User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Jul

Thanks and a platonic apology
Thanks for your courteous responses. So far, Burnett and Marshall's introductory essay as captured in part at Amazon, Foreign in a domestic sense (my copy is in the mail) does much to reassure and calm the bickering spirit among us. Thank you, Newyorkbrad. The anthology's essays are paired to examine several facets of each element studied.

By my reading, much maligned of late, -- according to Burnett, there IS scholarship (inconclusive) supporting Bkonrad -- just nothing for his dismissive personal attacks; I wonder why he does not appeal to the scholarship as you did? p.19: reflects my understanding from my previously cited sources -- which Burnett says is inconclusive: "Supporters of the compact theory insist that the adoption of the Constitution of Puerto Rico was itself a sovereign act of the people of Puerto Rico and, as such, that it effected a transfer of sovereignty from Congress which Congress may not rescind." And later,

"This debate continues unabated." -- among scholars -- So the issues surrounding Burnett's judicially "unincorporated" colonialism requires a nuanced narrative to write in both sourced views, rather than summarily reverting entries without sourcing --- if we were to take Foreign in a domestic sense as our guide for the WP article, as Newyorkbrad suggested, or did you? When I point out an editor is using snippets without sources, the answer is that my using direct quotes and linked sources is 'snippets'. You may understand that I am not sure what you wrote recommending 'Foreign in a domestic sense' to me.

As you may have determined, I am from the wrong side of the "digital divide" -- I have not figured out how to wiki-fence to effect, -- frustrated by endless non-sequiturs -- Subject: extent of US federal republic: DC in US jurisdiction since 1790s, directly governed by Congress, has not a population in the federal republic until it has an elected self-government and a delegate in congress, 1972 -- Nonsequitur: I said DC was not in the US until 1972 ? -- and generally, misstating of my views as strawmen -- but I cannot tell you how grateful I am to have sources to explore rather than personal attack -- the research is 60% of the joy at Wikipedia as a hobby. I fear my last at "unincorporated US territories" in trying to meet Bkonrad-0uw did not measure up to your standard. I may be artless but I am not blind to the difference between the two of you on the page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Candidly, I think it might be best if you focused on another topic area for a couple of weeks, as some of the discussion on that talkpage is getting a little too heated for my taste. I'm glad to answer any more questions you might have about the sources. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

SCotUS naming standards
Hey Brad, I responded to your note on my talk page. -- Bertrc (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded on your page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

How would a gun designed by a lawyer work?
Answer. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No comment. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Away
I'll be mostly offline for the next few days given the US holiday. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Note on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision
S-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y. Enjoy the 4th. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I've been with family for the holiday but I'll look at your concern in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Oops, when I reverted your edit about the sitting schedule last month, I completely failed to notice your edit was to a quotation in a, so my edit was based on sense and not form. This morning I looked at it again and realized you changed a quotation, and on that basis reverted it. Just wanted to apologize for not noticing that last month and therefore basically making the same edit twice for different reasons. jhawkinson (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you are right that we can't edit a quotation, but what I recommend is that we rephrase and drop the quotation. What's stated on the court website technically isn't correct; for at least the past 15 years, the practice has been as I've described it (four judges go to Puerto Rico and sit in panels for four days, while other judges sit the same week in Boston). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstood my concern with your edit last month. The judges who hear the cases in Boston are not a single "panel" proper, bceause multiple different 3-judge panels hear cases in Boston during the same week. The same is true in Puerto Rico. E.g. in March, Lynch, Torruella, and Selya sat on March 4 and Lynch, Torruella, and Lipez sat on March 5. Those are two panels. So it would not be correct to say "one panel" sat in PR. If you want to rephrase and drop the quotation, I have no particular objection, other than to make sure what is said is correct. I reverted your first June 23 edit because it was incorrect (on the definition of a panel), and your second June 23 edit because I (belatedly) realized you edited a quotation. I have no opinion on the spirit of your edits, my objections were to technical accuracy and form. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understood your objection to my first edit (about more judges sitting in a week in Puerto Rico than form a specific panel), and tried to address it in my second edit. (As an FYI, although it's too trivial for the article, one reason that four judges always go down there is that Judge Torruella, who as you know is from Puerto Rico, is one of them, but there are always cases on the calendar in which Judge Torruella is recused, in part because his brother is a partner in one of the largest firms on the island.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party case

 * Looks like you're very busy. I hope you had fun with your family on the 4th, and you were able to catch up with them. I certainly enjoyed the break with mine. At the evidence talk page for the Arbcom proceeding on Tea Party movement, I've placed a request for leave to file extended evidence. As a non-party, I'm only allowed 500 words and 50 diffs. I'm presenting evidence on three editors, and the evidence on each one of them may exceed that limit all by itself. User talk:Callanecc indicates that your clerk will be on holiday until the 9th and I know User:SilkTork is also traveling, so it's down to you. Sorry to bother you. Would like to get this evidence together, so that when everyone comes back, we can hit the ground running and get this resolved. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually just made a request to the clerks for you to be added as a party to the case, so for now, go ahead and submit evidence as if you were one. NW ( Talk ) 18:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, July 13!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. 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, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 00:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Offsite comments and personal attacks
Hello Brad,

I am an editor who strives to maintain civility and decorum. By coincidence, I have also tried for a variety of reasons to maintain friendly lines of communication with both User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz and User:Ironholds. Sometimes, those particular efforts of mine have been difficult. That being said, I want to commend you for the comments that you made about this matter. I often read contentious debates on the various administrative boards, though I seldom comment. I read them because I care about the governance of the project. I usually remain silent because I don't want to add to the usual tit-for-tat, and often, I see both sides of the story. I tend to be a moderate on many of these issues. But you, sir, have taken on the responsibility for arbitrating such matters. I just want to let you know that I am deeply grateful for your wisdom, your diplomatic, measured approach, and your never ending efforts to make this wonderful project run more smoothly. Thank you very much.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Brad, I also appreciate that you took the time to frame the issue. I can't blame you for declining and I certainly don't know the best solution for these problems, but I think your statement will be helpful in providing focus and reducing drama, and perhaps a starting point to solving these issues within the community.  It isn't necessary that everyone agree with every point, but it was done in an objective way consistent with my desire for Arb to provide leadership on a path forward.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  11:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind messages. I appreciate them very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The Dakota
At Talk:The Dakota, you explained to Tenebrae last week, "the wording Beyond My Ken installed was probably more favorable to your perspective than is likely to result if this discussion goes on. Since then, time and research were invested in citing links which put Tenebrae's POV in better focus. Please review how the discussion thread has developed since your comment.  I hope you can find a way to help sharpen the issues. --Enkyo2 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've looked in occasionally since then, and will comment when I figure what else there is to say. I've also been trying to find time to follow up on another suggestion which was made, which was to walk by and see what name is actually engraved on the building ... maybe I'll get to it this weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest the initial name "Dakota" as noted by the NYT as being published in 1882 is quite sufficient (cites noted on article talk page).  Collect (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have thought all along that "The Dakota" is clearly the common and usual name. The question is what level of support exists for offering "Dakota Apartments" at some level as an alternate. Is it, or was it ever, a recognized variation of "The Dakota", or was it something that some people at some point just assumed "must be" the formal or official name? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To save you hauling yourself uptown (or delegating the task to one of the horde of pleasure-slaves the WMF allot to the senior members of the cabal), the Dakota has no signage of any kind on the building. I'm not even sure any variant of "Dakota" is the official name; AFAIK the occupants' postal addresses are just "Mr Foo, Apt Bar, 1 W 72nd, NY, NY". If you really want to follow the true spirit of Arbcom, you ought really to uphold the solution which was forced on the UK, and pagemove every building whose name isn't 100% agreed upon to the street address—the policy which gave Wikipedia such intuitive and not-at-all-confusing titles as 30 St Mary Axe, 17 New Wakefield Street, 22 Marsh Wall and 20 Fenchurch Street. (I pronounce myself shocked that 350 Fifth Avenue is only a redirect.) – iridescent  20:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by and for the information. It's been clear to me all along that "The Dakota" is the official name (the name of the cooperative is The Dakota Inc., and so forth, as discussed on the article talkpage); the problem has been convincing a couple of other people. I don't know anything about the UK pagename discussion you're mentioning, but if it's as ill-thought-out a solution as you suggest, it might be time to reconsider the matter; "consensus can change" and all of that. I anticipate that you will beg off in favor of pastures green, but that's not my call. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF employee joking about burning a wikipedia editor alive
I can't see how this is acceptable. http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=51423#p51423


 * #wikipedia-en-admins on 26 June wrote:
 * 01:12  User2: You silly guy
 * 01:12  You gotta revdel the edit in the middle too...
 * 01:12  *shakes head* Can't ever give you OS tools...
 * 01:15  User1: oh, sod off. User3 needs his rubdown.
 * 01:15  Well, you grab the oil, I'll meet you there.
 * 01:17  only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter.

I'm pretty sure making lethal threats, even jokingly, on wikipedia is grounds for immediate blocking. I'm also pretty sure that doing this in an wikipedia admin IRC channel is grounds for immediate de-adminning. I'm fairly certain that the WMF doesn't condone this type of harassing behavior by its employees.

Your thoughts? TalkingToBrad (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk page stalker's thoughts: why don't you use your main account to Talk To Brad? Bishonen &#124; talk 22:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC).
 * Gosh, Bish. Anyone would have thought you'd be all for some clamping down on IRC.  Or is it only when Drama Queen Award Recipient Tony calls you and your friends names that you care?  One wouldn't want to think that it was a matter of who was "of the body" now, would one.101.118.166.149 (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)  (oh, and PS, I have no account.  An account just gives an easy target.  After all, I'm certainly "not of the body".)
 * Not an account? You mean you've just been flitting around on Wikipedia IP-hopping since the glory days of Tony Sidaway on IRC in what was it, 2006? Wow, that must make you feel like Zorro. Bishonen &#124; talk 02:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC).


 * Doing so would be particularly ironic if their main account were one of those accounts with a "This user reads Wikipediocracy" userbox with a reference to a "lethal threat, even jokingly" in it, nay? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed one edit from the history of this page, it's available to Brad to view and decide whether he wishes to restore it. Nick (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been with family for the holiday and will look at all of this in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad response
This is all quite unpleasant, and quite remote from the reasons I participate on Wikipedia. None of this is really in my bailiwick in any of my capacities on the project, but a few points nonetheless need to be addressed, and I suppose I'm as good a person to do so as anyone.

First, IRC logs are not supposed to be posted on-wiki. At this point, the excerpt above has been publicized enough that it wouldn't serve much purpose to remove or suppress it, so I will let it stand, without meaning to set a precedent. I have redacted the usernames, although at this stage that is almost as a matter of form.

The "Wikipedia" IRC channels are not "part of Wikipedia" and, to the best of my knowledge, have no affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation. The precise nature of the relationship that does exist between this project and IRC has always been, perhaps partly by design, not precisely defined. The #wikipedia-en-admins channel has a particularly debatable status, because like all the other channels it is not "part of" the English Wikipedia, but its occupants are (largely if not entirely) limited to the administrators on this project and there are times that quasi-official matters may be discussed there. Soon after I joined the Arbitration Committee, Jimmy Wales asked ArbCom to clarify the status and governance of the channel, but for a number of reasons, this never happened.

However, issues relating toward this unusual, hybrid entity were discussed in Requests for arbitration/IRC and Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. In the latter case, in December 2008, the Committee made findings of fact including the following:
 * The official relationship between the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel and the Wikipedia community is ambiguous. The Committee does not exercise any direct control over the channel; instead, it is controlled by an internal hierarchy of channel operators....
 * Discussions held in the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel have historically been subject to substantial and unpredictable unauthorized disclosure to parties outside the channel. This limits the channel's usefulness for discussion of matters requiring privacy and discretion....
 * There have been numerous instances, both reported on-wiki and known to Arbitrators anecdotally, in which administrators or former administrators have made inappropriate comments in the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Although this channel is not part of Wikipedia proper, and at times the attention paid to particular individual comments can be significantly overblown, such comments can nonetheless reflect negatively on the administrators who make them, on administrators as a whole, and on the project. From time to time, the channel operators have led initiatives to improve the tone of discourse in the channel.

The remedies passed in the case included the following:
 * Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that ... even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.

This observation strikes me as being as true in 2013 as it was in 2008. In referencing it, I don't mean to suggest that censorship is required in the channel, or that every word spoken (typed) in it needs to be phrased exactly as one might phrase it on Wikipedia. But the channel is close enough to this project that standards of decorum should be observed. That IRC logs do come to light sometimes, while contrary to Freenode and channel policies, also speaks in favor of phrasing one's remarks bearing in mind that one is speaking in at least a semi-public forum rather than a private conversation.

(I don't want to create the impression that I believe the excerpt quoted above is typical of discourse in the channel. Far from it. It's been several months since I was in #admins, but in my experience there, some of the discussion is ordinary conversation, some of it concerns routine wiki-maintenance or common wiki-interests, and relatively little of the discussion crosses any lines. In particular, my impression is that the practice of "block-shopping on IRC" is less prevalent than it was a few years ago. And for my money, the "Jabberwocky" snippet someone recently unearthed, while it should not have been posted on another website without permission, was very funny.)

To return the original post from "TalkingToBrad", I don't think the quoted comment was a "threat." It does not say that User2 is going to harm User3; it doesn't even say that User2 seriously wants to do physical harm to User3. The colloquy clearly suggests that User1 and especially User2 don't have much use for User3. It was not an especially clever, and it in fact was a crass and very unpleasant, way of expressing that sentiment. I don't blame User3 for being offended by it, but I take it an effort at humor that misfired. Calling it a "lethal threat" is an obvious overreaction, one that suggests to me that TalkingToBrad is looking to cause trouble for User2 or the like.

It is obvious that we could do very well without any more of these sorts of comments, in #Wikipedia-en-admins or anywhere else. It's not clear that there is anyone in particular with the ability to banish this sort of reference, even in jest, to harming other editors, and yet banished they must be.

Years ago, a Wikipedia Review regular (whose comments I often find insightful) suggested at the outset of my Arbship that someday I would turn into Lord Palpatine. More recently, someone suggested on this talkpage that I am dismissive of wiki-procedures and that I "have a tendency to act like [I am] some special crown prince." I don't think I've done that, but with Jimbo on break, this is as good a time as any for a power grab; and in my newfound capacity as Director of Decorum, I decree that all references to harming other users be permanently discontinued in all Wikimedia-related discussions worldwide, including but not limited to any references to flaming oils and boxcutters. (Trout-slapping remains permissible.)

As for the edit that was removed from this page, I will say little. It was obviously unacceptable (and it was properly rev-deleted), but much of it was provoked by reading what was posted above, and if someone said even in jest that he daydreamt of setting fire to me, I would not reciprocate with "have a nice day." The same user has made other comments, including one on an external website this morning, that I frankly find much more troubling than the one posted and removed here. In any event, that user has stated that for unrelated reasons, he lacks confidence in my judgment. In that context I think it best to say no more about him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IRC is very much part of Wikipedia, as this edit by Jimbo makes very clear . Its pernicious influence is one of the reasons that so many hate admins so much. I hope its logs showing atrocious admins behavior continue to be published here. It needs to be closed down.  Giano   21:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What, if anything, are you going to do about this? Will there be an ARBCOM case? ANI case? What?
 * A regular editor would have been indeffed for saying this about an admin and YOU KNOW IT.
 * If nothing, I intend to pursue this with the WMF directly.
 * I'm quite sure that the comments of Oliver Keyes are directly at odds with the terms of his employment.
 * There is no place for someone like this at WMF. Especially not as the face of the organization. TalkingToBrad (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At the current ArbCom request for a case, the community's response should alert Keyes/ Ironholds that (according to the community) he must never act in a way likely to harm the reputation of Wikipedia and WMF, while employed by the latter.
 * I would be surprised if his contract lacked clauses to the effect that he must have written authorization from the HR head (at least) to engage privately in activities that might be construed as reflecting on the WMF; I've had such clauses myself when I've worked for public organizations.
 * Please strike your request that Brad intervene in Keyes's employment. It would be disasterous for any organization were even leading volunteers to start managing personnel issues, using offices designed for other matters.
 * My recent criticisms of Brad's failure to fulfill my wishes on several contentious issues recently (particularly during a block) do not constitute a lack of confidence in his judgment overall; such criticisms do not constitute grounds for recusal, imho.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  08:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tha Arbcom will do precisely nothing about this problem because the IRC Admins channel is where they all hang out and behave like an undisciplined rabble. It's the exclusive little club to which most Admins yearn to belong and they will defend it with their last breath. There, they can freely indulge in all the insults and name calling for which they love to ban all normal editors here. The IRC Admins channel is a symbol of all that is most hypocritical and wrong with Wikipedia and its admin system. It has been for years and will continue to be so for many more years to come.  Giano   09:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To clean up IRC, WMF should start by requiring completion of child-protection training and adherence to child-protection policies, such as the Boy/Girl Scouts' policies I linked at the ArbCom case. No pre-teens, and teenagers only with their parents' written permission (to be renewed e.g. quarterly). No private chatrooms unless two adults were present. I would favor removing chatrooms.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  09:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We need a wikipedialeaks which publishes proceedings from the IRC Admins channel. It seems clear that they have organised agreements on the ways they marginalize and sideline valid criticism. Certainly when rational and valid observations are made by content builders they are systematically ignored by admins in ways that I cannot believe are unorganised. It appears to be a filthy system, and it is time they came clean about it. I suppose they rapidly erase their proceedings to avoid embarrassment, but surely someone captures stuff as it happens. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I get sent dozens of incriminating IRCAdmin Logs, but the Arbcom and their sidekicks threatens to ban me if I tell you what's in them. They even dragged me into a big case about it once and blocked me because I dare to edit its Wiki page - a page they have now dome away with because it bought attention to the channel.   Giano   10:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There must be plenty of content builders with separate admin accounts. Surely some of those would be willing to collect IRC Admins channel transcripts and publish them as anons. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not be so sure - the Arbcom sat back and watched me blocked for this edit even thouhg they knew all about the truth of it.It's a disgusting channel and if the Arbcom has a grain of moral fortitude they would close it down and no decent admin would belong to it. 10:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments on IRC above, NYB. On the ArbCom page that led me here, I have suggested a Wiki-wide Rfc as a way of gauging editing community concerns about, and even knowledge of, IRC channels and conduct on them. The time may well be at hand to bring fresh eyes to the debate. Jus  da  fax   21:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Scientology
In your reply to the request for clarification, please address the central issue whether the AE sanctions on Peter Cohen and The Devil's Advocate are warranted or not. There would not be an ANI drama without those specific actions of Sandstein. Also please address the other side of the coin, namely Sandstein's subsequent proposal to redact (1) the previously passed Arbcom decision on Scientology and also (2) his proposal to do the same with the ANI thread. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment
Thank you for your comment on the noticeboard on the Lewis case re the Second Amendment. Obviously I agree with you. Yet I have a basic wikipedia question because I don't understand how disputes are ever resolved. I'd love some general advice, not necessarily relating to this article.

Let's say there is wide consensus on the noticeboard that the Supreme Court may be quoted in this context. (Obviously I need more than you though I thank you. :-) ) What do I do next? Show the other editors the noticeboard and ask them to let me post? If I do, I'm quite confident they will disagree. And then we're back where we started: an edit war.

To put it legally, is this noticeboard "persuasive authority" or "definitive authority"? And if only persuasive -- and they reject it -- how do I get "definitive authority"? Can an administrator compel them to accept a decision that, say, the Supreme Court is a reliable source? I know the question is premature and hopefully it won't arise, but I'm curious anyway.

I'm a firm believer that BOTH sides to any dispute should be able to post, as long as both sides have reliable sources. The controversy should be presented. The Supreme Court said X but some named commentators say Y. But it seems that on every political article, folks just dig in and refuse to allow a POV contrary to their own to be presented. In this case, they cited as fact (not opinion) what a few commentators said, but they refuse to allow the the Supreme Court or appellate court decisions or newspaper reports or commentators who disagree with their commentators' views to be allowed anywhere in the article. Been going on for more than six months and is very frustrating. Any advice? GreekParadise (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users
Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in on '''Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC'''. See the agenda for more info. -- EpochFail (talk &bull; work), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

rfar
solutions? Tell the "anti-infobox" people to go away? ... Sorry NYB .. just a bit on edge here with actually filing a case request. Not that it's a big deal in my real life, but I do care about this project. I research wiki on a daily basis .. not that I contribute much, but I do love this project. Sorry for the levity .. I know humor doesn't translate well to the written word. Clue the other members of the committee into the infobox stuff .. and hope you folks can find a way forward. All my best always. — Ched : ?  19:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

ARBCOM case
How is this case with Kiefer and Ironholds supposed to progress when one of the arbitrators is disallowing the very evidence that started this conversation? TalkingToBrad (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you login with your regular account and ask this question? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A statement that is libel per se?
Hi Brad, I recently made a report to the oversight team about statements made on a BLP talk page that allege use of steriods and involvement in bestiality. I chose not to report it at ANI even though I wasn't sure if rev-del might be more appropriate because it seemed to me desirable not to draw undue attention to the edits. I was surprised to be told in reply to my report that "broad accusations of various sexual activities are not per se libelous" despite the specific accusations relating to sex with animals, a crime in most jurisdictions and (it seems to me) per se libelous under criteria (i) and (iv) of US defamation law. I was further surprised that I was advised to take the issue to a noticeboard if I felt rev-del might be needed, which seems to me to conflict with the low profile approach strongly suggested by the notice shown when making a new thread at ANI. I decided approaching you directly and not identifying the pages involved was more appropriate. I am assuming you can find them by looking for Ticket#20​1307131000​3971. Maybe I should just treat the relevant posts as vandalism but I think they should be treated more seriously under the BLP policy. Please advise. Regards, EdChem (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi EdChem - I'm responding because I think NYB might have a difficult time getting to the OTRS ticket. I've taken a look at things here. The earlier edits (steroids, barnyard stuff) might be worthy of revision deletion (they are BLP violations), and I'm going to do that myself. It's "libelous" in the same way that a driveby insult is.  The later edit is actually a badly worded repetition of something that is in the article itself and is well sourced to the Village Voice.  The response you received is one of our standard boilerplates. The rule of thumb that we have for oversighters at this point is that if they see something that qualifies for revdel but not oversight, they are welcome but not obliged to act (in the same sense that admins are not required to do any specific activity).  I was surprised to see that you're not an administrator. Do you think that you might derive any benefit from direct access to that toolkit?  If so, please let me know; I'd be happy to nominate or co-nominate you.  Risker (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acting, Risker. That boiler plate might benefit from redrafting, as making a splashy post at ANI for rev-del of bestiality assertions on a BLP talk page strikes me as not the bestt thing to encourage.  Regarding adminship, I'm surprised by your suggestion and doubt I would pass an RfA.  I offer critique / criticism when it feels warranted (including about ArbCom and the admin community), I have had periods away in frustration and only made about 6000 edits, so I wouldn't anticipate a positive response.  I am sure some tools would be useful though I believe in trying to maintain 50% of my edits being to articles or their talk pages and would lean towards uses more related to content.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Risker, thanks for stepping in here (I was offline last night). I agree with the revision-deletions and your other comments. EdChem, thanks to you too for bringing this to our attention. As for an RfA, if not yet, maybe sometime soon. I don't know exactly what the minimum edit-count expectation is at RfA, but I think it is fair to say that occasional (or even frequent) criticism of the Arbitration Committee is unlikely to be held against you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can also contact one of these administrators via talkpage or email to get revision deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Alger Hiss
Hi! Thanks for your comments here. Any feedback on my comments or behavior here is welcome. I was not signed in for a couple of days there while CJK was going to arbitration. I don't consider myself part of a dispute, but have offered what I consider pearls of wisdom :) that have largely been disregarded. Your comments were refreshing for their objectivity and fact-based rationale. Yopienso (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I'll respond during the week. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually you might note some behavioural issues there which did not warrant an ArbCom case, but where there is a significant possibility that some editors are in full scale denial mode in rejecting any hint that a consensus even exists about Hiss being a Soviet agent. Particularly note such edits as where an editor appears not to have read the post to which he is replying, that is, he is so intent on rebutting any possible WP-compliant compromise that he resorts to personal attack mode (sigh). You will find quite amusing, I would think. Collect (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I'll respond during the week to you too. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again to both of you for your posts. I should go back through my own library and see if I can find sources for the proposition that the scholarly consensus at this stage tends toward agreeing with the jury verdict. My personal view, worth no more than you paid for it, is that too much attention is paid to the contents of the post-Soviet archives and too little to the evidence from the trial itself. As Irving Younger pointed out a long time ago, beyond the background and circumstantial evidence that made it plausible that Hiss might have provided documents to the Russians, the key evidence of guilt is nothing more nor less than the correspondence between the typewritten documents unearthed by Chambers (after Hiss filed the libel suit&mdash;which if he hadn't the entire thing might well have been forgotten), with the samples drawn from the Hisses' typewriter (principally the class reports that Mrs. Hiss submitted to the alumni association at Bryn Mawr, if I remember right). (Younger's article is available on the Commentary magazine website; one can also order his audiotaped or videotaped lecture on the case; but do note that Younger made some mistakes, so I would not use the lecture as a source.) I also generally think the work of G. Edward White is underutilized in our article. If I think of more to add later I will do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Request
Hi Newyorkbrad - in connection with some questions that you have asked recently I have sent arbcom-l a request for permission to address them. I'd be grateful if you could confirm that you've received it and for any consideration you could give to the request itself. Prioryman (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Prioryman, can I ask when you sent the email? I don't see anything from you in my inbox. NW ( Talk ) 15:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * About 15:00 UTC. I'll send it to you directly via the email interface. Prioryman (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Now received and forwarded to the Committee mailing list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Prioryman (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Third Department
Thanks for catching my mistake. I had gotten confused by the link that identifies itself as going to the Third Department that goes back to the general page about all of the appellate divisions. I've removed the table (it lives in my sandbox for now) and I will go about creating an independent page for the Third Department sometime soon. I appreciate the offer to help with that once I get it started and will post again here once I've got the bare bones version up.

Sneekypat (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2013 (EST)
 * Sounds good. Let me know when I can help out. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I couldn't make this meet-up, but please keep me on the notice list for the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I am amazed how you put up with the amount of abuse you get at this place. Please, pet a kitten!

Bearian (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC) 
 * Thanks for the kind words. I've actually managed to avoid too much abuse on-wiki (not that everyone always agrees with everything I say or do, by a long shot, but most Wikipedians are able to express their disagreements non-abusively).
 * Of course I get my share of abuse (as well as of non-abusive criticism) on a couple of other websites, but having been a topic of conversation on those sites for years now, I've made my choice to continue monitoring the discussions there knowing full well what to expect.
 * Thanks again, regards, and meow, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

fun reading
During the hot days of summer, you might peruse the interesting arguments at Talk:Alger Hiss and Talk:United States to see how editors manage to take different positions on the same policy seemingly depending on the article involved . Throw in Talk:Gun control if you are in dire need of a Tolstoy fix. . Collect (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm keeping an eye on Talk:Alger Hiss and when I have more time may weigh in with some suggestions. On the other hand, in all these years on-wiki, I've managed not to watchlist United States; I can't even begin to imagine what aspects might become contentious on that article at any given moment. No comment, I think, on gun control. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle on Mars
Thanks for taking care of it. I didn't know if I were allowed to remove it or if I should wait for a clerk or arb, so I figured it would be safer to leave it with the "disregard this message" notice. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with moving something that was just inadvertently posted in the wrong place. But there's also no problem erring on the side of caution as you did. If only the biggest issue we had to deal with in this case was a post in the wrong section! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Learned Hand
I just finished Gerald Gunther's Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge. It was indeed an excellent read, written in a way that was accessible to the lay reader but without sacrificing detail or quality. I'll have to go back and check out some of the other books you recommended. NW ( Talk ) 19:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Enjoy. If you have the book fresh in your mind, feel free to punch up Learned Hand, which is an FA but can always use more polishing. And if you've decided judicial biography is a genre you enjoy, there are always lots more suggestions where that one came from. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Aryan
Hello,,can you please take a look at what has been happening in the 'Aryan' page,,Administrators are deleting all material relating to the Gaelic word Tara as having a possible link to the word Aryan,,They are even deleting material from the talk page and from the undelete request page,,something very wrong is going on here.
 * I've moved this unsigned post from the top of the page to here. I don't really have any expertise with which to contribute to this dispute, but perhaps someone who watches this page will be interested in taking a look. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 11:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello|salam|سلام
Hi I'm Persian Wikipedia users. Complain I'm a bureaucracy and a user. They did not respect the rights of others., Please investigate this issue. I could tell you what is my problem? (Translated by Google Translate) ((Note: I'm sorry if I do not speak good English because my native language is Persian))--Boyabed (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case
I received a notice from Callanecc today that there was a proposed motion on an ARBCOM case that affected me. Penwhale notified me of the case 16 July.  I did not reply because no comments were made about me. AGK, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Silk Tork have voted to ban me. Could you please explain why I am part of this case. TFD (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)