Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:10, 14 July 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]

Definition of an (un)involved admin

Since my comments were moved (first time, second time) under a claim that I am somehow involved in a discussion, I'd like to ask were is the applicable definition of the (un)involved admin? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the arbitration enforcement thread mentions a case that bears your username, that is probably a sign you are involved as least in the eyes of the users who seek to apply that case. Even if they are completely wrong, it would be beneficial for you to let your peers handle such matters. Jehochman ^Talk 04:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which case in question bears my username? Digwuren or EE? EE was renamed exactly because people got confused about this. The EE arbcom case did not mention anything about my judgment not being sound; in fact the majority of findings and rulings involved other editors, not me. That I am from EE doesn't mean I am involved in all the editing going there; I make comments as uninvolved admin in cases where I have not participated in a particular editing conflict. If there is some other criteria for determining (un)involvement, it should be clearly stated somewhere. Please note that I have never attempted to use my admin tools to close a debate or pass / enforce a decision. However, I believe I have the right to be seen as neutral for the purpose of discussion. That I am from EE or that somebody cries "he is involved" without citing any evidence is no reason to disqualify someone (I could just as well claim you are involved because we interacted in the past and you made comments about editors from EE... which I won't, because that would be ABF and plain ridiculous). Finally, please read my essay on how active editors (like myself) are penalized simply for being well known. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, if your level of involvement in these areas were to be the benchmark for uninvolvedness we might as well delete WP:UNINVOLVED. I think you should just respect the judgment and intelligence of guys like Jehochmen when they say you are involved. They are no fools, and so trying to argue around it will be rather pointless I think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "You are involved because you are Piotrus" somehow fails to convince me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Piotrus, the whole purpose of a straw man is that it's supposed to be thoroughly unconvincing. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, as you were the subject of substantive findings in both the Digwuren and Eastern European disputes cases, you are considered involved per se for the purposes of any enforcement matter stemming from either case. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are there any other ~~arbitrators~~ administrators who are involved in a similar fashion, or am I the only one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean "administrators", I believe Deacon of Pndapetzim is the only other one to be the subject of findings in these cases (or at least the only one I recall being an administrator at the time the findings were written). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refrain from admin involvement when I know in my heart I can't act fairly, and I think we should be able to trust admins to do this. Other rules of thumb are gameable and unworthy. You stay out when you can't be fair. By extension, if Piotrus was interested there'd be no reason why he couldn't act as an admin in a dispute between Bulgarian and Macedonian nationalists, or two Russian nationalists, but the rule of thumb above seems to prevent this. I suppose we have to live in reality though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fallacy here is that every admin who becomes involved in those issues will be eventually listed as a party to some arbcom and will thus find himself unable to act on AE... I find it a bit strange. Still, the above clarification is helpful - at least now we know were we are standing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true if the criterion were merely being listed as a party, but that's not the point I'm making. Other administrators (e.g. Alex Bakharev) were parties to the case, but there were no (adverse) findings about them in the decisions issued. In your case, however, and in Deacon's, the case resulted in substantive and adverse findings about your conduct.

I have no problem, generally speaking, if administrators who are merely listed as parties, for whatever reason, continue to work in enforcement after the case concludes; but it's not a good idea, in my view, for someone who was actually found to have acted improperly to do so. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Substantive"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to findings which did not really say anything about the subject's editing, such as the various "no evidence has been presented" findings in Eastern European disputes. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright ... thanks. I think "adverse" on its own would have covered it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably true. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "you've had an adverse finding in a ArbCom case" in your view rule out any admin involvement in the topic area generally, or is it just for AE matters? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content to leave that up to the individual administrator's good judgment and the normal policies about admin involvement. Unless we do something like explicitly prohibiting you from taking admin actions in an area as part of a remedy (which I believe we've done in the past?), you can assume that we're not taking a stance on general admin activity. The involvement with the case itself presumptively covers discussions directly related to the case (i.e. enforcement threads for it), but not necessarily anything broader than that. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how long since the case's end one is considered involved? Would one need to feel a new arbcom case or such and ask arbcom to consider his recent edits (let's say from a year after the case) to reevaluate this, for example? Or is it a permanent stigma? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your involvement is with the case itself; it'll stop being relevant if or when the case is no longer central to the discussion (e.g. if the case is superseded by another, and is no longer used as the basis of enforcement decisions), but I can't see how that involvement could actually end short of the findings concerning you being rescinded (which is not something that's going to be done merely on the basis of good behavior since the end of the case). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved requires a requesting editor open their request for action

I would respectfully suggest that in the future admins refrain from opening arbitration enforcement requests based on editor lobbying—and instead suggest the editor do so themselves so that editor's role in such actions is not, however unintentionally, obscured, nor their position appear to be given more credence a priori. If an admin independently observes untoward behavior, they would obviously not be prevented in any way from requesting appropriate action.PētersV TALK 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banning

How do I get arbcom to review this banning [1]? An admin has stepped in and unilaterally banned everyone on one side of an editing dispute. This seems problematic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DR. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that page is very interesting. It discusses all the processes that the admin neglected to follow before banning a group of editors on one side of a content dispute without any evidence of disruption or consensus that a unilateral and one sided enforcement measure of that sort would be appropriate. So, could an arbcom have a look and suggest how to have this admin abuse fixed so that further disruption is avoided? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom generally takes cases as a last resort after community efforts to resolve an issue. Has anything at all besides this thread be tried? You may want to try WP:ANI at this point. Right now I'm not seeing the need for arbcom to jump into this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is often the case once Arbcom decisions and remedies are invoked, arbcom is looked to for help resolving related issues. There is a very extensive ANI discussion starting here wp:ani#Admins vs contributors, as well as some discussion on editor talk pages. But I think the main question is whether it's appropriate for an admin to unilaterally block a group of editors on one side a content dispute, without any evidence or consensus, based on the discretion given in Arbcom's adopted remedies. The answer seems quite clear to me, but now that it's been done, resolution is needed from arbcom on whether this action is warranted and appropriate. I would suggest nipping the problem in the bud and avoiding the bad precedent it sets, not to mention the disruption it's going to cause, by simply undoing the inappropriate banning and encouraging those involved to use dispute resolution first. But maybe you have other ideas? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article in question Ancient Egyptian race controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin (I have not commented on or acted in any part of this dispute) I only note that community consensus seems clear that this be sent to WP:AE for further review and clarification. Several people commenting on the tl;dr thread above cited by CoM recommended this venue for resolving this issue. Since it is part of the enforcement of the Dbachmann arbcom case, this seems like a logical path towards resolution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting on an answer to whether it's appropriate for an admin to unilaterally block a group of editors on one side a content dispute, without any evidence or consensus, based on the discretion given in Arbcom's adopted remedies. The admin has refused to provide diffs and says the bans are based on a pattern of behavior. How can this determination, which I totally disagree with, be reviewed? The editors who were banned don't even agree on the basic content issues, they simply agree that an admin rolling in and reverting months of their collaborative work and then having other admins ban them is improper. Surely this isn't how we do things here??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Jayron32 above, reasonable suggestions were provided by a number of editors in the ANI thread. WP:AE is an appropriate venue for a review of sanctions imposed under arbitration rules. As per its explicit purpose, and also suggested in the ANI thread, WP:RFC/U is an suitable mechanism for soliciting community feedback about admin actions and general editor behavior. I also recommend utilizing the fringe theory and neutral point of view noticeboards to shed light on the situation. Indeed, clarifying some of the content points in relation to fringe theories and NPOV would aid in the review of the situation, as the views on both sides of the dispute (over the bans) are heavily based on such considerations. --Vassyana (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of parties to a pending RfAr

With Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#William_M._Connolley_(2nd), after the process began but before formal acceptance, it became clear to me that certain editors were continuing to be highly involved in the primary matter (WMC's actions around cold fusion and me and my ban), so I added them as parties. One had already added himself. Mathsci edit warred to keep his name and the proof of notice out. On the one hand, those names were not there when arbitrator voting began; on the other, I was not aware that one could refuse to be a subject of arbitration, and I know of an editor who was added, at one point, while he vigorously objected. Names can also be added during the process, but I'm not clear on procedure. I added the names, not to widen the arbitration into a cold fusion arbitration, though I think all of the editors have edited cold fusion, but solely in connection with the behavioral disruptions and the ban. --Abd (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the names were added after it was a clear accept and several parties had already commented. I'm feel this is an abuse of process, and an unnecessary widening of scope of the request after most votes had been placed, and feel the names added by Abd should be removed. Verbal chat 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Abd has been warned for his editwarring on the page, a fact he neglects to mention in his summary. Verbal chat 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical for Verbal. There was a lot I didn't mention in the summary, that's why it's called a "summary." I didn't edit war. When I was adding the notification diffs as required, I saw that Mathsci's name was missing. It never occurred to me that he would have removed it, so I assumed that I'd made some mistake, and put it back. It was only later than I saw Mathsci's edits. Mathsci, on the other hand, did edit war, repeatedly removing the name. If you count my replacement as a revert -- dicey but possible -- that's 1RR. Mathsci, I count 3RR, but counts can be misleading, it could be 2RR. And purely disruptive, with no actual effect on whether he ends up as a party or not, except probably to encourage that outcome. --Abd (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, rather than adding parties after the case is leaning towards acceptance, you should have instead suggested certain parties be added to the case and arbitrators could make the decision whether or not to add them. –xeno^talk 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion sounds reasonable. Another course would be for Abd to have proposed it on the talk and awaited a response. Verbal chat 17:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: If the case is accepted the arbs, and only the arbs, will decide who is a party to the case. Further edit warring will result in blocks. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 : Note, the names were added after it was a clear accept and several parties had already commented. I'm feel this is an abuse of process, and an unnecessary widening of scope of the request after most votes had been placed, and feel the names added by Abd should be removed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 :: Also note Abd has been warned for his editwarring on the page, a fact he neglects to mention in his summary. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::Typical for Verbal. There was a lot I didn't mention in the summary, that's why it's called a "summary." I didn't edit war. When I was adding the notification diffs as required, I saw that Mathsci's name was missing. It never occurred to me that he would have removed it, so I assumed that I'd made some mistake, and put it back. It was only later than I saw Mathsci's edits. Mathsci, on the other hand, did edit war, repeatedly removing the name. If you count my replacement as a revert -- dicey but possible -- that's 1RR. Mathsci, I count 3RR, but counts can be misleading, it could be 2RR. And purely disruptive, with no actual effect on whether he ends up as a party or not, except probably to encourage that outcome. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 *I think, rather than adding parties after the case is leaning towards acceptance, you should have instead suggested certain parties be added to the case and arbitrators could make the decision whether or not to add them. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 *: That suggestion sounds reasonable. Another course would be for Abd to have proposed it on the talk and awaited a response. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 17:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)