Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:34, 14 June 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)

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)

Hi Volunteer Marek, the template was created in March 2009 by Sandstein, and there isn't anything in ArbCom's procedures which stipulates it must be used. There's a relevant discussion on the template talk page, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 27 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).

I assume you mean the BLP & FR request. I would do something about it, but (1) I'm not sure how subsequent replies affect to the world limit and (2) one of us is probably going to remove the case request as declined within the next day anyway. NW (Talk) 20:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is of course a quite ridiculous length, but I really wouldn't bother doing anything about it because no one on Misplaced Pages ever bothers to read beyond the first 150 words in any arbitration statement. As my beloved nephew always says: "pack the punches at the begining and grab em in." Mr FT2, I am sure, is a terribly nice man, but he is rather tedious and does need to learn to pack his punches a little more tightly or his comeback as going to fail. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see that there is a (partially collapsed) statement currently on the page that runs to about 3,000 words.   Will Beback  talk  09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• 3000 words is, of course, grossly excessive. I have dealt with that particular section. If anybody is interested, I briefly discussed the value of such a restrictive word count with User:Newyorkbrad on his talk page; I don't think the thread has been archived yet, and I am sure input would be welcome there. AGK 11:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem here. Long statements are generally not helpful, particularly if there are lots of cases for arbs to read, and particularly if a case has lots of long rants that amount to peanut throwing from the gallery. OTOH, we have fewer cases there days, and often the request statements and responses to such by parties and arbs are the means by which the dispute itself is resolved. If is effectively the parties having a last ditch attempt to discuss matters with the eyes of the community and the committee on them - the result of which is often that the case is solved, or another solution emerges which saves the committee the far greater timesink of an actual case. Thus a strictly enforced word limit, even if set higher, may be problematic. I suppose you could limit contributions from non-parties (but often these are more perceptive and objective than partisan screeds). Alternatively, you need to have clerks judge the merits of contributions over a certain length, which has its own problem. The solution, I suspect, is simply to warn people that longer contributions are less likely to be carefully read. The maxim tl;dr often applies. Although long posts by certain people are usually worth reading.--Scott Mac 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

1RR

(I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this - point me in the right direction if not) All articles in the Palestine-Israel conflict space are currently under a 1-revert per day restriction. There's an article - The Sergeants affair - that deals with events in 1947 (hanging of 2 British mandate soldiers by Irgun) which to me is obviously within the scope of the restriction. An editor has claimed that because Israel only declared independence in 1948, that article is not subject to the restriction (and by implication, neither do any articles that deal with events prior to May 1948). I think that can't be right, but perhaps I'm mistaken, so I think some clarification is needed. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually stated that it happened before Israel was founded and it was between the Jews and the British, it had nothing to do with any Arabs. Owain the 1st (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I privately referred the user to a more appropriate forum, which is Misplaced Pages:AE. AGK 11:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for recusal

I have posted a request here to Shell Kinney to recuse from the Political activism RfAr filed by Coren, including from any discussion on the ArbCom mailing list as to whether it should be accepted. Could a Committee member advise whether there is a procedure I ought to follow to request recusal? SlimVirgin 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)