Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coren (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 29 October 2010 (→Clarification request: Bad presumption). 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.

Your committee is an unreliable source about its own decisions

Reading some of this saga was amusing. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the editors of his biography here would have a heart attack if they knew what the de:William Connolley says. You're apparently a reliable source in Germany, so there's hope for you yet. :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps someone should tell the German Misplaced Pages that Lawrence Solomon writes for the National Post and not the National Review. Risker (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

He writes for the National Review as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Official correction?

Can we expect a public correction of this misrepresentation of the recent ArbCom case in the press, or will you silently stand by while your decision us used to attack editors? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think it is correct to expect Arbcom to correct blogs and uncontrollable opinion threads and suchlike, it is to be totally expected in the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also Also Stephen and TonySideaway are mentioned here and theres a lot of it out there. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care about the blogosphere. But when opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal start misrepresenting the case (in what I can only call depressingly bad journalism), I would hope the mere regard for the truth would motivate ArbCom to issue a correcting statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I see it as users should be aware that they are not editing in a dark sock and that their actions do have an effect in the real world and they should expect it to be reported in a way they may not like and that users actions here may have an effect on their real life, as the contributions of users to the articles of living people here has an effect on the subjects of our articles. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"may not like" is not the issue. Objectively false is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. If you don't want to get burnt, get out of the fire. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Who needs firefighters, after all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems this is going to result in an ArbCom case about the ArbCom case in the press or something like that. . There you go: . Tijfo098 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The blog entry of Luboš Motl, mentioned above , is actually quite funny. I almost feel like popping down to that Scientology shop they have on the Tottenham Court Road in my poshest frock so I can get a photo taken of me being a transvestite and trying out an E-meter (which would be the closest I've ever come to being a Scientologist). Who cannot love the blogosphere at a time like this? --TS 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The comments about fires and getting burnt seem destined to descend into more juvenile bickering about this topic. We are not going to have any more of that on my page, or for that matter on any other page. (For what it's worth, I think that one point relevant to Off2riorob's comment was noted in principle 7 of the Alastair Haines 2 case.)

Stephan Schulz, the WSJ link you cite at the beginning of your post appears to require a subscription. I will go ahead and subscribe so that I can read the post you cite, if you tell me it is important that I do so as a matter of fairness, but I don't think we can expect that of all the arbitrators or of all the other editors who might join in this discussion. Can you tell me what specific correction you think is necessary and why. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. NW (Talk) 02:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For some reasons I can view the article when going there via Google. I can send you a PDF of it (but I assume NW has taken care of that). The editorial been also mirrored (with dubious legality) elsewhere in the Blogosphere. I'm concerned about the general tone of the comment, but in particular about the following statements:

• "last week Misplaced Pages acknowledged it had been hijacked by global warming alarmists who squelched dissenting science"
• "He routinely deleted entries that presented competing views and barred contributors with whom he disagreed."
• "They also banned other posters who had turned Misplaced Pages into their global warming propaganda outlet."

At least the first and the third clearly ascribe to ArbCom positions that I do not find in the decision and that I think have no support. The second is nominally in the voice of the WSJ editor, but easily gives the impression that it is backed by the ArbCom case. It is, of course, factually wrong, and an explicit statement to that effect would be a useful thing. Sorry about the fireman - I could not resist the image. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the article now (which I understand was in the hard-copy paper, which I often buy, but missed on this date). I agree that it is not a neutral summary of the committee decision. Given that we are discussing errors in reporting of a decision, rather than errors in the decision itself (though I am sure you would contend there are those as well), I am not sure what, if anything, we can do about the matter. We have no mechanism, as a committee, for issuing press releases nor for responding to press accounts. How specifically do you think the committee ought to proceed? (A more appropriate venue than my talkpage might be found for this discussion, though I'd appreciate a link if that occurs.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You could send a letter to the editor of the WSJ on behalf of the committee. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think an unambiguous on-wiki statement by ArbCom would be the simplest and best way. Apparently the text of the decision itself is open to misinterpretation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

At risk of opening myself up to accusations violating the topic ban, please allow me to give a word of advice here, NYB. If you haven't noticed, there is an extremely intense and hostile battle taking place on the Internet over global warming by advocates on different sides. Please be careful that you and the Committee don't get drawn into it. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

They already have been drawn into it, as their decision has been appropriated by the WSJ editorial page, one of the more consistently and fiercely partisan voices in the battle. I agree that it might be better not to respond. After all, unless the Journal editorial is frankly defamatory, they're free to spin the decision any way they like. And getting into a back-and-forth with the WSJ editorial page is a no-win situation. Readers' bullshit detectors will either start clanging, or they won't. MastCell  00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reporters usually write articles from multiple sources and lines of research. It is highly unlikely that they would simply summarize the ArbCom decision and that they would include unspoken background information as well. I'll also note that some of the things Stephan complains about can be confirmed through other lines of research. I don't think it is a good precedent for Misplaced Pages to start issuing press releases or corrections to news outlets, most of the mistakes were minor and inconsequential, and there is already a problem with reporters directly quoting or sourcing things to wikipedia and wikipedia in turn using those sources for its articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, TGL is topic-banned from CC-related articles and processes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless somebody tries to use these articles (there is not only one) with all their manifest inaccuracies as sources, I don't think they're a problem for Misplaced Pages--and even then I see little role for the Committee except in any arbitration arising.

I'll tell you this for nothing: anybody involved in editing climate change articles should steer clear of any such dispute, on either side. Ignore this advice at your peril.

The editors whose reputations are harmed should contact the newspapers directly, and then use the regulatory bodies or the law if that fails. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I found that the WSJ column accurately represented the overall tone and spirit of the arbcom case. Yes, they erred in some details but such things are inside baseball not relevant to the world beyond Misplaced Pages. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tries? Some editors already tried that. It's a problem when the external sources, normally considered WP:RS, don't reflect ArbCom decisions correctly, but at the same time the ArbCom pages are not considered a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles in order to correct any errors in the mainstream media articles retelling the ArbCom decision. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem for Misplaced Pages, only for the unfortunate editors who do not understand the verifiability policy. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Misplaced Pages or ArbCom contacting the Wall Street Journal is a terrible idea. Aside from the Barbra Streisand effect, it is not necessary as the decision speaks for itself. If an individual arbitrator or Wikipedian wants to write a letter, that is a good and even desirable idea. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've written a letter to the WSJ editor (well, written an email) which concentrates on the inaccuracies and spin in the reporting (i.e. the arbitrators did not rule on the truth or otherwise of man-made global warming; editors from both sides were topic banned). I'd be a little surprised if they published it, as it goes against their editorial line and it's a week late, but they might. Serious newspapers are supposed to take more care over accurate reporting, and I have had letters published by newspapers in the past. A letter from an arbitrator would carry more weight, but might be politically difficult (are you speaking in a personal or official capacity?). I agree an official reply carries the danger of turning one paper's spin into something bigger than it actually is, so is probably not appropriate. Given the minefield that is public relations though, there may come a time when Misplaced Pages may need to consider employing a public relations consultant for advice when it's in the news. --Merlinme (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections

Brad, you are one of the few here clever enough to know the final and definitive answer to this question. Following the forthcoming elections, must successful candidates disclose their real names etc to who ever ultimately is running this show. In the current climate of "outing", mistrust and internet libel which prevails, this is obviously a major consideration for all candidates, but especially so for those candidates who already hold responsible and/or high profile positions in real life (I am thinking of those concerned with the judiciary, high ranking military personnel and other senior public sector workers - the very people who perhaps have the leadership qualities, experience and education most needed by the Arbcom). It's my opinion, having to disclose private information is a risk that many potential candidates will find not worth taking. A simple "yes they must" or "no, they need not", will be fine. I cannot be bothered to engage in a prolonged debate with the Peanut Gallery over why a self-disclosed Randy from Boise will make a better Arb than a High Court Judge, Admiral of the Fleet, or Professor from the University of Wherever. Thank you.  Giacomo  13:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know of no legal requirement that arbitrators (or anyone else associated with Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia other than members of the Foundation Board of Trustees and paid employees) provide identification. However, in 2007, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution requiring that anyone seeking advanced permissions involving access to private information must provide identification to the Office (and must be age 18 or over and of the age of majority at their place of residence). This was initially applied to Checkusers, Oversighters, and Stewards, but the Arbitration Committee (before I was a member and over my disagreement) subsequently interpreted the resolution imposing the age requirement as applying to arbitrators, because confidential checkuser and oversight data are discussed on the arbitrators' mailing list. Logically, the same resolution imposed the age and the identification requirements, so if the one applies to arbitrators so would the other, but this is not how things were implemented, at least not at first. Rather, when I was elected arbitrator at the end of 2007, I believe the position was that identification was not required to serve as an arbitrator, but was required to obtain the checkuser and/or oversight permissions that most arbitrators are granted. Subsequently, though, there was a well-known situation involving an arbitrator who had not identified to the Office, so the policy or its implementation may have been changed around that time. To the best of my knowledge, all current arbitrators are identified to the Office.

Despite your kind words at the beginning of the question, I don't know whether the Office (or the Committee, for that matter) now takes the position that all arbitrators are required to identify themselves before taking an arbitrator position, even if they are not going to seek Checkuser or Oversight access. I will try to find out the answer, and if I can, will post further here.

As I am well aware from my own experience, anyone interested in becoming an arbitrator should assume that there is a high likelihood that his or her identity will be publicly revealed at some point, irrespective of whether one identifies with the Office and irrespective of any efforts made to keep the information confidential. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Brad, that was very helpful. It does seem to be something of a confused mystery - one that should perhaps be definitively clarified before elections commence. I look forward to your further discoveries on the matter.  Giacomo  16:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All arbs from last year's election were not given access to the mailing list, nor oversight/checkuser until we had identified with the foundation. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words: If you want to be an Arb, you have to give the foundation your name and address, and trust them to keep it to themselves. No thank you.  Giacomo  12:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, Giano, I don't think there has ever even been an allegation that the foundation has ever leaked or used (let alone misused) the identifications provided to them. — Coren  13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am making no allegations whatsoever. However,I can think of a person once close to Jimbo (more than one actually) who has transpired to be less than...well let's not go there. I thnk I will just keep my thoughts and my name to myself. Trust only oneself and one is seldom dissapointed (or outed) - cynical but true - unfortunately.  Giacomo  18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And you think this on the basis of what exactly? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

G- the simple answer is: Yes, if you want to be an arb you have to ID, just like CU an OS. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Than you Rlevse, I think we have just established that. But why? An Arb does not have to CU or OS - or it it to ensure that only a certain type become Arbs?  Giacomo  21:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Same reason CU and OS holders have to ID and be over 18, massive access to private data--on a scale non-arbs simply do not understand unless they one day become arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Really? I strongly doubt that. I suspect it's more to keep a hold over/and ensure Arbs are of a certain type. Dealing with people called "Shrinking Violet" and "Jack the Ripper" does not need anonymous beaurocrats in an office in Godknowswhere to have ones private details. Even if it did, I have been needlessly checkusered on a number of occasions - does having that persons name known (David Gerard - another of Jimbo's mates, I beleive) make such behaviour any better, OK or above board?  Giacomo  21:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Come, now. In what way does the foundation gain any hold on me for having a copy of my passport (which, incidentally, does not provide them with an address)? Or what kind of "type" is one being for the simple act of being able to produce copy of some sort of ID to prove majority? — Coren  22:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing as there is a greater chance of me being unanimously elected to the Arbcom and learning to spell than there is of me furnishing "The Foundation" with a copy of my passport (photoshopped or otherwise) I suspect yhis conversation is going nowhere. Suffice to say, I have been around long enough, spoken to enough people over the years and have heard enough over those years to decide to keep my own identity private, what others do is entirly their own affair. However, the Arbcom should be open to all who contribute and have something to offer. CU and oversight are quite seperate and should remain so - that so much power is invested in so few is another debate entirely.  Giacomo  22:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • But that would be the point. It is quite impossible to be on ArbCom without having exactly the CU and OS information flooded your way; one role implies access to the same data as the two other. (Not counting the inherent silliness in being part of the body charged with overseeing those two functions and yet not being authorized to even inspect their data). — Coren  23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You are free to choose the conspiracy theory of your choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OH don't be so bloody ridiculous! Editors who choose to serve the project, but maintain their privacy should not be discriminated against. I seem to remember you becoming a rampaging hysteric when you thought I had "outed" you as the original Randy from Boisse!  Giacomo  21:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mirror, mirror. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, you put your name in the public domain, so everyone else should also. Most enlightening. I think this is going nowhere. I shall leave you to it RLevse.  Giacomo  21:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat

Would it be acceptable to contact other people who have interacted with this user about the RfA he has filed against me or would that be considered canvassing? I see that the admin GeorgeWilliamHerbert has already left a comment. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on developments thus far, I don't think that'll be necessary at this time. (Just as an FYI point, "RfAr" conventionally refers to requests for arbitration; "RfA" is used for Requests for adminship, which is very different.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I'm obviously no expert with the acronyms. Are there any points in my RfAr post that are unclear? Are there any points in Communicat's posts that you feel I have not addressed properly? Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we probably have enough information to decide on the request. (I want to read through everything one more time before voting.) Of course, if other arbitrators would like anything else to be submitted, they will say so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User "Mung Monkey" and Checkuser results

Howdy. I think I can guess the answer, but it's worth a shot asking. You stated on Mung Monkey (talk · contribs)'s talk page that a Checkuser on the account shows a history of vandalism (assuming my user page). Is there any way I could find out what the original User or IP was that started this mess? It's morbid curiosity on my part to look back at my contributions to see who I pissed off and how. Thanks! --TreyGeek (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't find anything that would answer that. As you may be aware, there are time limits on how long the checkuser data are retained. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I assumed the information was unavailable for one reason or another. I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask anyways. Thanks! --TreyGeek (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rogue administrators

I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments: User talk:BadBabysitter. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that User:BadBabysitter was blocked for "misusing multiple accounts" in violation of policy. Is this a correct summary of your behavior? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No!

According to Daniel Case, the reason I was blocked is that my editing attracted scrutiny. Since I did not actually do any edits it is clear that the charges against me was trumped up by . It remains unclear what is motivating other admins to go along with this sham. However, there is no doubt in my mind about what is motivating .

Emails to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org from aol.com are still being returned. 2nd Alternate user name (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone had reverted this post on the basis that it was blatant block evasion. This was a correct action to take; however, I am reinstating the post here (redacting the name of someone who seems to be being accused of something, I'm not sure what) per WP:IAR and responding on-wiki because of the assertion that some e-mails are not getting through to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. If true, I can understand why the issue would be raised here. I will check into this aspect of the matter.

In the interim, you may forward your e-mail appeal to me (my e-mail address is on the Arbitration Committee page) and I will forward it to the banned-user appeals subcommittee. In candor, the appeal does not strike me on its face as necessarily likely to have great merit, and the personal attack on an administrator does not help matters, but the blocked user is entitled to have it reviewed and a decision made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request

You were aware that mark was blocked at the time at which you offered him the undertaking, right? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually was not quite clear about the chronology. In any case, I was not offering him anything (this isn't a situation where I could act unilaterally), but soliciting a piece of information that might be very relevant for the discussion. If still blocked, MarkNutley can address my inquiry on his talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• shrugs* So many unfortunate users are unable to be helped because of procedure, red tape, peer pressure, and other things, all of which is interpreted to a level of absurdity. Too bad, I guess. Cheers for the clarification, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I share your frustration. When I ran for arbitrator three years ago, one of my hopes was to simplify the process. Instead, over time, a series of procedural innovations have been implemented, each of which individually was a worthwhile improvement, but all of which collectively have made the arbitration pages an at-times impenetrable thicket. I myself am not always sure whether a given request should be submitted as arbitration enforcement or as an appeal to the committee or as a ban appeal or as a clarification or as an amendment. And I've been an arbitrator for almost three years and was a clerk before that (and in real life am an experienced corporate litigation attorney)—so how are newcomers supposed to feel? Unfortunately, short of ditching the entire set of pages and starting over, I don't have many suggestions for how to simplify, simplify. There will be a substantial group of new arbitrators coming aboard in January: perhaps they will have valuable suggestions. As you are clearly knowledgeable about how arbitration works, I would also welcome yours. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty knowledgeable about how arbitration works also (I hire experienced corporate litigation attorneys). The problem with Arbitration as done now is that it is modeled after an Adversarial system, as opposed to a Inquisitorial system. The key feature of an Adversarial system is that both parties are expected to be represented by someone who knows how to do representation.

If arbiters were willing to actually spend some time discussing things with the parties, asking questions, clarifying demands, and what not, throughout the case, as opposed to parachuting in at the last moment with rulings from the bench, Arbitration would work again.

Further, having been leaked a substantial body of your mailing-list and sekrit wiki in the past, I would note two things - first, that you should immediately cease all back-room negotiations, as they are anathema to justice (sunlight is the best disinfectant). And further, that any attempt by any arbiter to discuss public information in a non-public forum should be revealed. Parties should have the right to face their accusers - so if an arbiter does a lot of work gathering evidence, that evidence should not be relayed to your mailing list/sekrit wiki and then piped to the proposed decision without being submitted as evidence. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, do not hire lawyers, and do not play a lawyer on TV. But I agree with every word that NYB and Hipocrite say above. During the CC arbcom case arbitrators contacted me unbidden by email to discuss the case. This left a very bad taste in my mouth. I have no illusions that I am sufficiently important to merit special consideration in this way, so I have to wonder: What else is going on in private communications out of view of the community? Are parties negotiating directly with arbs behind the scenes? Are interested non-parties lobbying for or against sanctions for specific individuals? Private communications between arbs are likely necessary, at least to a limited degree, but discussing the case with those outside of arbcom in this way really soured me on the whole process. The prospect of such backroom shenanigans led me to a complete loss of faith in arbcom as a group, though there are specific individual arbs whom I trust. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

wow. I am saddened to read that. Were the contacts about 'private' type information? or of a more general getting your take on the case? (fully ok to not answer, if you read this). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite that the ArbCom case process needs to change to an inquisitorial system. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Far too sensible, so it'll never happen. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Never is too strong a word. I'm a strong proponent of inquiries rather adversarial proceedings, and panels rather than all arbs en banc (and I'm not alone). I think that would be both more fair /and/ considerably simpler and faster. What's needed for that change, however, is (a) a strong consensus within the committee and (b) strong consensus in the community (which will help with (a)). Get the ball rolling, and I'll be on the frontlines with you — but this needs to come from outside the committee or it's just going to be destroyed with cries of "grabbing power" like most other changes we try to do. People hate any change. — Coren  13:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing that stops you from getting involved in cases as an inquisitor as opposed to a judge. Have you considered just doing it? Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not helpful to do so unless the case is built that way, and the process designed to build the case around that. This requires getting rid of the evidence page, where people can just dump stuff unbidden, into interrogatories where no outside comments are welcome (no bickering allowed by kibitzers). For this to work, it means all the arbs will need to be participating since their questions can only be answered if they ask them — which quickly becomes unworkable if every inquest must be made en banc... and then having arbs vote that were not involved is iffy at best (they can theoretically examine the inquest and judge from that, but that would be a poor way IMO).

In other words, it's not a matter of detail but of basic principles. I suppose there is nothing that prevents me from starting a case this way if everyone is agreeable to it — but would you be willing to be a guinea pig if a case you raised eneded up before ArbCom? — Coren  14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, do you remember what happened when FT2 tried to do a lone summary proceeding against OrangeMarlin? The community went off on him big time. How about when Kirill Lokshin and Casliber tried to set up an advisory committee (I don't remember exactly what it was called even though I was on it)? Same thing. If one or two arbitrators try to lead the way, he or she will get slammed big time. The entire committee needs to come out with a unified statement saying, "This is the new procedure we'll be testing on a trial basis for the next six months. Comments are welcome, but we won't be considering changing our minds until the six months or up" or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Recall also that I tried introducing some procedural innovations at the outset of the recent Climate change case. Unfortunately, that turned out to be way too massive and sprawling and contentious a case to really try out new procedures in (even though the very reason I thought it needed new procedures was because the case would be massive and sprawling and contentious). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Count me also as a proponent of the inquisitorial approach (though the surface association with "Inquisition" is unfortunate to say the least). Perhaps a good way to trial this is first to sketch out the broad lines of how it will work, get that more or less solid, and then try it on an arbitration case. One way to choose a case to try it on might be: when arbitration requests are made, the committee polls the participants on which arbitration method they'd like -- inquisitorial or adversarial -- before the proceedings begin. alanyst 17:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have been asked regarding my experiences with ArbCom and engaged directly by an editor that I have previously been found to be "battlegrounded" against, I have no comment, as I wish to disengage from this topic area. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but think that if WMC had injected himself into the conversation as Cla68 has done, there would have been shrill denunciations ("can't you guys stay away from each other?") and probably a block. That's not to say that Cla68 is actually doing anything wrong, just to point out that the way the sanctions are being applied is arbitrary and partial. There's a zero-tolerance policy applied to some editors while others are given more latitude. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One would be hard pressed to consider that point of the conversation as being even remotely related to CC; I certainly would not have raised an eyebrow because WMC discussed the process of arbitration (though I expect that, in his current mood, he would not have been especially interested in doing so). — Coren  17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think...

...you will have time to revisit this in the near future? It has been over a month since your last comment there. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been waiting to see if another arbitrator will offer a motion, since I don't think it is necessarily helpful for the same person to propose the motions all the time (and develop more of a reputation than I already have for being the soft touch on the committee). Since there doesn't seem to be any progress, however, I will post something a motion if no one else does. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark's climate change clarification

Regarding your question to MarkNutley , he isn't in a position to answer, as his access to his talk page has now been blocked. Can you have a look at this. I have to agree with Stephan Schulz and Q Science here, the amount of behavioural evidence appears to be way to thin to draw a solid conclusion without a confirming CU, and also Mark wasn't given an opportunity to defend himself with access to his own talk page blocked by the admin actioning the SPI. --Martin (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am reviewing the checkuser evidence relevant to this block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Noting that this is now addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

tying another tack

Just for your interest User talk:Scott MacDonald/Pragmatic BLP. Maybe a more consensual approach will get us somewhere.--Scott Mac 13:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I appreciate your continuing interest in this entire subject, and I'll take a close look. P.S. If I decide to run for arbitrator again, may I use the slogan "RE-ELECT THE WORST MEMBER OF ARBCOM" and credit it to you? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And then I'll vote support for "the worst member of arbcom" - what does that say about my objectivity?--Scott Mac 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)