Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:44, 19 December 2009

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]

Notice of WP:ARBSCI on article talk pages

WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed instructs that a notice shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles, which was apparently done by adding a very large box to {{WikiProject Scientology}}.[1] After a complaint at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell, the message was adjusted to hide inside banner shells.[2][3] It was brought up earlier today that this causes the banner to no longer be visible on these pages, in violation of the ArbCom instruction.

As a compromise between the need for giving notice of the ArbCom decision and the desire to not overload the banner shell, I have made an edit to display the warning in a "collapsed" format when inside banner shells. An example may be seen at Talk:Karen Black.

Is this acceptable? Anomie ⚔ 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, thanks for coding it. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formalities

In the case concerning the Audit Subcomittee I notice that a couple of arbitrators have recused "as a formal matter". What does that mean? Is this typical language when recusing that I've just never picked up on before or does it denote some special characteristic of the recusal? 80.65.247.36 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special: Risker and Newyorkbrad sit on the Audit Subcommittee. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

urgent clerk action required.

Durova has clearly breached the 500 word limit. Could a clerk please refactor the picture - I don't mind whether you cut off the top half, or the left side. Privatemusings (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tough crowd. Or more accurately, no crowd.....;-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is rarely looked at, PM. For what it's worth, you gave me a good chuckle once I "got" it (which, admittedly, took several seconds longer than it should rightly have). :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;) Durova³⁸³ 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressed some edits

Hi all,

I'm really sorry for the disruption, but I just suppressed some text from the current request. An editor posted some private email they were sent, then immediately requested redaction. I've notified the rest of the oversight team on this matter. Nobody else's comments were modified in any way, so if you posted something, it's not been touched in any way. Sorry about the mess - Alison ^❤ 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABUSE! Thatcher 18:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm in trouble!!! :-O - Alison ^❤ 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I was too smart to run for in the election. I'll just stand in the back of the room and throw spitballs when teacher's back is turned. Thatcher 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've indeffed Thatcher for disruption. That should help minimize drama. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol - Alison ^❤ 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It came up in my watchlist, I pointed my mouse at the diff and could read the removed content in a pop-up. DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a caching or syncing issue. There are a lot of web servers and they don't always sync up immediately. Try again now. Thatcher 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I think that might be because you just happened to see it pop up between the time she removed the content and saved the page, and the time she memory-holed the intervening versions. But I'm unsure enough about it that I'm not even really sure why I commented. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought at the time that Alison had just blanked the comment instead of suppressing it. I refreshed my watchlist three or four times and it was still there, only disappearing when another edit was made to the page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Floquenbeam said is accurate. –xeno^talk 20:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how this suppression feature works? When you suppress the bad edit and subsequent revisions, content of the subsequent revisions remains, but it is impossible to link to their diffs. Is that so? When I look in the page history a bunch of diffs are struck through and grayed out, and I can't link to them. That sort of sucks for obvious reasons. Is there any way to improve this suppression feature? If not, maybe we should rename it "oppression". Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because those same diffs would contain the offending material that lead to the oversighting. Since a diff is just the software's way of showing you the difference between revisions, and those revisions are the problem. –xeno^talk 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat familiar with RCS, CVS, Subversion (software), Git (software) and the idea of diffs. What I am suggesting is a better implementation of suppression would be more like Oversight, which wipes out a diff, but leaves subsequent diffs unharmed. This better implementation might be costly because it would necessitate recompiling all the subsequent diffs when suppression was enabled or disabled. The current implementation of suppression makes a terrible mess of the edit history, rendering innocuous diffs inaccessible. This is a bad thing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight doesn't work that way either. The wikimedia database does not store differences between edits, it stores the entire text of each page revision. Whether you use the oversight tool or the suppression tool, if you want to remove offending content, you have to remove every revision that contains the content. With the old oversight tool, those edits would simply be gone, and the text added by intervening editors would have no attribution at all. At least with suppression we can see who edited the page and when, although the text of the revision itself is missing. Thatcher 20:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I'm glad to learn that. Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a technical means (gadget that displays a diff in a popup) to circumvent a measure whose purpose was the prevention of access to copyrighted material.
Public explanation of how the circumvention works.
Inciting other editors to engage in legal threats instead of improving articles.

I am afraid that per this rationale I will have to set my lawyers in Bratislava and San Franciso loose on DuncanHill. Hans Adler 20:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is your real name Randy by any chance? DuncanHill (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pop-up should not work. Although only 2 minutes elapsed between when Alison redacted the post and when she suppressed the intervening revisions, I too saw it unsuppressed for longer than 2 minutes. Wikipedia is served by many web servers, and it may have taken a few minutes for the suppression (enacted at the server Alison happened to be connected to) to propagate to the other servers. On the oversight list we sometimes see similar reports of suppressed information being visible to some people for a few minutes after the suppression was enacted. It's basically a server glitch that happens some times for a few minutes at most. It is likely that Duncan was reading wikipedia through a server that was not quite in sync, and was able to see the suppressed content for a few extra minutes. It should be completely invisible now by any means. Thatcher 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GiacomoReturned / Carcharoth

I appreciate I'm a nobody and I apologise if this has already been addressed elsewhere but I can't help noticing recent parallels to the current Giano case. Another arbitrator recently threatened Giano with a block over issues so closely related that... let's face it, it's the same topic and same concerns exactly. In relation to John Vandenberg's comments about arbitrators appearing to act in an official capacity, it's perhaps worth noticing that that arbitrator was acting on behalf of a group (referred to as "us") that at least might reasonably have been taken to mean the committee. "If you continue with this sort of behaviour, the only thing you are likely to force us to do is block or ban you for your behaviour."

Some questions:

Was Carcharoth acting on behalf of the committee? If so then would best practice have been to give details of a committee motion supporting his threats?
Was Carcharoth acting on behalf of some other group when he mentioned "us" - if so then did that group include Coren?
If Carcharoth wasn't acting on behalf of the committee then did his choice of words wittingly or unwittingly give the impression that he was, and would it be advisable to be more careful in creating such impressions?
Having threatened Giano with a block for pretty much the same issues, can Carcharoth really justify non-recusal in a case over just such a block being applied and reversed?

217.28.2.130 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it surprising what can be justified by Carcharoth. U A 20:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but in the past he's struck me as a pretty decent sort of guy. I suspect his non-recusal here arises more from not thinking it through than any deception (of others or of self) 217.28.2.130 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I was aware of that post I had made to Giano's talk page (though some of my subsequent comments may only be in the page history because Giano removed some of my subsequent posts there). I was, in fact, surprised that Giano hadn't pointed out that I had warned him about this. Anyway, earlier today, during discussions on the secondary arbitration mailing list (set up for discussions about this request), I pointed out two things: (1) That I had earlier warned Giano (in the post you link to); and (2) That there was another point where I was involved in what happened here (I participated in the oversight-l mailing list thread about the incident that prompted the AUSC report). I said that I would disclose both these points when I next commented on the request. I am now going to read the request and see where it has got to, and post some more thoughts on all this (based mostly on what was discussed today), including a response to what you have said here about possible recusal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of powers

Three arbitrators have recused from a proposed case with perhaps a fourth recusal in the offing. If the trend continues there may be a shortage of arbitrators to actually weigh the case. This dilemma was predictable and likely to recur unless changes are implemented. Fortunately it is also preventable.

A solution
Convert the Audit Subcommittee into a fully independent Audit Committee. While you're at it, convert the Ban Appeals Subcommittee into a fully independent Appeals Board.

Too many people wearing too few hats is a recipe for trouble; balance of powers is a good thing. Durova³⁸⁶ 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 ::::Thanks for pointing this out. I was aware of that post I had made to Giano's talk page (though some of my subsequent comments may only be in the page history because Giano removed some of my subsequent posts there). I was, in fact, surprised that Giano hadn't pointed out that I had warned him about this. Anyway, earlier today, during discussions on the secondary arbitration mailing list (set up for discussions about this request), I pointed out two things: (1) That I had earlier warned Giano (in the post you link to); and (2) That there was another point where I was involved in what happened here (I participated in the oversight-l mailing list thread about the incident that prompted the AUSC report). I said that I would disclose both these points when I next commented on the request. I am now going to read the request and see where it has got to, and post some more thoughts on all this (based mostly on what was discussed today), including a response to what you have said here about possible recusal. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 02:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
+==Separation of powers==
+Three arbitrators have recused from a proposed case with perhaps a fourth recusal in the offing.  If the trend continues there may be a shortage of arbitrators to actually weigh the case.  This dilemma was predictable and likely to recur unless changes are implemented.  Fortunately it is also preventable.
+{{Quotation|'''A solution'''<br>
+Convert the Audit ''Sub''committee into a fully independent Audit Committee.  While you're at it, convert the Ban Appeals ''Sub''committee into a fully independent Appeals Board.}}
+Too many people wearing too few hats is a recipe for trouble; balance of powers is a good thing. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|386]]''</sup> 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)