Misplaced Pages

IRC

Can we please talk on IRC? -- Cat 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyking request for clarification

Hi Brad, just a reminder that the Everyking request for clarification awaits a motion or other dispensation (from your comment on March 5th I think). Thanks, Avruch 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Actually, I'm well aware this is still pending, but there are reasons I want to wait a couple more days, plus this afternoon/evening I have at least two decisions to draft. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary procedure

Your comment on my question at User_talk:Obuibo_Mbstpo#Parliamentary_procedure would be welcome. We have a lot of issues to discuss, as mentioned on the AfD page, but we need to take it somewhere else, and I am not sure where, exactly. Neutron (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it tomorrow. I also signed on the Project Parliamentary Procedure page. This is good timing because, as I said, I was just remarking last week on WP:RfAr that we need to develop these articles. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mantanmoreland RfAr -- Thanks

I appreciate your posts about reading the comments, and I appreciated your earlier explanation of your thinking. Noroton (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your appreciation is ... appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ED

"I am gravely troubled by allowing any linking to a site that contains overt and extreme harassment of editors here who are minors." - We link to Stormfront (website), we link to NAMBLA, if you can think of a notable website or organization worse than those that we have an article on, we probably link to that too. In light of that fact, not linking to a website we have an article on, or to the website of an organization we have an article on, is not an option. —Random832 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The site in question contains intentional and depraved harassment of Misplaced Pages editors for the purpose of causing emotional distress to these editors. Some of the editors who are viciously abused are minors. I think it is well within the realm of reasonableness to decide that in such exceptional circumstance, we are unwilling to provide readers with access to the site in question. I acknowledge the demands of NPOV and of intellectual freedom in general but my view is that they must be balanced against the basic well-being of our contributors in this extreme situation.

Note that this does not apply to sites that merely criticize Wikipedians, even if we feel that the criticism is unfair or uses methods that are inappopriate. This is something altogether different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Um. If there is "intentional and depraved harassment of Misplaced Pages editors" (whether minor or not), then that should be taken seriously at a level of authority outside that of Misplaced Pages. We can't solve everything here, you know. Sometimes you have to say to people who are complaining about harassment: "we will do what we can on Misplaced Pages to prevent harassment, but ultimately you have to deal with the source of harassment yourself, up to and including contacting the appropriate authorities". Sometimes handling things that way is better than compromising the principles of Misplaced Pages. I hope that made some sort of sense. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right here - the issues of harassment should be resolved, but clearly WMF can't really help. Brad, I think there are reasons to keep this article deleted (indeed I voted this way) but we have links to criminals, criminal organizations, the Holocaust and Nazis, Khmer Rouge and other terrible people and regimes. Barring this one solely because it bears more directly on Misplaced Pages is the wrong move, and one that will likely be challenged again and again because it seems to conflict with a core policy. An extreme example, that I'm sure we can agree we all hope won't come to pass: If a prominent editor or Board member is attacked/killed/otherwise harmed by a criminal who then threatens other Misplaced Pages editors, and this individual is the subject of sustained and high profile coverage in reliable sources - do we have the article, or not? Avruch 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we probably are repeating arguments that have been made plenty of times in the past, so we probably should stop now. The DRV is going on and the community will decide. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're trying to make an end run around the community by saying we should have an arbcom-made policy that even if there is an article it should not provide a link. —Random832 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's an article then realistically there will almost certainly wind up being a link somewhere, whether I like it or not. The best comment on that motion was to the effect that there is probably no point in worrying about this until after the DRV is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Weber's RFA opposals

Hi Brad. I did a quick CTRL-F of the RFA page as well as those of the last couple of weeks and found your only recent RFA edits (as opposed to RFB) have been to say (something along the lines of) "Kurt's oppose rational is worthless and should be completely disregarded". Now, I appreciate you dislike Kurt's opposals, and believe them to have no substance. They do have substance, it's just a lot of people dislike the reasoning, even though such reasoning does exist, and Kurt's provided that to two RFCs on this topic in the past.

But whether or not Kurt's opposals have any merit is a judgement the closing bureaucrats have been deemed well-capable of making, and I think someone in your position should be setting an example and not solely contributing to RFAs in order to dismiss Kurt's opposes. Neıl ☎ 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

His rationale for doing so was included in one of the more recent RfAs - that he thought candidates should be aware that Kurt's opposes were disregarded, so they didn't feel bad or take it too seriously. Avruch 15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my concern is for the RfA candidates. As we all know, it's a stressful enough process without unnecessary opposition based on nothing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a "support" with a note that Kurt's oppose has no merit in your view would be more constructive? I realise we have standards on not biting newbies and all, but by the time an editor is at RFA they aren't newbies - they should be entirely capable of dealing with an apparently facetious oppose vote. Neıl ☎ 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad shouldn't be supporting just because he disagrees with one of the opposes and wishes to counteract it (even if he tried, 1 oppose = 4 supports), he should be supporting because he believes the candidate would make a good administrator. GlassCobra 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that Kurt's "prima facie" opposes are "facetious." I do believe they are destructive and damaging. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

All opposes are damaging to some extent (even "constructive" ones). Perhaps facetious was the wrong word - you've used "worthless" and "groundless". Neıl ☎ 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"without substance" was supposed to be the basic formula. Perhaps I slipped up a couple of times. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking

This latest edit I think demonstrates the wiki-stalking tendency best. -- Cat 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand that edit at all. Have you asked the user what it means? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently attempted moving the gallery at Depiction of Jesus to commons on 11:02, 10 March 2008. There was one image (Image:Divine_Mercy_(Adolf_Hyla_painting)2007-08-16.jpg) licensed under fair-use in the gallery which was not commons compatible so I did not carry it to commons and removed it from the gallery of images. I further removed the fair use rationale from the image description page as it was no longer needed on 10:58, 10 March 2008.

Jack Merridew reported my edits to User:Johnbod on 11:32, 10 March 2008. That is 34 minutes after I edited the image and 30 minutes after I edited the article.

How did he know? Aside from him (Jack Merridew) stalking, I cannot think of a logical explanation.

-- Cat 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Newyorkbrad, I thought you may want to know that I've sent an E-mail. Thanks. Acalamari 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded. Thanks, Newyorkbrad. Acalamari 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez Image Issue

Hi, Newyorkbrad. You might be interested to learn that issue around which image to use with the lead of the MS article has been resolved. I am disappointed that you did not choose to respond to the question I asked about admin action here, as I thought that a revert-and-fully protect (for a month) by an (arguably) involved admin - and ArbCom Clerk-in-training - at least deserved some comment. As I respect your opinion, I would have been satisfied if you had said that the action did not cross the line, or that the action was fine, or that a warning 'that was unwise' - or if you had followed any other option that you believed was appropriate. I realise that MM has taken a lot of time, but I was disappointed to receive no response at all. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I missed responding to your question on that matter. I do my best to respond to every question and comment posted on this page, so it is fairly uncharacteristic of me to miss one, and I am sorry it was yours.

For what it is worth, in addition to my activities on the Mantanmoreland case (including reading tens of thousands of words, writing my lengthy comments on proposed decision talk, studying new evidence some of which has affected my view of the case which I think is something you would agree is a high priority, and drafting some additions to the decision that you will have seen), I have also read up some of the original sources, studied the evidence and proposals, and drafted the proposed decision in in the Franco-Mongol Alliance case, I have studied whether to make additional proposals in the Episodes and Characters 2 case and the Highways 2 case, I have read and voted on (or am about to vote on) whether to accept new requests for arbitration such as Betacommandbot, I have made several comments in the "Requests for clarification" section on WP:RfAr, I have dealt with various issues arising on the ArbCom's mailing list, and I have done some ordinary administrator and editor actions as well such as trying to give some thoughts to a new wikiproject and copyediting an FAC candidate. So again, I really am sorry to have missed your question, but I'd hate for some passer-by on this page to think I'm some sort of a wiki-slacker or something. :)

Most important, I'm glad the problem you refer to has now been resolved. If it flares up again, please feel free to let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't for a moment believe you are any sort of wiki-slacker! In fact, it is evident that you devote an extremely large amout of time and effort to Misplaced Pages. In the midst of all the criticism that inevitably comes with your position - and the inevitable fallout from any approach to defusing the ticking time-bomb that was and is the MM case - it is easy for editors to fail to register their appreciation for all your hard work. I chose to leave the message until archiving, and to only send a reminder email, as I realise that my question was not nearly as urgent or important as some of the other work you describe.
My original decision to post here was because I didn't want to case a big scene by raising it at AN/I, but I did want an outside perspective that I respected to help me to better understand what is acceptable administrative action. Whilst the issue that prompted the query has been resolved, my question has not. I wanted to know two things: (1) is my interpretation that John was 'involved' in the issue in which he acted to revert-and-protect reasonable? (2) was revert-and-protect (as opposed to protection on the wrong version) appropriate and acceptable in the circumstance described? I am not looking for some sort of sanction against John - although I am sure that others are, in light of the article talk page comment that as long as it's in the history that it was the wrong thing to do (having already described the actionas foul and abuse of tools) - but I would like to know whether I have misunderstood where the line is in cases such as this. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's late here and I need to go to bed, but I will respond to your question tomorrow. I really will this time, too. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

...and on reviewing your old post I now recall why I never answered it: You had indicated that you were letting John Vandenberg know that you are posting the inquiry, so I put the matter aside waiting for him to respond to the thread, and then he never did. With regard to the general issue, it generally is not appropriate for an administrator to revert to his own favored version of a page in a content dispute and later protect the page on that version. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, such as if the administrator was redressing a BLP violation, the same action might be acceptable and even praiseworthy. Therefore, I would want to obtain John's explanation of why he applied the protection as he did—I try not to guess at another editor's motivations without asking him or her first—except that since the matter occurred several days ago, it is likely moot. If you believe this administrator has a record of inappropriate protections in a series of incidents, I recommend that you raise the matter with him. Otherwise, it probably would best be dropped at this point. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Do you mind succinctly explaining to me why Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I don't know anything more than I've read second-hand. If you are referring to his original ban, that resulted from an arbitration case that took place well before I started participating on Misplaced Pages. If you are referring to his being blocked again within the past few days, I have stayed away from the matter so I can review it impartially in case it comes before the Arbitration Committee, but I think you can get a sense of the concerns from reading through his last few contributions and the recent history of his talkpage. Hope this helps; sorry I can't be more informative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NYB, you know you need a wiki-break when you take to sleep editing! :P Jay*Jay (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't help. I am only interested in the current ban. Since you approved of it, I tough you knew the reason for it. Cheers--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying that I approved of it? To the best of my recollection I had nothing to with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Trouble in paradise

would you please be so kind as to inform warn this editor that such comments are inflammatory, unnecessary, and very likely to cause trouble and resentment. Perhaps there needs to be a course to train Admins? Thank you. Giano (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could first have a word with Giano about the disruptive effects of sniping at admins who are trying to deal with a long-term disruptive editor who blew his unpteenth final chance and has now taken to socvkpuppetry, and how very likely to cause trouble and resentment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PS In the mist of Giano's trademark sarcasm, it can be hard to grasp precisely what his complaints are, but in this case it appears that Giano's substantive contribution to the discussion appears to be that the edits by the numerous sockpuppets of Vintagekits are being reverted per Misplaced Pages:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As you very well know, your solution to this problem is going to escelate problems considerably. Pointing out this, is not trolling, but an attempt to avoid further disruption. Giano (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the response to a banned sockpuppeteer should be to allow them to continue to evade their ban, I suggest that you open an RfAR or try to get policy changed. You previously insisted at great length that if Vk was given a chance, he'd behave himself, yet he abused that chance by sockpuppeteering, including by multiple voting for you at the arbcom election. If you do actually want to resolve problems rather than escalating them, it would be more persuasive if your response was not always to jump in to try to facilitate Vintagekits's evasion of the norms of conduct which apply on wikipedia.

I have yet to see any acknowledgement from you that Vk's sockpuppeteering has been disruptive and contrary to policy, and as long as you continue to remain silent on that point but quick to criticise the admins enforcing policy, then trolling seems to me like an appropriate description. I note, BTW, that it's not just the admins in this area who are wrong, but that ArbCom is also denounced by you for its "errors and stupidity". Very civil, indeed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad, would you please warn the above "admin" such comments as this on my page are completely inacceptable . I did warn that this was the sort of thing that would happen. I won't reply to her myself, for a while, to give you chance to sort it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Giano, what's your complaint? You are of course quite entitled to disagree with an enforcement request, but if it's made, then Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Using_this_page says "Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I think Giano is referring to the filing of the AE request, not to the notification - although I recognise that Giano's question is open to interpretation. As for the AE request, the response to it so far shows it is unlikely to go anywhere. Personally, I would say it is more frivilous that some of the recent ScienceApologist requests, and I would suggest you consider withdrawing it. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting change from the times when I would approach Giano seeking to calm a situation and he would tell me that my meddlesomeness was unwelcome....

Use of terms like "trolling" has never helped resolve a problem in any situation that I can recall, and I doubt very much that this will be the first time. To be fair, Giano expects others to have a thick skin, and I suppose it may be tempting to suppose that he should be willing to take what he gives in the way of unvarnished language and characterizations—but this situation like many others calls for calm speech and moderation of tone, especially from administrators and other experienced users. I see no reason to believe that Giano is proceeding in anything other than good faith in asserting his personal view that administrators are mishandling the current situation.

Policy is that edits from sockpuppets of blocked or banned users may be reverted. "May" is not "must", and common sense should be used in this as in all other wiki-matters. I have not reviewed this particular series of edits but if, for example, a blocked user saw the spelling "teh" and changed it to "the", it would be foolish to revert it for the sake of reverting it. On the other hand, if an individual is rightfully banned, we do not want to encourage him or her to sneak around the ban, and allowing too many substantive edits to stand can have the effect of doing so. Although it is not written down anywhere, the reason for the ban and seriousness of the user's violations that led to it can also be relevant.

The real substance of the dispute, it seems to me, is whether Vintagekits should be allowed to edit (subject to appropriate restrictions), or whether his current indefinite block should remain in place given his admitted multiple sockpuppetry during and after the arbitration case. On this I express no present view because the matter may again come before the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Well, this is an interesting change from the times when I would approach Giano seeking to calm a situation and he would tell me that my meddlesomeness was unwelcome" Have no fear Brad, it won't happen again, I only asked you this time because of the intolerable position you and you colleagues have placed me in, but if that's how you and the admins want it so be it. This afternoon's disruption is only a hint of what is undoubtedly to come, and why I initially decided to stop editing. As I have said many time this situation is doubtless the Arbcom's intention. I see there are further comments about me on BHG's page (I don't use the term Troll) you may define that one as you wish. Not that I'm expecting a brave comment on that edit, I expect he is an admin. Having seem now from yourself and Flo that the Arbs do not intend to remedy this deplorable situation, I am left with no alternative but to address it myself. I shan't be bothering you again. Giano (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No no, you are free to approach me about any situation you wish and I will do my best to address it; forgive me a brief moment of reminiscence there. As for the "deplorable situation," if you are referring to the "civility restriction" I believe you are aware that I opposed it, which is not to say that I wouldn't appreciate greater civility from just about everyone as a general proposition. I should not speak for my other colleagues on the committee, but I am sure that their intention was not that you should stop editing, either. As for the matter of Vintagekits, perhaps the issue should be presented either to a noticeboard or to the committee directly, rather than being dealt with in the present manner. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests

Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Commenting there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. You'll need it. As well as infinite patience, and probably a bunch of straitjackets, as well. If you look at the amount of work these editors have required (only in # of enforcements alone, never mind the # of clashes that don't get reported), you'll understand why most admins who've tried to keep these two factions from tearing each other's throats out are completely, totally, and utterly burned out. SirFozzie (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only issue I was commenting on in this instance was whether there should be a separate enforcement page or not. I do appreciate how little fun the Arbitration Enforcement and related tasks can be, in the regional/nationalistic/ethnic dispute cases among others, and I appreciate the contributions of everyone who tries to help out in these difficult areas. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the squabbling on that page, there are only 10 logged enforcement requests in 4 months. Look in the WP:AE archives and count the Armenia-Azeri complaints or the ScienceApologist/Martinphi complaints. I'm sure there is anything all that unusual here. And of course any admin who wants to help out at AE once or routinely is welcome. Thatcher 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PHG

Hi Newyokbrad. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Arangar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as ). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses ). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards PHG (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brad. I've just been reading through the discussion about this page and it seems to be a red herring to me. PHG created an article about a papal bull which he called Viam agnoscere veritatis. There seems to be a lack of sources that confirm that this particular document is know by this name although those words are included in its opening. In response, a disambiguation page was created (Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation)) listing other letters that also contained those words in their opening. PHG disputes that these letter are known by that title. I think Adam Bishop's comments here are the most significant - he points out that this phrase is fairly commonly used in such correspondence and that he doesn't think any of the letters should be known by this title. I see little bad faith by anybody there- the only problems are some rather aggressive comments by PHG - bolding words like "untrue", "false statement" etc. and the problem that the original title may well be based on some fairly selective source citation and given the decision that is to pass, one must question PHG's reliability here. I will try and start a discussion about a better title for the article, but I don't think this has much bearing on the case. Regards, WjBscribe 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please view Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for an update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will review the discussion and comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If I May, Regarding Betacommand

Your statement was appreciated, but a bit mystifying as well. With all due respect, the community has tried, repeatedly, and completely without success, to deal with BC's chronic incivility. Unfortunately, there are several other editors that defend even the basest of this incivility, chalking it up to his responding to pressure and "trolling." At some point, at least this issue (if no other one) must be dealt with, and preferably sooner than later. How long is too long? How long until you and FT2 could be convinced that the time has come? Bellwether _C 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad, I hope you know the respect that I have for you, both personally for the work that you do here. It's not easy for me to tell you that I'm disappointed in your statement. I truly feel that the time has passed for the Committee to deal with the Betacommand issues. This is not going to get better with time. In fact, it's only getting worse. Tempers are flaring on all sides, and rather than dying down, these flames are getting whipped up. We need a calming influence, and I'm afraid it's past the point where a single person can do it, and to the point where the committee needs to get involved. Short of Jimmy or perhaps yourself, I don't see that any one person can calm this situation down. I strongly urge you to reconsider and move toward accepting the arbitration case. - Philippe | Talk 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think his comments are spot on, and that the Betacommand element of this dispute is on a decline. As Betacommand and the other bot operators continue to make slow progress towards the steps that folks have requested - splitting the bot, allowing other operators to perform the 10c functions etc. - this will continue. By itself, the Betacommand civility issues simply do not require ArbCom intervention and as the other problems wend towards resolution ArbCom involvement becomes less and less useful. Avruch 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Arbcom deals with civility issues from time to time. BC's are extensive enough, I feel they merit their attention. He has enough defenders in the community, that I don't think anything will be done about his incivility from just the community. I'm not angling to get him blocked, but I feel nothing less than an official arbcom sanction (basically, a resolution saying "Cut the crap!") will reach him. Bellwether _C 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I said I was holding off on voting to accept the case in the hope that the situation improved. I meant in the very near future. Requests stay pending for 10 days and I will take a close look at any progress or regress before that period expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• As I said at the page (I think it was), I'm sure BC will "play nice" until this arbcom goes away. Bellwether _C 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• If he plays nice indefinitely, that would be very satisfactory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's the thing: I'm 100% sure he won't. And arbcom not dealing with it now will just give him more of feeling of invincibility. Bellwether _C 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One point I would like to respond to: " continues to take the lead in image patrolling work day-in and day-out". It should be noted that it is admins patrolling the image deletion categories that do the real work, and that Betacommand's bot is actually lining up a limited subset of the non-compliant images for review (his bot misses a huge number of non-compliant images - please ask if this is not clear to you). I would like to point out that others (notably Wikidemo at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria/legacy image proposal, CBM at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria/Proposal, and me at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria compliance) have tried to take a similar lead. There may also be others. The trouble tends to be that (a) it is difficult to change people once they are set on their course; and (b) that Betacommand (and others) use bots, and if you don't have the ear of a friendly bot programmer, it can be difficult to really make an impact in this area. Just something to bear in mind when considering why it looks like Betacommand does most of the work. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an old saying that the referee or umpire at a sporting event does the best job when nobody notices that he is there. Perhaps the same is true of image patrollers as well: the ones who do the job unobtrusively and well and maintain good relations with contributors are less prominent than those who adopt a different style (or perhaps deal with a more high-profile aspect of the image work). I'm continuing to keep an eye on this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. BTW, is there a general expectation that Betacommand should maybe say more than he has so far? Currently just a response to one of the statements. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be pleased to see a statement from him acknowledging the issues, but he has made such statements before. The key is improved behavior, both in the near term and in the long term. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You!

You, sir, are a fantastic editor and administrator. Congratulations on your move to ArbCom. Keep doing what you're doing. - JNighthawk (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd situation

As an uninvolved administrator who is familiar with User:Abd and the peculiar Misplaced Pages:Delegable proxy proposal, could you please look at User:Abd/Pre-arbitration/Whig and provide feedback on whether it is appropriate to conduct such experiments. This does not seem to be within the stated purposes of Misplaced Pages, and I am concerned that this may be creative disruption, a form of retaliation for my involvement in that prior matter. Jehochman 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The page several several times that the procedure may be used "as long as all the parties consent." Perhaps if you simply express the view that this is not a viable way to resolve this particular dispute, since it involves community sanctions rather than a dispute between particular editors or administrators, that might resolve the issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Close motion in MM

I just dropped by to mention to you one of the highs and lows of the MM case. I noticed that FT2 took some action following my first suggestion, and had also proposed a new version of the impact of dispute finding of fact (finding 3.2). I was really pleased - irrespective of his motivation, it was a positive move that seemed to respond to some of the community-raised concerns - and I went straight to his talk page to say 'thanks'. Then I went back to the case page, and found it now has four motions to close - two made after FT2's new finding was proposed. No one has made any comment on it. Just that fast, the 'high' crashed to the realisation that hoping any actual movement would occur was foolishly optimistic. I recognise that you may not have noticed the proposal, and that there is something slightly irrational in the fact that you being one of the additional closers makes me feel worse about it - but that is the situation. Maybe it is the fact that I want to have confidence in ArbCom, but am so doubtful about the judgment of some of its members - disappointment (even inadvertent) as a result of an action from one of the members who is so manifestly trying to act in the best interests of the community just hurts. I'm not really sure exactly what I am trying to say - maybe I am just disillusioned. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I intend to vote on FT2's new finding; I fit it a bit too melodramatic for my taste, and likely to stir up more disputes as to who or what precisely is being referred to in each of the clauses, but I will certainly attend to it.

I don't see the basis for your assertion that the decision has not evolved in response in part to community concerns expressed in the case. From my the framework of the original proposed decision that I posted two weeks ago today, we have added the topic ban for Mantanmoreland (proposed by FloNight), and we have added the single-account and no-proxies limitation on Mantanmoreland (proposed by me). The committee decides cases based on their merits and the best interests of the encyclopedia and its contributors, not based on the number of people who express disagreements with a proposal (as I know from personal experience long before I was an arbitrator)—but input from interested editors in nonetheless critical, and is carefully considered. This input after I posted the decision, not the volume of comments in itself but the substance of several of them, was one of the many things that I considered in deciding that FloNight's proposal to add the topic ban as remedy 4 was meritorious and that I should proposed remedy 5 to enforce the topic ban. These remedies are, as you have seen, passing unanimously or virtually so.

To an extent, the substance of your proposed changes consists more of "wordsmithing" the proposed decision rather than changing what could be described as the bottom-line result or outcome of the case. In any arbitration decision, as with the documents that I write for my work in the real world, there is always more wordsmithing and crafting and polishing that could be done. For this reason, in many cases there is a trade-off between taking the time to propose more alternative wordings and to do more copyediting versus getting the case closed and providing some finality (granted that in this case, finality may not be destined to be achieved when the case closes), but that is a different discussion.

I know that my and the committee's approach to this case has been subject to a great deal of criticism, which the new remedy proposals have mollified to only a slight extent, but I don't think that being unresponsive to concerns about the wording of the particular finding in question is really a significant criticism. After thinking about the matter, I concluded that our potentially closing the case in the next couple of days rather made more sense than spending several more days honing the wording of proposed finding 3 versus 3.1 versus 3.2, which can be considered as a matter not of such importance as to warrant keeping the case open just for that reason. That is a matter of arbitrator discretion and if even a single arbitrator disagreed, he or she could request a delay in the closing until there was further discussion of the matter and this would surely be granted. I hope this explains my thoughts. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I really did wonder whether I should click 'save page' when I wrote the post above. Your response shows that I wasn't clear in what I was saying. I was trying to communicate the impact the sequence of events had on me, how I felt as I saw a positive development, and then a move to close. That having been said, let me try to respond to the comments you have made:

Yes, the decision has evolved, but it seems to me that it has done so in only one significant way - the topic ban for MM and the subsequently proposed limitations on proxies, etc. The former addresses the concern raised by Thatcher (IIRC) about MM denying a COI. The latter makes some progress on Lar's concern. I accept that you have carefully considered other comments and suggestions, as have other ArbCom members. There has likely been further private discussion. But, consider it from the editors' perspective - the only real movement in position seems to flow from the criticism from an ArbCom clerk and a senior CU. Any perception that the rest of the community don't matter may not be warranted, but there is little tangible evidence that contradicts such a perception. I recognise that this may be unfair from your perspective, but just look at the present WP:AN thread and you will see plenty of comments indicating editors feeling that they have been ignored / disrespected / ... I don't know what ArbCom can do about this, but it is an issue requiring urgent consideration because it is unermining confidence in ArbCom as an institution. The nomination of WP:AC at MfD was POINTy, but also illustrates this lack of confidence.

Regarding my suggestions and 'wordsmithing', I recognise that you can polish a text for an almost indefinite period. I would not have bothered to make the suggestion if such had been my intent. To be honest, it is frustrating that I seem to have comprehensively failed to communicate why I see the difference between 3 and 3.1 as so important - and not just to you; I am not sure if anyone except FT2 sees the point I am trying to make. Perhaps it is ironic that I am getting a tiny taste of how you likely felt when viewing the response to your proposed decision. I will make one last attempt: my reading of 3 is that it talks of the articles, and suggests MM and WB have disrupted the community. This is fine, so far as it goes, but it doesn't cover the damage done to others by admins who helped protect MM, the damage done by Jimbo as a consequence of his 'shoot on sight' comment, and the overall damage to the community from what can be seen as the suppression of unwelcome views. I am not suggesting this was orchestrated, or that there was some conspiracy. I am not suggesting that Durova, or Jimbo, or anyone else (excepting MM and WB) have acted in bad faith. But, these things did happen, and like the situation of the stolen generation in Australia, or apartheid in South Africa, or the evente preceding the independence of East Timor, moving on requires a symbolic gesture that explicitly recognises that wrong-doings have occurred. To me, 3.1 does this (or at least, it tries to) in a way that 3 does not. I offered an alternative form because I saw 3.1 was unlikely to pass, and I believe that a symbolic gesture is necessary - and ArbCom can easily make such a gesture, but it is really hard for the community to do so. FT2's 3.2 is another approach to compromise that includes a gesture and might gain sufficient Committee support. If it were just about wording, I would agree with you that it is a poor basis for criticism. But, to me it isn't about wording. It is about facilitating community healing by recognising that wrongs have occurred and implicitly undertaking not to repeat them. Maybe others don't share my view on the importance of such a gesture for promoting healing. Maybe I am completely wrong - I don't know. As I look at the banning debate on WP:AN, I see a community in pain over a wound that won't heal until the irritant is removed. I fear that the wound will fester until a ban of MM and SH is enacted. But what happens then? Would a gesture of recognition help prevent the community to pick at the wound and delve into aspects of the past? I don't know - I recognise the decision is meant to help draw a line and stop such a focus on the past. I think it would have had a better chance of succeeding with a general finding recognising the harms that clearly extend beyond MM and WB. Does this make any more sense? Jay*Jay (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I understand all of your points, even if I do not agree with all of them. All have been carefully considered as a result of the numerous posts that have been made. Although the input from Thatcher and Lar was extremely relevant and important, I have read and considered every word that has been written on the case pages, and some of the posts have indeed affected my thinking. For example, I think that the "jihad" discussion that G-Dett posted on proposed decision talk was an important contribution, as I acknowledged in that section several days ago.

I emphathize with your current feelings. For more than a year before I was elected to the committee, I actively participated in making proposals on the workshops. Sometimes Fred Bauder and Kirill Lokshin (who between them drafted maybe 80% of the decisions in 2007) would adopt my proposals and sometimes they wouldn't, and there were plenty of times when I wanted to scream, "Come on, guys, my draft decision on the workshop is demonstrably better written and more sensible than the decision that is actually being adopted." (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Konstable is the canonical example.) Now that I am on the other side of the fence, it turns out the job is a little bit harder than it looks. Sometimes I can craft consensus wording that can be adopted unanimously and that resolves a problem, and then I can feel that my being a member of the committee has made a contribution to Misplaced Pages. Then there are other times like this case....

The executive summary of my feelings, I suppose, is that I would ask you and other members of the community not to mistake my (or other arbitrators') not having implemented one or your proposals or commented directly upon it as meaning that I or we have not carefully consider the issues presented and the community's comments regarding them.

Finally, although I consider Misplaced Pages to be important, and the Arbitration Committee to be important to Misplaced Pages, and this case to be an important one for the Arbitration Committee ... I would respectfully prefer that comparisons of a Misplaced Pages sockpuppetry dispute to "the situation of the stolen generation in Australia, or apartheid in South Africa, or the evente preceding the independence of East Timor" in connection to this or any other matter should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For supporting my unblock in spite of the fact that my disruption pretty much directly insulted you. That was very ... kind? I don't know, I can't think of the word right now (one of those times where you have a word on the tip of your tongue, bleh). Thank you. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The job of arbitrator, which I ran for knowing pretty much what I was getting into, requires a thick skin. I hope my performance will merit kinder reviews in other cases. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Dear Newyorkbrad,

I am hoping you can help me. It's the same old problem I've been experiencing with Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse. In particular, Kathryn has been claiming that I have no right to edit any article about anyone who at any time has appeared at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, or even any author who has ever been published by Llewellyn Worldwide. I have examired the COI guidelines, and do not believe that my edits are in violation of any rules.

I work with ACE, the people who run the two events, on a voluntary basis. I have no more vote than anyone else, and that's a group that has over thirty members, when they decide who will be booked or not. Most of those appearing do so for free. I receive no money from ACE for ANYTHING I do. I do not, as Kathryn keeps characterizing it, "hire" anyone. I also do not sell anything; ACE sells books, CDs, tapes and T-shirts, primarily at the events. My actual living is made in an entirely different way.

To say that I can't edit an article about an author like, say, Gavin Frost (who has never been paid to appear at Starwood) or a theatre group like ArcheDream (who has appeared twice in the 27-year history of the event), would be like saying that no one who works on a Star Trek convention can edit the articles of any cast member, author, etc who's ever appeared there. We're not talking about promotional edits or links to a commercial website; she objects to ANY editing.

Furthermore, because ACE was given permission to re-issue a few Llewellyn tapes in the eighties, she claims I have no right to edit ANY article by an author who has been published by Llewellyn Worldwide, the biggest occult publisher in the world! She characterizes the Lewellyn "stable" of authors as "basically the same crowd you hire for Starwood", which is absurd. First, I hire no one; submissions for these events are voted on by a committee which can consist of as many as 30 members, and I have no greater vote than any other. Second, Starwood has hosted a handful of Llewellyn authors (among over a hundred speakers and entertainers of all sorts); it would be difficult to run a Neopagan festival without booking authors who have at least one Llewellyn title. Third, there are hundreds of Llewellyn authors. Llewellyn is over 100 years old, with authors from around the world. Fourth, I have never had a financial relationship with Llewellyn, though that's what she keeps saying, nor have I ever worked for them or made a penny personally from them. ACE has sold some tapes and CDs reissued from old Llewellyn tapes, and ALL revenue that comes to ACE goes into ACE programs. ACE has no paid employees, nor stockholders. To bar me from editing any Llewellyn authors would not only be barring me from the majority of occult authors at all, but it would practically be like telling someone who helps organize a Star Trek convention that he can't edit anyone who appeared on NBC or a Paramount movie, or someone who organizes a comic book con that he can't edit any articles about Marvel comics, characters, films, etc since the con got permission to sell T-Shirts with Spider-Man on them, or had Stan Lee speak there.

This comes after Mattisse (I'm sure you remember her activities), Pigman and Kathryn went on a spree in January, tagging half of the articles I've written or worked on with citation requests (which is just how the whole problem I had a year ago began), and edited or rewrote much of my work. I feel that they were trying to instigate a revert war so they could entrap me into violations that would get me in trouble with the arbitrators I had previously been called before (including you), and this is supported by Pigman's conversations with Thatcher and on the COI noticeboard and the Enforcement noticeboard. Pigman maintains a watchlist solely made up of all the articles I have created or contributed to. Meanwhile, rather than fighting, I was pleading for help from Thatcher (which never came).

I desperately need to have an arbitrator, preferably from the cases I had against me, state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author.

I have not been editing in a promotional manner, nor edit-warring. I have been discussing my edits on the talk pages whenever they are in conflict with another editor. What I really want is for someone to get the tag-team of Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse to get off my case. It is causing me a great deal of anxiety, and interfering with editing which I believe has improved the articles I've worked on and made a contribution to Misplaced Pages.

I am hoping you can and will help me. I do not want to be dragged through another conflict with these editors, nor do I want to be driven from Misplaced Pages by their actions. Please reply on my talk page. (I also asked for help from Fred Bauder.)

Sincerely, Rosencomet (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. As you may know I was not yet an arbitrator when the prior cases were decided, so I am not really familiar with the background to the matter. Therefore, it might be best if Fred, who wrote the prior decisions, and who has now left the committee so he would not have the problem of prejudging a situation that might come before the committee again, or another arbitrator who was on the committee last year, were to look into the issue. If that does not happen let me know and I will either take a look or ask some uninvolved administrators to do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear you were looking for me

Email's good. (work for seven more hours) SirFozzie (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I got an answer to the specific question I had yesterday from someone else. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"wikiconstitutional conundrum"

I predicted this very situation here:

And if the AC ever were to take that case up again then, and force the equivalent of a Constitutional crisis, it could be amazingly disruptive. No one would benefit, since it ever came down to a consensus shouting match, no one can beat the community, since the community is everything. The AC comes from the community, the community (from all the wikis) elects the Foundation Board, which hires the paid staff who run the servers and business. Betting against the community in any ultimate push/shove is like betting against the house in a casino. The odds mathematically will always go against you in the end, no matter who you are. If you win the local specific fight, you could well lose the next local election for AC seats. Take it up the food chain, you could lose your Board spot(s). Lawrence § t/e 07:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My wording was maybe a bit melodramatic, but here we are. :( Lawrence § t/e 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, my expectation was that Mantanmoreland would quietly just stop editing (he hadn't edited for over a week until this morning), rendering the issue moot.

I'm caught between a rock and hard place here, as the primary draftsman of the original decision in which I sought consensus, and as a supporter of the additional remedies that I hoped would increase it. At this point, the fact that there is more opposition to an indefinite block or community ban of Mantanmoreland than I had envisioned suggests that there is more support for the committee's view of the case than I had feared might exist (i.e., more than virtually none). So in the sense of my thinking that maybe my original view of the case was a sensible one, that is to the good. But the lack of community clarity that might prevent consensus from crystalizing around a ban may preserve and prolong the dispute, is to the bad.

At this point the path of least resistance for me would be to shrug my shoulders and be a good sport and say "all judges get reversed sometimes, and in this case maybe deservedly so," and move on to the next case. But paths of least resistance are not always to be followed. I will go silent for awhile now, and watch, and wait. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a very specific notion of what went completely wrong here, and it's directly related to the open nature of the arbitration cases. I need to get my thoughts in order. However, after the series of these I've been pulled into from people I've worked with (Jehochman led to the Durova case, Durova case to the IRC; my own waterboarding mess which led to Bluemarine, and finally this Mantanmoreland one via about half my watchlist) I'm convinced that running AC cases like an open Senate investigation is the root of all the evil drama problems. The notion that "everything under the sun" comes under scrutiny is the same problem as RFCs-- it turns immediately into an informational and emotional arms race, to see who can convince the arbs first. I need to draft up these thoughts. Also, take a gander at this, if you get a chance? Your feedback on the structure of what I'm thinking about here could be valuable, on that link. I might end up just deleting it, but this is on my mind now, and I want to see if it has legs to see what community mandates may exist that the AC would need to adopt. Lawrence § t/e 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting point, but in this case, I think that while in some respects the committee has been criticized for focusing too broadly (e.g. on focusing not only Mantanmoreland's status but taking a much broader view to address the future of the articles), in other respects we have been criticized for focusing too narrowly (e.g. not examining in detail and ruling on the original handling of the situation when it first arose in 2006, though I made some allusions to that in my long personal statement on the proposed decision talkpage a few days ago). I will take a close look at your userspace draft tonight when I have a bit more time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More MM fallout

Brad, I'm curious to know if you are aware of the other piece of fallout from MM today - the block on Mackan79 made by Georgewilliamherbert because he "sounded like" WordBomb? Random's comment after the end of the related AN/I thread is telling, and I am disturbed that Mackan felt compelled to disclose his identity to 'prove' his innocence. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That all unfolded while I was either offline or asleep, but yes I am aware of it. It appears to have been a very poor block, and properly overturned, and is one of the rare cases where I would support a request that a developer physically expunge the block log. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)