Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:38, 19 August 2012

Archives

Index of archives

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

Comment on amendment request

The comment "editors who are proxying for or carrying on on their behalf need to stop" appears to be an incendiary accusation against me and other editors so I ask that you rescind it unless you can give some really powerful evidence to back it up. It is not at anyone's behest or on anyone's behalf that I made this request. Trev sent me exactly one e-mail and it has not influenced my request one iota. I am hardly the only one who raised concerns about this restriction and Math's conduct relating to it. Try to remember that every editor, behind all the text, is still a living person (yes even banned editors) and some people take an honest interest in a case because they feel sympathy for one of the parties based on nothing more than simple sympathy. To me it seems that all this talk of proxy-editing and banned editors is creating a McCarthyian mentality on the issue where anyone who gets involved is quickly accused of some wikicrime based on essentially nothing and assumed to be part of some nefarious group. Math gets harassed by some banned editor and that's sad, but nothing entitles him to provoke other editors or distract from the central issue, which is that the ban against Trev and Sight is punitively broad (any editor who "worked in the topic") and enables disruption rather than discouraging it. I ask that you evaluate the request based solely on its merits and leave the accusations and insinuations to those who aren't expected to act impartially.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

These are good thoughts, but I would recommend that a different consideration be given a higher priority: act to achieve a good outcome on the underlying issue. Our primary purpose should be to build good encyclopedic content, and actions should aim to assist that. Fairness is important, but it is not our job to ensure that all views are heard (when those views come from topic banned editors or abusive socks). The private motivations of an editor are not important—what counts is what they do. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Taking those considerations into account, what specifically are you suggesting be done beyond what is already being done? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you rescind the comment I quoted above that you made on the request for amendment? I do not think such serious accusations against other editors without compelling evidence are the kind of comments an Arb should be making at such a request, unless that Arb is recusing from the decision.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You weren't necessarily the person I was referring to there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As it could be easily taken as a reference to me would you rescind it anyway? When the involved editors are throwing out such accusations against specific people, I do not think it is a good idea for an Arb to join in with vaguer remarks unless there is some compelling evidence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look at this. What I really want is for the banned and topic-banned users no longer to have any form of involvement in these areas, as the level of disruption they have created is severe. Even accepting that you've acted in good faith throughout this matter, you should please do nothing further to enable these people from this point on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider what I have done to be "enabling", except maybe in the more positive sense of trying to get the parties concerned to develop a more respectful and reasonable demeanor. That is what the request for amendment is about and why it does not call for any new sanctions. As long as the parties concerned stick to whatever restrictions or warnings are in place at the end and let each other edit in peace I see no reason to get involved any further.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

@NYB: I'm not going to interrupt with my opinions much more, but in case your above "15:20, 27 July 2012" comment was offering an opportunity for an additional note here, my view is that a ruling on how to handle the banned user is required. I have no additional thoughts on the clarification request—normal procedures will cater for that. However, the community cannot handle the banned user who is able to pick places to leave permanent provocations to their victim. It is outrageous that an excellent content creator has been harassed for over three years, yet editors "take responsibility for the content of this edit by a banned user" and restore their comments, thereby subverting WP:DENY. The community cannot handle that as attempting to apply DENY on a user page is seen as an infringement of personal freedom. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, is this suggestion referring solely to Echigo mole and similar site-banned sockmasters?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Is there someone else you are concerned it could reasonably be understood as referring to, in the context of the R&I situation? (That's not meant as argumentative, but genuinely informational.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be stuck. Could you please enact that motion about not using excuses to restore edits from banned users, so arbs can vote on it and close the matter? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I anticipate that either I or another arbitrator will be posting a motion within the next couple of days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your well-versed !vote at this MfD! Electric Catfish 01:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

New York

Hey Brad. I've been thinking of you and Mr Shankbone as I'm in New York for a few days. Came for a wedding and I'm wishing I had more time as I would have loved to have met up with you. Maybe next time. Cant believe how nice the weather here is as we were stuck in KY for a day because they grounded flights coming to NYC. Anyway, I hope all is well with you. Cheers Sarah 15:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you as well, and I'm glad you got to enjoy New York for a little while. Hope to see you around more often here on-wiki also! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, NYB, a favor

Hey, Newyorkbrad, you seem like a reasonable guy and an arbitrator. We have a question at the Teahouse regarding the submission of an Arbitration case about determining the notability of the subject of a now-deleted article. I've told the author that it's out of scope for ArbCom (I may have slipped into some hyperbole while doing so :P), but it might carry more weight if an actual arbitrator comments; if you've got a moment, would you mind dropping in and leaving a brief note? The thread is Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions#Arbitration Request Assistance. (You'd of course be doubly-welcome if I'm wrong!) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not comment on a specific dispute that might be headed to arbitration, just in case it comes to before the Arbitration Committee and we have to vote on it. However, I've reviewed the discussion you linked to, and in general terms the advice you've given there is quite correct, and you are free to tell everyone that I said so.

And, thanks for the kind words (we'll see how many of my talkpage-stalkers disagree with your first sentence), as well as for your work at the Teahouse.

(For more general discussion of the relationship between Newyorkbrad, tea, and arbitration, you can check out an archived version of User:Scott MacDonald/When to shoot an admiral.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, NYB. The user insists, so I relented and agreed to show him how to do it. While I feel that this is gonna be a waste of time for all involved (hopefully not much time), I also don't think that people should be held back from doing what they think they need to do because of purely technical issues. I apologize in advance. :/ That's a pretty interesting essay, though; I don't know about you, but if it were directed at me, I think I'd take it as a compliment. Anyway, see ya around (I have a feeling it might be in circumstances other than I'd wish pretty soon...) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Newyorkbrad. We are pleased to invite you to join WikiProject Baseball's Umpires task force, a group dedicated to improving articles related to baseball umpires. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members on the task force page.

 Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'm wondering from a policy point-of-view why AnthonyCole's subpage was tagged for MfD and deleted but this page is allowed to stand? Is there a difference between the two? Truthkeeper (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't comment on why someone nominated one page and not another. The simplest and most AGF-worthy explanation would be that the nominator saw the one page but not the other, but if you have any question about it, you can ask him directly. As for the broader picture ... as I mentioned in the MfD and on Anthonyjcole's talkpage, while practice isn't 100% clear, the general rule is that these pages are allowed when they are intended for a legitimate purpose related to dispute resolution, as opposed to just the perpetuation of generalized grievances. Given that this page is relevant to a pending request for arbitration and is headed "/evidence," one presumes that Wehwalt is using it to collect relevant evidence, and as such it's a legitimate page in the short term, although one expects that it needn't stay around forever. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for removing this edit from a blocked sockpuppeteer at my RfA. I appreciate it. =) Kurtis (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help, and best wishes for your future editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How to counter bullying tactics on Misplaced Pages?

Hello Brad,

I know you are a highly experienced wikipedian who has served on Arbcom. I feel it my duty to let you I have real problems continuing to see attacks like this , accompanied by intimations to leave. You suggested I refrain from posting on ANI and User talk:Br'er Rabbit (even though I believe it is Misplaced Pages policy to use talk pages in this way to try to resolve personal differences). When I requested admin assistance personally , I had my request rebuffed by an admin who claims impartiality, and then turned down with a more considered rationale. However, as a contributor, I'm left with an uncomfortable feeling of powerlessness and lack of representation.

I share the broader concerns Anthony has raised at WT:MED . I have expressed some of my own concerns on the WP:WER talk page and elsewhere. I've already blanked my user page in solidarity with User:Tim riley. My recent experiences suggest that Misplaced Pages as a whole may currently be failing to represent good editors. I find this disheartening, especially given the immense value of this wonderful project.

Regards,—MistyMorn (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Br'er rabbit didn't contribute to Tim Riley's leaving. Anthonyhole has apologized for saying so. Please drop this avenue against another user. Please drop this general line of posting to this editor and others. You've made your position clear in multiple places. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@MathewTownsend: I've already answered your your duplicate post on my talk page. Kindly also note that the concerns I've outlined above do not just concern BR. I would be glad if you'd strike, in a spirit of good faith, the unfounded accusation that I am pursuing some sort of vendetta—which I am most certainly not! —MistyMorn (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ok. Struck. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm glad of that. (I've also removed the entire thread on my talk page .) Please understand that I have nothing personally against any individual editor. My main concern is with the environment, and I'm afraid to say I've become pretty disillusioned of late - something I really didn't want to happen. —MistyMorn (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly understand that, MistyMorn, but I think the FAC faction has contributed greatly to the bad atmosphere. Never good when one group holds themselves above the rest, and apparently other editors opinions are not welcomed there. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither is it good when idiots believe their opinions are as valuable as those of geniuses. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about the questions surrounding the specific ArbCom case (or any particular "FAC faction"). Actually, I was reluctant to respond to an invitation to provide input there and perhaps would have done better to stay away (adding: I've now struck my comment). On the other hand, I feel it's right to communicate the sort of unease that can be encountered by a relatively inexperienced editor who likes to contribute to FA nominations editorially and as a reviewer but is completely unprepared for (and unwilling to engage in) the social conflict aspects. —MistyMorn (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

_{On a tangential note, I don't believe that Neutralhomer is an admin, though he's certainly an experienced contributor. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)}

Yup, my misunderstanding/misreading. Thank you for pointing that out. That clears that one up, I'm glad to say. —MistyMorn (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also somewhat wikidepressed by this situation. Misplaced Pages does not deal well with users who don't overtly cross behavioral lines, but consistently step up to the edge of them, while in the meantime making enough substantive or technical contributions that their conduct has defenders. In the case of Br'er Rabbit, I have completely lost my patience with him after seven years of this sort of thing, to the point that it's probably best if I don't write something here that I will regret. I should know better, at this stage in my wikilife, than to allow such an editor to push my buttons, but frankly at this point it is up to other people to deal with him. I have developed a reputation, in my time here, as being one of the more lenient administrators and arbitrators, in terms of favoring second and third chances for editors who have caused problems in one fashion or another. But there are limits, and we don't do ourselves any good if we keep one problematic editor around at the same time as that person drives other good editors away. Note that this is a general comment, not directed at any specific editor involved in the recent situations. All that being said, there are plenty of areas in which content contributors can participate with little or no risk of becoming embroiled in these sorts of conduct and personality issues, and I hope that you and your colleagues can continue to engage in those venues. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for this thoughtful reply which connects with my underlying concerns. I feel the need to take some time off now, but I'm thinking of possible strategies to contribute in a more restricted way. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Whats more worrying that Br'er Rabbit himself, is that he was cultivated in a December / January incarnation, encouraged and told he was wonderful, that hounding people across articles is somehow noble, and is now being used by these same people to push an agenda. That's a real shame, and about as cynical as I've seen on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Query

I am so sorry about all of this trouble, and I have no intention of continuing this. But. A couple of my edit summaries and one of my comments were rev del'ed from my talk page. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything in that conversation worthy of that treatment. Was it you who deleted them? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this comment, Wehwalt did the two deletions under the "personal information" criteria. On a related note, it's best to just use usernames when referring to other contributors. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I get it. And that explains another unanswered question. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How is this a legitimate use of RevDel? If User:Anthonyhcole chose User:Anthonyhcole as a username, it doesn't appear to me to be "personal" (or "private") information to refer to that user as Anthony. Especially if the user has been referred to as "Anthony" on WP previously. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To Anthonyhcole: as indicated, it wasn't I who rev-deleted the edit summaries, but another administrator (Wehwalt), who was concerned that you might be referencing the real-world name of an editor who does not use that name on-wiki. It's always best to refer to editors by their usernames, although I recognize that in the case of the editor in question, that's a big trickier than usual given the frequent username changes.

To Mark Arsten: Thanks for replying while I was away from the keyboard. Your understanding of the situation matches mine.

To Gimmetoo: This has nothing to do with Anthonyhcole's username, but that of another user. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's parallel to the example I gave. How is this a legitimate use of RevDel? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What was rev-del'd was apparently the real-world (first) name of another editor, who does not use that first name in his username(s). If you have any further questions, please ask Wehwelt directly, as I wasn't involved in the rev-deletion in any way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You appears to have approved its use in this instance. But fine, I'll ask the admin you named. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad: I see now, and completely agree. Though (1) I would have appreciated a quiet word from the rev del'ing admin and (2) we should really put much more distance between this project and that user name. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you, MistyMorn (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)