User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Jul
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Newyorkbrad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dorothy Murdock / Acharya S.
Please see Talk page comment. Can I ask were you randomly contacted to make this change?, as several other editors have been. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was not contacted by anyone, but I saw a discussion on another website that led me to look at the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, cheers, that's how some of the other editors have been attracted. I saw a BLP board notice about 2 years ago. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Inactivity note
For a bunch of reasons (mostly RL, but not all), I'll be mostly inactive for the month of July. This includes as an arbitrator, an administrator, and an editor. (Exception: I will remain active on the American politics arbitration case.) I'll be checking this page occasionally during the month, but much less frequently than usual. Regards to everyone, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Enjoy your break. Illegitimi non carborundum. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
High-handed
I'm most unhappy about the threats you've issued on the Signpost interview talkpage. Tony (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry you feel that way, but I found your insistence on excluding an alternate format for the interview that would be much more convenient to many interested editors to be unreasonable. Insisting that any cross-reference to the transcript be buried midway down the comments section made it likely that most people would miss it, whereas either cross-referencing it in the article or quoting it in the body would suffice to avoid that problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? Because the only "threat" I see is to "ask others to comment on the matter". This seems like a productive step when two editors have reached an impasse. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 02:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've resigned from my position as a Signpost writer because of this. Tony (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that certainly isn't what I wanted to happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nor me. I am appalled. Tony (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've gone back and removed the link. Tony1, your position remains unfathomable to me, but this isn't worth losing anyone over, and I don't plan to spend my time off worrying whether that's what I caused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you should worry about that Brad. The Signpost needs writers but ...really, blaming yourself is just not woth the extra stress as I don't see it that way. I'm not much but I have an opinion. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Good to know, NYB, that you don't really care. And you don't care that you and your ArbCom colleagues still allow that abuser, Scott Martin, to be an admin. Shame on you. Does he abuse newbies, and women? You don't mind his anatomical insults? You're quite comfortable with his running over to WPO to mount large-scale abuse from the rooftops, are you? It's disgraceful, and while this Scott Martin remains an admin, I have no respect for ArbCom, or for you. You're meant to protect the site from that kind of thing, yet you are shamefully silent while witnessing the abuse on that page (and WPO). Tony (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you should worry about that Brad. The Signpost needs writers but ...really, blaming yourself is just not woth the extra stress as I don't see it that way. I'm not much but I have an opinion. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that certainly isn't what I wanted to happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've resigned from my position as a Signpost writer because of this. Tony (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? Because the only "threat" I see is to "ask others to comment on the matter". This seems like a productive step when two editors have reached an impasse. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 02:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Tony, from a purely bureaucratic note - Arbcom is only proactive on taking away tools in emergencies regarding said tools, or other situations that lead to a clear need for removal of permissions. If you genuinely think that User:Scott, should be looked at by the committee, you need to do the legwork and raise a case. In the mean time, you need to stop making unevidenced accusations such as the ones you are making, which targetted at a real person with a real name (a name which I should point out doesn't match his username). In my opinion, which is worth very little, you and Scott would both be better served by ignoring each other all together - especially by no longer commenting on the other. WormTT(talk) 07:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't read your rules lately, but this abusive admin is breaching basic civility policy in very public places. But we've always know that there's one rule for admins, and another for everyone else. The evidence is on the page in which Scott Martin's outbursts are documented. How would I know his surname if it wasn't displayed onwiki? Tony (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Did you know... that in addition to abusing women and
childrennewbies, Wikipedia Administrator Scott Martin enjoys kicking small dogs and tearing the wings off flies? - That one's for free. — Scott • talk 09:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, I didn't know, - you hurt me by (probably absolutely civil) "pointed silence" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not exactly - breaching basic civility policy (a much more muddy area that you'd believe) does not equal tool removal - as you say, it should be one rule for all, one consequence for all. In my mind, the consequence should be "talk to the individuals, try and calm things down". Civility is never something that should be dealt with by something in the admin/crat/arb tool box, because pressing a button doesn't improve the civility. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that there has been not so much as en eye-blink about this wanton abusiveness on a very public page is evidence of a sick state of affairs on this site. Don't be surprised that respect for admins is a low point, and will probably sink lower: this kind of behaviour by those who are charged with enforcing the policy is unconscionable, but you find it just fine. The associated off-wiki abuse is yet more evidence of extreme unsuitability for a position of responsibility on this site.
A corollary of this, I presume, is that arbs don't really care about the editor retention and gender gap crises. Why would someone stay when faced with such abuse that is accepted without let? And the fact that here he is able to joke about it in this thread? You're encouraging it with your failure to act.
Only an admin could get away with saying "it sounds like pretentious babble", "Pretentious babble it is.", and "Utter codswallop. You wouldn't know an "attack" if it hit you in the backside." There are lewd anatomical references on the Wikipediocracy thread dedicated mostly to attacking me in public. Happy, WTT?Tony (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that there has been not so much as en eye-blink about this wanton abusiveness on a very public page is evidence of a sick state of affairs on this site. Don't be surprised that respect for admins is a low point, and will probably sink lower: this kind of behaviour by those who are charged with enforcing the policy is unconscionable, but you find it just fine. The associated off-wiki abuse is yet more evidence of extreme unsuitability for a position of responsibility on this site.
- Did you know... that in addition to abusing women and
- I haven't read your rules lately, but this abusive admin is breaching basic civility policy in very public places. But we've always know that there's one rule for admins, and another for everyone else. The evidence is on the page in which Scott Martin's outbursts are documented. How would I know his surname if it wasn't displayed onwiki? Tony (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Tony, from a purely bureaucratic note - Arbcom is only proactive on taking away tools in emergencies regarding said tools, or other situations that lead to a clear need for removal of permissions. If you genuinely think that User:Scott, should be looked at by the committee, you need to do the legwork and raise a case. In the mean time, you need to stop making unevidenced accusations such as the ones you are making, which targetted at a real person with a real name (a name which I should point out doesn't match his username). In my opinion, which is worth very little, you and Scott would both be better served by ignoring each other all together - especially by no longer commenting on the other. WormTT(talk) 07:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Happy is far from where I'm sitting - I can see both sides of the argument, both sides have a valid point of view. Neither is willing to compromise - and I find that a shame. But, I'm not going to get into that - I've no interest in picking a side, I'm interested in finding an end to the squabbling.
I spoke to Scott about his civility about a year ago (it was rather hard to follow due to his habit of removing messages) and from what I've seen he's generally been more restrained in the past year, I've certainly not had reason to talk to him again. The comments you complain about do not fall below the average level of discourse on Wikipedia in heated situations. Would I like to see the general civility raised? Yes. Would me going after Scott achieve that? No. If you believe there to be a pattern of behaviour or that Scott has lost the trust of the community, you need to do the legwork and show it. The Arbitration Committee is small, we don't have the resources to actively seek out or investigate problems - we are not "protectors of the wiki" or anything like that. We're a group that makes tough decisions based on evidence at the request of the community.
As for should arbs care about editor retention or the gender gap, only as much as any other editor. We each have our own priorities - mine are issues which rarely come to light, because people like me are focussed on handling them. I don't apologise for that. WormTT(talk) 12:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking as the husband of an occasional editor who happens to be deaf, and who expects such interviews to be available in transcript form, I am astounded that an editor would resign from a project over such an expectation. I am sure that there is something here that I am missing. But if I can't fathom the legitimate point, do we expect that our new disabled editors will do better? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ironic that someone who so publicly objects to "lewd anatomical references" would email a user privately and invite them to perform anatomically impossible acts. Or that someone who complains about "wanton abusiveness" would repeatedly send large files to someone's email with the message that they were being sent intentionally to disrupt the user's email service. At this point I have to wonder about the [female] editor who originally started the transcription of Lila's interview with such enthusiasm, but has now fallen so strangely silent. Has she too been receiving private messages telling her she is an enemy and to get out of Wikipedia? I should hope that these kind of intimidation tactics have no place at Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- It would be uncivil to stoop to abuser Scott Martin's level by suggesting that your behaviour here, like that in the discretionary sanctions debate, is delusional. So I won't. I'd like this continual bullying of me to stop. Tony (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose I could post screenshots, but they wouldn't exactly be the kind of material for a family website. —Neotarf (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- We don't censor. Post away.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- No e-mail screenshots here, please. Allegations of e-mail abuse need to go to ArbCom if private information is involved. (I'd be recused, obviously, even if I were currently active.) This whole situation leaves me weary and sad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I can't argue with that.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sadder still, because it's a former colleague. Never fear, I would never disturb the somber atmosphere of this august talk page with something so plebeian as a screenshot. But I was up last night past 4 am dealing with the email thing. And I'm sure I'm not the only one receiving nasty emails. —Neotarf (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- OTOH you don't know and not so long ago you were making accusations about virus/malware from various websites. John lilburne (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Knock wood when you say that (and I do appreciate the help I got with that when I brought it up). These days I'm only dusting tracking cookies off my feet when I visit The Dark Side. —Neotarf (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- OTOH you don't know and not so long ago you were making accusations about virus/malware from various websites. John lilburne (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- No e-mail screenshots here, please. Allegations of e-mail abuse need to go to ArbCom if private information is involved. (I'd be recused, obviously, even if I were currently active.) This whole situation leaves me weary and sad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- We don't censor. Post away.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose I could post screenshots, but they wouldn't exactly be the kind of material for a family website. —Neotarf (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- It would be uncivil to stoop to abuser Scott Martin's level by suggesting that your behaviour here, like that in the discretionary sanctions debate, is delusional. So I won't. I'd like this continual bullying of me to stop. Tony (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikibreak wikireading
Two books I've ordered and will be reading soon:
- Dariusz Jemielniak (User:Pundit), Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Pundit's related Slate article, "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia", is here and is recommended reading.
- Charles Seife, Virtual Unreality: Just Because the Internet Told You, How Do You Know It’s True? The New York Times review, not very flattering to Wikipedia, is here.
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hey NYB, would you be interested in writing a book review of Jemielniak's book for the Signpost when you're back to editing? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Perhaps I'll cover both books if that's all right. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reviews in the Signpost or wikinews would be most welcome. And I could try to gather material for articles if you wanted. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- That would be even better! I didn't want to ask for too much, that's all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that Pundit's Slate article makes too much of the gigantic number of policies, guidelines and essays. As a very active Teahouse host, my guess is that I rarely mention more than 20 or 30 of these in my interactions with befuddled new editors. Usually, linking to just one or two solves the problem. I think most productive, experienced editors are pretty familiar with our core content policies, which are not that difficult for a person of average intelligence to understand. If a major effort was made to weed out obscure or obsolete essays that no one reads and no one cites, what would be gained? And I rarely hear an editor saying, "Gee, I wish I could write a new policy, but it looks like they have all been written. What a bummer!" Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, New York Times Book Review v. New York Brad Book Review. I know which one I would rather read. Ah, but what about the look and feel, ...here is NYT, narrow margins, individual icons for the reviewers, a small color illustration. Compare with LRB, double margins, a few icons rather than proper images. Oh well, the SP is wiki markup after all, not marketing tricks, and the readers will be mostly interested in content. —Neotarf (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the main gain in weeding out obsolete articles would be increasing clarity and simplicity of rules. Pundit|utter 01:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mind guidelines so much, but I do have a problem with the sheer profusion of essays, many of which are written in such a manner to come across as guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've felt for a while that part of the problem with those is that somewhere down the line it became acceptable to give an uppercase WP:SHORTCUT to everything, rather than only actual rules. Those shouty links have a sheen of frequently-undeserved authority. — Scott • talk 07:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mind guidelines so much, but I do have a problem with the sheer profusion of essays, many of which are written in such a manner to come across as guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the main gain in weeding out obsolete articles would be increasing clarity and simplicity of rules. Pundit|utter 01:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, New York Times Book Review v. New York Brad Book Review. I know which one I would rather read. Ah, but what about the look and feel, ...here is NYT, narrow margins, individual icons for the reviewers, a small color illustration. Compare with LRB, double margins, a few icons rather than proper images. Oh well, the SP is wiki markup after all, not marketing tricks, and the readers will be mostly interested in content. —Neotarf (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that Pundit's Slate article makes too much of the gigantic number of policies, guidelines and essays. As a very active Teahouse host, my guess is that I rarely mention more than 20 or 30 of these in my interactions with befuddled new editors. Usually, linking to just one or two solves the problem. I think most productive, experienced editors are pretty familiar with our core content policies, which are not that difficult for a person of average intelligence to understand. If a major effort was made to weed out obscure or obsolete essays that no one reads and no one cites, what would be gained? And I rarely hear an editor saying, "Gee, I wish I could write a new policy, but it looks like they have all been written. What a bummer!" Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- That would be even better! I didn't want to ask for too much, that's all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reviews in the Signpost or wikinews would be most welcome. And I could try to gather material for articles if you wanted. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Perhaps I'll cover both books if that's all right. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hey NYB, would you be interested in writing a book review of Jemielniak's book for the Signpost when you're back to editing? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Mail call
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Ronnotel (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Your WP:ARCA comment
I've read your response to my request for clarification. I understand why you may believe that the situation is so clear as to render a request for clarification superfluous, but I've perceived the dismissive, patronizing tone of your reply as insulting, and as not in keeping with your reputation for professionalism. I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider your attitude particularly to fellow administrators who want to help you with your job. Regards, Sandstein 09:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was trying for once to avoid the sort of long, discursive commentary for which I've become infamous. Perhaps I overshot the mark in this case, which wasn't the intention. I do think that the consensus on AE was sufficient that a clarification was required, but in any event, the clarification you were seeking has now been provided. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Please help me
Please help me out from user Redtigerxyz's edit war.Each and every single edits of mine interrupted by him.long before he did the same. again he started.Really this is painful for me.He might be join with some other editor then my move is so pitty.before he did the same so said.if you see the history of mine and him then you come to know.please help me in this.thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about the topics the two of you are editing to be of much help here. Regrets and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Ordinance 7.3
It did lead me to an interesting and thought provoking read that I'm still digesting (and already grateful for having read), but not sure what contribution I made to warrant a thanks. [1]. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- I see that I inadvertently typed your name instead of someone else's who had pointed out the typo. I have no explanation except for premature senility. I am not sure whether an apology on my part is needed for an unwarranted thanking, so we'll deem the thank-you converted to a global thanks for all your efforts on the project instead. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- I just wanted to make sure it wasn't premature senility on my part. On the upside, I'm better for reading the story, so if it was a mistake, it was a beneficial one. I'm fond of parables and I had previously added WP:Farmer Brown here. It's kind of funny, but you are the reason I changed the story from the version I had heard, from "lawyer" to "stockbroker" as I didn't want anyone drawing parallels here at enwp, and since Farmer Brown is an alt account of mine. Anyway, I enjoyed the story, so good things came from it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon!
.jpg)
Greetings!
Sorry for the last minute update, but our friends at the DC Historical Society have scheduled a Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War battle fought in the District. The event will last from noon to 2 PM on Wednesday, July 30. Hope you can make it!
Best,
(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail
Message added 08:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 08:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Roma locuta est and AN talk
Nice to see that literacy has taken hold in ArbCom <g> although I find any arb seemingly acting as "primus inter pares" may be taking classics too literally (noting some dicta therefrom). More to the point, have you read the interminable "civility discussion" at AN Talk? In particular the point raised that an editor with a great many edits should not be deemed incivil for a minuscule percentage of edits using impolitic language (or arcane references in Latin) while other editors with fewer edits get a bye for using "c**t", "f**K" and the like depending on which admin is deeming the words a violation of decorum on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I read enough of that discussion to know I didn't want to read any more of that discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah...I read too much myself to be honest.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Availability note
Like--Mark Miller (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Teahouse
Very nice to see you at the Teahouse. Please drop by any time. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Cosmologist downgrade protection
First off, thanks for the help over at AN/I. Although it was beyond what I had originally proposed, I think it was the right thing to do, and it looks like that's what the consensus was (I think I may have been excessively cautious about this because my interactions with Holybeef have been very frustrating, and I was worried that would bias me). In the related case regarding the fluctuating-IP editor (here), the result was unfortunately 1 month's full protection on both pages. Since there is no "content dispute" without Holybeef and the other editor is an IP editor, would it be possible to drop the temporary protection from full to semi-protection, so the (logged-in, autoconfirmed) editors left at the respective pages can start the cleanup? Let me know if I'm out of bounds by asking this directly to you - I'm not sure if it's the sort of thing I should be doing via an {{edit request}} or appeal directly to the protecting admin (Ged UK), but it seems like a natural follow-on to the Holybeef action. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Oops, forgot to give the page links:
- Alan Guth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Laura Mersini-Houghton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sorry. Thanks. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Let's wait until tomorrow to see if there are any unanticipated developments. Assuming not, I'll lower the protection then (or if I'm not here, any other administrator should do so). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good, no rush - I think in the current state of both articles there's nothing potentially libelous, just a very minor POV issue on Alan Guth, so it's nothing that can't wait a bit. Thanks. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's done :) GedUK 12:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good, no rush - I think in the current state of both articles there's nothing potentially libelous, just a very minor POV issue on Alan Guth, so it's nothing that can't wait a bit. Thanks. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Vandal
- Thebitc Has Smotherfrickin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
That user is making disruptive edits at own talk page. Do you need to remove the user's access to editing its own talk page? You blocked the user without revoking the user's talk page access. Eyesnore (pc) 01:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like another administrator already got to this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Book review
Hey NYB, just reminding you about this. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed; I'll be finishing it up tonight (NY time). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
dubitante
Where one has well-founded doubts about even taking on a case, then one should simply oppose taking it on. "Dubitante" is more apt for decisions after a case has been accepted where a judge thinks a precept or proposition is wrong but where he does not feel competent to declare it invalid on his own. Appeals courts are generally the ones to look at the invocation of the term, and are generally far more willing to rule on the underlying precept or proposition. Frankly, the case is, IMO and IANAL, to be a hopeless morass quite equivalent to having the committee thank a long stroll in the Everglades. Tell me when you are south of Lake Okeechobee. Collect (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Put it this way: Why do you think the Justices don't typically record dissents from grants of certiorari? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Certiorari is generally a writ for a lower court to review (not reverse) a previously decided case - not a decision about whether to hear a case in the first place as a rule. (SCOTUS uses certiorari to basically hand the ball back to the lower court and not to indicate that SCOTUS actually decided that the decision has to be reversed, AFAICT. All it means is that 4 justices agree the matter should be reviewed.) The judge in the case being appealed may have done so "dubitante" - but one does not "dissent" from forcing a review of a decided case. In the example at hand, the WMF issue was not yet a case at all, much less one which had been decided. Be sure to use bug spray. Collect (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- You've missed my point; perhaps my fault as I wrote in haste. A justice—or an arbitrator—may express reservations about accepting a case, as I did to some extent in my preliminary comments on this one. But once a majority of one's colleagues have taken the case, there's limited utility to continuing to intone "this is a mistake, I know better than the rest of you, and we shouldn't be deciding this." Sometimes it's better to say, "I wasn't sure this is the right move, but the rest of the Committee were elected just as I was and have their share of wisdom, and the majority has ruled so let's see what productive we can do with this." I've written about this question before, as have scholars of real-world tribunals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Certiorari is generally a writ for a lower court to review (not reverse) a previously decided case - not a decision about whether to hear a case in the first place as a rule. (SCOTUS uses certiorari to basically hand the ball back to the lower court and not to indicate that SCOTUS actually decided that the decision has to be reversed, AFAICT. All it means is that 4 justices agree the matter should be reviewed.) The judge in the case being appealed may have done so "dubitante" - but one does not "dissent" from forcing a review of a decided case. In the example at hand, the WMF issue was not yet a case at all, much less one which had been decided. Be sure to use bug spray. Collect (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alger Hiss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanley Reed. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Question regarding publicly accessible Arbitrator data
Thank you in advance for your grossly under thanked efforts on the Arbitration committee. I would like to get an initial thought about a project that I've had noodling around in my head. When Arb elections come up with the exception of the candidates statement, there is some information available, we are potentially missing components that would compose performance based metrics. I am toying with the idea of going back over the cases in which an arbitrator has been on the committee and extracting data (Did the arb vote on the acceptance of the case request, Did the arb ever comment in the evidence, Did the arb ever comment on the workshop, How long between the Proposed Decision being posted and the arb's first response to the proposed decision, Did the arb participate in the motion to close). The idea is to get a more immediate idea of which arbs are underperforming and which ones are meeting performance expectations. I know this leaves out an entire different set of data in terms of the private ArbWiki and the committee's mailing list, but the voting public cannot make evaluations on non-pulbic data. Part of this is driven by the perennial promise by members of the committee to be more transparent with its deliberations, yet the promise always being minimally (or never) delivered on. Do you have any thoughts prior to my starting this project? Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate the kind words at the outset of your post.
- I'm not sure it would be easy to measure the quality of an arbitrator's performance in statistical terms as you propose. As one example, thinking back on six-plus years of my own performance, sometimes when another arbitrator posts a proposed decision on-wiki I vote right away (presumably that would reflect positively in my statistics) while other times it takes me a few days to vote because I'm traveling or distracted (I suppose that would be a negative if the delay lasts beyond a certain point). But what if I'm following the case closely but am holding off on voting because editors are commenting on the proposals on the talkpage and I want to evaluate what they have to say before I make up my mind—does that put me in the "dilatory voter" column or the "thoughtful, deliberate arbitrator" one? And so on.
- All that being said, I suggest that you speak with Paul August, who kept track of this sort of statistic for several years. I believe Carcharoth did some of this sort of thing too awhile ago, but I may be misremembering. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ideally my project would have been more of making the data more accessible, not to pass judgement on the data. I envision the data as more a drill down per arbiter that has the digested data per case, and then a summary section per arbiter that gives average delay and percentage of the "Yes" to the binary questions. I would see this as potentially useful data to people who write the arbitration voting guides in the sense that they could focus on whatever criteria to determining the good/adequate/bad thresholds for response. I would also see this data as useful when looking at ways to streamline the Arbitration process because I believe that 3 months for a case single threaded is far more deliberation that SCOTUS gives it's cases. Hasteur (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I understand. I suppose the other relevant consideration is how many of the sitting arbitrators will run for reelection. (I have no information except that I'm not.) I'd be reluctant to see you put umpty-ump amount of time into creating a database to help decide which arbs should be returned to office or not, and then it turns out that few of the sitting arbs seek another term. But there's probably no way of knowing that until at least October.
- Frankly, at this point the importance of ArbCom these days is widely overstated; as you've noticed I'm sure, we decide a lot few cases now than we used to (for reasons I've blogged about), so the role of ArbCom is decreased relative to that of community/noticeboard decision-making, which has been under-studied. But that is a different discussion.
- Finally, I absolutely agree that three months is too long for the ArbCom to resolve any case. (How long it takes the Supreme Court to decide a case is a different discussion we won't start here.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ideally my project would have been more of making the data more accessible, not to pass judgement on the data. I envision the data as more a drill down per arbiter that has the digested data per case, and then a summary section per arbiter that gives average delay and percentage of the "Yes" to the binary questions. I would see this as potentially useful data to people who write the arbitration voting guides in the sense that they could focus on whatever criteria to determining the good/adequate/bad thresholds for response. I would also see this data as useful when looking at ways to streamline the Arbitration process because I believe that 3 months for a case single threaded is far more deliberation that SCOTUS gives it's cases. Hasteur (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The activity reports referred to above are at the ArbCom history page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History#Activity reports. I did that half-yearly one back in 2009. It looks like Paul August did stats for the years 2008-2011. Whether he did more than that, I don't know. Hope that helps. I've sometimes thought that individual arbs should keep their own records of what they do, as they are best placed to do this. Carcharoth (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- The 2011 data is the type of data I am interested in bringing to the surface and making easy to read for end users considering candidates for Arbitration (or re-election of expiring arbiters). Thank you Carcharoth Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)