User talk:Newyorkbrad

Longevity Arbcom: Just an Anti-Scientific Witch-Hunt?

Newyorkbrad,

Every time I come back to Wikipedia after being gone for a few days, thinking things will have simmered down and moved on to sensibility, I see that JJBulten and DavidinDC, in particular, have continued their "whack-a-mole" witch hunt.

It's incredulous how much JJBulten gets away with. As the most-involved party in the ArbCom, he is certainly NOT neutral...yet he is proposing a list of those who have conflicts of interest, naming himself (an editor for a far-right Christian website) as "not conflicted"?

There was an old word, called "recusal," that judges once used. Too bad Wikipedia editors don't know what that means. And I say this with a bit of irony, but if Wikipedia operated fairly and objectively, I wouldn't even have to be here.

Ryoung122 01:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'm familiar with the word recusal, As it happens, I wrote most of our article on the subject.

I believe that the drafting arbitrator will be posting a proposed decision within the next few days. He is the longest-serving arbitrator on the committee, and I am quite certain that neither he nor I nor any of the other arbitrators will fail to realize that an "index to parties" prepared by one of the parties himself need not be taken at face value. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

On a separate, but related, note; User:Cam46136 seems awfully ducky to me. His participation here has entirely consisted of posting indiscriminate keep votes at AfDs and now posting inflammatory comments at the workshop page; I'm not sure if there's anything you can or should do about it (not being too familiar with ArbCom), but his presence at the Longevity ArbCom workshop page has been rather unhelpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I have upset you regarding the above ArbCom. I don’t quite know what you mean by being a bit “ducky” and you feel that my comments have been “inflammatory” and unhelpful. I certainly have strong opinions on the above, as I see it as censoring the works of science in the same tradition as the reaction to Charles Darwin and the Scopes Monkey Trial. There are important issues at stake, and I have expressed my opinion. What else am I supposed to do? Cam46136 (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

Request for consensus

Newyorkbrad, the proposals by Kirill Lokshin have dramatically focused my Wikipedia interest to one point only: clearing my good name and the goodwill of my account privileges as far as WP's purposes, policies, and norms allow. You have a motivated editor here. I respectfully request that you and I discuss our difference of opinion over your belief that my behavior constitutes more than isolated instances.

I was never told that any of the listed incidents were bannable offenses. Having discovered the view of Kirill Lokshin less than 24 hours ago, referring essentially to good-faith behaviors that have never been presented as evidence, nor for sanctions in this way in any prior forum (albeit one arose in AN/3RR), I think it appropriate to seek consensus rather than to permit a suddenly revealed set of charges to sway opinions without discussion with the editor charged. Accordingly, please indicate your willingness to have a consensus-seeking, clarifying conversation with me, or to propose another arbitrator who can do so.

I can offer that voluntary topic ban (perhaps already begun?) and mentorship are viable. I can offer my good-faith failure to understand that these five charges (two revert events, one poor edit summary, allegedly "battleground" presentations of relevant information, a relatively modest set of consensus-based deletions, and a reliance on scientific sources in one article) constitute warned, sustained behavior, and my request for your helping my understanding, and my willingness to change. I have a few words about COI that might fit in good time, and many other words that will fit only as we two detail types see fit. But I am wrestling with a controversial combination: my implicit trust in the justice of ArbCom, and my extreme emotions relating to the past 24 hours' activity. I request your help. JJB 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have voluntarily banned myself from most editing, broadly but with some exceptions and with one contingency. I am open to discussion on strengthening this ban. I continue to request your assistance with reaching consensus with me on your and/or ArbCom's views, such as with reference to WP:RFAR/G#Workshop point 3. Elaboration as necessary. JJB 06:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep orange-flagging you, but I clarify my request, and my interpretation of silence, here. JJB 15:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm following the discussion; I'm holding off briefly to see if Kirill wants to comment first. More tonight or tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Saw you burning the midnight oil with SAQ, understandably. Looking forward to your response to the above. JJB 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Kirill, but I think that the diffs listed in Kirill's workshop proposal are meant to be examples, rather than an exhaustive list of issues. My impression is that you and Wikipedia could definitely use a break from your continuing to edit in this area. If you want to edit in other areas (i.e., substitute a topic-ban for a siteban), you should clearly say so and perhaps identify what some of your other topic interests might be. It would be in your best interest to be brief in doing so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Appeal posted

Hi, I wanted to alert you that I have posted my appeal to the evidence page. Please express my sincere thanks to the committee for allowing me to do so. Smatprt (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Remedy 3.1

I am a bit mystified by what is meant here - particularly in the header. The Community has deliberately avoided putting arbitrary time limits on when a restricted user can appeal, except in cases where an indefinite restriction is concerned. I'm not sure why it's being called a "qualification"; it seems to be a question of whether ArbCom wants an appeal after 90 days on particular grounds or whether they don't. Consequently, I would have thought that an appropriate header is "Appeal of Smatpart's sanction to BASC/ArbCom/whatever" rather than "Community sanction endorsed with qualification". Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The header on remedy 3, if that is adopted, says that the community sanction is endorsed. The header on 3.1, if that's the one adopted, says that it's endorsed, but with one qualification (that we will entertain a request for review to the stated extent in 90 days). The header you propose, I think, would give undue weight to the limited right of appeal, while neglecting the fact that fundamentally, we would still be endorsing the sanction. As for your more substantive point, Smatprt chose to appeal his sanction to us, and we would be advising him when we would be prepared to entertain a renewed appeal and on what grounds. I don't know whether he would theoretically be allowed to appeal to the community back on ANI sooner than 90 days, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it if we adopt 3.1. (Of course, other arbitrators may propose still other alternatives if they wish). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors in similar situations have, nevertheless, managed to be "advised" less formally, have they not? I think that generally, when a 1 year topic ban is imposed and nothing else has been specified, sooner than 6 months is not recommended...but how well the restricted user follows the recommendation is dependent on the user and/or that user's circumstances + reasons for appealing. Accordingly, this remedy does seem to be amending the terms of the sanction that were decided by the Community, both in theory and practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If it does, it's a very limited change; but arbitrators who think we should endorse the existing sanction with no comments or change at all should vote instead for remedy 3, which is one reason I offer them as alternatives. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why David in DC is part of the problem, not part of the Solution

When we see edits from David in DC like this:

"If the web-hosting for self-published data is still around in a year, you can draw one conclusion."

David in DC comment to John J Bulten

This is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The Gerontology Research Group has been around longer than Wikipedia has. Wikipedia pages have copied the GRG, it has not been the GRG pushing to have Wikipedia "mirror" it.

David in DC's mis-use of the term "self-published" is, ironically, self-delusional.

I see no reason why the GRG should qualify as a "self-published" source. I, for one, do not "publish" the material. It's not me online "publishing" this material. Dr. Coles publishes it.

Also, the Wikipedia policy on "self-published sources" is in regards to non-notable entities that have failed to establish or attain mainstream community consensus, but are instead materials put up by "fringe" persons.

Checking the GRG material on supercentenarians, the GRG material on supercentenarians is used by Guinness World Records and quoted by the AP, APF, UPI, and major news publications such as the New York Times. We have seen the GRG be featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. The problem here is NOT the GRG. The problem here are editors such as David in DC who, in violation of Wikipedia rules and policies, replace reliable sources with their self-appointed, anti-GRG bias to decide for themselves what is or what is not notable. That is the problem. David in DC has literally "voted" for deletion for articles by claiming they are not sourced, even if they were. As usual, most of the time the information in the articles was correct, and the sources are often NOT the GRG. For example, Louisa Thiers:

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi/f/findaid/findaid-idx?c=wiarchives;view=reslist;subview=standard;didno=uw-whs-mil00154

Newsclippings about and tributes to Louisa K. Thiers (1814-1926), credited as the oldest person to have lived in Wisconsin and the last true daughter of an American Revolutionary War soldier, also are included.

http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/william-george-bruce/history-of-milwaukee-city-and-county-volume-2-cur/page-39-history-of-milwaukee-city-and-county-volume-2-cur.shtml

Not only did sources exist that predated the GRG and Wikipedia, but Ms. Thiers has been well-covered in the scientific literature as well as the popular press (indeed, mentioned in the very first edition of Guinness World Records 1955). Yet editors such as David in DC saw fit to delete the article on Louisa Thiers by claiming it was some kind of GRG conspiracy to inform the world about how long verified supercentenarians really live. Oh wait, it's that the purpose of encyclopedia articles on supercentenarians?

Ryoung122 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's yet more of the same from David in DC:

1) wider distribution of self-published, raw data (my oft-repeated "web-hosting" trope),

Excuse him, the GRG data is NOT "self-published," it is NOT "raw data."

If someone sends in an application ("my grandma is 110!") and the GRG reviews the data, saves the records, and publishes the photo, how can that be self-published? The GRG is a non-profit entity that is, in fact, governed by laws such as privacy laws, which means we keep actual documents sent to us by family members private.

I've been concerned, from the beginning, with David in DC's editing, in part because he had a personal third-party dispute with me that had nothing to do with supercentenarians and then he comes on here and starts deleting material, falsely claiming sources don't exist when they do, and using terms such as "raw data," "data dump," "self-published" and worse. In short, David in DC is allowing his personal opinions to get in the way of the facts.

Checking out, for example, this AFD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tase_Matsunaga

   * Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "External links" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, this GRG web page cannot be the sole source for an article on Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
   * Delete Actually a ton of sources are available, in that her death was widely and internationally reported [1]. But that seems to me like an instance of WP:ONEEVENT. At any given time there is an oldest person in every country in the world, and as soon as they die they are replaced by another oldest person; does that really make every single one of them notable? I'm dubious. (Besides, as recent news events demonstrated [2] [3] [4], Japan has no idea who its oldest citizens are, or whether they are still alive.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As usual, David in DC made false aspersions ("no sources"), then suggested the GRG was not reliable, then suggested that the GRG was biased against non-Western sources. Yet checking the evidence, who helped to delete the articles on African supercentenarians and South American supercentenarians? David in DC and JJBulten. JJBulten even stated that once articles on African and South American supercentenarians were deleted, it would be far easier to accuse the GRG of being biased against minorities. All of this is easy to find on Wikipedia, if one had all the time in the world available to hunt it down.

Ryoung122 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Principle 5

No, I wanted to think about the implications of it. I was a little uneasy about a principle with now wikilinks, and perhaps suggest one. Cool Hand Luke 20:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Relatedly, on P11, what would you think of something like "... (1) the process of the sanction fell short of usual standards, ..." See RexxS' remarks. Cool Hand Luke 20:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick observation...

re your recent comment on the case page about taking the "Henri Coanda defamation" case, this could provide ArbCom with a chance to establish a new procedure – the equivalent of what would be the revoking of Special Leave in the Australian High Court, or the Improvidently Granted provisions in the US Supreme Court. :P EdChem (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The committee has dismissed cases in the past after they were accepted and had actually been opened for a couple of weeks ... either because the dispute got resolved through another means, or because no one presented evidence. (I could cite some examples if anyone wanted.) So I'm afraid it wouldn't really be a precedent after all. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What a shame... a beautiful theory blown out of the water by an inconvenient fact.  :( EdChem (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"An Inconvenient Fact"? Are we back to Climate change again? :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL. :D Purely unintentional, I promise. EdChem (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Threats from Ludwigs2

Hello. Ludwigs2 left this threatening diff on my talk page [1]. This conduct does not seem normal. Mathsci (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

:Very strange things are happening at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. It would be interesting to know why Mathsci has been allowed to

• bring a case initially without providing any evidence
• accuse quite unconnected users of abuse without notification
• make several statements which are, frankly, plainly untrue and contradicted by the record
• divert the case into discussion of completely unrelated matters

and all this with the tacit approval of arbitrators.

As far as Ludwigs2 is concerned, it might be noted that Mathsci has separately accused him of "tittle-tattle" and of being in collusion with two other editors, Zarboublian and Mikemikev. Again he has not troubled himself to provide any evidence of these assertions. It is not surprising that Ludwigs2 has taken the perfectly reasonable step of asking Mathsci to refactor.

This case continues some very disturbing behaviour on the part of Mathsci. He is plainly obsessed with the participants in the R&I case. This is the second ArbCom followup on Captain Occam that Mathsci has taken part in. Mathsci is obsessivelt following IP addresses he believes to be Mikemikev, and, most disturbing of all Mathsci has even posted what he claims to be some of Mikemikev's most inflammatory comments on Mathsci's own website and he linked them off his Wikipedia user page. Fortunately Charles Matthews showed him the error of his ways.

In summary then - all the disruptive behaviour of which Mathsci has accused Catpain Occam has a parallel in Mathsci's own conduct, and more. Why does ArbCom allow this disruption to continue? 212.183.140.57 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Scoring through contribution by sockpuppet of banned user Mikemikev Mathsci (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

All these people need to stop talking and thinking about one another. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

I was suggested by the admin User:Amatulic to take it to the ArbCom.--Lsorin (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll take a fresh look at the state of this request tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Proposed decision

Hi, Brad. I've posted a note on Talk:Proposed decision for the Shakespeare case that mentions you specifically, along with Shell and Luke, in case you want to take a look. Sorry to be bothering you with the orange new messages banner, but it struck me that if anybody's interested, time is a little short. Bishonen | talk 15:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

As you'll probably have seen, I've reviewed the thread and voted on the proposals. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Coanda case

Just a note about that case-in-waiting, since you said something about "if the problem has not been resolved in two weeks" and others of your colleagues also mentioned further dispute resolution and the like. I'm only a more-or-less outside casual observer here, but from what I can gather, there really isn't anything much to resolve left. There was a single not-so-constructive editor standing against what seems to be a quite solid and legitimate consensus. He got blocked and then again warned off (by myself [2]) not to continue that disruptive editing. The warning has worked, as he hasn't touched the article in the month since. He states on his own page that "I know that my account will be blocked immediately, when I will start editing again the article Coandă-1910". That's in fact half true – he is of course welcome to edit it if he can do so in a manner different from before, but apparently he can see no way to do that, sadly. Everybody else seems to be happily working together on the article, and they have in fact brought it to Good Article status during the last weeks. So, we have a disgruntled editor who feels excluded, but apart from finding some way to re-gruntle him I don't really see what else needs dispute resolution right now. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think we can all imagine how this situation might be likely to end up if it doesn't go to arbitration, but I didn't want to say anything as an arbitrator that might sound like prejudging the result. (I see that one or two of my colleagues have been a bit more direct about the likely outcome than I was.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Malleus

Hello, Newyorkbrad. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

I tried not to make it personal. Triumph of hope over experience, I suppose. But don't tell me; tell him also. Rodhullandemu 03:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen and responded to your e-mail. I hope the response is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're an optimist, obviously. Rodhullandemu 04:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Response

In case you miss it, I have responded to your post on my talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Facts

I think I'm finally starting to get the hang of this Finding of Fact malarkey, Brad.

The scenario: Bishonen has been focusing her energies for the last few weeks on her attempt to get an editor called Nina Green banned from Wikipedia. When Bishonen realises that Nina Green is indeed going to be banned

• She posts to the arbcom page in green text: FoF perfectly normal. Arbcom pages are like little rainbows.
• At the end of a talk page post about the green text, Bishonen suddenly decides to refer to it as "dye": FoF Not at all forced or contrived. Lots of people refer to text as dye. Or if they don't, they should do.
• Bishonen ends her post with "Green dye!" which reads as "Green die!": Fof Pure coincidence. Nina Green couldn't have been further from Bishonen's mind when she wrote "Green dye!". Bishonen hadn't though of Nina Green for at least 30 seconds.

FOF: This entire sequence events: Bishonen wants Nina banned, gets what she wants, posts in green text, decides to call text "dye", and ends her post for no apparent reason with "Green dye!" is just a random bubble of billion-to-one-coincidence. Bishonen could just have easily chosen blue text, and it would have made perfect sense to end her post with "Blue Pigment!".

Yep. I think I've got this FoF thing, now. And it certainly makes it a lot easier to understand how arbcom arrives at its decisions. MoreThings (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

MoreThings, everyone concerned has agreed that your accusation lies in the realm of fantasy and has no basis in reality whatsoever. Your insistence to harp upon it is now veering into personal attack territory and I must insist that you desist immediately or you will find yourself blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 13:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to be aggressive, Coren. How about a little mutual good faith here? Listen, I say hand on wallet, heart, looking you in the pixel, on my honour, that I'm absolutely convinced that "Green dye!" is a dig at Nina Green. Seriously. Are you saying, on your personal integrity, and your credibility as an Arbitrator on the English Wikipedia, that you honestly believe that the green text and "Green dye!" were in no in way intended as a reference to Nina Green? If you are, then I'll drop it. MoreThings (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely has nothing to do with Nina Green. The use of green text to differentiate certain sections of a post from other sections is quite common on the project, although granted it is more common in the "administrative" areas than in editorial ones. It certainly would never have occurred to any arbitrator that it was intended as a dig at Nina Green, because we see green text on a fairly regular basis. Please drop it. Risker (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Coren and Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Risker. I'm not persuaded by it. I'm sure you aware that there is a significant difference between "would never have", "did not" and "does not". And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that no page anywhere on the project uses green dye. I find it impossible to believe that our wikiworld-weary arbs are so credulous as to see no link between green and Green.

In this case Bishonen wanted Nina Green banned, and she was banned. That was not sufficient. With the decision signed, sealed, and all but delivered, Bishonen pointed out that you had somehow neglected to include her proposal. Were you not aware of that? Had you not read the workshop and evidence pages? Had you not discussed which proposals to include? I thought that was the whole point of what you do. The ensuing unprecedented scramble to include Bishonen's proposal baffled ^{edt sum} the clerk and led to the present unfortunate epilogue.

At the beginning of this case the arbitration committee let it be known that the case was about Nina Green, despite LHvU's opening statement. In the middle of the case the secondary drafting arbitrator was happy to keep up the banter on Bishonen's talk page, but he and 15 other active arbs somehow failed to respond to Nina Green's direct question to the committee on the workshop page "Is there any case against me which I have to meet?...What do the arbitrators feel they need to hear from me?" I'm sure Nina's faith in the impartiality of these proceedings must have been as high as mine. At the end of this case the committee has developed collective colour blindness.

You've asked me to drop this, and I will. I can see that it is going nowhere. MoreThings (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Map of India

Could you weigh in on this issue? Apparently the map that we have, while accurately depicting the situation on India's borders, is not in compliance with Indian law. Some guidance on how we deal with such issues would be a great help. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 14:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under no obligation to present the map of India as the Indian government chooses to define the boundaries. Although this is an editorial judgment for editors on the India article, it probably makes sense for the main map on the article to reflect the areas actually controlled and governed by India, perhaps with some indication of disputed territories. It would, of course, also be quite in order for there to be a second map, either in the main India article or in related articles, reflecting disputed areas in greater detail and illustrating the full extent of the land claimed by India as part of the Indian national territory.

That we cannot be absolutely bound by governmental claims in territorial disputes is illustrated by the mere fact that many governments make conflicting claims to the same territory. Assume that in India it is notionally unlawful to publish a map that doesn't label Kashmir as part of India, and in Pakistan it is notionally unlawful to publish a map that doesn't label Kashmir as part of Pakistan. In that case, it would be physically impossible to comply with both laws, which is one of the many good reasons it is not necessary for us to try. In any event, in the United States, First Amendment principles would forbid enforcement of either.

I am sure there are policy or guideline pages or historical discussions that address these concerns in more detail, but I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted the diff on Talk:India. --rgpk (comment) 15:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)