Signpost delivery using AWB |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) Showboating, committees and normal closures |
||
Line 346: | Line 346: | ||
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)</small> |
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)</small> |
||
== Showboating, committees and normal closures == |
|||
Hi there. I noticed on the Brandt DRV that you linked to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essjay&diff=112138568&oldid=112136937 this comment], and I can see your point. What do you think is the best way to prevent people potentially closing high-profile AfDs to cover themselves in glory? I don't think it happened in this case, but I can see the point that it is hard to distinguish between a genuinely neutral attempt to resolve the issue and closing a high-profile AfD to gain kudos. Would committees of admins closing such AfDs help, or something else? Of course, what is really needed is a way to prevent articles and their existence becoming a cause celebre. That just increases the drama every step of the way. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:19, 14 June 2007
See Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6 and Archive 7.
proposal may need to be moved
Hi David,I made a proposal in the enforcement section in the workshop of the case and an arbitrator indicated that it may need to be moved to the principals section.Could you please take a look and maybe move it if necessary?Thanks alot.--Nadirali نادرالی
quick request
Hey there David,I have a quick request.I just need you to let the arbitrators know that recent evidence from outside users has just come in on the evidence section on the case.I also posted some new evidence a few days ago.(From the looks of it,they haven't checked anything there).
Some new users have just posted there as well,so please do inform the arbitrators. That's all I needed to say.
Thanks alot.--Nadirali نادرالی
Agriprocessors
Thank you for your oversight. This is not the best article, but it's mine and it's fully sourced and I agree with others' additions/revisions, and yes, I've lived near Postville and Eastern Parkway both. The vandal's suggestions are absurd. This article needs routine surveillance, which I do. But admin surveillance is also needed, sometimes to the point of protection. A block may be in order.--MarkTwainOnIce 06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Disappearance of said article
Agriprocessors no longer shows up on my machine as an article, tho' a google does display references to same. I suspect the article has been deleted by a highly-placed admin. Hey! This was a pro-Agriprocessors article, inasmuch as they supply large employment in Allamakee County, Iowa. It's as if the admin wanted public trouble over this deletion. This event will be reported to the Waukon, Iowa Standard as one of those strange Wikipedia things. I suspect I will be blocked for writing this (copy made). Is Wikipedia really a conspiracy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkTwainOnIce (talk • contribs).
Controversies
The Wikimedia Foundation received complaints about this article. It seems to oscillate between a self-laudatory article about a non notable business, and an article mostly formed of a "controversy" section where there is not a single link to a mainstream news source. All is formed of links to activist sites, and original research. Neither of these is tolerable. David.Monniaux 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article, do you agree with my assessment above? It's not that I'm against controversies being reported on Wikipedia, but I think we should stick to controversies that have had at least some quantity of media exposure, not just about any controversy mounted by local activists. David.Monniaux 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Foo. Agriprocessors has been determined by Wikipedia to be a protected industry, which shall have power to induce torture to any animal they chose to torture. Obviously no, but this process, and the admins' deleting process is what it amounts to. --MarkTwainOnIce 10:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
EFA picture
The Ministry of Defense has reorganized its site... The picture is probably no longer online there. Wikimédia France is working on having the government change the copyright status of public works, but it's going to be a complex process. (Museums want to make money off photos, administrations want to control their image by selecting who they allow to use their photos, etc.) David.Monniaux 07:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello to you
Mmmm... Well... my first time trying to edit something on this. I would hope that you would trust the veracity of my assertion, given what you know of my position in the school and the work in question. However, as you're the expert here, I'll defer to you and find some way of publishing the permission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by craigbmorrison (talk • contribs).
I think it was epoch-making in a few ways. Most importantly because it was the first free school for the working classes in Cambridge, something the colleges and university were dead against. It was an important change in the development of state education as opposed to charitable or church-led elementary education. Also, in 1971, when the school became a comprehensive, it was a major change not only to education in the town, but also a marker for state education again - moving to a wholly comprehensive system was a big thing for a town like Cambridge to do so early on. Craigbmorrison 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)User:craigbmorrison
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Arb case note
I just switched templates on the Badlydrawnjeff case for the listing of Tony Sidaway because of the listing of Tony with {{admin}} when he is currently not an admin nor is his administrative actions the locus of the case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, sorry. I assumed that he was one because he used to be, and because he was closing AfDs, DRVs, etc. David Mestel(Talk) 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia
Please, refrain from preventing people from working on wikipedia.
If ArbCom members are unable to work constructively in protecting article from pov-pushers and vandals, they cannot complain from the consequences.
If you don't agree with my revert, I suggest you find evidence and clearly explicit written rules that prevent me from deleting this.
I have written alone 3 featured articles on the Palestinian problem on wp:fr (see fr:user:ceedjee/articles and ArbCom behaviour makes me think the only issue to get an good encyclopedia is Citizendium. Alithien 08:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
IRC cloak request
I am David-Mestel on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/David.Mestel. Thanks. --David Mestel(Talk) 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
BDJ Workshop
Hello! I see you're the clerk listed on this case. I'd like, with your permission, to do some light refactoring on the Workshop page. I do not want to remove anything, I was just planning to move some of the sub-sections around to try and group like topics.
For example, Propose Remedies currently looks like this:
5.3 Proposed remedies 5.3.1 Badlydrawnjeff placed on civility parole 5.3.2 Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned. 5.3.3 Badlydrawnjeff is warned 5.3.4 Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole 5.3.5 Doc glasgow desysopped 5.3.6 Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR 5.3.6.1 Doc glasgow placed on administrative restriction 5.3.7 Doc glasgow placed on civility parole 5.3.8 Doc glasgow strongly cautioned 5.3.9 Doc glasgow admonished 5.3.10 JzG admonished 5.3.11 JzG placed on administrative 1RR 5.3.12 JzG placed on adminstrative restriction 5.3.13 H placed on civility parole 5.3.14 General caution 5.3.15 Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions 5.3.16 Badlydrawnjeff banned from Wikipedia:Deletion review 5.3.17 Badlydrawnjeff restricted 5.3.18 Badlydrawnjeff admonished 5.3.19 Violetriga desysopped 5.3.19.1 Violetriga desysopped for 10 days 5.3.20 Admins blocking Jeff admonished 5.3.21 Policy development 5.3.22 Speedy closures 5.3.22.1 Speedy closures 5.3.23 Precedence 5.3.24 The QZ article shall be restored 5.3.24.1 The QZ article shall be relisted at AfD 5.3.25 JzG desysopped 5.3.26 JzG placed on civility parole 5.3.27 Keeping of status quo on QZ 5.3.28 Technical investigation 5.3.29 Badlydrawnjeff restricted to one DRV nom per article 5.3.30 Execution of policy
What I would change it to would look like this:
5.3 Proposed remedies 5.3.1 Badlydrawnjeff 5.3.1.1 Badlydrawnjeff placed on civility parole 5.3.1.2 Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned. 5.3.1.3 Badlydrawnjeff is warned 5.3.1.4 Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions 5.3.1.5 Badlydrawnjeff banned from Wikipedia:Deletion review 5.3.1.6 Badlydrawnjeff restricted 5.3.1.7 Badlydrawnjeff admonished 5.3.1.8 Badlydrawnjeff restricted to one DRV nom per article 5.3.2 Tony Sidaway 5.3.2.1 Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole 5.3.3 Doc glasgow 5.3.3.1 Doc glasgow desysopped 5.3.3.2 Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR 5.3.3.3 Doc glasgow placed on administrative restriction 5.3.3.4 Doc glasgow placed on civility parole 5.3.3.5 Doc glasgow strongly cautioned 5.3.3.6 Doc glasgow admonished 5.3.4 JzG 5.3.4.1 JzG admonished 5.3.4.2 JzG placed on administrative 1RR 5.3.4.3 JzG placed on adminstrative restriction 5.3.4.4 JzG desysopped 5.3.4.5 JzG placed on civility parole 5.3.5 H 5.3.5.1 H placed on civility parole 5.3.6 Violetriga 5.3.6.1 Violetriga desysopped 5.3.6.2 Violetriga desysopped for 10 days 5.3.7 QZ Article 5.3.7.1 The QZ article shall be restored 5.3.7.2 The QZ article shall be relisted at AfD 5.3.7.3 Keeping of status quo on QZ 5.3.8 General caution 5.3.9 Admins blocking Jeff admonished 5.3.10 Policy development 5.3.11 Speedy closures 5.3.11.1 Speedy closures 5.3.12 Precedence 5.3.13 Technical investigation 5.3.14 Execution of policy
And I'd basically do this per section. I was just thinking the workshop page has grown so much in such little time, this might make it easier for people to find their way around. I don't want to do any large scale formatting changes without running it by you first...not everyone likes this sort of thing. Anyway, while "refactor" can be a scary word...I'm not intending to change any content, just move things around as-is to organize the page better.
If you think this would be OK, let me know...or else I'll just keep my mitts off. Thanks! --InkSplotch 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- That seems a very good idea in this exceptional circumstance. I think that the principles and FoFs are probably fine as they are, though. David Mestel(Talk) 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks...I've gone and updated the Remedies section now. We'll see if anyone screams. I agree the principles are fine as-is (at least, I can't see how they could be tidied any), but I think the FoFs could be cleaned up a bit. It'll take me a bit to figure out how...they're more intertwined than the Remedies were. Let me think on it, and if I have an idea, I'll let you know. --InkSplotch 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, the FoF section is tricky, but I think not insurmountable. Here's the order I'd put it in:
5.2 Proposed Findings of Fact 5.2.1 Wikipedia's growth and status 5.2.2 Effects of Wikipedia's growth and status 5.2.3 Biographies of living persons is policy 5.2.3.1 People notable for a single event 5.2.3.2 The example of Rachel Marsden 5.2.4 WP:NOT 5.2.5 WP:BLP 5.2.6 Deletion review has not reflected community ideals regarding consensus 5.2.7 Deletion review has not resulted in the proper results at an acceptable rate 5.2.8 Consensus and deletions of articles 5.2.9 Moral and Ethical nature of the project and expectations of participants 5.2.10 Badlydrawnjeff 5.2.10.1 Badlydrawnjeff and BLP 5.2.10.2 Badlydrawnjeff 5.2.10.3 Badlydrawnjeff's participation in deletion discussions 5.2.10.4 Badlydrawnjeff Block Inappropriate 5.2.10.5 Unjustified block of badlydrawnjeff disapproved, disregarded 5.2.10.6 Badlydrawnjeff actively promotes the misunderstanding and misapplication of WP:BLP 5.2.11 Tony Sidaway 5.2.11.1 Tony Sidaway has a long history of incivility 5.2.12 Doc glasgow 5.2.12.1 Doc glasgow has made a number of improper deletions 5.2.13 JzG 5.2.13.1 JzG has made a number of improper deletions 5.2.14 H 5.2.14.1 H has been incivil 5.2.15 Violetriga 5.2.15.1 Violetriga has wheel warred 5.2.15.2 Violetriga has wheel warred 5.2.15.3 Violetriga has demonstrated a high degree of insensitivity with respect to the Biographies of living persons policy 5.2.15.4 Violetriga restored BLP deletions 5.2.15.5 Violetriga abused her admin tools 5.2.16 Swatjester 5.2.16.1 Swatjester wheel warred 5.2.17 Nick 5.2.17.1 Nick wheel warred 5.2.18 Night Gyr 5.2.18.1 Night Gyr 5.2.19 Phil Sandifer 5.2.19.1 Phil Sandifer wheel warred 5.2.20 QZ Article 5.2.20.1 Status of QZ at the time of deletion 5.2.20.2 Early closures were improper 5.2.20.3 QZ 5.2.20.4 The use of WP:BLP 5.2.20.5 Deletion rationale 5.2.20.6 Additional recent examples 5.2.20.7 The "Do no harm" concept is often flawed in use 5.2.20.8 Deletion of QZ was proper 5.2.20.9 QZ 5.2.20.10 QZ
And of course I would also scan the entire page for anything like "...relating to my proposed principle#xx above..." and update those links, as well. I did that for the Remedies section, but didn't find any. That's the trickiest bit...these workshop pages can get really self-referential.
So what do you think? Would this be an improvement, or would it disrupt the original flow of ideas? That's my biggest fear, because in FoF more than anything, entries tend to 'build' on one another...but I think this structure would preserve that. --InkSplotch 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right: the added clarity outweighs any possible loss of continuity, because the workshop page is so long. David Mestel(Talk) 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, all done. Hope I've added some clarity to the proceedings. And thank you for the Barnstar, too. --InkSplotch 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 23 | 4 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Showboating, committees and normal closures
Hi there. I noticed on the Brandt DRV that you linked to this comment, and I can see your point. What do you think is the best way to prevent people potentially closing high-profile AfDs to cover themselves in glory? I don't think it happened in this case, but I can see the point that it is hard to distinguish between a genuinely neutral attempt to resolve the issue and closing a high-profile AfD to gain kudos. Would committees of admins closing such AfDs help, or something else? Of course, what is really needed is a way to prevent articles and their existence becoming a cause celebre. That just increases the drama every step of the way. Carcharoth 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)