Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:31, 10 November 2010

Archives

Index of archives

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

Mark's climate change clarification

Regarding your question to MarkNutley , he isn't in a position to answer, as his access to his talk page has now been blocked. Can you have a look at this. I have to agree with Stephan Schulz and Q Science here, the amount of behavioural evidence appears to be way to thin to draw a solid conclusion without a confirming CU, and also Mark wasn't given an opportunity to defend himself with access to his own talk page blocked by the admin actioning the SPI. --Martin (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am reviewing the checkuser evidence relevant to this block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting that this is now addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks. In regard to your original question, Mark did agree to such an undertaking here. --Martin (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this thread has been superseded by other events, but thanks again for your input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hey NYB, when you get a chance could you catch me on IM or IRC? Thanks. Drosenthal (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but unless it's an emergency it'll have to be tonight or tomorrow. If it is an emergency please send an e-mail. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not. I'll be AFK through the evening so lets try tomorrow. Drosenthal (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

RfAr filed by Communicat

I'm not sure what you're looking for in an update. The Incident Board discussion was archived without anything being resolved. Georgewilliamherbert has started preparing a RfC/U, but I do not know when he will post it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647#Continued_tendentious_editing_by_User:Communicat_despite_warnings_and_blocks shows that I and Nick-D are willing to particpate, though the latter does not believe it the the best venue.(07:05, 3 November) Communicat accused Georgewilliamherbert of "bias and prejudgement" (09:19, 1 November), then said "I would support an Rfc that confines itself essentially to a review of alleged systematic bias at milhist project" (19:15, 3 November) then refused to participate in any RfC where his conduct would come under scrutiny (19:25, 3 November) I have considered posting about author Stan Winer on the reliable sources noticeboard and possibly the copyright violation board, since I have doubts about the ownership of the Vorster picture, but felt that would merely inflame matters at this time. Edward321 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The user conduct RFC is still in progress but got pushed down the priority stack by a couple of other problem user things today. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow morning, but I have a rocket propulsion conference Saturday afternoon... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've updated my comments on the arbitration requests page. Thank you both for your input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for your comments there. Should I repost my comments here to the RfAr? Edward321 (talk)

It would probably help make sure the other arbitrators see it if you do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done and thanks. Shouldn't the numbers there be 1/6/0/1, not 1/5/0/1? Edward321 (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My userpage

Ok, done. Just for your information, the "int." stood for "interest." Thanks in advance, Carolyn Baker III (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages DC Meetup 13

You are invited to Misplaced Pages DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page stalking

Hey, Brad. I forgot to mention earlier, but thanks for removing those links from Beaver2000000(etc) earlier. The links raising the pagerank probably wouldn't have even occurred to me, so it's good you took care of that. Thanks again! Hersfold 05:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it's good that I've been publicly branded a "stalker" going into the elections period, but thanks for the message. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Was that a declaration? Have you filed with the Federal Elections Commission? (Speaking of talk page stalking... I probably have it watchlisted from the brief halcyon days of WP:WPPP.) Neutron (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That should get going again, although a couple of the more active editors in the area are no longer available. :( Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Compare and contrast

Rlevse and ChrisO William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Compared and contrasted. Next request? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the kids-glove approach that arbcomm members are taking to Rlevse (really, he is gone, we don't need to comment on his behaviour, do we?) as opposed to the screw-him-into-the-ground method used on ChrisO. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See my votes on the ChrisO proposals on the proposed decision, and the extensive criticism I took for it on the talkpage. I believe you will find my approach generally consistent in the two instances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

11.6 William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's unfair to point to that one paragraph without acknowledging everything else I said and voted in the case. But with respect to that paragraph:

I sometimes find that in the late stage of voting on a case, the majority of my colleagues are viewing an issue differently from how I am viewing it. That was the situation here. My view was that we need not necessarily take any action; among my colleagues, some wanted to take action A, and the others wanted to take more serious action B. At that point, my (more generally, the dissenter's) options are either to oppose both actions, which leaves me without any input in the choice between A and B, or to offer qualified support for the option I find more proportionate. Hence my comment in voting: "Since the majority believes that a sanction should be voted against ChrisO, and this one is proportionate with the sanctions against some other editors, I will support it." (Emphasis added.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds specious to me. If you'd wanted to vote against 11.6, you should have done so. On none of 11.1-11.6 would you switching your vote have affected the result, and since we know arbs don't make backroom deals over vote trading, your vote wouldn't have affected the other votes William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree with my vote on that paragraph. All I can do is use my best judgment. I'm not quite clear why you have chosen to take this issue up with me, who probably agreed with your apparent view on the ChrisO matter more than any other arbitrator who sat on the case, as opposed to one of the many who disagreed with your views completely; but I also suppose it doesn't matter much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• WMC, in what way are you not violating your topic ban right now in this conversation? It is most unhealthy to continue litigating this dispute. Your chance to litigate is concluded and now you need to live with the result, hopefully by honoring the letter and the spirit of your topic restriction. It's one thing to appeal your own restriction or ask for a clarification, and quite something else to carry on a climate change dispute on behalf of ChrisO. Jehochman 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well clearly I'm not, because NYB would have refused to engage in discussion if I was. NYB doesn't need you to hold his hand, and it is rather bad faith for you to describe this as "litigating" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up on the Arb clarifications page and none of the arbs deigned to provide an answer. It would seem pretty damn perverse for ArbCom to prevent editors from discussing ArbCom actions, no matter what restrictions are on editors about some topic. The focus of WMC's attention is on Newyorkbrad's actions, not the actions of someone else, but certainly WMC should be able to bring up ChrisO's actions if that helps to further discussion of Brad's. And with ArbCom elections coming up, it's important to air concerns about the actions of those running for election. In practical terms, it's better to allow WMC, me or anyone else involved in the case to bring up arbitrators' actions in this case: ArbCom would look horrible to everybody else if it isn't allowed, and real elections depend on freedom of speech, otherwise they won't be trusted. Will this extend the climate-change infighting a bit longer? Probably. But it's no big deal and that doesn't outweigh the greater good of open discussion about ArbCom. I'd be interested to hear from others on this, because if Jehochman's view is widely held, I or somebody else needs to go back to the ArbCom clarifications page and get this cleared up. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm ready to block you or WMC if either of you persists in carrying on the climate change battle. It is transparently obvious what both of you are doing. It's called WP:BATTLE and WP:GAME. It's dull and unoriginal. Please, be creative, original or exciting, or productive. Jehochman 23:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)