Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lightmouse (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 16 January 2011 (→Searching Arbitration Requests for amendment: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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[REDACTED] has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Misplaced Pages (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)

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)

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 ] 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)

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)

uninvolved editor question

Are people not involved in an open arb case allowed to make a comment about it? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to comment as an "Uninvolved Party" SirFozzie (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

pre-element issue

re: Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification

NB; this is now an *undo* request; see comment below; Jack Merridew 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

== Request for clarification: {Link to case or username} ==
'''Initiated by ''' ~~~ '''at''' ~~~~~
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|username1}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|username2}}
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed, 
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->
=== Statement by your name ===
<!-- Describe the nature of your request, and any explanation or evidence why it is needed. 
You can delete this comment when you have added your statement -->
=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
=== Clerk notes ===
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
----

would someone please wrap the thing with the div-structure, as above to prevent page widening in modern browsers? Do this elsewhere, too, as needed, 'k? Thanks; I'd just fix it myself, but for my feckin' yellow ticket-of-leave. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work with the {{editnotice}} template. If you can know how to fix this, please reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just tightened-up the above to omit the div wrapper and just style the pre-element; it works for this local text. It might be worth considering a site wide (or WMF-wide) change to the styling of pre-elements to prevent this page widening issue. This only seems to be an issue on some browsers; a few (inappropriately) don't do the 'correct' default; i.e. widen the page per whatever you've got between pre-tags. In general pre is for pre-formatted text that should not have particularly long lines in it (that would amount to being unformulated;). I've not looked at {{editnotice}}; I was referring to other hard-coded wide-text editnotices that are out there in various places... Anyway, I'll marinate on the whole issue (assuming, of course, that I continue to participate in these projects;).

Your edit does not appear to be working (for me, at least), and should be undone until such time as this is all better understood. I'm re-enabling the {{editprotected}} to get this undone, or looked at. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted it for now. Enjoy marinading. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative, consider what happens at WP:AN3 when you click the link to start a new report. This avoids the preformatting issue, since it opens an edit window with the suggested text already filled in. (The above scheme offers you the preformatted text and suggests that you cut and paste it). EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be much better. The difference is that new requests will go on the bottom of the page instead of the top. Is there any reason why arbitration requests should be this way round? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pointer to slightly hidden debate: Adminstrator only discussion section.

Please note this is here via (Redirected from Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement)

Template talk:Sanction enforcement request#Admin only discussion section has ongoing discussion regarding the appropriateness of admin-only sections. Currently there is not wide engagment with the broader editting community. (I.e. I'm getting killed in the debate.) I'm placing this notice here to ensure that micro-local consensus reflects broader consensus, and to stimulate further discussion.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Searching Arbitration Requests for amendment

I can search the archives of this talk page using the handy field at the top. I'd like to search the actual "Arbitration Requests for amendment". Can somebody implement a similar function please? Lightmouse (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)