Jump to content

User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Dec

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"No consensus" on unblock requests

(Maybe this belongs on the A/R page, but I intend this as a loose policy comment, not as a dispute statement)

I saw that on the "unblocks and enabling", you posed the question of what no consensus on an unblock request results in. Certainly an interesting question, and one where there is no explicit policy. Generally, "no consensus" usually results in "no change". That is why no consensus leads to "keep for now" at AFD, "no promotion" at RFA and so on.

Applied to an unblock request, I feel that the result of "no consensus" depends on the situation. I have in the past weeks closed two unblock requests, TT and TPO/WH. In both cases there was a 60-65% opposition to the unblock, and I denied the requests. An important factor, but not the sole factor, in the discussions was that the original blocks were strongly endorsed at the time. Furthermore, the underlying problems which led to the blocks in the first place were still causing major concern. The situation might, mind you I say might, have been different if we were dealing with a block immediately after it had been imposed, with a significant majority saying that these issues shouldn't have led to a block. In that case, I might have declared that there was no consensus for the block to begin with, and that the default is "no block". So to answer your question, I would propose the following as a start:

  1. If a block has been imposed or proposed, but a community discussion yields no consensus for the block, then the user should usually be unblocked.
  2. If a block has been imposed and endorsed by community consensus, then a later unblock request should be supported by a consensus in order for the block to be lifted.

Long blocks are not endorsed by the community unless there has been a very long/and or egregious conduct issue. The severity of such an action means the community should be reluctant to impose such a block, on the other hand the severity of the conduct leading to such a block being endorsed means that they should not be overturned all that easily once they have been imposed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  • "So all of this can be food for thought for MF— although I already anticipate his response that no one gave me permission to be familiar and call him MF and that the only MF in this conversation is probably me." Perhaps inadvertently you touch an interesting point. Being English I never have, and never would, call someone a mother fucker (which is what I presume your MF reference to mean). People would just assume I was taking the mickey out of American movies, it would have no bite. And contrary to what you may have been led to believe, if I called someone here "a dozey arse" they more than likely wouldn't take offence, just get their arse back in gear. It's completely unrealistic to impose a single standard for civility across the English-speaking world, and deeply offensive when that standard is a Bible-belt USA one. Malleus Fatuorum 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Unless one just minimises the risk of offence by refraining from coloquial name-calling entirely.--Scott Mac 10:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
      • One may do as one pleases, ultimately by not writing anything at all, as so many here seem to do. Why is it that so many are drawn to the policing of this site rather than its production? Why is it that pretty much everyone who writes is given such a hard time by those who can't? Why is it that it's perfectly OK for administrators to call other editors disruptive, dicks, troll, or worse, but piles of bricks are dumped on any regular editor who expresses some minor dissatisfaction? In short, why can't editors like yourself spend a little more time reflecting maturely on their own behaviour instead of constantly criticising others? Malleus Fatuorum 13:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
        • With respect that is all both terribly true and, at the same time, blatent obfuscation. The reality is that the name-calling you choose to engae in, and you've admitted is, for whatever cultural reason, sometimes causing some people offence, is always going to cause some people offence. When that happens they are going to waste their time (and yours) criticing you and asking you to desist - which is going to (apparently) piss you off. That circle of time-sink is as old as Wikipedia and isn't going to change. Shouting at me that my commentary is simply adding to that time-sink is true (and I do wonder why I'm wasting my time, but it is my time to waste) but also irrelevant, since if I don't respond to you someone else will (yes, always). Bottom line: whatever the rights and wrongs, and whatever your intentions, if you persist in name-calling then time will be wasted (both yours and others). Now, you are bright enougt to know that - yet you persist. As you will, but my conclusion has to be that you choose to because (as much as you protest it) you to some degree don't mind (or even enjoy) the predictable circle of time-wasting drama it will inevitably cause. That's your choice, but it is also the definition of a troll. Opps, I called you a troll - you have a right to object and call me hypocritically uncivil - rinse and repeat (Oh and, since I know that may happen, I am by definition also a troll). Oh well, that's wikilife. Anyway, write an article, continue wasting time reponding to me, or go make a cup of tea - the choice is yours (and equally mine). Yours, trollishly--Scott Mac 13:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for a belated response to this thread. Sjakkalle, your approach makes sense to me on first reading. As it happens, the other night I was searching through the list of old ArbCom decisions looking for something unrelated, and realized that this whole group of issues has been contentious, including before the Arbitration Committee, and I've been commenting on it, for at least the past four years. (The truly curious can check the case pages in RfAr/Sadi Carnot and RfAr/Ferrylodge.) Hopefully the community will have sorted it all out before another four years have gone by....

Malleus Fatuorum, I described my comments to you in my long past as meant as food for thought for you. Have you done any additional thinking? For the record, Scott MacDonald has well summarized much of what I was saying. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't add patronising to your already irritating pomposity. Malleus Fatuorum 14:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Definite progress: no curse words. :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on User talk:Iridescent

Please explain your comment on User talk:Iridescent that you have been in communication with "Wikipedia's head office." If appropriate, you may respond by e-mail rather than here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Which e-mail would that be? Sleuth21 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You may use the "e-mail this user" link at the left of this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:V

I was just wondering what the latest on this was. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded - the delay is becoming somewhat glaring, so some sort of timeline for a resolution would be helpful. Of course this doesn't mean you need to rush to produce the statement, but the process seems particularly opaque at the moment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't vote in the RfC, so if you need someone else to help in your deliberations, I'm willing and able to assist. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, I've noticed that neither Brad nor Black Kite have been editing in recent days. Maybe you should contact User:HJ Mitchell.--FormerIP (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I did ask Brad a while ago what method of discussing things privately suited him, but I don't think he got back to me. Since he and Black Kite seem not to be very active at the minute, I might take you up on that offer, Cla68. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think Cla68 has the kind of reputation that would qualify him for this. Hans Adler 09:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    Cla68 is an editor in good standing, and I think most people would agree that having such an important RfC closed by a single editor is less than ideal. Yes, in an ideal world, we'd have a team of experienced admins to close it, but since the only other two who volunteered are busy at the minute, I'll take all the good-faith offers of help from experienced editors I can get. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    I am still looking for sarcasm markers but can't find any. Cla68 doesn't exactly have a reputation for honesty and impartiality. Saying that he is "in good standing" is like Bell Pottinger saying they didn't break the law. Hans Adler 12:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    Cla68 is an editor in good standing: Cla is under arbcomm sanctions for WP:ARBCC. Does that mean he is "in good standing"? Naturally, I'm interested in the meaning of that phrase William M. Connolley (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Brad, I have started a deliberation page here. Please jump in and add/subtract/disagree/agree with what I've started there. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. I suggest you ask for a speedy per U2 before this goes to ANI or worse. Hans Adler 12:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thing is, I seem to recall Cla68 voting in one of the earlier debates on the "not truth" sentence (I could be wrong...?). If so that takes impartiality right out of the equation. I'll check now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be hard to find someone qualified who hasn't at some point commented one way or the other on this problem. I would not have opposed Cla68 on these grounds. The problem is that he is simply not qualified to determine a consensus in such a way that the community will then accept it.
I think you are most likely thinking of this, by the way. Hans Adler 12:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
In that case it looks like I may be closing it on my own. It'll be Monday afternoon at the earliest before I can devote sufficient time to it. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 14:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
There's just been a request for help at WP:AN, and so far two possible helpers (one of which is yours truly). I too am unlikely to be able to devote sufficient time before the weekend, but I'll try and read up on it where I can. WormTT · (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The RfC has been closed. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Valid use of alternative account?

This is a courtesy notification as I believe you are peripherally involved in the following AN/I thread.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Valid use of alternative account?. The thread is "Is Sleuth21 using an alternate account properly?".The discussion is about the topic User talk:Iridescent. Thank you. --Senra (Talk) 14:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The discussion isn't on ANI - it's on AN, at WP:AN#Is Sleuth21 using an alternate account properly? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

NewYorkBrad's absence

While NewYorkBrad has been off-wiki lately, he has been in contact with the arbitration committee via email, and has provided us assurances that he will return to active editing when circumstances change appropriately. He sends his apologies to those of you anticipating his participation at the RfC and elsewhere. Jclemens-public (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sort of back

Well, I guess that's what a wikibreak feels like. A bunch of real-world circumstances (work, travel, others) crept up on me all at once, and I suddenly found myself offline for quite a bit longer than I'd anticipated.

I'm more-or-less back now, although my activity will remain limited until around New Years. My apologies to anyone inconvenienced by the time I was away and by my not having anticipated how long I would be offline.

Best wishes to everyone for the holiday season. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum arbitration

Everyone who has been active in any sorts of Wikipedia dispute resolution is "involved" with Malleus. Another "Wiki-22":

  • Malleus has been gray area disruptive for so long ArbCom needs to address the issue.
  • Arbitrators should not participate in cases they have been involved in.
  • Malleus has been gray area disruptive for so long all arbitrators must recuse themselves.
  • ArbCom can't address the issue because all the arbitrators have recused themselves.

Please take the case. Ignore the subsequent whining. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Pesky and the dude from the Betacommand case.

In what world is Pesky not P*** H**** ( a.k.a Pastor Theo)? Also, the key opener (who's since gone quiet) in the betacommand case is equally as clearly a.k.a John254. Do try to keep up.101.118.43.156 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Activity note and Happy New Year

I'll be away for the holiday weekend with limited online time and access until mid-day on Tuesday. Happy New Year to everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

  • File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
  • Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
  • Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Dec&oldid=1141078403"