Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

cs interwiki request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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)[reply]

Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unblanking Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines

As Alastair Haines seems to have a continuing habit of ignoring his RfA sanctions (See his 1st and 2nd arbitration enforcement requests as well as his block log), it would be quite useful to actually have access to his RfA (without having to dig it out of the history every time). I understand that it is often a courtesy to blank RfAs for editors who use their real names. However, I don't think we should be paying a courtesy to someone who isn't interested in respecting their RfA, and indeed is probably benefiting from its inaccessibility. Thus, I would like to request that his RfA be unblanked, so that it is easier to access and cite when necessary. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We wear the white hats around here. Unless its gone beyond "being a pain" to actually harming someone, leave it blanked.--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Application for taking part in J&S guidelines discussion - any progress?

Sixteen days ago, this application was filed. Since the Arbcom imposed a 14-day time limit on itself in this decision, I wonder if there has been any progress made? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A motion to allow this has been declined. — Coren ^(talk) 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To stifle speculation (and to aid future researchers of nationalist bias on Wikipedia), it would be helpful with a statement to clarify on what formal grounds it was declined. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]