Can you guys please hurry up and make a decision? This is just getting more and more rediculous the more it drags on and tcaullidig keeps talking loads of crap about me concerning things that happened outside of wikipedia and is now even claiming to have in his posession some supposed database of a website I owned and never gave him permission to have. I think he is just bullshitting about it or in the event he does have it may have obtained it illegally through some slight of hand methods and is now trying to blackmail me with it.
And also, I would be perfectly alright with receiveing a 3 month ban from wikipedia per my own request, as editing here gets sort of addictive and I think I should have a break from this place. Feel free to give tcaullldig a ban too for other reasons. He seems to have given wikipedia a couple already. Ad hominem attacks, insulting other editors, being uncooperative with other editors, and claiming to have illegially stolen an internet database, personal, and other information from specific editors with blackmail threats being legitimate reaons for that ban. This information against tcaulldig is all recorded and accessable from a talk page in the arbitration area. Thanks. -- Rmcnew ( talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
![]()
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd put it on the noticeboard talk page if it were safe, but as it isn't I'll just ask here. This is to all the arbs. A clerk banned me from "all ArbCom pages" for three posts on a page of the EEML. He believes he has the authority to issue bans outside his assigned case. I don't know if he does (whatever that would mean). It seems rather irregular and he is a new clerk. Now in grim reality, he like myself has the power to issue blocks, and if I posted on an ArbCom page, he or an associate might block me. Could this get cleared up for me and others then? I know the "beauty" of wikipedia is that there is no real way of determining any of these issues concretely, that such authorities are inherently malleable, but I would like to know if the Arbs share this clerk's view of the powers of the position. Thanks in advance, and I hope NYB will forgive me for selecting his talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 03:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else know if there precedents? Both Manning and Coren have avoided answering the question, but if the answer was known I'm pretty sure it would have been made. It's ok to tell me people have such authority, but if there are no precedents then in wiki terms its an extension of authority. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 12:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Newyorkbrad. Is this level of rudeness and aggression really OK for admins? NBeale ( talk) 07:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
NYB, I hope you're following this, and the discussions at WT:AN. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I know from the article's discussion page, that you have made comments about trying to improve the Wiki article. After months of bleating myself about the lack of references etc., I am finally getting round to trying to upgrade it. Would you be interested in helping me ? No offence if it is no longer a priority in your life. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother you about this, but since the evidence situation is so difficult to take in, I just felt I wanted to make sure all necessary facts are being taken into account. I saw your oppose vote to the ban of User:Tymek in connection with his password sharing. Just to make sure, are you aware he explicitly offered his account also for others to use in revert-warring and evading 3RR, and that User:Jacurek expressed a willingness to take up this offer? I don't see the related time stamps cited anywhere and the posts may well have been overlooked; I myself only found them by chance a day or two ago.
If these items were seen and evaluated off-wiki, that's fine; just wanted to make sure. Although, I must say, in the light of them I would personally find a mere "admonishment" for Tymek to be too mild. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Fut.Perf.'s original post, I think all the arbitrators have been clear that it is unacceptable for any user to allow another person to use his or her account, for any reason, much less the improper ones at issue here. This type of conduct could well warrant a severe sanction. However, in this instance, the offer of account-sharing apparently occurred in or about July, so I don't know that it's necessary to impose a ban beginning in November, especially in the presence of a promise that nothing like this will occur again, and absence of any more recent misconduct. Other opinions might differ, of course; we'll see how the remaining arbitrators vote. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - As a reminder to all concerned, the civility rules and restrictions on inflammatory comments that exist within ArbCom space also extend to Arbitrator talk pages. Manning ( talk) 09:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
A report has been prepared as requested and is here: User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report. SilkTork * YES! 17:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In 20090614-1419, Digwuren says that disappearing before an ArbCom case has been shown to be an "effective strategy" in avoiding sanctions. In your vote you say that banning Digwuren is unnecessary, given that Digwuren has not edited since June. [1] Your vote appears to confirm that this is indeed an useful tactic. Would you recommend the use of this tactic to others as well? Offliner ( talk) 11:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Brad, I wondered if you would take a look at the block I put on User talk:69.171.160.58. I read all of the "contribs" but what put me over the top was a certain comment on his talk page regarding the employees at his ISP. I am worried that I might not have the right to block someone over such a comment. I am asking, because I noticed you were working on WP today (by reading through the block logs). Hope this isn't an inconvenience for you. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently created a project which, broadly speaking, will help to develop and support the enwiki community. At this stage, we're currently calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. If you're interested, sign up and add your ideas here! – Juliancolton | Talk 03:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)
Two questions: 1. what would be the scope of the case and 2. may I find a group of people that I feel are neutral, objective, and use them as advisers to determine the appropriateness of evidence to help with such proceedings? Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've filed a statement, if that was what you were waiting for. Please let me know if you would like to hear more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope to catch up on responses to the messages on this page within the next 24 hours or so. Sorry for any delays. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if anyone got offended by this. I was just using humor to try to demonstrate that my support was so strong that I was confident that I would be the only person to not technically support, without giving him an Oppose which could actually damage his shot. My apologies go out to everyone. :( Jonathan321 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.thedickies.com/radio/radio.htm
"I'm sure there is a more offensive and demoralizing section header that could have been used to insult the volunteers who serve on the Arbitration Committee, but I can't quickly think of what it might be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)"
![]() | This user is a a proudly unethical Arbitrator. |
![]() | May you gain the Arbitration committee that you deserve. |
-- Thatcher 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but after last night (check my contribs if you like), I've had enough of userboxen for awhile as well. Regards,
Newyorkbrad (
talk)
16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's really possible to dispute that it's unethical to change the rules of an election mid-process. What was most disappointing about this whole affair is that it was so close to being hitch-free. There was a proper voting system in place (SecurePoll), there were election monitors, the election was well-advertised, etc. And just as it was about to wrap up, the ball got dropped. It may not have been intentional (few people actively try to fuck up, after all), but regardless, it was a screw-up through-and-through. (And, more disappointing is that this year's Committee has made a lot of excellent steps forward and re-gained some of the lost credibility in itself, only to throw it away again.)
The ethical thing to do in a situation like this is to appoint the three elected people and iff there is a vacancy, fill it. But what the Arbitration Committee decided to do is simply unacceptable, whether you like the phrasing of the header or not. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
(Notes to me. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC))
I don't know whether it will be helpful to bring this to your talk page, but I thought it might be easier to discuss your proposal here: the case is likely to generate yet more talk (heat), and here you can always revert or archive if (at any point) you believe discussion here is unhelpful.
Your help re Mattisse (and all you work in general) is much appreciated. I think your proposal is good in principle, but getting the details right is difficult. I see two issues. One is that Mattisse has no control over who posts to her talk page and asks her to comment or copyedit an article, and care is needed in deciding which requests to respond to. Some of the examples of her "targeting" certain editors originated in posts to her talk page asking for help. One of the examples I mentioned resulted in an AfD, but it turned out well in the end. It won't turn out well every time, and the bad times will be remembered. I think what is needed here is not an entry strategy, but a fast exit strategy when things go wrong.
The second issue is content review. It is difficult to separate copyediting and content review. I think the community values the work Mattisse does here. In particular, I and many others consider Mattisse to be an excellent GA reviewer. Problems arise because of ownership of credit. It is an accepted principle that there is no ownership of articles, but ownership of credit can conflict with this. Crediting other Wikipedians for their work is a great motivating force, and one of the great benefits of FA to the encyclopedia is that it encourages editors to contribute and see "their" article on the main page. However, this also causes problems when there are subsequent disagreements about article quality.
In the two years that I have been contributing to GA, I have tried to stabilize the criteria, but also encourage the attitude that no one owns the GA status of an article. GA status is a very mutable thing, which can change at any time.My experience so far is that this has reduced conflict, and most GARs focus on the content not the editor. I think Mattisse has felt more comfortable in such an environement.
In other environments, she provides valuable contributions, but may need an emergency eject button. What this eject button is, and how she finds it is a difficult question and considered advice from arbitrators would be very welcome. Geometry guy 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I expect to catch up on threads on this page sometime tonight. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Brad. Good to see you at the post-meetup. There are lots of opportunities to see G&S in New York coming up:
Hello, you stated that it is not necessary for Martintg to be banned if he abides by his topic ban. However, I believe his recent trolling here shows why a full ban is warranted, an inflammatory and loaded question obviously designed to attack his "enemy". I just don't see how a topic ban from EE is going to prevent this battlefield mentality from spreading to every corner of Wikipedia. Triplestop x3 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - Triplestop: The rules of civility and inflammatory conduct also extend to Arbitrator talk pages. Accusing marting of "battlefield mentality", "trolling" etc is clearly inflammatory. You are welcome to bring issues to an arb's attention, but to start pronouncing your verdict is unwise - it's up to the arbs to assess the nature of conduct. As you are already under a behaviour warning, and as your comment makes reference to the EEML case, you are now upgraded to an EEML case ban for one week. Manning ( talk) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Martintg_topic_banned is the kind of situation I've mentioned to arbs before; that they should not preliminarily abstain if they intend to vote, since it will change the majority required to pass. In this case, your abstention seems to indicate you would oppose the remedy, but the effect of the abstention is to lower the majority required to the point it passes. Better to not make the abstention in the first place then constantly have to run back and see its unintended consequences. MBisanz talk 07:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hope you're good :-) - Your name was mentioned in a Wikipedia Review thread talking (semi-chaotically) about child protection measures - I thought you might be interested in helping out at Wikipedia:Child Protection with any ideas, comments and suggestions? Hope so! cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 01:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
NYB, I'm not clear on difference between a CU request and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeraeph. Considering the number of red-linked accounts and IPs frequently editing autism, Asperger syndrome and some of the other targetted articles, is a full CU in order here? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I've raised your concern on the Functionaries-l mailing list, in the hope that someone there will have some institutional memory concerning the user you mention and be able to follow up appropriately. I'll prod the list in a day or two to see if there's been any progress. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brad, I was reading over the proposals in the Eastern Europe mailing list case because I was short on drama or something? Anyway, for whatever reason came up in the twisted borrows of my mind, I was reading trough it, and while reading it, it hit me that Eastern Europe is not very well defined, and the use of this term in remedies may open the door to terrible Wikilawyering: For the countries of former Yugoslavia, Albania, Hungry, Czech and the Baltic states, and probably others, one could well argue that they are not eastern European countries, and do not fall under the topic bans/editing restrictions. It might be something to think about (if you haven't allready). Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 00:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
How long does it take to ask one simple question? [2]. Giano 08:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Over here some arbs are referring to WP:AUSC, and I see you're a member. I understand that not only has a request to look into the subject of my complaint been made, but AUSC is already looking into it. I've got these concerns:
Since I'd prefer an ArbCom case, I'm reluctant to bring concerns up before AUSC before the full committee decides whether or not to accept the case. But if the clock is ticking, I should send an email anyway. Please note I'm only bringing up process concerns here, not arguing the substance. I'd appreciate answers from you or anybody else on the AUSC, however you want to communicate them (here, on my talk page or through email). JohnWBarber ( talk) 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
[3] How dare you try to insert humor into a srs process. :P I wonder if people will actually click on the link. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, could you tell me what, if anything is happening about User:Huldra's allegations [4]? I would feel happier if there was some kind of resolution preferably allaying Huldra's suspicions. Thank for your time. Grim23 ★ 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.
There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn ( talk) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, lets plan a meet in Connecticut Wikiuser7777 ( talk) 01:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
At the issues and alt proposals discussed here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This is based on what you've said at ArbCom, but doesn't really deal with the case. I'm sure people have problems with me. Be they something I've done, or something they think I've done, chances are it still involves me. My level of culpability doesn't really matter, as I am still the focus of the problems. As I stated, I haven't a clue how to address the problem or solve the problem. I put up an ArbCom case because I have no answers. I've never had a DR (even ANI) attempt to actually work without someone closing it or claiming it was inappropriate. I haven't had anything really go through smoothly. From day one, I was being attacked. I'm not a Wiki expert, nor am I a psychologist. Who am I? What am I? I haven't really a clue. Perhaps that is why I am religious - I don't have the answers and probably never will. I feel various things, and I have impulses, but that is all I can really say is me, for good or for bad. I empathize with Mattisse, Peter Damian, and others, because I see them feel pain or suffer. I don't know the answers were in their case, nor would I ever know. I don't know why anyone would even begin to think I would have such answers. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Limited online time for me for the next couple of days. (Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day in the U.S.). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brad! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby has been sitting around endorsed for checkuser attention since the 11/24, accumulating more and more suspects as time goes by. I know we had the Thanksgiving weekend in the US, and I know that the case is fairly complex (with 3 potential sock masters, one of which has access to a large number of IP addresses). However, the socks are running amok and essentially make good faith communication on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and all related pages impossible. Can you nudge one of your colleagues to take care of this? Also see the two ANI sections. Thanks. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you guys please hurry up and make a decision? This is just getting more and more rediculous the more it drags on and tcaullidig keeps talking loads of crap about me concerning things that happened outside of wikipedia and is now even claiming to have in his posession some supposed database of a website I owned and never gave him permission to have. I think he is just bullshitting about it or in the event he does have it may have obtained it illegally through some slight of hand methods and is now trying to blackmail me with it.
And also, I would be perfectly alright with receiveing a 3 month ban from wikipedia per my own request, as editing here gets sort of addictive and I think I should have a break from this place. Feel free to give tcaullldig a ban too for other reasons. He seems to have given wikipedia a couple already. Ad hominem attacks, insulting other editors, being uncooperative with other editors, and claiming to have illegially stolen an internet database, personal, and other information from specific editors with blackmail threats being legitimate reaons for that ban. This information against tcaulldig is all recorded and accessable from a talk page in the arbitration area. Thanks. -- Rmcnew ( talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
![]()
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd put it on the noticeboard talk page if it were safe, but as it isn't I'll just ask here. This is to all the arbs. A clerk banned me from "all ArbCom pages" for three posts on a page of the EEML. He believes he has the authority to issue bans outside his assigned case. I don't know if he does (whatever that would mean). It seems rather irregular and he is a new clerk. Now in grim reality, he like myself has the power to issue blocks, and if I posted on an ArbCom page, he or an associate might block me. Could this get cleared up for me and others then? I know the "beauty" of wikipedia is that there is no real way of determining any of these issues concretely, that such authorities are inherently malleable, but I would like to know if the Arbs share this clerk's view of the powers of the position. Thanks in advance, and I hope NYB will forgive me for selecting his talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 03:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else know if there precedents? Both Manning and Coren have avoided answering the question, but if the answer was known I'm pretty sure it would have been made. It's ok to tell me people have such authority, but if there are no precedents then in wiki terms its an extension of authority. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 12:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Newyorkbrad. Is this level of rudeness and aggression really OK for admins? NBeale ( talk) 07:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
NYB, I hope you're following this, and the discussions at WT:AN. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I know from the article's discussion page, that you have made comments about trying to improve the Wiki article. After months of bleating myself about the lack of references etc., I am finally getting round to trying to upgrade it. Would you be interested in helping me ? No offence if it is no longer a priority in your life. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother you about this, but since the evidence situation is so difficult to take in, I just felt I wanted to make sure all necessary facts are being taken into account. I saw your oppose vote to the ban of User:Tymek in connection with his password sharing. Just to make sure, are you aware he explicitly offered his account also for others to use in revert-warring and evading 3RR, and that User:Jacurek expressed a willingness to take up this offer? I don't see the related time stamps cited anywhere and the posts may well have been overlooked; I myself only found them by chance a day or two ago.
If these items were seen and evaluated off-wiki, that's fine; just wanted to make sure. Although, I must say, in the light of them I would personally find a mere "admonishment" for Tymek to be too mild. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Fut.Perf.'s original post, I think all the arbitrators have been clear that it is unacceptable for any user to allow another person to use his or her account, for any reason, much less the improper ones at issue here. This type of conduct could well warrant a severe sanction. However, in this instance, the offer of account-sharing apparently occurred in or about July, so I don't know that it's necessary to impose a ban beginning in November, especially in the presence of a promise that nothing like this will occur again, and absence of any more recent misconduct. Other opinions might differ, of course; we'll see how the remaining arbitrators vote. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - As a reminder to all concerned, the civility rules and restrictions on inflammatory comments that exist within ArbCom space also extend to Arbitrator talk pages. Manning ( talk) 09:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
A report has been prepared as requested and is here: User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report. SilkTork * YES! 17:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In 20090614-1419, Digwuren says that disappearing before an ArbCom case has been shown to be an "effective strategy" in avoiding sanctions. In your vote you say that banning Digwuren is unnecessary, given that Digwuren has not edited since June. [1] Your vote appears to confirm that this is indeed an useful tactic. Would you recommend the use of this tactic to others as well? Offliner ( talk) 11:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Brad, I wondered if you would take a look at the block I put on User talk:69.171.160.58. I read all of the "contribs" but what put me over the top was a certain comment on his talk page regarding the employees at his ISP. I am worried that I might not have the right to block someone over such a comment. I am asking, because I noticed you were working on WP today (by reading through the block logs). Hope this isn't an inconvenience for you. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently created a project which, broadly speaking, will help to develop and support the enwiki community. At this stage, we're currently calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. If you're interested, sign up and add your ideas here! – Juliancolton | Talk 03:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)
Two questions: 1. what would be the scope of the case and 2. may I find a group of people that I feel are neutral, objective, and use them as advisers to determine the appropriateness of evidence to help with such proceedings? Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've filed a statement, if that was what you were waiting for. Please let me know if you would like to hear more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope to catch up on responses to the messages on this page within the next 24 hours or so. Sorry for any delays. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if anyone got offended by this. I was just using humor to try to demonstrate that my support was so strong that I was confident that I would be the only person to not technically support, without giving him an Oppose which could actually damage his shot. My apologies go out to everyone. :( Jonathan321 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.thedickies.com/radio/radio.htm
"I'm sure there is a more offensive and demoralizing section header that could have been used to insult the volunteers who serve on the Arbitration Committee, but I can't quickly think of what it might be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)"
![]() | This user is a a proudly unethical Arbitrator. |
![]() | May you gain the Arbitration committee that you deserve. |
-- Thatcher 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but after last night (check my contribs if you like), I've had enough of userboxen for awhile as well. Regards,
Newyorkbrad (
talk)
16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's really possible to dispute that it's unethical to change the rules of an election mid-process. What was most disappointing about this whole affair is that it was so close to being hitch-free. There was a proper voting system in place (SecurePoll), there were election monitors, the election was well-advertised, etc. And just as it was about to wrap up, the ball got dropped. It may not have been intentional (few people actively try to fuck up, after all), but regardless, it was a screw-up through-and-through. (And, more disappointing is that this year's Committee has made a lot of excellent steps forward and re-gained some of the lost credibility in itself, only to throw it away again.)
The ethical thing to do in a situation like this is to appoint the three elected people and iff there is a vacancy, fill it. But what the Arbitration Committee decided to do is simply unacceptable, whether you like the phrasing of the header or not. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
(Notes to me. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC))
I don't know whether it will be helpful to bring this to your talk page, but I thought it might be easier to discuss your proposal here: the case is likely to generate yet more talk (heat), and here you can always revert or archive if (at any point) you believe discussion here is unhelpful.
Your help re Mattisse (and all you work in general) is much appreciated. I think your proposal is good in principle, but getting the details right is difficult. I see two issues. One is that Mattisse has no control over who posts to her talk page and asks her to comment or copyedit an article, and care is needed in deciding which requests to respond to. Some of the examples of her "targeting" certain editors originated in posts to her talk page asking for help. One of the examples I mentioned resulted in an AfD, but it turned out well in the end. It won't turn out well every time, and the bad times will be remembered. I think what is needed here is not an entry strategy, but a fast exit strategy when things go wrong.
The second issue is content review. It is difficult to separate copyediting and content review. I think the community values the work Mattisse does here. In particular, I and many others consider Mattisse to be an excellent GA reviewer. Problems arise because of ownership of credit. It is an accepted principle that there is no ownership of articles, but ownership of credit can conflict with this. Crediting other Wikipedians for their work is a great motivating force, and one of the great benefits of FA to the encyclopedia is that it encourages editors to contribute and see "their" article on the main page. However, this also causes problems when there are subsequent disagreements about article quality.
In the two years that I have been contributing to GA, I have tried to stabilize the criteria, but also encourage the attitude that no one owns the GA status of an article. GA status is a very mutable thing, which can change at any time.My experience so far is that this has reduced conflict, and most GARs focus on the content not the editor. I think Mattisse has felt more comfortable in such an environement.
In other environments, she provides valuable contributions, but may need an emergency eject button. What this eject button is, and how she finds it is a difficult question and considered advice from arbitrators would be very welcome. Geometry guy 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I expect to catch up on threads on this page sometime tonight. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Brad. Good to see you at the post-meetup. There are lots of opportunities to see G&S in New York coming up:
Hello, you stated that it is not necessary for Martintg to be banned if he abides by his topic ban. However, I believe his recent trolling here shows why a full ban is warranted, an inflammatory and loaded question obviously designed to attack his "enemy". I just don't see how a topic ban from EE is going to prevent this battlefield mentality from spreading to every corner of Wikipedia. Triplestop x3 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - Triplestop: The rules of civility and inflammatory conduct also extend to Arbitrator talk pages. Accusing marting of "battlefield mentality", "trolling" etc is clearly inflammatory. You are welcome to bring issues to an arb's attention, but to start pronouncing your verdict is unwise - it's up to the arbs to assess the nature of conduct. As you are already under a behaviour warning, and as your comment makes reference to the EEML case, you are now upgraded to an EEML case ban for one week. Manning ( talk) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Martintg_topic_banned is the kind of situation I've mentioned to arbs before; that they should not preliminarily abstain if they intend to vote, since it will change the majority required to pass. In this case, your abstention seems to indicate you would oppose the remedy, but the effect of the abstention is to lower the majority required to the point it passes. Better to not make the abstention in the first place then constantly have to run back and see its unintended consequences. MBisanz talk 07:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hope you're good :-) - Your name was mentioned in a Wikipedia Review thread talking (semi-chaotically) about child protection measures - I thought you might be interested in helping out at Wikipedia:Child Protection with any ideas, comments and suggestions? Hope so! cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 01:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
NYB, I'm not clear on difference between a CU request and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeraeph. Considering the number of red-linked accounts and IPs frequently editing autism, Asperger syndrome and some of the other targetted articles, is a full CU in order here? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I've raised your concern on the Functionaries-l mailing list, in the hope that someone there will have some institutional memory concerning the user you mention and be able to follow up appropriately. I'll prod the list in a day or two to see if there's been any progress. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brad, I was reading over the proposals in the Eastern Europe mailing list case because I was short on drama or something? Anyway, for whatever reason came up in the twisted borrows of my mind, I was reading trough it, and while reading it, it hit me that Eastern Europe is not very well defined, and the use of this term in remedies may open the door to terrible Wikilawyering: For the countries of former Yugoslavia, Albania, Hungry, Czech and the Baltic states, and probably others, one could well argue that they are not eastern European countries, and do not fall under the topic bans/editing restrictions. It might be something to think about (if you haven't allready). Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 00:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
How long does it take to ask one simple question? [2]. Giano 08:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Over here some arbs are referring to WP:AUSC, and I see you're a member. I understand that not only has a request to look into the subject of my complaint been made, but AUSC is already looking into it. I've got these concerns:
Since I'd prefer an ArbCom case, I'm reluctant to bring concerns up before AUSC before the full committee decides whether or not to accept the case. But if the clock is ticking, I should send an email anyway. Please note I'm only bringing up process concerns here, not arguing the substance. I'd appreciate answers from you or anybody else on the AUSC, however you want to communicate them (here, on my talk page or through email). JohnWBarber ( talk) 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
[3] How dare you try to insert humor into a srs process. :P I wonder if people will actually click on the link. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, could you tell me what, if anything is happening about User:Huldra's allegations [4]? I would feel happier if there was some kind of resolution preferably allaying Huldra's suspicions. Thank for your time. Grim23 ★ 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.
There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn ( talk) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, lets plan a meet in Connecticut Wikiuser7777 ( talk) 01:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
At the issues and alt proposals discussed here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This is based on what you've said at ArbCom, but doesn't really deal with the case. I'm sure people have problems with me. Be they something I've done, or something they think I've done, chances are it still involves me. My level of culpability doesn't really matter, as I am still the focus of the problems. As I stated, I haven't a clue how to address the problem or solve the problem. I put up an ArbCom case because I have no answers. I've never had a DR (even ANI) attempt to actually work without someone closing it or claiming it was inappropriate. I haven't had anything really go through smoothly. From day one, I was being attacked. I'm not a Wiki expert, nor am I a psychologist. Who am I? What am I? I haven't really a clue. Perhaps that is why I am religious - I don't have the answers and probably never will. I feel various things, and I have impulses, but that is all I can really say is me, for good or for bad. I empathize with Mattisse, Peter Damian, and others, because I see them feel pain or suffer. I don't know the answers were in their case, nor would I ever know. I don't know why anyone would even begin to think I would have such answers. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Limited online time for me for the next couple of days. (Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day in the U.S.). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brad! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby has been sitting around endorsed for checkuser attention since the 11/24, accumulating more and more suspects as time goes by. I know we had the Thanksgiving weekend in the US, and I know that the case is fairly complex (with 3 potential sock masters, one of which has access to a large number of IP addresses). However, the socks are running amok and essentially make good faith communication on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and all related pages impossible. Can you nudge one of your colleagues to take care of this? Also see the two ANI sections. Thanks. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)