Misplaced Pages

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:13pm • 06:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin Involvement

Regarding I wish to make you aware that Lar came in as an enforcement admin on Climate Change within weeks of having two separate disagreements with WMC which were both completely, verifiably non-admin interactions. Around the time he came in to the CC area he also commented externally to wikipedia what his general intentions were on the wikipedia review alsongside several of WMCs main critics (such as Abd). Lar has since consistantly supported the toughest sanctions against WMC of all "uninvolved" admins and also and more importantly tried to portray the situation as WMC's 'faction' trying to control the articles. The evidence is all there in spades and has generally been ignored by arbcom. Olap the Ogre (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area

I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to figure out the answer to your question, but I'll try to figure out who is. Some of my colleagues on the committee are also my talkpage stalkers, so input here would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

1. Having a case before Arbcom requires interaction with Arbs and their clerks. Where is the appropriate, centralized and open place for case discussion with Arbs? (I note that Steve Quinn corresponds with you via email.)
2. Does Arbcom have (either currently or in its history of discussion about its own processes) any conception of appointing 'legal' help for participants, particularly defendants, in its cases? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my delay in responding. I have a terrible cold this week, and it is slowing me down.

The best place to post to the arbitrators is on the case pages, including if appropriate on the talkpages. This makes sure that whatever you say will be seen by all the arbitrators, not just by me as might happen if you post (for example) here. Also, please note that I am not one of the two arbitrators who has taken the lead drafting role in this case.

E-mail to the arbitrators' mailing list should be used where there is confidential information that needs to be discussed, but not just for general comments about the case.

Steve Quinn's e-mail concerned a minor aspect that I believe wound up being resolved quickly before I even had a chance to see it, so please don't believe he has any unfair advantage in the case or anything like that.

Long ago, well before I was an arbitrator or even an editor, there was a group of editors called the Association of Members' Advocates who were supposed to provide what you call "legal help" to parties to ArbCom cases. I believe the consensus is that this did not work out very well, and I don't believe there is anything like it in place at the present time. The most useful thing would be for you to simply present your thoughts and evidence and responses to the assertions against you, as straightforwardly and clearly as you can, and perhaps others sympathetic to your positions will do the same.

I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Precedent-setting

There's no article about this legal notion on Misplaced Pages, and it's not exactly clear to me what the definition is. One editor removed the "precedent-setting" term from Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., arguing that it's not so until it gets to the US Supreme Court, even though one WP:RS called it that , although the source might be wrong. Could you shed some light on this matter? Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The article on stare decisis might cover some of what you are looking for here. Please take a look at that and tell me if that's what you had in mind or if you were thinking of something else. Beyond that, the term "precedent-setting" is actually somewhat vague.

There are rules, which vary from one jurisdiction to another, regarding what decisions are considered binding precedents (meaning that they must be followed), as opposed to "persuasive" precedents (which will receive consideration in a later decision but are not necessarily binding). For example, in the United States federal system, a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court will be a binding precedent throughout the country, but a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will be finding on a federal judge in New York but only persuasive to a federal judge in California. In this light, a District Court decision, which is what you are addressing here, would never be binding precedent on other district judges, but could very well be highly persuasive authority depending on factors such as the quality of the reasoning in the opinion, the reputation of the authoring judge, and so forth. Perhaps what is meant is that this is the first reported court decision to have addressed a particular issue; if so, maybe that should be stated as the clearest wording. It might also be worthwhile to discuss whether the decision is being appealed, if this is known.

Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice summary. I'll add something to the lawsuit article about the perceived importance of it (there's plenty of detailed commentary on that in sources), while avoiding adjectives that could be misinterpreted. Maybe we should add "precedent-setting" to WP:Words to avoid? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Norm Crosby

I felt kind of bad doing it as it sort of invalidates the whole point of his blog posting. I do find it rather amusing (in an odd way) that a piece of uncaught vandalism on Misplaced Pages managed to insinuate itself into the real subject matter's life. Oh well, thats whats the wikipedia's living bio policy is for... Regards Eqdoktor (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that Mr. Evanier would prefer that we fix the errors rather than leave them intact as a memorial to his blogging. (Of course, he and we all would prefer still better if there were not so many errors to begin with.)

This is a rather minor instance of an error in a Misplaced Pages article affecting the article-subject's real life. Sadly, there have been much more serious examples, a few of which are discussed elsewhere on-wiki, as well as in my speech and my blog-posts (see my userpage for links if you're curious). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of sources

I understand your unwillingness to vote for a finding including poor use of sources on the basis of edits to a single article. However Cla68's use of sources in the topic area, while not always as egregious as in the case given, is a serious problem especially in view of his high reputation which makes it hard for him to take concerns of other editors seriously. I believe Hipocrite and Dave Souza presented relevant evidence in their sections of the evidence page. His lax use of sources on matters of fact, even after being shown strong evidence that they were unreliable, drove me to despair. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Diffs tony which shows his lax use of sources? I can only recall one mark nutley (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to spring new diffs at this point (even supposing they could be found) so I rely on the evidence page to which I refer above. It is the arbitrators' task to evaluate the evidence, I'm only here to remind them of material evidence I think they may have missed or forgotten in this long and exhausting case. --TS 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

O come on tony, you say he drove you to despair, at least one instance must have stood out. In all of the crap that went on, i really only recall one instance were cla got it wrong. I think (memory not so good) it was citing the hockey stick illusion for an blog article but the book only covered a little of it. Refresh my memory if i`m wrong mate, my short term memory is shot :o) mark nutley (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the only person who remarked on Cla68's cavalier sourcing, so I can cite this section and this one, which have been on the evidence page for some time now. Several instances are given, particularly in the latter section. I will now cede the discussion to others. I have notified Dave Souza, Hipocrite, and Cla68 of this discussion. --TS 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well tony that`s a little naughty, just because a few editors say a book is fringe does not make it so. For instance, the only climatologist who so far commented on the hockey stick illusion said it was very accurate right? So what we actually have is wikipedia editors saying it is fringe, yet a respected scientist say it is accurate. Whom are we to believe? mark nutley (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Brief pointers to evidence, please; not bickering. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what evidence would you like? Tonys diff leads to this More recently, Marknutley (talk · contribs) and Tillman (talk · contribs) have been arguing for inclusion in the biography of a scientist of a link to the article on The Hockey Stick Illusion, a barely notable book promoting fringe views and attacking the scientist's work, which has been ignored by the mainstream. Clarification that the book promotes fringe views given here yet it was wikipedia editors who said this was fringe, and like i said above, the only person who works in the field has said it is a remarkable recounting of the entire controversy. So whom is correct? The wikipedia editors? Or judith curry? mark nutley (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A problem with Cla68 that I've observed is that he sometimes tries to get a not so reliable book about climate science to be used as a source in a science article, by taking some trival fact from that book, putting it in the article and then citing that book. see e.g. here. Stephen Schneider was indeed a member of the institute's staff, but he was just a post-doc for a year there, as pointed out by Bali-ultimate on the talk page. Even if he had been there in a more senior position (which I actually assumed when I saw Cla's edit), you would not want to cite that book for such a fact, as the book comes with extra baggage that is better kept out of science articles. The POV of the book is not anti-climate science, I think, but that is besides the point. See here for full talk page discussion on this particular issue.

The same book was added by Cla68 as a source in other articles:

Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I just checked and want to note here that Cla68 hasn't been so active for the past month and has not edited at all for two weeks. He may not be in a position to respond on this discussion thread. --TS 00:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony notified me of this. Per NYB's request for "Brief pointers to evidence, please; not bickering." I will provide the following, which was in my evidence:

• fabricates the location of Al Gore - refers to this edit, which he called "sourced reliably." His purported facts were not in the source. His facts were, in fact, not true.
• - refers to this support of sources as "reliably sourced." One of the sources was a deleted blog comment. Cla took this all the way to the enforcement board, where Lar backed him up, writing that the blog comment was "impeccably sourced." Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI: Meat, Libel, four AfDs, and assorted weirdness at David Bruce McMahan

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I have been following the discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I just removed some insightful and intelligent remarks from a few IPs that crafted meaningful responses to your deletion of the article. If such deep philosophical soul searching continues, you might want to go ahead and semi-protect your page. Cheers, Sven Manguard _Talk 04:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention and concern regarding this whole situation. FYI, I've reviewed the IP remarks in the page history (I mention this so that the IPs might not feel compelled to repeat them to make sure I've seen them). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've requested userfication of the article in the ANI discussion. Per my comments there it is plain that there are plenty of sources (even outside of the issue causing problems there is fairly massive coverage) for a notable bio. Given that the article was kept 2 times out of 3, I think getting the older version userfied will be a fine start. I'll take it to DrV first before restoring (which I'd have to do due to the salting in any case). I'm asking you because an ArbCom member leaving the deletion log note you left will probably make others nervous about doing the userfication. Hobit (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand your view that an acceptable article could be created about this person, although the one we had yesterday most certainly wasn't it. Given the history involved, I am skeptical, and I can't see creating this page as a priority; but given that you unlike some of the SPAs understand the purpose of Misplaced Pages and the requirements of citing to reliable sources and avoiding undue weight problems, I suppose I can't deny your right to try. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"The last diff cited is particularly troublesome"

Hi, since you said that the last cited diff is particularly troublesome, I would like a chance to explain. I posted this earlier, but I'm not sure everyone had a chance to read it. Here's my statement in full: The first 4 diffs all relate to a single incident that happened over the course of a half a day . Yes, it's true that I edit-warred on a 1RR article over what I thought at the time was a BLP violation. In retrospect, I was naive and took the BLP policy too literally. As a result, I was blocked for 24 hours. I kicked and screamed a bit on my talk page, but I learned my lesson and have never repeated the offense.

It's also true that when I first started editing this topic space, I said things that were less than ideal. At the time, I was still somewhat of a newbie and did not understand the nuances of which comments were acceptable and which ones weren't. In fact, I'm still learning. To be honest, an experienced editor should have taken me aside and helped explain this to me. In any case, I changed the tone of my comments around January of this year, and continue to make improvements as I continue to understand Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines better.

I'd also like to point out that this improvement spans not just the CC topic space, but across Misplaced Pages. As evidence, I would like to point ArbCom to the following discussion at our 9/11 attacks article.

It's true that I once used the word "criminals" on an article talk page. But this is not a BLP violation. The University of East Anglia is not a person, it's a thing. According to our article, the UEA has a staff of 2,966 people. Not a single person is mentioned anywhere in my comment or even the entire discussion. In any case, this comment was a one-time incident. I have never repeated the remark.

My point being is that I am not the same editor that I was around December/January and that I continue to look for ways in which to improve my conduct.

This one is baffling. I notified the admins of an edit war and asked them to protect the page which NuclearWarefare eventually did. I'm not sure what I did wrong. I wasn't a participant in the dispute, nor was I assessing blame. I simply used an admin board to notify admins of a problem.

In short, with the exception of this diff, - which I don't understand what I did wrong - any issues with my conduct have already been corrected and there is no evidence of any continuing pattern of misconduct that warrants this FoF in an Arbitration Case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your post and explanation, which I will consider carefully. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Reminder

So long ago that it has vanished off your talk page you said you would re-check some diffs I was querying William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I did. The result of the checking was that proposed finding 6 was superseded by an alternative proposal, 6.1, which is based on an overall evaluation of the editing on the Climate change pages rather than an evaluation of any one specific incident. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was terribly confusing. So, should I now ignore that finding? Despite having a majority support - including from you - it is not going to pass? . OK. 8.4 doesn't pass, in which case the fact that many of the diffs there are wrong becomes irrelevant? In which case I object to 8.5 on the grounds that it is (a) wrong (has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles is false) and (b) unsupported by diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you haven't done substantial editing of BLPs involving people involved in climate-change disputes. How many such edits do you estimate you have made? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea. But BLPs are not my main interest. I assert that as a fraction of my total edits (note that the FoF says "focused a substantial portion of" which I take to mean percentage, rather than absolute number of edits), BLPS are small not substantial (oh, and of those that I have done, many/most are simply creation of people like Brian Gardiner which is non-controversial and certainly doesn't merit the finding). BTW, is this the "There is a pending thread on my talkpage in which I am awaiting some input from this editor"? - it is easy to lose track William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Let's try this: do you accept that some of your edits to biographies of climate-change deniers or skeptics are problematic? If not sanctioned, would you plan to modify your behavior in this area? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program and Misplaced Pages Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on voluntary proposal

Found here - i was trying to address the issues that have been raised. I'd like to get some comments on it - so that it can be submitted? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to accommodate the concerns that have been expressed in this fashion. As you may have noticed, I haven't really been taking the lead among the arbitrators on the editor-specific remedies. If your proposal or a variant of it satisfies the other arbs, it will almost surely satisfy me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that i'm not getting any response/feedback from arbitrators. Is there anything else i can do - or should i just await responses? Since it seems that the case is about to close, it seems a bit urgent - and sorry for having bothered you :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is addressed now? Please let me know if I'm mistaken. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is. Thank you for your concern, and shift of vote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)