Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:41, 9 April 2013

Archive 1,2,3,4, 5 /Suggestion Box

Sorcha Faal

Nominated: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination) - essentially, it's a BLP of someone barely notable with no high-quality sources about the subject, and should be deleted forthwith as a BLP hazard - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding on timings

You may want to ask Delicious carbuncle yourself, but my impression is that what you said here is wrong. ArbCom (or least those arbitrators paying attention at the time, I was one of those but didn't look at the matter as closely as I should have done) were independently aware of this back in 2009, but the matter wasn't followed up then (it was, I believe, passed to the functionaries list but nothing much happened). I believe Delicious carbuncle had concerns in 2010, but I don't think he e-mailed ArbCom about it at that point (you may want to check this with him). I think a week or so ago was the first time he e-mailed ArbCom about this, so he hadn't been waiting three years for us to do something, more like waiting three years to follow up his concerns, then e-mailing us, then waiting four days, then, after not hearing from us, well you know what happened after that. I just hope there are not other concerns that he has known about for years and not followed up yet. Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Carcharoth is more right about this than they are wrong. I had not personally contacted ArbCom about this particular user before my blog post was published. As Carcharoth states, ArbCom was aware of concerns about this user in 2009 (there is a diff from 2007 in which the editor in question confirms on-wiki what I wrote off-wiki, so there may have been discussion also before 2009). You will have to ask them if other users contacted them in relation to this user between 2009 and now, although I get the impression that they may not be able to tell you since they don't seem to track these types of cases. I hope Carcharoth or another Arb will correct me about that if I am wrong. My blog post went up on Wikipediocracy on 25 March. If no one from ArbCom was keeping an eye on that blog following the debacle created by their outing of Russavia, they have only themselves to blame. And read my exchange with Coren from December near the bottom of User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle/Archive_10#Misplaced Pages:Child_protection. My email to them was the follow-up. This isn't a difficult case and the diff from 2007 leaves no room for doubt. Carcharoth is an admin and could have made the block themselves, if they were so inclined. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There should be no presumption that any arbitrators follow the blogs on Wikipediocracy (or even the discussion forums), I cannot stress that enough. Some arbitrators (me included) read parts of it. Some are members. Some won't touch it with a bargepole. This presumption that we have the time or inclination to follow matters on Wikipediocracy is a presumption that is mystifying - I briefly scan threads that look interesting because some of the posters there say some intelligent things (others don't). My initial thoughts on the matter that you e-mailed us about were that if nothing had been done since 2007, then 2009, then 2010, things could wait for a few days until the other arbs were more active again (and I should have said that to you at the time). There was no emergency here. It was your decision entirely to force matters by your actions. Anyway, we should probably limit the discussion here (it is IRWolfie's talk page after all) and return to your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to entice anyone to Wikipediocracy. I'm not involved in the running of the site and I don't benefit from any increase in hits. I find it difficult to believe that no one from ArbCom is keeping an eye on the blog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I misread your response, I thought you were saying DC had raised the point. I would clarify it but the thread is closed, cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I've been worked to death recently. I'm mentoring a bunch of high school students, and have four right now that I'm getting ready for their final exams here in Poland, and going through the application and testing process so that they can study in the US. On top of that, I have a big bunch of grant proposals to write and translate, and a film to make. A short educational film, but it takes about 15 minutes of hard work to end up with 15 seconds of usable film, and that's just filming, not counting the writing and rehearsals. I miss editing with you, and hope to find more time for it soon. Take care! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, good luck with the grants :) IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Award

		The Third Opinion Award
		Here is a reward for your work on Talk:Richard Dawkins and many other talk pages. Keep it up! Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC) — Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI

The information that you're pursuing can be found here in the WP:COIN archives.

Trust me, it is pretty much pointless to pursue this further. Fladrif (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's beginning to look that way. The arbs don't appear to even really address the concerns, but dodge it. They also don't answer follow up questions; so it's impossible to get any clarity. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Fladrif. The majority of Arbcom agrees with the TM advocates' content goals. You will end up banned if you continue to point out the elephant in the room. I am putting together a detailed presentation for AE to show behavioral and content problems with the articles that are ostensibly independent of COI. Perhaps you could do some before-and-after analyses of affected articles? I'm particularly interested in any diff showing mention of discretionary sanctions in response to good faith edits. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be correct. I'll stop asking questions, and just wait and see what unfolds at this point. I can most likely help this weekend in looking for the diffs, but I will be busy IRL for the moment. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no particular hurry. My time here is limited as well. I thinking about submitting to AE around the end of the month. Skinwalker (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok that sounds good. I have a bad habit of having to roll back on firm commitments to deadlines, but I'll see what I can do. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am genuinely convinced from recent decisions and comments by Arbs and former Arbs on various talkpages that there is a reasonably-sized contingent on the current and most recent past ArbCom that are very sympathetic with NRM-promoting editors, and is convinced that NRM and pseudoscience-promoting editors have been treated overly-harshly in the past; they don't care anything about COI, and are unwilling to reign in anything that falls short of outrageously blatant edit warring and incivility, while keeping anyone questioning them on an extremely short leash. Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that your statement about some members of arbcom is commonly believed, and the evidence appears to support it. I will take great interest in the people taking part in the next arbcom election. It doesn't help that they keep their arguments and opinions secret when they don't need to, for a lot of issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)