Talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop

From UmbraXenu
Jump to: navigation, search
This Wikipedia page has been unblanked as a courtesy.

Reliable sources

Question to Will and John254: I think there was a mention on the Workshop page about a community discussion regarding recorded interviews and under what circumstances they are/aren't reliable? I agree with John on that point (or at least I've always argued the same as he regarding that), but if there's been a community level discussion that failed to reach consensus, it would be interesting to examine. Anyone have a link to that? DurovaCharge! 23:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this quesiton before. Jossi started discussion on various policy pages about this. See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Blogs vs Podcasts, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Podcasts etc. Jossi also edited WP:V and WP:BLP to add a prohibition on using podcasts.[1][2][3] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Send out a search party

Hello, ArbCom, you need to stand up for those who try to defend the encyclopedia's core values. Where are you? Don't you see what's going on here. I am disappointed that you are off wasting time on some stupid political battle instead of guarding our articles. Jehochman Talk 11:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this case has only been open for just over a week; might we perhaps be allowed a bit of time to draft a decision before people start calling for our heads? Kirill 05:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Too many claims against too many users on one largely controversial subject - one would expect that it cannot be wrapped up within a mere couple of weeks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering the time of year when this came up, a bit of flexibility is appropriate. Let's be cosistent: after the Matthew Hoffman case I'd rather see the Committee err on the side of caution at non-emergency year's end arbitrations. Here's hoping this doesn't drag out for three months the way the COFS case did (that was really much too long), and wishing happy holidays. DurovaCharge! 06:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Why did you moot sanctions against Cirt, while remaining completely silent about other, more significant sources of editorial problems? Do you not see that a mob is after Cirt? Are you trying to encourage them? Jehochman Talk 00:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Because:
(a) the allegations against Cirt are fairly routine, and addressing them doesn't require coming up with anything unusual
(b) the workshop was becoming filled with utterly absurd proposed sanctions against him, and I wanted to make clear what I would consider to be a reasonable level of potential sanctions
It is, admittedly, somewhat dissapointing that an initial proposal of nothing more than a reminder of standing policy is taken as evidence of a hatchet job; but I suppose that comes with the territory. Kirill 00:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
When a hatchet job is ongoing, it is most useful to tell the hatchet wielders to stop, rather than to say, "No a hatchet is too strong, use a club instead." Do you have any idea how miserable various folks would make Cirt if the Committee were to pass your proposal? Please, when a good editor is being attacked, defend them. We do not expect editors to be perfect, and there is no indication whatsoever that Cirt has habitually violated policy in recent history. Jehochman Talk 00:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirill, rightly or wrongly a lot of editors do surmise a lot from the first arbitrator to post suggested sanctions. And once that ball gets rolling it can be very difficult to stop. Think of FloNight's 'stop the presses' post at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal/Proposed_decision#Disruption_by_Fyslee. A couple of editors had made aggressive accusations against Fyslee but really not backed them up with substantial evidence. Once Fred Bauder had written up a proposed decision without digging too deeply, it was really tough to turn things around. Please review the talk page from that case to see how many people earnestly petitioned the arbitrators to reconsider, while other arbs signed onto Fred's proposal, before one realized that proposal was mistaken. DurovaCharge! 01:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Come off it, the sex quote box, the "Scientology sex lessons", and the inclusion of an obscure blogtalkradio interview making strong allegations not backed up by any reliable source whatsoever were pretty tendentious edit decisions. As one of those who posted in the original AE thread, I never asked for more than a gentle reminder to stop the silly business. And the two of you seem to form a pretty capable mob yourselves, if I may say so. Jayen466 01:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
For a couple isolated incidents, you post at WP:BLPN and let the results do the talking. Going to WP:AE was not the most effective response. Kirill may have fallen for the old ploy--throw enough mud and some will stick--but I've seen it too many times before, both here and in meatspace. Jehochman Talk 02:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Culture Group activity?

I seem to remember that there was a group created by the ArbCom some time ago to specifically deal with controversial subjects, which often relate to both content and conduct. Does anyone know the current status of the group? If, as I think may be possible, it became inactive as a result of not having the principles and procedures on which it acts not being very clearly spelled out, maybe they could be so that the group might become a bit more active? I think we could all probably agree that content related to controversial and/or developing subjects might well benefit from receiving the slightly faster attention that they might receive from such a group than from the ArbCom itself, which by its nature isn't really able to necessarily deal with such matters quite as quickly as some might like. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

John254/Kristen Eriksen

It would be appropriate to include a note on the Workshop page pointing out that User:John254 and User:Kristen Eriksen, who contributed significantly to it, have been banned indefinitely for being sockpuppets of each other. Most people here are probably aware of this, but a small number may not. Jayen466 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)