User talk:Coren/Archives/2013/July

Wikipedia:Government

I don't know if you recall closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Government, but in your closing remarks you said you understood the case for protection but did not want to do it pre-emptively. I think if you look at the recent history you will see that it is either time to protect it or to block Count Iblis. For whatever reason he seems utterly incapable of letting this badly failed proposal alone and he is apparently willing to just keep at it until he gets his way, ignoring consensus, logic, and reason along the way. Odd behavior for one who claims to be a scientist but who the hell knows what really motivates such actions... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you fail to mention a recent Village Pump discussion where your position was soundly rejected? There was no objection at all for rewriting the page. Count Iblis (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose i failed to mention that because I don't recall that being the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

And having reviewed that thread I still don't see it, and I ceertainly don't see a consensus to overturn the MFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Count, I have to agree with Beeblebrox here, that discussion doesn't appear to soundly reject or endorse anything; let alone seem to represent a shifting consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 15:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There was also a discussion at another venue. As I've said earlier, I don't see the big deal that Beeblebrox is making out if this, and the opinion of other editors at these two venues confirm this. In the original MFD I dind't even present a strong case against the one Beeblebrox was making, I think I was too busy with other things at the time.

Looking back at this whole silly episode, what I object to about Beeblebrox' behavior is the following. When I was writing up the original "Government " proposal, I had laid out plan on the talk page for holding RFCs for its development and then later an RFC for final approval or rejection. Beeblebrox only involvement was to shoot this down, he didn't respect the fact that not everyone can edit Wikipedia 24/7 and that such people like me should also have the chance to write up a proposal while doing other things on Wikipedia, even if that takes 3 years. Then he reverted the page a few times to versions that didn't reflect the plans correctly and put such a version up for MFD. The consensus at that MFD was based mostly on Beeblebrox' misleading account, so I guess I should have appealed this decision. But I didn't really bother with this anymore.

I'm guessing (not sure about this, though) that Beeblebrox has a strong desire to see a page called "Government" with a big failed tag on it. But whatever motivates him, Beebleblox is the one who has extremely strong feelings on this that the community does not share. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• You know what Coren, forget I brought it up. Upon reviewing my own remarks at that VP thread I realize I should have just followed my own advice and let the Count dream up all the crazy nonsense he wants. I can do so secure in the knowledge that in the end it will amount to exactly nothing, like every other proposal he has made, so who cares? If he's going to engage in fantasy it should probably be done is userspace, but if he wants to WP:OWN one page in WP space in which to chronicle his assorted attempts to come up with this fantasy government it won't keep me awake at night or anything. I've unwatched the page, as I should have done long ago, and will not be monitoring this situation any further. Sorry for wasting your time with this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual editor

I've noticed a few of your comments on the new visual editor. I agree that some of the people are being a bit nasty, but certainly you have to see the other side of this as well. They rolled this out without being able to edit a lot of articles correctly. None of the ones I tried at first worked, and, unfortunately, it seems that many of the fixes that the WMF is proposing involve leaving the bugs inside of VE and requiring us to change article content to make it editable (see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50366 for one example). It's a reasonable concept, but it's been rolled out prematurely.—Kww(talk) 17:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin reform

I wasn't actually aware of this, but at the time I was still ruling out the desysoping as being anything directly to do with the lack of candidates for RfA. Anyway, you may wish to look over my draft. There is a fundamental difference between the two projects: while yours & Dennis's lays out a clear solution, mine is just to test the community's opinion on whether something along those lines would garner support - and be a new task for the 'crats. Your comments there would be most welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#ScienceApologist unblock request and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR request declined

Coren,

Just a quick courtesy notice to say that the committee declined the recent RFAr regarding the unblock of ScienceApologist, of which you were a listed party. The suggested course of action to the filing party was to appeal to the community.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon ^talk 13:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)