Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:53, 31 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)

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)

Yes -- it most certainly is. Try Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist). I am perfectly willing to give the locus in a post, but I am a firm believer that nothing approaching an "attack page" in userspace is proper. I believe, though am not absolutely certain, that the two editors are one editor who changed his name. For the earlier posts you need to see Talk:Matt Drudge/Archive 1 etc. The wording is certainly quite akin. The editor is the same one who specifically called me a "nutcase" <g>. Is my opinion abot making sure BLPs have the highest standards too far afield from yours? Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:26, 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)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision#Planning to address issues

You used the word "good" twice in the clause about "Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good good faith of other users". John Carter (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

I wonder why you miss Tenmei's behavior during the ArbCom case? Several editors addressed the matter, and his incivility, but your final draft does not reflect the concerns.--Caspian blue 20:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed finding 3 directly addresses this subject. If you believe it is not sufficient or does not contain enough detail, you should post to the talkpage of the proposed decision, where the other arbitrators will see your concerns. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe Tenemi's attacks and harassment to me and Teeninvestor, and Nick-D like these comment today is allowed to Wiki.

"Aside. Caspian blue's persisting cognitive dissonance is most harmful when it attempts to foster a perception of bad faith where none exists -- see"

"Garbage in Garbage out.....and others.

If ArbCom fails to guide the disruptive editor who has repeated his behavior, who can guide him?-Caspian blue 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback use

Regarding this, it would have been better if you left an edit summary. Why did you revert it anyway? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember doing that; it must have been an accidental click on my BlackBerry. Apologies, and please put it back (I can't readily do it from here as I'm in transit). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

BlackBerry? Those are as good as doorstops! Get a proper smartphone! :) -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be travelling with limited availability until Monday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

• A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

• 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
• 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
• 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
• 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?

"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."

• B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:

"This guy is out of control, man."

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)