Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:50, 22 December 2008

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? Durova 23:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this quesiton before. Jossi started discussion on various policy pages about this. See Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#Blogs vs Podcasts, Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Podcasts etc. Jossi also edited WP:V and WP:BLP to add a prohibition on using podcasts. ·:· 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 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. Durova 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 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 wereto pass your proposal? Please, when a good editor is being attacked, defend them. Jehochman 00:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)