User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Feb

Reminder
User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Jan. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies again for the delay in responding to your question. You asked me what policies and procedures the Arbitration Committee has put in place to avoid a recurrence of the issues that arose with former user Jack Merridew a/k/a Barong et al.
 * Speaking for myself, I try to learn from the success or lack of success of any remedy that is imposed. When an approach works, I (and I think other arbitrators) consider using it in future similar cases; when an approach doesn't work, I try to figure out why it didn't work and what might be done differently in the future.
 * In this instance, I'd prefer not to engage in an on-wiki post-mortem into the history of this particular editor and his interactions with the Arbitration Committee, especially given that he is not able to respond to anything anyone says or to defend himself. Suffice it to say that the outcome was certainly disappointing to everyone.
 * Having thought about your question for a month now, I am not sure that this is a situation where "the Committee's policies and procedures" need to be changed. It is certainly possible to draw a lesson from this case. The problem is, different people would see a different lesson to be drawn. One lesson, which would certainly be congenial to some of my colleagues, would be along the lines of "by the time the same editor has come before the Arbitration Committee for the nth time, it is probably not a good use of time and resources to craft and police nuanced remedies for that editor and to cut him or her any slack." But others could say the lesson was something else.
 * One size does not fit all, in arbitration cases or in most other things on Wikipedia. This editor's history and situation are not typical of most editors who come before the Arbitration Committee (or, for that matter, community-based sanction discussions on AN or ANI or anywhere else).
 * I am not certain, therefore, that the ArbCom needs to change its policies and procedures in response to this case. If mistakes were made, they were judgment mistakes evaluated in retrospect, rather than purely procedural mistakes that could be avoided by fixing the rulebook.
 * You mentioned that you had suggestions of your own for changes that could be made. I'd be interested in knowing what they are&mdash;maybe I've overlooked something. If you post on a Committee page rather than here, my colleagues and the arbitration clerks and interested others would also have the benefit of your input. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
I've sent you an email as you are the only current arbitrator who was active for a particular case. Rschen7754 11:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Received; sent a holding response; will review more carefully after this weekend. Ditto for anyone else who's sent me mail recently. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for input rel Continuation War application for appeal
I really appreciate your input and agree with most of it. You are aware, right, that the main basis of my appeal is that the admin. has made a special finding that an existing consensus of sources already exists despite there being no agreement among participants and without actually naming any of the sources that comprise the consensus of sources? Paavo273 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Four more years ago
Greetings Newyorkbrad! I could not help but notice that here you mentioned you either had some Ann Arbor wikifriends or an interest to coming to Ann Arbor for some Wikipedia related activity. If any of this is still the case, let me know. I am working with the Michigan Wikipedians to re-facilitate Meetup/Ann Arbor. Best regards mate,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My close friend who was living in Ann Arbor a few years ago is no longer there, so I don't visit the area as frequently. However, I am there from time to time and expect to continue to visit sometimes, so if you are planning another event, please give me as much notice as you can, and I'll make an effort to attend.
 * I know of at least one other experienced Wikipedian in the area who might also be interested; I don't know if he'd want his location publicized, but if you e-mail me I'll send you his name. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Availability note
Please note that I will be on vacation in Curaçao with limited online time and access for the next week.

I realize that I have not been as active as usual in the past several weeks. This should change upon my return from this trip. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was going to ask why you hadn't said anything in this clarification. Never mind then, have a nice holiday! --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm back now, catching up, and should be commenting there soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Stalking
I guess it's probably confirmation bias, but I think this article supports my opinion that with regards to predatory stalkers, it's best to be public and open about discussing them, including mentioning their name(s) openly and often. I think it robs them of their power to terrorize when everyone is aware of who they are and what they are or were trying to do. I don't think it is insensitive to their victims or the targets of their obsession. Cla68 (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're responding here, perhaps inadvertently, to something I wrote privately concerning another website. I mention that not to be critical, but because others reading this page will have no idea what we are talking about.
 * My view is that these situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis based on all the available information. In the specific instance that I wrote to you and others about, I believe my suggestion had significant merit. Unfortunately, I cannot detail my reasoning, so we will have to leave it there at least for now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

DC happy hour on Thursday, February 28!
Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I won't be able to make this event. Hopefully I'll see you (meaning Harej, not the Bot) and your colleagues at another event soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)