Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:25, 5 February 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]

Seeking direction to location of previous discussions RE: Motions on rejected cases*

Hello Team Wikipedia;
Forgive my congenital laziness, but I see that Bishzilla has been notified of a "motion" passed on a case that was declined. Can I be pointed to any discussions by the community on motions in closed cases? (Other than the above and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Closed motions, of course. Even I am not that slothfull.)
brenneman 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* I know, they aren't "cases."

The use of motions as summary judgment in cases that were declined seems to have grown up over the past year or so. As I said before, Brad is probably the best person to ask about this. This issue has been recognised by the committee, and is on the agenda for discussion. See here. Specifically, item 22: "Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases. Draft proposal due March 14. Decision due March 21". Yes, item 22. It's a big agenda. If any items need pushing up the agenda, I'm sure that could be considered, within reason. Probably best to ask Kirill about that. If anyone wants to start a community discussion earlier, they can of course do so (I'd personally encourage it, and it is likely that discussions like this will be on-wiki anyway, at some point), or pose a general request for clarification on this (could be messier). See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Guide to Arbitration (will be archived at some point). There may be earlier general discussions about the use of motions without opening a full case, but I haven't looked further yet. For specific discussion of the Bishzilla motion, see here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here. Bishonen | talk 01:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you both. - brenneman 05:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice update

Go here-->MediaWiki talk:Editnotice-4-Requests for arbitration#Edit notice updating--Tznkai (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired for Books arbitration

Can someone help me file a request for arbitration? Various editors over the years have removed our links to our famous author interviews. These interviews are unique and many of the authors have won the Pulitzer Prize or the Nobel Prize in literature. I thought this issue had been settled last year, but just in the last few days more have been erased.

Wired for Books is an educational, noncommercial project of the WOUB Center for Public Media at Ohio University. Please refer to our web site, http://wiredforbooks.org .

Thank you for your assistance.

David Kurz kurz@ohio.edu Scribe711 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to contact one of the clerks for assistance; but please note that, as a matter of policy, we do not normally make rulings on article contents. — Coren ^(talk) 21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about date delinking injunction

The injunction prohibits using a script to delink, but presumably delinking in the course of ordinary editing is allowed. Is it allowed to delink in the course of making other improvements to many articles, such as updating infoboxes or adding categories? --NE2 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are consciously removing each bracket, and edit articles at a rate which is consistent with that, the injunction doesnt restrict you. The injunction doesnt completely prohibit the use of scripts, however editors should not be primarily focused on delinking. The injunction was intended to put a pause on the delinking drive, and one user+bot (user:Ohconfucius) has been blocked for continuing the delinking after the injunction. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended

In light of the concerns expressed by numerous members of the community regarding the voting method selected for the CheckUser and Oversight elections, the Committee has amended the election policy to allow votes both for and against a candidate, and to specify appointments based on percentage of support rather than raw support.

The measure authorizing this amendment was passed 10/0:

Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
Opposing: None
Abstaining: None
Not voting: FayssalF, Jayvdb, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

It should additionally be noted that this matter was dealt with on a quite urgent basis, and a number of arbitrators have not yet had the opportunity to enter formal votes on the measure; we expect that the tally above will be updated once this has occurred.

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Cross posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 The injunction prohibits using a script to delink, but presumably delinking in the course of ordinary editing is allowed. Is it allowed to delink in the course of making other improvements to many articles, such as updating infoboxes or adding categories? --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
+:If you are consciously removing each bracket, and edit articles at a rate which is consistent with that, the injunction doesnt restrict you.  The injunction doesnt completely prohibit the use of scripts, however editors should not be primarily focused on delinking.  The injunction was intended to put a pause on the delinking drive, and one user+bot ([[user:Ohconfucius]]) has been blocked for continuing the delinking after the injunction. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 07:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 == CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended ==