Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lecen (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 19 March 2013 (→Arbitration: Cambalachero: new section). 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.

Baltic blowups

Howdy NYB. It looks like Jaan & Nug are not gonna follow your advise & let others participate at MOS-in-question. Apparently, they don't wanna 'shut up'. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you probably have more posts on that talkpage than anyone. I think all of you should stand down a bit and let other editors comment. After all, the purpose of an RfC is to allow for additional editors to weigh in on a topic of controversy, rather than have the same three or four or five people repeat their position over and over again. I'm afraid you've been doing that yourself, and I'm also afraid that when you've done it in the past, you didn't do yourself or your position any favors. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll willingly stand back & let others have their say. I doubt that Nug & Jaan will do the same, however. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your personal attacks decrying nationalists there has no place in cordial discourse. And now you resort to lobbying on admin pages. Nothing changes. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be travelling this weekend with limited online time and access. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Unintentional revert on this page

I apologise for this edit. I would not knowingly have done it, don't remember doing it, my little brother had no chance to do it and wouldn't have done it, and I don't drink or take drugs. I am not sure what happened, but it appears that I misclicked on rollback (happens occasionally) and for some reason didn't notice (never happened before, I believe).

As other recipients of this message have answered already and you have edited after this revert, I am reluctant to restore the post. But I thought you should know so you can restore it if you want. Hans Adler 06:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the misclick. Don't worry, these things happen. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Informers

Misplaced Pages should not be a Gestapo type state . It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that the Committee received (at least) one inquiry from a non-arbitrator asserting that Malleus Fatuorum and George Pondevero were the same user. The name of the individual who made the inquiry has not been made public, but it was not an arbitrator, checkuser, or other functionary. My initial reaction was not in favor of pursuing the matter in the absence of evidence of misconduct, but such allegations were made, and after a lengthy review and discussion, the result was the statement that was posted on-wiki.

The Committee's vote on issuing the statement was published on-wiki here at the same time the statement itself was published.

I was not in favor of issuing the statement at the time it was issued. I did not vote to "oppose" the statement, since I was ultimately and reluctantly persuaded that its factual assertion of a connection between the accounts was accurate. I also fully understood the basis for some arbitrators' concern that doing nothing might perpetuate a double-standard regarding how different editors are treated. However, I could not support issuing the statement because I did not see the necessity for taking any action, especially after Malleus Fatuorum had retired and stopped editing, and I was deeply troubled by the prospect of the drama that has foreseeably resulted. I made these points during the Committee's discussions, but the vote was to proceed with the statement you have seen.

In continuing this discussion, terminology such as "Gestapo state" is inflammatory, offensive, and should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, you have gone some way in restoring my confidence in the Arbcom; it's a shame that they didn't listen to you isn't it. Gestapo is a strong term, but it also operated on anonymous tip-off a dn used secret courts for trumped up charges, rather than risk a public trial; so perhaps it's no surprise that the comparassion is made. Perhaps Inquisition is a better term.  Giano  16:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to hear your original position on this. I believe it was the only reasonable one.

Maybe this is a good occasion to repeat an observation that I have made before: The general community, and unfortunately also Arbcom, has an unfortunate tendency to make situations worse when they can't agree on them. As we all know, proposing to split a baby in two can be an excellent move by a judge; in this case, Arbcom has managed to carry it out. That's not a good sign at all. And once again, this has led to Arbcom joining into the general mobbing of an editor instead of resolving the problem. Hans Adler 18:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thomas E. Dewey

Somewhat to my surprise, it does appear you are correct about the term of office dating for New York state, ergo I have undone my edit to the article in question (as well as edited a previous reference to "1955" being the date that he left office, added by someone else in another section of the article). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration: Cambalachero

Hello. I did not ask for arbitration to settle content dispute. What I asked was: 1) Has an user the permission to use nazi or neonazi sources to write articles about Hitler and the Holocaust, denying that Hitler was a dictator and that the Holocaust killed 6 million Jews? How does the community should react to that user since he insists doing it? That's I'm asking. I'm not talking about content. It's about an user'd conduct. I hope I was clear now. --Lecen (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)