Misplaced Pages

How to improve Misplaced Pages?

I saw your comments where you wrote

I would actually not object if every FA were move-protected, as the chances that any of them would need to be moved without a discussion and a requested move are very slight. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages, there are only three kinds of editors (with a few exceptions, like Jimbo Wales, arbitrators, etc.) and those are administrators, editors, and socks. Often, the sock battle starts when the edits are bad and they try to link two usernames with the same type of bad edits. Sometimes, the link is clear cut but sometimes it is a figment of their imagination.

Too bad, there isn't a competition to be a special kind of good editor. So the fight would be whether one is a good editor or an ordinary editor.

This move protected issue, to me, is what a bad editor would do. Since there is nothing that can be done to bad editors, the only thing left is to use the sock or vandalism excuse. I am not saying that sockpuppetry and vandalism don't exist (they do) but often the issue is bad editing, to which there is no regulatory control. Barnstars don't work because I've seen jokesters with many barnstars and great editors with few or none.

If someone were to suggest a category of senior editor, there would be much protest, especially from the people who would not qualify, to the point that it would never pass. Yet in real life, good writers excel over bad writers (think Tom Clancy/Michael Crichton/Chaim Potok/Pablo Nerado). To me a senior editor edits well and has the highest civility and best level of judgment. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

See also

my talk page - here. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for pointing out the change that I hadn't noticed. I think Anthony's restoration is good (although the wikilink wasn't awful), though it may be a problem having it in to places now. Verbal chat 15:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gawd Verbal. Will you ever give up? Of course the wikilink was hopeless. It was what caused this whole waste of time. I was using the term innocently, but the full guideline rules out even innocent usage. Your template wikilinked to a section that simply said "don't make LTs or stuff that could reasonably be construed as such. That didn't apply to me because no reasonable person (and many have looked at it) would construe what I said as a threat. So of course you and Sarek looked, like a couple of idiots. Jeez.

Clearly, neither of you had looked at NLT for six months, so you were thinking I had read that I shouldn't even use the word innocently, but was deliberately flouting the guideline. Next time, type a few words. It's friendlier and you'll know what you're doing. Do I have to follow you around, mopping up this kind of stuff?

Sorry NYB. Thanks again. Anthony (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your comments. I am glad the note I left was helpful in addressing and maybe resolving an issue.

By way of background, the wording in question came from a principle I drafted in an arbitration case, precisely because this situation (disagreement over whether calling an edit "defamatory" or "libellous" is an implied legal threat or just a description) has come up several times before. The arbitrators spend a fair amount of time drafting and polishing the wording of the "principles" section in each decision, even though many of the parties to a case probably skip over it and are most interested in who got sanctioned and how. When I draft principles, I do hope that they will help editors in approaching other situations beyond the one at issue in the existing case. Thus, even though the Arbitration Committee has no authority to write policy or guidelines, nor to establish "precedents" binding on editors outside the case or topic area in question, I think it is helpful when editors who focus on policy pages review our decisions and consider whether any of the principles in them should be worked into the relevant policies, when they are not already embedded in them. I am glad that in this instance, wording we wrote in a case was useful in a wider context. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a clarification, although the wikilink wasn't "awful" the text did need clarification, and I think Anthony's edit does this and was one possible solution. Verbal chat 09:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A nice reward for you

Thanks very much. I like to produce a smile at least once in awhile. May I ask how you happened to notice that message, which was on a fairly obscure page—maybe it was from seeing the thread a little higher on this page, I'm just curious. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It was in an IRC channel, someone posted it, and i found it quite funny. Pilif12p :  Yo  00:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

for pointing out the difference between WP:NLT#Perceived_legal_threats and WP:HARRASS#Perceived_legal_threats. That explained everything. Sarek was thinking "He's read the guideline about not using "libel" even innocently, why does he keep doing it?" and I was thinking "That guideline doesn't apply to me because I'm clearly not implying a threat." We each looked like a belligerent moron to the other. I've restored the November version for now. Anthony (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. See reply two threads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme

Can you take a look at the talk page of this editor. The ArbCom request for amendment concerning him has been sitting around for a while, and he appears to be doing the same thing you warned him about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of this matter and keeping an eye on it, as are a couple of the other arbitrators. Please feel free to post a comment in the discussion on the arbitration page so that all the arbs will be aware of your concern. I was hoping that this situation would resolve itself without formal action, but unfortunately, perhaps it will not work out that way. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Judges

NYB: Are you aware of any sources for PD images of Judges John Woolsey or Augustus N. Hand? Kablammo (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can think of, but I will check through some of my books and see if there is anything there. You might also see if you can find any pre-1923 newspaper photographs of them, which would be out of copyright by now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

General comment

There is an interesting series of posts by David Thompson this week on The Volokh Conspiracy, dealing with issues such as how the Internet can affects people's privacy and reputations, the effects of Google and other search engines, and whether the Section 230 immunity statute should be modified. A link to all these posts (from newest to oldest, so start at the bottom) can be found here. Thompson is credited in the posts as the author of the new book Wild West 2.0, which I have not yet seen, and as the General Counsel of ReputationDefender.

These posts do not focus directly on Misplaced Pages, but they raise some issues that are also of great relevance to this project, and which I have discussed myself both on-wiki and elsewhere (see links on my talkpage). I do not agree with everything that Mr. Thompson has to say, particularly as to remedies, but his is a thoughtful voice, and both Wikipedians and Misplaced Pages critics should consider what he has to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change RfAr

Brad, I have a question about the above. A couple of key names are missing from the list of parties, but I don't know what the correct procedure is for adding them. I'm thinking of KimDabelsteinPetersen and Guettarda, who along with William Connolley and Stephan Schulz are the four key climate change editors. I asked Ryan to add them as parties on May 26, and Lar requested it on June 2, but so far as I can tell it hasn't been done. SlimVirgin 07:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw your note about it not mattering whether someone is named as a party. One of the ways it can matter is that non-parties post as uninvolved editors on the Workshop page, and given that the issue of who is and isn't allowed to comment qua uninvolved has mattered so much on the probation pages, it could become an issue there too. If Kim and Guettarda were minor figures this would be a trivial concern, but they are two of the four key editors, so for them to comment anywhere as non-parties will add an odd flavour to the proceedings. SlimVirgin 07:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough ... one question as a starting point is whether they considered themselves as interested parties. Do you know if anyone's asked them? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

NYB, I'd like to suggest you make a small change to the guidelines for the Climate Change case, to head off an area of potential debate. The sentence I suggest should be changed is: Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. The phrases "uninvolved administrator" and "any participant in this case" are dangerous, in my opinion. As you will be aware from the discussion around Lar, the concept of "uninvolved" is going to be raised as an issue in the case. In your guideline, is uninvolved meant to mean uninvolved in cllimate change disputes, uninvolved as a climate change editor, uninvolved by dint of not having commented or been mentioned on the case pages, uninvolved in the sense of WP:UNINVOLVED, uninvolved in the sense of the general climate change sanctions regime, or uninvolved within the opinion of the administrator issuing the sanction? Frankly, I suggest that handing discretion for sanctions relating to on-case-page behaviour beyond ArbCom members and Clerks is asking for trouble. I recognise that your intent is to help mantain decorum in a case that could easily degenerate into a free-for-all; if you are going to go down this path, I hope you will modify the statement to tie down the meaning of "uninvolved" in this context. Also, the way the guidelines are written, "participants" could be taken to mean those who list sub-isues, provide evidence, and offer workshop proposals - but then editors offering other comments / observations would arguably not be subject to the jurisdiction of "uninvolved administrators". As SV's comments above also indicate, these kinds of issues have been problematic in the on-wiki climate change debates. EdChem (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The case is scheduled to open shortly before the beginning of the pending changes trial (June 14-15), it is an unfortunate coincidence because the trial will need massive community participation and still requires considerable preparation, while this case will involve many editors and some time constraints have been given in the procedural guidelines. Could not the opening of the case be postponed from a week or so, so that it's a few days after the beginning of the trial ? Cenarium (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just been notified that I'm a named party in the Arbitration. Since my editing in the area amounts to a dozen or so edits this year (rarely – if at all? – to articles), and my administrative actions involve one block of an obvious disruptive sockpuppet, I don't believe that I have any reason to participate in what will, unfortunately, be a massive waste of time.

You'll understand my frustration given the singular timidity with which ArbCom handled the obviously unconstructive behavior of GoRight and Abd during the Abd/WMC arbitration. While I have a great deal of respect for you personally, Newyorkbrad, my last experience with the ArbCom highlighted the Committee's remarkable incompetence, ineptitude, and sloppiness in handling what should have been a very straightforward matter. It's not worth my effort or my limited time to participate in a new exercise in futility involving many of the same players and their friends.

Please remove me from the list of 'involved' parties. If someone (vexatiously) suggests that I need to be sanctioned, I will submit evidence or rebuttal as necessary; I will expect explicit notification because I will not be watching the Arbitration's subpages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be named as a party either, I have just made a few comments on three enforcement requests as uninvolved admin, and I have other things to do than being dragged in a RFAR. But Newyorkbrad instructed not to list any party, so it is probably a clerk mistake.

The case has been opened so my request is moot, I do hope it's not going to adversely affect the PC trial. Cenarium (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Small comment: It's a bit late for all the distributed copies, but would you mind updating the permanent ones on the case pages? My first name is spelled with an 'a' and my last name has no 't'. USians in general seem to be genetically or culturally incapable of spelling both right at the same time. I don't mind to much, but in this case the name refers to the Stephan Schulz & Lar request, where the name was (for a change ;-) spelled right. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been travelling and mostly offline for a couple of days, so my apologies for my delay in responding to all of the above. Some belated thoughts:

• To EdChem: We may use our decision in this case to clarify the definition of "uninvolved administrator" for enforcement purposes, so I fear it would be premature for us to address a changed definition in the context of the opening instructions for the case itself. My hope is that during the period the case is pending, good judgment will be used by all concerned, and this will not be a ground of contention, at least on an interim basis.
• To Cenarium: I don't think it would have been a good idea to delay opening the case, but if editors active in the case are also active on issues relating to the pending-changes trial and need a short amount of additional time to present evidence as a result, I would be prepared to consider that.
• To TenOfAllTrades: Thanks for your note, but no comment, I think.
• To Stephan Schulz: My apologies for the spelling mistakes.
  • Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My purpose in asking to be removed from the list of 'involved' parties is that I do not wish to be (and see no reason to be) required to closely monitor the progression of what promises to be a long and miserable arbitration process. I wish to receive notification (from a clerk or other individual, as would be received by any other uninvolved party who gets dragged into this mess after the fact) if a matter is raised which directly touches on me and requires my input. I don't want to be forced to sift through hundreds of pages of evidence, testimony, bickering, and slander to check for attacks on me.

If you cannot consider this request on your own, then feel free to raise it with your fellow arbitrators. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The "no comment" was more in response to your observations about a prior case. I'll be glad to make sure that you're notified if your name becomes embroiled in this one. (I would have welcomes your participation on the evidence or workshop pages of this case, but that's up to you.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on a cursory examination of what's taken place so far, I doubt that I could stomach participation. Count Iblis wants to bring back GoRight to help disrupt the proceedings. TheGoodLocust has offered a silly theory that Hipocrite is William Connolley's sockpuppet. ZuluPapa's claims are generally...poorly grounded. I have strong concerns that the ArbCom will go for the 'low-hanging fruit' here, and attempt to punish perceived incivility (the symptom) as an obvious and easily-identified target, rather than dealing with the messy underlying problem: vexatious mock-civil POV pushing to overrrepresent a minority, non-scientific viewpoint and suppress scientific consensus. (I predict that at least some portion of the Committee is likely to declare that they cannot address such issues, as so-called 'content' disputes are beyond their remit, making meaningful remedies impossible to pass.) The outcome will be remedies which disproportionately punish the more-experienced, better-qualified, but also more frustrated subject-matter-expert editors who have been subject to constant abuse and seige for, quite literally, years — and who are understandably a bit short with the constant influx of inexperienced, unscientific (and anti-scientist), blog-driven pseudoskeptics. I appreciate your invitation, and I have a great deal of respect for you, personally. I wish you the best of luck in the coming months. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• You didn't answer why I am listed an an involved editor while there is no basis whatsoever ? Cenarium (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't evaluated who is or isn't involved yet because we don't have the evidence in, although I do understand the reason for your question. This is why I wrote procedures that tried to eliminate the whole concept of prejudging who is or is not "involved" or "a party" before we see any evidence, which in a complex case I have learned from experience can be a huge diversion from the merits of the case. If your involvement in the underlying dispute is limited to ordinary administrator work, you will not be part of the decision, and it is unlikely that you will come up much in the evidence or workshop proposals. Beyond that, you might want to ask the person who initially listed you why he did so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agency photo copyrights

Thanks for your insightful comments at AN/I. Your comments are spot on, particularly what you said about our unauthorised use of commercial photography being considered competitive. I've been discussing this off-wiki with Mike Godwin, who agrees that "there may well be good policy reasons for developing a special speedy-delete category of the sort you describe" (at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Additional category F12: news agency photographs). FYI, it's an issue that I'm particularly aware of because I've worked as a photo buyer, so I'm very conscious of the sensitivities (and penalties!) of using unlicensed commercial photography. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented on the CSD talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment

I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, but I just felt like mentioning something that's crossed my mind recently. If I'm not mistaken, I believe you have six months remaining on the Arbitration Committee. It's hard for me to think that the ArbCom has changed so much since when I first learned about it, but as far as I can remember, you're the only Arb who's been steadily active the whole time I've been aware of the committee. I think you've done a really great job (if you don't mind me saying) — I'm always pleased to see somebody who considers the feelings and perspectives of all sides before making a decision (not that the same can't be said for the other arbitrators or that having an opposing opinion is necessarily a bad thing). If you've ever mulled over the idea of running for re-election in the upcoming December Elections (which of course, I will not pressure you into doing because I feel it is entirely your choice as to whether you think you've served your time), then I can almost assure that you would very likely have my support. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your note and the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Brad,

have you taken offense to Radek's off-wiki comment from January? I've observered Arbcom cases long enough to know that the Arbitration Committee generally cuts some slack and ignores adverse comments by sanctioned people on the conclusion of cases, as it's understood to be a normal human reaction and allowance is made for that. It is not like Radek made the comment last week, but almost six months ago when the case was concluded. Radek has done a lot of good work since then. Given that Giano routinely expresses his opinion of the Committee, I'm surprised that this one-off comment made several months ago on an external site is even an issue at all. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)