User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2016/Feb

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

DYK for Modest Stein
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That was fun, we should do it again sometime. --GRuban (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please review this dispute
Hi, Newyorkbrad. I was hoping whether or not you could take the time to review this certain dispute. It has been going on for 36 days now, and there has been hardly any progress (DRN failed & RFC lingering, etc). Kind regards.     15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to have reviewed all the history of this dispute, but if the official title in 2015 is "Queen's Representative" then I don't see why that shouldn't be used. If the term is used in historical contexts covering periods when sometimes there was a reigning Queen and sometimes there was a reigning King, the "King's/Queen's Representative" can be used. Has this been suggested at all? "Monarch's Representative" might be a good gender-neutral coinage if we were creating the title ourselves, but has the disqualifying disadvantage for the article that it isn't, to my knowledge, the actual title that's ever been used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The dispute should be closed. I agree with your reasoning. The status quo should be retained, and I wholeheartedly support  being used once her reign ends.     17:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, in contexts that involve both an era of a reigning King and of a reigning Queen, my suggestion is that we use "King's/Queen's Representative" with both words. This would be used not just in the future when there is a Demise of the Crown, but also in pre-1952 contexts. Incidentally, this is not the only circumstance in which this situation comes up ... has anyone checked how, for example, this is dealt with in lists of Kings/Queens Counsel? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

COI
Having read your recent !vote, I think you muddle POV and WP:COI, with regard to what you call "good" or "negative". Perhaps, with some 2011 thinking? If there is going to be a chance for more clarity in that arena, those two concepts (pov and coi) need to be delineated. Everyone has a pov, not everyone has a coi. COI is based on the fact of a formal or familial relationship, whereas, point-of-view is something, where necessary, we all have to overcome to an appropriate degree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are quite right that they are separate issues, but they can overlap, and when they do, the result often combines the worst of both problems. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Overlap issue is what leads to lack of focus. "You have COI" is statement of a fact, whereas "you have a POV problem" is interpretation of words and thoughts - it would be much easier to recognize what we are talking about, and must focus on, when we keep these distinctions clear. Alanscottwalker (talk)
 * I understand your point that they are distinct concepts, and I don't believe I muddle them in my thinking. If there is any lack of clarity in my !vote explanation in the RfA, it is probably because what I'd drafted was much longer when I first drafted it. I had to cut it down to a more reasonable length for an RfA comment and I'm sorry if some of the nuances got lost in the process. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Understood, and I am not here to criticize but really to just flag it for you (given your Wikipedia experience and position) and that you will likely find yourself talking about it in the future. It's just that one often sees on WP the two mixed-up (Eg. the statement 'everyone has a COI') I can see why that happened in the past but WP:COI has been developed over the years and it is unfortunate and I think leads to too much misunderstanding, miscommunication, and controversy, for the Pedia going into its 15th year that still happens. (The good faith 'lay-people', seem too often unfamiliar with writing with coi, and the ethical demands of disclosure (like we see in writing in the real world) or avoidance - so talking about it is still and will always be important, here).Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Courcelles (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February events and meetups in DC
Greetings from  Wikimedia DC !

February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:
 * On Friday, February 12, NPR will host a Black History Month First Edit event.
 * On Saturday, February 13 and Sunday, February 14, we're working with the Wiki Education Foundation to hold a series of four edit-a-thons at the AAAS 2016 Annual Meeting.
 * On Tuesday, February 16, we're holding the Smithsonian American Art Museum and American University WikiWorkshop with Professor Andrew Lih's class.
 * On Saturday, February 20, the Smithsonian American Art Museum will host the African American Artists Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Friday, February 26, Howard University will host its second annual Black History Month Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.  In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at [mailto:info@wikimediadc.org info@wikimediadc.org] !

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

''You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.''

Feb 16: Art+Feminism Training / Photo-Poetics @ Guggenheim Feb 17: 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.)

Please restore the userboxes you deleted, pending third opinion review
It seems like you don't have time to discuss the issue (fair enough), so I want to have it placed before that wider audience you threatened (WP:3). You took the include links off my user page, so they'll only be served to someone following a direct link. Dingsuntil (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can give you a third opinion right here; I'm one of the least trigger-happy admins on Wikipedia, and if I'd seen either of those userboxes I'd have indefblocked you without hesitation, and Brad is being uncharacteristically lenient in not doing so. If you do try to take this to a higher-profile venue like WP:DRV you have the right to do so, but it will very likely end in a siteban, since you've managed to hit two separate fields in which Wikipedia (for good reason) has a zero-tolerance policy, "joke" or not. &#8209; Iridescent 16:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in. Two questions: First, how did you come to offer an opinion in the first place? I assume you don't watch NYB's talk page (or do you?). Did he email you? Was a request posted somewhere? Second, can you point me to the policy in question? Please note: I have made specific reference to a policy (WP:UPNOT) in this discussion, and mentioned that I didn't think my userbox ran afoul of it, so don't just point me there. Both of you have simply said "It's policy" without providing evidence that it actually is policy, and I think you should, if for no other reason than the promotion of civility. Otherwise, it looks like administrative fiat. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What Iridescent said. NYB, OOC is there an extenuating reason why you didn't block here? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The conversation explaining that is on User_talk:Dingsuntil - basically, NYB doesn't think Dingsutil was serious, though was still quite unhappy. BTW, writing "I'm one of the least trigger-happy admins" on NYB's talk page is somewhat like a lake saying it's a large body of water when discussing an ocean. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite his mild-mannered Bruce Wayne persona, NYB's inner Batman is surprisingly trigger-happy. Compared to my block log, Brad looks like Chillum. &#8209; Iridescent 19:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh, you are so right. My apologies. This one is my favorite. Now I am imagining Nero Wolfe smashing the beer bottle down on the Fer-de-lance. --GRuban (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Request denied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please review another dispute
Sorry to bother you again, Newyorkbrad, although there is yet another dispute. A user wants Palestine to be displayed as a sovereign state in its own right over at List of state leaders in 2016, and he has falsely worded his Rfc question as "Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel"—which is a blatantly biased question as nobody would ever infer that Palestine (i.e. the Palestinian National Authority) is simply a substate of Israel, more accurately rather a "quasi-sovereign state partially under Israel occupation". Most of the contributors over at the Rfc seem currently unaware that the status quo is in fact Palestine being listed as a separate sovereign entity, believing that the Rfc is a proposal to revert this to what the status quo actually is at present. Personally, I honestly believe that the user is simply trying to score pro-Palestinian political points (as per WP:POINT) and is simply in denial of the reality on the ground over at that disputed area. The Rfc is pointless IMO as there will never be any consensus, as this is a contentious issue far too sensitive partly subject to arbitrary sanctions. The three-year-old status quo should be retained, and this is all much ado about nothing.--Neve–selbert 09:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, but I think I'm going to stay out of this one, at least at this time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it be OK to just close the Rfc due to "lack of consensus"? Thanks.--Neve–selbert 18:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's a significant delay past when an RfC should be closed, you may request that an uninvolved administrator do so by posting to the top section on WP:AN. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved admin has rejected the request—on the questionable justification that the discussion was still taking place. I must stress that no discussion took place before the Rfc was launched, none whatsoever. The user immediately jumped the gun to the Rfc without seeking a local consensus. Furthermore, the Rfc question is in itself biased and inaccurate and deliberately tilted in his favour. If a closure is somewhat too premature, I would strongly suggest a moratorium (similar to that at Talk:British Empire) be considered.--Neve–selbert 18:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Today's_featured_article/requests/Hitler_Diaries
Goodness, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm just disgusted that a former Arb has to resort to petulant threats to try and force their own way on this. I'm open to the opinions of others, and I hope I've struck the right note in my other responses, including to Dweller, but I think your approach and bullying threats have been utterly disgraceful. – SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * People sometimes express themselves strongly when they feel strongly, in a fashion saved for rare and urgent occasions. Another person may have her way of doing that and I have mine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Petulence, threats, and a big old "fuck you", to the concept of consensus and collegiate editing? If you think that is suitable, then I have nothing more to say. – SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for confrontation. I appreciate the dedication that went into creating a featured article. It deserves its turn as the face of the best work that the English Wikipedia community can produce. But I'm not the only person opining that running this article on April 1 would be a poor idea. I see that someone has posted the link to the main page last April 1, on which some of the other items on the page included the DYK and OTD observations "... that Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators were forcibly withdrawn after officials clamped down on them" and "... that the government of Nova Scotia ordered the people of the City of Halifax to mate with over 200 multiple partners around the area", among others (and compared to some previous years those are rather bland). The tone for much of the April 1 mainpage, including the FA (ITN is an exception) is generally "here are true facts, in quality articles, but phrased to be amusing or momentarily confusing." The Hitler diaries hoax is far, far from that, as you I am sure will acknowledge. Is there some especial reason why it needs to appear on April 1 as opposed to some other day? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Threatening to take all lawful measures you can to keep this off the front page is a damned funny way of avoiding confrontation. Threats to go behind the community's back to have "the office" block the article is a damned funny way of avoiding confrontation. DYK has always been the most purile section of the front page, but I see the 3,000 deaths under Pickett don't seem to bother anyone. – SchroCat (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Those who do not study Godwin's Law are doomed to prove it. Weird how genocide makes normally calm people upset. Fortunately it does not look like any of the threats will need to be put into play. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And which "rationales" in particular did you find disturbing NYB?  Cassianto Talk   19:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The most troublesome was probably yours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised?  Cassianto Talk   19:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no-one has 'breached' Godwin's Law, despite there being some inappropriate pressure applied in one or two places, and some poor language, bad attitudes and spurious arguments. That all said, no-one has called anyone a Nazi, or suggested that they have used some totalitarian tactics, so I'm not sure to which interaction you are referring. – SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's OK SchroCat, some idiots just take offence for the sake of taking offence. I'm sure it was just a lame attempt to wiki link Godwin's law (which we all knew about, by the way).   Cassianto Talk   13:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I note our article states "Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate." Perhaps there is one here who does indeed need to study Godwin's law to ensure they don't try and smear others so baselessly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not intended to personally compare or offend either of you fine gentlemen, and apologies that I have. The point of invoking the eponymous law of our former head lawyer is that the subject of Hitler is generally considered the pinnacle, the ne plus ultra of offense, enough so that just bringing it up in comparison is, or should be, outside the bounds of normal debate. It should not be surprising that many find it similarly outside the bounds of our lighthearted April Fools Day celebration. To repeat, I'm not calling either of you national socialists. I am saying that you are not taking others' feelings into account. If you had been aware of Godwin's law, then one would hope that you would have similarly been aware of these feelings, and the strength of these feelings, and anticipated such a reaction, and not wanted to hurt others in this way. Or at least I would hope so; namely that you would not be in favor of hurting many people's strong feelings just for the sake of featuring an article on one day as opposed to another. Brad's threats are hopefully overblown; but you should understand why they were made, and in fact, should have anticipated similarly strong reactions. --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I would question, this time to you, why you think this is about Hitler? It isn't. I have never been bothered by those who are overly-sensitive or those wanting to take offence on the behalf of others. As for NYB, his views and tone have been pretty disgusting.   Cassianto Talk   15:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have obviously heard of Godwin's law, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the hoax in the mid 1980s, and it's a curious if not bizzare connection to make. The fact you have conflated the two is something for you to consider, but such a knee-jerk connection is of no importance. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone think an article titled "Hitler Diaries", and about diaries purporting to be written by Hitler, was about Hitler? Seriously? --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My question to you,, is why you think this whole nomination is about Hitler, the person, and not the hoax. Please don't act stupid.  Cassianto Talk   18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's it. That's the explanation. That it has the word Hitler in it, and is about books that were allegedly his diaries. I understand that reading further into it, the article is about the hoax, not the man, and that hoaxes are generally fair game for April Fools, and so forth. But the baggage associated with the genocide of 11 million people is so great that even merely putting up the blurb on April Fools Day would be inappropriate. This is much the same reason that Godwin's law urges against using Hitler as a comparison in any other discussion. It would hurt feelings, a lot of people's feelings, deeply; and by doing that, we would in that way be, unnecessarily, bringing our project into disrepute. I understand that isn't intended, but that's it. In a similar way "Please don't act stupid" is usually inappropriate in a civil discussion, because it hurts feelings; even though of course taking it literally it would be merely an exhortation to improve the quality of argument and discourse. People can be weird that way, when they could read deeper into something that seems offensive at first glance, they do, in fact, often get offended. We should avoid that when we can. --GRuban (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Question
Do you happen to recall the longest period of time that it took a new Arbcom committee to accept their first case? I ask because of 2 things on my mind. #1) We're almost into March without a case. #2) I've noticed several Arbs being very active in the trenches in efforts to find resolutions. — Ched : ?  12:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (also pinging Iridescence ) — Ched : ?  12:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * oops - meant: — Ched :  ?  12:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (watching:) I appreciate all solutions without a case. - For the lawyers: we have a discussion how literally we have to take some MoS to "link an acronym on first appearance" here, including the question what the first appearance is. My (questioned, reverted) stand is that in the case of Bach's cantatas, where the acronym is part of the article name, the reader needs more urgently a bolding of said acronym, as both the cantata number and a major redirect, with a footnote explaining what the acronym means, - same thing as a link would do. A "normal" link is present in the infobox. I think that fulfills the spirit of the MoS, but ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Aas a general rule every arbcom since 2007-08 has been less active than the one before it. The culture has (rightly, IMO) changed from the star chamber mentality of the old days, to one in which people trying to start cases are strongly discouraged and urged to try to find alternative solutions before reaching for the nuclear option. It's also the case that (Jimbo and his acolytes' "never been larger" PR notwithstanding) the stagnation of the Wikipedia community means the kind of irreconcilable difference Arbcom was intended to resolve no longer happens very often; people are familiar with who's likely to disagree with them on a given issue, and either deliberately avoid those people or approach them on talkpages to try to resolve the issues. (Plus, a lot more policy is now either formalized or has strong precedents for the "correct" way to proceed; in 2007 something like this or this could potentially have ended up at RFC/U or Arbcom, but nowadays it's very easy to point to relevant policies and determine in a matter of seconds which side is in the right.) &#8209; Iridescent 16:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

All of you are right that the Arbitration Committee is less active now, at least in its on-wiki activities, than it has been at any time since its creation. I wrote about this trend and the reasons for it here a couple of years ago, and it has continued since that time. In response to the original question, I don't recall any prior year in which the Committee didn't accept a single case in either January or February. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)