| Revision as of 00:57, 12 September 2009 editHersfold (talk | contribs)33,142 edits →General Question: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:22, 12 September 2009 edit undoHersfold (talk | contribs)33,142 edits →Comment on Totientdragooned's proposals at the workshop: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :That particular comment is only for the questions that CHL had posed to the parties; I believe his intention there was just to figure out what the parties wanted out of the case. In that situation, comments from uninvolved editors are neither terribly helpful nor useful (no offense intended to anyone who is uninvolved). We do still allow workshop proposals from uninvolved editors, however, as they can provide an outside view of things and could provide more moderate proposals than may be suggested by involved parties. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | :That particular comment is only for the questions that CHL had posed to the parties; I believe his intention there was just to figure out what the parties wanted out of the case. In that situation, comments from uninvolved editors are neither terribly helpful nor useful (no offense intended to anyone who is uninvolved). We do still allow workshop proposals from uninvolved editors, however, as they can provide an outside view of things and could provide more moderate proposals than may be suggested by involved parties. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Comment on Totientdragooned's proposals at the workshop == | |||
| ::''Moved from ] ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)'' | |||
| Totientdragoon has made a series of noble proposals at the workshop. But until he can show where these issues have been breached up until now, it's hardly going to get to the root of the problem. The problem at ] has got absolutely nothing to do with original research, righting wrongs, soapboxing, disruptive behaviour, or fringe views. The problem at ] is about what balance to apply regarding two different concepts of the speed of light as in (1) the defined speed of light in SI units that is beyond measurement, and (2) the physical speed of light as is measured in most other systems of units. | |||
| It follows therefore that Totientdragooned's proposals are tantamount to pre-empting the judgement. The proposals assume that some of the involved editors have been guilty of breaching these issues. Until it can be proved that some of the editors have been guilty of disruptive behaviour, or soapboxing, or whatever, then these proposals are totally irrelevant as far as solving the problem is concerned, and they should be shelved until the judgement is completed. In fact, Totiendragoond's proposals are merely a re-statement of the existing wikipedia rules. ] (]) 08:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, that is correct. They are proposed principles, not evidence or findings of fact about any particular party.] (]) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| OK. But they are already part of wikipedia's rules and regulations. We need to be aware of the fact that one side in particular in this dispute is making unsubstantiated allegations about behaviour. I am not interested in sanctions being imposed against anybody. However, when all of this is over, I would hope that warnings are given to all parties who have made unsubstantiated allegations, because it is those unsubstantiated allegations that have been the only thing so far that have disrupted the debate on the ] talk page. ] (]) 16:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :If this is about the workshop... why is it on the evidence talk page? Anyone mind if I move the thread over there? ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hersfold, Yes, you can move it over there. I didn't realize that a talk page existed for the workshop. ] (]) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:22, 12 September 2009
Note to Physchim62 and to parties generally
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. I assume that everyone would be willing to abide with ArbCom sanctions—I'm most curious about what sort of resolution parties would find helpful. I think I might have over-emphasized "concessions." I only mentioned it because parties sometimes acknowledge that their own behavior was problematic/over-aggressive, or whatever. In that case, they might be willing to set limits for themselves if their other concerns are addressed.
At any rate, I agree that there should be better guidelines for these sorts of disputes, and I would especially like to clear up the issue of community/admin topic or page bans. This issue also came up in the WMC-Abd arbitration, but it was very muddled in that case. I think this would be a better case for that issue. Cool Hand Luke 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- There already are guidelines: WP:NPA and WP:talk, but they are enforced erratically instead of upon all participants. They could be beefed up to state more clearly that critique of contributions should be based exclusively upon statements in the contributions, not upon generalities brought to the table by the editors' imaginings. Bandwagoning, snowballing, and gossip should be prohibited. They cloud judgment and lead to a lynch mentality. Brews ohare (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
General Question
In reading through this arbitration case, I see posted a comment by one of the arbitrators that seems unclear to me. This is perhaps due to the fact that I do not have as long of a history of observing arbitration pages as other users may. Nonetheless, I thought I would point it out, and another user could perhaps clarify if they have time. The lead section of the workshop page says "Any user may edit this workshop page", which would imply that suggestions on effective solutions by uninvolved editors are welcome. On the other hand, the drafting arbitrator's comment that "Non-parties may only add a statement here with my permission, and only if they can show a reasonable connection to the dispute" indicates that uninvolved suggestions are deprecated or prohibited. Either way is fine, it just seemed potentially confusing. —Matheuler 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- That particular comment is only for the questions that CHL had posed to the parties; I believe his intention there was just to figure out what the parties wanted out of the case. In that situation, comments from uninvolved editors are neither terribly helpful nor useful (no offense intended to anyone who is uninvolved). We do still allow workshop proposals from uninvolved editors, however, as they can provide an outside view of things and could provide more moderate proposals than may be suggested by involved parties. Hersfold 00:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment on Totientdragooned's proposals at the workshop
Totientdragoon has made a series of noble proposals at the workshop. But until he can show where these issues have been breached up until now, it's hardly going to get to the root of the problem. The problem at speed of light has got absolutely nothing to do with original research, righting wrongs, soapboxing, disruptive behaviour, or fringe views. The problem at speed of light is about what balance to apply regarding two different concepts of the speed of light as in (1) the defined speed of light in SI units that is beyond measurement, and (2) the physical speed of light as is measured in most other systems of units.
It follows therefore that Totientdragooned's proposals are tantamount to pre-empting the judgement. The proposals assume that some of the involved editors have been guilty of breaching these issues. Until it can be proved that some of the editors have been guilty of disruptive behaviour, or soapboxing, or whatever, then these proposals are totally irrelevant as far as solving the problem is concerned, and they should be shelved until the judgement is completed. In fact, Totiendragoond's proposals are merely a re-statement of the existing wikipedia rules. David Tombe (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct. They are proposed principles, not evidence or findings of fact about any particular party.TotientDragooned (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. But they are already part of wikipedia's rules and regulations. We need to be aware of the fact that one side in particular in this dispute is making unsubstantiated allegations about behaviour. I am not interested in sanctions being imposed against anybody. However, when all of this is over, I would hope that warnings are given to all parties who have made unsubstantiated allegations, because it is those unsubstantiated allegations that have been the only thing so far that have disrupted the debate on the speed of light talk page. David Tombe (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- If this is about the workshop... why is it on the evidence talk page? Anyone mind if I move the thread over there? Hersfold 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, Yes, you can move it over there. I didn't realize that a talk page existed for the workshop. David Tombe (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)