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)

Typo

{{editsemiprotected}} change

this request for an arbitration case isp premature

to

this request for an arbitration case is premature

because it's a typo 71.109.172.32 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

With regard to my editing restriction, can I comment about users like here or edit old Russian history like here? I had this talk with Carcharoth and he suggested to ask at WP:AE if needed. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Filling out those pages

Is very difficult. Really Wikipedia should be made easy for users, not for computer programists. Right now I feel like I am writing some kind of software. Can't they be made more user friendly. The difficulty in filling out this page prevents asking for a request. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can ask a clerk to help you file a request if you are having problems doing that yourself. Leave a note at WT:AC/C and let me know if you need me to find a clerk to help you. Carcharoth (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

actually, you can ask most people. If you're having problems filing out a particular thing, leave a note here or on my talk page with a description of the problem and I will happily help you out. Wikipedia takes some getting used to (internet bureaucracy makes real world bureaucracy look positively friendly), but you will get the hang of it. --Ludwigs2 05:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about TimidGuy AE posting

I hope it's okay if before I respond I can get clarification. Will wrote this: "The recent ArbCom case noted several principles, including findings COI and the use of sources. It directed editors to review those findings and avoid recurring problems." It doesn't seem clear to me, and I believe that it would suggest to a reader that there was a formal finding of fact regarding conflict of interest. I have long acknowledged having a conflict of interest, and Arbcom did articulate a principle regarding COI that advises caution (while also noting that stating the a principle doesn't mean there was a finding of fact), but I don't see there was any actual finding of fact in that regard. Could this sentence be clarified? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, Will says this: "ArbCom finding that COI has been a problem with this topic (as well as findings on sourcing and neutrality), the editor does not seem to be able to separate his role in the movement from his role as a Wikipedia editor." I don't see those things in the findings of fact. TimidGuy (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)