User talk:Newyorkbrad

Resolution

Dear Newyorkbrad, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

Court decision citing Wikipedia articles about Hasidic Judaism and Chabad

See Lubovitch-Chabad House of Illinois, Inc. v. Northwestern University, decided today by the Seventh Circuit. Opinion by Judge Posner and a short concurrence by Judge Bauer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would be lying if I didn't admit that made me a little uneasy, knowing we often have articles vandalized or in the middle of POV wars. I'm sure the article wasn't a deciding factor, but it still raises the bar on accountability when any US Court of Appeals uses us as a source. Dennis - 2¢ 01:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is funny that the section they're citing has no single reference to a reliable source. 117.27.245.98 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oy vey. What next? Wikipedia-guided surgery? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If by Wikipedia-guided surgery, you mean that a surgeon might provide patients with a list of background sources to use in learning more about their disease, and that such a list might include Wikipedia articles. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if some doctors already recommend Wikipedia to their patients. (Whether or not they should do so is a separate question.) But neither such hypothetical doctors, not the judges in this case seem to be relying on Wikipedia to guide their actions. Rather the judges simply seem to be suggesting Wikipedia as a way to learn more about a topic peripherally relevant to the case. Incidentally, Judge Posner, the author of the opinion in this case has a long history of citing Wikipedia, [1][2]. and his Seventh circuit does so far more often than other appeals courts (as of 2012) [3]. Dragons flight (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That is still true. See here for some more sources on courts citing Wikipedia, a subject on which there is now a fair amount of literature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've had patient relatives cite something on they read wikipedia to me when discussing treatment options, and one of my colleagues saw my name pop up on a medical article on a smartphone as at the top it said "last edited by Casliber" which doesn't happen in the desktop display. Interesting times....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If I learned that my doctor is a Wikipedian, I would have changed the doctor at once, and the same with my attorney. If I found out my attorney is Wikipedia's arbitrator, I would have fired him. To survive being an arbitrator one should be so deliciously dishonest, so horribly cowardly... not the qualities I'm looking for... 117.27.245.98 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean you aren't sending the retainer check you promised?? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Help please

At User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#I_know_you.27re_busy.2C_but_..., I'm having trouble getting a response to my request for at least some of you on the Committee to have a look at something that happened yesterday that you may or may not find relevant to a case you're voting on as we speak. Could I ask you to have a look? Reply anywhere you like. P.S. Dennis has already "unhatted" per my request. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it and I believe other arbitrators have also. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The statement

Sorry I wasn't able to get to it today. After seeing how the talk page has degenerated, I can understand your wish to move forward, things are quite out of control. This is the virtual version of mob violence, it is a palpable wave. I can't imagine similar outbursts against gays, blacks, Jews, ... by now the normal people would have been able to step in and revdelete everything as vandalism. Best I stop for the evening before I say something I'll regret. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please post your statement as soon as you can. You should ignore anything extraneous and focus simply on the evaluation of your behavior in the proposed decision. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, I know, I'm still a bit medicated and on crutches, but stepping away from the keyboard for a while seems to have helped, and I will post something tonight. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary now posted here, there is a more detailed analysis of diffs upthread. Most of these diff aren't even about Gender Gap group. —Neotarf (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My comment on the Proposed decision talk, and yours

Brad, I had second thoughts about speaking so unkindly to Neotarf, who is a guest in Bishzilla's pocket, and removed my post. I realize you had sort of commented on mine, or at least used my comment as a background to yours, sorry about that. I hope you don't mind. Maybe you could just change the "concur"? Bishonen | talk 00:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Done. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Short

Re [4], seems to me a certain arbitrator is is getting very short. NE Ent 03:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology

I should probably apologize for my comment, even figuratively speaking it was incredibly insulting and I shouldn't pop off at the mouth like that. I think you missed the mark on the comment when it was originally made but damn it I could do better in communication sometime, either way it was out of line on my part. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

You took a stand for me here before you were on the committee. That sure a long time ago by Wiki standards, (by any standards actually). It may have been the most acrimonious case up to that point, but seems like small potatoes compared to some that have come along since, and you have been a guiding light of fairness and decency through them all. I thank you for your dedicated service at arbcom and for Wikipedia. MONGO 05:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

27k worth of text added

I didn't want it to come to this but I am coming to you for an opinion regarding 27k worth of material [5] that Rich has added to the GGTF arbcom page. Is this what you meant by responses? If everyone did the same thing as Rich here we would have a page that quite possibly would break Wikipedia (Or very very very slow load times). The whole thing is a wall of text and an eye sore and I ask you to address it. I will ping @Rich Farmbrough: so he knows I came here. I thought hatting the section would at least make things easier to navigate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC):

It actually breaks search to hat it. We have a table of contents to enable speedy navigation. If a significant number of people want to address the proposed decision on an item-by-item basis (say another three or more) we could trivially refactor into a threaded discussion. I know you disagree with some of what I said, I would rather hear your reasons for disagreeing about substantive matters than waste time on formatting issues. To start with, do you support any of the site bans, and if so why? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

I understand you want to get your point across to the Arbs Rich but all I am asking is that you condense the info. There is a way to get your points across by not repeating word by word in a copy/paste format the entire proposed remedies section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It certainly is a greater contribution, measured in terms of size, than we are used to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

See! Eric could take lessons... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

In all seriousness, I have to focus on something other than this case tonight, so I'll leave this issue for other arbitrators or the clerks to work through. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI IBAN

Hi, you've been quoted at this ANI. Given the iban between him and me, I also request that you as an admin formally notify the subject of my complaint. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this thread. I do not think I would have been the proper person to advise The Rambling Man of the discussion. Fortunately, someone else has already notified him. (I also note that he's posted on his talk that he is away right now.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's okay, I'm around for a while longer. I look forward to any action against me. It'd be rewarding to see how such esteemed members of the hierarchy treat content editors who just vocalise their disagreement, while completely ignoring others who directly abuse people. We'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you simply vocalized your disagreements with other editors in reasonable terms, I don't think there would be an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And if you didn't just wade in and act like a schoolmaster then we'd be in some form of agreement all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nichols

I've sourced the plays in the 70's and 80's section and marked the nom ready. I don't know if you want to ping Thryduulf or if you think he might see that as harassment. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Iago: Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161

What would you say if there were three guys, and one said, "NYB is a thief", another said "NYB is a murderer" and the third said "NYB is a blasphemer". So they all go to a judge and the judge writes up a ticket that says "NYB is a murderer, a thief, and a blasphemer". And each one votes for it, because at least part of it must be true.

So that's what this Arbcom case looks like to me, and it looks like various arbs think so too, because several have expressed some reservations about various parts of it. I've gone into it at length Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision#Questions_for_the_committee_about_proposed_principles.2C_findings_of_fact.2C_and_remedies_for_Neotarf here. For one thing, as you noted, the name thing isn't spelled out, as far as what actions should have been taken, what actions were taken, and there are probably some addition issues revolving around multiple requests to stay off of talk pages, which complicates the venue question, as well as answering a direct question from arbitrator, and why the venue wasn't redirected at that time if it was not the correct one. But if the finding of fact is going to refer to "normal dispute resolution", and the remedies refer to "appropriate channels", what those channels are should be spelled out, if this thing is not to look like a kangaroo court. Likewise with the question of "passive aggressive". I can go into the reasons for wanting to start a dialogue about it if you're interested, but the real question is: Why am I being dragged off to Arbcom because I want to start a dialogue about it. Is it taboo to discuss this subject? And why is Arbcom using an opinion expressed by a user on a talk page as a reliable source for the purpose of determining, in a finding no less, that "passive-aggressive behaviour is not necessarily linked to mental health." This kind of begs the question of the phrase being used as an insult, as a circumlocution in the "if you don't want to be called passive-aggressive, don't act passive-aggressive" meme, and to stigmatize mental health problems (compare with "retard"). I am asking for this to be broken up into sections, where the separate parts of the question can be voted on separately.

Finally, it is no secret that I have wanted to "retire with dignity" for some time, but this arbcom case is leaving me with the burden of more and more wikilawyering and more and more appeals ... every day this place is making me more and more like Kumioko. I wonder if this is what he went through. —Neotarf (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My view is that you would be well-served by disengaging for awhile from any activity on Wikipedia that isn't related to actually writing articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric enigma

I cannot understand why he is still prepared after all this time to engage in easily avoided conduct that upsets colleagues and massively distracts from the principal goal. I literally do not understand it, and in fact, as I approach the end of my seventh and final year on this Committee, I do not believe I have ever understood the reasons for any editor's behavior less well. Well I don't have answer for you, just idea to consider, that the way you express the enigma may contain small fallacies (that results in enigma), one namely, that "Eric's conduct", and "upsetness"/"distraction" from others, are one thing. They're separate, not joined as if mandated or necessity. People choose what they get upset over, or what they allow to distract themselves. (Eric doesn't decide for them.) I think that might be at the heart of your conundrum. (The way to "fix" the expression is to break the connection, replacing "that upsets" and "[that] massively distracts", with "that has a probability to upset" and "[that] has a probability to massively distract", given the environment on WP. p.s. That said, three additional: 1) I don't speak for Eric of course and the most accurate/best way to understand is simply to ask Eric! (Perhaps he is/has been sphinx-like on it though.) 2) Eric is quite brilliant, extremely talented with words, meanings, shades. Words are tools/medium to convey fact, fancy, idea, feeling. Although I think that Eric is scrupulously logical, he's really in the end an artist. So going back to your conumdrum, why he is still prepared after all this time to engage in easily avoided conduct, perhaps Eric is more complex than you allow for. (For e.g., perhaps Eric is not only keen observer but interested in human behavior {he did major in psychology, didn't he?}. Perhaps he says things that he knows has probability to incite, but for a careful reader, there's nothing personal existing, so many times, interpretation of personal insult, though common and popular to do, is really then a measure of the receiver's behavior -- nothing Eric made or created. [Think "science experiment", where there are controls, to allow results to surface. That's consistent with idea Eric is logical as part of everything else. {What else? Again, maybe Eric is simply curious about people, and the WP environment is a perfect "science lab" in a way. Perhaps when Eric says something objectively inert that has probability to incite, it is out of curiosity to "see what" individuals concerned are about -- what they're "made of" so to speak. In a way, with the vast collection of people here, with only typewritten words as interface unless attendees to Wiki conferences, seeing how people choose to respond to things is so revealing re the responders, it may be a temptation that a brilliant & curious mind like Eric's, likes not to resist when an opportunity arises in context.} Another possible small fallacy, is your use of word "colleagues" as though binary -- either colleague, or not. While in any large social environment there will be different relationships dependent on different levels of respect earned or shattered. IMO, Eric never prejudges and defaults as open to collaborating with any & all editors {the WP ideal; which explains why Eric is so positive with newbies and anyone asking sincerely for help} until having some reason why not {reasonable pragmatism for anyone to have; I've noticed even that Eric takes a huge measure of abuse from anyone before finally and rarely asking them to not post to his Talk}. If any of this is true, what makes it all more complex and obscured is the fact that Eric has faced nearly a constant parade of antagonizers/attackers/baiters {for whatever their varied unclean reasons -- e.g. jealously, vanity, chance for personal infamy} whom nearly all other editors don't have to face. Yet Eric always quickly resumes his primary task of writing the encyclopedia.]) 3) I'm not a psychologist of course. Speaking of, however, one thing absolutely lacking on the WP, which IMO would help enormously re tolerance & understanding between editors, would be an awareness of Myers-Briggs personality types (especially the four temperaments NF, NT, SJ, SP). (All the personlaity types are valid -- none is inferior to another -- but understanding & appreciating a different type from one's own is challenging to do, sometimes seemingly impossible. But it is the only intelligent answer. ["Which rules you more: a) your head, b) your heart." There's no wrong answer. Each person will have a preference. IMO the T/F personality attribute is at the basis of the never-ending "What is more important? -- article quality or a civil environment" debate. Unless it will be clarified as defined WP objective, both answers are right, neither is wrong, the strife will be permanent -- that conflict will never find a consensus.]) Sincerely submitted, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting analysis (although some paragraph breaks would have made it easier to read). However, I think we may collectively be overintellectualizing something that is relatively simpler. An earlier incarnation of ArbCom used to adopt this one-sentence principle: "Editors are expected to reasonably courteous to each other." As I wrote on the proposed decision talkpage, we can sometimes disagree about boundaries and also about consequences (cf. In re Snyder), but the basic idea is really quite clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Civility paroles

Re: [6]... yes, those are fair points, and it's not like I have a better idea. But then, I think the entire idea that civility can be "enforced" is fruitless and the root of some really misguided thinking. Civility can be modeled—and you've been as outstanding a model as anyone over the years—but it can't realistically be "enforced". We can either accept these sorts of editors because the good outweighs the bad, or we can separate them from the project (because the bad outweighs the good). Either approach is arguably reasonable. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect these sorts of editors to change—at least, not in response to a set of restrictions crafted by ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, except that Eric Corbett has indicated at times over the past months that he is willing to change his approach—though at other times he's given contradictory signals—so there is just a chance the approach might work in his case. And the fact that some other editors will be demoralized if he is outright banned now without a final chance, while it would not deter the Committee from acting if consensus were clear, is a legitimate factor for us to consider where consensus remains confused. Anyway, we'll see what the other arbs say. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Having watched this Gender Gap arbcom develop, it seems that some of your colleagues are determined to ban Eric, come what may. This is unfortunate, given that civility issues should never trump content creation. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)