User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2010/Apr

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

PHG

Re: [1] - it's under discussion on arbcom-l, pursuant to an e-mail forwarded to us by CHL. Steve Smith (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment in the clarification section

Hey NYB, I hope you don't mind, but I added a link to the "most recent comment" in your statement about the out of process deletions. I wanted to tie the phrase with the actual most recent comment because if Scott posts again, it will no longer be the most recent comment ;-).---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Userpage deletion comment :-(

Oh, Brad. I'd have never believed this comment would have come from you. :-( Aren't you the person who endorsed users keeping "find my secret page" contests? User name changes for "one letter user name" clubs? What happened to your usual belief that what we did with our user pages, barring truly extreme hostile content, was our business? Or is a humorous page about Snow Weasels now truly extreme hostile content? And the other half of your comment there frightens me more. What happened to supporting the consensus of the community? That you would think of summarily closing a discussion where the consensus is clearly to overturn ... What happened to you, man? --GRuban (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Well, as you've seen, I didn't do anything summarily, was just venting a little. I do usually agree that users should be given lots of latitude in their userspace, but that goes more for people who are also either contributing substantively (whether by writing or by vandal-fighting or whatever), or at least showing some inclination toward contributing in the future. More significantly, I would have been sympathetic to a concern about the deletion of this page if it had been raised (even most informally) by the person whose page it was. There's no indication that that user is still around or even would have noticed the deletion.

Therefore, what we had on DRV is a long and increasingly contentious discussion about the deletion of nonsense material posted a couple of months ago, which was of primarily theoretical importance. Now I enjoy a good discussion of wiki-philosophy as much as anyone, but honestly, there is an awful lot of very important work still to be done around here, and plenty of important policy issues and deletion discussions still to have. One of my pet peeves is lengthy, divisive debate about things that don't matter so much, at the cost of the community's time and attention toward the things that do matter very much. That is what I was trying to express in this instance, although I obviously expressed it badly if you and others reacted as you suggest.

Hope this helps explain the thinking behind my comment, and I'd welcome your further thoughts. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. If all you wanted to say was "this is a waste of time", that's fine, you're not the only person saying that there. (Though you may notice it did cause me to look into User:Doxiedana's contributions, and make Sachs Electric, which may not be an FA any time soon, but hopefully isn't a waste ... volunteers work in mysterious ways.) It didn't come out that way, thought. It seriously frightened me that you seemed to be threatening to use not just the admin's mop, but the arbitrator's uber-mop (hose?), to stifle discussion; I think that's what frightened others as well. Clearly not everyone thinks it's a waste of time, and those that think it matters should at least be able to state their case. --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Having one's comments given undue weight is a hazard of this title, and one of the reasons I rarely comment on the noticeboards anymore. In retrospect I shouldn't have made this exception. Thanks for letting me know of your concerns. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're in power now - you can only accumulate enemies from those who could have done it better ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thank you. Your calm response has done a lot to alleviate those concerns. I'm neither an enemy, nor certainly not someone who could do it better! Carry on, counselor ... or your honor... --GRuban (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA !vote

Just notifying you that I have stricken the number of your neutral !vote on Polargeo's RfA. The sardonic comment itself is fine, or at least I understand the intent behind it, but I find that casting a counted !vote with that rationale (even a neutral) is over the top. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that neutrals have no effect on the result? Gurch (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

They have no effect on the result. Taken to excess, they may have an effect on the morale of candidates. Given that the average number of pending RfAs in recent weeks has been zero or close to it, this is a concern. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is more a combination of the decline in new contributors, strengthened "us vs. them" mentality between administrators and regular contribtors, and obviously the ever-increasing standards demanded of candidates, than anything to do with neutral votes. Gurch (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Newyorkbrad. There is a discussion concern the striking of the vote here. I hope you're well. :-) --Deskana (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware. I will follow the discussion with interest. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Proposed decision#Anonymity and conflicts of interest

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Proposed decision § Handling of COI allegations

 – EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me asking this here - if it would be more appropriate to the Proposed decision talk page or somewhere else, please feel free to move/refactor/whatever. Both you and SirFozzie have noted that the COI allegations were "not handled well". Since it was me that handled them (initially by dealing with the outing issue then via email with some of the parties), this appears to be a censure of my actions at that time. If so, I'd greatly appreciate any pointers you could give me as to where I went wrong and how I could have acted more appropriately. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 09:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I actually didn't particularly have in mind your initial raising of the COI issue in writing this finding. I was more concerned about some people's continuing to harp on the issue on-wiki, even after it was noted that there was an outing risk and the matter might be better taken elsewhere.

If you would like more input on this, a post on the talkpage of the proposed decision might draw more arbitrators' eyes than here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz

"he has strongly held views on the history and status of Gibraltar"

Actually no I don't. I also sign myself as Justin the Evil Scotsman after being accused of demonic posession - I would appreciate it if you noted that.

May I also ask a question, does this mean arbcom isn't going to consider the conduct related to WP:CPUSH? Effectively that means editors have gotten away with it. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 10:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Well, all I can say is that your editing led me to believe that you have some strongly held views, and I don't think I'm the only one to have reached that conclusion. But if you want me to delete the reference I will do it.

The words "signs as Justin the Evil Scotsman" were included simply to avoid any initial confusion—as I once had—along the lines of "who is User:Justin A Kuntz? I don't see any posts from Justin A Kuntz." No pejorative implication of any sort was intended.

With regard to what you characterize as WP:CPUSH, my impression is that the conduct in this area did not rise to the level of requiring an arbitration finding. That does not mean that anyone has "gotten away with" anything; please note that the discretionary sanctions remedy, if adopted, will provide uninvolved administrators with enhanced tools to deal with any sort of disruptive editing on the Gibraltar-related articles. If you still think that a more specific finding or remedy on this aspect is warranted, you can post to the talkpage of the proposed decision, where your post will be seen by the other arbitrators. Although I have done the initial draft of the proposed decision, other arbitrators are free to propose additional principles, findings, or remedies if they think they are warranted. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No I don't have strong views about that, I do have strong views on people using wikipedia to push nationalist agendas though.

Actually I think the problem of "what I characterise" as WP:CPUSH on that article has driven certain editors nuts to the point that they have become uncivil and has contributed to the entirely poisonous atmosphere. So yes, they have gotten away with it, the results of their actions is to be punished but the underlying problems isn't tackled. It has been an ongoing problem that arbcom and AN/I has not tackled. Worse those people are encouraged by getting rid of the editors who opposed what they wanted by topic bans. As I feared, the field is cleared for them to do what they want.

What is the point of a section for examining and going over the evidence if it isn't then used?

And with respect, what is the point of posting to the talk page, what I've already brought up in the workshop and previously at AN/I for it to be ignored. It was a case with no previous attempts at long term solutions, despite their being proposed. What you're proposing isn't addressing the problem. The discretionary sanctions remedy? No it doesn't address the problem.

In the course of this case I've been called demonic, racist, prejudiced, a liar and the old Rottweiler reference dragged up again. Seemingly with impunity. Kind of ironic considering some of the comments made in the proposed decision. Justin talk 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Response to Newyorkbrad — Runaround?

Newyorkbrad -- Your comment here in Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is relevant in the currently open Tang Dynasty thread: You explained that "[i]n general I dislike giving good-faith requests the runaround."

You may recall that you summarized the Tang Dynasty's Gordian Knot as a "welter of words" here.

Any assertion or response I tried to present was overwhelmed. What evolved in the past year has taken on a life of its own. Whether viewed from the starting point over a year ago, or construed in the terms of this one "clarification" thread, this has been a runaround.

Why?

What distinguishes this Tang Dynasty thread from a "runaround"? If this is not a "runaround", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Newyorkbrad -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do?

I look forward to your further comments; and I continue to hope for action. --Tenmei (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Risker's response on her talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Case Comments

I just wanted to bring to your attention a few things on the Gibraltar case.

1. When I was having problems I said some regrettable things, which I have apologised for, if you still feel a topic ban is appropriate then I'm not going to argue about it. I just make the point that bans and blocks are supposedly preventative not punitive. I made those remarks whilst in a bad place, they haven't been repeated and they're out of character. Now that I am a lot better is it still appropriate?

2. The assertion that the self-governing status of Gibraltar is an "opinion" not a fact. Sorry but I cannot accept that remaining in the case. Gibraltar is self-governing, it is a fact that the Spanish editors could not dispute. Instead they have tried to use a combination of synthesis and original research to try and minimise the status in the article. Their motivation in doing so is based on Spanish nationalism toward Gibraltar, where it is portrayed as a British colony on stolen Spanish soil. Those comments are only serving to buttress Spanish nationalism to skew the POV of the article not to achieve NPOV. I think you're being incredibly naive if you feel those remarks are helpful in steering the dispute, I can see those remarks coming back to haunt you in various nationalist disputes.

3. When this case was started, I couldn't participate fully as my father was ill and another editor was hospitalised. The evidence produced by a number of editors who've effectively held the article hostage was directed toward removing editors they disagreed with by topic bans; you'll note that I didn't propose of suggest any blocks/bans/sanctions against individuals. Effectively what you're proposing is to remove one side but leave the other intact. You're rewarding editors for baiting others into uncivil remarks.

4. In reading your comments I can only conclude you have apparently disregarded the workshop. In the workshop there was case of RHoPF hounding editors, walls of text being put up to derail discussion by Ecemaml, non-apologies such as "I'm sorry you were offended by my joke" not to mention examples of bad faith and uncivil remarks:

[2] activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination
[3] "Gibnews' rottweiler" repeated [4]

[5] I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here.
[6] So that is three untruths in the same section from you, Why are you telling untruths here, Justin?

5. In the workshop, the editors were lobbying to have my conduct examined more fully. I would still welcome that.

6. This was never an arbcom case, there had been no previous attempt at long term solutions. I can only note my bitter disappointment that arbcom would punish one group of violators while allowing another group of violators to go free without even a token slap or even have their conduct examined at all. Particularly an editor who apparently delights in teasing and tormenting those with temporary mental problems. I've seen this editor hounding people for years and I can't believe he is going to get away with it again.

The solution you're proposing might reduce conflict, well if you ban only one side then what's left can violently agree on skewing the POV of the article. What it isn't is a long term solution, I did propose something like this some time ago [7], it would be more workable. Justin talk 09:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidance for younger editors

Just wanted to thank you for launching that. :) I haven't had much experience dealing with kids engaging in unsafe behavior on Wikipedia, but it came in handy for me today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I wrote the page in response to some concerns that had been raised, and as a statement of what I take to be consensus as to best practices. There was some commentary to the effect that it was too long and my wording too complicated (one of my fans offsite remarked that it was probably my attempt to bore the younger editors to death), so I never finished polishing and publicizing the existence of the page; we probably should go ahead and do that at some point. But I'm glad it was helpful in at least one instance. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

RevisionDelete?

Hi, I happened on ... and the personal data in versions ... - I see you're on the WP:OVERSIGHT list; shouldn't those versions be RevisionDeleted, or at least suppressed? AV3000 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

For future reference, if you notice anything of this sort again, please send an e-mail with the links to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org and someone will address your concern directly. See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. It is best not to post links to problematic revisions requiring oversight on-wiki, because that only publicizes the existence of the private information. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that I followed the instructions on that page and tried to IRC the admin channel but got no response. AV3000 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)