User talk:Newyorkbrad: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:53, 18 January 2008

To keep conversations together, I will generally reply on this page to messages left here. If you would prefer that I reply on your talkpage or elsewhere, please feel free to let me know.

Archives

Description of archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007

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

This is Newyorkbrad's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad will be travelling or otherwise busy in the real world with limited Internet time and access until approximately January 23 2008. My mainspace editing and administrator work will be on wikibreak until then. I have also moved myself to away/inactive regarding new arbitration cases, but will remain as actively engaged as possible on cases where I have already participated, including the IRC case. Please forgive any delays in responding to any messages left here. Please post any new messages by clicking here. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying?

I was idly scanning over your talk page and noticed your barnstar above, so I started reading the proposaed decisions.

While I have no opinion on the case itself (haven't been following it much), the addition of the word "bullying" attached to threatening and harassing seems to be problematic in that it's woefully subjective.

All the user need do is stress their point in a discussion and be accused of "bullying".

Any chance someone could pull out a thesaurus and find a more precise word? : ) - jc37 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. All of these related concepts (harassment, bullying, etc.) are somewhat subjective and, like the policy at WP:HARASS, rely on editors and administrators to be able to distinguish trivia incidents from significant ones. Thus, I don't think "bullying" is too subjective a word to use in this context. I understand the nature of your concern, however, and you are welcome to post to the proposed decision talkpage to see if others share it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like it will close at this point. I just would rather not see an editor, debating passionately, being blocked for "bullying". I think that the other two terms are much clearer in usage. But I suppose it's moot at this point. Anyway, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, someonedid comment on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Proposed decision#Bullying. But it's now closed, with that wording. I guess that best I can hope is that my suggestion for being proactive will prove unnecessary. - jc37 10:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Gohde 2 case

I see you moved yourself to away in this case, however you have voted in it. From my understanding this conflicts with the majority etc., although I'll defer to your knowledge if this was deliberate. I just thought it might have been an accident or something. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake; thanks for catching it, and please move me back to active. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, I had a few minutes online today so I've fixed it myself. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parole

Hi again Brad. I thought I was losing it there as I was going to correct you, but you had corrected yourself first! Incidentally, just who is supervising Vintagekits' parole? Although he has definitely calmed down of late, he can still be pretty spiky from time to time. Clearly this would not be a proper place for me to use or threaten to use my admin tools; but it would be good to know where to post any further complaints against him. In this historically difficult area of Wikipedia it seems to me that only a close-to-zero tolerance of incivility, trolling and partisan editing will enable a proper encyclopedic atmosphere to pertain. It seems to me that this is not currently being achieved, as R fiend's case readily reveals. I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the subject. --John (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus you really are a nightmare - stop moaning and whining and get on with editing and added to wiki. I've been too busy adding to and creating new articles to get dragged into your games which are just a bloody headache. If you want to know what I have been up to recently all you have to do is look here - Kiko Martinez‎, Jose Legra‎ , Oisin Fagan‎, List of All-Ireland Fleadh Champions‎, Paddy Barnes‎ and Michi Munoz‎ - yet you want to come here to try and stir something up because I have been "pretty spiky" - cop on, grow up and edit some articles instead of going around looking to be offended.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian economics

"There is no evidence of any attempts at even talkpage discussion of the content issues raised."

Have you read this? User:Zenwhat/Evidence. It's been updated substantially since you made your judgment, per criticisms made by Auburn (some that were correct) and also, diffs which establish the relevancy and discussion with East718 have now been included. Zenwhat (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at Talk:Austrian School (Austrian School being redirected from Austrian economics. I see no edits on that page in over a month. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because editors are ignoring the D in WP:BRD. Look at my last edit in the recent history. I even started a specific section entitled, "Please discuss your edits," linking to it in my policy summary in a desperate hope that they'd follow WP:BRD. But then Tparameter reverted my edits twice without doing that. Zenwhat (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Unfettered_Personal_Attacks,_Bullying,_and_Stalking_on_Asian_fetish

I've posted the following response on the arbitration board and would like to know what you meant by "appropriate involvement of administrators". thanks

Response to Newyorkbrad: I am confused by your suggestion can you please clarify what "appropriate involvement of administrators" means? I already noted that I went to 3 admins for help. One ignored my request for help. The second told me to look elsewhere. The third told me that the problem is with me telling others that I will initiate an arbitration. Also note that User:Cool Hand Luke is an admin and is an involved party. So 4 admins will not help me resolve this personal attack issue. And the last time we on the page did RfC User:Cool Hand Luke came to the page and user:Crotalus horridus came back after taking a long hiatus from editing this article.Tkguy (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tkguy (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Congress dates

As you may have noticed at Wikipedia: WikiProject US Congress, I've given up on the March 3/4 discussion. I found the pro-March 3rd editors' views were unreasonable (thus it was best that I departed, as my patients were spent). Anyways, goodluck on the Congress articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

How long do people usually have to wait for a response on RFAR Clarification? Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Days if you're lucky. Thatcher 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esp if it requires arb involvement vice just clerk help. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, the individual at issue continues to be a contentious problem. See that article's Talk page and the most recent comment on my User Talk pages to confirm that I'm not the only editor who's noticing the contentious problem. More admins lurking there would be a good idea, at least until the clarification issues. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on WP:RfAR. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Samurai Commuter is clearly User:BryanFromPalatine - User:DeanHinnen, picking up from where he left before his permaban. I will give you my evidence should it be required. I think it's obvious. If there is a need to respond to his diatribe, I will do so. I will clarify again one serious sounding misconception.

"Eschoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site." If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision,

There was no "court decision," no hearings, no witnesses, no trials. Because I testified for the LATimes in the coppyright case, they sued me in state court for a million dollars. The wrong state court. I removed it to Federal Court for strategic reasons. They spent $110,000 pursuing me, then settled the case on my terms. Since they got no damages, they wanted at least an injunction, so I gave them one in the settlement papers. There was no wrongdoing alleged in the settlement and releases. Their lawyer, Bryan's mentor, was later disbarred.

Thannks again for the Heads-up. Eschoir (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia case

Brad, I would like to put up more evidence in the Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia case, though I probably won't be able to do it until tomorrow. There seems to be a sudden rush to close it. May I be given an extra couple of days? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed already. [1] Please keep the discussion in one forum. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I am recused in this case. If there is an issue, it will have to be addressed by other arbitrators. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor at writing brief proposals...

Cheers. Thatcher 04:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can run on a "brevity" platform this December. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of your proposals, can you do the Ed Poor block log thing as mentioned in the R. fiend case which you authored? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think another arb was going to take care of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Redux

Hello Newyorkbrad;

Did you mean for your "mostly away" box to appear at the bottom of your talk page, not the top?
On the topic at hand, as there any further movement at the station with regard to the IRC case?

The biggest problem with arbitration is often that those who want to participate are isolated from the actual process of the decision making. I'm not suggesting that the punters should have greater input into outcomes, but that they be better informed as to what's happening. In this arbitration, for instance, there have been way-too-many words wasted and to date it appears that there will only result one finding of fact. Considerable acrimony is often raised on workshops debating points that the Committee then simply ignores... this could be avoided by a higher level of input by the members as to what they are interested in.

Which leads me nicely to my actual questions: Should I waste any more of my time on this case? Is there any real chance that we'll see the root causes addressed here?

152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I meant for the box to appear on the bottom of the page so that it would be seen by people who came here to leave new messages. As for the IRC case, I think there will be some further proposals posted soon. In terms of spending more time, you might want to wait until arbitrators post proposals on the proposed decision page and then decide whether you wish to react to those, as I think most of the points that could be made on the workshop page probably have already been discussed there. In terms of your general comment about arbitrators trying to define what aspects of a case they are most interested in, I will try to bear it in mind going forward, as I had some of the same experience myself when I was providing input on workshops. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, please check your e-mail and forward as necessary. Samurai Commuter (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC "continued input"

You asked for my "continued input" at arbitration cases, I wonder if you'll regret that now. :-). I noticed RFAR/IRC has several Findings, but no Remedies, so suggested a couple. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Workshop#1RR_for_Wikipedia_name_space and the next one. Is it considered proper to propose remedies with "see above for whom this affects"? :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! You opposed! That's it, impeachment proceedings underway... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been a reasonable remedy as to some of the parties to the case, but not all. For example, at present, there's at least one party (an experienced and highly respected administrator) whom a majority of the participating arbitrators believe edited disruptively on-wiki to the point of warranting an ArbCom finding, and I am in dissent from that finding, so I cannot support a proposal that would impose a substantially restrictive remedy against that party. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have noticed, but there is a non-negligible feeling that the interminable and silly "Geogre/Giano and co." vs "Tony Sidaway and co." political wars (1) can't be stopped, since there are unblocking admins on each side, and (2) are taking a non-negligible toll on the whole Wikipedia. It isn't even about a specific reason, they're like the Montagues and Capulets, just having them run across each other in any context leads to a knife fight. Just saying "you're all good well meaning editors, leave each other alone and WP:TROUT to all of you" has been done before. Do you have a better proposal for an actual remedy? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Actual remedies" are under discussion. My thinking on some aspects of this dispute may not be in line with the feelings of a majority of the other arbitrators, which is why I have not written up a proposed decision long ago. I too am heartily sick of the "political wars" you mention and want to see an end to them. It saddens me that some of the same people are still arguing about some of the same things as when I became active on the site 18 months ago, and I am sure that I have lost credibility after having urged the sort of general admonition you describe only to see the same feuding flare up again and again. I still think that putting a contributor on any sort of parole who I think engaged in no or minimal misconduct would not be right, so I still couldn't support that, but I wish very much we saw resolve from more of the parties concerned to discontinue the type of conduct that led to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I have contributed much to end this silly feud, but I intend to continue to do all in my power and I'm open to suggestions. Before this arbitration case was accepted I asked to be removed from the access list at the admins channel, and I have stated publicly that I intend this to be permanent. I have discussed the affair with Bishonen in private on IRC and have got the impression that I have mended my fences with her (if there's anything more I can do she only has to ask). I have (after admittedly requiring some extremely heavy hints from Brad) stopped commenting in any way on Giano's conduct, and intend this, like my decision to leave the admins channel, to be permanent. Even supposing I am right in my assessment (and of course I retain my own opinion on this), no comment I could make on the matter could fail to be tainted by the history of bad blood between us, and indeed such comments are more than likely to prejudice any case that might exist.

Moreover the current state of what approximates to civil unrest on Wikipedia, and open distrust of the newly elected arbitration committee, which I know does an excellent job in difficult circumstances, worries me more than any other matter that has occurred on English Wikipedia since the Seigenthaler case. What appeared to me to be a minor interpersonal spat has evidently taken on much greater dimensions, and makes me determined to at least try to mind my p's and q's in the context of Wikipedia, whether on wiki or off. I think this is the best way forward, and hope that the other editors involved in this case, or merely observing it, will follow suit. --Tony Sidaway 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 ::: I don't know if you have noticed, but there is a non-negligible feeling that the interminable and silly "Geogre/Giano and co." vs "Tony Sidaway and co." political wars (1) can't be stopped, since there are unblocking admins on each side, and (2) are taking a non-negligible toll on the whole Wikipedia. It isn't even about a specific reason, they're like the Montagues and Capulets, just having them run across each other in any context leads to a knife fight. Just saying "you're all good well meaning editors, leave each other alone and [[WP:TROUT]] to all of you" has been done before. Do you have a better proposal for an actual remedy? --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 :::: "Actual remedies" are under discussion. My thinking on some aspects of this dispute may not be in line with the feelings of a majority of the other arbitrators, which is why I have not written up a proposed decision long ago. I too am heartily sick of the "political wars" you mention and want to see an end to them. It saddens me that some of the same people are still arguing about some of the same things as when I became active on the site 18 months ago, and I am sure that I have lost credibility after having urged the sort of general admonition you describe only to see the same feuding flare up again and again. I still think that putting a contributor on any sort of parole who I think engaged in no or minimal misconduct would not be right, so I still couldn't support that, but I wish very much we saw resolve from more of the parties concerned to discontinue the type of conduct that led to this case. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad#top|talk]]) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
+:::: I feel that I have contributed much to end this silly feud, but I intend to continue to do all in my power and I'm open to suggestions.  Before this arbitration case was accepted I asked to be removed from the access list at the admins channel, and I have stated publicly that I intend this to be permanent.  I have discussed the affair with Bishonen in private on IRC and have got the impression that I have mended my fences with her (if there's anything more I can do she only has to ask).  I have (after admittedly requiring some extremely heavy hints from Brad) stopped commenting in any way on Giano's conduct, and intend this, like my decision to leave the admins channel, to be permanent. Even supposing I am right in my assessment (and of course I retain my own opinion on this), no comment I could make on the matter could fail to be tainted by the history of bad blood between us, and indeed such comments are more than likely to prejudice any case that might exist.
+:::: Moreover the current state of what approximates to civil unrest on Wikipedia, and open distrust of the newly elected arbitration committee, which I know does an excellent job in difficult circumstances, worries me more than any other matter that has occurred on English Wikipedia since the Seigenthaler case.   What appeared to me to be a minor interpersonal spat has evidently taken on much greater dimensions, and makes me determined to at least try to mind my p's and q's in the context of Wikipedia, whether on wiki or off.   I think this is the best way forward, and hope that the other editors involved in this case, or merely observing it, will follow suit. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)