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)

Archived request

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

I archived the case because it was stale - there had been no comments from arbitrators for 3 weeks, and it didn't look like there was going to be a real attempt to create an unban motion. Two arbitrators said no to an unbanning, two were vice versa - but given the lack of further comments, it was archived. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I would like to understand better how these things work. Who had the right to create an "unban motion"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the arbitrators that do that. Given that the request was open for a long time, with no comments for three weeks, I presume it's because no-one felt strongly enough that an unban was warrented, or perhaps they were just too busy to look at it. You could always request a new clarification and request an unban - maybe more arbitrators would comment on the side of unbanning and choose to take it to voting. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure I can? In the past I have been accused of forum shopping when I tried to re-ask a request which was archived before any formal conclusion was reached (actually there were admins who suggested I could have been punished for that).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeating the exact same request for the third time in what, a month, is pointless. It's clear the Arbs are not ready to unblock him at the current time. If they feel like they want to unblock him before some reasonable amount of time has passed (I suggest three months w/o socking, then unblock with restrictions), I'm sure they will let us know. - Merzbow (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If the arbs are not ready to unblock why didn't they reject the request?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The new case was rejected. The motion was rejected in the sense that the Arbs chose to take no action on it. This is what happens to many motions. You seem to think they are not aware of SoD's situation. They are, and have said they are discussing it. Badgering them for the nth time about the issue will do no good. Bring it up again in a couple months when the passage of time will have made a material difference, or let them come to a decision internally. - Merzbow (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to think anything about their awareness or interest about the case, even if a third person say he know what is happening behind the scene. The decision of the arbs are the result of their vote. If there is no vote there is no decision. Why didn't the arbs voted to reject if there was cosnensus on rejecting?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We generally don't do that -- there's no such thing as a vote to reject -- there's just the absence of, or the impossibility of, a vote to accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok but I still do not think it is appropriate to speak about "rejection" when a request recieved few comments without a clear consensus: rejection means "I disagree", not "I'm not going to express on this".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#New_arbitrator

I'd appreicate some comments in the above thread, regards - Ryan Postlethwaite 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Privatemusings_restricted, Privatemusings (talk · contribs) was restricted from editing any BLPs due to apparent past issues, but now in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Privatemusings he has stated that

'm now going to edit BLPs in what I consider an uncontroversial manner - removing unsourced material, adding pic.s etc. - I started doing this shortly after this application, actually, and am glad that it's all working out ok thus far. After a month from today, should all go well, I will post freely to BLP talk pages, and after a further month I will consider myself unrestricted. I hope this works out ok for all.

is an individual really able to overturn an arbcom restriction merely because they think they have changed their own behavior? I'll note that 3 arbitrators seem to agree with continuing the restriction, can someone clue me in as to what is going on here? MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him about editing BLP's. The remedy is still in effect and he can't lift the sanction himself. Hopefully that will be the end of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree... PM is a good guy, someone I greatly respect for his perseverance and his attempts to add value in a lot of novel ways, but even PM can't just ignore a ruling/sanction. If no admin chose to enforce the sanction, it would be unenforced, but Ryan has already said he's warned him. I would support a block over this, with some considerable regret. PM, don't do it. Appeal the sanction and ask that it be lifted early, instead. I think you'd get massive support for that. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware he was violating his restriction (hey, no one can watch every wiki edit ;-). No editor can overturn their own restriction. If he violates again, let one of us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

<- I'm a bit bummed at the way my request for the sanction to be lifted has worked out :-( - I get the impression (for example from Lar above) that some people who might have wanted to comment hadn't noticed it - although I was very grateful for the comments it did receive. I think it was pretty active up until today - maybe it could be restored, allowing the 3 arb.s who've commented to date to respond further, and the other arb.s to comment if they wish...? thoughts and advice most welcome. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ps. I certainly won't edit BLPs at all. Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd support not archiving it just yet, I suppose. However 3 arbs commented "not yet" to you, more or less. I can recall repeatedly pleading to get some sort of feedback on a matter where I was implementing a ruling that was rather novel/controversial/contentious, and was delighted to get even one arbitrator to comment. So 3 is rather a lot, really. They all said the same thing really. Keep doing what you're doing and the restriction should be lifted. Hopefully soon. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee

At the request of retiring Lawrence Cohen I have moved this page from his user space to Wikipedia namespace and brought it live. I have notified Jimbo Wales of this at his user talk page and invited him to make a statement. Likewise, I encourage the members of the Committee (past and present) who have not yet commented publicly to make a statement. Although it is probably impossible to arrange a comprehensive statement on short notice, a short provisional declaration signed by as many people are available tonight may provide a welcome stabilizing force. The community would like input from the people who know the background on today's developments. A baseline statement would help settle the present confusion. With respect, Durova^Charge! 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

0/0/0/0

What's the last figure? I think it goes accept/reject/recuse/what? DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

accept/reject/recue/comment - the latter is if an arbitrator doesn't make a decision on whether to accept the case, and simply wants to make a comment or ask a question. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for further input. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Disgrace

To see this within an hour after the case is submitted is a true disgrace. We have two very respected admins here (not without fault like all of us) and certainly stepping back and reflecting on this is useful. Instead, ArbCom members rush to accept the case and produce another drama-grande with no (at this point) sign that this can bring any useful solution for which the price of this drama is going to be paid. While at it, the much bigger drama which puts the very legitimacy of this arbcom caused by one Arbitrator and the sloppiness (in the very least) of the large part of the rest in allowing such thing to happen is still raging and ArbCom members who are under a very urgent moral obligation to clear this up are "too busy" to do that allowing this mess to protract. And instead, they rush to accept another Giano-related matter right when the steam is mostly gone. Call me naive but seeing everything I've seen here, I did not expect this. --Irpen 00:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)