| Revision as of 19:57, 26 February 2015 editJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →You've been busy, haven't you? ;): new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:25, 27 February 2015 edit undoAstynax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,921 edits →You've been busy, haven't you? ;): reply to John CarterNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| 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? ] (]) 19:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC) | 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? ] (]) 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 it cannot be addressed. 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:25, 27 February 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. |
Arbitration Request for Enforcement
You are the subject of a request for enforcement from the Arbitration Committee. You can see this at the Request for Enforcement page and you can enter a statement and other evidence to the Arbitration Committee there. See also Misplaced Pages:Arbitration. Thank you. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you for a child on the Main page, - don't remember any, - precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
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 it cannot be addressed. 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)