Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:12, 24 January 2008

Archives

Description of archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007

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

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)