User talk:Newyorkbrad

You've got mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:15, 28 November 2012 (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.

AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 00:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Received; will respond later today. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Okie dokie. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my response has been held up for a day or two. Darn that real world. But I will get back to you shortly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That is perfectly alright. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Newyorkbrad. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look at this after the ArbCom election is over, if there is still time. Thanks. (I know no one may read this response, but I need to post it for the archival bot anyway....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on the motion to suspend activity

I saw this comment from you, and thought it quite humorous!

There is an interesting aspect to this though. Someday, ArbCom will cease to exist. All things end. It is not a question of if, but of how. I don't think it is a good idea to immediately presume that the Wikipedia realizing it can run without ArbCom is a "bad outcome". The first ultimate solution to dispute resolution was Jimbo. The next was (and for now is) ArbCom. There will be another in the future.

ArbCom's role in the project has dramatically reduced over the last couple of years. Whether ArbCom likes it or not, or thinks it a bad idea or not, they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The project is finding other means to resolve disputes. I think they are already realizing they can run without ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my comment (I see the motion has now been archived, so others may not see it). I'm keenly aware of the decreasing role that the ArbCom has had over the past few years in deciding cases and resolving disputes, as I discuss in the top thread on my embryonic wikiblog. I think we still need an Arbitration Committee, both to resolve the most intractible disputes and to perform other responsibilities that by their nature need to be handled by a handful of community-selected, trusted editors, but in some ways I think the Committee's importance at this stage of the project's development is often overstated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

just curious

Hi,

I tried to ask this question somewhere else, but the page disappeared before I could. Since in all the Election Guides you are highly recommended, I thought I'd ask you. If this is an inappropriate question, then please delete it, as it's not meant to harm. I'm trying to figure out how to vote.

About the email leak by one of the Arbs, Elen, she said in her defense:

What I did do is discuss it with a third party, in a private chat. I was worried that Malleus would react to the question with one of his anglo saxon epithets, and another request for a ban would ensue [1]

I'm wondering if it's the role of an Arb to protect an editor from using anglo saxon epithets such as Elen seems concerned about him doing, if the editor is so inclined. Especially since this editor has been before ArbCom for just this behavior. (In fact, I commented there regarding that editor's rude treatment of me and his obvious dislike of Americans, which I am.) I guess thought about ArbCom as being like the US Supreme Court and that I wouldn't expect a Supreme Court justice to be engaging in behind-the-scenes leaking of privileged email to protect a party that is likely to come before it again.

I would like it if ArbCom would be fair and a consider the effect of any behavior on the whole encyclopedia, and not be focused on protecting an individual editor from himself. I wish they would treat the behavior of all editors equally. The way it is now, from my experience, they step hard on mistakes of relatively new editors while old editors are allowed to personally attack and belittle whoever they choose with no repercussions.

Thanks for your consideration. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be helpful for me to wade too deeply into the waters of the unpleasantness that occurred this week, in part because I'm a candidate in the same election as Elen of the Roads (and Jclemens), and in part because I haven't participated in some of the internal Arbitration Committee discussions that led up to it. Suffice it to say that I'm not sure I share every aspect of your characterization of what happened—but I do agree you've raised an important broader picture, which has also come up in some of the questions on my candidate page.

As a general statement, I feel that all editors should treat one another with courtesy and respect befitting the collegial nature of the project. Unnecessarily using "Anglo-Saxon epithets" as insults toward other editors is unhelpful in that regard. However, this it is far from the only type of uncivil behavior that should be avoided.

The Arbitration Committee should seek to benefit and serve the encyclopedia that is Wikipedia, the community of editors who create and maintain that encyclopedia, and ultimately the millions of readers who rely on its content. This is accomplished by creating an environment that promotes and encourage civil and responsible interaction, discourages all forms of gratuitous rudeness, and ultimately imposes sanctions against editors whose conduct is likely to drive other good-faith editors away. The most difficult user-conduct cases that come before the Arbitration Committee involve editors whose contributions and behavior are laudible in some fashions and problematic in others. The goal in such cases is to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, but some editors resolve to an indivisible package of their positives and their negatives, and how to deal with such editors can require judgment calls. Although recent developments are leading everyone to focus on how ArbCom addresses these situations, precisely the same considerations are present in ANI threads and community ban discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser

I have a doubt regarding Special:Contributions/Protozoan and Special:Contributions/TheSmuttyProfessor that they are sock puppets. Quoting:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pirate_Party_of_India. The Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting_a_CheckUser is little confusing, where should I request for a Checkuser? --JPF (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is a genuine emergency situation, the best procedure is to fill out a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for quick reply:) its nothing urgent, will go for that! --JPF (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Gabe's question

You probably figured this one out, but Gabe's question is about you Hot Stop (Talk) 04:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I actually just realized that last night, while I was in the process of formulating an answer. I'll respond to the question, both as a generality and in terms of the specifics, later today. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• 25 August, HotStop: "I have nothing but respect for NYB, but I do have some concern about him being chosen since another arbitrator (SilkTork) is listed as a party". HotStop, are you concerned that NYB helped indef-block a party to the same mediation? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. And you didn't either until after he closed. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise NYB had helped to block Peny until after the close. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And you felt the best manner of discussing this was asking a thinly veiled "hypothetical" question to Brad and 20 others not involved? Hot Stop (Talk) 13:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

1) "No one has come back to me in the past few weeks and told me that the very limited caveats to my close were causing any sort of trouble"

Not exactly true. I raised a concern on 12 November, that you completely ignored. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted, but your concern was discussed on the mediation talk page, in the section set aside for discussion of the closure. No one but you perceived any sort of a problem, although you were roundly criticized for POINTy and disruptive behavior.

I have spent much of the day dealing with your questioning and overemphasis on this issue, and you have exhausted my patience. Any further discussion of this or any related issue will have to be with someone other than myself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you mean here, as we never discussed the issue above during mediation, except to discount the "avoid-dance" as an unworkable non-solution. We never discussed User:Tvoz's reverting and avoiding within 48 hours of your "close". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again, stop dragging my name into your obsessive misrepresentations and carrying-on about this. Tvoz/talk 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• So, when I tried to discuss the caveats with you two weeks ago you completely ignored me, now you are saying you will not respond to me again in this regard. You never discussed your closure with me and now you are refusing to ever do so. Perhaps this is yet another good reason to overturn your closure and recuse yourself from the mediation, now having been insulting and rude to the filing party of a mediation case which is still open BTW. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify, are you asking me to not post to your talk page again, your request is a bit nebulous. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

2) "another administrator warned that you could be blocked for disruptive editing if you did not stop."

Yeah, and that admin, Fut.Perf. was involved in the content dispute and mediation, having provided evidence and !voted, so any block from him would have been inappropriate, no? Also, the issue that FutPerf wouldn't let go was over two edits I made more than a week before he threatened to block me, which would have been a stale and inappropriate block, no? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you want a wholly uninvolved opinion here, GabeMc? I'm just a talk page watcher here, but your behavior is coming across as obsessive to the point of badgering. Seriously, three further comments/queries after NYB declared his part of the dialogue had ended? Please, just let it go. At the very least, leave NYB alone for pity's sake. alanyst 03:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll stop, but really, is it best practice for NYB to refuse to discuss a mediation with the filing party of the mediation? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You do realize you just committed to stop and immediately continued to pursue the subject in the very same sentence? alanyst 03:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediator's view

In spite of the distractions, I think there remains some potential for fruitful discussion regarding the caveats in the closure. I'm particularly thinking here about "avoiding unnecessary mid-sentence use", which Gabe has raised concerns about. I am willing to lead this discussion if Brad would rather disengage. This is provided in the event that there is sufficient continued interest in this aspect of the case to support the mediation process. Otherwise, the results stand.

Whether Brad was too "involved" to have closed the RfC is a non-issue. He was unanimously approved as closer, and I am not aware of any concerns being raised about him during the whole course of the RfC. Trying to disqualify him on a technicality after his decision was rendered is a non-starter. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)