→Aitias: I respect Amalthea's take, but |
→Aitias: cmt |
||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
: He has made one edit thus far (and a number of vanished editors make it a point to still keep an eye on RfA). In any case, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias#Motion 2|Motion 2]] seems to be quite sufficient with "When User:Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case." No need to restart the drama IMO, since the end result will be the same.<br><small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Amalthea|<b>Amalthea</b>]] : [[User_talk:Amalthea|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
: He has made one edit thus far (and a number of vanished editors make it a point to still keep an eye on RfA). In any case, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias#Motion 2|Motion 2]] seems to be quite sufficient with "When User:Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case." No need to restart the drama IMO, since the end result will be the same.<br><small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Amalthea|<b>Amalthea</b>]] : [[User_talk:Amalthea|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::I respect Amalthea's take, but additional evidence may be useful. If anything counts as "not vanishing", it's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ottava_Rima&diff=281065866&oldid=281065108 an angry oppose vote] at RFA. I can't speak to Aitias's motives or what action ArbCom should take, but it just gives the uncomfortable impression of sniper fire from behind a rock. He had a previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_3&diff=277646744&oldid=277645032 angry oppose] shortly after he "vanished". - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|push to talk]]) 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
::I respect Amalthea's take, but additional evidence may be useful. If anything counts as "not vanishing", it's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ottava_Rima&diff=281065866&oldid=281065108 an angry oppose vote] at RFA. I can't speak to Aitias's motives or what action ArbCom should take, but it just gives the uncomfortable impression of sniper fire from behind a rock. He had a previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_3&diff=277646744&oldid=277645032 angry oppose] shortly after he "vanished". - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|push to talk]]) 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Just to clarify this once and for all: I have not vanished. I am on wikibreak for an indefinite time (i.e. I do edit very considerably less than I used to) — and I have made that very clear off-wiki towards the Committee (a long time before those motions passed). However, this does not exclude me editing every now and then — I am perfectly entitled to that. Also, in case I want my bit back and feel like contributing to a case, I will inform the Committee about it. Regards, — [[User:Aitias|<font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F">''A''<small>itias</small></font>]] <span style="color: #999;">//</span> [[User talk:Aitias|<font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F"><small>discussion</small></font>]] 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:17, 1 April 2009
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)
Request for involvement
On the behalf of all the participants in the date delinking arbitration, I would like to request that the ArbCom spend a little time on our case. I am well aware that there are several open cases at present, and that the arbitrators have a lot on their plates; however, we have now been locked in this arbitration for weeks with virtually no arbitrator presence beside a very few comments added some time ago by Cool Hand Luke. We are starting to get cabin fever.
Thank you. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 13:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is some work going on in the background with regards to this case. I'm recused, so I can't get too involved, but I will bring your comment to the attention of the other arbitrators, and suggest some involvement at the workshop page. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- As an update, Newyorkbrad said to me that the arbs would reach a decision in a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- A proposed decision is on the way; voting can be quick or slow depending on how obvious the arbitrators find the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Any news, folks? Almost a month has passed since the above, with hardly any arbitrator input into the case at all. Thanks. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Anything? Anyone? Hello? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I will check on this and make someone gets back to you. --Vassyana (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry about the delay. I have been working on the PD, and it is moving forward, slowly. There have been a few twists like the RFC and the bug fixes, and a few loose ends to understand. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, John, I'm just happy to hear that it is getting some attention. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Another ping; two more weeks have passed, and the date linking RFC has now begun. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 12:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The above link leads to a community poll regarding date linking on Wikipedia. The poll has not yet opened, but the community is invited to review the format and make suggestions/comments on the talk page. We need as many neutral comments as we can get so the poll runs as smoothly as possible and is able to give a good idea of the communities expectations regarding date linking on the project. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is it just me, or is this whole date linking brouhaha the most lame-assed "controversy" to hit Wikipedia in ages? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not just you, don't worry. Black Kite 21:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, there are some serious issues surrounding linking, including WP:OVERLINK and WP:CONTEXT and WP:BUILD. Linking is one of the foundations on which Wikipedia is built (both too much and too little are bad things). Link maintenance is also a serious issue, as not everyone takes care when creating or removing links to look into the context. A few examples: (1) changing a redirect destination can change the destination of links on a lot of pages without those watching that page being aware of it (deleting a redirect or article leaves a redlink, but simply changing a redirect destination leaves a blue link unchanged on the linked pages). (2) Unless you check "what links here", links to an article can be removed without those watching that page being aware of it. (3) When creating an article, you potentially turn lots of redlinks blue, but how many people who create articles go and check those links are correct? (4) When creating an article, checking for redirects and turning them blue can catch other mentions of that article that might not have been spotted otherwise, along with conducting a search and linking from appropriate articles.
- The root of the date delinking dispute is, in my view (and I'm recused in the case), due to the functions of style and presentation being conflated with linking (and hence the overlinking concerns), with metadata issues mixed in for good measure. And some personal disagreements as well, as personalities do come into play in such protracted disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and people should go look at and vote (when open) on the poll, instead of reading what I wrote! Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not just you, don't worry. Black Kite 21:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Link to WP:RREV
I removed the link to WP:RREV at the top of the requests for arbitration page because RFA review is dead. Someone restored it with no explanation. Can we get a consensus to remove it? How many people type in WP:RFAR expecting to find RFA review?? Soberknight (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why remove it? Although I agree it might be dead, I don't see benefit in removing the link. It's possible and there is no reason to make it harder than necessary for people who land here instead of where they thought they would. Regards SoWhy 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- ditto. I undid yon knight's first removal, and he is mischaracterising my removal as vandalism (in his second edit summary and on my talk page). I'd say this is an issue for the clerks. [1] [2] [3] [4] Jack Merridew 02:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Jack Merridew, you are lying. I never said your removal was vandalism. I said that MY removal of the WP:RREV link was NOT vandalism, yet you reverted it with rollback, so you are TREATING IT LIKE VANDALISM.
- To SoWhy: every single newcomer to the WP:RFAR page, which gets dozens of pageviews every day, has to see a meaningless, pointless, irrelevant link to some other page just because of a temporary project that put it there months ago. Nobody looking for RFA Review will type in RFAR. They will either type in RREV or the full RFA Review. The continued existence of the link is a blight on this page, a boondoggle to readers and a total waste of space. I see it has already been removed once more. Soberknight (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The date linking and formatting poll is now open. All users are invited to participate. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Off-wiki arbitration
Recently, an user had filed an arbitration request which involved me as one of its subjects. However, the Arb request was removed by an arbitrator who specified that the request was being dealt with off-wiki based on an earlier request by the same user. I am unaware of the proceedings of the arbitration case and would like to know where the process is being carried out. Thanks. -The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 06:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The matter has been dealt with, and your name didn't come up. — Coren (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Aitias
Aitias (talk · contribs) is still editing, after falsely claiming to be exercising a "right to vanish". I'd like to see the result of the arbcom case be upgraded to ensure that the only way he can regain adminship is via RFA. He has deliberately "disappeared" to avoid this happening which was inevitable. Majorly talk 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- He has made one edit thus far (and a number of vanished editors make it a point to still keep an eye on RfA). In any case, Motion 2 seems to be quite sufficient with "When User:Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case." No need to restart the drama IMO, since the end result will be the same.
Amalthea : Chat 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)- I respect Amalthea's take, but additional evidence may be useful. If anything counts as "not vanishing", it's an angry oppose vote at RFA. I can't speak to Aitias's motives or what action ArbCom should take, but it just gives the uncomfortable impression of sniper fire from behind a rock. He had a previous angry oppose shortly after he "vanished". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify this once and for all: I have not vanished. I am on wikibreak for an indefinite time (i.e. I do edit very considerably less than I used to) — and I have made that very clear off-wiki towards the Committee (a long time before those motions passed). However, this does not exclude me editing every now and then — I am perfectly entitled to that. Also, in case I want my bit back and feel like contributing to a case, I will inform the Committee about it. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)