User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2017/Oct

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline
Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Something to see

 * Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11

This is really a comment for all of arbcom, but none of the talk sub-pages "felt" right, and since you wrote a specific addendum, to the initial statement (which, not incidentally, was referred to if not clearly agreed to by the others), I decided posting here was probably as good a place as any.

Now I don't have much of an opinion on paid editing itself "per se", except the normal concerns about watching for possible situations of UNDUE, etc. which I think you all elaborated upon much better than I could have.

And I think all those questions listed by you and the other arbs definitely should be answered.

But the reason I'm writing this was the well up of feeling I had when reading it.

it had little to do with the topic at hand, except that it concerned something fundamental to wikipedia (the ability that anyone can edit, and the ability to generally edit anonymously, and the ability to edit collegially, with a presumed expectation of no bullying or harrassment (heated discusson is understood - ad hominem, not-so-much), and, and, and, and...

There is something fundamental about Wikipedia. Of how we are all coming together in our humanity. To produce what can be considered a defining work of, for, and about humanity.

It's hard to explain (logic and "well-of-emotion" - rarely the twain do meet : )

I personally justified to myself going from Wikipedia reader to Wikipedia contributor finally, simply because this just seemed to have more value than racking up some high score in a video game, or other time-killing recreational activity. Not long after that, I realized that grade schoolkids read this, and committed more of my time.

And as time has gone by, I've seen changes, some good, some in my opinion, not-so-good. and I wonder if this project will survive. If the ever increasing growing pains and ever growing BURO codified policies, and the seeming growth of "some editors are more equal than others", will be the calcification such as what helped end the roman empire?

And then I read this very thoughtful reply by arbcom to the (seemingly well-intended) posting by the WMF.

It's hard to explain the feeling, and I'm just one Wikipedian, so take it for what's worth, but I'll say, with seriously more than a single tear in my eye, I really felt proud of the members of arbcom, standing up for the fundamentals in that way. It seriously gives me hope for the future.

I know this is supposedly just a text-based website floating in the ephemeral ether and has about that much value, but yet, the time I and others have contributed, the content in its many forms that has been contributed. That has, I think, a human value. And I think worthy of my care. and in this case, "well-of-emotion".

Anyway, as you know I can wax verbosically, especially if in stream-of-consciousness mode. So I suppose this is enough for now.

Thank you for listening, and actually, just:

Thank you.

- jc37 17:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this post. I'll bring it to the other arbitrators' attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sunday October 15: Wikipedia @ Open House New York / Weekend Photo Competition
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

October 18: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Page protection
Hi, Brad. Would you kindly reinstate the semi-protection at Liza Koshy for a longer period of time? Since the protection expired, it has received IP vandalism. Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, for one month this time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED and the real world
The New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) held today that a judge may not decide an appeal from his or her own decision. The opinion is here. This is common sense, and has been the practice in New York and elsewhere for many years (see also here), but the ruling is reassuring. If only the Schenectady County Court had read WP:INVOLVED before rendering its decision, everyone might have saved lots of time.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * …says someone who's spent most of the last decade on a body that decides appeals of its own decisions… (and yes I know nobody's come up with a workable alternative) &#8209; Iridescent 21:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But the word "appeals" in the context of ArbCom is clearly a misnomer. (The reasons for this are left as an exercise for the reader ... or maybe we should make it an "optional question" for the candidates this year.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But who would be left to decide? This "ombudsman" I've heard rumours about?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But who would be left to decide? This "ombudsman" I've heard rumours about?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom notification
I've mentioned you as part of my testimony, here. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)