Misplaced Pages

IRC

Can we please talk on IRC? -- Cat 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyking request for clarification

Hi Brad, just a reminder that the Everyking request for clarification awaits a motion or other dispensation (from your comment on March 5th I think). Thanks, Avruch 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Actually, I'm well aware this is still pending, but there are reasons I want to wait a couple more days, plus this afternoon/evening I have at least two decisions to draft. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary procedure

Your comment on my question at User_talk:Obuibo_Mbstpo#Parliamentary_procedure would be welcome. We have a lot of issues to discuss, as mentioned on the AfD page, but we need to take it somewhere else, and I am not sure where, exactly. Neutron (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it tomorrow. I also signed on the Project Parliamentary Procedure page. This is good timing because, as I said, I was just remarking last week on WP:RfAr that we need to develop these articles. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mantanmoreland RfAr -- Thanks

I appreciate your posts about reading the comments, and I appreciated your earlier explanation of your thinking. Noroton (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your appreciation is ... appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ED

"I am gravely troubled by allowing any linking to a site that contains overt and extreme harassment of editors here who are minors." - We link to Stormfront (website), we link to NAMBLA, if you can think of a notable website or organization worse than those that we have an article on, we probably link to that too. In light of that fact, not linking to a website we have an article on, or to the website of an organization we have an article on, is not an option. —Random832 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The site in question contains intentional and depraved harassment of Misplaced Pages editors for the purpose of causing emotional distress to these editors. Some of the editors who are viciously abused are minors. I think it is well within the realm of reasonableness to decide that in such exceptional circumstance, we are unwilling to provide readers with access to the site in question. I acknowledge the demands of NPOV and of intellectual freedom in general but my view is that they must be balanced against the basic well-being of our contributors in this extreme situation.

Note that this does not apply to sites that merely criticize Wikipedians, even if we feel that the criticism is unfair or uses methods that are inappopriate. This is something altogether different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Um. If there is "intentional and depraved harassment of Misplaced Pages editors" (whether minor or not), then that should be taken seriously at a level of authority outside that of Misplaced Pages. We can't solve everything here, you know. Sometimes you have to say to people who are complaining about harassment: "we will do what we can on Misplaced Pages to prevent harassment, but ultimately you have to deal with the source of harassment yourself, up to and including contacting the appropriate authorities". Sometimes handling things that way is better than compromising the principles of Misplaced Pages. I hope that made some sort of sense. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right here - the issues of harassment should be resolved, but clearly WMF can't really help. Brad, I think there are reasons to keep this article deleted (indeed I voted this way) but we have links to criminals, criminal organizations, the Holocaust and Nazis, Khmer Rouge and other terrible people and regimes. Barring this one solely because it bears more directly on Misplaced Pages is the wrong move, and one that will likely be challenged again and again because it seems to conflict with a core policy. An extreme example, that I'm sure we can agree we all hope won't come to pass: If a prominent editor or Board member is attacked/killed/otherwise harmed by a criminal who then threatens other Misplaced Pages editors, and this individual is the subject of sustained and high profile coverage in reliable sources - do we have the article, or not? Avruch 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we probably are repeating arguments that have been made plenty of times in the past, so we probably should stop now. The DRV is going on and the community will decide. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're trying to make an end run around the community by saying we should have an arbcom-made policy that even if there is an article it should not provide a link. —Random832 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's an article then realistically there will almost certainly wind up being a link somewhere, whether I like it or not. The best comment on that motion was to the effect that there is probably no point in worrying about this until after the DRV is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Weber's RFA opposals

Hi Brad. I did a quick CTRL-F of the RFA page as well as those of the last couple of weeks and found your only recent RFA edits (as opposed to RFB) have been to say (something along the lines of) "Kurt's oppose rational is worthless and should be completely disregarded". Now, I appreciate you dislike Kurt's opposals, and believe them to have no substance. They do have substance, it's just a lot of people dislike the reasoning, even though such reasoning does exist, and Kurt's provided that to two RFCs on this topic in the past.

But whether or not Kurt's opposals have any merit is a judgement the closing bureaucrats have been deemed well-capable of making, and I think someone in your position should be setting an example and not solely contributing to RFAs in order to dismiss Kurt's opposes. Neıl ☎ 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

His rationale for doing so was included in one of the more recent RfAs - that he thought candidates should be aware that Kurt's opposes were disregarded, so they didn't feel bad or take it too seriously. Avruch 15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my concern is for the RfA candidates. As we all know, it's a stressful enough process without unnecessary opposition based on nothing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a "support" with a note that Kurt's oppose has no merit in your view would be more constructive? I realise we have standards on not biting newbies and all, but by the time an editor is at RFA they aren't newbies - they should be entirely capable of dealing with an apparently facetious oppose vote. Neıl ☎ 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad shouldn't be supporting just because he disagrees with one of the opposes and wishes to counteract it (even if he tried, 1 oppose = 4 supports), he should be supporting because he believes the candidate would make a good administrator. GlassCobra 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that Kurt's "prima facie" opposes are "facetious." I do believe they are destructive and damaging. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

All opposes are damaging to some extent (even "constructive" ones). Perhaps facetious was the wrong word - you've used "worthless" and "groundless". Neıl ☎ 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"without substance" was supposed to be the basic formula. Perhaps I slipped up a couple of times. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking

This latest edit I think demonstrates the wiki-stalking tendency best. -- Cat 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand that edit at all. Have you asked the user what it means? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently attempted moving the gallery at Depiction of Jesus to commons on 11:02, 10 March 2008. There was one image (Image:Divine_Mercy_(Adolf_Hyla_painting)2007-08-16.jpg) licensed under fair-use in the gallery which was not commons compatible so I did not carry it to commons and removed it from the gallery of images. I further removed the fair use rationale from the image description page as it was no longer needed on 10:58, 10 March 2008.

Jack Merridew reported my edits to User:Johnbod on 11:32, 10 March 2008. That is 34 minutes after I edited the image and 30 minutes after I edited the article.

How did he know? Aside from him (Jack Merridew) stalking, I cannot think of a logical explanation.

-- Cat 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Newyorkbrad, I thought you may want to know that I've sent an E-mail. Thanks. Acalamari 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez Image Issue

Hi, Newyorkbrad. You might be interested to learn that issue around which image to use with the lead of the MS article has been resolved. I am disappointed that you did not choose to respond to the question I asked about admin action here, as I thought that a revert-and-fully protect (for a month) by an (arguably) involved admin - and ArbCom Clerk-in-training - at least deserved some comment. As I respect your opinion, I would have been satisfied if you had said that the action did not cross the line, or that the action was fine, or that a warning 'that was unwise' - or if you had followed any other option that you believed was appropriate. I realise that MM has taken a lot of time, but I was disappointed to receive no response at all. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I missed responding to your question on that matter. I do my best to respond to every question and comment posted on this page, so it is fairly uncharacteristic of me to miss one, and I am sorry it was yours.

For what it is worth, in addition to my activities on the Mantanmoreland case (including reading tens of thousands of words, writing my lengthy comments on proposed decision talk, studying new evidence some of which has affected my view of the case which I think is something you would agree is a high priority, and drafting some additions to the decision that you will have seen), I have also read up some of the original sources, studied the evidence and proposals, and drafted the proposed decision in in the Franco-Mongol Alliance case, I have studied whether to make additional proposals in the Episodes and Characters 2 case and the Highways 2 case, I have read and voted on (or am about to vote on) whether to accept new requests for arbitration such as Betacommandbot, I have made several comments in the "Requests for clarification" section on WP:RfAr, I have dealt with various issues arising on the ArbCom's mailing list, and I have done some ordinary administrator and editor actions as well such as trying to give some thoughts to a new wikiproject and copyediting an FAC candidate. So again, I really am sorry to have missed your question, but I'd hate for some passer-by on this page to think I'm some sort of a wiki-slacker or something. :)

Most important, I'm glad the problem you refer to has now been resolved. If it flares up again, please feel free to let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't for a moment believe you are any sort of wiki-slacker! In fact, it is evident that you devote an extremely large amout of time and effort to Misplaced Pages. In the midst of all the criticism that inevitably comes with your position - and the inevitable fallout from any approach to defusing the ticking time-bomb that was and is the MM case - it is easy for editors to fail to register their appreciation for all your hard work. I chose to leave the message until archiving, and to only send a reminder email, as I realise that my question was not nearly as urgent or important as some of the other work you describe.
My original decision to post here was because I didn't want to case a big scene by raising it at AN/I, but I did want an outside perspective that I respected to help me to better understand what is acceptable administrative action. Whilst the issue that prompted the query has been resolved, my question has not. I wanted to know two things: (1) is my interpretation that John was 'involved' in the issue in which he acted to revert-and-protect reasonable? (2) was revert-and-protect (as opposed to protection on the wrong version) appropriate and acceptable in the circumstance described? I am not looking for some sort of sanction against John - although I am sure that others are, in light of the article talk page comment that as long as it's in the history that it was the wrong thing to do (having already described the actionas foul and abuse of tools) - but I would like to know whether I have misunderstood where the line is in cases such as this. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's late here and I need to go to bed, but I will respond to your question tomorrow. I really will this time, too. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Do you mind succinctly explaining to me why Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I don't know anything more than I've read second-hand. If you are referring to his original ban, that resulted from an arbitration case that took place well before I started participating on Misplaced Pages. If you are referring to his being blocked again within the past few days, I have stayed away from the matter so I can review it impartially in case it comes before the Arbitration Committee, but I think you can get a sense of the concerns from reading through his last few contributions and the recent history of his talkpage. Hope this helps; sorry I can't be more informative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NYB, you know you need a wiki-break when you take to sleep editing! :P Jay*Jay (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't help. I am only interested in the current ban. Since you approved of it, I tough you knew the reason for it. Cheers--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying that I approved of it? To the best of my recollection I had nothing to with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Trouble in paradise

would you please be so kind as to inform warn this editor that such comments are inflammatory, unnecessary, and very likely to cause trouble and resentment. Perhaps there needs to be a course to train Admins? Thank you. Giano (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could first have a word with Giano about the disruptive effects of sniping at admins who are trying to deal with a long-term disruptive editor who blew his unpteenth final chance and has now taken to socvkpuppetry, and how very likely to cause trouble and resentment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PS In the mist of Giano's trademark sarcasm, it can be hard to grasp precisely what his complaints are, but in this case it appears that Giano's substantive contribution to the discussion appears to be that the edits by the numerous sockpuppets of Vintagekits are being reverted per Misplaced Pages:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As you very well know, your solution to this problem is going to escelate problems considerably. Pointing out this, is not trolling, but an attempt to avoid further disruption. Giano (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the response to a banned sockpuppeteer should be to allow them to continue to evade their ban, I suggest that you open an RfAR or try to get policy changed. You previously insisted at great length that if Vk was given a chance, he'd behave himself, yet he abused that chance by sockpuppeteering, including by multiple voting for you at the arbcom election. If you do actually want to resolve problems rather than escalating them, it would be more persuasive if your response was not always to jump in to try to facilitate Vintagekits's evasion of the norms of conduct which apply on wikipedia.

I have yet to see any acknowledgement from you that Vk's sockpuppeteering has been disruptive and contrary to policy, and as long as you continue to remain silent on that point but quick to criticise the admins enforcing policy, then trolling seems to me like an appropriate description. I note, BTW, that it's not just the admins in this area who are wrong, but that ArbCom is also denounced by you for its "errors and stupidity". Very civil, indeed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad, would you please warn the above "admin" such comments as this on my page are completely inacceptable . I did warn that this was the sort of thing that would happen. I won't reply to her myself, for a while, to give you chance to sort it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Giano, what's your complaint? You are of course quite entitled to disagree with an enforcement request, but if it's made, then Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Using_this_page says "Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I think Giano is referring to the filing of the AE request, not to the notification - although I recognise that Giano's question is open to interpretation. As for the AE request, the response to it so far shows it is unlikely to go anywhere. Personally, I would say it is more frivilous that some of the recent ScienceApologist requests, and I would suggest you consider withdrawing it. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting change from the times when I would approach Giano seeking to calm a situation and he would tell me that my meddlesomeness was unwelcome....

Use of terms like "trolling" has never helped resolve a problem in any situation that I can recall, and I doubt very much that this will be the first time. To be fair, Giano expects others to have a thick skin, and I suppose it may be tempting to suppose that he should be willing to take what he gives in the way of unvarnished language and characterizations—but this situation like many others calls for calm speech and moderation of tone, especially from administrators and other experienced users. I see no reason to believe that Giano is proceeding in anything other than good faith in asserting his personal view that administrators are mishandling the current situation.

Policy is that edits from sockpuppets of blocked or banned users may be reverted. "May" is not "must", and common sense should be used in this as in all other wiki-matters. I have not reviewed this particular series of edits but if, for example, a blocked user saw the spelling "teh" and changed it to "the", it would be foolish to revert it for the sake of reverting it. On the other hand, if an individual is rightfully banned, we do not want to encourage him or her to sneak around the ban, and allowing too many substantive edits to stand can have the effect of doing so. Although it is not written down anywhere, the reason for the ban and seriousness of the user's violations that led to it can also be relevant.

The real substance of the dispute, it seems to me, is whether Vintagekits should be allowed to edit (subject to appropriate restrictions), or whether his current indefinite block should remain in place given his admitted multiple sockpuppetry during and after the arbitration case. On this I express no present view because the matter may again come before the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests

Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. (see below) I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Commenting there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PHG

Hi Newyokbrad. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Arangar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as ). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses ). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards PHG (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brad. I've just been reading through the discussion about this page and it seems to be a red hering to me. PHG created an article about a papal bull which he called Viam agnoscere veritatis. There seems to be a lack of sources that confirm that this particular document is know by this name although those words are included in its opening. In response, a disambiguation page was created (Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation)) listing other letters that also contained those words in their opening. PHG disputes that these letter are known by that title. I think Adam Bishop's comments here are the most significant - he points out that this phrase is fairly commonly used in such correspondence and that he doesn't think any of the letters should be known by this title. I see little bad faith by anybody there- the only problems are some rather aggressive comments by PHG - bolding words like "untrue", "false statement" etc. and the problem that the original title may well be based on some fairly selective source citation and given the decision that is to pass, one must question PHG's reliability here. I will try and start a discussion about a better title for the article, but I don't think this has much bearing on the case. Regards, WjBscribe 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)