User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2019/Jun

A barnstar for you!
Another astute observation. I'll admit that it dissuaded me from making a statement. Hopefully the clerks will remove some of the more superfluous statements. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It got removed: . -- Softlavender (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=901642675 — Ched : ?    —  17:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Has it become common to remove statements at Arbcom?
 * Allow me clarify a bit. By statements I am referring to statements that are not offensive, harassing, or in some way violating one of the "pillars" that we are supposed to adhere to, or violating one of the rules to posting at wp:rfar. — Ched :  ?    —  17:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given everything else that is going on, I'm going to let this go. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It was removed after someone complained about comments from the peanut gallery. But I know that even as a nine-year-old boy you never threw peanuts! Thincat (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Concerns with the proposal (not so the the proposal itself, but the implied underlying fact basis)
I want to endorse your suggested resolution but I have some concerns. I'm posting here rather than on the other page to avoid derailing that discussion. If you can alleviate my concerns I might be able to wholeheartedly endorse.

My short summary:
 * 1) Fram had interactions with another editor which were perceived very negatively by that editor
 * 2) T&S instructed Fram to cease interactions with that editor
 * 3) Fram complied with the instructions
 * 4) Fram had some rude comments about ArbCom
 * 5) T & S banned Fram from enwiki for a year

If item number three is correct (and I vaguely think there were some minor technical violations but I'm doing this from memory, not having saved the relevant statement) then the ban decision has nothing to do with the interactions with that editor (despite consuming many thousands of bytes of subsequent discussion) except to the extent that this arguably "lowered the bar" for what would constitute actions deserving a ban.

Item 4 might be justification for action by T&S rather than a referral to Arbcom (although in my opinion that's weak tea).

It is incomprehensible that some rude words for ArbCom would justify a one-year ban, which leads me to think there's more to this than my brief summary. One possibility (which I fervently hope is wrong) is that T & S reassessed item 1 and decided it needed more than simply a cease-and-desist. That would be very troubling, if true. A related possibility is that T & S reassessed item 1 in view of new evidence not available at the time of the cease-and-desist and that has elevated the situation. While I find that less problematic than my first option, it makes it difficult to endorse your proposal as it means I might support the retention of the ban if I knew about that additional information. If neither of those two options is true, and there are no other unreported incidents, then it follows that the one-year ban arises from the rude words. That option would permit me to endorse, though it seems highly unlikely to be the case.

I feel like I'm missing something, as it doesn't seem possible that we are in the situation we are in. S Philbrick (Talk)  20:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I don't have any more information about the events that led to the ban than anyone else. As I said at the top of my proposal, if the facts are very different from what is currently understood, then my proposal might not work. Given that we don't know, and probably aren't going to know, all the details, I had to do the best I could with what we have. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

June 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (stay tuned for Pride on weekend!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday June 23: Wiki Loves Pride @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Mention in upcoming issue of The Signpost
Just wanted you to know your name is included in a report about FRAMBAN in the upcoming issue of The Signpost. If you have any comments you can leave them on my talkpage or other Signpost official channels. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Careers
Hi Brad. I couldn't help wondering about your remark on the call for resignation of JE. You wrote "I think it is inappropriate to seek to affect someone's career in this way". I do understand and share a principal aversion against hurting anybody's career. And I also agree that we do not know who is responsible for the situation. But on a rational and principled level, I think that someones career (indeed, everybody's career) should depend on their job performance. If they consistently fail in one particular job, then they probably should be removed from that job. What else would make sense? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you reread the rest of what I wrote there, it provided some more context. We are trying to address an institutional issue for the project, but I don't think we have either the role of WMF personnel evaluation or the information we'd need to perform it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I read the first sentence as an absolute statement, and the rest (which I mostly agree with) as additional arguments. It seems you intended the first sentence as the conclusion, and the rest as the argument for that conclusion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They are separate points but I think they reinforce one another. More importantly, it seems most of those commenting are of the same opinion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Smoking diff
I hope you are well. I’m amused to think we might cross paths professionally some day. I’ve been doing a lot of expert witness work these last few years.

Anyhow, what do you think of this ? That edit appears to have been done without any prior community discussion and without any widespread announcement, such as at WP:AN. I think what’s upsetting people most is that a change has been sprung on them. When I decide to contribute my time here I expect certain rules of engagement. I don’t expect those rules to change substantially without my input or at least without giving me prior notice. Jehochman Talk 04:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect the Foundation's explanation would be along the lines of "if we can take a more severe action, why can't we decide to be more lenient and take a less severe action where warranted?" Of course lots of people in the past few days have explained the problems perceived with this approach. Contrary to some theories, I doubt that the office was anticipating this level of hostile reaction. (Please pardon the relatively brief response, but it's late, and there isn't much that hadn't already been said.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Got a chuckle out of the Penn and Teller story. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Newyorkbrad,

just wanted to say thank you for the constructive approach you took at the Fram discussion. Whether it works or not this time around, this is an attitude that is more likely to result in a respectful and helpful outcome for all parties involved than many other approaches I've seen. Keep up the good work! effeietsanders 19:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * My thanks as well. And a note that unless 'pinned' your proposal will get archived by a bot after 2 days of inactivity. I am considering signing there, but I see the arguments on both sides and as the latest signatory (Wehwalt) said "that ship has sailed". What do you think? Is it worth continuing to sign up to your proposal? Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the WMF's position, I'm not sure it matters very much at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting through to them, finally, after the Twitter debacle. Katherine showed up on her talk page today and engaged in discussion.  We will see if she goes to work on Monday and sets things right. Fram needs to be unbanned, and the matter sent to ArbCom.  I am convinced that a sufficient amount of evidence is publicly visible for ArbCom to handle it. Jehochman Talk 00:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Glad you didn't sign up for another round?
So … are you glad you didn't sign up for another round of captaining (or at least crewing) the good ship ArbCom, now that this iceberg is in the water? Or are you now regretting not allowing yourself to be drafted for another term? (We can avoid the "well, I might not have been re-elected" line; you could have redirected the main page to Clown and been re-elected.) Because I see you trying to help out, and I certainly wish you had the ArbCom bully pulpit to do it from. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's say I have mixed feelings about it, but there was sentiment that I shouldn't have sought even a fourth term, let alone a fifth. The current Committee, while no closer to perfect than in the years I served, is dedicated and capable. I wish them the best in helping to resolve this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)