Archives

Index of archives

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

What do you envision as the format of the panel discussion? For example, should each of us take one of your examples, read it, give our opinion and then open up for questioning? What do you have in mind? Can we give our own examples? How about other reasons for non-publication beside BLP (such as military secrets; for instance, the Afghan War Diary). I note that your examples concentrate on US law and journalism. Even the English Wikipedia has adherents from the UK, Australia and India, which have different publishing ethics. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. I think our panel is on the schedule for Sunday afternoon. Will you be at the conference on Saturday? If so, perhaps you and I and anyone else involved can sit down for a few minutes and discuss what's the best way of doing it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be there before 10 both days. When and where do you want to meet? How about lunch Saturday? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should work for me. I'll be there both days as well, so I'm sure we'll find each other. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be offline for a couple of days because of a death in the family. I'll respond to the messages above when I return and resume working on other pending matters (principally including contributing to the Climate change arbitration decision, which is being worked on by the other drafters in my absence, and voting on the Race and intelligence case). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYB, I'm very sorry for your loss. ATren (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my condolences at this difficult time. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of you and your family, with sympathy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences, too. Take your time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences, from here as well. No hurry. Despite all the calls for CC resolution, reality always takes precedence, and it is better to get it right :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear. Leave CC to the rest of us if you like, but no pressure take care of yourself and yours first it can always wait. Polargeo (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for your trouble Brad. Look after yourself and your family. --John (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to hear this. Bishonen | talk 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please accept my sympathies. Keep your priorities in order -- Wikipedia can wait. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My best wishes too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences from Heim. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to everyone's who's posted here, and everyone who e-mailed after seeing this, and everyone who just read my note and thought kind thoughts. I'm back to activity, both on-wiki and working on the pending cases (though I would appreciate a few days' grace from "where's the decision already, please?"; trust me, we know that we must get it finalized sooner rather than later). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NYB,

Thanks for your comments.

Following the statement that you made on the proposed decision page, I have prepared the following tentative suggestion for a minor modification of the proposed conduct finding on me for possible discussion. I have made 3 amendments at the beginning: mathematics as the single subject to which I have contributed most; autumn (or Fall) 2007 as the time I became active on R&I; and April 2010 when I started making content edits at the end of mediation. I included one of your phrases almost verbatim, as it seemed to me to be an accurate appraisal. I slightly changed the statement about edit warring, incorporating the words "aggressive" (Carcharoth) and "combative" (Shell Kinney). Amongst the diffs for edit warring, seemingly copied from the evidence of Captain Occam, I removed diffs of evident IP edit warriors, who were subsequently blocked, and diffs that were not reverts, but just the addition of new material. I have left the final sentence, despite your stated misgivings.

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed to a wide range of articles, many focusing on mathematics and baroque music, since they first edited Wikipedia in February 2006. Their interest in articles related to race and intelligence appears to have started in autumn 2007. Almost all their content edits to these articles began in April 2010 following a mediation process. Since then, within the area of dispute, the user has acted in good faith in what he perceived as an attempt to protect articles from being skewed by what he perceived as a group of editors pushing a point of view with troubling overtones. In the area of dispute, however, he has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [1][2][3] and in edit summaries;[4][5] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier";[6] routinely threatens other editors with blocks,[7][8][9] and has made other, veiled threats.[10] His editing of articles and their talk pages has been unduly aggressive and combative, with borderline edit warring in May [11][12][13][14] and June.[15][16][17][18] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration.

Apologies again for the long-windedness of my evidence and many thanks for ploughing your way through it. Cheers,Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want other arbitrators to see this, you should post it on the proposed decision talkpage. (You can also eliminate the "singular they" in the process, as I don't think there's any question as to your gender.) Thanks for your note. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this and yes, the singular they entries need to be changed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object to me copying this over to the proposed decision talk page? I have a few points to make, but they should be made there, not here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this over already to the proposed decision talkpage (with a copy submitted to the ArbCom mailing list) with Newyorkbrad's suggested copy edits. Thank you again for your patience. Mathsci (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this? It's all getting to be a bit much and I'm going to take a break from Wikipedia for the sake of my own sanity (possibly a very long break, given the broad hints as to what the final decision will be). If any of the arbs would like to reach me in the meantime please use the email link on my talk page. Good luck with your negotiations. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a proposed decision up as of now. I personally regret very much that it took this long, but hopefully we can move forward from here with productive comments on the decision, voting, and finalization of the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of the assigned clerk, and because it is quicker to do than to ask other Arb Clerks, I have semi protected the above Proposed decision page. I have sprotected indefinitely, but as I am an involved party I suggest that someone "take over" the responsibility of the protection and the appropriate duration. I have also RevDel one of the vandal edits, but since this is more difficult to assign to another editor I shall desist. I am copying this to all drafting ArbCom members, and the Clerks talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I endorse the semiprotection. As for the mock proposed decsion, no comment I suppose, except I smiled at some of the comments attributed to me; in mockery sometimes there is a germ of truth. (I'll emphasize again that I'm only referring to the comments about myself.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked this user's talk page under the right to vanish. However, the user is apparently still actively socking (see User talk:BunyanTree). Given that the user has chosen not to vanish, I believe that they have voluntarily chosen to give up RTV, and we should restore the page for the benefit of those checking for future socks. Do you have any objection to doing so? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have to admit that I do not remember this situation well, several months later. Let me take a look at it again in the next day or so and I will post further here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the proposed decision that was posted tonight reflects input from several arbitrators, particularly the three drafters (Risker, Rlevse, and myself). It will now, of course, be discussed and voted on by the committee as a whole. I recommend that any input regarding the proposed decision be posted on the proposed decision talkpage, rather than here or on any other individual arbitrator's talkpage, so that everyone will see it and have an opportunity to consider it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Semantically, I moved "may edit only from one account" to the end of the sentence for clarity, as the status quo is that this editor may edit from no accounts at all."

As an editor with no account I think your phrasing is still not precise enough, but that's a quibble. 67.122.209.167 (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PD is odd in many way, but this [19] as a BLP vio is probably the oddest. Is that a pasto or did you really mean it? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while I'm here: is it reasonable to include edits that pre-date the BLP policy? [20] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]