for arbitration open for the above case regarding whether or not the Encyclopedia Dramatica article can link to the site. The page is currently protected because of edit warring over the link, and the thing that's stopping things moving forward is the fact that linking to ED is banned per the MONGO case. There's even talk now of simply ignoring the arbitration committee. Can I make a real plea to you guys to take the request for clarification to a vote on allowing linking in the article? Whatever the result, whether it ends in net support or not, it will give the whole issue some clarity - the edit warring isn't going to stop without this vote. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Slight correction - the article is no longer protected, but the link is still in limbo so my statement still stands. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's so hard about applying the WP:BADLINKS guideline. The community has developed a generic solution here; simply wrap nowiki tags around the html and be done with it. -- Kendrick7 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, per the restriction in the MONGO case, this is still effectively banned by ArbCom, so we need them to clarify this with a vote. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the decision was specifically amended to except the Encyclopedia Dramatica article and its contents from the decision. But if you want to be nitty, then, OK, it doesn't matter as we wouldn't be actually linking to it, merely providing the html link code, which isn't the same thing. -- Kendrick7 21:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What? This was clarified last November in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites. The community was encouraged to develop a policy. It has developed a guideline that is attached to WP:NPA. Follow the guideline. Risker (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That does not overule the MONGO case which still specifically bans linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Attack sites didn't in any way overule MONGO, and the arbitrators just a couple of months back declined to lift the restriction on linking to ED, so no, let's not follow the guideline in this case because we have a specific remedy currently overruling it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has no legitimate powers in content disputes or to make policy, so quit the tired Arguments From Authority and engage in rational debate over what's best to do. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do, they just choose not to enforce content decisions for the majority of the time, but they still can do if they choose. All we need is a simple vote from the arbs - I'm not arguing for or against, it just needs clarifying. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Which of the following are links:

(a)apples

{b}http://www.google.com/

(c)oranges

(d)http://www.google.com/

(e)all of the above

Hmmmm? -- Kendrick7 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

B and D could easily be classed as links in the respect of the MONGO decision. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

D is unquestionably a link, and C obviously is not a link; these are not under question. A is an internal link, and therefore is not relevant to this discussion. The problem revolves around B, which is the crux of the issue. The linking policy does not specifically address URLs which are the subject of the article, because (until this point) there have not been any notable sites which egregiously violate so many of the criteria. (ED rather spectacularly fails the reliability, violation of privacy, frequency, and intention criteria at Misplaced Pages:Linking to external harassment.) Unfortunately, on an article about ED, it is encyclopedically relevant to include the URL, but there is no requirement that it be hyperlinked. Option B seems to be the most satisfactory solution, if there is going to be an article on ED. There are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't have such an article, but that is another discussion for another place. Horologium (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The decision in the MONGO case reads, and I quote:

"Links to ED

1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Misplaced Pages as may material imported from it."

It does not say links must be removed, it says may be removed. The community has now developed a guideline, at the behest of the Arbitration Committee, to identify best practices in situations such as this. Two and a half years have passed, and during that time there have been several requests for clarification and arbcom cases all related directly or indirectly to the MONGO decision. The Arbitration Committee's ruling of long ago has been superseded by the guideline developed by the community. Risker (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This matter has already been ruled upon; note the amendment to the MONGO case passed on March 19:

The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes.

(emphasis mine). There is currently no special prohibition imposed by the Committee on any material to be placed within an article regarding ED. Kirill 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Prohibited from mediating

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek#Coolcat prohibited from mediating

To date I am the only person prohibited from mediating. In addition I am sure the enforcement of this remedy itself could be quite controversial. It would be rather amusing to get blocked for successfully mediating a dispute.

The abolishment of the remedy requires me to be officially appointed by the Mediation Committee. That has a snowball's chance in hell in happening as visible in this discussion. The arbitration committee almost completely ignored my past appeal. Although Arbitrators went out of their way to discuss the appeal by Jack Merridew who has stalked me for the past three years and engaged in abusive sockpupetry among other things, I believe it is very unlikely that the arbitration committee is considering my current appeal. Arbitrators have a tendency to ignore me and likewise I am not willing to listen to them (or anyone else) anymore. If you ignore me, don't be surprised if I ignore you in return.

So the only option left for me is to illustrate the point one way or another. I am just unsure the most effective way.

Do not get the wrong idea. I am not asking for advice. We are way past that. Consider this more of an FYI.

-- Cat 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't troll other people (what you call mediation) just because you don't like the punishment you richly deserved Cool Cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.189.135 (talk)

As comment by 75.164.189.135 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is evidence of it, I have been pursued non-stop, even now. Arbcom has been very very useless in actually helping me. -- Cat 21:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Now a good question is why would a Portland IP with only two edits notice my edit within two minutes of it and make the above remark? -- Cat 21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously though White Cat, how does this comment by a troll IP have anything to do with you being a mediator, which is what this threat was initially about? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This attitude is why I would like you to not get involved with every freaking thing I post. You are effectively replacing Davenbelle's role, you realize that? You always treat me as the criminal. You are not even willing to ask the most obvious question (or at least you remove it right away). -- Cat 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you going on about White Cat? I removed an IP that was attacking you! I've got interest in the thread above hence why I'm watching this place closely. Seriously, chill out. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't possible for me to chill out for a pico-second when I am being pursued non stop such as by that IP. The community is not being helpful at all so I have to deal with it on my own as I have for the past 3 years (since I registered). Rarely community discusses this and comes up with an agreement but it is often forgotten in a few days. -- Cat 21:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That IP edit is very relevant why I do not wish to be a mediator. Imagine me mediating a dispute. What do you think such dedicated stalker(s) would do? How do you expect me to deal with the most volatile disputes (disputes that require mediation). -- Cat 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

75.164.189.135 from DNS Stuff.com
Location: United States

Hmmm...

-- Cat 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.164.189.135 -- Cat 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Completely ignored"

White Cat above says this:

The arbitration committee almost completely ignored my past appeal. Although Arbitrators went out of their way to discuss the appeal by Jack Merridew who has stalked me for the past three years and engaged in abusive sockpupetry among other things, ...

Now, a reasonable person would interpret that as "so no arbitrators commented on your appeal and just let it fade away as stale?" I agree that, if this was the case, White Cat may have cause for complaint.

However, this is clearly not the case. In fact, four arbitrators did comment on the previous appeal he alluded to, so it was hardly "ignored". You can see for yourself at this section (scroll up for the entire request for amendment).

Daniel (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You have access to arbcom-l. Tell me how many people are talking over Jack Merridew's appeal? -- Cat 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have access to arbcom-l. I believe I have an email moderation exemption for emails I send to arbcom-l, but that does not give me access to the archives or anything like that. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A shame. I wager 10$ that it is more than four. It was let to fade away as no definitive conclusion was reached. And only four arbitrators bothered to comment. -- Cat 03:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN

Is an arb going to clarify anything regarding TTN's case? Hiding T 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently yes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is Kirill's proposals regarding User:Kww completely inappropriate? Kww was given no restrictions during the cases, and hasn't had so much as an RfC or an AN/I thread. I'm not even sure if ArbCom is allowed to make restrictions like this, outside of a case under the guise of clarification. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A related discussion at User talk:Ned Scott#TTN might be of some interest to some people here. Please feel free to comment, even if you disagree with my comments to Kirill (a sanity check, perhaps). I'm very troubled by the proposals being made here for the EC case. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only one, Ned. SirFozzie (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kww thing was a surprise to me. I probably don't have all the relevant pages watchlisted so I'm curious as to how the Kww thing happened. Anyone know? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kirill's statement is As far as Kww goes, you may feel that equating the editors that worked on Bulbasaur with penis spammers is acceptable, but I do not. Were it up to me, he'd be off the project for that little burst of odiousness alone. The least I can do is keep him away from the areas where he's likely to actually put such an ideology into practice. I suspect that my frequent advocacy in favor of TTN weighs in as well, as well as my opinion that the sanctions from E&C2 are being misapplied, and my vocalness in that regard.

As for the evil comment itself, I'm surprised that people skip over that word would. I would, but I won't, because I can't. I campaigned for a while to get "article is about a single television episode" added as a CSD category. Didn't work, so I don't go nominating episode articles for deletion. I obey process, even when I believe it to be wrong.

As for Bulbasaur, it and Dammit, Janet! are two of the worst articles on Misplaced Pages, and I won't apologise for thinking that way. At least when an article reads Fred discovers the secret of the ultra-gamma-neutron device, and brings the Emerald Space Station into danger you know you aren't reading a real encyclopedia article. When you read something with 40 or 50 footnotes, you assume you are reading the real deal. Very few readers take the time to actually check the footnotes out. In both cases, you would quickly find that the outside world references are nothing but passing mentions that do little or nothing to support the information presented. In Bulbasaur's case, they are nearly 100% self-published references, from official game guides and graphic novels. I've taken Dammit, Janet! to AFD, and filed an ANI report when Bulbasaur was unredirected while under protection. Have I edit warred? No. Have I vandalised the articles in question? No. Do I participate discussions that will hopefully someday change the rules so that both articles can be removed? Absolutely yes.

My contributions speak for themselves. I spend most of my day undoing vandalism (even to Bulbasaur, when it occurs). I keep an eye on articles about the Netherlands Antilles, because I like the articles about my home to be accurate. I keep unsourced and slanderous material out of pop culture articles. When I see articles like Lindsay Lohan's untitled, unannounced new album that I heard a great rumor about, I nominate it for deletion. I keep an eye out for edits by User:JoshGotti, User:Soccermeko, and User:Editor652, and report their latest socks when they occur. I rarely wander into television episodes, but I have been involved in the Scrubs mess. Don't think anyone would consider my contribution there to be disruptive, however.Kww (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The JzG section is messed up

I think someone tried to "helpfully" fix the chaos but I think it makes it less clear. Some of those comments should remain indented as responses or moved back to their author's section. As it stands now, we have editors with multiple sections. Would a clerk mind looking into this? --Dragon695 (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the helpful sort. I did move a few comments so that contributors would each have only one section, marking some as "response to" as is traditional on this page. Threaded comments within statements are normally discouraged. I also outdented several comments, as I couldn't see anything to suggest they were responses, I think they just indented too far. It happens sometimes, and has a bit of a domino effect. Anyhoo, I agree it's still pretty chaotic (and I missed an extra comment from Jim62sch), but I don't think it has to do with indenting/outdenting. It's simply length. Anyone and everyone with something to say about JzG is throwing in their 2 bits, and the whole requesting is slowly beginning to thread itself. It's entirely too much for a typical request, and it'd probably be best to split everything but the 'involved parties' (Viridae and JzG) to a subpage. That could be transcluded into a collapsible section, so folks could continue to speak and be seen without cluttering up the page further. But that's a major cleanup decision for a clerk. I'm not one, and I won't do anything more than what I consider the most obvious, most minor formatting/spelling sort of cleanup. Be assured, I'm only trying to help keep things tidy and to the standards normally present on this page, if I'm wrong or mistaken I encourage anyone to revert me. It's only formatting, I don't want to alter anyones content. --InkSplotch (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I will look into the matter, and tidy up where possible. Anthøny 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, insofar as is possible. Anthøny 12:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that clerking is not always an easy job. For the record, I wasn't doubting Ink's motives, I was thinking of doing a similar action but then I thought it might be better to let a clerk handle it. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging as resolved: the matter is largely moot, as the section is no longer present on requests for arbitration, per the recent case merger. Anthøny 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)