User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Feb

Message on DS review page
Hello Newyorkbrad,

I've left the message below the DS Review page, and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

Thanks for the reminder that I should check in on this important discussion. I will try to do so in the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

about that word
Re your comment to Kevin on Philippe's page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhilippe&diff=592119933&oldid=592108202]. Meaning depends on context, and not everyone is a lawyer. "Illegal" is used in other contexts to means "invalid," such as Sun Microsystems' designation of a certain type of programming screwup as a IllegalAccessException; see also "illegal" hardware access and the similar illegal opcode. NE Ent 23:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're quite obviously correct that many uses of "illegal" mean "against the internal rules" rather than "actually against the law." After all, if one of the Super Bowl teams is flagged for "illegal procedure" or "illegal formation," I don't expect a paddywagon to come onto the field, or the prosecutor to convene the grand jury. Nonetheless, my experience has been that use of the term "illegal" in Wikipedia contexts often has an inflammatory and distracting effect, and for this reason I would prefer that the term generally not be used. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a favor
If any of my TPWs (1) attended the University of Texas at Austin, (2) is a member of the alumni association, and (3) would be willing to send an e-mail or make a phone call to help with with a Rex Stout research item, I'd appreciate it if he or she would e-mail me. Thanks very much to anyone who can help and apologies to everyone else who just spent the past nine seconds reading this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Inactivity note
I'll be inactive on Wikipedia from February 4 to February 17. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Coming up in February!
Hello there!

Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?

Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.

If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.

Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN critique
While discussing "incorporated" at Puerto Rico, Ahnoneemoos kicked off a DRN after I suggested discussing language for a RfC before DRN. The DRN ran away before a volunteer took it on at Dispute resolution noticeboard. The issue revolves around including sourced material in the article narrative for "incorporated" from the Boston College Law Review. -- Whether to allow both sides of a controversy into the article introduction -- how PR is "unincorporated" and "incorporated" as alternately sourced. But no volunteer has picked up the DRN, but three editors have voice affirmative sentiments versus four negative.

Since you were kind enough to treat me respectfully even as you opposed my arguments about a year ago, and you invited me to return for another discussion, --- I wonder if you would tell me what you think of the Ahnoneemoos DRN. Since it ran away, and it does not seem to be going anywhere, is it a newbie error of procedure? I tried asking for volunteer assistance at various projects: Puerto Rico, United States, politics, history. No response to date.

The two principle opponents of my broader "inclusion" language at United States last year simply reappeared again without sources to opposed the sourced "incorporated" for Puerto Rico as modern jurisprudence understands that "term of art". So I came back here again to your page this year to see what I could learn from you. I promise not to return for another year on this subject. Thanks in advance.

-- and I can wait a couple weeks for an answer. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So now I learn, There is a scholarly controversy over the status of PR as sourced in a reliable publication by Duke University Press, and Boston College Law Review is a reliable publication, Lawson and Sloane are not affiliated with BC, the scholars do say PR is "incorporateded" and both existence of the scholarly controversy and "incorporated" viewpoint are confirmed at wp:reliable sources/noticeboard.


 * But following an RfC as recommended at the closing of the DRN, --- Mercy11, Iryna Harpy, Caribbean H.Q and Tony the Marine, all patiently explained to me, "incorporated" does not belong in the introduction of a general article Puerto Rico which does not address "incorporated" in the body of its text. That political information is found in Political status of Puerto Rico or Proposed political status for Puerto Rico. I was wrong to propose placing information in an introduction which is not discussed in the body of the article. That is WP policy in the Manual of Style.


 * This approach in the Puerto Rico community was an entirely different tact from the repeatedly unsourced argumentation and ad hominem attacks from TFD and older≠wiser which I experienced on this and prior occasions. I would be interested in your observations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Update
I'll be active again on-wiki on Tuesday. I'll respond then to the open threads above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In the event you missed it
Apparently my discussion regarding COI and reliably sourced edits did not have the desired effect. You wanna take a shot?  Tide  rolls  18:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Block Review
Hi. I have been away from Wikipedia for a while and have only just seen the block on my talk page. I explained to this admin over and over again both on my talk page and on the article talk page why he was wrong about this issue. I actually even explained to him what the BLP policy was and why it wasn't a breach of the policy. Since I didn't receive a reply for several days I assumed he'd just skulked off, and I added the information back again. I thought it was a flagrant breach of his privileges as an admin to keep threatening to block me, but since I'm a reasonable sort I decided to let it go. Now I find out he not only removed the info again but carried out his threat to block me. This is important information that needs to go in the article and is not in any way a breach of Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, I cannot add this information to this article without this admin removing it and blocking me again. I also feel very strongly that this person should not be an admin, that he doesn't understand Wikipedia policies and that he abuses his privileges. Please tell me how I can add this legitimate information to the article without being blocked, and how I can request that this user's admin privileges be revoked. Jay-W (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Please accept this wiki kitten as my thanks for your continued efforts to improve this project. Your constant efforts are very appreciated!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC) 
 * Happy to help with the cat food, kitty litter and veterinarian expenses. Just ask!  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  09:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just ask Cullen328, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment placed on Roger Davies' Talk page
I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at :

"This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back."

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).


 * Catching up after my time away, I have nothing to add to what others have said about this aspect of the DS discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)


 * Unfortunately, I will be out of town on both of these weekends. I regret this very much, as these should both be outstanding events. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman attacking Eric Corbett
I can promise you that I will be dropping nothing "expeditiously". If you imagine that I will permit this Corbett affair to be quickly swept under the carpet to save Wikipedia and its former employees face. Then think again; I thought you knew me better Brad.  Giano  18:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As important as it is to reiterate the need for administrators to speak decorously and use good judgment, for reasons I hope I do not need to expound here, this particular dispute would be a poor vehicle for the Arbitration Committee to make this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One assumes our illustrious founder was happy with the content on his talk page or is that now delegated to his employees add you for censorship? Furthermore, if you bothered to check the facts, you would note that Corbett made no mention of dead (sorry, you're American: "passed away") Wikipedians, directly or indirectly.  Giano   20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you and your Arb colleagues are watching Kevin Gorman's talk page and his subseqent comments and realise just how badly you have misjudged the mood of the community on this subject; you have let the project, Eric and, it seems, Kevin down. I cannot believe anyone was stupid enough to think that such Arbcom favouritism and cronyism would escape unnoticed. You had the perfect chance to cement a civility policy making everyone equal, and you deliberately through it on the dung heap. I have seen some poor Arbcom decisions, but this in in a class of its own. The five of you should resign in shame.   Giano   17:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)