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)

MOS review per WP:ARBDATE?

One of the enforcement provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking was that after three months passed from the case's closure, the Committee would review the manual of style for stability (remedy). Is this still going to happen? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

try WT:AC/N--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, have done so (link). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page display bug

Resolved

The project page header overprints itself in Safari. In Firefox at least it doesn't overprint, but it still looks weird. I've debugged the problem but the page is protected. Please replace the {{ArbCom notice banner}} in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header with the following:

{| style="text-align: left; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid silver; padding: 1em; margin:auto; font-size: 10pt;"
| Please make your request in the appropriate section:
* '''[[#Requests for arbitration|Request a new arbitration case]]'''
* '''[[#Requests for clarification|Request clarification of an existing case]]'''
* '''[[#Requests for amendment|Request an amendment to an existing case]]'''
*: <small>This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed</small>
* '''[[#Requests for enforcement|Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case]]'''
* '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions|Arbitrator motions]]''' 
*: <small>Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a case</small>
|}

The new box displays as:

Please make your request in the appropriate section: Request a new arbitration case Request clarification of an existing case Request an amendment to an existing case This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case Arbitrator motions Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a case

The result is much more clear, the box repositions nicely as the browser window width is adjusted, and it looks the same in both Safari and Firefox. I could also do without the ArbComOpenTasks to the right of the TOC (above would be nicer), but a little scrolling won't kill me when I'm not in full screen mode. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done this, although it still looks a little inconsistent between Opera and IE (the only browsers I have handy here). Please direct any further requests of this nature to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks, as it's more heavily monitored and one of the clerks is likely to see it much sooner! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

Actually it doesn't display as above in Firefox, the text in the box is centred and the squares (they must have a proper name, they are created by the asterisks I presume), look very odd. Chrome looks pretty bad. It looks to me as though there is room for the 'Please make your request' stuff below the text with the info boxes to the right of those links, which would tidy up the page, but I'm not very good at markup. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have completed the fixes. The page should look good on all browsers. The root problem with the open case box being cut off on the right side of the screen was that the TOC now has entries such as "Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#ChildofMidnight_and_Wikidemon_restricted". The underscores don't allow the TOC entry to break to a new line, which forces the TOC to get so wide that it displaces anything to the right of it. Seeing that we have other wide TOC entries as well, and since the open case box is now pretty wide on its own, I decided it was better to make it look good for everybody and just put the TOC under the open cases. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for drawing up the code fix, Douggie. A/R is, at the best of times, horrific in terms of the quality of its code—as all such unwieldy pages are prone to be—so any improvements are appreciated. And yes, as Lankiveil notes, requests of this nature will be most quickly noticed if placed in the appropriate section of the clerk noticeboard. AGK 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuff

Issues should be addressed at WP:RFC/U, WP:AE, or WP:ARA, not here. MBisanz talk 22:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The undertow / Law / CoM This keeps coming up: that Law's otherwise inexplicable unblock of CoM is explicable once you know about interactions between The undertow and CoM. But for those of us not familiar with the prehistory, someone please say what those interactions were. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC) The other question is why CoM was never reblocked, as all of the committee that weighed in agreed with the original block, if not the length. Another skating-by with a wrist-slap, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Biased and bad enforcement? The real question is why Tarc wasn't blocked or banned after all his incivility, after repeatedly trying to censor by deletion numerous articles he disagreed with, and why he was allowed to edit war and violate 3RR in 24 hours with only a short block that an admin helped edit war to prevent it being recorded in the log? But I got some massive punishement for 4 edits over two days with talk page discussion inbetween. It is strange isn't it. Has Tarc ever written an article? I do new page patrol a lot, and I haven't seen any. But he must have some value because if all he did was cause disruption I'm sure one of our illustrious admisn would step in to stop him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC) /facepalm ChildofMidnight, as I have asked you numerous times, if there was a time or place where I was uncivil or caused disruption then please file a complaint in the proper venue (WP:WQA I assume), with the appropriate evidence so that I may respond to these charges properly. You do this...make vague accusations with zero proof...in just about every venue where we happen to cross paths, and I think the fact that you refuse to "put up or shut up" as the saying goes shines more of a curious light on your own behavior than it does on my own. Simply making a claim does not make it true; you have to support your position. Yes I edit-warred, and got a time-out, but really have nothing to say on your "massive punishment", as the case speaks for itself. Here, I was weighing in with the opinion that you should have been re-blocked, since the AC people that commented on the proposed case indicated that the block itself was proper, since you (once again), violated the Obama ArbCom restrictions. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I haven't violated the Obama restrictions, which were misguided in the first place. Stalkers and harassers continue to use noticeboards to go after those they disagree with and have sought to extend the bogus restrictions imposed by a dysfunctional Arbcom to an ever widening circle of articles. This ridiculous disruption has been caused and encouraged by you and other POV pushers and is very damaging to Wikipedia, just as your deleting of articles you don't like, incivility, and lack of content contributions are unhelpful. I'm not going to spend my time digging up more diffs. Plenty were presented in the original Arbcom proceeding per Wizardman's request and your inappropriate behavior is obvious to anyone who looks through your contribution history. Please refrain from engaging in false smears against me, stop violating our core policies, and cease damaging the encyclopedia with your disruptions and acts of censorship. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC) CoM, if you are so committed to improving and editing here, wouldn't it be beneficial just to drop this drama and move on? You are the only campaigning against how stupid all the drama is, yet you seem to keep dragging it on. I understand you're frustrated but c'mon man, you can just walk away. Grsz11 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Welcome back Grsz. I would like to walk away and have done so in the past, but the abuse of noticeboards to smear and go after editors has proved effective in the past and Arbcom has encouraged these behaviors to the detriment of the encyclopedia. So I think it's important to speak up and I feel obligated to defend myself, no matter how ridiculous the accusations (the suggestion I had a relationship with the editor known as The Undertow being a case in point). But I appreciate your good faith suggestions. Take care of yourself and I look forward to collaborating on article improvements with you soon! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Again, I will point out that the point of any "arbitration" is that both sides present their case to a 3rd party, which then renders a finding based on the evidence. CoM, they found against you, and you have been playing the aggrieved victim card ever since. A statement of "I haven't violated the Obama restrictions" is a lie on your part, as you have been warned several times since the arbcom decision for violating the terms of the case. I will gladly dig out diffs of the edits and diffs of the admins who warned you on your talk if you need. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I haven't violated any restrictions and I've agreed to cease editing articles about subjects other than Obama after the usual stalking and harassing POV pushers identified them as being Obama related when they didn't want me editing them. You can't provide a diff of any content change I've made to anything about Obama because there aren't any, your lies and attempts at deception not withstanding. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Will Connolley's continued trouble making Probably needs to be addressed. Is he not banned yet? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC) User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. But since you're here, please clearly state your connection with The undertow, or deny that any such connection exists William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC) What's it to you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for restoring this thread Connolley. I'm sure Tznakai meant well, but this is clearly an important issue that Arbcom should be addressing, as opposed to the silliness above. Would you like to comment on the activities of your cabal with Dabelstein and Schulz? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. The propriety of Law / The undertows unblock of you is relevant to the RFAr. It would be helpful if you could clarify the situation rather than evading it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Why does this section keep getting removed or collapsed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I have a suggestion for you: disengage from your pursuit of WMC. It is not acceptable. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC) My pursuit of WMC? Are you kidding? Read the section above this one and read Jehochman's talk page. These editors are trying to spread outright lies and smears. I've just asked Jehochman to cease and apologize, so hopefully he will correct his mistake. WMC has been after me for some time now and was the one who engaged in abusive team up block with his buddy Mathsci (which helped get him desysoped, thank goodness). I'm happy to walk away, but I'm most certainly going to defend myself. When these attacks and smears stop, I won't have to respond. If you remove their bad faith false accusations you're welcome to remove my responses. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Connolley's involvement in mailing list conspiracy I see from his talk page that Connolley was in private communication with the Eastern European mailing list members. Will we have full disclosure of his involvement in this conspiracy on Wiki? Did it play a role in his desysop or was that based on other inappropriate behavior? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC) There is a very problematic side concerning your inquiry here. You have to make us understand why you are interested in knowing because as I understand it you seem to be asking just because you have some issues with WMC in relation to another dispute (see thread(s) above). Anyway, the answer to your first question is "wait and see". And the answer to your last question is obvious; WMC was desysopped before the EEML case was filed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most (all?) Arb hearings comprised of score settling? Why would my inquiries be problematic, but those of WMC and Tarc (or any of the other smear mongers and trouble makers) be appropriate? I'm missing the logic. Is there any? Seriously. Is there some logic? And, as an aside, are the Arbs that knew about a fellow Arb's editing history going to step down for not disclosing what they knew at that editor's RfA, or at the RfArb, or after becoming aware of a fellow Arb with an undisclosed history? Anyway, I'm in favor of reining in the whole circus as much as possible. I'm here to edit and improve the encyclopedia and dealing with all the drama mongering is a real drag. That Arb is encouraging it all is especially disturbing, so if you want to start quashing score settling and discourage the use of Arb proceedings (and other admin noticeboards) by abusive editors using them to win content disputes by blocking and banning adversaries, that would be fantastic. I'm happy to edit and collaborate with anyone who abides by our policies, so having the focus returned to encyclopedia work would really be a huge improvement and a step in the right direction!. Woo hoo!!! I can't wait. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC) You've chosen a great place to make your inflammatory and bad-faith-laden comments. Congratulations. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I reject wholeheartedly your assertion that it's wrong to request a stop in the drama mongering and abuse of noticeboards. The attempts at score settling are very destructive. The lies and smears being posted about me should also be stopped with appropriate enforcement measures. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussion regarding the arbitration requests page. Is there an open request you'd like to post a meta-comment on? A comment about the page structure or operation? Other types of comments have other places where they belong, and they are unlikely to get the appropriate response here. Nathan ^T 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)