User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2015/Oct

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Rangeblocks
"The disruption was intentionally designed to prevent large numbers of other editors from editing (by triggering rangeblocks)..."

I think rather that was imputed. The point that Kumioko was making was:


 * 1) that it was possible for him to continue to edit despite the best efforts of various people who wanted to shut him down
 * 2) that he was actually continuing in good faith to attempt to discuss the reasons that he was being blocked/banned
 * 3) that "Nyah Nyah I can't hear you" is not a valid argument - and he was not prepared to accept it as such

Of course his rhetoric was over the top, and he managed to alienate some of his most likely allies. But what he said really needs to be read in context with what he did - which did not constitute vandalism.

On the flip side there have been all sorts of hints (as there usually are in these cases) that there is "stuff we aren't telling you that would make you support a ban." This is pretty despicable if untrue, and not really useful if true.

It's a real shame that this attempt to re-intergate him was kiboshed from the word go. It speaks to an underlying malaise in the community as much as to Kumioko, in my opinion.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC).


 * My opinion is that if Kumioko/Reguyla had responded to the unblock by writing articles or making solid mainspace edits, the unhappiness about the unblock would probably have blown over and he would still be editing. It's unfortunate that it didn't play out that way.
 * Since he can't respond here and is reportedly trying to disengage, I don't think it's a good idea to further discuss him now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Folk dancers and sorting algorithms
Hungarian folk dancers implement bubble sort: Youtube. Protonk (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. But this is going to leave my TPW's very confused, I'm afraid. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

good catch
I, NE Ent, formerly, tend to forget calling someone a "nobody" is supposed to be an insult rather than a compliment. NE Ent 23:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "We don't want nobody Nobody Ent." Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Query
I've done some research and added a sourced Awards table to the article Time's Arrow (Star Trek: The Next Generation).

That should hopefully put a stopgap to anyone placing pesky notability tags up there in the future. :)

What do you think?

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope you are right. I don't see the notability concern over this topic as having much merit, but I'm glad to see the article expanded. I remember watching that sketch when it first aired and enjoying it quite a bit. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, agreed. Have you seen how it was parodied in "Roswell That Ends Well" ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oct 28: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

amateur
This is all that's required. ;) NE Ent 20:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the past, I've seen that sort of thing removed as incomplete or malformed. But I appreciate the advice; I don't have that much experience posting in that particular section of the ArbCom pages. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Level II
The reason there's no obvious route of appeal for a level 2 desysop is that when the things were introduced, there was an intent that they always be temporary. (Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. if you want ARBPOL chapter-and-verse.) The recent tendency of individual arbs to consider themselves a class of elite super-users, using desysops to smite their enemies, was something neither Roger nor the WMF anticipated when the procedures were written. (I concur with those who say this iteration is the worst I can recall, and I include 2007 in that. The old incarnations of the committee certainly had their issues, but at least they never had this particular combination of ineptness, a "Guardians of the Universe" mentality, and a willingness to let people use the committee as their own personal score-settling platform.) &#8209; iridescent 16:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

High 5
Nicely done. That deserves a high 5 : ) - jc37 18:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This post
 * Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee
Regarding Eric's refusal to participate... I was looking at Arbitration Committee, and noticed the link to arbitration:
 * "A process through which two or more parties use an arbitrator or arbiter in order to resolve a dispute. In general, a form of justice where both parties designate a person whose ruling they will accept formally."

So, if one of the parties refuses to accept the committee as arbiter and participate, then you don't really have an arbitration process at all, but rather a trial in absentia. Perhaps there hasn't been enough thought given to how such trials are conducted by a committee whose ostensible purpose is arbitration. What are the provisions for defense of a party who waives his or her right to be present? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors on the English Wikipedia are deemed to have agreed to have agreed to the authority of the Arbitration Committee when they edit. As such, the Committee has the authority to proceed without the participation of one of the parties, and has often done so, especially where the party is deliberately refusing to participate, as opposed to being unavoidably absent due to read-world busy-ness, illness or the like.
 * In the context of Wikipedia, "arbitration" is not to be distinguished from "court" as one might do offline. The relevant distinction is between arbitration, which is a mandatory process, as opposed to mediation, which is a voluntary process in which editors may or may not choose to participate. In fact, at the very same time the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee was created, a Mediation Committee was also created, although as things turned out, the ArbCom has focused more on user-conduct disputes and the MedCom more on content disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification. While I was aware of Dispute resolution noticeboard, I'm not sure I had ever heard of the Mediation Committee and Requests for mediation. So, what happens when a party refuses mediation in a content dispute. Can content disputes be resolved by forced arbitration, when the parties in the content dispute are conducting themselves civilly? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbitration (as in ArbCom) deals with user conduct. Misconduct in connection with editing an article can be more than just incivility; it can also include overtly partisan editing, misuse of sources, etc.&mdash;but usually, only in extreme cases. The arbitrators aren't elected to settle content disputes, and might not have the subject-matter expertise to do so in a given case. (We had a case once about the Franco-Mongol alliance article in which one of the parties was accused of grossly misreading the sources and a couple of us pulled a few of the sources to check the allegation; since we didn't have any medievalists on the Committee at the time, this was not an easy task, and I wouldn't have wanted it to become central to the caseload.) There are other dispute-resolution methods for content disputes, such as third opinions and RfCs, but some such disputes seem to be just intractable.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

My attempt at a "better way"
I posted my statement after your addition but I read your additional point.

I immodestly think my proposal could be a key part of your "better way".

What if the committee were to decide that the prohibition on Eric contributing to gender gap discussions with still a reasonable choice along the continuum of possible responses, but that the blanket prohibition without an exception for responding to direct provocations was, in retrospect, not the ideal wording. I'm not questioning the good intentions of the original wording, just noting that hindsight is so very much clearer than trying to imagine all possible futures.

What if the committee were to decide that a modest amendment to the prohibition was warranted. Furthermore, that while Kirill's block was technically correct, had the committee envisioned the possibility that someone would bait Eric in this way, an exception might well have been included in this incident might never have happened, and the block would not have occurred. This leads to the action that Carol should not be admonished but neither should the block be sustained. I'd like to think that the desysop should be reversed but that might be asking too much.

I think it is fair to say while the community remains divided over the relative value of Eric to the project, a decided minority of editors feel that Eric should not have the right to respond. While some might support the block because the restriction technically did not allow him to respond, I think a large proportion of the community would accept that such a restriction ought to have an exception. Of course, the ideal situation is people engaging in gender gap discussions should avoid bringing up his name, but if it is brought up, he shouldn't be prohibited from responding.

In short, the committee could revise the restriction, and decide that nothing needs to be done in connection with this case.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input and for thinking of me to share it with. But since I'm not a decision-maker on the case, and my thoughts as expressed on the requests and motion pages don't particularly seem to be swaying the Committee, I'm clearly not someone you need to try to convince.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Unseemly begging
Please tell me you are going to be watching the arbcom mailing list during the current Corbett brush up. As I indicated in my statement, I think that there may well be serious legal issues at least theoretically involved here, and if I am right your input would be invaluable. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No can do. Only current arbitrators (plus J. Wales) are on the ArbCom mailing list. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, [redacted]. [Further redaction]. is there maybe any way you, or Kirill, or Cas, or any other former arb were willing to put up with having to do so, to maybe have the system change in somme way to allow for temporary emergency arbs? I'm thinking in particular of this case and the delayed Catflap08/Hijiri88 case, which seems to have been basically delayed for a month because of the excess workload. Granted this sort of thing doesn't happen often, but when it does [even more redaction]. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any basis for that sort of thing. I'm always glad to advise on anything I might be asked about, and very occasionally an issue (not relating to a specific case) is brought over to the "Functionaries" list with a somewhat broader audience&mdash;but I couldn't really be asked to help out much in this case anyway, as I've taken a position on the merits of the case (and so has Kirill, obviously). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought we were told years ago (I haven't even looked for the diff) that J Wales was no longer on the ArbCom mailing list. Was that just wishful dreaming on my part or is it worth looking for the diff? Giano    (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall that. What you may be thinking of is that a couple of times, Jimbo has personally been party to a case before the Committee. This was handled the same way as when an arbitrator is a party to pending case: a separate, alternate mailing list is created for that case, and the party-arbitrator or party-JW is not subscribed to that list. So you may be thinking of assurances that Jimbo was not part of the mailing-list discussions in those particular cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brad, I expect you are right. That's very disappointing. I look forward to the day that Wikipdia is floated; I'll then buy thousands of shares and have access to the Arbcom Mailing List too. Giano    (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That won't work because bearer shares aren't allowed for U.S. companies, so you would probably have to identity to the WMF, which you won't do. This is where I walked in.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 12:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the beast, I once was.
I find this kinda action by another, to be a breach of WP:AGF & quite annoying. I won't contest it, but it's quite frustrating. PS - Having already served a siteban, I realize it would be dangerious to restore my post. Heightend scrutiny (misguided or not), is what reinstated editors like myself, must deal with. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I understand your position, and I dislike unnecessary use of the term "trolling," but I think I'll stay out of this one. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's alright. I wasn't looking for any action, as the resulting drama/fight would eventually see me off to Arbcom, again. Just looking for a shoulder to cry on, so to speak. :) GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)