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)

Discussion of the Vintagekits-Kittybrewster motion

If there is going to be a motion on the main page, there needs to be a better place to discuss it than the fragmented format enforced on the main page). Thatcher 12:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved iridescent

I haven't been involved in this latest flare-up other than to post a comment on Talk:Arbuthnot Lake, but can't be considered "uninvolved" as I deleted a fair few Arbuthnots last time round. I think the current proposal being voted on (ban VK & KB from all knight and baronet articles) is unfair; looking at Kittybrewster's most-edited-pages list, seven of his top ten articles are on baronets or knights and a further two (Henry Raeburn and Heather Mills) would be affected by a broad interpretation of this (as they painted portraits of knights and married a knight, respectively). I'm no fan of KB, but a topic ban on baronets would effectively be a community ban from Wikipedia in his case since it would ban him from his area of interest, and most of his work there is non-problematic. Since all this seems to stem from disputes over page titles, how about "VK, BHG and KB are not to make any page moves" as a solution? If there are problems with the consistency of page titles, they can post proposals and get someone else to carry out the moves if there's a consensus to (as VK is already doing on his talkpage). – iridescent 11:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• iridescent, I appreciate that it will affect Kittybrewster significantly, however he does have many other topical interests, he will be able to appeal in due course, and SirFozzie has given the committee some guidance on that as well. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• KB reaction to the page moves is just symtopmatic of his reaction to articles with regards Baronet. KB is a Baronet is real life and has uncontrollable COI and NPOV and OWNership issue when it comes to articles about Baronets or his own family. At no time did KB attempt to resolve the issue - his only goal was to topic ban those who disagree with his position and therefore keep "his articles" just how he wants them. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• If it were true that I have a COI regarding baronets (for which no evidence has been put forward and which I refute and deny) then the last thing I should do is attempt to resolve the issue. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • [1] Xaeon (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • So what? Is my editing problematic? Should Vk not edit articles about untitled folk? Should I not have reporfted mass POV page moves to ANI? Should I have engaged with Vk? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• In Columbo style fashion I think i have just found the evidence that blows this case open and incriminates not only KB but also BHG. If you see this post in from March 2007 it shows that KB's agrees with the moves that I made - and BHG backs him up. So how come are they labelling my moves as disruptive even though they were exactly in line with what they propse here? Could it have possibly been just to cause some disruption and try and get me topic banned?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• My concern was that you were disruptively mass moving articles without seeking consensus or first opening a centralised discussion and without regard for disambig. You had previously been told not to do that. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• All the articles I moved had the "correct form" of the article title as either a redirect or a redlink. You agreed with that in the above discussion as did BHG. But now you are saying that you dont! That conversation in 2007 turns all this on it head and shows that you everything you and BHG have done was to cause disruption and an attempt to eliminate me from raising this issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please, Vintagekits, even at this late stage, could you not stop and read WP:NCNT. The correct form of article name depends on whether disambiguation is needed, and my consistent concern has been that you moved articles without making that assessment. You just blindly assume that no existing disambiguation page means no disambiguation needed and point blank refuse to acknowledge the existence of disambiguation problems cause by unchecked page moves.
  As you know, there has been a post of mine on your talk page for five days welcoming your list of articles to be checked ad suggesting how to do the checks. I have no idea how this issue can ever be resolved when you keep on repeating your big lie that I oppose any removal of titles or have tried to stop the issue being raised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am well aware of WP:NCNT. I agree that if disambiguation is need that the longer form can be needed. However, as you know that articles I moved either had redirects of the "correct form" or were red links. How many article titles did I change and how many did you disagree with.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Read my comment again: You just blindly assume that no existing disambiguation page means no disambiguation needed. That's the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've read it - stop being patronising and aggresive - you need to calm down. Like I said - I have undertaken checks - only you assume that I havent - the fact is I have, you consistantly ignore that. Again all article titles I moved the titles to were either redirects or redlinks! Now - do you fancy answering the question that you have ducked since day one?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Vintagekis, which part of no do you not understand? You continually refuse to discuss the examples which have already been given to you of the disruption caused by your page moves. Start with [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] ... and then we can move on to the rest. In the meantime, it's completely pointless for you to demand a complete analysis of everything when you won't even bother to address half-a-dozen specifics which have been already been laid out in front of you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I full accept that some of them may have to be changed at a later date to accomodate new articles - that is not sufficiant reason to have widespread and purposeful abuse of the MOS just to suit a desire for pomposity. As for "it's completely pointless for you to demand a complete analysis" - its called perspective something you really lack when it comes to this subject and is the reason you have landed yourself in all this.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• what has this got to do with iridescent's point? or are you just spreading your repeated argument across more pages? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I hold no judgments about any of that. Your statement at least appeared to deny that you were a baronet by denying that there was any evidence of COI without addressing the issue of being a baronet, which some may consider evidence of possible COI. I simply posted evidence that you may indeed be a baronet. Xaeon (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• That is not denied. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Would you say that creating an article about yourself and your father might raise COI issues?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would say it might. And it is history. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for the benefit of the tape, can I point out that, as I think even VK would agree, Kittybrewster has been quite open about who he is and didn't try to "slip an article on himself through", which seems to be the insinuation here. – iridescent 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

May I comment at the sideline, that I wonder how a so called "red" user with in total six edits (including two here) could find the way to this talkpage and how he could get involved into this dispute...

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dont be looking at me!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at noone - in fact I see only my reflection on my monitor. :-)

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious - as ever!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has to do the clown - and if it lightens the tension a little bit, I'm happy to be it.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I read through ani while bored at work. Xaeon (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

I have an alternative, perhaps a little bit exoctic suggestion to end this quickly, to prevent future disputes between the three involved users and to give both User:Kittybrewster and User:Vintagekits the possibility of a restart:

User:Kittybrewster and User:Vintagekits are both baned from articles related to baronets and the Arbuthnot family for one month. During this month they may create new accounts at a free selectable day and may edit with these accounts, except the baned topics. After the expiration of the bans both old accounts are suspended and both users may edit unconditionally, perhaps under ward of an admin or of probation.

User:BrownhairedGirl is prohibited from taking any administrative action against any other user for half a year and User:Vintagekits may start a RFC if he wishes so. User:Choess, as he has already offered, may take a review of the naming of articles about baronets.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Exotic.. ? The games with old and new accounts sound more like whimsical and outlandish. What would be the point of them? I know I'm a fine one to talk,[7] but we don't encourage socks, surely. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC).

Hm ... it's probably better, I do not comment your summary and the statement above, but explain only my thoughts: It is not a news that the atmosphere espially between User:Kittybrewster and User:Vintagekits is poisoned for some time and that every clash leads to another blaze of their conflicts (I believe User:Giano has used in this context the image with the bull and the red rag). Indifferently from the outcome of the current issue, I fear that sooner or later a new dispute would arise, probably in quite another topic (note that there were already baronets, the Arbuthnot family, The Troubles and boxing). I think however that new usernames/accounts could avoid this and could also render the proposed wide and long ranging bans unneccessary; if they would not longer recognize each other, they would also step not more on each other's toes, but could probably interact normally. Special circumstances can request special solutions, and looking at the various userpages of Wikipedia, it's obviously not so much uncommon to (let) change a username to remove/leave behind legacies. By the way the mentioned sockpuppets would only exist so long the old accounts were active. Finally let me say that this was a suggestion - nothing more - and that I now would not like to have further to deal with this whole affair. :-)

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion 2

• User:Kittybrewster is topic-banned from all articles relating to boxing or boxers;
• User:Vintagekits is topic-banned from all articles relating to baronets;
  • An exception to that rule is allowed for any baronet article previously created by Vintagekits;
• User:BrownHairedGirl is reminded not to use admin tools in the baronets area, and additionally should not use admin tools against Vintagekits for a period of one year;
• Any proposed move of an article on a baronet should be done through WP:RM;
• Any dispute relating to the above to be brought to WP:ANI or Arbcom (where Marquess of Queensberry rules should no doubt apply...). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion 3

• User:Kittybrewster is topic-banned from all articles relating to boxing or boxers;
• User:Vintagekits is topic-banned from all articles relating to baronets;
  • An exception to that rule is allowed for any baronet article previously created by Vintagekits;
• User:BrownHairedGirl is requested not to use admin tools against Vintagekits for a period of one year;
• Any proposed move of an article on a baronet should be done through WP:RM;
• Both Kb and vk will be monitored or adopted by a different volunteer for a year
• Any dispute relating to the above to be brought to WP:ANI. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Headers

Some time ago, I suggested a different lay-out of the headers. That was before I learned that the ArbCom pages would be relocated and reconstructed. Now that this is done, I would again like to make a suggestion. The current lay-out is this:

== Requests for arbitration ==

=== {case name} ===

==== Involved parties ====

==== Statement by {username} ====

The disadvantage of this is that the level 3 and 4 headers look similiar. What if we change it to this:

= Requests for arbitration =

== {case name} ==

=== Involved parties ===

=== Statement by {username} ===

That way, every case will begin with a level 2 header, and consequently a horizontal rule. It will make it easier to see where a case begins. Cheers, theFace 15:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Paul August ☎ 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sound good to me. We'll need to change the boilerplate used for new requests to have the new header levels as well. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented the change.^[1][2][3]
This change will, annoyingly, have the top header as level 1 headers—which I always think looks ugly. Then again, that price effects more usable header levels for the other sections, so it's worth suffering, I suppose. :-)
AGK 19:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you AGK, but why do you think those level 1 headers are ugly? I've also implemented the changes in Template:Arbreq,^[8] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Template,^[9] and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Template.^[10] Perhaps we could turn those last two into templates too? {{ArbClar}} and {{ArbAmend}}? Cheers, theFace 20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I'd forgotten about the templates; thanks, Face.

I don't know why I dislike level 1 headers, to be honest; I've just never been a fan of them—they always look quite unnatural and out-of-place. It's really not a worry, though. :)

AGK 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok :-). And what do you think of my suggested templates? I was thinking, maybe we should do it like this: {{ReqArb}}, {{ReqClar}}, and {{ReqAmend}}. Cheers, theFace 17:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Workshops - thank you and and a pet peeve

I'd like to thank everyone who comments on proposals on the workshop pages, especially the non-parties to cases who offer constructive analysis and comments when I post a draft. In every case where I've posted a draft on the workshop and then used it as the basis for a proposed decision, I've been able to improve the final decision based on the comments I've received. (That doesn't mean that workshopping a draft is essential in every single case, but I find it usually works well for me, unless there are reasons not to in a given instance.)

Just as a personal preference, I would prefer if editors commenting on the proposals would avoid prefacing their comments on the proposals with "Support" or "Oppose" designations. The workshop page is not a vote, nor even a !vote. It's a page for discussion and analysis. Labelling every comment "support" or "oppose" makes things seem much too binary; it also promotes an environment which turns the collegial discussion on the workshop, which in a perfect world would itself give parties an opportunity to talk through the problems that have led them to arbitration, into an environment of one side versus the other once again.

Just my two cents there, ... take it for what it's worth. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely agreed about those support and oppose things. I hate those on workshop pages for much the same reasons NYB says. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

NYB the clerks could simple remove the !voting as we already do with header linking. As long as the comment is left intact, the message (which is the thing that matters) remains intact. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

how do I comment on a case when the page is protected?:)/please could this be made a bit clearer on the page

The page has been protected to prevent people accidentally editing the page as a whole, however it isn't made clear what people are supposed to do instead, to get at an individual part of the page to comment. It doesn't seem to let you edit any part of the page, and I can't see links from this page to the succluded (sp) pages. Perhaps these could be placed more prominently? Sticky Parkin 22:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped the protection level back down to semi-protected until we have a more elegant solution in place. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 22:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

New shortcut

Following the rename of the page to Arbitration/Requests, I've created WP:A/R as a shortcut. Add or omit as you see fit.  Skomorokh  16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a 1-edit suspension of ScienceApologist's Wikipedia ban

ScienceApologist has completely rewritten the optics article off-wiki, likely raising it from C class to A class. The article is completely non-controversial and not related to SA's topic ban. Unfortunately, due to his complete ban from Wikipedia (in addition to the topic ban), he cannot make the edit to merge his fork back into Wikipedia. And because of the terms of the GFDL, it would be problematic for anyone besides SA to make the edit (due to the attribution requirements). I would like to make the unorthodoxed request that we Ignore All Rules in the interest of building the encyclopedia (which is, after all, our top priority). Specifically I would like to unblock SA for a single edit and then restore the block as soon as his version is pasted in. I would be willing to make the unblock and reblock myself. Seeing as that our policy is that anyone can remove edits by banned users without penalty, it would be up to the community whether or not to keep the edit. Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource has GFDL too. Why exactly would it be a problem copying the text from there to here, with reference to that article, under the GFDL terms? The text is not the work of a single editor. Gimmetrow 00:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One concern they might be considering is that SA has a lot of enemies, and someone could pull out the "editing for a banned editor" angle. That's what I suspected, at any rate. rootology (C)(T) 01:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I must predict that this rewrite, if allowed under the ban, will be opposed solely because it came from SA, not on its encyclopedic merit. Someone posted the rewrite prematurely a month or two ago and the anti-SA brigade threw a fit on Talk:Optics. Skinwalker (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:BAN: "...unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." It seems to me that anyone confident in that wikisource text could move it over within GFDL terms. Gimmetrow 01:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. ScienceApologist, however, is currently banned from the site; and that means that he is not supposed to be editing here at all, regardless of whether the particular edit you have in mind would be beneficial or not. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If users would edit and behave, they would not get blocked and banned in the first place and hence wouldn't have these problems. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that SA's article improvement drive has already led directly to one arbitration enforcement thread against him (in which proxy editing was alleged for an attempted port which was done without SA's consent and that I had promptly reverted), and it probably also contributed at least indirectly to a second AE thread against him. Durova^Charge! 04:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support the proposition. Wikipedia's betterment rates higher than revenge. SA would remain banned, so there is no problem there. This is a matter of common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment 1: This needs to be done in such a way, for example adding a link in the edit summary to a consensus agreement here, that will head off problems, and a new section on the talk page should be made with a statement from ArbCom or referring to this discussion. Let editors know that this is a one-edit special situation, and that SA's ban is still in place. Let them know that any attempts to delete the article will be considered disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment 2: I'm wondering if this model (consensus permission to make specific edits) might become the basis for a system of rehabilitation of basically good editors who have behavioral issues? We need to have such a system. We occasionally have a few editors who can make enormously good contributions to the project, but who let their feelings get away with them, and who thus become a liability to the project. They have great potential but for those defects. If they can go into "rehabilitation" and be rescued, that would be great. We could have a codified project overseen by trusted admins, but with community input to make the consensus, where such requests could be handled. Let's put the project first. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab - project started

• Support. From what I have read following the discussions from afar, editors for the most part feel this would be a benefit to the project. I say let it be ported in and if editors attack only because of who initiated the rewrite then they should be dealt with separtately. I think the project should come first. SA would still be banned until his time is up. Let's do it for the project. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support the lifting of the ban for this edit, and then on that page permanently. This shows amazing good faith and dedication to the project by SA. Verbal chat 14:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban on that page only, per Verbal. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)