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)

Time guesstimate and advice

For my edification: Two of the three cases at requests for clarification have been there for weeks. Is that typical? Maurreen (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless arbitrators see a need to propose a motion, clarification and amendment requests tend to only get commented on, and then archived after they go stale. Most of the time, sufficient clarification should be provided by arbitrator comments. If the committee is sending mixed signals, I would (per Birgitte) suggest asking simpler questions. Find precise examples and (after discussing with the people whose actions you object to, to see if you can resolve it with them first) request clarification on precise matters. Generalised requests for clarifications will get generalised answers. Precise requests may get more precise answers. One more thing: it is perfectly OK for anyone to suggest wording for a motion. If enough arbitrators agree with the wording and think a motion is needed, it may be adopted. But it is a very awkward way of proceeding. Sometimes it is better to return to discussing on project talk pages, where things are more flexible and often proceed quicker. Carcharoth (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, thanks very much. I think your comments here are the most helpful thing yet. Maurreen (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

IE.:ArbCom is generally useless, we know it's that way, and it's intended to be that way. Pick a fight until there's a specific problem to bring before them, even if you have to become a scapegoat to get something addressed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Or rather, try and sort things out like rational and sensible editors before it gets to arbitration. Once it gets to arbitration, all bets are off and sanctions (sometimes quite harsh) are possible. In theory, that should be an incentive for people to sort things out before a dispute escalates or prolongs to the extent that arbitration is needed, but in practice some people just keep butting heads until they end up here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, rather then simply leaving my snarky comment above just hanging there, or directly replying here with any sort of ineffectual... whatever, I added a comment to the Trusilver case which takes on the issue in a more straightforward manner (not that a comment like that will be effective, but still).

More generally speaking, I wanted to state that my comment above comes primarily from a personal impression that a sizable portion of the community "out there" really does share the underlying feeling that I was expressing. I don't directly comment on much admin stuff, but like many others I do watch most of the boards, so I don't think that I'm off base. I try to avoid falling into the "rabbit hole" that places like this and AN/I can become so that I can stick to editing as much as possible, but I think that it's still important to try to follow what's occurring. I worry that recently the committee, along with a vocal bunch of administrators along with some editors, is loosing touch with the wider community. I hope that doesn't come across as hyperbole, since it's not intended to be.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The truth is more along these lines. Arbcom is useful for dealing with a certain kind of problematic user that no other process can handle. Arbcom is useful for dealing with appeals of decisions that someone is not willing to accept as the final word. Arbcom is marginally useful at dealing problems that are impossible to fully evaluate out in the open. Arbcom is useless at dealing with a large number of other sorts of problems that are partly out of it's remit even though people continually bring such problems here.--BirgitteSB 15:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that "even though people continually bring such problems here" is true act to inform us, though? Not that we should unthinkingly widen the committee's remit, but it seems obvious to me that if the same sorts of issues which are refused as out of process are continually raised, then those issues are something that the community thinks that a body of authority would be useful for.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The reason I know Arbcom is useless for these cases is not because they decline them. It is because they sometimes accept them.--BirgitteSB 21:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

heh, well, I may (and, knowing my own libertarian tendencies, probably will) eventually come around to that conclusion, but right now I just disagree. One of the fundamental issues I think we face is an overabundance of chaos, caused by a lack of either leadership or oversight (depending on your POV), and this issue is a large component of that. Not that I believe that we should run towards a more authoritarian system, but I think that a small, slow step in that direction could help things right now.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For the love of all that is sane, do not look for leadership from a committee! Now some arbitrators individually qualify as leaders within the community, but Arbcom cannot have a leadership function. You are correct that a large part of the problem is chaos. In particular it is people having mistaken expectations of how things will work and smacking headlong into the reality of situation and then screaming to all world about how their expectations should have worked out fine if only other people didn't act the way that other people have always acted in the past. But the solution to taming the chaos is building on the best of our current processes and educating people on how navigate them. To stop rewarding people for half-assing their way through the process. We cannot succeed by moving to a more authoritarian system, because appeals to authority fail to scale. Moving in that direction will only throw us into constant elections resulting in the further politicization of the community; leaving less time for actually resolving issues. It is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to feeding him. People who are going to be visibly active on Wikipedia must learn how to resolve their own disputes, rather than expecting Arbom to feed them solutions. There is no shortcut around this.--BirgitteSB 04:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

lol You don't have to convince me that we shouldn't be looking to a committee for leadership. I agree with pretty much everything that you've said in your reply, but the problem is... currently, the Arbitration Committee is about all that we've got, unfortunately. While I understand, and largely agree with, your view on how people need to take care of their disputes, it's painfully obvious to pretty much anyone that our current content dispute methods are really shitty, where they exist at all. I don't have much actual data to support this, but I'd wager that a huge proportion of what lands at RFAR (nevermind AN/I!) is actually content issues in one form or another. Anyway, I'm all for adding, changing, or reinventing something to make governance and especially dispute resolution better, and adjusting ArbCom to take on slightly more seems like an easy means to accomplish that (although, I'd be the first to admit that doing so carries it's own share of potential pitfalls).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) What we try to do with arbitration, or what I try to do at least, is to try to identify the editors who are holding up consensus. I don't mean that they're in the minority (although in some cases, it's quite usual for those in the minority to try ever parliamentary trick to stop other users from making changes to their preferred version). I mean those editors, which in manner or attitude, stop consensus from forming. In a lot of areas, 80% of the editors discussing a change are relatively willing to seek consensus (although of course they're coming from different points of the spectrum). However, there's 10% on each side, who want it absolutely to be their version or no version at all. The partisans, so to speak. Those are the editors that poison the well, so to speak and are holding up the finding of consensus, Those are the editors I would seek to remove from the area so the vast majority of reasonable editors can find consensus.

Here's why I don't think that ArbCom will ever willingly get dragged into deciding content. Usually in such heated disputes, there are experts on one or both sides. They have done the legwork, provided references that support their wording. They know just about everything there is to know about the area. And then you're asking 16 men and women, to decide content that in some esoteric areas, they know NOTHING about. To mangle a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, we don't even know what we don't know! I'd much rather see if by identifying the bad actors in a topic area, the community can decide the content themselves. SirFozzie (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If that isn't the arbitrators' credo, it ought to be.--Father Goose (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Request by Russavia

Resolved

 – Ban has expired.  Sandstein  20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

After having a brief discussion with Sandstein [1], I would like to ask: Could Russavia file his request in light of his editing restriction: [2]? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My "topic ban" expired a week or so ago. The editing restriction mentioned by Biophys above was a partial lifting of the topic ban (which has now expired). Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Noted. I made some suggestions and left notices. Sandstein, could you please allow an extra day or so for discussion prior to making any administrative decisions? Thanks, Biophys (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is nothing here beyond a few content disputes, and I suggested a constructive approach to improve the situation: the judgment of content issues by any responsible administrator who is on Russavia side. This is not going to enforce my personal position in any articles. If this is not enough, tell me what else I should do.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that at least two administrators should look at this case very carefully if you are going to issue any sanctions. Of course some Arbcom members, and especially FayssalF are familiar with the case. But let's not waste their time. Yes, I fully understand the sentiment of FPS who simply does not want to waste his time. No one wants. Me too. It was not me who started this AE case.Biophys (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Unable to participate in an action involving me

I can't find the "edit" button in order to respond in this section:[3] Am I missing something there? 99.144.249.249 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The main arbitration page has had to be semiprotected (meaning that it is editable only by registered users) because of ongoing vandalism problems. Please make your statement below in this section and someone will copy it to the correct place on the main page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My comment for the mainpage is found below, please use last edits...:

Statement by User:99.144.249.249

There are a number of unsupported and unrelated accusations here from Jzg and Quiggin, many of which do not involve me in any way, shape, or form. None of Quiggin's "supporting refs" are my edits.

I'm accused of posting "aggressive" messages on Jimbo's talk page. Let's first recognize that Jimbo is a user quite capable of regulating his own personal talk page - then let's note that Jimbo found my concerns had merit and were on topic related to a discussion of BLP abuse which was then taking place on his user page.[4][5]

Jzg then makes an accusation that, "It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. [5] - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs." This is patent nonsense. Not only did I directly link to that IP, and edits, in the very last direct conversation I had with Jzg prior to his filing here[6], it is also clearly found creating the discussion from which this is derived[7] - and can be found here where I make clear notice of my ip changing.[8] I have been asking Jzg now for weeks to make clear his concerns and link supporting ref's. It would seem there is a reason he speaks in general terms about unspecified things and doesn't link to supporting ref's. Personally, I'd prefer not to be sold off by an auctioneer taking phantom bids from the chandelier while creating the impression of drama where none exists.

As to the application of jet fuel drama from the AGW jerry can, my only edits to AGW related articles has been in support of using the term "climategate" on Wikipedia. I supported community members efforts and introduced links showing neutral use of the term from Mother Jones, Factcheck.org, Newsweek, etc, I then introduced supporting references from peer-reviewed academic journals which studied or discussed the cultural and political phenom.[9]. To the argument that Wikipedia had a prohibition against the term -gate, I introduced supporting ref's to demonstrate that neither community consensus, practice or policy prohibit the term. [10]

My editorial position on the subject was limited strictly to support the recognition[11][12] of the term noted above to describe the political and cultural moments that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU email incident coming so close to the Copenhagen conference and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it I argued it would not be: a review of climate science.[13] Participation is not de-facto partisanship. In no way do my positions or civil engagement in well supported, referenced and reasonable discussion give a foundation to any of the general, un-specified and un-supported AGW mud that JZG and Quiggin's have sought to throw on me.

I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.[14] My criticism of Lambert[15] & Quiggin[16] has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created entire articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber".[17] [18][19] There is no grey area there either. One doesn't join a business and then create promotional advertisements for ones fellow website members here at Wikipedia. Rules regarding COI are important, fundamentally important. I have had *zero* content interaction with the users and no direct disagreements beyond impeaching Lambert's blog as a WP:RS regarding the Reliable Source status of "The Times" of London and the associated talk. Unsupported "claims" to the contrary do nothing to change this.

Lambert & Quiggin continue even now to display poor and biased judgement with regards to the BLP subjects noted throughout these discussions. In Lambert's very last exchange here at Wikipedia he states that the Lott article has seen a number of "favorable" edits from "Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department" [[20]] Lambert makes a number of serious charges there against a non-wikipedian he paints a puppet master. Think about this. An undergraduate student said, "Who knows why we decided to pick him up, but I imagine it has something to do with his friend Jim Purtilo" in a screed largely devoted to criticizing the BB coach. Which Tim Lambert then regurgitated and misquoted as unequivocal fact on Wikipedia as, "...strong Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department". This is precisely the method, and the problem, when one spends ones days engaged in character assassination and ones nights writing your target's BLP's. It's the problem here.

Quiggin, in his very last edit at Wikipedia has also apparently decided to not even wait until the proceedings finish to completely break his assurances made to Jimbo, Jzg and the community not to edit the mainpage of his enemies on Wikipedia.[21] Lindzen is named often, and prominently throughout these discussions, Jzg even listed that specific BLP in his original complaint against Quiggin.

I have not discussed nor suggested any action, I simply made my concerns known. This started from me defending The Times as a reliable source and has been made into Drama by Jzg, unnecessarily. I've tackled a tough subject involving an editor with good friends, but my conduct has been civil, reasonable and well supported. That shooting the messenger has progressed to this level is unsettling. 99.135.173.194 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)