User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Oct

Shawn Hornbeck

Hi Brad, just a heads-up, you might want to comment here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Or don't bother, it's been resolved, no harm done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do have relevant comments. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Further comments added here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Term Duration, election frequency etc

Let me know if the whole idea of a straw poll is stepping on your toes-- I don't even really have an opinion, just trying to kinda chip in and defuse. Seemed to me we needed to narrow down the termduration/electionfrequency/tranchecount options to a manageable level to focus things. One way to do that is to run a quick straw poll-- the other way to do that would be to just nominated a trusted mediator, such as yourself, to just pick one of the options and put it up as a proposal.

I'm cool with either-- so, let me know. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Chat

If you have some time tonight, can you get on IRC? I have something to discuss with you. KnightLago (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be out tonight, but tomorrow night should work. If you want, drop me an e-mail so I'll know at least the general topic. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I will send you an email explaining everything, and then you can offer your opinion and we can discuss. KnightLago (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You have email. KnightLago (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Again. KnightLago (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding making major changes to arbcom

I know that you are wise enough to not allow (and here comes my usual frank words)...do nothing dramaqueen trolls rule the day and "force" any substantive changes to our arbcom policies. Examining the "contributions" from some of those most insistant on seeing these changes, one can easily see that their primary contributions range from telling us, in longwinded gibberish, about their "sagas" to misuse of the dispute resolution process to create drama. Of course, surely your outstanding ability to AGF of all others is well noted for the most part, but lets not be too worried if borderline SPA's are making it their Wikipedia "focus" to insist on changes that aren't really needed.--MONGO 23:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not paid much attention lately to the ongoing 'update of arbcom' question. I would echo mongo's thought that what's needed are tweaks to the workings, not large changes to policy. The only policy change that I would recommend is to make the terms a bit shorter, it seems that burnout is high, and we do need to manage it better. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My ears are burning. Assuming, as I think is fair, that I'm the person to whom you (MONGO) are referring, my response is: good lord you know how to hold a grudge. I swear-- I don't know what I did to get on your bad side, but it feels like you've picked me out of the crowd to be your personal nemesis.

In my defense-- in this case, I know for a fact I'm innocent of "forcing" changes on arbcom policy, but I happen to know that I have no clue where I stand on this issue, so I know for certain I'm not trying to push through changes in this case. I'm just trying to help the process along, because it seemed like good people who basically agreed about substance were getting bogged down in unnecessary stalemates and with a little help, they could get the process going again. And if the outcome of that process is that no changes are needed, that's 100% okay with me. Arbcom term duration is _not_ going to make or break this project, and as of this writing, I have no clue whether term duration would be best at 18, 24, 36, or 48. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alec, please keep up the good work. It's much appreciated even if no one comes around very often to say so. Cla68 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alec...changes suggested by those that seem to do little else other than try to make changes are probably changes that aren't worth adapting. I wasn't actually even thinking of you when I made my comment above.--MONGO 04:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction to above...maybe I was thinking of Alec...[1] and a lot of others too though...--MONGO 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you weren't referring to me, my apologies. The enquoted "saga" was, it seemed, a reference to a post I'd made [2] entitled "Alec's Saga". But, if not, that's okay too.

While you have wiggle room about who exactly it is you're trying to personally attack with such invectives as "dramaqueen trolls", "longwinded gibberish", "misuse of the dispute resolution process to create drama", "borderline SPA", and other ad hominem comments, I think it's quite clear that you are engaging in personal attacks against SOMEBODY. Obviously, you shouldn't be doing that.

But I won't belabor the point. The whole of wikipedia has asked you to stop, and you clearly demonstrate with your above commments you still haven't heard them. Given that, I know you won't be able to hear it from me. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would venture a guess that those that are dramaqueen trolls, engage in longwinded gibberish, misuse the dispute resolution process to create drama and borderline SPA's are indeed the only ones that might be offended by my truthiness.--MONGO 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, :( I know you think that. But after an arbcom case, a desysopping, and a failed RFA, I wish you could see it's not just the people you personally attack who are offended by your personal attacks. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surely sorry I offended you.--MONGO 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see where we get with the substance of the discussion rather than have further anticipation of who might participate and why. I will try to get to drafting of the potentially revised updated/policy within the next couple of days, now that I've finished drafting a decision that was assigned to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving of Mantanmoreland-related talk pages

...is done. I've cleared out anything not relevant to the events of the past few weeks, there may still be a few questionable posts, but it's largely cleaned up. Risker (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair warning

How would you like to decide the election of the next President of the United States? I think you'd be a fine decider. [3] Feel free to make a Shermanesque statement here, or say nothing at all and see what develops. -- Noroton (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to try to come up with a compromise wording if users on all sides of the dispute would like me to try. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for court documents

Could you point me in the right direction for some sources for an article I'm working on? Some of the individuals named in the article, USS Iowa turret explosion, later sued [4] [5] the author, publisher, and one of the sources of a book about the incident that I'm using as a source for the article. The defamation suit took place in South Carolina and involved one appeal to the state supreme court. I found the state supreme court's decision document [6], but I'm having a hard time locating the documents from the trial court proceeding. Would you know where I could look to possibly locate those files? Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've checked a couple of the proprietary legal databases, but they only turn up the same decision that you have already found. South Carolina lower courts do not seem to have electronic filing, and I am not sure that the documents you are looking for are available other than either by contacting the parties or counsel in the case, or by taking a trip to a courthouse in South Carolina. However, checking with a Southern practitioner might be more helpful (I'm in New York, as you know), so you might want to post to a Wikiproject Law talkpage for that purpose. Sorry I can't be more helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating into it for me. Cla68 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Advertising policy changes

I saw your notice on ANI regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating (thanks for doing this, the rest of my post is meant to be helpful, not critical in any way), and I had a quick look at your contribs to see where it had been advertised. I don't think anyone's done a listing of places to advertise major discussions. At least not recently. There should be a central page to list such things. Everytime such things have been discussed, things get mentioned such as:

• Relevant policy talk page (obligatory)
• The relevant village pump (obligatory)
• The community portal (not sure how active this is)
• AN as well as ANI (if needed)
• The {{cent}} template (obligatory to aim for community-wide consensus)
• Various mailing lists (where relevant)
• The Signpost (at Ral's discretion)
• The site watchnotice (very, very rare - for the largest discussions)
• Others as needed

Also, possibly a notice at the top of the policy page itself (as you do for deletion discussions or merge proposals). There should probably be a "policy update discussion" notice, to be used in rare cases like this. In this case the "others" bit would also include notices at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee and WP:ACE2008 (the really easy to remember election page shortcut!) and (obviously) the arbitration committee mailing list itself. I think you covered ANI, but not AN, and the policy Village Pump, and the talk page of requests for arbitration. But not, as far as I can see, the others I listed above. Maybe you hadn't got round to it yet, or others were planning to or have done this. The other thing I think is needed (but hardly anyone ever does) is a listing back at the discussion of what venues were notified. That gives people at the discussion an idea of where people are coming from, and what likely volume of response there might be. Maybe stuff like this should be summarised at something like Wikipedia:Advertising discussions? Though it would have to be careful not to tread on the toes of WP:CANVASS and the need for some discussions (XfD discussions and ban discussions and RfCs) to only be advertised in certain places, and in some cases not at all (relying on the venue to generate the consensus). I'm also trying to think of other discussions and how they are advertised - merge discussions, for example. What might also be helpful is a list of places for people to keep an eye on if they want to see notices for discussions. Are there any major discussion venues I've omitted here? Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure what is currently considered best practice concerning notification of discussions, but I am more than willing to see this one mentioned in any and all appropriate places. I've posted links on the ArbCom elections talkpage where the issue started, on Village Pump/Policy (or should it be Proposals?), and on ANI. If anyone thinks more links are appropriate, by all means, go ahead and post them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

Did you see my report at AIV of this joker? I didn't think that contribution history needed a shot across the bow. Darkspots (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I acted on your report. I can't say that I take regular shifts on AIV these days, but I still know where the buttons are. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think you were an AIV regular, but thanks—I have rarely wanted the tools as much as I did at that moment when it was clear that the regulars weren't going to field my report. Darkspots (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC) On the other hand, I should probably just work on my state of zen—that was about three minutes I had to wait there....

Did you mean to block him from editing his talk page?[7] Just checking... Risker (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez ... no ... *sigh* ... feel free to fix it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Remember, leave the bottom box checked...yeah, I know. Every time someone changes something like that, I mess up at least once too. Good block. Risker (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I think the wikibreak notice on your talkpage has expired by now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that didn't turn out to be quite the break I'd planned; here it is a long weekend and the only thing I am doing is putting out wiki-fires and reviewing stacks of reports for work. Oh, I did manage a turkey dinner in there somewhere... Risker (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Oct's Day!

User:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Oct has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Oct's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Oct! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Thanks very much, of course. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Urgent question

How much time elapses between the time a new Wikipedia page is created and the time it starts to show up on Google or other search engines, and on Wikipedia mirror sites? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be helpful. I'll ask someone who knows and see if I can get a quick capsule answer. Avruch ^T 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on experience, for Google it can be as little as a couple of minutes. Doing new page patrol I often Google the title of a new, poor, page to see if there's any hope for it and get the newly created page as one of the top hits. Easy experiment: go to Special:NewPages and Google for some of the more recently created ones. I think you'll find it's normally very quick. Mirrors I have no idea about - usually slower, but it probably depends on the mirror. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just tried this; at the moment Google's not finding anything much less than an hour old, but I'm sure there are times when it's a lot faster. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Google, along with Answers.com and not sure who else, pays the Wikimedia Foundation in order to get a live feed of Wikipedia data and changes. It's noted that the Foundation gets some income from this, in the FY2007 financial report [8]. Google may use this to get new pages into the search engine more quickly, but I don't know the details on what Google does. --Aude (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for the information, to those who posted above as well as those who responded to my "NOINDEX" queries last week. Anyone else reading here, please let me know if you know anything further. This is germane to some research I am doing on how we can improve our practices and procedures relating to BLP's and related issues, with the intention of setting forth some specific recommended actions (as opposed to topics for continued endless discussions) and doing my best to get them implemented, perhaps in conjunction with a small task force of knowledgeable users, during the next couple of weeks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Google picks up new articles within a day, and often within an hour. The size of Wikipedia is quite small compared to Google's ability to index pages. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It's very fast. Wikimedia should do something about this, ergo ensure that Google delays listing new articles for a few days or a week. It's frustrating that (1) BLP issues get listed at Google before they can be dealt with here, and Wikipedia is being (2) used to create notability for fringe, non-notable topics. -- Fyslee / talk 14:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Easy peasy. Ask our developers not to include new articles in the feeds until they have been patrolled. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! On second thought: how about until they are either patrolled or 24 hours old, whichever comes first? (Or some other appropriate length of time). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Canadian election ITN item

I just wanted to let you know that I liked your rewrite of the ITN item on the Canadian election. I had formulated the previous wording, but now that a government is being formed, yours is more apropos. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you approve, Newyorkbrad. Thank you. Happy editing! --PFHLai (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about SSP cases

Hi, Newyorkbrad. Can non-admins perform closures at WP:SSP if the case is clearly solved (i.e. checkusers have come back and all the suspects have already been blocked)? Specifically, I'm referring to WP:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar. If non-admins aren't allowed to do this, then would you mind looking into it? Thanks. Happy editing! SunDragon34 (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for jumping in here but I saw this as I watch Brad's page and I have processed almost 700 SSP/RFCU cases. Yes, non admins in good standing are free and welcome to comment on these cases, fix formatting errors, and close them in cases such as this. Obviously you can't block anyone yet. SSP is almost always one of our biggest backlogged areas and any help there is welcome. Normally the admin that blocks and tags cases will close it, but here he seems to have forgotten. All you need to do here is put {{sspa}} above the == line on the Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar subpage and a bot should archive it soon. Sometimes the bot won't for various reasons and it needs to be manualy moved to the archives. I'll gladly answer any other SSP or RFCU questions you have. Brad, sorry if I step on your toes here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Abtract

In the ArbCom discussion, a temporary injunction was approved to keep the current restrictions in place until a decision was made. Abtract appears to have broken that agreement, again, by editing the Lassie disambig page when he can clearly see I have edited it before and in what seems like a fairly obvious response to recent discussions on my talk page regarding Lassie articles.[9] Where should this be noted? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you believe there has been a violation, you can add it to your evidence and also report it to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement for review by an administrator. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it to my evidence page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On RFArb page

It seems that a backlog may be developing in clarifications and other requests. This one is the oldest (almost 2 weeks old) but still does not have any arbitrator views, and I presume that's why the clerks have not archived it. Things are obviously beginning to queue up this month, but I think an update on the status is needed from an arb. (eg; if it's going to be/still being discussed on the mailing list or if it is dismissed and can be archived or...etc.) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I have broken this rule in the past, I usually think that requests for clarification are best answered, in the first instance, by arbitrators who participated in deciding the case whose clarification is being sought. The Martinphi-ScienceApologist case was decided before I became an arbitrator or even really knew much about the arbitration process, so I thought it might be best to allow other arbitrators to weigh in. However, I suppose that not too many who were on the committee in 2006 are still watching the page faithfully, so I suppose the newer group such as myself should weigh in soon if no one else does. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll nudge/nag a couple of the arbs who voted on the case, so hopefully one of them can get the ball rolling in the next day or so. But it'll still probably be worth looking into; it's one of those cases that often pops up on the RFArb page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fred Bauder, although he's otherwise stepped away from arbitration after his years of hard work, has been known to comment on requests for clarification of decisions he was part of, so you might try him in addition to the current arbitrators who were sitting in 2006. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

You've got it. KnightLago (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginger Jolie arbitration

I strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this matter. The underlying issue, it seems to me, is the application of a most imperfectly formed rule of decision established by the Arbitration Committee. The Committee members should take responsibilty for the problems caused by their actions, as I spell out in more detail on the request page. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I will take another look, although I don't promise to change my opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have provided a more detailed explanation of my reasons for believing that DRV is not suitable on the request page, in response to later comments. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Supper table

For rising to the occasion with some greatly kneaded humor when it was yeast expected, please enjoy some (not pelted) dinner rolls.

alanyst ^/talk/ 04:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I once tried explaining a particular ArbCom case to ordinary (non-Wikipedia) law students. I'm glad there were no rolls around. Cool Hand Luke 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are distinguished Wikipedian, and you also happen to be a lawyer, your opinion (not to be construed as legal advice) would be helpful. VG ☎ 14:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject U.S. Congress

Hiya Newyorkbrad. I've left a comment at that WikiProject, reminding others of the erroneous March 3 date. I'm still annoyed with what I preceive as stubborness & unreasonability there, over that topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I've retracted my comment. As my frustrations are coming to the surface again. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look at the discussion on this issue in awhile, but will try to take another look. This has been my biggest "content dispute" since I've been on the project, so I want to make sure that we are now getting it right. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad

I'll be travelling with limited Internet access until Monday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope you have/had a good trip! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Brad, if you have a moment upon your return, could you re-visit the Wizardman's closure of the Ginger Jolie deletion debate thread on RfAr and (re-)vote? I would remain reluctant to remove the thread whilst your note that you will offer comment on the matter is pending, even if another Arbitrator cast the final (fourth) vote. Oh, and hope you had a good trip. Thanks, AGK 12:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you; I have closed and archived the thread, further to your vote. Best, AGK 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

(smiley) :) Durova^Charge! 01:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

{{=)}} produces . With the correct parameters, you can do or . Jehochman ^Talk 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Abtract-Collectonian

In under 19 hours, this case will be two weeks old soon. All proposals pass. If you could kindly hop on over to this page and vote on closing, that'd be great. Cheers :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Already done; I was updating the ArbComOpenTasks template when the "new message" bar lit up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, jolly good show. XD I wanted to note my appreciation for your prompt (and at the same time, thoughtful) moves and responses (particularly on workshop) throughout the case, so that it was almost constantly on the move until its conclusion. Not necessarily unique to this case, but wanted to convey it all the same. :) Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Case needs intervention

I request some urgent arbitrator's intervention into the pages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 and I am leaving this same note to all four Arbitrators who commented on the case so far.

The pages of the case have deteriorated beyond reasonable due to the conduct of some of the case participants. Please take a look at this new section of evidence for details. Yes, many bitter cases are filled with nonsense claims but there must be a limit to how much outright crankery can be tolerated at the ArbCom cases without any action taken.

Case' pages being turned into a total mess adversely affects the chances of the cohesive outcome. Too much nonsense in the cases pages buries the constructive entries and make the whole pages unreadable or incomprehensible. This leads to the arbitrators' non-participation in the discussions, which, in turn, brings, and I am not going to sugar-coat this, the case's outcomes being often too disconnected from actual concerns raised at its pages. This is why, I am calling for a rather unusual remedy to be applied to a case itself.

I would like to request that some aggressive clerk-like work is applied to the pages of the case: the workshop and the evidence. This cannot be left to clerks since this requires application of the discretion on the cases merits beyond the freedom given to clerks. If you could go over the current evidence and workshop pages and aggressively remove the patent nonsense and senseless rants (including my own entries if they are perceived as such), the benefit would be two-fold. First, it would make case pages more readable and, thus, more useful. Second, it would send a strong message to all parties that their conduct in the case is being monitored and may have consequences that would, hopefully, switch everyone to a more constructive mode. When looking at the pages you would see at once that the nonsense there is abundant and its presence disrupts the case.

I am not requesting any sanctions against anyone at this point. All I am asking is to return some normalcy to the case' pages.

Thank you in advance. --Irpen 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

After requesting "ethical_conduct" from ArbCom, Irpen found my evidence so important that he decided to intervene, contrary to his own request. I replied here (please see "bare facts").Biophys (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on proposal posted

I am leaving this note at the talk pages of four arbitrators who so far commented on the Piotrus_2 arbcom. Just letting you know that I posted a general comment on the workshop proposal by Kirill Lokshin to the workshop's talk page. Regards, --Irpen 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just giving you heads up that I responded to the followup question by one of your colleagues at the workshop's talk here. Regards, --Irpen 20:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Policy

NYB, I want to share with you something that deeply concerns me. I trust you will assume good faith on my part. I am intent on proceeding with this matter, but await your advice. I am asking for it because I would genuinely appreciate it.

As you know, I posted a great deal to the talk page for the proposed decision in the Thatcher-Slim Virgin-Lar case. You recently archived the talk, posted an explanation with instructions that there be no further talk. Since then I have not posted on that page, and while I have commented on the case in general, I believe I have not posted anything that breaches the confidentiality of the arbitration, nor anything that violates the spirit of your decision. I make these points only to make clear that what i am writing now is not meant to compromise the ArbCom deliberations.

I fully accept the fact that ArbCom on occasion needs to keep portions of its investigations confidential. However, I also believe that it is wrong to prohibit any discussion of a case on the appropriate talk page. I realize that these two beliefs clash.

I am not bringing this up in order to challenge the act you took on the SV/Lar talk page. I am bringing this up because it seems to me that this situation will come up in the future. I think we need some proposals for policies on this regard, proposals that can be fully and openly discussed and decided upon by the community. Off the top of my head, such a policy would provide guidelines for what kinds of talk would be encouraged or permitted on a talk page, and what kinds would not. It would also provide clear guidelines for enforcement (i.e. the policing of the contributions made to the page). I repeat, I understand ArbCom may consider some kinds of talk to violate the integrity of the arbitration. I just do not believe that this can be sufficient cause to prohibit any discussion at all. The community - and ArbCom - needs clear guidelines as to what are the acceptable limits to talk, and the acceptable limits to deletion by ArbCom or Oversight.

Frankly, I think you were wrong to prohibit any discussion. It seems to me that there was nothing going on on that page that could not have been policed using the same oversight criteria that are currently used to permanently delete certain edits; it is a simple matter of recruiting people with oversight to take turns enforcing existing policy. But I am sincere that I am not writing this in order to challenge your decision in this specific case. I assume you had some reason for believing that our current policies concerning oversight were inadequate. I repeat that my concern is that this situation is likely to come up again. Before it does, I think we need to have an open discussion about why you or other members of ArbCom find current oversight policy inadequate, and discussion of new or supplemental policies to cover these kinds of cases in the future.

If you think this is inappropriate or unreasonable I sure would be glad to know why. Otherwise, perhaps you can suggest the appropriate venue (and perhaps timing) and might want to help craft some possible proposals. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that I've seen this, and will respond in detail later in the week when I have a little bit more time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My quick comments on my observations to that cut off discussion. In my reading several commentors asked repeatedly for folks to stay away from speculation on the confidential materials, some of folks were unable to do so. If we develop a 'policy' or a guideline for these things, those folks are going to end up blocked for policy violating disruption. I'm not sure that's the best course. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that that would not be the best course, so let's make sure that it is not required or allowed by whatever policy we come up with. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A discussion is needed ...

I will be extremely busy with real-world issues until Friday or Saturday. My apologies to anyone to whom I owe an e-mail or a response to a post on this page; I will attempt to get caught up over the weekend. I also hope to resume work on both mainspace contributions as well as some of my on-wiki administrative projects (in connection with updating the Arbitration Policy and proposing some changes in how we handle BLP issues) as soon as my schedule permits.

In the interim, I did take a quick look at my watchlist, and came across the comments made by experienced Wikipedian, and my former colleague on the Arbitration Committee, User:UninvitedCompany, concerning the reasons he is no longer active on Wikipedia. Such a declaration by a long-term user who was regarded as a leader within the project is worthy of our attention, whether or not we specifically agree with his articulation of his concerns or any part of them.

I would invite this discussion: Has UninvitedCompany fairly summarized major issues confronting this community? What steps can be taken to address his concerns? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Some points are certainly justified, whereas others, I am not so convinced about. Perhaps you'd like to open up a user_talk subpage, Brad, to solicit input on this matter? (I don't think your talk page is quite the appropriate forum, if you wish for it to be readable and accessible for the next few months—this discussion is likely to be somewhat content-heavy!) AGK 23:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Because this is a volunteer project, and because we do lack and strong formal structure, the people who tend to take leads on issues are the ones with the most time to pour into them. I think this is trivially true, and it's an ongoing problem first noticed in 2001 or 2002 by Larry Sanger.

The other points are less obvious to me, but I think they're all true: I agree the treatment of new users is relatively worse now than when I first joined, perhaps an all-time low. I think harassment (his first point) is also more prevalent. Hobbyists should not receive the kind of abuse that some of our editors do. Cool Hand Luke 23:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that we should discuss this somewhere in Wikipedia. I've also opened a thread about it at WR [10]. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

UC makes some good points, but I don't believe they come from his heart, nor that his motivations are what he says they are. The UC I know has no place lecturing others on 'humility' and 'restraint'. When I started at this project I was nice and polite, but after several years of running into pompous assholes like this I became a very different editor. --Duk 03:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

His #7 I think is the most important. Numbers 2-4 while also true are primarly a consequence of that. #6 is probably true and also probably a consequence of #7. The primary cause of #7 is that we give lip service adherence consensus decision making model in the complete absence of any viable method of forming any real consensus, this will continue. What was viable with a small scale userbase isn't viable with a large scale. A lesser factor is the strong push against wheel warring from the ArbComm, which has largely served to empower those admins most prone to using their tools, as a consensus has to be formed before an action can be undone. This can be remedied by the ArbComm choosing to reject any interpretation of wheel warring that treats a first undo as a wheel war - 0RR needs to be thoroughly discredited. There are other causes for 2-4 and 6 than just #7, such as the sheer scale of administrative work to be done causing many admins to look for shortcuts, all of which also shortcut their self restraint. This set of reasons, particularly 7 and 2-4, are a large part of why I burnt out and resigned as an administrator earlier this month.

Numbers 1 and 5 are related but different. #1 is in some ways a consequence of the success of Wikipedia. I sometimes think that #5 is partially a consequence of #1 - the foundation has chosen to limit its exposure to harassment and liability by staying hands off of the content. This means that the foundation has also chosen to disengage from the actual work of the project, which naturally over time has disengaged it from those who are doing the work. We totally lack effective mechanisms to protect editors from #1 - we have a limited degree of preventative mechanisms to preserve anonymity but once an editor has accidentally or unwittingly exposed their data, the only effective thing they can do is vanish from the project. GRBerry 04:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a discussion is needed, and also agree with AGK's suggestion that you create a subpoage for the discussion.

Here are his points:

As of fall 2008, I have discontinued active daily participation in Wikipedia and related projects for several reasons:

1. Growing risk of personal and professional harassment from article subjects and fringe members of the community, combined with a lack of support from Wikipedians and Wikipedia-related institutions for people so targeted.
2. A distasteful lack of humility and self-restraint among leaders of the community as well as rank-and-file administrators.
3. Empowerment of people who are able to devote a majority of their waking hours to Wikipedia at the expense of those generally more experienced and level-headed contributors who have responsibilities outside Wikipedia that limit their participation to an hour or two a day.
4. An unwillingness on the part of the community to rein in vested contributors who flaunt the mores and values of the community.
5. The emergence of a governing foundation that is not only not accountable to the Wikipedia community, but is unwilling to engage with it.
6. A culture of insensitivity and disrespect towards new contributors.
7. A community aversion to structure and organization so strong that it ultimately empowers only those in the crowd with the loudest voices, strongest elbows, and most ruthless friends.

The Uninvited

I cannot say I have really felt a growing risk of personal and professional harassment - but we all know of a few very notable examples of people who were outed and have been harassed in real life. I know that we as a community have taken steps to deal with this, but I am very concerned that we have taken inadequate or counter-productive measures. In some cases, I think ArbCom has shown insensitivity to known victims of harassment. I am not saying that ArbCom has a legal obligation to provide legal or or off-wiki assistance to victims of harassment. But I do think ArbCom has to, but has failed to, accept and respond to the fact that people who have been outed once, could be targeted again. I think that it is more likely that some of the creeps out there will target someone who has already been been outed and harassed offline, than someone who has not been outed and may be less visible. ArbCom and Checkuser has to be sensitive to the fact that some Wikipedians are targeted more than others, and take that into account in their actions. Standards for the use of checkuser, for example, that may be applied to me are too loose for someone who has been outed and harassed. This is one example. I bet there are others I cannot think of. ArbCom has issued a directive that victims of harassment should report to ArbCom, but Durova has pointed out that ArbCom members are not trained in dealing with accusations or victims of harassment. I find this mind-boggling. Any major organization has officials responsible for dealing in the first instance with accusations or victims, and such people are necessarily trained. Maybe Wikipedia does not think it needs such people. But ArbCom has publicly accepted the role. Having accepted this role, they need to be trained.

As for two, I have mixed feelings. I know I sometimes come across as pompous, and I have encountered other editors who come across as pompous, and in most cases we have managed to iron out conflicts between ourselves on talk-pages, with good results. I guess the question is, pompous in what way? In my case, I was referring to a lack of humility concerning the topic of the article. But I have seen administrators act pompous not on the basis of their knowledge of an encyclopedic topic, but concerning their own sense of judgment concerning behavior at Wikipedia. I think this issue is related a little bit to no. 3 and more to no. 5. It is my view that administrators are servants of the community, given certain powers the same way a janitor is given keys to all the rooms in a building, and can control the temperature and elevators and such. Given such tools, a janitor can easily abuse them and a janitor who does abuse them should be chastised. But the janitor has these tools so he or she can help maintain the building, not because he or she is "better" than anyone working in the building. I remember one case many years ago, maybe 2002, when there was a disagreement between editors and an admin joined in saying something like this "I see there is some sort of problem between you two - I am an administrator here, tell me what is going on" and virtually everyone jumped on him for acting like a sheriff. It was made clear to him (and everyone else) that being a sysop did not mean that he was better than any editor, that he had any authority over any editor. Yet today I see many administrators acting as if they are a higher authority in the community. I am an admin but I have never even mentioned this in any conflict I have been involved in (I have never said "I am an admin so I understand policy better than you" or "I am an admin and you need to trust my judgment over how to edit this article"); sometimes I have come across conflicts among other users and I have tries, informally, to mediate - but I have never said "I am an administrator, therefor I can and will mediate." No, I simply tried to make constructive suggestions. In short, I have acted as an editor, like any other editor. As far as I am an administrator only insofar as I can block people who violate 3RR, vandals or other people who are repeatedly disruptive, or can unblock people who appeal their blocks and make a good case. Aside from these duties, I see myself as an editor like any other and hope people will treat me like an editor because I think editors have a higher status than admins. Editors write the encyclopedia; admins just provide certain services necessary to support the effective work of the editors. But as I said, I have seen a number of administrators who seem to think the opposite. I think the suggestion that there is an institutionalized hierarchy at Wikipedia is very destructive.

I agree with three. There are some editors who have not made many edits, but the edits they have made either created great articles or turned stubs or crappy articles into great ones - because they know how to do serious research, and are good writers. In my opinion we would be nowhere were it not for these editors. But they are seldom generally appreciated. There are other editors who are extremely capable with computers and internet technology, and have therefore been able to take a greater role in helping maintain Wikipedia or improve it, technologically. There are also editors who apparently have an endless amount of time to revert vandals and fix broken links and so on. I hope it is clear that I appreciate their work, and value it. What I am about to write does nothing to detract from their importance to the project. But many of these people, because of the sheer number of editors over a wide range of articles, are better known in the community than other editors who, with little conflict or controversy, have used relatively few edits to make a small number of articles great. Those editors who are better-known I think have an advantage when it comes to elections e.g. for admin or ArbCom. I see nothing wrong with this per se but I do think that an unintended and unfortunate consequence is that there are many great editors who are not well-known or who do not have the time who end up excluded from positions of power. I am not sure what the solution to this is except to recognize that positions of power are also positions of service, and not status.

I am not sure about four. Is he talking about "ownership?" I think we have a dilemma: I know some articles that would be crap were it not for one, two or three editors who happen to have done extensive research on the topic. It can appear that they "own" the article. If they reject other people's constructive edits I'd say we really have a problem, although the people I am thinking of I have always seen them patiently explain why they think a suggested edit is a bad idea, and I have seen them welcome good edits. Or is he talking about the problem I address in point three?

I think five is a very serious problem. ArbCom and checkusers and ultimately the foundation do not operate with adequate transparency or accountability. In some cases, this may be unavoidable. In some cases though perhaps this is something we really can address. I can't say more on the topic, because it is very complicated. But we do need a thoughtful discussion about it.

Six is a problem, but a complicated one. As Wikipedia expands exponentially we attract many well-intentioned newbies who need to be welcomed and respected, but we also attract many trolls and the community is not so large and new that many people cannot recognize a troll, or are afraid to deal with them. Instead we have a multiplication of behavior policies meant to police behavior which obviously are not adequate. I sometimes find myself dealing with newbies in an abrupt way and I regret that, so I do think we need to be more sensitive. But some of these newbiews, and not longstanding editors, are the bullies we need to watch out for.

It seems to me that four and six are related, and that UninvitedCompany is suggesting that the problem is a gulf between people who have been around a long time and people who are new. I would put the issue differently. I do not think the real problem is a divide between old veterans and newbies. I think that there are two different problems that are at issue:

1. the growing hierarchy at Wikipedia. The problem is when a hierarchy gets institutionalized. This happens when people who occupy a special office - admin, ArbCom member, or checkuser - assume that everyone they deal with knows that they have special knowledge which entitles them to deference and authority. Obviously, every editor knows more about something that other editors; we should always defer to greater knowledge or better arguments when it is demonstrated. But when it comes to resolving a dispute on a talk page or improving an article, we should not treat any editor better than another. Obviously too in some cases involving disputes a checkuser does know more than someone else. But this does not mean they always know something that others do not. They need to be clear about it, and the scope of the secret knowledge has to be specific and clearly delineated even if the contents, the actual knowledge, cannot be disclosed. I have also seen some people claim to know more because of off-line or IRC communication. Unless this is directly related to ArbCom or CheckUser business, this kind of talk should have no place here. The editing of the article should be transparent and occur on the relevant talk pages. But there are some people - veterans and newbies - who like hierarchy and want to create hierarchies among users, and there are others, again, veterans and newbies, who value the ideals of the open community, even if it has to be somewhat chaotic. Policies like NPOV were created to provide a framework for an open community and frankly I think NPOV is a more important policy than CIV when it comes to maintaining the open community ... some people distinguish between content and behavior policies and think of NPOV solely as a content policy but the fact is it provides a framework for a heterogenious community, a community in which diverse views clash ... the very idea of "wiki" embodies this ideal, and I think institutionalized hierarchies and a lack of transparency are the greatest threats to it.
2. This leads me to the other major concern, a grave lack of diversity among Wikipedians. For the open community to function as we wish it to - I mean practically, to have the effect of writing a great encyclopedia, a compendium of knowledge reflecting diverse views, we must have a diverse community. We do not have enough editors of color, for example. Editors identified as women are clearly often treated differently than men. The issue is not simply newbies, it is creating an environment where we attract and retain a diverse group of newbies. I am not sure I am advocating some kind of affirmative action, but we all need to be more aware of behavior that discourages members of under-represented groups - any kind of under-represented group - from participating in the project. A persistent racist, for example - even if s/he never directs a racial slur at me, and thus does not violate CIV, cannot be tolerated here.

I am not sure what the final point means. We have some structure - ArbCom, maybe we need more, we used to have a more clearly defined conflict resolution process and now perhaps too much of a burden is placed on ArbCom, maybe we can use other mediation mechanism that are less formal than ArbCom but more formal than what we currently have. But I think the "wiki" nature of this place means it will always have to tolerate and indeed welcome some kinds of conflict and contention as part of the open-community process by which diverse ideas are considered and judged.

In short, I do think that incivility and bullying are problems, but in more specific ways than UninvitedCompany suggests. I think these are tied to people who have been outed or harassed, or are prominent targets of vile trolls (like Morrow), and to people from under-represented groups who are often scoffed at or attacked and otherwise made to feel unwelcome. And the growing institutionalization of hierarchy which necessarily disempowers the open-community of wikipedia editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with and endorse 1, 2, 4 and 5. Ordering them from most problematic to least: 5 and 2 tie as most problematic, 4 next, 1 last (notwithstanding the notable exception of the owner of this talk page :-).

3. Not necessarily mutually exclusive. I devote a lot of time to Wiki: does that mean I'm not an "experienced and level-headed contributor who ha[s] responsibilities outside Wikipedia"? This is a problem in some areas (MoS wars come to mind), but in many areas, one level-headed post can re-orient an entire discussion, and prevail.

6. Maybe, not sure. I was mentored by some exceptional Wikipedians when I was new, and before I became so busy at FAC, I tried to regularly return the favor. I've seen a lot of energy expended by many editors on new users.

7. Possibly, particularly at the most distasteful places on Wiki, like AN/I. It has been argued that FAC works because it has a structure/organization unlike any other part of Wiki.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

7 I see as a problem as the 'pedia grows, definitely. Probably agree with 2 and 5. Would be good if UC had itemised what his particular problems are that led to this; I know finger pointing is not a good thing but some diffs may be helpful. Cautiously agree partly with 6, but as Sandy points out, lots of folks try to help as well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets see. Most of this is not new, but an ongoing problem in the community for a long time and reason that many good editors have left wikipedia. I generally agree with each of them, and just wanted to add a bit about the next items mentioned by UC.

3 Empowerment of people who are able to devote a majority of their waking hours to Wikipedia at the expense of those generally more experienced and level-headed contributors who have responsibilities outside Wikipedia that limit their participation to an hour or two a day.

One of those categories are called experts. They generally have 80 hour faculty positions, but can with a minimum of effort contribute an enormous amount of level-headed and sound content, but they are generally wiped out by professional POV edit warriors who have nothing else to do than to push their own POV.

4 An unwillingness on the part of the community to rein in vested contributors who flaunt the mores and values of the community.

Amen!

7 A community aversion to structure and organization so strong that it ultimately empowers only those in the crowd with the loudest voices, strongest elbows, and most ruthless friends.

This is the key of the problem. At current, wikipedia is a battlefield where the strongest survive and push their agenda.

These issue shave been raised before by others, and will be raised by others in the future, because the request is that the system that favours those currently in power disfavours those currently in power. I think you need something like a hanging ArbCom where if you have done anything wrong as a sysop, you loose your bit, no discussion. Some for editors, you can go play somewhere else. The bottom line should not be that if someone can be contribute at some areas within wikipedia, they can stay with restrictions. The bottom line should be that if you misbehave, we have no space for you. And finally, I think we should get something like an content arbcom, who's members are required to be academics, who can judge evidence and come up with a binding recommendation.

Ok, the above is maybe a bit more radical than I would like to go, but the same reason that the US has such a sucky education system where many still try to promote creationism as valid science is behind the mediocracy of wikipedia, namely that everybody can vote over everything, resulting by default in a mediocre encyclopaedia, with a lot of POV pushing by professional edit warriors. Anyway, my somewhat extreme views.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that many years ago I forwarded the idea of an ArbCom for content disputes at the List-serve an here at WP and it never gained any traction. I am not trying to discourage KimvdLinde, on the contrary, I think she raises a very important and valid point. Based on prior discussions an ArbCom for content may not be the solution, but the problem is real: there are disputes over content but all of our dispute resolution is keyed to violations of behavior policies. I think we need two things: First, teeth to enforce our policies against demonstrable, clear POV warriors, and against people who come to WP solely and persistently to promote OR. Second, a mediation process (perhaps not binding arbitration, but compromise-seeking mediation) meant to resolve conflicts over content. We now have Wikiprojects for most general areas of knowledge, perhaps members of such projects could form mediation teams. Kim, this may be too far from anything that would satisfy you, but if these proposals appeal to you (or anyone else) I would be happy to work on crafting a formal proposal with someone. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to go as far to say that if there was effective and binding recourse to content disputes, many disputes related to process would not be there either. What I have seen when I was more active at WP, was that skilled editors would twist and turn and insinuate over and over again till the opposing editor would make a mistake and explode after which the poor fellow would be blocked, banned etc. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

To add, content mediation now is a farce, because I have seen it to often that as soon as it gets clear that ones position is intangible, they walk away from the mediation. Often, mediation results in the weighted average of the various fractions, and if the POV fraction is sufficiently large, their point gets in the page with undue weight. You really need a body that can say: "Nice that you have a well-organized group for the promotion that ...., but the evidence that you presented does unfortunately not support your claim of fame. Case closed." It would really drive the point home that you need reliable sources for your point. Such an arbcom can also end the misuse of WP:RS as is currently practised, which often is just shifting the issues to discussion whether a source is reliable or not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

verb clarification...

• I just thought.....An unwillingness on the part of the community to rein in vested contributors who flaunt the mores and values of the community. ....erm, is this "flaunt" as in "to show off", like nerdy stuff, or "flout" as in "defy"....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Willing to withdraw RFAr request

Read your opinion. I don't completely know how you reach your conclusion, but that's okay. I'm convinced you get the argument I was making, and you know all the details and all the players far better than I.

I submitted the motion in the thought that have an outsider raise it would make it easier to resolve the situation, rather than forcing arbcom to be both "plaintiff" and "jury" in the dispute. But, if you don't think its existence being helpful, I'm happy to withdraw the request (although I'll let a clerk or someone wiser than myself make the actual withdrawing/archiving. ). --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn, no archives as such to put in apparently.--Tznkai (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

@Tznkai: If the "RFAr request" in question is a full request for arbitration—posted at WP:RFAR#Requesting arbitration—then an archive does exist; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. AGK 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a request for clarification/modification/enforcement, not a new case. No archiving necessary. (In appropriate cases, these requests can be archived to the talkpage of the underlying case, but I don't think that is needed here given that the request was withdrawn.) Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)