Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:53, 6 March 2011

Archives

Index of archives

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

RFA Q

Regarding Keepscases' question at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Snottywong, it is not at all lightly that I suggest that your opposition to the question is somewhat misplaced. Keepscases asks thought-provoking questions which some (more than a few, it seems) find inappropriate...but that doesn't make it so. I, for one, always appreciate the questions, and I am not the only one to have supported them in the past. That doesn't make it "right" - I understand all about consensus, I hope you'll agree (if you have any knowledge of me whatsoever) - but even if I don't like all of them, I definitely support Keepscases' right to ask them. They are not accusatory, defamatory, or personal, and they appear to be meant to test a candidate. In my opinion, they succeed at doing so pretty much every time. (I admit I got an easy one.) I actually think the knee-jerk reactions (and I'm not suggesting all negative reactions are so) say more about those opposing the question than they do about Keepscases or the candidate(s). (I find your comment to be civil, well-measured, and potentially inviting of discussion, which is part of why I've chosen to respond to you individually.)  Frank  |  talk  23:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've had this discussion with Keepscases before, and in at least one case I realized that a question he'd posed that appeared to make little sense, in fact served a purpose. But there are limits to what is reasonable, and in my view in recent months he has gone farther and farther toward exceeding them. It's a greater problem in my eyes than it otherwise might have been because there is increasing agreement (at least on the RfA talkpage) that there are many qualified editors who are declining to become administrators simply because the RfA process is unappealing; I think that eliminating hazing rituals such as questions with no right answers would go some way to addressing that concern. And in general, the community has not looked at all kindly on editors (e.g., Boothy443, Massiveego, Kmweber) who have been cast as disruptive influences on the RfA pages; that is not where I would like to see Keepscases headed, but it is a likely outcome sooner or later if this keeps up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds a little like saying that fewer people are getting degrees in engineering because the process of going through school is unappealing. It doesn't mean people shouldn't do it; perhaps what we really need is to find a better calibre of student. It's not a totally apt analogy because I am not one who believes the proverbial admin-shortage sky is falling, but you get the idea. I think the RfA process was unappealing three years ago as well - and I was actually around then to be able to say so. I think we have more of a situation where people are coming in and trying to reshape things - for better or for worse. When you have a community, that happens, I guess. This is part of why I defend these questions - with more people around who drive by and say "I don't like it", it becomes easier for "it" to be eliminated. That doesn't make it actually good for the process, in my opinion.

And, on the matter of kmweber (the only one of the three I recognize off the top of my head), I do want to say this is totally different. Kurt was a robo-opposer who, I'm sure you recall, regularly referred to arbcom as the "arbitrary committee", and as I recall, holds the distinction of garnering the most raw opposes and lowest percentage of support in a community election. He truly was disruptive, and not only at RfA, even if that was a particularly prickly section of the project for him. Keepscases seems to withhold judgment until after questions are answered, and when opposing, provides a reason more than "power hunger". (A particular bias regarding "secular humanism" does show up, but again - each is entitled to his or her opinion.)

More to the point, regarding hazing rituals - let's face it: any competent editor can wield the admin bit perfectly capably. It's the "edge cases" - the small single-digit % on either end of the spectrum - that we need to worry about. RfA is a means of evaluating the fringes of the candidate, not so much the core. These questions are more useful than the "write an effective oppose of your own candidacy and then rebut it" questions that are lately popping up (to name just one type). You can't study for Keepscases' questions. (In that regard, even Kurt was sometimes useful - we actually got candidates who didn't know about him and then went ballistic when he opposed...thereby showing their own demeanor to be unsuitable for adminship.)  Frank  |  talk  13:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"A particular bias regarding "secular humanism" does show up, but again - each is entitled to his or her opinion." He has explicitly stated "No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Misplaced Pages as an administrator" because of issues he has with some Atheist userboxes. And you're right, even an expression of support for secular humanism seems to be used as a cudgel to beat candidates over the head. I cannot fathom why we allow this -- and why people such as yourself continue to make excuses for this -- in the year of our lord 2011. oh well, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My "excuse" is for asking questions which some find objectionable; that's as far as you can quote me on this. I made note of the other bit as an acknowledgment that it happens, not as defense of all behavior of any individual editor. I note, with some regret, that Keepscases did turn around and oppose the very next RfA candidacy after my note above, with no explanation or question on the RfA itself. Still - we have much larger fish to fry around here than trying to censor someone who asks thought-provoking questions. And..you know what? I am pretty sure that Keepscases, you, Brad, and I all have belly buttons. In fact, I'll own up to it: I definitely do have one. 02:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Frank  |  talk 

Arbitrator comments/reaction requested

Hello Brad!

I am writing an article for the Signpost regarding trends in accepting and deciding cases by the Arbitration Committee. I would be grateful to have your thoughts, including possible reasons for the trend and whether you think it is good or bad. I have also sent an email to the Committee mailing list with the same request for all Arbitrators. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've responded by e-mail, which I hope is helpful, and would be glad to answer any specific questions (subject to the fact that I'm juggling some real-world time commitments this weekend). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your quick response which I believe answered my main questions :) Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gold Hat has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Moulton and the FeloniousMonk Story

Could you comment at User talk:AGK#General question about remedies for victims of rogue administrators if you have a moment? Thanks, AGK 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate recourse for this user is an e-mail to the ban appeals subcommitee of the Arbitration Committee. In any such e-mail, he should bear in mind that most of the arbitrators may have little, if any, background on his case or situation, and accordingly should provide the relevant links. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Brad, are you aware that I am not in fact community banned. Rather IDCab, acting without community review, indef blocked me and falsely labeled it a "community ban." I would like to have my grievance reviewed in public, if that is possible. Also, it's not the FM pages I care about, but the pages in my userspace that FM munged and locked against me. —Moulton (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton, you may email the Arbitration Committee and ask for a review of your block. Or you can continue to be blocked. Any further posts about this onwiki will likely result in blocks to your IPs. Youve been indulged to this point, but your insistence on ignoring your block and the advice you have been given does not serve you well. Risker (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

He is not actually asking to be unblocked, but that FeloniousMonk's evidence pages be deleted. Am I right in saying that unless he was unblocked through the usual method (through BASC, that is), requests for such deletion will not usually be honoured? There is then the second issue that the pages are affecting his real-life activities (I do not know how convincing an argument that is, but in any case do not think this or any on-wiki page is the correct place to discuss such a private issue); if ArbCom decline the unblock, it would, I think, have to then consider the second argument that deletion is necessary on the basis that it is causing damage to him in real-life—which we try to avoid as a matter of doing no harm. I am not expressing an opinion on either issue, but would point out to Brad and Risker that there are two arguments at play here—of which, in my view, only one has been answered. AGK 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I misunderstood what his request was. It seems that he is not asking that FeloniousMonk's evidence pages be deleted, but that his userpage be restored to what it used to look like (eg. ). I've asked him to confirm that that is indeed what he is requesting; if it is, I will be disinclined to entertain this any longer. I have been hearing Moulton out thus far, in an attempt to give him some kind of chance to fully explain his grievances, but I am, like Risker, beginning to think that there is not a convincing case here. AGK 20:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Except to activate SUL, I have never asked to be unblocked. When I filed my request to ArbCom, that Anthøny proxied for me, I did not ask to be unblocked. Rather I asked ArbCom if the RfC which IDCab filed was an instance of Due Process. ArbCom declined to answer that question. Six months later, Lar explained (and others concurred) that WP doesn't do due process. His exact quote: "The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair." About once I year I bother to ask if WP has evolved to an operational model more representative of 21st Century concepts of Due Process, Civil Rights, and Evidence-Based Reasoning. I take it the answer remains as before. —Moulton 04:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has no more evolved into a 21st century governing system than it has evolved into a 21st century train station, or a 21st century automobile manufacturer, or a 21st century healthcare system. That is because it is none of those things and was never intended to become any of those things. Nor is this a debating society. That is enough now Moulton. Risker (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is never enough education, Risker. I am not here to debate. Like everyone else here, my goal is to help fulfill the WMF Mission of empowering and engaging people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. I appreciate that you are joining with me in that overarching educational mission with respect to crucial topics in Due Process, Civil Rights, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Restorative Justice, and Best Practices for Ethical Governance. —Moulton 20:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu motion

I noticed that you had refrained from voting on the Rodhullandemu motion, but have since commented at Misplaced Pages Review in the abstract about the issue. Might I ask why? Was it simply a time issue, or something else? NW (Talk) 15:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Purely a timing issue. I had participated in extensive discussions about this matter on the Arbitration Committee mailing list earlier in the week, but happened to be offline for several hours on Friday when the final decision was made.

(My comments in the WR thread were, as you noted, more abstract and were not intended to refer to this particular case. I will add that while some of the responses to my posts there were obnoxious, others are giving me significant food for thought.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are prepared to declare neutrality, which I now doubt, you have no business going to Misplaced Pages Review and contributing to discussions that are by definition "criticism of Misplaced Pages"; a more seasoned approach might be to maintain a dignified distance. WR is a known repository for editors who have been rejected by the community, and although they might have good reason for that, it does not improve the objective of improving Misplaced Pages. I'm amazed, frankly, because I do not see that you are going to persuade these people to anything. Rodhullandemu 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!

1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-02-28/Arbitration statistics

I read your comments, regarding the trend of more disputes and other problems being resolved off-wiki by means of semi-formal discussion with the party or parties, on a recent WR thread. Those comments added a new dimension to my understanding of the arbitration process - and would, I'm sure, have been of interest to other editors who never sat on the committee. Could it be useful to make some commentary in the discussion section of the above Signpost article about that trend? Anything that gives insight into the off-wiki activities of ArbCom always makes good reading! AGK 20:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(Placeholder; I will respond to this, but probably can't get to it tonight.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Since you're posting on the Musical theatre talk page, I thought I would let you know that I posted a complaint at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because Ronz continues to post to my talk page, even though I have requested that he/she not post there any more. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu 02:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Received, responded, and forwarded as agreed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Archibald Butt

Hello! Your submission of Archibald Butt at the DYK April Fool's nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! KimChee (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll comment over the weekend. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What's up?

You know Ssilvers personally. Could that be interfering with your judgement at Talk:Musical theatre?

I'm happy to explain myself in detail if it would help. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you should focus on something else that would be significantly more useful to the project than quibbling endlessly about the links on that page. However, you are probably right that any administrator action in this matter would better be taken by another administrator. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take that as an opportunity to offer a short explanation.

Much of what I do on Misplaced Pages is clean up inappropriate external links. Extremely rarely, editors decide to make a mountain out of the molehill of external links cleanup. That's the case with Musical theatre. I don't want it to continue with the related articles of Misplaced Pages:WPMT, where similar cleanup is needed. I'm working to a clear stand - not a resolution as nice as it would be to have, but at least a stalemate that will make further cleanup go smoother.

Hiding external links as references goes way over the line of acceptable ways to clean up external links. It's the behavior of spammers. Personally, I'm concerned and embarrassed whenever I find editors trying to argue for such "references." Still, I've have found that sometimes a stalemate is the only short-term solution to such problems when editors are too tied up in WP:OWN problems, though more commonly the editors are blocked and we create consensus without them. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You have lost your sense of perspective regarding the external links on musical theater. You should really go and do something more productive, and I anticipate that if you persist in this fashion, an uninvolved administrator (I accept that I no longer qualify) will require you to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to find us talking past each other. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Given , I think it would best for me to ask you to identify what specifically about my behavior you find problematic enough to threaten me with a block? --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in here, but Ronz will probably recall that I have been active in helping to remove linkspam, and generally work to reduce inappropriate external links (although I have been letting that work slip lately). Ronz: yes, Musical theatre had too many ELs, and yes, it's great that they're cleaned up. However, what is the cost? Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project and the result of recent efforts on that page is that a few links have been removed, and a great deal of turmoil and irritation has been generated—all that trouble has been directed at excellent content builders. The article is clearly in good shape and is actively maintained by people who are absolutely not spamming or using Misplaced Pages for promotion, and my suggestion is that strident ELNO advocacy would be better applied in articles which do not have those characteristics. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I'm trying to wrap it up.

The article isn't in very good shape though, and the WP:OWN problems are at least partially to blame.

It's been a good, though painful, experience with working around WP:OWN problems. I never have much success with these problems. I've got a number of things I'll be doing different as a result.

And that gets back to my question for Newyorkbrad. Without an answer, I don't know for sure that my changes in approach will be enough. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that "the article isn't in very good shape"; I think it's a perfectly reasonable introduction to the topic. Further improvements, which are always welcome, in this case will be made primarily by adding content, rather than by quibbling about the content already there.

I really, really think you should drop your arguments about external links references in this article and focus on some entirely unrelated area for awhile. If you reread that talkpage a month from now, I think you will agree that for a time you lost your sense of perspective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you even paying attention?

You've made your opinions of what I should do very, very clear. You've even threatened to back them with a block. Message received. Getting any rationale from you appears to be a waste of my time.

I've wrapped it up. I hope that's clear. Sorry that you don't like the way I've done so. If you're not interested in providing some assistance as to how I could do better in this and similar disputes, then why waste your time? --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

When asking a question, it is usually best to read the replies, then take some to think about them. If you really want to know how to do better in similar disputes, please read what I wrote above. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu

Rodhullandemu 00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebionites 2

Newyorkbrad, can you put a reasonable time limit on requiring a response for participation in mediation, during the four week period the committee is holding arbitration in abeyance? I'm asking because there is a precedent for John Carter to run out the clock. He kept everyone waiting for a month for a response during informal mediation and then walked out on it. If he is not going to commit to working things out, let's get on with it. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It probably makes the most sense for the mediator to survey whether the key parties are going to participate, and let us know. You are right that if the mediation isn't going to happen we will have to go back to opening the arbitration case. We will see, probably sooner rather than later. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)