Miscellaneous desk
< April 20	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 21[edit]

Have there ever been any non-Admin Arbitrators in Wikipedia history?[edit]

I know it's a bit of a bizarre question, but I was thinking about it earlier, and I wasn't immediately able to look into it. At any rate, I can't imagine there have been many non-sysop arbitrators, if any, given the amount of trust from the community that's required for sensitive information, like CheckUser and Oversight. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say nearly, but not quite. I did receive nearly 600 supports, but then I received around 8.4 billion opposes... The Rambling Man (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, you were one of the first people that came to mind as I started trying to look into this myself. All I have to say about last year's election is... wow. And I thought RfA was a crucible in itself... Thanks for at least trying to fix a very broken system, at any rate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I think now until we have some kind of revolution, Wikipedia governance is a like a snake eating its tail. We can all predict every outcome from every Arb, and almost every outcome from every case, it's really unhelpful and does sound the death knell of Wikipedia. Unless, of course, we strike back and elect new thinkers, people who actually contribute to the encyclopedia, people who have edited more than a handful of times in the past few years. There's a chance, albeit a slim one, that we could fix the junkyard we've made. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP can work it out for themselves. Every arb, and their terms in office, are listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/History#Current_and_former_members. --Jayron 32 16:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one, from DEEP in en.wikipedia's past. Gutza was on the arbcom way back in 2004, and was not an admin at the time; they were granted adminship in 2008: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gutza --Jayron 32 16:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (For reference, you can find the complete list of Arbs at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History.) Gutza (talk · contribs) was an Arb from January 2004 to December 2004. He was not an administrator on English Wikipedia at the time, though he was an admin on the Romanian Wikipedia. (As Jayron32 noted above, Gutza eventually passed an RfA on English Wikipedia in 2008.)

Gutza was part of the original ArbCom team appointed by Jimbo. To the best of my knowledge, the community has never elected an Arb who wasn't an admin on English Wikipedia. (The first "special election" to fill open seats was held in July 2004; the first regular election in December 2004. Elections have taken place annually in December ever since. Secret ballots were first introduced in 2009; see also Wikipedia:Elections#Arbitration Committee.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know it hasn't come up, but I suspect, based on my understanding of ArbCom, is that election to ArbCom is tantamount to RFA, meaning that ArbCom members are granted special permissions upon getting the office, including the ability to grant advanced permissions such as checkuser and oversigter, and the ability to use such tools as well. Given that, if anyone weren't an admin before being elected, they would, upon assuming office, have all of the admin tools granted to them. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy mentions no requirements of already having special permissions to stand for election, but it is quite clear that being elected comes with those permissions. --Jayron 32 16:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WMF policy on administrators is clear: no one may be given several of the rights, e.g. viewdeleted, without being vetted by the community first. I don't believe that the policy says it has to be RFA...it has to be a community discussion/vote/etc. of some sort, and I can't think of any kind of situation in which successful candidates get broader support than at the arbitration elections. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sachsensumpf[edit]

Its said that this brothel was in Meerseburger street 115 in Dresden, but google Maps say that this address does not exist... Did this street has been made shorter? --Saegen zeugen des sofas jehovas (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing about that in the article. Where did you see that bit of info? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I Google Map "Merseburger Straße 115" it takes me to a one-block portion of a street otherwise called Holbeinstraße. However, there does seem to be a Holbeinstraße 115. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia note: German Sumpfpumpe a cognate for "sump pump". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But notice that in German, the primary meaning of "Sumpf" is "swamp". "Pumpensumpf" is a highly technical term you are unlikely to see outside specific discussions (and, of course, a "Sumpfpumpe" is pumping liquids from the "Pumpensumpf" - such is the beauty of language). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The street Google Maps takes you is the Merseburger str. (just zoom in, and you'll see the name). It's the continuation of Holbeinstraße str. Some people from some countries do not expect a street to change its name in the middle, but it can well be in Germany that a section of one street has one name, and the next section another.--Doroletho (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As in London, for example, where the house next to 120 Leytonstone Road E15 1TQ is 122 High Road Leytonstone E15 1UA. The same dichotomy is seen on the other side of the road. A few miles away in South Woodford, George Lane was cut in two by a railway line. To travel by car from no. 93 to no. 95, for example, requires driving down another road. 92.19.168.253 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there's a little tunnel you can walk through (a serious digression from Berlin though). Alansplodge (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]