This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
While preparing the pages for WP:ACE2012, I noticed an irregularity regarding the discussion on candidate eligibility. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011 closed with a consensus that as far as edit count is concerned, the eligibility to run as a candidate should be the same as to vote. When Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 was started, the eligibility threshold was listed as 500 edits, rather then the 150 edits from last year. Throughout the discussion, we discussed the 500 edit threshold as if it were the same as last year, and no one who supported any of the statements, myself included, noticed the discrepancy. My initial reaction is that support is strong enough for the 500 edit threshold that it should stick, but as closer of the section it would be helpful if you could address the issue, and clarify if the 150 standard from last year, or the 500 that was erroneously thought to be the standard from last year applies. Monty 845 19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Tim, just wanting to be sure: Your recent comment at the R&I motion, does it mean that if the motion passes, you'll be stepping away from AE? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Please review my initial statement at the RFAR case and the second-most recent comment by Zeromus. Diffs are provided in those comments that support the need for a mutual interaction ban.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I was reviewing unblock requests on hold, and I noticed that you placed ArkRe's request on hold on 2012-10-09, pending checkuser investigation. I can't see any SPI mention of ArkRe since 2012-09-17. I just thought that you might appreciate a reminder, so we can get this one off the list. Cheers, Bovlb ( talk) 16:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
See WP:CIVIL
A number of years ago, whilst in poor mental health, I made a number of remarks that were considered uncivil. You know I've never shrank from it, I've never tried to excuse my conduct, I've apologised repeatedly and unreservedly, pretty much everyone agreed it was uncharacteristic and its never been repeated.
Yet its brought up again and again and again.
So my question is, having once been sanctioned for an uncivil remark, do I now wear the mark of Cain for ever? Can I expect to simply have to put up with people referring to a very painful episode, even though they know it upsets me? Is there a wikipedia policy that I'm unaware of, that considers editors can never put the past behind them even if they consistently demonstrate civil behaviour? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
From Template:Editnotices/Page/Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) to Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel-related animal conspiracy theories to match the new article title. Apparently that move requires admin rights. Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't consider this and this to be personal attacks? Perhaps if you had left an edit summary when removing the warning I might have understood your rationale. Cresix ( talk) 16:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
By a vote of 8-0 in response to a request for clarification, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:
Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."
Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.
For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to withdraw the recent AE filed related to Al Ameer son's edits. Thanks. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you were the clerk who helped start the SPI for Scarfaced Charley ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scarfaced_Charley). I just noticed that one of the articles he or his sockpuppets created, Uchida Ieyoshi, which had been deleted under G5, has been re-created. From my vague memory, it looks like the kind of articles on ancient samurai Scarfaced Charley tended to create. Would it be possible to check if this is the same as the article before it was deleted? Perhaps Scarfaced Charley has returned. Michitaro ( talk) 03:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at the edit history of the accounts. I kept accounts for different topic areas, sometimes they overlapped, but the accounts were not used for the purpose of block evasion, edit warring or avoiding scrutinity in editing habits. The only reason the person who filed the case knows about my socks is not because they were involved in editing or content disputes, but because i voluntarily listed them on my userpage on my own volition.
Most of my edits consisted of dumping lists of sources on talk pages, and resummarizations on article space or adding uncontroversial information. If material was challenged, i did not use any of my accounts to revert.
I am willing to have my socks blocked and abandon their usage. Rajmaan ( talk) 09:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
As Fishmongrel, Rajmaan added the following information to the article for The Boxer Rebellion. He later reverted my removal of this information as Rajmaan, without disclosing that he had authored the passage. He also presented himself as a neutral party on the associated talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=511966020&oldid=511957299 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=524668658&oldid=524634415
KeepitImpartial ( talk) 14:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2563 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the
reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{
AFC status}} or {{
AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated
reviewing script!
|
Please see king of heart's talk page for information on what will come up in checkuser. Rajmaan ( talk) 04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!-- Pharos ( talk) 08:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
While preparing the pages for WP:ACE2012, I noticed an irregularity regarding the discussion on candidate eligibility. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011 closed with a consensus that as far as edit count is concerned, the eligibility to run as a candidate should be the same as to vote. When Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 was started, the eligibility threshold was listed as 500 edits, rather then the 150 edits from last year. Throughout the discussion, we discussed the 500 edit threshold as if it were the same as last year, and no one who supported any of the statements, myself included, noticed the discrepancy. My initial reaction is that support is strong enough for the 500 edit threshold that it should stick, but as closer of the section it would be helpful if you could address the issue, and clarify if the 150 standard from last year, or the 500 that was erroneously thought to be the standard from last year applies. Monty 845 19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Tim, just wanting to be sure: Your recent comment at the R&I motion, does it mean that if the motion passes, you'll be stepping away from AE? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Please review my initial statement at the RFAR case and the second-most recent comment by Zeromus. Diffs are provided in those comments that support the need for a mutual interaction ban.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I was reviewing unblock requests on hold, and I noticed that you placed ArkRe's request on hold on 2012-10-09, pending checkuser investigation. I can't see any SPI mention of ArkRe since 2012-09-17. I just thought that you might appreciate a reminder, so we can get this one off the list. Cheers, Bovlb ( talk) 16:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
See WP:CIVIL
A number of years ago, whilst in poor mental health, I made a number of remarks that were considered uncivil. You know I've never shrank from it, I've never tried to excuse my conduct, I've apologised repeatedly and unreservedly, pretty much everyone agreed it was uncharacteristic and its never been repeated.
Yet its brought up again and again and again.
So my question is, having once been sanctioned for an uncivil remark, do I now wear the mark of Cain for ever? Can I expect to simply have to put up with people referring to a very painful episode, even though they know it upsets me? Is there a wikipedia policy that I'm unaware of, that considers editors can never put the past behind them even if they consistently demonstrate civil behaviour? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
From Template:Editnotices/Page/Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) to Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel-related animal conspiracy theories to match the new article title. Apparently that move requires admin rights. Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't consider this and this to be personal attacks? Perhaps if you had left an edit summary when removing the warning I might have understood your rationale. Cresix ( talk) 16:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
By a vote of 8-0 in response to a request for clarification, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:
Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."
Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.
For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to withdraw the recent AE filed related to Al Ameer son's edits. Thanks. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you were the clerk who helped start the SPI for Scarfaced Charley ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scarfaced_Charley). I just noticed that one of the articles he or his sockpuppets created, Uchida Ieyoshi, which had been deleted under G5, has been re-created. From my vague memory, it looks like the kind of articles on ancient samurai Scarfaced Charley tended to create. Would it be possible to check if this is the same as the article before it was deleted? Perhaps Scarfaced Charley has returned. Michitaro ( talk) 03:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at the edit history of the accounts. I kept accounts for different topic areas, sometimes they overlapped, but the accounts were not used for the purpose of block evasion, edit warring or avoiding scrutinity in editing habits. The only reason the person who filed the case knows about my socks is not because they were involved in editing or content disputes, but because i voluntarily listed them on my userpage on my own volition.
Most of my edits consisted of dumping lists of sources on talk pages, and resummarizations on article space or adding uncontroversial information. If material was challenged, i did not use any of my accounts to revert.
I am willing to have my socks blocked and abandon their usage. Rajmaan ( talk) 09:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
As Fishmongrel, Rajmaan added the following information to the article for The Boxer Rebellion. He later reverted my removal of this information as Rajmaan, without disclosing that he had authored the passage. He also presented himself as a neutral party on the associated talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=511966020&oldid=511957299 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=524668658&oldid=524634415
KeepitImpartial ( talk) 14:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2563 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the
reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{
AFC status}} or {{
AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated
reviewing script!
|
Please see king of heart's talk page for information on what will come up in checkuser. Rajmaan ( talk) 04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!-- Pharos ( talk) 08:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)