Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pokipsy76 (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 23 June 2008 (→Archived request: new section). 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)

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)

Intelligent Design

It is important to understand that the Arbitration committee does not do a good job of handling large, sprawling unfocused cases. Remember that they know next to nothing about the dispute, while you have been involved in it for months. A request for comment against a group of editors is somewhat non-traditional, but where the usual goal is to persuade someone by force of argument to change their behavior, here the goal is to develop a focused presentation of alleged harms and desired outcomes. For example, if you have a diff of User:Smith telling another editor, "Your contributions are not welcome and will always be reverted, go away!" you don't want to dilute the impact by including ten diffs of Smith calling editors "poopyheads." Likewise you want to focus on good editors with proven track records on other topics being driven away, and not so much on SPAs who really aren't here to learn the system and follow the rules. I would suggest opening a RFC on group conduct. Build it collaboratively in user space for a few days. Organize it logically, "Biography problems", "Hostility toward other editors", etc. Present the best evidence, filtered and focused. Don't use the process for revenge, but aim toward improvement of the encyclopedia. Try to present some remedies and desired outcomes that flow logically and proportionally from the evidence. (Arbcom will not indef ban for calling another editor a "poopyhead" for example.) Then move it to project space and ask for comments, opposing views, and so forth. Be respectful of all opposing views, and mindful of conditional or partial endorsements. You may find that the community considers some of your allegations to be weightier than others, and editors to be more or less culpable, in which case refocus the case on issues the community considers most serious. And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating. Thatcher 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Thatcher. You might consider adding this comment in some form to the User Conduct RfC page. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

<gasp> Preparing evidence and logical thoughts before an arbitration case? Wonders will never cease. I think the arbcom (or other regular arbcom people) should be much more pro-active in this area and help the organisation and management of cases - much more so than arbcom clerks do. Of course, ultimately it is up to the parties and others to present the evidence, but a sprawling case wastes everyone's time. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Thatcher has held off posting this directly into the RFAR because to do so would make him ineligible to clerk any arbitration case that comes forward from it. (Feel free to correct me on that if I am wrong, Thatcher.) There are sufficient commenters suggesting an RfC that someone should be willing and able to start up the format, and others can add diffs and so on as things go along. Risker (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, this is content-neutral advice on filing an effective case. To Cla68, I think it would be a bad idea to structure all RFCs this way. Certainly RFCs would benefit from being focused, neither rambling on nor dealing excessively with trivial matters, but I look at the typical RFC as a means to show someone that their conduct is unacceptable in some definable manner but that it is amenable to change and improvement. The prosecutorial model doesn't really apply. Certain of the more complex arbitration case, such as perhaps ID, would benefit from something like a district attorney or crown prosecutor, who in the real world a/ exercises discretion that some complaints are not worth prosecuting, and b/ collates and organizes the evidence to present the most effective case. On Misplaced Pages that could perhaps be done collaboratively. To Carcharoth, I think the history of the clerks' office will show occasional rumblings in the direction of offering direct assistance to parties, but it has always been controversial, and some people think I have already gone too far, apparently. Thatcher 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's good advice, Thatcher. People coming to this page should think of it as the where's the beef stage of arbitration. Of course the Committee will look into a dispute before making a decision about whether to accept a case, but our capacity to do so is finite, and it's largely up to the parties who want arbitration to sketch out the boundaries of the dispute for us. Show us the meat of the dispute.

In this request, instead of movements towards a request for comment, or movements towards being sufficiently specific in the request for arbitration, we've seen little meat but an abundance of big, fluffy statements (33 and counting, with another dozen replies to comments) and only today have there been any diffs added. --bainer (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what now?

H₂O RFA is over now, with so many dram, backlashes and s*** throwing that I feel ashamed only by reading it. So, the arbs that said they were going to hold this until the RFA was over. What do you say now? Samuel Sol (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (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)