User talk:Newyorkbrad

Do you have time to take a look...

Malleus and I have quite a nice article on an English judge we are trying to work up. I wonder if you have time to look it over for completeness, neutrality etc? I don't have much experience of legal biographies and I thought your input might be interesting. If you have time, it is at Melford Stevenson. Thanks, --John (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look at it, but may not be able to until after the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't think there is any great hurry. --John (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a well-written article and well on its way. I expect that some would say that the overall tone is too critical of Stevenson. I expect that the response is that the commentary of the time, as preserved in the reliable sources, was itself critical, and hence that the article is a faithful reflection of what people thought of Stevenson as a judge.

The article could benefit from more use of legal sources, including reports of judicial decisions by Stevenson (if he wrote any published opinions, which I don't know whether he did or not), reports of appellate courts' reviews of his decisions, and law-review articles or the equivalents. My familiarity with British criminal law of the mid twentieth century is derived largely from detective stories, and hence I am afraid I don't have specific sources to cite; and my access to databases of published legal decisions is confined primarily to American cases. You might want to consult with an editor who is a British barrister, solicitor, or law student. Perhaps one of my talkpage watchers falls into one of these categories, or perhaps you might leave a note on the Wikiproject:Law talkpage or some other sensible place.

Good luck with this article, and if I think of any additional resources to recommend, I'll let you know. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and for your suggestions. I already asked Ironholds, who I know has done a lot of work on English legal topics, to have a look through, and Carcharoth as well. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. --John (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion on something rather arbitrary

I'm not sure if this is really that big of an issue, but I thought I'd ask your opinion on something I just did.

On the former administrators page, I noticed that a number of people who were listed had returned under another name and it was mentioned there. I recently made a couple edits verifying the new identities of other former sysops, as shown here. I'm worried that some of the additions I've made (specifically in the case of H) may have been done against the wishes of the people listed. I was just wondering if perhaps it's best to undo those edits entirely. Regards, Master&Expert (Talk) 23:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I know that some of these connections were asked not to be made at the time, but I don't know whether any of them would still bother the editors in question today. If you want further details, please send me an e-mail. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

None of them have kept it a complete secret, but if they feel uncomfortable with my identifying their new accounts, then they can go ahead and remove their listing there. I'm just aware of their editing histories because at one point I was heavily interested in the politics of Wikipedia (ie. RfAs, ArbCom, AN/I, etc). It's fine, I'm not particularly curious about the subject. But thanks for the offer, and for your helpful response. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Per your request

What do you think of User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration? Nobody Ent 01:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the essay is an interesting point of view on the arbitration process from an experienced editor, and that I'm surprised I didn't come across it a couple of years ago. I think it contains a number of accurate and well-written observations, although some parts of it are a bit exaggerated, and some are more cynical than I would choose to be, and some parts of it are a bit out of date (understandable as it's more than two years old now).

I think it urges parties to cases to be overly defensive-minded, rather than to clearly and cogently explain why they have acted as they did in the dispute before the Committee. However, I think its emphasis on the importance of good behavior while the case is pending is generally correct.

An important observation in the essay that I agree with is that most of the time, the Committee focuses on the big picture underlying a case, and that many of the subtle nuances that editors bicker about on the workshop or strive to carefully document on the evidence page ultimately turn out to be tangential and don't get picked up in the final decision. (This has exact parallels in my real-world job.) Unfortunately, one can't always tell in advance which nuances will wind up mattering and which won't.

Among specific points of the essay with which I disagree is the assertion that "[r]eading between the lines one gathers that there is a good deal of horse trading and arm twisting behind the scenes as cases approach closure." By "horse trading," I assume SBHB means a scenario along the lines of "I'll vote to ban User:A if you'll vote to ban User:B" or some rough equivalent. I've been an arbitrator since January 2008 and that sort of trading off of votes on one issue within a case for another has never happened in any case I can recall.

I think the last line of the essay—"You're completely on your own in interpreting any nuances or inconsistencies in the announced decision. While it is possible to file a request for clarification my experience is that the Arbitrators would rather gnaw their own limbs off than provide meaningful guidance to the implications of their decisions."—was at best an exaggeration when it was written, but it certainly is not true today, now that we have created a dedicated "requests for clarifications and amendments section" right on the main requests for arbitration page.

I may have more thoughts about this later, and I'd be interested in what others have to say about it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously

Hey, Brad. Can you please have a look into this... particularly the *hilarious* bit where an admin blocked the account for block evasion *before* blocking the IP address *at the same time as* removing my defence and very reasonable requests from the area where I'm meant to defend myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Halfnakedlabrador Also, I request the contact details of the checkuser ombudsman committee. Ta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheap54678 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that your accounts have been involved with a serious sockpuppeting/harassment situation, and as such, were blocked appropriately. If the administrators/checkusers who handled the matter have erred, you can try e-mailing the Arbitration Committee, but please don't waste our time by telling us obvious lies. Or for that matter non-obvious lies, or anything other than the truth of what you have been doing and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"prohibited"

I've responded on the Fae proposed decision talkpage to the concern you raised there. I mention it here only because you might not be following that page now that the decision has closed. Your input on this wording will be appreciated the next time there is a case that uses it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've responded there.

As it's closed, there's no need to respond at this point.

Am I disappointed in the arbs? In some ways yes, and in some no.

I suppose I must just have an unrealistically high expectation towards our arbitrators. C'est la vie.

Thanks for commenting at least. - jc37 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be under the misimpression that the principles (as opposed to remedies) we articulate in arbitration decisions have sweeping effects across the wiki. Frankly, I sometimes wonder whether anyone (other than the parties to the cases and a few aficionadoes of the arbitration cases) study the principles at all; I think that often they deserve more attention than they get. It certainly is not the case that editors rush to enshrine our observations in the principles sections of our decisions into the policy and guidelines pages that people do consult. The bottom line is that I don't think anything concrete will be negatively affected by the fact that we didn't change this wording this time around, but I'll make sure we discuss the point the next time the issue comes up in a case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I am Zsf... and i LIKE YOUR OINIONS OF ARBCOM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.204.249 (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm trying to work out what the Onions of ArbCom are. There's a page in that, I'm sure. Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should speak with this administrator regarding your concerns. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment on amendment request

The comment "editors who are proxying for [banned editors] or carrying on on their behalf need to stop" appears to be an incendiary accusation against me and other editors so I ask that you rescind it unless you can give some really powerful evidence to back it up. It is not at anyone's behest or on anyone's behalf that I made this request. Trev sent me exactly one e-mail and it has not influenced my request one iota. I am hardly the only one who raised concerns about this restriction and Math's conduct relating to it. Try to remember that every editor, behind all the text, is still a living person (yes even banned editors) and some people take an honest interest in a case because they feel sympathy for one of the parties based on nothing more than simple sympathy. To me it seems that all this talk of proxy-editing and banned editors is creating a McCarthyian mentality on the issue where anyone who gets involved is quickly accused of some wikicrime based on essentially nothing and assumed to be part of some nefarious group. Math gets harassed by some banned editor and that's sad, but nothing entitles him to provoke other editors or distract from the central issue, which is that the ban against Trev and Sight is punitively broad (any editor who "worked in the topic") and enables disruption rather than discouraging it. I ask that you evaluate the request based solely on its merits and leave the accusations and insinuations to those who aren't expected to act impartially.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

These are good thoughts, but I would recommend that a different consideration be given a higher priority: act to achieve a good outcome on the underlying issue. Our primary purpose should be to build good encyclopedic content, and actions should aim to assist that. Fairness is important, but it is not our job to ensure that all views are heard (when those views come from topic banned editors or abusive socks). The private motivations of an editor are not important—what counts is what they do. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Taking those considerations into account, what specifically are you suggesting be done beyond what is already being done? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you rescind the comment I quoted above that you made on the request for amendment? I do not think such serious accusations against other editors without compelling evidence are the kind of comments an Arb should be making at such a request, unless that Arb is recusing from the decision.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You weren't necessarily the person I was referring to there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As it could be easily taken as a reference to me would you rescind it anyway? When the involved editors are throwing out such accusations against specific people, I do not think it is a good idea for an Arb to join in with vaguer remarks unless there is some compelling evidence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look at this. What I really want is for the banned and topic-banned users no longer to have any form of involvement in these areas, as the level of disruption they have created is severe. Even accepting that you've acted in good faith throughout this matter, you should please do nothing further to enable these people from this point on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ur the best

• hic* Egg Centric 02:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Request of comment regarding Chilean regions

You are invited to continue the discussion on the names of Chilean regions at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Chilean regions. Chiton (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer—I'll take a look, though I don't know how much I'll have to add. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)