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 involvement

On the behalf of all the participants in the date delinking arbitration, I would like to request that the ArbCom spend a little time on our case. I am well aware that there are several open cases at present, and that the arbitrators have a lot on their plates; however, we have now been locked in this arbitration for weeks with virtually no arbitrator presence beside a very few comments added some time ago by Cool Hand Luke. We are starting to get cabin fever.

Thank you. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some work going on in the background with regards to this case. I'm recused, so I can't get too involved, but I will bring your comment to the attention of the other arbitrators, and suggest some involvement at the workshop page. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As an update, Newyorkbrad said to me that the arbs would reach a decision in a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposed decision is on the way; voting can be quick or slow depending on how obvious the arbitrators find the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an estimate of when the proposed decision would be posted on the corresponding page? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Any news, folks? Almost a month has passed since the above, with hardly any arbitrator input into the case at all. Thanks. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD for page used as evidence in an RfAr clarification request.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/JzG.

Summary of events: a page holding evidence supporting comments made in a Arbcom request for clarification, and linked from there, was sent to MfD, result was: "(...)Blank and keep for 30 days to allow the filing of a RfC. I will blank the page and it should be kept for 30 days to allow the filing of the necessary RfC. After 30 days (27 March 2009) the page should be deleted as any required material should have been placed in the RFAR(...)" --Enric Naval (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nomination by JzG: The context was apparently Abd being asked to provide evidence for a discussion at WP:RFAR. That discussion was brief, and my action in topic-banning Jed Rothwell was resoundingly endorsed (to the point that the arbitrators were in some doubt as to why I had even bothered bringing such an obvious action to their notice). The introductory sentence actually reads as if it was me on trial. False. It was a request for review of a topic-ban of a long-term tendentious editor, and it was endorsed by every arbitrator who commented. Abd seems to want to keep this laundry list of grudges, every one of which has been raised multiple times and in multiple venues, and has failed to gain any traction in any of these venues. Complaints have been closed in several venues, in one case citing WP:DEADHORSE. Eventually, when a user repeats the same assertions time after time and they are consistently rejected, it becomes time for them to stop making such assertions. Right now, Abd is doing the opposite. He's actively citing this userspace essay - from which he removed my comments, in violation of WP:OWN - and asserting once again as if they were fact, all the same rejected arguments. Endless repetition of repeatedly rejected complaints is not a valid use of Wikipedia user space. [1] Links: User:Abd/JzG, permanent link to RfAr before closure. --Abd (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC) You forgot to mention that the clarification request was closed some time ago as resoundingly endorsed, so the "need" for this, and the similar User:Abd/Notices, was over almost before the page was created. You also forgot to mention tjhat you have raised the same complaint here, at AN, at the spam blacklists and elsewhere, and in every single case your complaint has failed to gain any traction. At all. In fact, your user space is positively littered with memorials to your version of complaints which have failed to gain traction - see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Abd. You also forgot to mention that you removed my "argumentative" comments from your argumentative user page, in clear defiance of WP:OWN. Oh, and you also failed to mention that there is no ongoing problem, the RFAR clarification and the arbitration itself have attracted many more editors and neutrality is steadily being achieved. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I didn't forget to mention anything, JzG. Please stop being disruptive and beating dead horses. Everything you've said above was covered in the MfD. Your nomination was quoted above, which included the claims about the closed arbitration and traction failure. There is ongoing problem, unresolved, and editors were attracted by my request at AN/I, which was a desired outcome. If you would like to resolve this quickly, suggest a mediator. I asked you for this before, and you blew it off. Otherwise, expect a third party to show up on your Talk page. I'm doing it by the book, JzG, and you are confusing the failure of the first steps in WP:DR to resolve a problem with the problem being closed. You were involved with Cold fusion and you used your admin tools with respect to that article, editing pages while protected, blocking involved editors, and unilaterally blacklisting linked sites. The evidence file shows that conclusively with pure evidence and very little comment. You could resolve this quickly: acknowledge the use of tools while involved, and pledge not to do this again. That would remove the specific risk, I'd predict, to your admin bit. There would remain the history of your anti-fringe crusade with Cold fusion, and that would be covered by a voluntary topic ban; I'm undecided as to whether or not I would pursue that issue as long as there is no continued problem. The claim that "the clarification request was closed ... as resoundingly endorsed is clearly false, as any complete reading of the RfAr will show, plus this is discussed in the MfD. The RfAr was rejected, explicitly. Because this claim has been oft-repeated, now, by JzG, I'll ask an arbitrator for comment or consultation. --Abd (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC) My notice here was a neutral notice, except that, by including JzG's nomination, it could have been interpreted as canvassing for his position, had it not been me who posted it. It was noted in the MfD, as well as my comment on User:Abd/Notices. JzG's deletion request was rejected. Blanking the page is a solution that I'd have accepted with a simple request from a neutral editor or maybe even from JzG himself, and I acknowledged intent to blank when the MfD closed even if had closed with a simple Keep. If no mediation resolves the issue, the RfC will be filed, and the page will probably be unblanked at that time. As this was an evidence page prepared for use before RfAR, and actually used there, with resulting comment from others, there are grounds to unblank it immediately, overturning the MfD decision, but I'm not willing to pursue that myself beyond informing arbitrators. I don't engage in disruptive process, even when I think I'm right, and only pursue contentions involving wider notice ("disruptive") when I think an issue is truly important. --Abd (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Why is this being crossposted to yet another forum? seicer | talk | contribs 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the question, Seicer. There is no cross-posting here, to my knowledge. There was a notice of an MfD placed here, please see the first edit in this section. It was a notice of an MfD filed on an evidence page compiled, on request of another editor, for usage in an RfAr clarification request. I had made a comment there with assertions of admin action while involved, in the matter brought up for clarification, and thus very relevant. Another editor requested diffs to back it up, and so I compiled them. Editors who commented in the RfAr referred to The claims I made of admin involvement, or they assumed it was true. My comment specifically, directly or indirectly. There was no comment criticizing my claims or the evidence file linked. Because this MfD'd page was evidence (mostly just a pile of diffs and log entries) presented and used in an Arbitration Committee process, I believed that ArbComm should become aware of it. The notice I placed here was neutral, (or actually could be seen as canvassing for deletion, since I quoted the nomination and none of my own argument), and argument didn't come here until JzG gratuitously began debating here (after the MfD closed?). Clear? By the way, the MfD closed with what I'd have been quite willing to do simply by being asked. The page is courtesy blanked pending RfC, to be deleted in 30 days if no RfC is filed. I'm not sure that will satisfy the issues involved in deletion (or blanking) of ArbComm evidence, but it was fine with me, pending. --Abd (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Suggestion: close this discussion! There isn't any point to it continuing here, as far as I can see. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Page formatting

On the Requests for arbitration page, the box for the "current cases task list" is covering up the page index. Is this happening for others, and can it be fixed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too earlier today (using IE7 7.0.5730.11 WinXP SP2). Made this change - it still looks wacky but not overlapping anymore. Franamax (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Černová Tragedy problem

Hi, I want to notice you to Černová tragedy article, where one editor (User:Hobartimus) frequently erased (from 30kB to 6kB for example) article updates by other editor's, when he hasn't like a content of their posts. So I ask, what am I supposed to do? --Empiko (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not an arbitrator, I can tell you that ArbCom is the very last step in resolving problems. You should read through WP:Dispute resolution and follow the steps listed there. Franamax (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science 2?

It is not entirely unprecedented for an arbitration case to go into full review within a month of case closure. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education, which closed on 30 December 2006, went into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review on 29 January 2007.

The Fringe Science decision is not working. Since it closed on February 25, eight separate arbitration enforcement threads have opened.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] In addition, as the people who read RFAR are aware, a lengthy request for clarification is ongoing.[10]

As mentor to ScienceApologist, I have endeavored to regularize the situation. Unfortunately, as I feared would happen, the Committee's decision to enact a phantom position under the same name as an existing mentorship has further confused matters. To quote from a well-meaning Wikipedian who has been trying to improve (or even make sense of) the deteriorating situation:

The mentorship can be considered a means of avoiding banning SA entirely. Does SA have a mentor, voluntarily accepted (by the editor and the mentor)? If not, we should know.[11]

The full thread is here. Under these confusing circumstances the finite resource of constructive volunteer time is wasted, and my ability to improve matters is seriously hampered.

When I brought Prem Rawat 2 to RFAR, the situation was less chaotic than the fringe science aftermath currently is. Less than two weeks after closure, the dispute appears less stable than it was before the case opened. In the past few days SA and I have actually been making contingency plans speculating how to arrange permission for him to write a featured article by proxy in case he gets sitebanned.

It would certainly be unusual to request a new case this rapidly, but a new case may be needed. Floating the possibility here; welcoming feedback from arbitrators and from participants on both sides. Durova^Charge! 00:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom already handed the advocates of fringe theories and pseudoscience a resounding victory in the original case. For that reason I am wary of opening a second case which risks compounding the damage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Durova says: "The Fringe Science decision is not working.". I agree, but not because of any intrinsic problems with the decision. It's not working because ScienceApologist is flouting it (and, for the moment, getting away with it). He's a smart person and knows exactly what he would need to do to comply. He could easily have done what any conscientious person would do, and try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety: not even going close to fringe science topics; not making a game-y edit to Elonka; not harassing people whose content contributions he doesn't like with frivolous and POINT-y complaints. How difficult would that have been?

Instead, he decided to go ahead and do all these things (for which, specifically, he was sanctioned!), and even escalate them. Yet some editors continue to support him, no matter how egregious his behavior: otherwise sensible and constructive editors, who support him but (tellingly) don't do as he does. It's an extremely strange phenomenon, the way ScienceApologist seems to polarize the WP community. But one gathers that's at least partly intentional, and that he enjoys the attention. My suggestion: let's quit making excuses for his juvenile behavior, treat him as anyone else would be treated, and stop the ridiculous DisruptionApologetics. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• The situation was better with Durova mentoring. Once this decision passed, things went downhill. Either siteban SA if a sanction is neede, or place a suspended siteban to deter SA from further baiting. In either case, it is high time to sort the fringers who have been needling him for so long. They must reform or go. Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please look at remedies 5 and 6 in the list here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Remedies. If other editors are being disruptive and engaging in baiting, please do request a review of their actions. However, that will probably require a full review or new case, as I've reviewed the evidence presented in the Fringe Science case and it was mostly focused on ScienceApologist, MartinPhi and a few others, plus some generalised philosophical laments that were short on actual evidence of misbehaviour. If evidence is presented of others in this area acting disruptively or refusing attempts at mediation, I for one would accept a review or new case. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Another case? You folks had the opportunity to look at all the involved parties. Just do this: ban SA to remove his provocations from the arena, and then we'll be able to deal with all the tendentious fringers. In the alternative, remove the topic ban and let Durova do her work unhindered by fringer heckling and instigation. Listen to me; I have much experience dealing with trolls and fringers. Check the WP:ARB9/11 case to see who filed most of the complaints that resulted in topic bans there. Jehochman ^Talk 13:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but in this case (fringe science) you didn't file such complaints (check the evidence page). I don't follow fringe science articles closely, and I didn't have time to read all the previous cases in great detail (Homeopathy and Pseudoscience spring to mind, though there have undoubtedly been more). Unless someone points out who is doing the disruption, how are we suppose to act. I am actually aware of a few names that keep coming up, but unless someone does the legwork and lays out the evidence as to who is acting disruptively (don't assume all the arbs follow every dispute), nothing (much) will get done. Find the names, look up what remedies and sanctions may apply from previous cases, and then ask for stronger sanctions. Also, I don't get this: "ban SA to remove his provocations from the arena" - we have topic banned him. Are you asking for more than that? Carcharoth (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban is being gamed by parties on both sides. Please get rid of it--or make it much stronger. I make it my business not to assist people playing games. This situation prevents me from acting against disruptive editors on either side. If SA leaves the scene, we'll see exactly who is causing trouble, and it will be a simple matter to remedy. I don't need to present evidence at arbitration because I have plenty of policies and remedies at my disposal if only SA will just stop disrupting the venue. Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman's faith is flattering, but his characterization doesn't apply very well to this mentorship. It isn't a substitute for sanctions; it seeks to regularize the situation so that sanctions aren't needed. Although I wish very much that it were possible to guarantee that ScienceApologist would be a model Wikipedian if the topic ban were lifted, I can't make that promise for him. A big part of the goal here is to calm things down enough that people can hold regular editorial discussions about how to apply NPOV to specific fringe science articles. Right now I see very little of that happening, and most of the dialog is meta-discussion about whether this or that person should be sanctioned. The area looks more like a game of musical chairs where people are attempting to make sure that 'their' side gets to keep the seats. That isn't viable in the long run. Durova^Charge! 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with Durova. I'm working on that aspect. However, it's become clear to me that the topic ban should be absolute, and strictly enforced, by any admin taking responsibility (no admin is obligated to enforce ArbComm sanctions) because of provocation from the SA side in particular; however, self-reverted edits shouldn't be considered violations unless they are truly disruptive. So if SA really wants to make spelling corrections, fine. Let him revert them, it would then take seconds for anyone else to put them back in, taking responsibility for them or any other edit, for that matter. A topic ban must be very easy to enforce, it should not require judging the edits, that's the point of a topic ban, otherwise the sanction would say, "Editor is to avoid disruptive edits." If it is not easy, we will argue over it. Given what SA has declared, anything short of a total ban is going to be tested to the limit, it will be disruptive. --Abd (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)