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)
- 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.
- You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Clarification request: would reverting of vandalism violate my topic ban?
I just noticed [1]. If I reverted it, would I be violating this remedy? As of this comment, this vandalism has been undealt with for oven an hour. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted it. Better to ask someone else, but if that doesn't get any reply then my understanding is that you would be permitted to revert very explicit vandalism. However since your ban lasts until December 2010 the best thing would probably be to remove the article from your watchlist and let others worry about the usual vandalism. Will Beback talk 19:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can I ask others to revert such vandalism? Or would it fall under the prohibition of discussion? I've been wondering about this recently (technically, couldn't I be blocked for asking for this very clarification?). Next, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the restriction last till March 2011, not December 2010? Also, I don't think there is an easy way to remove and re-add the 3,000-odd Poland-related pages I am observing (most of which are pages I created). Would it be possible for me to ask to be allowed to make non-controversial obvious vandalism reverts on those? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Will Beback. AFAIK the ArbCom has in previous cases considered topic bans to have an implicit exception for obvious vandalism (which I think is not a good idea but that doesn't matter). But if you invoke that exception you run the risk that an admin does not consider the edit at issue "obvious vandalism" and blocks you. The same applies to anybody who makes a revert on your behalf, since proxy editing for banned users is also prohibited. Sandstein 20:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why do people keep forgetting about Wikipedia:BAN#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_users (they are not prohibited, unless I am misunderstanding the second para...)? Anyway, I do agree that to prevent a "random admin" from being too proactive, a clarification by the ArbCom members would be useful (hence, this is why I am asking here - what should I do the next time I see an "obvious" vandalism on my watchlist?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Will Beback. AFAIK the ArbCom has in previous cases considered topic bans to have an implicit exception for obvious vandalism (which I think is not a good idea but that doesn't matter). But if you invoke that exception you run the risk that an admin does not consider the edit at issue "obvious vandalism" and blocks you. The same applies to anybody who makes a revert on your behalf, since proxy editing for banned users is also prohibited. Sandstein 20:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can I ask others to revert such vandalism? Or would it fall under the prohibition of discussion? I've been wondering about this recently (technically, couldn't I be blocked for asking for this very clarification?). Next, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the restriction last till March 2011, not December 2010? Also, I don't think there is an easy way to remove and re-add the 3,000-odd Poland-related pages I am observing (most of which are pages I created). Would it be possible for me to ask to be allowed to make non-controversial obvious vandalism reverts on those? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- As this particular user showed poor understanding what vandalism really is in the past [2];[3];[4];[5],[6] I suggest to exercise caution over this question. Otherwise we might see situation when he would claim “I thought this was vandalism”; a reassembling affair of the past [7]. M.K. (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- We are talking about obvious vandalism here, not the controversial cases. Certainly, if it is not 100% obvious (as in the examples you cite), it would be best to steer away from such edits. Or would you say that this wasn't an obvious example of vandalism? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Many times even obvious vandalism requires more than a simple revert to fix. I don't think that anyone would consider it a proxy situation if you posted alerts about vandalism on WP:AIV or a similar page. Boundary testing is not a good idea. Will Beback talk 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, which is why I am not testing it, but asking for clarification where the boundaries are :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Many times even obvious vandalism requires more than a simple revert to fix. I don't think that anyone would consider it a proxy situation if you posted alerts about vandalism on WP:AIV or a similar page. Boundary testing is not a good idea. Will Beback talk 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- We are talking about obvious vandalism here, not the controversial cases. Certainly, if it is not 100% obvious (as in the examples you cite), it would be best to steer away from such edits. Or would you say that this wasn't an obvious example of vandalism? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The Committee has often held that vandalism reversion never "counts" as an edit for topic restrictions or revert restrictions. But it is generally unwise to do those reverts oneself unless they are unarguably vandalism. It's best to just report it to someone else. — Coren (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Administrators involved in Arbitration Enforcement, or interested in participating, are encouraged to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement to better streamline and coordinate enforcement actions. NW (Talk) 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is the wikiproject admin only? DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- As currently envisaged, yes (i.e., pages are fully protected), because only admins can actually do arbitration enforcement. I am aware that non-admins who are interested in this activity are just as able to usefully contribute to discussions etc., but on balance it is maybe preferable to limit formal participation to admins because this also has the beneficial side effect of excluding most involved editors and thereby preventing project discussions from turning into ANI-type dramafests. Sandstein 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Was this actually proposed and discussed anywhere other than two lines buried at the end of this interminable thread, or is this just an attempt to create ACPD by the back door and present it as a fait accompli? It's mysteriously missing from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. – iridescent 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have proposed the project for deletion, but because it is protected I am unable to tag the page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ANI complaint involving a person behind an account mentioned in this finding from the Derek Smart case. The person in question has apparently been using another account (SPI investigation, which I don't think should have been deleted yet) without telling anyone about it. The ArbCom finding did not pass a remedy on what to do about this person's off-wiki and on campaign against Derek Smart, and I assume that he did not notify the Committee that he had begun using another account. The "real name" account is still trying to influence the Smart article's content via the talk page. Any input on what to do about this from the current Committee-members would be welcome. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: It appears that Cla68's campaign against this long-time contributor (which has been aggressively pursued over the past couple of days at the COI, BLP, Reliable sources, and ANI noticeboards, WP:SPI, and a couple of user talk pages) has succeeded in driving that contributor away from Wikipedia by successfully accomplishing an outing that at this point is probably irreversible. It is not apparent what useful purpose there could possibly be in dredging up this long-settled arbitration case. That case did not even result in any rules specifically related to this contributor, and there is no evidence that he was ever in breach of any of the remedies resulting from that case. --Orlady (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll second Orlady's concerns here. Cla68 has raised their concerns now in multiple forums and from the beginning I was concerned about outing. Trying to influnce an article via the talk page is not a crime, nor is campaigning against diploma mills. In fact many here would see that as a good thing. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)