MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 23, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 24. |
→Another question regarding TmidGuy posting: new section |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
::That's a minor point, but OK. I changed "finding" to "principles". |
::That's a minor point, but OK. I changed "finding" to "principles". |
||
::I'm sorry you've chosen to ignore my request to explain your part in the disputed edit. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
::I'm sorry you've chosen to ignore my request to explain your part in the disputed edit. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Another question regarding TmidGuy posting == |
|||
As I understand it, the focus of AE should be an editor's behavior post-Arbcom. Will has created a narrative characterizing my behavior in Wikipedia that relies on pre-Arbcom editing. He, and now Fladrif, have painted a picture of repeated violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arbcom must not have agreed that it was as serious as they say, since there was no finding of fact regarding me. Is Will free to paint this narrative, which I don't have time to address point by point? Are we going to replay the Arbcom discussion here? Or should AE focus on post-Arbcom behavior? Thanks. [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 11:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:08, 2 August 2010
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)
- Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 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)
Filling out those pages
Is very difficult. Really Wikipedia should be made easy for users, not for computer programists. Right now I feel like I am writing some kind of software. Can't they be made more user friendly. The difficulty in filling out this page prevents asking for a request. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- You can ask a clerk to help you file a request if you are having problems doing that yourself. Leave a note at WT:AC/C and let me know if you need me to find a clerk to help you. Carcharoth (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- actually, you can ask most people. If you're having problems filing out a particular thing, leave a note here or on my talk page with a description of the problem and I will happily help you out. Wikipedia takes some getting used to (internet bureaucracy makes real world bureaucracy look positively friendly), but you will get the hang of it. --Ludwigs2 05:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Question about TimidGuy AE posting
I hope it's okay if before I respond I can get clarification. Will wrote this: "The recent ArbCom case noted several principles, including findings COI and the use of sources. It directed editors to review those findings and avoid recurring problems." It doesn't seem clear to me, and I believe that it would suggest to a reader that there was a formal finding of fact regarding conflict of interest. I have long acknowledged having a conflict of interest, and Arbcom did articulate a principle regarding COI that advises caution (while also noting that stating the a principle doesn't mean there was a finding of fact), but I don't see there was any actual finding of fact in that regard. Could this sentence be clarified? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, Will says this: "ArbCom finding that COI has been a problem with this topic (as well as findings on sourcing and neutrality), the editor does not seem to be able to separate his role in the movement from his role as a Wikipedia editor." I don't see those things in the findings of fact. TimidGuy (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The ArbCom would not have included sections on COI and sourcing unless they had been issues with this topic. In my opinion, the recent events show that you have not acted with caution, and a situation arose where a source was manipulated in the middle of an edit dispute. Will Beback talk 20:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would help the process if WBB were to specify which aspect(s) of the ArbCom Decision TG is alleged to have violated. There were no findings against TG and all aspects were carefully worded to apply to all those involved in the ArbCom including WBB, TG, Fladrif, Docjames, myself and others. The section on Neutrality and COI says: "advocacy for any particular view is prohibited". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement, the "Principles" include sections on:
- Neutral point of view and verifiability
- Neutrality and conflicts of interest
- Neutrality, verifiability and appropriate weight
- Neutrality and sources
- Accuracy of sourcing
Then the "Remedies" includes this item:
- All parties instructed: All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles outlined above, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
It is my belief that TimidGuy has not conducted himself in full compliance with those principles. Another remedy is:
- Discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
I consider this a sufficiently serious violation of the editorial process to merit a formal warning. Will Beback talk 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that TG is saying that the sentence below, included in your complaint, is inaccurate and misleading, since it states that there were "findings COI", when if fact there were no such "findings", only general principles which applied to all parties, as you have made clear in your post above. Perhaps you might consider rectifying this error.
- "The recent ArbCom case noted several principles, including findings COI and the use of sources. It directed editors to review those findings and avoid recurring problems."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's a minor point, but OK. I changed "finding" to "principles".
- I'm sorry you've chosen to ignore my request to explain your part in the disputed edit. Will Beback talk 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Another question regarding TmidGuy posting
As I understand it, the focus of AE should be an editor's behavior post-Arbcom. Will has created a narrative characterizing my behavior in Wikipedia that relies on pre-Arbcom editing. He, and now Fladrif, have painted a picture of repeated violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arbcom must not have agreed that it was as serious as they say, since there was no finding of fact regarding me. Is Will free to paint this narrative, which I don't have time to address point by point? Are we going to replay the Arbcom discussion here? Or should AE focus on post-Arbcom behavior? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)