Revision as of 17:17, 5 March 2015 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,380,692 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Astynax/Archive 14. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:41, 5 March 2015 edit undoHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,847 edits →AE result: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
</div> ] (]) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | </div> ] (]) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
<!-- Message sent by User:The Interior@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=649082272 --> | <!-- Message sent by User:The Interior@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=649082272 --> | ||
== AE result == | |||
As a result of , I have fully protected the article ] for one month to allow time for disputes to be worked out without edit-warring and other disruption. Further, you are warned not to cast aspersions, not to make accusations about editors outside of the proper fora, and to critique ''edits'' and content rather than editors and their motives. I strongly suggest you avoid Tgeairn beyond participating in talk page discussions. I will be giving him a similar warning, and you can request enforcement of that at AE, but note that enforcement can also be requested against you should you fail to adhere to the expected ]. It is my impression that admins' patience with this dispute is wearing thin, and that liberal use of topic bans is a likely result, should the measures taken today prove ineffective. ] | ] 20:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:41, 5 March 2015
This is Astynax's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
Note: contents of this page are periodically archived by a bot. If there have been no recent posts here, that can result in no messages being displayed below. Older messages are still readable in the archives (above). New messages may be added here. If you post a message here, I will usually reply on this page, unless the conversation started on your talk page or elsewhere. |
Portuguese Misplaced Pages
Hi Astynax. Do you participate at all at pt:? Do you know anyone who does? I'm interested in how they handle admin tasks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You've been busy, haven't you? ;)
I really don't know many other topics, other than at times pseudoscience, Israel-Palestine, and a few others, that get sent to AE so often as Landmark. Three times in the past two months, so far as I can tell, and it looks like none of them are found to have any significant merit to them. If there were any evidence of cooperation between the three individuals who have filed those AE requests, that might not unreasonably be seen as basis for AE action on its own. And some of the comments I've seen elsewhere regarding this matter in the past month or so give me real reason to think that, maybe, you or some of the others who have been kind of targeted in the recent AE's might not find it unreasonable to start expressing your own concerns. In fact, from what I can remember, in the second in the string of recent AE's one of the uninvolved administrators more or less specifically indicated that there was at least sufficient verbiage to raise what would be basically a BOOMERANG complaint against the filer of that complaint. And, yes, some of the other comments I've seen recently, although I am clearly not in a position to confirm or deny them, as they apparently deal with sensitive matters I'm not privy to, give me reason to think that there might be very good reason to raise concerns at AE or, maybe, if they might extend beyond Landmark per se a little, to ANI. Is there any particular reason you haven't field any complaints yet? John Carter (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be any robust method for addressing POV advocacy cases through dispute resolution, as it entails looking at content. Similarly, even after an arbitrator said that COI cases should be taken to COIN, the request was booted right back to ANI, where evidently no one was willing to look into it. This is quite discouraging. I will try again when I have a bit of time, even though this is starting to seem like a huge waste of time to do anything to correct what is blatantly advocacy. Even though many people are aware that there is a serious problem on the topic, almost nothing has been done to correct. It is very curious that ensuring that the presentation of accurate content which reflects reliable sources seems to be less valued than (some) editor behavior by many here—odd for an encyclopedia. • Astynax 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 10
Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)
- New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
- New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
- TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
AE result
As a result of this AE request, I have fully protected the article Landmark Worldwide for one month to allow time for disputes to be worked out without edit-warring and other disruption. Further, you are warned not to cast aspersions, not to make accusations about editors outside of the proper fora, and to critique edits and content rather than editors and their motives. I strongly suggest you avoid Tgeairn beyond participating in talk page discussions. I will be giving him a similar warning, and you can request enforcement of that at AE, but note that enforcement can also be requested against you should you fail to adhere to the expected standards of conduct. It is my impression that admins' patience with this dispute is wearing thin, and that liberal use of topic bans is a likely result, should the measures taken today prove ineffective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)