Undid revision 1093915820 by Levivich (talk) While the sentiment is appreciated, ARBCOM has its own authority and is not influenced by number of arguments, moreover it has its own set of "enforcers", the arbitration clerks. If this is removed by an arb clerk, it should stay gone. Tag: Undo |
7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
:Open meetings and proceedings with notice to persons potentially effected by this. This seems to by nominally about conduct at AFDs. [[WP:ARS]] participants are within the cross hairs. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 16:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC) |
:Open meetings and proceedings with notice to persons potentially effected by this. This seems to by nominally about conduct at AFDs. [[WP:ARS]] participants are within the cross hairs. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 16:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
::This is not [[WP:Canvassing]]. "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." Shout it to the world, and let all the interested editors (on all sides) have input and an opportunity to be heard. It is not about me, but it is about the process and improving the encyclopedia. There are no "votes" involved; the arbitrators are not running for office. Presumably they will fulfill the duties of their office and work based upon the record as fully developed as it may become. Working in the shadows does not inspire confidence in the process or the result. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 16:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC) |
::This is not [[WP:Canvassing]]. "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." Shout it to the world, and let all the interested editors (on all sides) have input and an opportunity to be heard. It is not about me, but it is about the process and improving the encyclopedia. There are no "votes" involved; the arbitrators are not running for office. Presumably they will fulfill the duties of their office and work based upon the record as fully developed as it may become. Working in the shadows does not inspire confidence in the process or the result. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 16:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::It is not enough that justice is done. It must be seen to be done. As Chief Justice Hewart wrote: |
|||
:::<blockquote>It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. {{mdash}} [[Gordon Hewart, 1st Viscount Hewart]].<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2014/20.html#:~:text=The%20principle%20of%20open%20justice%20%E2%80%94%20'that%20justice%20should%20not%20only,justice%20under%20the%20common%20law. |last1=Bosland |first1=Jason |first2=Jonathan |last2=Gill |title=The Principle of Open Justice and the Judicial Duty to Give Public Reasons |year=2014 |volume=38 |number=2 |work=[[Melbourne University Law Review]]|page=482}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=https://www.barandbench.com/columns/the-origins-of-justice-must-be-seen-to-be-done |title=Columns: The origins of “Justice must be seen to be done” |first1=Arvind |last1=Datar |date=17 April 2020 |work=Bar and Bench |quote=Few sentences have been quoted more often than the aphorism: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”. This dictum was laid down by Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England in the case of ''[[Rex v. Sussex Justices]]'', [1924] 1 KB 256.}}</ref></blockquote> <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 17:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:09, 20 June 2022
Article Rescue Squadron | ||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Mass deletion misnamed
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Abkhazia-related articles, what a misleading name for a full purge of hundreds of other-topic index pages. Is this type of mass deletion of scores of unrelated and perfectly good and maintained articles allowed under such a name, and is this a record-setting deletion request? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
And the beat goes on
Discussion here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- You should mention what the discussion is about. The ARS was mentioned in it at places. Dream Focus 23:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was neutrally stated. Anything said would be too much.
- This determination was knowingly made. Any elucidation would have been subject to speculation, characterization, mischaracterization and recrimination.
- These edits are an open book.
- And the Quislings will be quick, misinformed and misguided. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody was called a "Nazi" even if they share only pretended shared interest in this project. Metaphors are like that. Misinterpretation will happen; and accusations will be made. I've never suggested they be banned from participating here. It is an open forum, and we are all presumably equal. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nazi references and an "echo chamber of ghouls voting delete"... stay classy, ARS :)
- Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, nobody was called a Quisling. All seems yellow to the jaundiced eye. And folks with divided loyalties and purposes have a vulnerability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody was called a "Nazi" even if they share only pretended shared interest in this project. Metaphors are like that. Misinterpretation will happen; and accusations will be made. I've never suggested they be banned from participating here. It is an open forum, and we are all presumably equal. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
A fitting award
Some might think someone deserves WP:DTQ. An award for the race from the bottom. I'd never heard of it; but it has uses.
I personally have not earned those, but I took many from AFD to being on the front page as a WP:DYK.
Such awards are clearly among the goals of WP:ARS members. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nominate yourself for what you've done. I agree it should be known--and sought after--more widely than it is. There might even ought to be a DTQ triple crown at some point... Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about AFDs
See here.
I am not a party there. But it is worth remembering that there have been ten (10!) attempts to delete this project and this page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- AfD needs more formal checks and balances. The system is too anarchic, eating itself in an attempt to self-regulate. A perpetual Reign of Terror ("degenerated into the settlement of personal grievances"). --GreenC 19:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I'm OK with discussions that degenerate into the settlement of personal grievances, just so long as they do get settled. That's forward progress at least, even if someone loses their head now and then. EEng 20:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some users are not actually trying to settle, they are in it for the HOUNDing, to cause others grievance, whenever an opportunity to snipe is available. Long term for years. (not you). -- GreenC 16:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I keep it subtle. EEng 16:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing Arbitration about AFDs is ongoing. There is a short time to add parties. And to add your evidence and two cents to the discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I keep it subtle. EEng 16:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some users are not actually trying to settle, they are in it for the HOUNDing, to cause others grievance, whenever an opportunity to snipe is available. Long term for years. (not you). -- GreenC 16:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I'm OK with discussions that degenerate into the settlement of personal grievances, just so long as they do get settled. That's forward progress at least, even if someone loses their head now and then. EEng 20:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
I received this notice, which apparently is an omnibus inquiry into AFDs:
... The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that ARS is inherently involved. But the arbitration's scope and intent is something I don't understand. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Open meetings and proceedings with notice to persons potentially effected by this. This seems to by nominally about conduct at AFDs. WP:ARS participants are within the cross hairs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is not WP:Canvassing. "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." Shout it to the world, and let all the interested editors (on all sides) have input and an opportunity to be heard. It is not about me, but it is about the process and improving the encyclopedia. There are no "votes" involved; the arbitrators are not running for office. Presumably they will fulfill the duties of their office and work based upon the record as fully developed as it may become. Working in the shadows does not inspire confidence in the process or the result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is not enough that justice is done. It must be seen to be done. As Chief Justice Hewart wrote:
7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. — Gordon Hewart, 1st Viscount Hewart.[1][2]
- This is not WP:Canvassing. "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." Shout it to the world, and let all the interested editors (on all sides) have input and an opportunity to be heard. It is not about me, but it is about the process and improving the encyclopedia. There are no "votes" involved; the arbitrators are not running for office. Presumably they will fulfill the duties of their office and work based upon the record as fully developed as it may become. Working in the shadows does not inspire confidence in the process or the result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- ^ Bosland, Jason; Gill, Jonathan (2014). "The Principle of Open Justice and the Judicial Duty to Give Public Reasons". Melbourne University Law Review. 38 (2): 482.
- ^ Datar, Arvind (17 April 2020). "Columns: The origins of "Justice must be seen to be done"". Bar and Bench.
Few sentences have been quoted more often than the aphorism: "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done". This dictum was laid down by Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England in the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256.