Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:53, 22 November 2008

Archives

Index of archives

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

Ping

Hi Brad. I hate to pester you and I know you're busy, but I was wondering if you'd received my email. Best wishes. MastCell  00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did receive it. Travelling today, but will answer over the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No hurry. Sorry to bother you, and have a good trip. MastCell  18:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

November Arb stuff - RFArb page

Request your votes on proposed motions - particularly the one(s) affecting Bharatveer case and Hoffman case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Still reviewing both. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bylaws process (ending December 1)

Per discussion at the November 16 New York City meetup, bylaws will be decided on-wiki with a deadline of 2 weeks to complete the process. Please read the proposed bylaws, and comment on them before the process ends on December 1. Thanks for participating!--Pharos (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Faulty RFCs

Seeing as the Slr_1 RFC MFD just closed as delete, I was wondering if you would be interested in deleting Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/John Kenney (also prior VFDs and from the same banned user as Theresa Knott and Slrubenstein), or should I file MFD again for each? MBisanz 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would delete these pages (or you could) if the subjects of the RfC's want them to be. Sometimes admins prefer for a dubious RfC about them to be kept rather than deleted so no one can later claim "cover-up," so it would probably be worthwhile to ask first. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Notified them, I'll delete next week unless they object. MBisanz 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Principle 6: Editorial disputes and "The Wrong Version" and Principle 3 in Piotrus 2

Hi Nyb. Based on your comments on PD page, I think we share the same views on these principles in Piotrus 2, but in line with the note I left for Kirill (on his talk page), I'd like to see more done - not merely a comment on PD page which won't appear on the main case page.

Time is really not on my side for the rest of this month or I'd have considered making a workshop proposal myself. But I was hoping Kirill, as well as yourself, would perhaps consider my request for you both to draft an alternative proposed principle (#6.1) - one that broadly touches on those caveats you mention (without being icky and excessively long like the motion on the RFArb page)? Would appreciate it, and sorry to bug you about this at this point instead of while it was at workshop. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Piotrus Arbcom comments on me

I'd actually thought the Boleslaw thing was over when I filed the arbcom. If you look at the history, you'll notice that after a week in peace Piotrus reverted back to the version he knew 4 other editors opposed, after the arbcom hearing was started. I reverted him a few times as has been said, he reverted me, and it went back and forth over a few days. Not to reveal too much about my overly-cynical brain, but when Piotrus started putting misleading summaries of what was happening in his evidence, my own stupidity dawned on me and I realised that this was probably the reason he started it back up again in the first place; and I haven't really been back to it since that realisation. I won't lie to you though and pretend I feel guilty about these reverts, I don't, arbcom FoF or not; Piotrus wasn't addressing the points on the talk, and so frankly what else was there to be done? It wasn't about nationalist POVs or something, it was about the scholarly credibility of various assertions. Although the revert could have been left a while, this would only have been for show so that future commentators would have been less likely to label it "edit-warring". The reverting did in any case have an effect, as Piotrus' reverts became less and less drastic, as did mine. Sometimes that's just the way it has to happen, and it does indeed work, despite the fact people are very vocal about disapproving of it. I wasn't blindly editing up to 3rr and waiting for my next chance . The "reverts" were actually spaced out. You also sometimes need to be reverted a few times to accept that you're gonna have to work harder in editing the article, as you realise the other side is actually committed; something which sometimes has to be reaffirmed after a substantial post has been made to a talk page, either by oneself or another. This is part and parcel of the editing cycle for normal content editors. It's ok for some people to moralize about all reversions, but this is completely vacuous sentimentality and could only ever be convincing if a relevant alternative were offered, something I've yet to hear for such circumstances. I do however realise I was personally very stupid. Anyways, thought I should explain in more detail. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano etc

You say it was common knowledge that this was G's sock- well no it was not to everybody. What if it was an editor whose only involvement in the politics of[REDACTED] was to vote at Arbcom or perhaps for some RfAs- I imagine quite a lot are like that? They would have had know way of knowing without having to dig around and make guesses, as they wouldn't make a habit of reading giano's talk page like a lot of us do.:) Even ncmvocalist said he didn't know. Sticky Parkin 12:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If any editor thought that was a genuine run for Arbcom, then I would love to see the pages they write. Giano (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There's sort of a crossover where people vote for joke candidates (they often get some votes, don't they?) because they like the joke or are agreeing with the person's views about arbcom in some way. Some of the candidates who are unlikely to get in (of which there are several) and sometimes know it, could also be seen as joke candidates. People who are voting still deserve to know who they're voting for, don't they, even if they decide too vote for a less serious candidate, perhaps as well as some proper ones. Anyway, you never know, they might get in.:) Sticky Parkin 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lady Catherine would not have won a place on the arbcom, she was sadly in the bracket of unwell sock about to be killed off and had Gerard and his friends not fabricated a reason to checkuser her (namely: that she was editing in the style of one of Jimbo's arch enemies - so ridiculous that Misplaced Pages would die laughing, WR orgasmic if it ever leaked) she was doomed to die the night before the polls opened - she was just sending up IRC and the Arbcom, and that is what one or the other of them could not stand and bear. The question is now, Gerard remains unfired, which suggests he was not the ringleader, so if not him - who? Giano (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I am the ringleader of the get-Giano cabal. What better proof do you need beside the fact that I am never in IRC when anything interesting happens? Gerard has been bugging me for months asking when can he block Giano again. He's like a puppy without his favorite bone, quite pathetic, really. Of course, I knew about Giano's sock account from my checkuser in June, because even though checkuser only returns 2 months of data for anyone else, it returns 4 months of data for me. My plan was to provoke Catherine de Burgh into doing something that would give David a pretext to block her. First I had to arrange cover. I needed to be able to send an email to an arbitrator (cc'd to David) who had an unimpeachable reputation for being fair and level-headed, and who knew about Giano's sock, so I could look like I was being appropriately cautious and fair. But, this Arbitrator had to be away from his email during the confrontation so that he would not interfere with Gerard's block. Then I realized that as yesterday was National Ammo Day, Newyorkbrad would be at the firing range all day sighting in his new Browning .50 caliber. But that left a timing problem, how to get Giano to do something silly with his sockpuppet on that exact day. Since November 17 was the day that all the general questions for Arbcom candidates would be copied to their candidacy pages, I decided to craft a set of questions so diabolically difficult that they would force Bishzilla to throw up her hands and withdraw. Naturally, Lady C would jump in to fill the void. Using an undisclosed sock to play games with the election was just enough pretext for a block. The only weak link in the plan was Giano himself. Obviously my post to Lady C's talk page was a smokescreen, but if Giano had answered (publicly or privately) that Lady C was an open secret and that he planned to kill her off before the start of voting, I would have been left with no cover. Fortunately Giano played his part perfectly, and the plan went off without a hitch. My only regret is driving Bishzilla off her candidacy, as I think she would make a fine arbitrator, but true men of vision let nothing stand in the way of their ultimate goal. Thatcher 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Very amusing Thatcher, but hardly altering the fat it was an unacceptable way for checkusers to behave. When caught you people clearly on a fishing trip said you checkusered because you thought it was the evil and banned "Greg Kohs" - is the best lie they can come up with to justify an invasion of privacy is that you thought Alice Reighlly paid for a biography, then you do have some seriou problems. We can begin by firing you all. The refusal of those responsible for this disgraceful action to accept responsibility for their actions is almost as much a disgracte as their original crime. Giano (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

careful, thatch... well written satire can get you blocked! some folk might take you seriously.... ;-) (and wouldn't that be impressively unhelpful?) - Privatemusings (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment, regarding your suggestion that David Gerard either agree to not admin at Giano in the future or there be a motion to prevent that. I believe that's a mistake... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded on WP:RfAr. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope that's enough - He needs to be fired. Nothing less will suffice. Brad know this, someone like Gerard has abused his wrongfully given powers once too often. Giano (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, I have no idea what is going on here, but your comments are popping up all over my watchlist. What purpose does cross-posting this all over the place serve? I'm not sure I understand what your reasoning is. J.delanoy_adds 23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Good! because it seems Jimbo and his Arbcom are happy for one of their odd friends to be able to access all of our private information at whim, and for what purposes? It stinks! Giano (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Giano, but you are wrong on a number of levels, and once again you fail to accept any responsibility for your own conduct that contributed to the situation. "Fishing" is discouraged by the instructions at WP:RFCU because it is often more difficult to answer the question "Who is A?" than the question "Are A and B the same person?" That doesn't mean that "fishing" can't be appropriate in some circumstances. For example, many months ago I saw a noticeboard dispute between JzG and Archtransit (then a new admin) over Archtransit's unblocking of several vandal accounts that Guy had blocked. That dispute was not enough reason to checkuser Archtransit, but it was enough to checkuser the vandals, and sure enough, they were on a common IP with Archtransit (now banned as a sockpuppet of Dereks1x). Or for example you asking for a checkuser on a new account , that was "fishing" but it was justified by the account's behavior. In the case of Lady C we had a potential sockpuppet account that was messing around with the arbcom elections. Neither Avi nor I were in on the joke, so I checked the account. I asked nicely and as quietly as I could, given that the account did not have email enabled. You have my email, you could have guessed what the reason was, and if you had told me it was an open secret account who was going to "die" before voting started, I would have dropped the matter (as I have dealt quietly with many other minor indiscretions as checkuser). The fact that David overreacted (in my opinion) does not absolve you of your share of responsibility for this mess, but I don't expect you to ever acknowledge that. Thatcher 14:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• You are lying again Tatcher, having found it was me, you had no reson to even email Gerard; and of course the obvious you could have immediatly unblocked. You didn't. Stop lying Thatcher! The game is up. You were in this together and you will go together. Giano (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

GIANO! :( Paul August ☎ 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This problem with Gerard should have been handled long ago. In fact, I was going to use him as an example in a question to all candidates (but that page seems to be protected now). So, in the light of the current arbcom elections, let me ask it here;

Imagine a powerful administrator who wants to silence some political opposition. He enters into an edit war on a Misplaced Pages project page and censors all criticism of his pet cause. He then protects the page on his version and even threatens to move it to Meta where he can more effectively control the content. The criticism he removed was civil and came from administrators and long time contributors.

It goes to the arbcom and parties present their cases in the usual way, except for this admin who presents his case behind closed doors, in complete secrecy. None of the other parties can see or respond to what he says. Furthermore, he's on the arbcom mailing list by virtue of his previous arbitratorship, and is therefore 'in the room' as the arbitrators discuss and decide the case.

He walks away with no consequences for his behavior.

What do you all think about this? Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC --Duk 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was one of the arbitrators who voted in that case, so what I thought of it can be found on the proposed decision page. (Although, it looks like some of the original proposed decision has been removed from the page for some reason, probably to avoid distraction from proposals that had been superseded, so one would need to check the page history to retrieve my full comments. I remember a much longer comment from me on a proposed finding re David Gerard that does not seem to be there any longer.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That case was a while ago. Here's one comment of yours, and I seem to remember another conversation where it comes out that David presented evidence privately, but I haven't found it yet. (note, he didn't present anything on the /Evidence page. --Duk 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to my comments on the proposed decision itself. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brad. I've noticed in several places, including Flo's page and on the arbcom page, that you say you are awaiting a response from David Gerard before that request is deleted. It took me quite a bit of looking to find anywhere that you asked him something. Then I saw this asking him to respond to your suggestion in the arbitrator's comment section, so I went down there and re-read your comments and finally found you suggesting that he not take any more administrative actions against Giano. Is that what you were referring to? It literally took me 20 minutes of bumbling around to find that, so maybe your question to him is not quite as clear as it could be. Do you think you could make it clearer somewhere instead of the last line in your third comment in that section? Tex (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Brad was referring to this proposed finding ("David Gerard"). That finding was later removed by Arbitrator FloNight not because it distracted from the other findings, but, it appears, because "Events have overtaken this remedy" (Flo's words: cf., her edit summary). Hope this helps, AGK 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To Tex: Yes, that is what I was referring to, and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I know via an e-mail that David Gerard has seen my question, and I expect him to respond on-wiki when he gets online.

To AGK: Actually, I was referring to my comments on the original proposed finding 7, which can be seen for example in this version. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, yes, I thought the link I had provided featured a comment that was a little too short to be the actual subject of your comment. :) AGK 20:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We contribute to a very sad encyclopeia where its leader and Arbcom value the likes of Gerard above content and its creation. One can speculate on the reasons for this, but it's best not to - too distasteful and sordid. Giano (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there we have it, thank you for the link NYB. Gerard presented zero evidence on the /evidence page. Instead he presented it in secret, to a group he belonged to and was on the mailing list of. He was 'in the room' as the case was discussed and decided, while the other parties were excluded. Nor was there opportunity for the other parties to see or comment on this evidence. Gerard blatantly abused his administrator privileges while editwarring, but worse, he did so to to censor political views and earnest criticism, and he walked away unsanctioned.

What do you think the consequences are for abominations like this? The arbcom is a laughing stock. --Duk 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Hundreds of us a have spent hours, weeks God knows how long contributing to something we felt worthwhile (Oh yeah, we have enjoyed doing it) but for what - to be kicked in the teeth by a leader who at the end of the day calls his selected and appointed Arbcom to heel and kicks his workers in the balls. Jimbo need to have a rethink, but he won't. He values the likes of Gerard higher than us. Why? I am totally perplexed - why? Giano (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus arbcom and 25.6)

I believe this finding is very important, per my rationale here. If you think it is out of place as it has not been proposed for others, please, by all means, propose it for others. I am all for finding good things about many editors involved, but I think it is crucial that it is made clear some editors are not demons, despite their common portrayal as such :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Will review and respond tonight. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That said, I do also agree that "good" findings should not be overused, see my comment here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You asked for more more evidence against Lokyz. I presume you have seen my section of evidence; do note that many links are "hidden" in my links to post-amnesty AE requests derailed by Deacon: particularly here and to a lesser extent, here. It is true that since the send AE request in mid-August only two edits of his were offensive ( and ) but this can be explained due to his relative inactivity since August: . Recent inactivity should not translate to immunity from ArbCom - for example, both Alden and greg show a very similar pattern of recent inactivity but there are more concrete findings about them. Experience from years of past interaction (and stat data...) indicate that Lokyz incivility is proportional to his activity, and the cyclical nature of it indicates both are likely to rise in the future. Part of my argument and evidence in this arbcom is that Lokyz's behavior has significantly contributed to battleground creation on Polish-Lithuanian topics, yet attempts to prevent this at AE have been torpedoed by Deacon. I do believe that if this arbcom finds nothing to say about Lokyz, it will in effect define his past actions as acceptable. Are they? I think he has been much more disruptive than poeticbent or greg... PS. Could you tell me if this is a BLP violation or not? It's a bit old for BLPN, but I wonder if it shouldn't be oversighted.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus 2'nd arbcom

Regarding your vote and comment at Piotrus 2.

1. I have explicitly asked Loksin to provide separate diffs for his proposal instead of just linking to Molobos evidence section. As he should be aware I linked to my response in his workshop proposal, where I also provided a link to a chronological listing with comments of the diffs. If you have not done so already, please review it.

2. I would also like to get a statement on what the AC position on double jeopardy is (see my reply to Loksin), could you please oblige?--Stor stark7 09:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I will review and respond tonight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

When you do, please also include a review this, and this too.--Stor stark7 16:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record - as I have also said on the workshop - I don't consider Stor stark7's actions disruptive enough to merit a ban. A restriction of some kind, likely yes, but a ban... I'd advise against it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I plan to propose alternative remedies of less than a ban for several users. I had hoped to get through the remedies part of the proposed decision last night, but something came up, so it will be tonight or over the weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that only one user involved in that arbcom deserves a ban; quite a few others can be "salvaged" via restriction and mentorship. I tried mentoring greg and poeticbent over the past few weeks, although they could probably benefit from a more impartial mentor. I'd like to think that this indicates that greg is now taking BLP much more seriously. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, Piotrus, is that one user Lokyz? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I believe that with proper restrictions and mentoring, he has potential to be a useful editor. PS. My comments on workshop make it clear where I support or oppose proposed bans, restrictions and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to the proposed decision talkpage so all the arbitrators can see it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am ok with reporting it anywhere.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerard

Nice one Brad! Be careful one day that fence will fall down, and you will still be sitting on it. Giano (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I considered sitting on the fence, but thought it might be more worthwhile to smash through it as hard as I could. --Deskana (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't, you did nothing at all, just created a situation where Gerard will do it again. With luck, next time, the victim will be weaker than me and no-one will notice. So you can keep him blocked and all go off for a congratulatory backslapping drink with Gerard. You must all be very proud of yourselves. Giano (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)