| Revision as of 05:25, 14 September 2007 editCool Hand Luke (talk | contribs)14,522 editsm →Nature of the AEI: clarify times story context← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:03, 17 November 2007 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits insert "courtesy blanked" template to reflect prior action taken by request of a subject of the page; full text remains available in page history |
| (365 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{| class="messagebox" |
|
=== Active/inactive Arbitrators === |
|
|
|
| This page has been ]. |
|
'''Active''' |
|
|
|
|} |
|
*Blnguyen |
|
|
*FloNight |
|
|
*Fred Bauder |
|
|
*Jdforrester |
|
|
*Jpgordon |
|
|
*Kirill Lokshin |
|
|
*Mackensen |
|
|
*Matthew Brown (Morven) |
|
|
*Raul654 |
|
|
*SimonP |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Away/inactive''' |
|
|
*Charles Matthews |
|
|
*Flcelloguy |
|
|
*Neutrality (Ben) |
|
|
*Paul August |
|
|
*UninvitedCompany |
|
|
|
|
|
==Name== |
|
|
"]" sans 's'. His article gives also provides some sense of his background. ] '']'' 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's almost purely symbolic at this point, but given the proposed finding that it was discourteous for an editor to keep referring to THF's real name after THF asked everyone to stop, I'm not sure why the proposed decision does so. The version of the finding that Fred originally offered in the workshop might be preferable in this regard. ] 09:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Focus of dispute finding== |
|
|
Maybe "comparing" should be replaced with "contrasting", to make it clear the difference in the two systems. ] ] 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Clarification on "THF banned from politically charged topics"== |
|
|
Which "problematic editing" are we talking about? Incidentally, I think that ], which has been endorsed by both sides, should be adopted in some form. Talk page edits (e.g. the ''Sicko'' ranking proposal) won't normally rise to the level of violating COI. I'm a bit mystified by Raul's return for ''this'' arbitration, and by his suggestion that THF not edit global warming, which was not at issue in any of these disputes. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lastly, I hate to parrot THF's argument, but Raul's proposals do beg some questions: what about other editors who regularly cite to their very own work, not just the work of other academically independent fellows under the same employer. (AEI is to consider all fellows a COI with respect to THF.) ] '']'' 21:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*I think the problem is the way a person goes about proposing it. For instance, his "documentary" ranking was entitled , and he argued for its use across ]PLE articles, such as as well as on ], and . --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**You reference four ''talk page'' diffs, all which occurred ''before the RFC was closed by THF himself'' - I've still not seen a diff that occurred after the RFC, and I've still not seen any actual ''article'' diff. It is astounding to me that we continue to point to this as the prime example of THF's supposed wrongdoing, when in fact is it a textbook example of how to present your own material for inclusion. Unbelievable. ] 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::He didn't just say, "Hey, I wrote this little article and would like to propose it to be included," but was actually arguing that we would violate NPOV policy by ''not'' including it. I think it's problematic to imply that "anything goes" on Talk pages where COI issues are concerned. That was the genesis of my COI guideline change proposal, but I belatedly realized it would limit participation ''too much''. In THF's case, he kind of abused the guidelines with his arguments. Which brings me back to my original point that THF often abuses the spirit of guidelines and policies, if not the letter. But ATren, the problems with THF revolve around the totality of his edits and that he doesn't edit with NPOV, a fundamental policy, in mind. He pushed an agenda, something I can not be accused of doing. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 21:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So you are arguing that it is improper, indeed ''against policy'', to make an argument on a talk page? Even if the editor in question never edits the article directly and abides by consensus when others don't agree? You aren't really suggesting that, are you David? ] 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No, I am arguing that THF went over the line of acceptability in his proposal on the Talk page. That is not the only thing I am arguing, but it is one. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I hate to be Socratic about this, but how could he have proposed it and ''not'' have gone over the line? You mention the MULTI problem, but that seems to be at least partially as a reaction to a suggestion that his proposal would logically entail posting it on all relevant articles. ] '']'' 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The idea that his documentary list would be proposed for all 25 articles found on that list wasn't a ''suggestion'' it was a ''suspicion'', and I was right. THF confirmed that. That would have made THF's documentary ranking equal in importance to MoJo's rankings, and it would have been an importance Misplaced Pages alone would have bestowed upon it. It also would have put on 25 film article pages, "Michael Moore's Box Office Numbers are Fuzzy, Too", the title of his "Documentary Rankings". THF saw no problem with this. Had it been ''my'' article, I would have made the proposal along the lines of my original COI guideline suggestion. I would have proposed, and let others debate it, interjecting to answer questions or clear up misconceptions. I wouldn't have done it the way THF did, which was as a juggernaut. He was implying that by not using his own work, the Sicko editors were once again proving left-wing bias, and violating policy. That, Luke, goes beyond the bounds of what I consider an acceptable way for a person with COI to make a proposal; but I don't think there is a useful way to codify that, which is why I backed down from the argument over my proposal (which I wasn't the only one who wrote that proposal, it was done in collusion with a neutral editor). --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::He doesn't seem to have followed up on any of the other pages. Does proposing on more than one talk page make it a "juggernaut," which is sanctionable? I'm not clear on the limits of what you or the arbitrators might consider sanctionable. How about an example: say that I proposed that be mentioned in articles on ] and ]. This is basically my work that's been published in a reliable source, not unlike THF's list. Still, it has the patina of second-gen OR to it, like one might perceive in THF's article. Would I be breaking COI to suggest that it be mentioned in more than one article? What if I demanded it mention all articles listed? When does the COI guideline frown on it? What if I claimed that Misplaced Pages was promoting a pro-corporate agenda by denying my refs, does it become against the COI there? I simply don't see where acceptable good faith talk comments transmute into actionable COI. ] '']'' 04:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Nature of the AEI== |
|
|
Y'know, it's not really possible for the AEI to espouse viewpoints because they aren't a lobbying organization. At best he espoused views held by his colleagues, who are a of academically independent fellows ( ] is not speaking to ]). A '''talk page link''' to a webcast hosted by them and a correctly-labeled point of view from a conservative hardly shows a violation of our policies, let alone the COI guideline. If this is worthy of being topic banned, a lot of editors will have to be banned, such that no one would dare declare any potential conflicts of interest ever. That's really the heart of such a punitive rule. If THF hadn't told you from day one, nobody would have even known to accuse him of a COI. ] '']'' 05:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|