Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:00, 29 May 2009

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Tang dynasty case

Hello. I saw that ArbCom had a target date for May 16th to complete the proposed decision, but as far as I'm aware no proposed decision or draft has yet been made. I think the evidence and workshop pages in said case are roughly completed. Can you take a look and have some comments? Thanks for your time, and sorry to bother you.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you don't mind, I would like to ask that if a user does not answer questions given to him(and instead responds with personal attacks), is that appropriate behavior on ArbCom, or should ArbCom clerks take action against said comment? In addition, I think WP:TLDR is becoming a problem.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrator was originally assigned to do a first draft on this case, but it appears that he is away. I have volunteered to step in if he doesn't return within the next day or two, and in that case will try to have something posted shortly. Thanks for the prompt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at my evidence and see if it is too long by ArbCom standards. It would not exceed 1000 words if the quotes of wikipedia policy are not included, but I'm afraid it might be too long. Link:diffTeeninvestor (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine. In any event, I hope to write up the case within a day or two, so there probably isn't the time or the need to do any cutting. Thanks for asking, though. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, can I ask you a policy question relating to this case. User:Tenmei seems to claim that citing your sources does not make you comply with WP:V, as shown here. diff. I couldn't make out any of his other claims because of WP:TLDR. Being confused, I'd like to ask: Does citing your sources make you comply with WP:V? I ask this question just to get a clear and official judgement from an experienced arbitrator, as this is more or less the entire dispute.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be posting a draft decision tomorrow on the workshop. (Sorry this has been held up; I had an out-of-town trip come up and I had to put some wiki-stuff on the back burner, but that is resolved now.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in editors' comments at Tenmei's remedies. The consensus is that they need to be expanded.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to harry you but the Tang Dynasty case is getting a little long in the tooth, so to speak. Can we get this case decided quickly? the basic premise is very simple and it shouldn't be hard for ArBCom to come to a decision.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the length of time the case has been pending, but I want to get some input from other arbitrators before we move to the proposed decision stage. Hopefully this comes shortly, but unfortunately, we have a number of very huge cases before us right now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that the Tang dynasty case is very simple/easy to resolve. It's more like something for ANI than ArbCom(Tenmei took it all the way here though). That's why I recommended this case not be accepted by ArbCOm in the first place.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh ya and while you are at it please consider expanding the scope to view Tenmei's behaviourial problems in other areas, which are also worthy of attention. Just this day he made another ranting attack against editor User:Nick-D whom he called a "problem".Teeninvestor (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen everything posted. A proposed decision will be posted for arbitrator voting tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! and sorry for hounding you, if my questions bothered you.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

External blog posts

Misplaced Pages editors may be interested in my blog posts (under my real name) at www.volokh.com. There are two so far and a few more will appear during the balance of the next week or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That was fun. I read Volokh a few days ago but didn't realize it was you, then read again today, saw your self-identification, and thought, "So that's Newyorkbrad!" The one thing that surprised me was I had thought that as an Arbitrator you had already identified yourself. Perhaps I'm thinking of candidates for the Board identifying themselves. Volokh.com is a good read even for non-lawyers. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up... I'll be noting your series of posts in this week's Signpost. Nice job, by the way. Really interesting.--ragesoss (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - very interesting read. For some reason I always pictured you as a young twenty-something with unusually well-developed mediation skills. However reading a bit of your professional background makes it a bit clearer where your knack for arbitration comes from. Well done on the articles. Ronnotel (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's funny - I always pictured Brad as Antonin Scalia's non-evil twin. :P MastCell  18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To Sbowers3: When I became an arbitrator and signed up for oversight (and later checkuser) access, I was required to identify myself to the Wikimedia Foundation office, but not to the general public. As far as I know, only Board candidates are required to publicly disclose their real identities. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed the blog posts too, you did a good job of explaining this weird world. Not that many people in the comments sections seemed to be listening ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Brad, the blog posts were excellent. I'm glad you did them. Thanks. - Philippe 17:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect

I don not see how anything has changed since the mediation. I am currently in dispute with Collect on the Fascism article (since May 16). I see a continuing pattern. I complained that a lead sentence was ambiguous and not supported by the references. He ignores what I have stated, claims we have reached a compromise and then comes up with masses of references he obviously has not read, and do not back up the sentence. He did set up an RfC but threatened an editor who joined it with edit-warring (User_talk:Lapsed_Pacifist#Editwar warning).

Here is the discussion:

Talk:Fascism#Political spectrum

Talk:Fascism#How many cites do you want?

Talk:Fascism#Political Spectrum New Lead Sentence

Talk:Fascism#First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum"

That is anyhow I see it and perhaps reviewing this recent matter may help you in your decision. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will certainly consider it in casting my final vote. It might be best if you added this information to the arbitration page as well so that all of the arbs will see it, not just me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You likely should read that editor's posts. At this point, he seems to think that he can overturn consensus by simply attacking me :) The sentence deleted while the request for comment on it was pending had been in the article for a very extended period of time, and I somehow doubt any of this actually relates at all to edit warring which is what the discussion was about. The issue traces back to 2001 in the article By 2004, the article specifically mentioned the different views of historians. In 2005 the article reflected basically the language now disputed 4 years later). I trust this is of some value to you. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano issues case

I respect your decline, but I'd like to request reconsideration.

I believe that the issue of uncollegial administrator actions is ripe for arbcom intervention. I've put up a statement in the RfAR to this effect with more details.

I appreciate that the details of this sequence leave you wanting to leave it all for another day. But I think that the issue is fresh and appropriate. Yes, that it's Giano and that he's left (again, perhaps for good) complicates things - but WP:WHEEL is toothless as currently constituted, and that's not a good thing. People are getting away with blowing its intent off by doing so politely and with great depth of conviction. Its intent is to get people to talk first, click second - and that did not happen in 3 of the 4 admin actions under discussion here.

I respect all the administrators here - but I'd rather face down this problem now, and with people who I believe acted in good faith and who I respect, rather than in a case where admins may genuinely have had poor motivations.

It's up to you and the rest of Arbcom, but I think it's appropriate now.

Thanks for your attention, whichever way you ultimately decide. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Your concerns are certainly valid ones, whether or not they justify our taking up this particular case. As it happens, my ArbCom-related time for the rest of the evening is committed to drafting workshop proposals in two pending cases and to reviewing the evidence and voting on a third; but I'll return to the issues you raise tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• NYB, with respect to your comment to leave it for another day... I haven't formed an opinion on the value of arbitration here, but it should be clear that any instance that prompts the committee to make a determination about wheel warring is going to come with some high passions and considerable controversy. It may be sensible, then, to deal with it now rather than wait. Nathan 00:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I know you didn't ask for my 2 cents, but... the absolute worst time to try to settle an important issue is when everyone has their dander up. Right now, everyone is talking and no one is listening. If we want to address the issue of wheel-warring, or administrative standards, then let's do so in a calmer atmosphere. Trying to leverage this incident to address general concerns about the state of Misplaced Pages is doomed to fail, because passions are running too high about the particulars of this specific incident for people to objectively consider what would be best in the general. If this matter is taken up, then it might at least be worth considering a mandatory "cooling-off" period - it doesn't have to be long, but I don't think anything productive can be accomplished in the current mood. MastCell  04:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it... significant progress on this sort of thing occurs only when spurred on by a clear need. What we've got here is a perfect example of wheel warring, in my opinion, and an opportunity to make a change at a time when a wide audience sees and understands that such a change is necessary. If the committee and the community decide to wait until tempers cool and passions fade, there is every reason to expect that inertia will take over and nothing meaningful will be accomplished before the next event. Rather than meet that next event with the same amorphous expectations for administrator behavior and cooperation, just clear things up now when everyone is paying attention. The details of this case lend themselves to this sort of review; none of the administrators who took action here were involved in the underlying dispute, none seemed to have a particular emotional stake in the outcome. They each described clear and valid reasoning for their decision, and consciously accepted that their action might have repercussions - none, then, can be described as having been overcome by temper or influenced by friendship or allegiance to some mysterious faction. It's unlikely that many future cases will have these advantages, so does it make sense to wait? Nathan 06:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Should add, we're talking about an arbitration decision here anyway - fairly certain, then, that even if the case is accepted there will be more than enough time for people to cool down before a decision is issued. The slow grind of process has its benefits. Nathan 06:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

I hope you don't take my statement of opposition to your proposed remedy personally. I just see the ramifications of such a measure as destructive to content editors as a whole. Mattisse's personality enters into a gray area, but not one that is egregious. When it results in edit warring, outing, legal problems, etc, sure, but words are words. How do you make amends for words? Well, you put forth words that have a positive effect. How can Mattisse accomplish this (i.e. working with others, building content, and seeking collaboration) if they are removed? This will just cause people to resent the system and feel as if their work here is meaningless. ArbCom can give out awards and stickers complimenting work, but this is like a simultaneous beating with a stick. It only corrupts the praise and instills bitterness. I feel strongly about this point, and I feel strongly about blocks as being the worse possible thing in these situations (be it my acts, Malleus's acts, Mattisse's acts, Ceoil's acts, Giano's acts, Bishonen's acts, or any other major content editor that comes under this same censure time after time). Yes, problematic behavior needs to be stopped, but it can only be stopped through understanding and collaboration. The problem is Misplaced Pages treated as a battleground, and this is eased when people learn to tolerate each other. I made my statement that I will leave while Mattisse is unable to edit because we need a system that will work, and I feel strongly that this wont be that system. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Typo

Thanks for your attention to the Mattisse RfArb. While I have some reservations about the direction you are taking, I think I understand it, and will comment later. Meanwhile, I wonder if "access of candor" in section 4 of proposed findings is a typo. Did you mean "excess of candor" or something else? Geometry guy 23:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I meant what I typed, although it's a pretty obscure (and maybe technical) meaning of "access". Meanwhile, thanks to you and everyone else who has commented on the draft. All comments will be useful in preparing the final decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

FYI, I'm travelling and will have limited online time and access this holiday weekend. (For the curious, I am spending a couple of days here.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I figured that you were flying to D.C. to be announced as the nominee to succeed Souter. 68.248.233.93 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion of a details defense

Will Beback has been blocked by Sandstein for an arbitration enforcement violation. Sandstein has asked for a consensus discussion at ANI.
Before the block, Will made a defense at Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat#FORMER FOLLOWERS section (24 May portion). I request that you examine the somewhat complicated details of Will's defense and offer an opinion at Misplaced Pages:ANI#Prem Rawat enforcement action, as to its merit along with any gray areas. Milo 20:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. However, please see my comment on ANI. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking question

I'm sorry to have gone on for five paragraphs, but I found, when I thought about it, that I had five things to say. Thank you for intervening. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Of everyone on the wiki, I have pretty much the least standing to scold anyone for writing at too great a length. Thank you for posting your thoughts, which I will consider along with everyone else's. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

An arbitrator's question for all parties

So, are you writing a master's thesis in sociology, and collecting data? ;) If you're not, someone probably could use this as an enlightening case study on the organic development of heated and long-lasting conflict out of the primordial soup of the most mundane trivialities. Since it's a wiki, every step of its formation has been preserved. Could be a student's goldmine. All the best, – Quadell 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just trying to decide how to vote on this case and whether to offer any alternate proposals. But I referenced this in one of my posts on Volokh a couple of weeks ago—we have our disputes based on the most bitter real-world feuds and enmities imaginable ... and then we have these other ones. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Misplaced Pages Meetup
June 14, 2009
Time: 3pm
Location: Drexel University

In the afternoon, we will hold a session at Drexel dedicated to discussing Wikimedia Pennsylvania activity and cooperation with the regional Wikimedia New York City chapter.

Are events like a Misplaced Pages Takes Philadelphia in our future?

In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia finding

Hello, I saw you were "abstaining" and still considering on the FoF about my redirection of the Macedonians (Greeks) page. Not sure if you've seen it already, but you might be interested in the background information about this issue I've given here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading through all the evidence and statements again in the course of voting on everything. Thanks for the specific pointer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP opinions

Now that this can not be canvassing, I would like your opinion on User:Collect/BLP which demonstrates some of my concerns about that category of article. It is almost entirely the posts from one unnamed editor, and typifies what I find to be entirely too common on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't render a definitive opinion on the material without seeing it in its original context—which you have very properly redacted—but on skimming it over it appears to be pretty unimpressive stuff. Is any of this still in our articles? You can respond by e-mail if you'd prefer not to call attention to it on-wiki. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullying tactics by two involved editors

Hi Neyyorkbrad. As requested by you, I added a response to the An arbitrator's question for all parties section. Right or wrong (and in good faith), I stated my beliefs. I don't expect my beliefs to be acted upon, but I also don't expect my beliefs to be vandalised—here (by Pmanderson (talk · contribs)), and here and here (by Locke Cole (talk · contribs)). Those users are free to add whatever they like to their section, and I would not even consider denigrating their view-points. Especially irksome is that the original response to my viewpoint did not address any points I made—rather, it simply attacked me. Such tactics add nothing to the debate or resolution. Such behaviour by two editors (who are named in the arbitration, and will receive bans and restrictions) is typical of the bullying tactics that have dragged us into the date-linking debacle. Could I request that you permit the removal of the vandalism to my view-points so that we can all make our points in peace? Thank you for any help you can provide in this matter. (I apologise if I should have gone to someone else with this—if so, to whom?). Cheers.  HWV258  22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor who separated out the responses in to sections for each editor. It was not my intent to stifle critique of those responses in doing so, only to make it simpler for the arbitrators to skip to individual responses if they desired. WP:TPG is clear as glass that your behavior, removal of another editors comments, is vandalism. You do not "own" any section on that page. If PMAnderson wishes to remove his comment he may do so, the arbitrators or clerks may also remove comments they consider unhelpful, but that's not for you to decide. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this situation in which editors can't even answer my questions without bickering about the formatting of the responses speaks for itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)