Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:15, 30 August 2010

Archives

Index of archives

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

Panel on BLP at Wiki-Conference 2010

What do you envision as the format of the panel discussion? For example, should each of us take one of your examples, read it, give our opinion and then open up for questioning? What do you have in mind? Can we give our own examples? How about other reasons for non-publication beside BLP (such as military secrets; for instance, the Afghan War Diary). I note that your examples concentrate on US law and journalism. Even the English Misplaced Pages has adherents from the UK, Australia and India, which have different publishing ethics. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I think our panel is on the schedule for Sunday afternoon. Will you be at the conference on Saturday? If so, perhaps you and I and anyone else involved can sit down for a few minutes and discuss what's the best way of doing it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be there before 10 both days. When and where do you want to meet? How about lunch Saturday? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That should work for me. I'll be there both days as well, so I'm sure we'll find each other. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

Have you seen this? It's all getting to be a bit much and I'm going to take a break from Misplaced Pages for the sake of my own sanity (possibly a very long break, given the broad hints as to what the final decision will be). If any of the arbs would like to reach me in the meantime please use the email link on my talk page. Good luck with your negotiations. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a proposed decision up as of now. I personally regret very much that it took this long, but hopefully we can move forward from here with productive comments on the decision, voting, and finalization of the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

In the absence of the assigned clerk, and because it is quicker to do than to ask other Arb Clerks, I have semi protected the above Proposed decision page. I have sprotected indefinitely, but as I am an involved party I suggest that someone "take over" the responsibility of the protection and the appropriate duration. I have also RevDel one of the vandal edits, but since this is more difficult to assign to another editor I shall desist. I am copying this to all drafting ArbCom members, and the Clerks talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I endorse the semiprotection. As for the mock proposed decsion, no comment I suppose, except I smiled at some of the comments attributed to me; in mockery sometimes there is a germ of truth. (I'll emphasize again that I'm only referring to the comments about myself.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Coramandel23 and right to vanish

You blanked this user's talk page under the right to vanish. However, the user is apparently still actively socking (see User talk:BunyanTree). Given that the user has chosen not to vanish, I believe that they have voluntarily chosen to give up RTV, and we should restore the page for the benefit of those checking for future socks. Do you have any objection to doing so? Seraphimblade 04:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have to admit that I do not remember this situation well, several months later. Let me take a look at it again in the next day or so and I will post further here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

General note re Climate change proposed decision

Please note that the proposed decision that was posted tonight reflects input from several arbitrators, particularly the three drafters (Risker, Rlevse, and myself). It will now, of course, be discussed and voted on by the committee as a whole. I recommend that any input regarding the proposed decision be posted on the proposed decision talkpage, rather than here or on any other individual arbitrator's talkpage, so that everyone will see it and have an opportunity to consider it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

semantics

"Semantically, I moved "may edit only from one account" to the end of the sentence for clarity, as the status quo is that this editor may edit from no accounts at all."

As an editor with no account I think your phrasing is still not precise enough, but that's a quibble. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, and I will remember it for the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd

The PD is odd in many way, but this as a BLP vio is probably the oddest. Is that a pasto or did you really mean it? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm here: is it reasonable to include edits that pre-date the BLP policy? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

See note two threads above. Please post comments such as these to the proposed decision talkpage so that everyone—arbitrators and others—will have the opportunity to read. Please also note that, contrary to what seems to be an emerging popular belief (although I do not say that you necessarily hold it), I did not write the whole proposed decision myself. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, . Re the authorship, I assumed you had, since you edited it last; but now I see it is Risker's. Sorry for tarring you with such a terrible thing William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There were contributions to the decision by all three listed drafters (and some others). Everyone should please focus more on the merits of the proposals—comments of all sorts are welcome as long as they are civil and constructive—rather than on personalities. As indicated, the best place for comments is on the proposed decision talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not the only drafter, but as you are an user who has promoted "balanced findings of facts" in the R+I case, I do have to say that misstating the community consensus in Fof 8 and excluding mention of the CC probation review (particularly what fully uninvolved users determined on the matter) in Fof 3 sort of promotes the opposite of balanced + accurate findings. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice now that you say will have the opportunity to read. You (and indeed the other arbs) also have the opportunity to comment, but have declined it. Presumably this implies that you're happy for the PD discussion to continue in the face of obvious errors in the PD? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it implies that we are reviewing the comments so that we can modify or improve the proposed decision as appropriate. There are, as you can imagine, a fair number of comments for us to digest—many of which claim the opposite of each other, so we need to review them and decide what changes are appropriate. (It is, however, a novel experience for me to be accused of not saying enough.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I appreciate the vote (or !vote) of confidence. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your motion

Hi Brad,

thanks for drafting your motion, I have a posted some comments here for your consideration. Thanks. --Martin (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've thought about your points very carefully. Having done so, I still think the motion that I proposed strikes the right balance between allowing you to resume editing the articles you say you want to, without the possibility that the problems that took place last year will resume. Please bear in mind that the restriction ends in December anyway, so at that point you will be able to resume unrestricted editing in any event, assuming that there are no further problems. Finally, I believe that the motion I have proposed is much more likely to gain majority support from the other arbitrators than the original proposal to lift the topic-ban outright.

I understand your concern that you might be subject to frivolous enforcement requests. However, none of the articles you mention in your request for clarification strike me as close to the line, and so hopefully this will not become an issue. If you are indeed subjected to "vexatious litigation" as you fear, please bring the matter to our attention and we can reconsider the original motion. Hopefully, however, this will not be necessary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, please see this and the thread containing it. Martintg appears to have been violating his topic ban and pursuing a vendetta against me. I don't think he should experience any loosening of sanctions. Please remember that my name came up prominently in the secret mailing list archives. It does not look like mere chance that he's now trying to trip me up. Jehochman 01:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(To Jehochman:) Thanks for pointing me to that thread. However, the loosening of the restriction that I have proposed would allow Martintg to contribute to articles about Estonian culture (art, literature, etc.), while continuing to restrict him from articles about disputes between Estonia and Estonians and other cultures or ethnicities. This struck me as the best accommodation of Martintg's desire to edit on topics he feels close to and contribute knowledgeably about, and the desire to avoid further disruption and disputes. Is there anything in his recent edit(s) that creates concern about his participating within the scope of the proposed narrower ban? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(To Martintg:) As you move on with your editing, it would almost certainly be best if you steered clear of discussions concerning sanctions against other editors in the topic area from which you are restricted. I don't especially want to debate whether that is or is not within the scope of the topic-ban; it's best for you to avoid the area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I could support loosening the restriction with the additional caveat that Martintg is to avoid, by a wide margin, past conflicts stemming from the EEML case. His recent edits that I pointed out were violating or close to violating his current topic ban, and are dangerously close to past disruptive behavior. Jehochman 02:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly Martin is correct in pointing out the difficulties of staying within the limits of the proposed topic ban. If Visual arts in Estonia was to become anything like Estonian literature he would have to be very careful in his edits. The section Post World War II in the later article is a classic example of the exile POV many would suspect Marting would try to push. The two subtitles 1) In Exile and 2) Behind the Iron Curtain are so laughably POVish that even I would not like to touch them. The article now "stands" on its own merits :-) In fact I do not think there is a single stone in Estonia the exile community and their spiritual descendants and the Soviet community and their spiritual descendants could agree on. However, If Martin is allowed to edit I would welcome him to cooperate with me on something I have wanted to start for a long time: List of stones in Estonia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. I've taken your comments on board. Petri Krohn's comments exemplies my concerns, contriving a fictional dispute between "exile community" and "soviet community" (the Soviet Union collapsed 20 years ago so neither exists) in something as innocuous as Estonian literature in order to potentially game this amended sanction. That Petri Krohn finds Estonian literature#Post World War II "laughably POVish" is probably more a function SAFKA POV. In any case that section was written by an editor from Estonia, so the notion of "exile community" and "soviet community" is somewhat incongruent. I will see how thus flies and if I am subjected to frivolous enforcement requests I will certainly bring it back to the Committee's attention. --Martin (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RfAr/Climate change note

Just by way of an update for those keeping track, I will be tied up tomorrow (Monday) night, but plan to use Tuesday and (if necessary) Wednesday nights to finish my analysis of the input we've received on the talkpage, suggest modifications to the proposed decision or make any new proposals, and finish my voting on the case. (Please provide any additional input (non-duplicative please) on the talkpage of the proposed decision, not here so that all arbitrators can review it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)