User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2016/Apr

Accountability
You are a lawyer kind of guy, and you understand how Arbcom goes about things and I would appreciate your thoughts on the discussion here. As I understand it, and as I explained on that page, Arbcom only looks at disputes, for which there need to be (a) a subject of dispute, which can be clearly stated in a sentence or two and (b) disputants, i.e. people who have tried and failed to agree on the subject. This doesn't really apply to this case, since the culprit has all but 'fessed up. But there are still some principles to test, and I wonder if there is a mechanism on Wikipedia to test that. At least two, namely (1) is it OK to falsify credentials and (2) if not, is someone accountable for this. By 'accountable', I mean that it is not OK to tell someone who is challenging the claim to go away, or to claim they are being harassed, nor is it OK for other Wikipedia users to warn the challenger. The same was true of the Wifione case. I was threatened with a block or two for raising that on Meta, and I am sure the same would have happened here had I not been blocked already. Interested in your thoughts. Peter Damian (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just caught myself up on the ongoing discussions both on ANI and on RfAr. At this point, of all the issues raised concerning this editor's behavior, I am most concerned by the apparently well-founded allegations that he has grossly misrepresented sources and, knowingly or at least recklessly, created a great deal of false article content (including in medical articles). We rightly spend a lot of time discussing contributors and building a sense of community, but at the end of the day the value of the entire Wikipedia project for our readers consists in the encyclopedia content we are creating. The whole point of the enterprise is negated if the articles consist, to more than an unavoidable, minimal extent, of nonsense and misinformation. The corollary is that editors whose content contributions routinely contain misinformation are not helping anyone or anything by making those contributions, and should be stopped from doing so. (For the ArbCom's historical take on this, the relevant principles appear in Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot and Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance.)
 * The issue of how one verifies credentials claims on a project that allows user anonymity is a complex one but frankly is not something I consider a major problem. When I started editing, I mentioned on my user page that I was a lawyer in New York City with (then) 20 years of experience. A critic of the project went to some trouble to learn my real name and identity, and it turned out that I was a lawyer in New York City with 20 years of experience. In dealing with a large number of editors both on and off wiki, my sense is that the vast majority of credentials claims are legitimate, so that (at least in most topic areas) it is not worth creating some new bureaucratic edifice to unmask a handful of imposters or exaggerators. (Jimmy Wales suggested in 2007 in the aftermath of the Essjay situation what might be necessary to do this, and the community had little appetite for it.)
 * In the specific case now under discussion, I'm not impressed by various aspects of the user conduct, but the allegation that he has inserted falsehoods into hundreds of articles, in my mind, dwarfs the importance of everything else. I appreciate your own contribution to identifying this problem. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since I asked that question, jps (see my talk page) has pointed me to WP:Honesty which is a brilliant (and quite old) little essay. You have also answered the question of whether Arbcom can establish a sort of case law on difficult principles. Plus it's apparently part of the Terms of Use that one should be misrepresenting their affiliation with any individual or entity. Thanks again for those thoughts. Actually I don't think a bureaucratic edifice is required, simply a requirement for accountability, i.e. a straight answer to a question about credentials, rather than obfuscation or screaming harassment. I.e. any user should be entitled to ask 'do you really have a doctorate' of X, and X must answer 'yes' or 'no', with no further questions allowed. My general experience of life is that people are generally very reluctant to tell an outright lie, and requiring an answer may be enough. Or we could have a rule that forbids anyone advertising credentials. Peter Damian (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm mystified
...as to why you did this? Would be pleased to hear your explanation. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was an inadvertent smartphone misclick and I immediately reverted it. Sorry! Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've hit rollback by mistake in the past too. No worries. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If it encourages you to do stupid things, why is it called a "smart"phone?? Anyway, this User:NE_Ent/common.css code makes the rollback link go away on mobiles-- I think the edit summary "wk" is, cause I certainly wasn't enough to figure it out on my own. 13:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know little enough about coding that I wouldn't even know where to put the code. (Wait, let me rephrase that....) But I'll follow up on your suggestion if this problem recurs again, because I hate annoying people like this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming I can actually spell your username correctly for once I think it would be User:Newyorkbrad/common.css; Special:MyPage/common.css should take you to the right place. NE Ent 20:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Precedents for a hybrid ANI - ArbCom solution to past issues?

 * Hi Nyb. A very interesting exchange up - thread re the ongoing ANI and ArbCom intervention request. In connection, I am still minded to hammer out a hybrid solution where ANI unbundles and deals with some of the behavioural isues that Wikicology has displayed (through mentoring and identification and of what competencies he generally lacks and to give him those skills) and to pass the credentials and other legacy issues over the ArbCom. Obviously there has to be a sanction applied, and I would suggest it be a complete ban on any work on new article creation and any existing articles, while he confines himself under close supervision to assisting in cleaning up the undoubted mess that has been caused. He must learn from it in terms of sheer competence, i.e real nuts and bolts core skills such as correct use of citations, notability, copyright, due weight, etc. I think the ANI could impose those restrictions. I believe that Wc is "here" in terms of the project, but that we are seeing cultural differences impacting on how he operates here. I go into that in more depth in my ArbCom statement. Any thoughts would be welcomed Brad. I know you are busy, so no rush. Simon. Irondome (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am increasingly coming to believe that for his own personal well-being, the user should abandon English Wikipedia immediately (retire), and not return for a good long time, if at all. Some are set, whether well meaningly (for the greater good) or not - on destroying him personally. He cannot defend himself - they have determined and will endeavor to show everything he says is a lie (perhaps they are right, who knows), and it is inevitable that every shred of truth, human weakness, or apology that comes from him will be belittled, twisted, or used against him.  The project, it is manifestly clear at this point, will just show no empathy, nor even sympathy.  If he does retire what will happen then is probably a Schumacher-like suspension (from an Arbcom case a few years ago) at Arbcom, and whatever the future holds for him, it won't be the foreseeable two months of psychological pummeling he is in for at present. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Although this isn't responsive to your specific question (which I may return to when I've thought through an answer), the most important questions I find myself asking when I read through everything are, for those who advocate keeping the editor a participant for the purpose of cleaning up the errors in his articles, are (1) what improvement has he shown in his editing that leads to the conclusion that he is capable of fixing the errors without introducing new ones, and (2) what is the advantage of keeping the suspect content around pending its being fixed, rather than deleting or rolling back much of it? Responding to another point you've made, I make full allowance for the possibility that English is not an editor's sole or lead language, and so forth (compare, Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ) (and I certainly hope we all reject the national-origin stereotype implicit in the ANI comment that analogized the editor to a Nigerian e-mail scam), but am very reluctant to accept any suggestion that "cultural differences" explain behavior such attributing statements to sources that the sources don't support, or in some cases even mention.

Being brought before the ArbCom, or before the noticeboards, is never pleasant for anyone and I've certainly advocated for improvements in the processes. Editors who are abusive to other parties to a dispute onwiki should be excused from further participation in the discussion. At the same time, serious issues have been identified here that go, not merely to whether the editor has violated one or another stricture of our complex and often self-contradictory internal rule-set, but much more importantly to me, to whether there are now dozens or more mainspace articles whose reliability is now deeply suspect. I would like to see this issue addressed with a lot less ad hominem just as you would, but that doesn't mean we can avoid having some form of discussion. Whether the editor chooses to retire is of course up to him. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All his edits and all his articles are completely open for public inspection - anyone who wants to can go and do anything they want with them right now. There is nothing that needs to be done to him (or with him, as you argue to Irondome) by anyone who wants to do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

April 13: WikiWednesday Salon NYC and Mini-Video Opportunity
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

I can't comment at AE
I can leave messages on uninvolved admin pages. But here's another thinly veiled diff. I was brought to 3RR and no action. Certainly not editing to call anyone a "pedophile." The redaction (and oversight) was a single word and my comment otherwise stands. I am arguing that the person who is being pawned by both sides in the GG dispute need not be in the article and for that I am being rather harshly criticized by the subject of AE enforcement. I don't know how Gamaliel is neutral regarding enforcement as he has banned me from his talk page and the topic ban originated because he didn't want AE requests against MB (whence the immediate DROPTHESTICK). In November, the block imposed by HJ Mitchell was overturned and Gamaliels revdel's were reversed (only time I've seen that). That's when he modified the topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I frankly can't unravel all the procedural history here of who's allowed to do what or to interact with whom and when; it has become more complicated than some of the cases I'm actually paid to litigate, and life is short. But looking at what you've just pointed me to, my first reaction is that the relative seriousness of concerted online harassment and bullying, on the one hand, and of making silly references to Trump's hands, on the other, is so different that it is a category mistake, a distraction, and a disservice to discuss the two in the same posting. That is aimed at everyone, including User:MarkBernstein although I understand what he was saying there, and yet at no one in particular. As for whether a victim of concerted harassment or criminal activity should be named in a Wikipedia article, that is an everpresent issue that I've written about dating back to 2007 (see links on my userpage); I don't know what specific instance you're referring to as a current instance, but it certainly doesn't sound good based on the limited information you've provided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested and argued that the "topic ban" be lifted because it's not enforced and it's too complicated. I'd rather have just have regular civility rather than the complicated history.  The short version, if you care, the person in question that I don't wish to have in WP is someone that was harassed for her employment, had some things dug up about her regarding "child sexual agency" that she had written about. While investigating that, her childrens toy maker employer discovered a second job and terminated her with a statement it was unrelated to the other issue.  Her employer was roundly seen as "caving."  Neither disclosed the second job. A week later it was discovered and published.  All sides of it is in reliable sources so she has become a pawn in a battle to condemn harassment or exonerate her employer.  There's no way to cover this properly as a non-notable person, not charged with a crime but an obvious victim of harassment.  There's nothing new in the methods, so it's IMO a gratuitous scalp counting exercise.  It's the most bizarre collection of antagonists w/ absurd alliances (like gamers that want original Japanese sexualised content basically on the same side as anti-pedophelia foundations). --DHeyward (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was the one who revision-deleted the statement, as a BLP vio. Repeating the redacted content here is way out of line. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No names were used. Both terms are in reliable sources (one you left on the talk page because it's in the WaPo and used by MB.)  Now if the WaPo is going there and the only reason it's okay is because you agree with the point it makes, highlights the problem of having the content on WP. "Upping the body count" is not okay.  Selectively biased oversight to support a POV is really problematic.  I deleted that paragraph about her in the article before the latest came out in uncanny foresight so we don't have to keep updating it with details.  If you really want to help, weigh in that this young women's life need not be paraded on WP and used as fodder for a cause.  Deleting the deletion argument, while retaining the insertion argument that use the language for occupation is not okay.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPTALK we need to avoid repeating allegations onwiki. The Washington Post has decided to include these allegations, but until it's decided that they should be included on Wikipedia, we should not. I had not seen MarkBernstein's mention of it—that is now also revision-deleted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent, however I hope you reflect on how you were brought in and it is likely manipulative. If it's like in the past, other admins were duped into becoming involved only to learn they were being used to further an argument rather than protecting the encyclopedia.  My apologies if you weren't solicited to oversight and consider the source if you were.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This can be answered in by those involved in this conversation without repeating the information whose inclusion is disputed. Let us assume that individual X is the victim of serious acts of harassment. Let us also assume that everyone in this conversation deplores such harassment and would like to raise awareness that harassment exists and must be combatted, without inflicting further harm on the victim. To what extent, if any, is this purpose served by making reference to specifics of the harassment on-wiki? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering the tactics are not new and harassment is covered, I would say X need not be named. I don't advocate including that individual at all.  The problem starts when circumstances surrounding X become "complicated" and broad societal issues are focused on the single individual.  X's views on those issues and harassment are not purely X's individually and WP shouldn't focus so keenly on individuals, especially in news cycles and when they became prominent only when inserted between two public figures, without any method of consent.  Even if their views are directly questioned by public figures or other views lead to a very public termination.  There are usually public figure advocates that can address the broader issues, but personalizing it doesn't always sharpen the focus.  If X is "complicated" and doesn't bring clarity to the issue, then X's personal story is not particularly relevant.  A lot like sexual assault, which we all agree is wrong, we don't need to go into naming victims, their history, beliefs, etc, to understand that it's wrong at any level or that it's a prevalent issue.  When X chooses not to address it and they are not a public figure, WP should get out of the news cycle.  Once we got to the point that naming and sourcing opened up Pandora's box and clouded the issue, it's time to close it.      --DHeyward (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Decided not to bother with DRV
It's not worth the trouble. Dingsuntil (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)