This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 26 January 2008 (→Nag on command: saves). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:58, 26 January 2008 by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (→Nag on command: saves)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| To keep conversations together, I will generally reply on this page to messages left here. If you would prefer that I reply on your talkpage or elsewhere, please feel free to let me know. |
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| This is Newyorkbrad's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Welcome!
Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
IRC "continued input"
You asked for my "continued input" at arbitration cases, I wonder if you'll regret that now. :-). I noticed RFAR/IRC has several Findings, but no Remedies, so suggested a couple. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Workshop#1RR_for_Wikipedia_name_space and the next one. Is it considered proper to propose remedies with "see above for whom this affects"? :-) --AnonEMouse 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ack! You opposed! That's it, impeachment proceedings underway... :-) --AnonEMouse 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- It might have been a reasonable remedy as to some of the parties to the case, but not all. For example, at present, there's at least one party (an experienced and highly respected administrator) whom a majority of the participating arbitrators believe edited disruptively on-wiki to the point of warranting an ArbCom finding, and I am in dissent from that finding, so I cannot support a proposal that would impose a substantially restrictive remedy against that party. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if you have noticed, but there is a non-negligible feeling that the interminable and silly "Geogre/Giano and co." vs "Tony Sidaway and co." political wars (1) can't be stopped, since there are unblocking admins on each side, and (2) are taking a non-negligible toll on the whole Misplaced Pages. It isn't even about a specific reason, they're like the Montagues and Capulets, just having them run across each other in any context leads to a knife fight. Just saying "you're all good well meaning editors, leave each other alone and WP:TROUT to all of you" has been done before. Do you have a better proposal for an actual remedy? --AnonEMouse 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Actual remedies" are under discussion. My thinking on some aspects of this dispute may not be in line with the feelings of a majority of the other arbitrators, which is why I have not written up a proposed decision long ago. I too am heartily sick of the "political wars" you mention and want to see an end to them. It saddens me that some of the same people are still arguing about some of the same things as when I became active on the site 18 months ago, and I am sure that I have lost credibility after having urged the sort of general admonition you describe only to see the same feuding flare up again and again. I still think that putting a contributor on any sort of parole who I think engaged in no or minimal misconduct would not be right, so I still couldn't support that, but I wish very much we saw resolve from more of the parties concerned to discontinue the type of conduct that led to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if you have noticed, but there is a non-negligible feeling that the interminable and silly "Geogre/Giano and co." vs "Tony Sidaway and co." political wars (1) can't be stopped, since there are unblocking admins on each side, and (2) are taking a non-negligible toll on the whole Misplaced Pages. It isn't even about a specific reason, they're like the Montagues and Capulets, just having them run across each other in any context leads to a knife fight. Just saying "you're all good well meaning editors, leave each other alone and WP:TROUT to all of you" has been done before. Do you have a better proposal for an actual remedy? --AnonEMouse 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- It might have been a reasonable remedy as to some of the parties to the case, but not all. For example, at present, there's at least one party (an experienced and highly respected administrator) whom a majority of the participating arbitrators believe edited disruptively on-wiki to the point of warranting an ArbCom finding, and I am in dissent from that finding, so I cannot support a proposal that would impose a substantially restrictive remedy against that party. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I feel that I have contributed much to end this silly feud, but I intend to continue to do all in my power and I'm open to suggestions. Before this arbitration case was accepted I asked to be removed from the access list at the admins channel, and I have stated publicly that I intend this to be permanent. I have discussed the affair with Bishonen in private on IRC and have got the impression that I have mended my fences with her (if there's anything more I can do she only has to ask). I have (after admittedly requiring some extremely heavy hints from Brad) stopped commenting in any way on Giano's conduct, and intend this, like my decision to leave the admins channel, to be permanent. Even supposing I am right in my assessment (and of course I retain my own opinion on this), no comment I could make on the matter could fail to be tainted by the history of bad blood between us, and indeed such comments coming from me rather than someone less involved are more than likely to prejudice any case that might exist.
- Moreover the current state of what approximates to civil unrest on Misplaced Pages, and open distrust of the newly elected arbitration committee, which I know does an excellent job in difficult circumstances, worries me more than any other matter that has occurred on English Misplaced Pages since the Seigenthaler case. What appeared to me to be a minor interpersonal spat has evidently taken on much greater dimensions, and makes me determined to at least try to mind my p's and q's in the context of Misplaced Pages, whether on wiki or off. I think this is the best way forward, and hope that the other editors involved in this case, or merely observing it, will follow suit. --Tony Sidaway 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, thank you for your comments. If you can live up to the commitments you have made here and elsewhere, then progress has been made. One caveat is that I don't believe expressing "open distrust of the newly exected arbitration committee" is in any way actionable conduct. I think the "newly elected committee" is entitled to trust, but then again, I would, wouldn't I? :) I'm not going to base any form of decision-making on whether anyone expresses admiration or otherwise for the committee or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, I raise the problem of "open distrust of the newly elected arbitration committee" not as a conduct issue but as an example of the unintended consequence of my failure to take the consequences of my own comments into account. If anyone is sanctionable for allowing that state of affairs to arise, it is me. Had my manner of self-expression been less direct and more diplomatic, the bad feelings that are evident in this case, which I myself do not share or condone, would not have arisen. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, thank you for your comments. If you can live up to the commitments you have made here and elsewhere, then progress has been made. One caveat is that I don't believe expressing "open distrust of the newly exected arbitration committee" is in any way actionable conduct. I think the "newly elected committee" is entitled to trust, but then again, I would, wouldn't I? :) I'm not going to base any form of decision-making on whether anyone expresses admiration or otherwise for the committee or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Brad, you have to explain how you can get both sides in a range war to respect you this much. Can you bottle the stuff and sell it over the counter? --AnonEMouse 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that situation is going to last much longer, unfortunately. :( Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you active?
Misplaced Pages:ArbCom#Members says you're "inactive," and will be until the 23rd. But over the past couple weeks, you've generally been the first arbitrator to respond and not just in cases you've been previously involved in. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've been travelling on business, so less than fully active ... but I've had more time than I anticipated (or might have wanted) sitting around in airport lounges and hotel business centers ... so I've been pitching in when I could on a case-by-case basis. I'll be back to fully active around Tuesday. Warning: a couple more questions like that, and someone will nominate you to be an Arbitration Clerk. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "Civility at fringe articles"
I posted the following in reply to your "decline" at RfA re SPOV and civility at fringe articles. I think there is a bigger deeper problem that will ultimately have to be addressed somehow.
- The difficulty, IMO, is that the pattern of abuse is diffuse, and that no individual diff can be unambiguously construed as violation of any explicit policy, though the aggregrate effect does violate the spirit. I've tried to enunciate this at my RfC regarding Ronz, which is related to this RfA (starting as it did with the Quackwatch article). Pete St.John (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is very true: surely the committee can deal with things which are broad rather than deep and narrow. This is not about content but about user behavior and also specific refusal of established policy, and it is a broad pattern across several articles. Why can't the committee tackle this? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because the committee is on wikibreak? :-) Pete St.John (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is very true: surely the committee can deal with things which are broad rather than deep and narrow. This is not about content but about user behavior and also specific refusal of established policy, and it is a broad pattern across several articles. Why can't the committee tackle this? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Heh (-= ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Howdy.. noticed this topic was already being discussed here, so I wanted to throw in a couple cents worth. While I don't see that there's anything for arbcom to do on this at the moment, I do see this general issue as legitimate cause for concern. Many controversial topics have gone into a "dig in, man the guns, and kill everyone" mode. I can see how this happened, but I don't think it's the right approach. It's common to see hostile enough editing environments that many editors become reluctant to participate. In some cases, editors are even explicitly encouraged to stay out. I don't think this is good. I think a better way to deal with this is to have more reasonable editors helping out, not to have very small groups getting increasing bitey and fanatic. I don't doubt the good faith of the editors involved- they're defending the integrity of our articles, which is certainly a worthy cause. I do think it's time to find a way to review the tactics involved, tho. I think our standard wiki process can work to keep out propaganda, if only we'd start using it again. Friday (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Right. On whether there is anything for the ArbCom to do, I think there seems to be a problem with the ArbCom's ability to tackle complex and subtle issues- also, I'm aware that the ArbCom doesn't decide policy, but does that mean it can't enforce already decided policy? I mean, SPOV was rejected by the community. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've considered your points. At present I still don't see that a new case would be helpful, but I will be keeping a close eye on the statements as they are posted and on the other arbitrators' comments as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you (-: I'll try to focus any future requests better. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Good thought
Hi,
"compliance with policies and standards by all sides should reduce interpersonal disputes." That's a good thought. It's what the case is about: 1. editors who make a explicit practice to subvert policy (and say as much), and 2. editors who are uncivil. These are editorial practices, and the committee does take these issues. I'll re-factor the case if necessary to bring out these features, but it will be the same case. You are correct that the debate reflects (a bit of) the real world, but WP is not the real world, it's NPOV and civil- and that's where the committee comes in.
The specific dispute: You don't want a content dispute, you want something to do with user behavior, and that is what we have: disruption, incivility, and POV pushing- hey, it has to be that on one side or the other (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- See comment above. By the way, I don't see why your last comment ("it has to be that on one side or the other") is necessarily true. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, you could be correct there. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
David Gerard
You stated in your abstention to FoF on David Gerard that you haven't seen him misuse the tools in any other situation. I just wanted to point out that he was involved in blocking an entire town in Utah from editing with IPs. When asked about it, he lied and said that the local ISP was an open proxy in the Register article . It wasn't until a second newspaper called him on it that he finally unblocked the town. Cla68 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note and giving me a chance to clarify. I said (or certainly meant) that David Gerard hasn't been alleged previously to have misused administrator tools similarly to the behavior charged in this case, or in a way that would be relevant to this particular case. I wasn't saying that he has a perfect record in 3+ years as an administrator. I doubt that anyone has. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
David Gerard—possible typo?
In your recent update to your vote on David Gerard (BTW, thanks!), you used the term "ranging" when referring to an edit war; is this a typo and you meant "wide-ranging" or "raging", or do I not know the use of the word "ranging" in this context? Jouster (whisper) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good typo catch; I meant "raging" and have fixed it accordingly. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Something up with your page
I don't know if others notice this, but in Cologneblue skin it's pretty obvious that there's something up with your talk page. The problem seems to have something to do with your use of "div" tags near the top, and the effect is that your "away" notice is displayed floating at the bottom of the page where it tends to clash with navigation links. Thought you might like to know. --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm using the default (monobook skin) and I see the same thing. -- Flyguy649 04:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I wanted the notice at the bottom of the page to be noticed by people leaving messages, and someone coded it so that it would stay there, and until now I didn't know it was causing any difficulties. I'm back home as of tonight, even though I'm not at all 100% of my usual editing time yet, so I will go ahead and remove the notice. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Tireless...
I see you have done some tireless contributing also...
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For outstanding diligence in your meta contributions in the area of dispute resolution. You reflect great credit upon the English Misplaced Pages, The Wikimedia Foundation, and Free knowledge everywhere. Mercury at 04:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 04:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
- Thanks very much. I really appreciate this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
sections removal
He had already revealed the information on the RFA. Since you are removing sections, you may consider selective deletion on both the talks and the RFA. Mercury at 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. I missed this completely; I had no idea that an RfA was pending. I'm off to read it now. Please proceed as you think best. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser Request
First, the checkuser request was mine to start with. Someone has added my name. I feel suspicious enough of her to add her name. Take mine off and take hers off. Don't play favorites. Mike Bate (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please see my comments on your talkpage. It looks like the entire request should be deferred to the arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The checkuser request was made before the arbcomm request. Are you suggesting I/we just wipe out the RCU completely? Go for it. I need to go to bed, so I'll add the RCU to the arbcomm request tomorrow. Mike Bate (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just add a comment in the arbitration request to the effect that there is a checkuser request pending, to save you the trouble of copying the whole thing over again. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The checkuser request was made before the arbcomm request. Are you suggesting I/we just wipe out the RCU completely? Go for it. I need to go to bed, so I'll add the RCU to the arbcomm request tomorrow. Mike Bate (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It was my request in the first place. Why can't I withdraw it? Mike Bate (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, you can withdraw the current request, though you should be careful not to blank the prior ones as you did, probably inadvertently. If you note in the edit summary that it is your request that you are withdrawing, that may help. If someone reverts you, just make a note in the body of the request that as the filing party you have decided to withdraw it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your recent edits from R
Please see here for a reply. Thanks -- R Contribs@ 03:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again ^ -- R Contribs@ 03:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Um, I still watchlist pages that I edit. You don't have to keep cross-posting here. Unless you are just doing it for the edit count. :-P :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know the drill ^ ....and no...just so you don't miss a post from R in your watchlist :].
- Well, if you didn't have one of those easy-to-miss single-letter usernames.... :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you go IRC? -- R Contribs@ 04:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you didn't have one of those easy-to-miss single-letter usernames.... :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know the drill ^ ....and no...just so you don't miss a post from R in your watchlist :].
- Um, I still watchlist pages that I edit. You don't have to keep cross-posting here. Unless you are just doing it for the edit count. :-P :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Prithee
What harassment? What disruption? Of course sock of the user you named. 59.91.253.123 (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Read his edit summaries, among other things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Timing of discussions and future of page (WP:WEA)
Hi Brad. I wonder if you missed my post here? I know you've been busy lately, so no worries, but if you could say something, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. My personal view is that the importance of the page describing #admins is being drastically overblown on all sides. In terms of what the intent was when the page was created, input would probably be more useful from those who participated in deciding to create it, rather than from someone like me who first heard of it during a prior edit-war on its contents several weeks afterwards. In terms of the future of the page, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I expect that arbitrators with more knowledge or stronger views should respond to your talkpage post; if no one does in a day or two, I will try to nudge on the mailing list, as I suspect that after the latest rounds of name-calling, not everyone is following the talkpage closely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- And thanks for the reply. :-) I note you don't name "those who participated in deciding to create it", but really I think that sort of thing should be openly declared at the case. Especially if there are arbitrators voting who participated in the prior discussion that (seemingly) sanctioned David Gerard's creation and ownership of the page. They, as well as David, could have stepped in at any point over the past year and clearly said "the page is owned, stop this edit warring". If this was not clear up until now, then clearly those editing the page were labouring under false impressions. If the decision has only now been taken that the page is owned, then that is retrospective and similarly unfair. Does that make any sense? I know you are of the opinion that no sanctions are needed, but I'm just trying to sort through some thoughts here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please help
Can someone please do something with this thing's posting? It is fucking harassing me at this point and doing nothing but sockpuppet and harass now. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
here going after this "archenemy" Eschoir. This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. Lawrence Cohen 14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Easy Lawrence. Don't canvass in too many places. Take a break for 24 hours and we'll sort it out. Jehochman 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Returning
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Philadelphia 6
You're invited to the
Sixth Philadelphia-area Misplaced Pages Meetup
January 2008
Time: January 26th, 5:00 PM
Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut
You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
IRC/Remedies
Just to clarify something that isn't clear - you are opposed to all or nearly all of the remedies in the IRC case, but haven't proposed any. Is this an indication that you believe no remedies are warranted in this case? I don't necessarily disagree with you, as I think the whole thing is the absolute example of a tempest in a teapot. I would expect, though, that if this is the case you would propose a "Parties are reminded" remedy of some sort (even though this type of wording has come under fire recently as a sort of cop-out). This may not be the place to start, but on these purely meta conflicts I think in the future the ArbCom should consider restricting editors to articlespace (or some variation) as a more routine remedy. 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that on some issues I may be out of synch with a majority of the arbitrators on aspects of this case, so am not necessarily the best person to write up a proposed decision. (I'm also conscious of the fact that I'm a brand-new "rookie" arbitrator yet have already written three decisions in three weeks.) I had drafted an opinion in this case which I circulated to the arbitrators privately a couple of weeks back, only to find that my approach enjoyed basically no support at all. Further, I also have to confess that I have found myself discouraged by the tone of the discussion and at least one comment directed at me on the proposed decision talkpage. I am not going to change my views of the case or its proper outcome based on an uncivil comment directed at me, but I don't have to appreciate it, either.
- I am going to wait a little bit longer to see what the other arbitrators have to say about either the remedies that have been proposed or alternatives that might be offered, and I may or may not post some proposals in the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I scanned through out of curiosity and didn't find any flames directed at you personally (I just wanted to see who would've done such a thing) but most of it was too irritating to actually read every word, so I probably missed it. You're doing fine so far, in my opinion, not that I'm an authority or anything ;-) I don't know what some of the main culprits thought they were achieving - it seems like they just argue with eachother to argue, and on whatever page happens to find them together at any given time. 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it's buried and not receiving attention, that's fine with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I scanned through out of curiosity and didn't find any flames directed at you personally (I just wanted to see who would've done such a thing) but most of it was too irritating to actually read every word, so I probably missed it. You're doing fine so far, in my opinion, not that I'm an authority or anything ;-) I don't know what some of the main culprits thought they were achieving - it seems like they just argue with eachother to argue, and on whatever page happens to find them together at any given time. 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Question about whether a proposed finding of fact has a chance
Is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop#"Decommissioned highway" is a neologism a content decision, or does it have a chance of passing? If the former, is there a way I can reword it to make it acceptable? --NE2 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- My first reaction is certainly that it sounds like a content decision, in that it is a decision that one phrasing should be used in articles rather than another. This is as opposed to a user conduct decision, such as that User:X has violated a policy or should be restricted in a certain way. However, if you can suggest any reason why this should not be regarded as presumptively a content ruling, I'm certainly willing to consider it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's essentially a counterexample to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop#USRD has not gone against consensus; is it possible that that will pass? --NE2 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Please review a block
Dear NewYorkBrad,
I would like you to look into this, please. Recently a new editor logged in as User:Vittala. His first edits were to vote on two nominations for deletion, Jeff Rosenbaum and WinterStar Symposium. When he tried to edit some articles, he discovered that User:JzG Help! (AKA Guy) had blocked him just a few hours after his first edits, saying that he is "a sock-puppet or meat-puppet" of mine. It should be noted that Guy had voted the opposite way on these same two nominations, which were still open when he placed the block.
Vittala is not a sock-puppet of mine. Guy could easily have determined this by checking his IP address; he doesn't even live in the same state. I'm not sure what a "meat-puppet" is, but he did not edit or vote at my request. He contacted me after he was blocked, which was the first time I discovered who the person voting as "Vittala" was, and though he was aware of some of the things I've been going through lately on Misplaced Pages, I did not ask him to edit or coach him as to how to do it (if I had, he would have signed in correctly, rather than a bot being needed to fill in his name later). I have never used a sock-puppet, though I've certainly had problems with people who do.
Guy did not inquire or discuss this block first with me or Vittala. He obviously did not make his decision based on editing history, since there was none, or based on IP address. I believe that it is inappropriate for one person voting in a matter to block another while the dispute is still open, too. Guy has had a problem with my editing before, and has been IMO a bit uncivil concerning it. I challenged this block on his talk page, but he has not responded. The block he placed was indefinite.
I would request that you look this over, with hope that the block can be lifted. This is a new editor who honestly wanted to edit and create articles; he is his own individual, and no matter what Guy's motives are I think an indefinite block less than five hours later is draconian for the very first edit someone does. I am advocating for this since Vittala is totally inexperienced in such matters, and because I was accused of something of which I am innocent.Rosencomet (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. In view of my new position as an arbitrator, I am reluctant to look at the matter at this stage in case it winds up in arbitration later on. Also unfortunately, Guy may be unavailable to comment on this matter for awhile because of his personal situation per his talkpage. I suggest that you post to WP:ANI regarding this matter and see if a consensus of administrators can be arrived at. Please let me know if you try that and no resolution is reached within a reasonable period of time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. User:Vittala has been unblocked as a result of a discussion on WP:ANI, and the editor who did it has agreed to "keep an eye on him". The expressed feelings were that an indefinite instablock with no discussion was too harsh and quick a reaction under the circumstances, and that it was a case of "biting the newbie". Thanks again. Rosencomet (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comment on the IRC case
You write "If he can adhere to this promise over the long term, rather than just for a short while as in some past incidents, then progress will have been made."
I have never made any such promise on Misplaced Pages before. To undertake to observe permanent purdah on a matter where one would normally expect to be able to make public comments is not something I do lightly. To resolve further to be extremely careful in making any comment on matters Misplaced Pages at all, which I have done, is a very large undertaking indeed, and probably unprecedented by any Wikipedian. I have observed a very large minefield, delineated its extent, and resolved to avoid it. That it took me so long is regrettable, but there we are. It is a most unexpected and perplexing situation. --Tony Sidaway 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know that you have made your promise this time in a more public and formal way than in the past. That makes it all the more important that you hold to it, and I hope that you can. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet discussion
In this discussion, you are obviously aware of some sockpuppet of VivianDarkbloom, but do not mention it by name. Do you happen to remember? She's blocked right now, so I would like to make sure no block evasion is going on.Kww (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I ever knew. VivianDarkbloom had admitted that this was not her or his only account, but did not give any other account name and I did not follow up. While I don't condone block evasion, as and if the other account apparently is not causing any disruption I wouldn't make tracking it down a top priority. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Since she is making false accusations of vandalism directed at me, I have tracking it down a little higher on my personal "to-do" list, but I can see where it wouldn't be high on yours.Kww (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. I hadn't seen that. In the past she's been threatened with blocks for generalized name-calling, typically on AfD's. I'm sorry if things have escalated to a new and more offensive level. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Since she is making false accusations of vandalism directed at me, I have tracking it down a little higher on my personal "to-do" list, but I can see where it wouldn't be high on yours.Kww (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Communication restricted
You say "I will watch for comment from the potentially affected editors, on the talkpage, before weighing in more formally."
For reasons you may appreciate quite well, I won't comment on this proposed remedy on that talk page, but I have already told Mackensen that I thought it might be a winner.
A symmetrical and unambiguous "restraining order", as Mackensen has expressed it in his reply. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
*poke*
around by any chance? (with access to your emails) :) -- lucasbfr 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Taken care of, sorry for the spam. -- lucasbfr 09:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Unblock clarification
Re: , do you want me to unblock now (so he can contribute to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration and Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration only), or wait and see if a case is opened and then unblock (and limit editing to the six relevant subpages)? Daniel (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned he can be unblocked now. In fact, I'm not convinced that it needs to be a "limited" unblock as I don't see real potential for harm for this user, but I won't intervene directly since I'll be sitting on the arbitration case, if accepted. (Note: If unblocked, he should be asked to stay away from RfA. But I see now that he's been unblocked for the RfAr only, so we can leave it there for now.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Follow up
You ever get a chance to look into that issue I emailed you about a while back? Viridae 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have raised it internally with the committee, and had started to dig through the history on the matter, but as you may have seen here I was travelling and inactive for a couple of weeks earlier this month (and am still a little buried in real life right at the moment). I expect to become fully active again at the end of next week and will be turning my attention back to this and some other open matters at that time. I've also let the committee know that I've heard from two administrators regarding this matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
semi some pages?
Hi Brad/ I have a couple of outstanding requests at WP:RFPP that need semi-protecting; vandalism is quite persistent. Whole messy story is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man, a hundred socks; hundreds of IPs. The pages are:
This is pure harassment of my edits (as promised by the bad boy). I have to go soon, and am dropping you this note as I know you have the button. See Senang Hati Foundation's history and logs for yesterday's shite. See also User talk:ClueBot Commons#a vandal faking-out your bot to see how sneaky this character is. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like someone else already got to this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, and quiet so far today. Please note that when I posted the above request, I was aware that you were not participating in the TV 2 case that I am a 'semi-involved' party to. I see that you've now signed-up; <joke>welcome to the pop-culture war</joke>. You'll see when you attend to the sprawling workshop page, that there is a proposal to formally add me to the case. For what it's worth, I'll add myself if any arbitrator suggests it (look for this to be quoted there). Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Parole, again
Hi again Brad. I left you a message concerning User:Vintagekits back on the 12th. It is now archived here, together with Vintagekits' response. I thought I would draw your attention to the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Update; Vk has been acting up again and as you have been involved previously with the user I thought I would ask (again) for your input as it appears to be deteriorating. Please give the situation whatever thought you can. Thank you, --John (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am concerned, but should probably stay away from the situation for the moment, in case it winds up back before the Arbitration Committee. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sinners and their repentances
Re: Tony's repentance: Given that there have been six elaborate RFC's regarding Tony, as well as numerous RfAr's around him, I can only say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me six times, and shame on Brad." Utgard Loki (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note on the numbers: Four RFC's plus being central to the "Giano RfAr," plus being central to this one. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to interest you in, Brad - KillerChihuahua 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Apologies, that was non-productive and a bit bitchy. I withdraw my catty comment. KillerChihuahua 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)- Well, it's the first time he's said it to me, anyway. My goal at this point is to see if we can actually improve the situation. Either Tony will keep his very solemnly made promise, or he won't. If he does, that's good. If he doesn't, the committee will still be there.
- Believe me, I've been on the wrong end of Tony Sidaway's remarks, both on-wiki and on IRC, more times than I care to recall. I know that there is a problem here. Either he will address it at long last, or someone else will. We shall see. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- One question: How will we know? No: two questions: Wasn't that how things were before? Wasn't there a change at IRC so that what happened before (same user, with another, same things) wouldn't happen again, and wasn't there an implication that, if it did, there would be all kinds of hell to pay for the people being coarse and vulgar and insulting on IRC? So, is any of this going to result in a procedure being put in place, other than "See if you know who the big op is, tell the big op, and have people ask the culprit if he's a culprit, and then offer him ops after :30 away?" Wouldn't such a procedure (or, maybe, heaven forbid, people not trashing users on IRC, or en.admins not being for non-administrators) have forestalled all of this stuff that keeps trying to get wrapped around Bishonen? Geogre and Giano absolutely did edit David Gerard's page, but that was taken care of by normal means (a block for breaking 3RR, and no evidence of either being edit warriors in general). Granted, there is still a massive hole in things by that page still being in Misplaced Pages's named space, when it isn't a Misplaced Pages policy and doesn't have evidence of consensus, but can't that be solved by deleting the thing? I don't understand why it's either a) outrageous or b) "incivil" to suggest that the admins channel be for admins or that people with serial insults be blocked from it or c) that there is absolutely no regular process for dealing with abuse of IRC, and therefore it leaves dissatisfied users with only frontier justice. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
January 2008
Sorry for that, incorrect revert, please ignore. -- The Helpful One 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's okay. Lots of people say that most of my arbitration-related edits are unconstructive. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Taxing and Spending Clause
Do you have an opinion on what this article should be called (see the Move discussion)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for thinking of me, but I don't have a strong view one way or the other; I've heard the clause referred to under all of these different names. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh well...
Thanks for trying. :) MastCell 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- One reason there's a committee of 15 people is so that a variety of views can be expressed. I'm not going to be in the majority every time there's a disagreement. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand; I just wanted to say that I appreciate your efforts here (particularly, I suppose, as I agree completely with your view of the case). MastCell 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No voting?
"I will not formally post it here to see it voted down" "it is necessary to resolve the case, and this disposition is more reasonable than some other alternatives that have been proposed."
Should not editors know on which side of the fence arbitors are on for any future arbitration apointments? Should not editors know the other alternatives that have been proposed? This is why secret but official discussion is often wrong. See also User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. Why should a case be resolved "wrongly," as opposed to left open untill such a time that it will do less damage closed than open? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- When to post a proposal knowing that it is unlikely to be adopted is a complicated judgment call. As you may have noted from my workshop participation before I became an arbitrator and in my case participation during my first month of service, I'm not shy about expressing my views, whether or not they appear to fall within the consensus of either the Arbitration Committee or the broader community. In this case—which opened before I became an arbitrator and in which I was previously inactive on-wiki until today—I have taken into consideration all of the evidence and history of the case, but there are also some off-wiki communications (primarily from the subject of the case) that needed to be taken into account as well. The situation is a little bit complicated, and the easier path would probably have been to say nothing at all; I wanted to express my views, and hope that they might turn the tide of the voting, but I concluded that it would not be useful (and would not help the subjects of the case) to make a proposal knowing it was unlikely to pass in this instance. As I said, there are difficult close questions in how to proceed sometimes, as one member of a 15-member body. Thanks for your input and I will give the matter some more thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's all I can ask. I wonder, however - "off-wiki communications (primarily from the subject of the case) that needed to be taken into account as well," leads me to believe that possibly intemperate emails sent by the individual currently being maligned by the comittee for protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia is what led to his downfall. Is that accurate? If it is, I question why sending intemperate emails to a closed list is less appropriate than playing footsie with (and supporting the adjendas of) individuals whose stated purpose is the destruction of the encyclopedia as a source of valid knowledge? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, the off-wiki communications relate to mitigating factors involving the subject of the case. FT2 has made some relevant comments about them on the proposed decision talkpage as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's all I can ask. I wonder, however - "off-wiki communications (primarily from the subject of the case) that needed to be taken into account as well," leads me to believe that possibly intemperate emails sent by the individual currently being maligned by the comittee for protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia is what led to his downfall. Is that accurate? If it is, I question why sending intemperate emails to a closed list is less appropriate than playing footsie with (and supporting the adjendas of) individuals whose stated purpose is the destruction of the encyclopedia as a source of valid knowledge? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is decidely unclear from FT2's statement which states that he is being desysoped because of external stress on his life. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, a further point on which I'd welcome your (and anyone else's) input—and I mean this quite seriously (I know that someone has raised this issue in the IRC case as well). Sometimes in difficult cases, the arbitrators consult off-wiki about what findings and remedies might enjoy support, and try to come to a consensus before proposals are posted on /Proposed decision. When that occurs, the committee is criticized for engaging in secret, backroom deliberations. Other times, an arbitrator posts proposals to /Proposed decision or even to /Workshop, and other arbitrators disagree with the proposals and it is revealed that the committee is having difficulty in coming to agreement. When this happens, the committee is criticized for failing to present a united front and for victimizing the parties with negatively worded proposals that may never pass. As a new arbitrator, I am still in the process of deciding which of these situations is the lesser of two equals, or does it depend on circumstances, and if the latter, what circumstances should govern. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- The comittee has chosen not to operate by consensus with a facilitator - this was a mistake made by the comittee (which is too large, and contains too many people who don't care anymore). A facilitated consensus process (see Consensus_decision-making) would both allow for open discussion and avoid that embarassment. The comittee has chosen to operate as a parliment - with minimal public debate, the creation of pre-arranged voting blocks, and then an attempt to minimize public dissent via ostracism (of arbitors, for dissenting and runing the "consensus"). This is functional for governing, but not for judging. If the comittee were to reform as a consensus body it could judge and govern. If it were to reform as an inquisitive body, it could judge. All it can do now is govern, as demonstrated by the terrible job it does actually solving disrete problems and the so-so job it does making new policy. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's a fascinating critique of the arbcom process. I would recommend you (PouponOnToast - nice name!) raise this elsewhere (not sure where). BTW, Brad, I asked on that talk page about which of Adam's actions you considered borderline. If you are able, would you have time to answer that? Carcharoth (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152
I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay38 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The e-mail was received. As a new arbitrator, I am not familiar with any background of prior deliberations, but I will make sure that the matter is discussed by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Nag on command
And I can recommend good peer review people, first. I'll wait a few weeks to escalate to shame :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do need to do more writing. I've been travelling and swamped in real life during January, but that ends next week. And no, writing arb decisions doesn't count, says I to myself, says I. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might browse WP:FFA to see if you can save one from there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)