Sticky Parkin (talk | contribs) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
::If any editor thought that was a genuine run for Arbcom, then I would love to see the pages they write. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
::If any editor thought that was a genuine run for Arbcom, then I would love to see the pages they write. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::There's sort of a crossover where people vote for joke candidates (they often get ''some'' votes, don't they?) because they like the joke or are agreeing with the person's views about arbcom in some way. Some of the candidates who are unlikely to get in (of which there are several) and sometimes know it, could also be seen as joke candidates. People who are voting still deserve to know who they're voting for, don't they, even if they decide too vote for a less serious candidate, perhaps as well as some proper ones. Anyway, you never know, they might get in.:) [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
:::There's sort of a crossover where people vote for joke candidates (they often get ''some'' votes, don't they?) because they like the joke or are agreeing with the person's views about arbcom in some way. Some of the candidates who are unlikely to get in (of which there are several) and sometimes know it, could also be seen as joke candidates. People who are voting still deserve to know who they're voting for, don't they, even if they decide too vote for a less serious candidate, perhaps as well as some proper ones. Anyway, you never know, they might get in.:) [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::Lady Catherine would not have won a place on the arbcom, she was sadly in the bracket of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giano/On_civility_%26_Wikipedia_in_general#The_Unwell_Wikipedian unwell sock about to be killed off] and had Gerard and his friends not fabricated a reason to checkuser her (namely: that she was editing in the style of one of Jimbo's arch enemies - so ridiculous that Wikipedia would die laughing, WR orgasmic if it ever leaked) she was doomed to die the night before the poles opened - she was just sending up IRC and the Arbcom, and that is what one or the other of them could not stand and bear. The question is now, Gerard remains unfired, which suggests he was not the ringleader, so if not him - who? [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:10, 19 November 2008
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Optional question for ArbCom candidates
Please review the evolution of the legal rule and analysis discussed in this article and compare with how Wikipedia policies are developed and applied in arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, is that a joke that lawyers e-mail to each other, Brad? I get "10 reasons you might be a redneck" sent to me and Brad gets that? I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer. Tex (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've written a couple of "legal humor" pieces myself, and I don't claim that any of them will cause side-splitting laughter in the general population (or even among other lawyers, but that's a different discussion). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- What? You mean people weren't laughing at that? Sheesh, some people have no appreciation for humour... Risker (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was hilarious and also oh so accurate about how things happen on wiki and real life. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- What? You mean people weren't laughing at that? Sheesh, some people have no appreciation for humour... Risker (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've written a couple of "legal humor" pieces myself, and I don't claim that any of them will cause side-splitting laughter in the general population (or even among other lawyers, but that's a different discussion). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Russia
I'm very interested into things Russian at the moment, it seems your not [1]. Just because I am busy at the moment does not mean I'm oblivious to the antics of the Arbcom, or not keeping an eye on them. Giano (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand the basis for your view that I'm not interested in the pending cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I merely meant I find Russian matters very interesting, I also meant that perhaps you are not interested in Stalin-like trials that's all. I used to read a lot of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn fascinating man, fascinating life. I wonder how he would have faired as an editor here, probably told he was not meeting the MOS, not using enough footnotes, and forcing POV, I expect. Then again, perhaps he would have felt in familiar surroundings - Who knows? Nice talking to you Brad. Giano (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
NFCC 8 propose change
Hi Newyorkbrad. I saw your post at DRV and thought that your opinion would benefit a discussion I started. Please consider commenting at NFCC 8 propose change. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ping
Hi Brad. I hate to pester you and I know you're busy, but I was wondering if you'd received my email. Best wishes. MastCell Talk 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did receive it. Travelling today, but will answer over the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
November Arb stuff - RFArb page
Request your votes on proposed motions - particularly the one(s) affecting Bharatveer case and Hoffman case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Still reviewing both. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Bylaws process (ending December 1)
Per discussion at the November 16 New York City meetup, bylaws will be decided on-wiki with a deadline of 2 weeks to complete the process. Please read the proposed bylaws, and comment on them before the process ends on December 1. Thanks for participating!--Pharos (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Faulty RFCs
Seeing as the Slr_1 RFC MFD just closed as delete, I was wondering if you would be interested in deleting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney (also prior VFDs and from the same banned user as Theresa Knot and Slrubenstein), or should I file MFD again for each? MBisanz talk 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Principle 6: Editorial disputes and "The Wrong Version" and Principle 3 in Piotrus 2
Hi Nyb. Based on your comments on PD page, I think we share the same views on these principles in Piotrus 2, but in line with the note I left for Kirill (on his talk page), I'd like to see more done - not merely a comment on PD page which won't appear on the main case page.
Time is really not on my side for the rest of this month or I'd have considered making a workshop proposal myself. But I was hoping Kirill, as well as yourself, would perhaps consider my request for you both to draft an alternative proposed principle (#6.1) - one that broadly touches on those caveats you mention (without being icky and excessively long like the motion on the RFArb page)? Would appreciate it, and sorry to bug you about this at this point instead of while it was at workshop. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: Piotrus Arbcom comments on me
I'd actually thought the Boleslaw thing was over when I filed the arbcom. If you look at the history, you'll notice that after a week in peace Piotrus reverted back to the version he knew 4 other editors opposed, after the arbcom hearing was started. I reverted him a few times as has been said, he reverted me, and it went back and forth over a few days. Not to reveal too much about my overly-cynical brain, but when Piotrus started putting misleading summaries of what was happening in his evidence, my own stupidity dawned on me and I realised that this was probably the reason he started it back up again in the first place; and I haven't really been back to it since that realisation. I won't lie to you though and pretend I feel guilty about these reverts, I don't, arbcom FoF or not; Piotrus wasn't addressing the points on the talk, and so frankly what else was there to be done? It wasn't about nationalist POVs or something, it was about the scholarly credibility of various assertions. Although the revert could have been left a while, this would only have been for show so that future commentators would have been less likely to label it "edit-warring". The reverting did in any case have an effect, as Piotrus' reverts became less and less drastic, as did mine. Sometimes that's just the way it has to happen, and it does indeed work, despite the fact people are very vocal about disapproving of it. I wasn't blindly editing up to 3rr and waiting for my next chance [which is the edit-warring I'd start disapproving of]. The "reverts" were actually spaced out. You also sometimes need to be reverted a few times to accept that you're gonna have to work harder in editing the article, as you realise the other side is actually committed; something which sometimes has to be reaffirmed after a substantial post has been made to a talk page, either by oneself or another. This is part and parcel of the editing cycle for normal content editors. It's ok for some people to moralize about all reversions, but this is completely vacuous sentimentality and could only ever be convincing if a relevant alternative were offered, something I've yet to hear for such circumstances. I do however realise I was personally very stupid. Anyways, thought I should explain in more detail. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Giano etc
You say it was common knowledge that this was G's sock- well no it was not to everybody. What if it was an editor whose only involvement in the politics of wikipedia was to vote at Arbcom or perhaps for some RfAs- I imagine quite a lot are like that? They would have had know way of knowing without having to dig around and make guesses, as they wouldn't make a habit of reading giano's talk page like a lot of us do.:) Even ncmvocalist said he didn't know. Sticky Parkin 12:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- If any editor thought that was a genuine run for Arbcom, then I would love to see the pages they write. Giano (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's sort of a crossover where people vote for joke candidates (they often get some votes, don't they?) because they like the joke or are agreeing with the person's views about arbcom in some way. Some of the candidates who are unlikely to get in (of which there are several) and sometimes know it, could also be seen as joke candidates. People who are voting still deserve to know who they're voting for, don't they, even if they decide too vote for a less serious candidate, perhaps as well as some proper ones. Anyway, you never know, they might get in.:) Sticky Parkin 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Lady Catherine would not have won a place on the arbcom, she was sadly in the bracket of unwell sock about to be killed off and had Gerard and his friends not fabricated a reason to checkuser her (namely: that she was editing in the style of one of Jimbo's arch enemies - so ridiculous that Wikipedia would die laughing, WR orgasmic if it ever leaked) she was doomed to die the night before the poles opened - she was just sending up IRC and the Arbcom, and that is what one or the other of them could not stand and bear. The question is now, Gerard remains unfired, which suggests he was not the ringleader, so if not him - who? Giano (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's sort of a crossover where people vote for joke candidates (they often get some votes, don't they?) because they like the joke or are agreeing with the person's views about arbcom in some way. Some of the candidates who are unlikely to get in (of which there are several) and sometimes know it, could also be seen as joke candidates. People who are voting still deserve to know who they're voting for, don't they, even if they decide too vote for a less serious candidate, perhaps as well as some proper ones. Anyway, you never know, they might get in.:) Sticky Parkin 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- If any editor thought that was a genuine run for Arbcom, then I would love to see the pages they write. Giano (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)