Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) at 18:51, 18 August 2012 (→My RfA: response to Kurtis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index of archives

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

Comment on amendment request

The comment "editors who are proxying for or carrying on on their behalf need to stop" appears to be an incendiary accusation against me and other editors so I ask that you rescind it unless you can give some really powerful evidence to back it up. It is not at anyone's behest or on anyone's behalf that I made this request. Trev sent me exactly one e-mail and it has not influenced my request one iota. I am hardly the only one who raised concerns about this restriction and Math's conduct relating to it. Try to remember that every editor, behind all the text, is still a living person (yes even banned editors) and some people take an honest interest in a case because they feel sympathy for one of the parties based on nothing more than simple sympathy. To me it seems that all this talk of proxy-editing and banned editors is creating a McCarthyian mentality on the issue where anyone who gets involved is quickly accused of some wikicrime based on essentially nothing and assumed to be part of some nefarious group. Math gets harassed by some banned editor and that's sad, but nothing entitles him to provoke other editors or distract from the central issue, which is that the ban against Trev and Sight is punitively broad (any editor who "worked in the topic") and enables disruption rather than discouraging it. I ask that you evaluate the request based solely on its merits and leave the accusations and insinuations to those who aren't expected to act impartially.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

These are good thoughts, but I would recommend that a different consideration be given a higher priority: act to achieve a good outcome on the underlying issue. Our primary purpose should be to build good encyclopedic content, and actions should aim to assist that. Fairness is important, but it is not our job to ensure that all views are heard (when those views come from topic banned editors or abusive socks). The private motivations of an editor are not important—what counts is what they do. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Taking those considerations into account, what specifically are you suggesting be done beyond what is already being done? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you rescind the comment I quoted above that you made on the request for amendment? I do not think such serious accusations against other editors without compelling evidence are the kind of comments an Arb should be making at such a request, unless that Arb is recusing from the decision.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You weren't necessarily the person I was referring to there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As it could be easily taken as a reference to me would you rescind it anyway? When the involved editors are throwing out such accusations against specific people, I do not think it is a good idea for an Arb to join in with vaguer remarks unless there is some compelling evidence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look at this. What I really want is for the banned and topic-banned users no longer to have any form of involvement in these areas, as the level of disruption they have created is severe. Even accepting that you've acted in good faith throughout this matter, you should please do nothing further to enable these people from this point on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider what I have done to be "enabling", except maybe in the more positive sense of trying to get the parties concerned to develop a more respectful and reasonable demeanor. That is what the request for amendment is about and why it does not call for any new sanctions. As long as the parties concerned stick to whatever restrictions or warnings are in place at the end and let each other edit in peace I see no reason to get involved any further.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

@NYB: I'm not going to interrupt with my opinions much more, but in case your above "15:20, 27 July 2012" comment was offering an opportunity for an additional note here, my view is that a ruling on how to handle the banned user is required. I have no additional thoughts on the clarification request—normal procedures will cater for that. However, the community cannot handle the banned user who is able to pick places to leave permanent provocations to their victim. It is outrageous that an excellent content creator has been harassed for over three years, yet editors "take responsibility for the content of this edit by a banned user" and restore their comments, thereby subverting WP:DENY. The community cannot handle that as attempting to apply DENY on a user page is seen as an infringement of personal freedom. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, is this suggestion referring solely to Echigo mole and similar site-banned sockmasters?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Is there someone else you are concerned it could reasonably be understood as referring to, in the context of the R&I situation? (That's not meant as argumentative, but genuinely informational.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be stuck. Could you please enact that motion about not using excuses to restore edits from banned users, so arbs can vote on it and close the matter? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I anticipate that either I or another arbitrator will be posting a motion within the next couple of days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I automatically watchlist pages that I edit and have already seen the comments on your page. I'll respond in due course if I decide I want to respond, and what I want to say. Talkpage notifications to me are not necessary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your well-versed !vote at this MfD! Electric Catfish 01:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned you

Hi. Just letting you know I mentioned you in User_talk:MistyMorn#Not_another_one.... --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm sorry that you found my comments unhelpful and especially that you found them "shameful." My goal in commenting there was to separate two users (MistyMorn and Br'er Rabbit) whose interaction was becoming highly toxic and was even, as per MistyMorn's comments, affecting his well-being. It struck me as essential to try to put an end to any further bickering between them, at least for a few days, and this was my (obviously ineffectual) attempt at doing that. I also sought in the same post to address one of the most obvious aspects of Br'er Rabbit's recent obnoxious behavior, which I anticipate someone is going to wind up escalating to a dispute-resolution process sooner or later if he doesn't tone it down. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) According to this version of the user page, MistyMorn is of the male persuasion. Favonian (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed so. My apologies for this error. Fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm just furious. It is shameful that that is the best response this project has to the situation. I want scholars to feel comfortable and thrive here. The Jacks and Andys and their ilk make that impossible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Without calling for any specific action against anyone here ... let's just say that I'm not arguing with you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

New York

Hey Brad. I've been thinking of you and Mr Shankbone as I'm in New York for a few days. Came for a wedding and I'm wishing I had more time as I would have loved to have met up with you. Maybe next time. Cant believe how nice the weather here is as we were stuck in KY for a day because they grounded flights coming to NYC. Anyway, I hope all is well with you. Cheers Sarah 15:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you as well, and I'm glad you got to enjoy New York for a little while. Hope to see you around more often here on-wiki also! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, NYB, a favor

Hey, Newyorkbrad, you seem like a reasonable guy and an arbitrator. We have a question at the Teahouse regarding the submission of an Arbitration case about determining the notability of the subject of a now-deleted article. I've told the author that it's out of scope for ArbCom (I may have slipped into some hyperbole while doing so :P), but it might carry more weight if an actual arbitrator comments; if you've got a moment, would you mind dropping in and leaving a brief note? The thread is Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions#Arbitration Request Assistance. (You'd of course be doubly-welcome if I'm wrong!) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not comment on a specific dispute that might be headed to arbitration, just in case it comes to before the Arbitration Committee and we have to vote on it. However, I've reviewed the discussion you linked to, and in general terms the advice you've given there is quite correct, and you are free to tell everyone that I said so.

And, thanks for the kind words (we'll see how many of my talkpage-stalkers disagree with your first sentence), as well as for your work at the Teahouse.

(For more general discussion of the relationship between Newyorkbrad, tea, and arbitration, you can check out an archived version of User:Scott MacDonald/When to shoot an admiral.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, NYB. The user insists, so I relented and agreed to show him how to do it. While I feel that this is gonna be a waste of time for all involved (hopefully not much time), I also don't think that people should be held back from doing what they think they need to do because of purely technical issues. I apologize in advance. :/ That's a pretty interesting essay, though; I don't know about you, but if it were directed at me, I think I'd take it as a compliment. Anyway, see ya around (I have a feeling it might be in circumstances other than I'd wish pretty soon...) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Newyorkbrad. We are pleased to invite you to join WikiProject Baseball's Umpires task force, a group dedicated to improving articles related to baseball umpires. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members on the task force page.

 Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'm wondering from a policy point-of-view why AnthonyCole's subpage was tagged for MfD and deleted but this page is allowed to stand? Is there a difference between the two? Truthkeeper (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't comment on why someone nominated one page and not another. The simplest and most AGF-worthy explanation would be that the nominator saw the one page but not the other, but if you have any question about it, you can ask him directly. As for the broader picture ... as I mentioned in the MfD and on Anthonyjcole's talkpage, while practice isn't 100% clear, the general rule is that these pages are allowed when they are intended for a legitimate purpose related to dispute resolution, as opposed to just the perpetuation of generalized grievances. Given that this page is relevant to a pending request for arbitration and is headed "/evidence," one presumes that Wehwalt is using it to collect relevant evidence, and as such it's a legitimate page in the short term, although one expects that it needn't stay around forever. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for removing this edit from a blocked sockpuppeteer at my RfA. I appreciate it. =) Kurtis (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help, and best wishes for your future editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)