User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2010/Aug

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Interim measure

Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 ^Humbug! 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)

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. ^{λogosπraxis} 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 -- Wikipedia can wait. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My best wishes too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Condolences from Heim. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone's who's posted here, and everyone who e-mailed after seeing this, and everyone who just read my note and thought kind thoughts. I'm back to activity, both on-wiki and working on the pending cases (though I would appreciate a few days' grace from "where's the decision already, please?"; trust me, we know that we must get it finalized sooner rather than later). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on phrasing of findings

Dear NYB,

Thanks for your comments.

Following the statement that you made on the proposed decision page, I have prepared the following tentative suggestion for a minor modification of the proposed conduct finding on me for possible discussion. I have made 3 amendments at the beginning: mathematics as the single subject to which I have contributed most; autumn (or Fall) 2007 as the time I became active on R&I; and April 2010 when I started making content edits at the end of mediation. I included one of your phrases almost verbatim, as it seemed to me to be an accurate appraisal. I slightly changed the statement about edit warring, incorporating the words "aggressive" (Carcharoth) and "combative" (Shell Kinney). Amongst the diffs for edit warring, seemingly copied from the evidence of Captain Occam, I removed diffs of evident IP edit warriors, who were subsequently blocked, and diffs that were not reverts, but just the addition of new material. I have left the final sentence, despite your stated misgivings.

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed to a wide range of articles, many focusing on mathematics and baroque music, since they first edited Wikipedia in February 2006. Their interest in articles related to race and intelligence appears to have started in autumn 2007. Almost all their content edits to these articles began in April 2010 following a mediation process. Since then, within the area of dispute, the user has acted in good faith in what he perceived as an attempt to protect articles from being skewed by what he perceived as a group of editors pushing a point of view with troubling overtones. In the area of dispute, however, he has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [1][2][3] and in edit summaries;[4][5] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier";[6] routinely threatens other editors with blocks,[7][8][9] and has made other, veiled threats.[10] His editing of articles and their talk pages has been unduly aggressive and combative, with borderline edit warring in May [11][12][13][14] and June.[15][16][17][18] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration.

Apologies again for the long-windedness of my evidence and many thanks for ploughing your way through it. Cheers,Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want other arbitrators to see this, you should post it on the proposed decision talkpage. (You can also eliminate the "singular they" in the process, as I don't think there's any question as to your gender.) Thanks for your note. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with this and yes, the singular they entries need to be changed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me copying this over to the proposed decision talk page? I have a few points to make, but they should be made there, not here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I copied this over already to the proposed decision talkpage (with a copy submitted to the ArbCom mailing list) with Newyorkbrad's suggested copy edits. Thank you again for your patience. Mathsci (talk) 13:36, 21 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 Wikipedia has adherents from the UK, Australia and India, which have different publishing ethics. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I think our panel is on the schedule for Sunday afternoon. Will you be at the conference on Saturday? If so, perhaps you and I and anyone else involved can sit down for a few minutes and discuss what's the best way of doing it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be there before 10 both days. When and where do you want to meet? How about lunch Saturday? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That should work for me. I'll be there both days as well, so I'm sure we'll find each other. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

Have you seen this? It's all getting to be a bit much and I'm going to take a break from Wikipedia for the sake of my own sanity (possibly a very long break, given the broad hints as to what the final decision will be). If any of the arbs would like to reach me in the meantime please use the email link on my talk page. Good luck with your negotiations. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a proposed decision up as of now. I personally regret very much that it took this long, but hopefully we can move forward from here with productive comments on the decision, voting, and finalization of the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

In the absence of the assigned clerk, and because it is quicker to do than to ask other Arb Clerks, I have semi protected the above Proposed decision page. I have sprotected indefinitely, but as I am an involved party I suggest that someone "take over" the responsibility of the protection and the appropriate duration. I have also RevDel one of the vandal edits, but since this is more difficult to assign to another editor I shall desist. I am copying this to all drafting ArbCom members, and the Clerks talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I endorse the semiprotection. As for the mock proposed decsion, no comment I suppose, except I smiled at some of the comments attributed to me; in mockery sometimes there is a germ of truth. (I'll emphasize again that I'm only referring to the comments about myself.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Coramandel23 and right to vanish

You blanked this user's talk page under the right to vanish. However, the user is apparently still actively socking (see User talk:BunyanTree). Given that the user has chosen not to vanish, I believe that they have voluntarily chosen to give up RTV, and we should restore the page for the benefit of those checking for future socks. Do you have any objection to doing so? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have to admit that I do not remember this situation well, several months later. Let me take a look at it again in the next day or so and I will post further here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

General note re Climate change proposed decision

Please note that the proposed decision that was posted tonight reflects input from several arbitrators, particularly the three drafters (Risker, Rlevse, and myself). It will now, of course, be discussed and voted on by the committee as a whole. I recommend that any input regarding the proposed decision be posted on the proposed decision talkpage, rather than here or on any other individual arbitrator's talkpage, so that everyone will see it and have an opportunity to consider it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

semantics

"Semantically, I moved "may edit only from one account" to the end of the sentence for clarity, as the status quo is that this editor may edit from no accounts at all."

As an editor with no account I think your phrasing is still not precise enough, but that's a quibble. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, and I will remember it for the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I appreciate the vote (or !vote) of confidence. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your motion

Hi Brad,

thanks for drafting your motion, I have a posted some comments here for your consideration. Thanks. --Martin (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've thought about your points very carefully. Having done so, I still think the motion that I proposed strikes the right balance between allowing you to resume editing the articles you say you want to, without the possibility that the problems that took place last year will resume. Please bear in mind that the restriction ends in December anyway, so at that point you will be able to resume unrestricted editing in any event, assuming that there are no further problems. Finally, I believe that the motion I have proposed is much more likely to gain majority support from the other arbitrators than the original proposal to lift the topic-ban outright.

I understand your concern that you might be subject to frivolous enforcement requests. However, none of the articles you mention in your request for clarification strike me as close to the line, and so hopefully this will not become an issue. If you are indeed subjected to "vexatious litigation" as you fear, please bring the matter to our attention and we can reconsider the original motion. Hopefully, however, this will not be necessary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, please see this and the thread containing it. Martintg appears to have been violating his topic ban and pursuing a vendetta against me. I don't think he should experience any loosening of sanctions. Please remember that my name came up prominently in the secret mailing list archives. It does not look like mere chance that he's now trying to trip me up. Jehochman ^Talk 01:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(To Jehochman:) Thanks for pointing me to that thread. However, the loosening of the restriction that I have proposed would allow Martintg to contribute to articles about Estonian culture (art, literature, etc.), while continuing to restrict him from articles about disputes between Estonia and Estonians and other cultures or ethnicities. This struck me as the best accommodation of Martintg's desire to edit on topics he feels close to and contribute knowledgeably about, and the desire to avoid further disruption and disputes. Is there anything in his recent edit(s) that creates concern about his participating within the scope of the proposed narrower ban? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(To Martintg:) As you move on with your editing, it would almost certainly be best if you steered clear of discussions concerning sanctions against other editors in the topic area from which you are restricted. I don't especially want to debate whether that is or is not within the scope of the topic-ban; it's best for you to avoid the area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I could support loosening the restriction with the additional caveat that Martintg is to avoid, by a wide margin, past conflicts stemming from the EEML case. His recent edits that I pointed out were violating or close to violating his current topic ban, and are dangerously close to past disruptive behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly Martin is correct in pointing out the difficulties of staying within the limits of the proposed topic ban. If Visual arts in Estonia was to become anything like Estonian literature he would have to be very careful in his edits. The section Post World War II in the later article is a classic example of the exile POV many would suspect Marting would try to push. The two subtitles 1) In Exile and 2) Behind the Iron Curtain are so laughably POVish that even I would not like to touch them. The article now "stands" on its own merits :-) In fact I do not think there is a single stone in Estonia the exile community and their spiritual descendants and the Soviet community and their spiritual descendants could agree on. However, If Martin is allowed to edit I would welcome him to cooperate with me on something I have wanted to start for a long time: List of stones in Estonia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. I've taken your comments on board. Petri Krohn's comments exemplifies my concerns, contriving a fictional dispute between "exile community" and "soviet community" (the Soviet Union collapsed 20 years ago so neither exists) in something as innocuous as Estonian literature in order to potentially game this amended sanction. That Petri Krohn finds Estonian literature#Post World War II "laughably POVish" is probably more a function of SAFKA POV. In any case that section was written by an editor from Estonia, so the notion of "exile community" and "soviet community" is somewhat incongruent. I will see how this flies and if I am subjected to frivolous enforcement requests I will certainly bring it back to the Committee's attention. --Martin (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Re: "my name came up prominently in the secret mailing list archives" That would be because (and only because) you filed an arbitration request as a proxy for Offliner (my perception, and as discussed at the time). I would suggest you re-evaluate your victimology and request you desist from commentary which re-litigates EEML as a whole. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

I have a notice on my talk page about four unreferenced BLPs--Ron Schnitzius (playwright), Kathleen Beeler (cinematographer), Robby Steinhardt (vocalist-violinist of Kansas, and Reo Jones (voice actor, Liberty's Kids). I haven't edited these articles in a very long time, and I suspect that Steinhardt's has gotten more substantial since I added a stub to his redlink. I know that some of my sources for the Reo Jones article had been taken down last I checked. I think the most controversial thing on the Kathleen Beeler page is that I said that she adopted a baby from China. This was something I found online when I was building a webpage for a film that she photographed (for which I ran a website from 1999-2003), but I have not been able to find a reliable source in more recent times, and I didn't put the citation on said website, which I looked at recently on archive.org. What do you suggest here? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)