Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

cs interwiki 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Wikipedia (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)

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 [[ru:Википедия:Арбитражный комитет]] 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)

Request for clarification: {Link to case or username}

Initiated by MiszaBot II (talk) at 06:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• username1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitrator views and discussion

---

---

would someone please wrap the thing with the div-structure, as above to prevent page widening in modern browsers? Do this elsewhere, too, as needed, 'k? Thanks; I'd just fix it myself, but for my feckin' yellow ticket-of-leave. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work with the {{editnotice}} template. If you can know how to fix this, please reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just tightened-up the above to omit the div wrapper and just style the pre-element; it works for this local text. It might be worth considering a site wide (or WMF-wide) change to the styling of pre-elements to prevent this page widening issue. This only seems to be an issue on some browsers; a few (inappropriately) don't do the 'correct' default; i.e. widen the page per whatever you've got between pre-tags. In general pre is for pre-formatted text that should not have particularly long lines in it (that would amount to being unformulated;). I've not looked at {{editnotice}}; I was referring to other hard-coded wide-text editnotices that are out there in various places... Anyway, I'll marinate on the whole issue (assuming, of course, that I continue to participate in these projects;).

Your edit does not appear to be working (for me, at least), and should be undone until such time as this is all better understood. I'm re-enabling the {{editprotected}} to get this undone, or looked at. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted it for now. Enjoy marinading. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative, consider what happens at WP:AN3 when you click the link to start a new report. This avoids the preformatting issue, since it opens an edit window with the suggested text already filled in. (The above scheme offers you the preformatted text and suggests that you cut and paste it). EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be much better. The difference is that new requests will go on the bottom of the page instead of the top. Is there any reason why arbitration requests should be this way round? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Searching Arbitration Requests for amendment

I can search the archives of this talk page using the handy field at the top. I'd like to search the actual "Arbitration Requests for amendment". Can somebody implement a similar function please? Lightmouse (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Publishing from the EEML archive

I wonder, has the ArbCom changed its position on publishing extracts of emails from the EEML archive on-wiki? It would be very useful to do this. Most of the serving arbs have never read through this archive (and according to Shell don't have access) though they are still expected to rule on the case. I suggest that the benefits of free quotation (user discretion trusted on personal details) out way the loses in privacy (very easy to find off wiki anyway). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, who cares about privacy here? Witchhunts are fun, that's all that matters; privacy of the few should never outweigh enjoyment of the masses in an online context! Make sure to stop at your friendly Encyclopedia Dramatica for more fun stuff, such as photos, real life addresses and assassination calls towards the evil EEMLers. And selected excerpts can be found there too, courtesy of the good-faithed paragons of virtues that contribute to that site. Don't let any moral scruples stop you, nor any consideration of illegality of reading anothers' emails. Moar dramu!

More seriously, I hope that the ArbCom can clarify to others that discussion of the emails (references, summary attempts, quoting) beyond the case (which ended over a year ago) serves little purpose other than continued harassment/wikistalking/hounding or some morbid voyeurism - and let's not go into the fact that possession of the archive is not really legal...

Even more seriously, can this entire thread be oversighted per WP:OUTING? A call for others to go, find, read and discuss private correspondence is hardly appropriate, to say the least. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure there's much connection between the kind of thing you're trying to raise concerns about here and the kind of thing we need to be allowed to quote on-wiki; of course the legality matter is another issue. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Deacon, I suggest you drop your desire to re-litigate EEML. You do not have my permission to copy, save, or quote my personal correspondence in any manner. It has been interpreted in bad faith once already (my contention I only periodically read my personal mail at the time—whereas I checked my WP watch list and other activity daily—was called a lie in so many words and I was found guilty of all possible responses to "canvassing" based on circumstantial timing), and that is enough. I have moved on, I suggest you do too. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that oversight is necessary or appropriate for this (no posted violating material), but...

Deacon, as an admin who followed the case but has never been involved in EE issues, you appear to have crossed the line into abusive behavior in the last day or two on the motion and related talk page comments. This is unseemly and inappropriate. What was in the EEML archive was already handled. People here were not permanently banned. Other sanctions are about to run out in any case. You've launched into borderline personal attacks on a sitting arbitration committee member.

Please consider this a first warning to reduce your intensity of involvement. You have an opinion on the motion and are free to argue and present evidence, but you can do so without harassing anyone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're taking us off-topic GWH. As a knowledgeable contributor, I've offered important criticism I think, but I don't accept your allegations of 'personal attacks'. You may like to think about whether you yourself are engaging in such an attacks by repeating allegations of 'bad blood'; not saying such allegations are unacceptable, but it's not a good platform for offering such advice, because it looks hypocritical. Back to topic now? All the best Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

George, thank you for your input. I'd just like to point out that Deacon is not "an admin who followed the case but has never been involved in EE issues". He is an admin who has been involved in a disputes over an EE article (for example, see talk of [1] and the article's history for a revert war), filled an arbitration case over it ([2]), used his admin powers with regards to EE editors (old stuff, this year), and in December last year commented extensively in the unvinvolved admin section on AE in a series of reports involving me other EE editors, refusing to acknowledge he was involved ([3], [4], see the diffs I cite in the addendum to the amendment request here for more). All I am asking is for him to leave me alone (and I have done this for years) but it seems he will not disengage from pursuing some ancient agenda/grudge. PS. I hope you understand why the thought that Deacon has access to hundreds of my personal emails makes me uneasy; and I find his desire to be allow to freely quote them quite disturbing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Deacon: You are personally involved in (my perception) this vendetta. Step away. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I got involved in this because I saw the exchange on Shell's talk page, but I reviewed and formed my completely own opinion on the recent behavior. I am not repeating anyone else's allegations' Deacon. I am making my own. In my uninvolved administrator judgement, you are now editing disruptively and harrassing people. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what's your opinion of my comments got to do with the topic of this thread? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is - clearly and concisely - your bringing this up here and in this manner is abusive and disruptive, and you need to stop. This is only the latest of several threads that have become a disruptive incident, related to the motion. It's entirely on-topic, or sufficiently closely related that you really ought to be listening carefully by now, that the topic is inherently disruptive and that you need to back off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Deacon, although the jury appears to still be out on whether there is a legal expectation of privacy with regards to emails, Wikipedia's current policy, whether written down somewhere or not, is apparently not to publish emails on-wiki unless they have been published in a reliable, verifiable secondary source first. Where is en.Wikipedia's policy on posting emails, anyway? Does anyone have a link? Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have one, which I believe is an oversight. We should draft one, preferably with input from legal experts. For now, please see this. Some (selective) quotes: "he Arbitration Committee generally does not encourage forwarding of private communications to it without, at a minimum, the consent of either the sender or the recipient"; "Where private communications may need to be considered as evidence in an arbitration matter, appropriate steps must be taken by every person connected with the case to ensure that dissemination of the communications and especially of material whose publication could cause harm, such as personal identifying information, is as limited as possible". Perhaps there are other relevant policies scattered elsewhere; again, WP:OUTING comes to mind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia:OUTING#Private correspondence. Several arbcom findings(plus echos without significant change) but not official written policy in policy or guideline format. The findings were in part in the EEML case, and thus directly relevant. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone probably does need to start a draft policy on publication of emails on Wikipedia. WP:OUTING appears to cover emails that reveal too much personal information, but that policy may not cover emails that don't reveal anything more personal than the editor has already revealed on-wiki. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There's also WP:COPYVIO - emails are copyrighted by the sender, and without their permission they can't be published on-wiki. That's an additional rationale used to remove them, in addition to privacy violations (both in email addresses and in contents). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, emails do appear to be copyrighted. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks Cla68. I'm vaguely aware there are some fuzzy issues. Really what I'm asking is to the ArbCom, whether they will now consider permitting it; it is they who can punish/refrain from punishing should such evidence be quoted, and hence it is their decision no matter what our arguments are. I imagine, esp. given the US base of Wikipedia and the strong US element that the whole WikiLeaks affair may be of some relevance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you deserved a rationale explanation as to why the emails couldn't be posted. It appears that OUTING, COPYVIO, and several ArbCom rulings combine to prohibit it. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, the argument that "information wants to be free". Say, Deacon, have you ever considered publishing the contents of your own inbox? If you want so desperately to see what others have written, and discuss it, perhaps you should start by making your own private emails public, freely licensed and such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think everyone is aware that everyone who has a copy of the archive, whoever that is, could go post a copy on a blog or personal website or what not five minutes from now. We're not naive.

The point is - as with any Wikipedia policy - we can't enforce secrecy in the wider world. We can set up policy which states that those who violate privacy, related to Wikipedia behavior and contributions, are accountable here to the community and those users here whose privacy they violate. We can and will take local administrative response should someone do so.

I.e., if you feel that this archive is more important than your Wikipedia career, go post away. But don't be surprised if there's an indefinite block resulting.

If you don't respect the community's policies and core values, you aren't welcome here. Privacy *is* one of our core values, and something that the Foundation and Community (Arbcom, admins, individual editors) take very seriously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• The answer is no, Deacon. New members of the Committee are free to ask any of us who have access to copies to provide them to them if they feel they are necessary in making a decision. They are littered with private and personal non-public information and thus qualify for suppression if they are uploaded in their entirety, and expurgated versions are not trustworthy. To Piotrus, there have been several attempts at writing policies/guidelines in this respect; however, there has never been a point at which a happy medium could be found. The closest is the recommendation that private information (including private communications, where applicable) be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee via email rather than published onwiki. Risker (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What about the quotations of passages containing no personal info? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be an "expurgated version". Quotes such as that are inherently unreliable, because they do not give the context of the entire discussion thread. Risker (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that that "anonymous Wikipedian" (uninvolved, unsanctioned, and only concerned about the general public good, just like Deacon) who sent these pictures of Shell to Deacon, will be more than happy to provide other people's private emails to any new arbs upon request, or to anyone whatsoever for that matter. Whatever the merits, this is quickly becoming Outing and Harassment Part II. I thought at least this aspect of the whole thing was over and done with. Volunteer Marek  05:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a little unfair, Volunteer Marek - the image involved has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (it is one of several photos of people attending Wikipedia-10 anniversary celebrations), and both Piotrus and Shell Kinney link to their RL names. That doesn't excuse the implication of Deacon's statements, that the two of them were "friends" rather than fellow Wikimedians attending a public, Wikimedia-focused event, but it's not outing. Risker (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right in so far as that image is concerned. The comment was more about the way that it found its way to the Arb page (via an "anonymous" - and I'm sure a "concerned" - "Wikipedian") and the thrust of this request right here. No, true "outing" has not happened here. Volunteer Marek  05:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to quibble, but at the time Deacon disclosed who was in the photo, there were no names listed since the photographer didn't want to identify anyone who didn't wish to be known. Whether that kind of thing is outing, I don't know, but it's certainly not a particularly pleasant way to find out the photographs were posted. I don't particularly mind as it was obviously my intention to put my name on the picture, but Deacon couldn't have known that at the time. Shell ^babelfish 05:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Riske, so it's because the random view couldn't verify its accuracy rather than because arbs couldn't? BTW, I actually didn't know what the photo signified when I asked Shell about it, and wasn't intending to imply anything (but it was important to ask about). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Important how? And could you clarify who that concerned, anonymous Wikipedian was? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, Deacon - are you confirming that you received the link to that specific photo via email from someone who identified the two individuals portrayed, without knowing context or veracity of the information you received, and you posted it onwiki? I had been of the impression that you'd somehow found it in the appropriate Wikimedia Commons category. This was remarkably poor judgment on your part, and an action that you'd likely have found unacceptable under other circumstances. In response to your post on my talk page, I think your desire to achieve a certain outcome is leading you to behave in ways that you yourself would find inappropriate in parallel circumstances. Indeed, several of your peers have already pointed this out to you, and I encourage you to take on board what they are saying. Risker (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) @Deacon—no quoting, period. EEML is done. Period. Please disengage and apply your "expertise" in the EE topic area to constructive efforts.

I regret to have to point out that as it was only the "likely" scenario that the "leak" was "legitimate"—no EEML member has ever indicated they were the source of private correspondence—possession of (I contend) absconded personal correspondence is questionable at best. I would add that per evidence I provided at the time (ignored), the mailing list failed precisely at the point at which the last message appears in the alleged archive. Please also note I am calling it "alleged" for Wikipedia's protection, not mine. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)