Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:20, 22 June 2010

Archives

Index of archives

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

Climate change RfAr

Brad, I have a question about the above. A couple of key names are missing from the list of parties, but I don't know what the correct procedure is for adding them. I'm thinking of KimDabelsteinPetersen and Guettarda, who along with William Connolley and Stephan Schulz are the four key climate change editors. I asked Ryan to add them as parties on May 26, and Lar requested it on June 2, but so far as I can tell it hasn't been done. SlimVirgin 07:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw your note about it not mattering whether someone is named as a party. One of the ways it can matter is that non-parties post as uninvolved editors on the Workshop page, and given that the issue of who is and isn't allowed to comment qua uninvolved has mattered so much on the probation pages, it could become an issue there too. If Kim and Guettarda were minor figures this would be a trivial concern, but they are two of the four key editors, so for them to comment anywhere as non-parties will add an odd flavour to the proceedings. SlimVirgin 07:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough ... one question as a starting point is whether they considered themselves as interested parties. Do you know if anyone's asked them? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

NYB, I'd like to suggest you make a small change to the guidelines for the Climate Change case, to head off an area of potential debate. The sentence I suggest should be changed is: Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. The phrases "uninvolved administrator" and "any participant in this case" are dangerous, in my opinion. As you will be aware from the discussion around Lar, the concept of "uninvolved" is going to be raised as an issue in the case. In your guideline, is uninvolved meant to mean uninvolved in cllimate change disputes, uninvolved as a climate change editor, uninvolved by dint of not having commented or been mentioned on the case pages, uninvolved in the sense of WP:UNINVOLVED, uninvolved in the sense of the general climate change sanctions regime, or uninvolved within the opinion of the administrator issuing the sanction? Frankly, I suggest that handing discretion for sanctions relating to on-case-page behaviour beyond ArbCom members and Clerks is asking for trouble. I recognise that your intent is to help mantain decorum in a case that could easily degenerate into a free-for-all; if you are going to go down this path, I hope you will modify the statement to tie down the meaning of "uninvolved" in this context. Also, the way the guidelines are written, "participants" could be taken to mean those who list sub-isues, provide evidence, and offer workshop proposals - but then editors offering other comments / observations would arguably not be subject to the jurisdiction of "uninvolved administrators". As SV's comments above also indicate, these kinds of issues have been problematic in the on-wiki climate change debates. EdChem (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The case is scheduled to open shortly before the beginning of the pending changes trial (June 14-15), it is an unfortunate coincidence because the trial will need massive community participation and still requires considerable preparation, while this case will involve many editors and some time constraints have been given in the procedural guidelines. Could not the opening of the case be postponed from a week or so, so that it's a few days after the beginning of the trial ? Cenarium (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just been notified that I'm a named party in the Arbitration. Since my editing in the area amounts to a dozen or so edits this year (rarely – if at all? – to articles), and my administrative actions involve one block of an obvious disruptive sockpuppet, I don't believe that I have any reason to participate in what will, unfortunately, be a massive waste of time.

You'll understand my frustration given the singular timidity with which ArbCom handled the obviously unconstructive behavior of GoRight and Abd during the Abd/WMC arbitration. While I have a great deal of respect for you personally, Newyorkbrad, my last experience with the ArbCom highlighted the Committee's remarkable incompetence, ineptitude, and sloppiness in handling what should have been a very straightforward matter. It's not worth my effort or my limited time to participate in a new exercise in futility involving many of the same players and their friends.

Please remove me from the list of 'involved' parties. If someone (vexatiously) suggests that I need to be sanctioned, I will submit evidence or rebuttal as necessary; I will expect explicit notification because I will not be watching the Arbitration's subpages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be named as a party either, I have just made a few comments on three enforcement requests as uninvolved admin, and I have other things to do than being dragged in a RFAR. But Newyorkbrad instructed not to list any party, so it is probably a clerk mistake.

The case has been opened so my request is moot, I do hope it's not going to adversely affect the PC trial. Cenarium (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Small comment: It's a bit late for all the distributed copies, but would you mind updating the permanent ones on the case pages? My first name is spelled with an 'a' and my last name has no 't'. USians in general seem to be genetically or culturally incapable of spelling both right at the same time. I don't mind to much, but in this case the name refers to the Stephan Schulz & Lar request, where the name was (for a change ;-) spelled right. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been travelling and mostly offline for a couple of days, so my apologies for my delay in responding to all of the above. Some belated thoughts:

• To EdChem: We may use our decision in this case to clarify the definition of "uninvolved administrator" for enforcement purposes, so I fear it would be premature for us to address a changed definition in the context of the opening instructions for the case itself. My hope is that during the period the case is pending, good judgment will be used by all concerned, and this will not be a ground of contention, at least on an interim basis.
• To Cenarium: I don't think it would have been a good idea to delay opening the case, but if editors active in the case are also active on issues relating to the pending-changes trial and need a short amount of additional time to present evidence as a result, I would be prepared to consider that.
• To TenOfAllTrades: Thanks for your note, but no comment, I think.
• To Stephan Schulz: My apologies for the spelling mistakes.
  • Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My purpose in asking to be removed from the list of 'involved' parties is that I do not wish to be (and see no reason to be) required to closely monitor the progression of what promises to be a long and miserable arbitration process. I wish to receive notification (from a clerk or other individual, as would be received by any other uninvolved party who gets dragged into this mess after the fact) if a matter is raised which directly touches on me and requires my input. I don't want to be forced to sift through hundreds of pages of evidence, testimony, bickering, and slander to check for attacks on me.

If you cannot consider this request on your own, then feel free to raise it with your fellow arbitrators. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The "no comment" was more in response to your observations about a prior case. I'll be glad to make sure that you're notified if your name becomes embroiled in this one. (I would have welcomes your participation on the evidence or workshop pages of this case, but that's up to you.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on a cursory examination of what's taken place so far, I doubt that I could stomach participation. Count Iblis wants to bring back GoRight to help disrupt the proceedings. TheGoodLocust has offered a silly theory that Hipocrite is William Connolley's sockpuppet. ZuluPapa's claims are generally...poorly grounded. I have strong concerns that the ArbCom will go for the 'low-hanging fruit' here, and attempt to punish perceived incivility (the symptom) as an obvious and easily-identified target, rather than dealing with the messy underlying problem: vexatious mock-civil POV pushing to overrrepresent a minority, non-scientific viewpoint and suppress scientific consensus. (I predict that at least some portion of the Committee is likely to declare that they cannot address such issues, as so-called 'content' disputes are beyond their remit, making meaningful remedies impossible to pass.) The outcome will be remedies which disproportionately punish the more-experienced, better-qualified, but also more frustrated subject-matter-expert editors who have been subject to constant abuse and seige for, quite literally, years — and who are understandably a bit short with the constant influx of inexperienced, unscientific (and anti-scientist), blog-driven pseudoskeptics. I appreciate your invitation, and I have a great deal of respect for you, personally. I wish you the best of luck in the coming months. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• You didn't answer why I am listed an an involved editor while there is no basis whatsoever ? Cenarium (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't evaluated who is or isn't involved yet because we don't have the evidence in, although I do understand the reason for your question. This is why I wrote procedures that tried to eliminate the whole concept of prejudging who is or is not "involved" or "a party" before we see any evidence, which in a complex case I have learned from experience can be a huge diversion from the merits of the case. If your involvement in the underlying dispute is limited to ordinary administrator work, you will not be part of the decision, and it is unlikely that you will come up much in the evidence or workshop proposals. Beyond that, you might want to ask the person who initially listed you why he did so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm surprised at how little evidence has been presented so far. Can someone explain why? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Gathering evidence is hard work. Arguing is easier. Actually, in a way, that's sort of meta-evidence of the underlying problem: people argue their own pre-existing beliefs, and the arguments rapidly drift away from any anchorage in actual source material. And the 5% of the time that people stoop to looking at sources, you get enlightened discussions liked "Retired-gate", showing that no dispute is too picayune to get emotionally invested in. MastCell  20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting to present evidence until we have the list of questions ruled on... Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mastcell-must be a different approach, when I'm building a case I collect evidence as it happens, not after I need it. @Hipo-what list of questions? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the intelligent way to do it, but it requires much more emotional distance as it's happening, I think. If something is happening where I think I should be collecting evidence, I'm usually to upset to have the patience to do it. Of course, it is the perfect time to do it, while the events are fresh in your mind and the connections are clear. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The moment you give a deadline, you create an occasion to procrastinate. At the very least, I'm guessing, a quarter of the evidence will come in during the last 48 hours. If you had announced no deadline, editors would be scrambling to get their evidence in earlier. Of course, I can see better reasons to have a deadline, but you might get the benefit of both situations if you announce that you'll be announcing a deadline, then a little later announce the same deadline you were planning on all along. I dunno, might not work. It might not be fair to announce a deadline anything less than 10 days in advance or so. Just a thought. This may also be a relatively quiet time around Misplaced Pages (I wonder if statistics would back that up), with people perhaps occupied with the transition into summer (at least in the U.S.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Whenever I organize a conference session, >>90% of the abstracts are submitted within 24 hours of the deadline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

....unless I give a deadline extension ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agency photo copyrights

Thanks for your insightful comments at AN/I. Your comments are spot on, particularly what you said about our unauthorised use of commercial photography being considered competitive. I've been discussing this off-wiki with Mike Godwin, who agrees that "there may well be good policy reasons for developing a special speedy-delete category of the sort you describe" (at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Additional category F12: news agency photographs). FYI, it's an issue that I'm particularly aware of because I've worked as a photo buyer, so I'm very conscious of the sensitivities (and penalties!) of using unlicensed commercial photography. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented on the CSD talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment

I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, but I just felt like mentioning something that's crossed my mind recently. If I'm not mistaken, I believe you have six months remaining on the Arbitration Committee. It's hard for me to think that the ArbCom has changed so much since when I first learned about it, but as far as I can remember, you're the only Arb who's been steadily active the whole time I've been aware of the committee. I think you've done a really great job (if you don't mind me saying) — I'm always pleased to see somebody who considers the feelings and perspectives of all sides before making a decision (not that the same can't be said for the other arbitrators or that having an opposing opinion is necessarily a bad thing). If you've ever mulled over the idea of running for re-election in the upcoming December Elections (which of course, I will not pressure you into doing because I feel it is entirely your choice as to whether you think you've served your time), then I can almost assure that you would very likely have my support. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your note and the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Brad,

have you taken offense to Radek's off-wiki comment from January? I've observed Arbcom cases long enough to know that the Arbitration Committee generally cuts some slack and ignores adverse comments by sanctioned people on the conclusion of cases, as it's understood to be a normal human reaction and allowance is made for that. It is not like Radek made the comment last week, but almost six months ago when the case was concluded. Radek has done a lot of good work since then. Given that Giano routinely expresses his opinion of the Committee, I'm surprised that this one-off comment made several months ago on an external site is even an issue at all. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have mentioned it except that it was quoted in one of the statements on the request for amendment, a couple of inches above my comment. I wasn't really offended—if I got offended every time someone said something negative about the Arbitration Committee in general, or me in particular, I wouldn't be very much use in this job—and more generally, I've written in a number of the formal ArbCom decisions that comments on external sites do not affect one's rights on Misplaced Pages, except in certain unusual or extreme circumstances not present here. I think it was clear from the context that I was simply being a little bit sardonic, even as I observed that on the merits of the request, I expected to support a lifting of or modification to the sanction. And I've now finished reviewing the statements and have voted on the pending motion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Prince von ...

Hi for that redirect, if the article mentions it then the redirect may as well exist, but if the article has that "information" removed then I am happy for the redirect to be deleted. It is something that can be resolved on the talk page without a RFD. I would vote to delete, just not a speedy delete if it is in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Swamilive Socks

Per this indef blocked and banned User:Swamilive has come back with a sock, User:Scottish Coke. There have been others, not sure on the names, just know it was mentioned. Could you do a rangeblock and shut Swamilive down? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)