Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 15 August 2010 (→Note from Newyorkbrad: condolences). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index of archives

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

Interim measure

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Interim restriction Polargeo (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please act on this request for a motion. Or act on the proposed decision by posting it. It would be helpful. Participating in anything else while this is pending, and while you are the principal block to forward progress, is not. We are all volunteers but doing what you committed to do would be a good thing, I think. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was consulting last night with the other drafters and good progress is being made, which should be reflected on-wiki soon. In the interim I will look at this motion now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You ought to look at the movement we've started here. Jehochman 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-request a motion or some action. What exactly is the holdup? ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple more hours tonight going through evidence. Expect something to be posted this week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A LOT more evidence is piling up. If the proposed decision isn't broad enough there is going to be a strong request to reopen evidence... ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've circulated tonight a number of new proposals for my fellow drafters to review. Progress is coming. With regard to the lot more evidence, is this (in your view) cumulative or supplementary of matters already covered, or does it raise new issues and concerns? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It would primarily add actors not previously mentioned, more so than adding new issues or concerns... the concerns remain the same, for the most part. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note that yes, we're pretty close to having something up. There's a lot of evidence to take in, and Rlevse and I have also been keeping an eye on some of the peripheral battles going on here and there while the case has been ongoing to see if more needs to be added. Risker (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• There will always be supplementary evidence, but if Lar is referring to what I think he is then there is one user who is bringing up "new" issues that I doubt you are covering. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 11

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RFAR/CC

Hi Brad, any idea when there might be some movement on this case? Spartaz 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The drafters have made very material progress in collaborating toward the proposed decision; I can't assign a specific date at this point, but it should be sooner rather than later. As someone who has taken a bit of credit for some of the cases I've drafted moving relatively quickly, I regret very much that that hasn't been the situation here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it the intention of the Committee that there will be few material changes to the proposed decision after it's posted? I can't help but get the sense that the Committee is trying to decide as much a possible behind the scenes, and then we'll just blitz through a rubber-stamp vote. I've discussed elsewhere why this would be a bad idea; I hope that the Committee will be open to modifying the proposals in light of evidence submitted in response to the proposed decision. Remember, right now only the drafting Arbitrators have any clues about what the ArbCom thinks this case is about. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly exciting going on behind the scenes, to be honest; just looking over one another's proposals and trying to improve them. And no, I don't anticipate unanimous arbitrator agreement on every aspect of the decision, though I'm not saying I would protest in the streets in the event it were to occur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you voting on proposals or just discussing them? And is there any reason why any of this has to take place in a closed environment? Typically these kinds of things happen on the PD page where others can discuss the proposals, why is this case different? I think it's a bad idea for this process to take place out-of-sight of the participants. On the one hand, the arbs might believe that the closed session allows you to discuss proposals without an explosion of discussion; but on the other hand, I suspect the explosion will happen anyway, the day you post the decisions en masse -- and the PD page will be chaos with editors releasing weeks of bottled up frustration commenting on all proposals at once. Furthermore, there's bound to be an explosion of new evidence since (as TOAT points out) nobody but the drafters have any clue where this is going. If you executed this out in the open, gradually over the last few weeks, the responses would be more spread out and manageable, and aggressive clerking could be employed to reign in any bickering which invariably clutters up cases like this. I guess I don't see the rationale of debating privately. ATren (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please either post what you have so far, or open the pages up again. Better: Do both. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Panel on BLP at Wiki-Conference 2010

What do you envision as the format of the panel discussion? For example, should each of us take one of your examples, read it, give our opinion and then open up for questioning? What do you have in mind? Can we give our own examples? How about other reasons for non-publication beside BLP (such as military secrets; for instance, the Afghan War Diary). I note that your examples concentrate on US law and journalism. Even the English Misplaced Pages has adherents from the UK, Australia and India, which have different publishing ethics. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for opinion

As you have been around here on wikipedia for a long time and have a reputation for being an impartial and fair administrator (and this was confirmed for me in the tenmei case), I would like to ask for your opinion regarding my recent block and ban which I regard as eminently unjustified. The backstory is that I was involved in a dispute with another editor (and previous attempts to discuss what happened was 1 2 and became concerned about said editor's personal attacks, and filed a WQA report 1. After more issues emerged, I expanded the report with a lot more info and filed it on WP:ANI. 2, after which I was immediately blocked and topic banned by User:Toddst1.3 Now in this case, I have several objections to the block:

• I did not violate any policy at the time of the block. I was not edit warring, socking, vandalizing, spamming, engaging in personal attacks, anything. I was also not violating WP:FORUM as the issues I raised at ANI were of a bigger scope than WQA and I believe of major concern. Yet I was blocked without so much as a warning for "hounding" another editor; this is an eminent double standard as said editor had once filed several ANI reports simulatenously against me without any comment from user:Toddst1, except an encouragement to go to ANI 12 and yet when I filed one ANI report (the second on my 2 years in wiki here), I was blocked immediately.
• What makes this incident worse is that part of the reason I went to ANI was that User:Toddst1 advised me to raise the issues there 4 in an earlier inquiry from me about what to do. But when I did, I was instantly blocked by the same editor who advised me to do so. I'm trying to follow AGF here, but it seems to me that I was set up and then blocked/banned by this very admin so to add to his/her record of "defending wikipedia". This seems to have been an extreme bad faith action from my point of view.

Now of course I could be wrong; but I believe I have a legitimate case here, so I have decided to ask your for your opinion. If you believe the block was justified, please explain to me how so I can avoid this in the future. If you agree with me, I ask for a review of this block. This block has made me consider whether I should stay in the project, considering the evidence (from my point of view) for bad faith actions above. Update: more developments here 1. Also sorry to hear about loss in the family.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad

I'll be offline for a couple of days because of a death in the family. I'll respond to the messages above when I return and resume working on other pending matters (principally including contributing to the Climate change arbitration decision, which is being worked on by the other drafters in my absence, and voting on the Race and intelligence case). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

NYB, I'm very sorry for your loss. ATren (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please accept my condolences at this difficult time. Dr.K.  03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking of you and your family, with sympathy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Condolences, too. Take your time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Condolences, from here as well. No hurry. Despite all the calls for CC resolution, reality always takes precedence, and it is better to get it right :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear. Leave CC to the rest of us if you like, but no pressure take care of yourself and yours first it can always wait. Polargeo (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for your trouble Brad. Look after yourself and your family. --John (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear this. Bishonen | talk 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC).

Please accept my sympathies. Keep your priorities in order -- Misplaced Pages can wait. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)