Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
:{{u|Jytdog}} My comments are quite fair. It doesn't matter that they tried to fix it. That's irrelevant to what I have said. The GAR should not have been opened at that time by the person who opened it and with the participation of those who joined. When someone you have issues with opens a COIN against you, then the participants of that COIN (who you have also have issues with) descend on an article (where there is a false accusation of a COI), then list it for a GAR... This is what happened. When we fail to avoid the appearance of impropriety we cause unnecessary drama. The reason GAR guidelines say to avoid listing during a dispute is because that. It doesn't encourage Atsme to work with you to fix the article, It encourages Atsme to be pissed off because it looks like you are out to get her.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho#top|talk]]) 19:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
:{{u|Jytdog}} My comments are quite fair. It doesn't matter that they tried to fix it. That's irrelevant to what I have said. The GAR should not have been opened at that time by the person who opened it and with the participation of those who joined. When someone you have issues with opens a COIN against you, then the participants of that COIN (who you have also have issues with) descend on an article (where there is a false accusation of a COI), then list it for a GAR... This is what happened. When we fail to avoid the appearance of impropriety we cause unnecessary drama. The reason GAR guidelines say to avoid listing during a dispute is because that. It doesn't encourage Atsme to work with you to fix the article, It encourages Atsme to be pissed off because it looks like you are out to get her.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho#top|talk]]) 19:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
::I hear you - I don't fully agree (I do in part) but I hear you. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
::I hear you - I don't fully agree (I do in part) but I hear you. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::You also disagreed that your piss poor coin case was piss poor.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho#top|talk]]) 19:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests== |
==Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests== |
Revision as of 19:44, 12 July 2015
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Please comment on Talk:Tony Abbott
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Abbott. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You know what?
I self-analyzed and the one of hardest parts of the whole outing and COI thing was having to admit I had reached retirement age. Must be a woman-thing. Atsme📞📧 01:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I am unaccustomed to such vehement attacks that are meritless. I don't know what else I can do besides what I'm doing now, SJP. I am preparing a case for ARBCOM because I have the necessary evidence. I am certainly willing to listen to any advice you want to offer. Atsme📞📧 21:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- atsme Your agitated and it's reasonable. If you wish to go to arbcom I wish you the best of luck but I don't expect much. You could perhaps seek an interaction ban. You could probably none the less negotiate an interaction ban without arbcom. But ARBCOM will not restore a GA. You really need to stop a minute and take stock. Pretend for a moment that you are an uninvolved closer. Go back and review all of the comments related to content. Forget that you are being targeted and forget everything that is a comment not directly related to content. Forget the first reviewer thinks it passed. Just review whats being said directly about the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. I actually do have some incriminating information that I'm not at liberty to share. I have asked for a private hearing. Of course there are two sides to everything, but I think in this case, the evidence will speak for itself, on both sides. There is no COI at Racz - never was. It's really sad because I was going to start working on an article JzG suggested - Peter Wilmshurst - and there was another article I was going to create - Francis Robicsek - but to hell with it. I'll contribute in other ways - like being an arm chair critic to help improve all the whitewashed promotional articles. I'll become more active in the "clean-up" department. That should prove interesting. I imagine we'll all wake up one day and realize the rate of article creation has dwindled to the point of urgency, and the same will apply to the number of editors, although I think WP will be just fine. Perhaps that's the big plan - a hostile take over of the encyclopedia to make it a lucrative platform for big money interests to persuade public opinion. I can certainly understand why the thought of paid editing would be inviting to a family man in need of the extra income, or even a college student who has tuition to pay. Just the concept that we have a cabal of editors overseeing a "suite" of articles is unnerving regardless of the advocacy. I think it's too late to stop it now. You can see it happening right under our noses with a few quick comparisons - look at Red Bull vs Kombucha, and if you're still not convinced, look at Gabor B. Racz vs David Gorski. It's a joke. Imagine what would have happened to Galileo or Einstein had they not broken the blockade of conventional. It's easy to criticize the work of others - those numbers are growing - but the number of editors who actually create and expand articles is dwindling. Do you remember My Space? *lol* I may or may not be successful in my attempts to expose the problems - only the ARBCOM case will determine that - but my conscience will not rest until I at least try. If it results in my demise as an editor on WP, or if they simply turn it down despite the damning evidence, so
betbe it. Whatever happens will speak volumes. I'll just chalk it up to another of life's experiences. The wheels at ARBCOM are in motion and there's no turning back. Atsme📞📧 23:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)copy editing :-) 02:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)- In the area of GA there's really nothing for ARBCOM to do as it relates to GA. GA status comes down to a content matter and not a conduct matter. It's very unlikely that in any action they take that they will say relist the article as a GA. You have plenty of reason to be pissed but if you ignore any legitimate criticism now you will very likely have to deal with it later. And if you would like to take a break from what you usually do go ahead. There's alot to do. Numerous noticeboards. Numerous RFC's. Article for creation. You get to choose what you do and no type of contribution is any less important than another.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thx, SJP. I wouldn't be filing at ARBCOM over a GA. The article itself is not that big a deal - it's the beehive behavior surrounding it. I went through a few of the edits and criticisms at the reassessment page and pointed out what was really going on. All the finger pointing at me is hogwash - part of the game they're playing. I've asked DGG to look at Gorski - it is a highly protected article so if you even try to add a NPOV tag, the team will descend upon you in a fury. I kept going back over there to see if DGG fixed the advocacy promotion - it doesn't matter if we agree with it - it's still promotional, while I was there I saw this: [1] Scroll all down on the left side that was reverted and read was added. All I can say is WOW. There's no question that Gorski is a controversial blogger, but you won't see anything negative on his BLP. Anyway, the GA issue doesn't even start what was done to me at COIN, not counting the possibility of private emails that may prove it was retaliatory. That's all I can say at this point because I actually do respect another person's privacy. What you see on the surface isn't anywhere near what's happening behind the scenes and it's really heartbreaking but, oh well, that's how it goes when you're up against serious advocacies, paid or unpaid. Wikipedia has become a petrie dish for growing the advocacy fungus. The title of this article made me laugh: [2] Atsme📞📧 01:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- In the area of GA there's really nothing for ARBCOM to do as it relates to GA. GA status comes down to a content matter and not a conduct matter. It's very unlikely that in any action they take that they will say relist the article as a GA. You have plenty of reason to be pissed but if you ignore any legitimate criticism now you will very likely have to deal with it later. And if you would like to take a break from what you usually do go ahead. There's alot to do. Numerous noticeboards. Numerous RFC's. Article for creation. You get to choose what you do and no type of contribution is any less important than another.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. I actually do have some incriminating information that I'm not at liberty to share. I have asked for a private hearing. Of course there are two sides to everything, but I think in this case, the evidence will speak for itself, on both sides. There is no COI at Racz - never was. It's really sad because I was going to start working on an article JzG suggested - Peter Wilmshurst - and there was another article I was going to create - Francis Robicsek - but to hell with it. I'll contribute in other ways - like being an arm chair critic to help improve all the whitewashed promotional articles. I'll become more active in the "clean-up" department. That should prove interesting. I imagine we'll all wake up one day and realize the rate of article creation has dwindled to the point of urgency, and the same will apply to the number of editors, although I think WP will be just fine. Perhaps that's the big plan - a hostile take over of the encyclopedia to make it a lucrative platform for big money interests to persuade public opinion. I can certainly understand why the thought of paid editing would be inviting to a family man in need of the extra income, or even a college student who has tuition to pay. Just the concept that we have a cabal of editors overseeing a "suite" of articles is unnerving regardless of the advocacy. I think it's too late to stop it now. You can see it happening right under our noses with a few quick comparisons - look at Red Bull vs Kombucha, and if you're still not convinced, look at Gabor B. Racz vs David Gorski. It's a joke. Imagine what would have happened to Galileo or Einstein had they not broken the blockade of conventional. It's easy to criticize the work of others - those numbers are growing - but the number of editors who actually create and expand articles is dwindling. Do you remember My Space? *lol* I may or may not be successful in my attempts to expose the problems - only the ARBCOM case will determine that - but my conscience will not rest until I at least try. If it results in my demise as an editor on WP, or if they simply turn it down despite the damning evidence, so
Please comment on Talk:Americans for Prosperity
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Americans for Prosperity. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Abuse of Coin
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Atsme📞📧 02:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
question at arbcom
I am out of space, so I will reply here. You asked what I was responding to. You wrote " With the current showing it's hard to believe that the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it. As DGG wrote, Atsme reverted attempts to WP:FIXIT. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog My comments are quite fair. It doesn't matter that they tried to fix it. That's irrelevant to what I have said. The GAR should not have been opened at that time by the person who opened it and with the participation of those who joined. When someone you have issues with opens a COIN against you, then the participants of that COIN (who you have also have issues with) descend on an article (where there is a false accusation of a COI), then list it for a GAR... This is what happened. When we fail to avoid the appearance of impropriety we cause unnecessary drama. The reason GAR guidelines say to avoid listing during a dispute is because that. It doesn't encourage Atsme to work with you to fix the article, It encourages Atsme to be pissed off because it looks like you are out to get her.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I hear you - I don't fully agree (I do in part) but I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- You also disagreed that your piss poor coin case was piss poor.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I hear you - I don't fully agree (I do in part) but I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests
Hi, Serialjoepsycho. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Abuse of COIN. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.
For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)