User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2018/Sep

Aggravated felony
has put in a great deal of labor on aggravated felony in the past couple of weeks, and has responded well to my initial observation that she was introducing some opinion into the topic. She's also cleaned up some legalese, though I think it's still a little hard for laymen to absorb. I have a few lingering concerns, but my present observation is that the sourcing relies heavily on court opinions, with little of the traditional secondary sourcing we expect to see elsewhere on WP. Having had little exposure to articles on legal topics, I'm not sure where court opinions (as opposed to filings, which are clearly to be handled with care) stand in the primary-secondary spectrum. Could you take a look at the article and maybe offer some guidance?  Acroterion   (talk)   03:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I thank you again. I wrote a reply here. Some articles relating to U.S. immigration are containing outdated information, and they cite researches done by amateur immigration lawyers. I will try to update them by citing latest "published" opinions of well known legal scholars (BIA members and judges). That's what I did to the aggravated felony page, which should only have accurate information based on latest precedents.--Libracarol (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What would be useful would be to add citations to secondary literature, such as recent law review articles or treatises, to the court citations. The problem with relying too heavily on court decisions (unless perhaps it's a U.S. Supreme Court decision) is that different courts have different levels of authority, and the holdings of different cases may be based on their specific facts. I would offer to help out myself, but immigration law is not an area I'm especially familiar with. A posting to Wikiproject Law might draw editors with more background in the area. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying United States immigration laws...." (emphasis added) . Board members are entitled to Chevron deference, except if it is an unpublished opinion of a single Board member. Every court has said this. See, e.g., here at p.173 and here; see also here. In the "aggravated felony" page most of what I cited are en banc BIA opinions, which involve all members and are not likely to be challenged. Their "published opinions," which are properly-sourced legal researches, become the law. "BIA decisions are binding on all immigration judges and DHS officers." --Libracarol (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Winhunter
Not to beat an irrelevant horse, but wouldn't it be proper to add an "or" in your proposal, as in if he comes back and goes through the arbitration case and the result is not to remove the bit, then he can obtain it again, assuming he qualifies under the established rules for regaining the bit. In other words, an Arb case that did not remove the bit would also remove the cloud? Semantics perhaps, but the current motion seems like a summary removal of the bit, and this isn't a good case to set a precedent with, imo. I agree that a motion would be the best solution, but the current one seems to prejudge the case a bit more than it should. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, a clean close of the case (with a requirement for a new RFA in the unlikely situation Winhunter wants to take administrative actions again) is clearly the best outcome available. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But that means that Arb technically desysopped someone in a situation that isn't an emergency and is outside of a full case. which has never happened before. That is a little unusual at best, and I'm not sure policy supports that.  Convenient or not, the case could theoretically be reopened if he came back.  I'm not worried about him coming back, I'm worried about desysopping without proper procedure.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The previous motion already resolved that if Winhunter was desyopped for inactivity&mdash;meaning that he has been away from Wikipedia for a full year with no editing at all&mdash;then the case would be closed. The intent of the prior motion was that a desysopping for inactivity while the case was pending would mean that Winhunter could not become an administrator again without a new RfA. However, some people on BN weren't sure that was clear, so today's motion is designed to eliminate any doubt. While I appreciate Dennis Brown's concern for fairness, I don't think it would be sensible to allow a case to be reopened more than a year after the underlying events took place. (It might make sense for this discussion to take place on the case page, where other arbitrators and community members may more readily see it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't labor it, I just asked you to consider my points and you have. My primary concern really isn't him as much as setting a precedent for removing the bit outside of an emergency or full case.  While he theoretically lost the bit to inactivity, this motion IS a desysopping motion.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for this – I'm fairly sure that Toddst1 could not today go to BN and ask for their tools, even though ArbCom never adopted a motion like the one currently being considered. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Close, but not the same thing. Telling an admin to not USE the tools is different than saying they are denied the tools. Just as an inactivity removal of the tools is temporary, and this motion is a permanent removal, short of a new RFA.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the point is simply that going inactive to avoid an Arbcom case and then being desysopped due to inactivity is considered to be a resignation under a cloud. So, this isn't a desysopping motion, it's simply meant to clarify the intent of the previous motion from last year. Kevin's link shows a motion that is virtually identical to that prior motion, which demonstrates that the concept is, in fact, precedented. S warm   ♠  01:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I see where is coming from; if it was up to me in this hypothetical situation, Winhunter should be able to regain the tools (without using them) upon their return to activity, and their very next edit should be to provide a comment in the potential arbitration case; failure to do so should lead to summary desysopping (this is how I read the original motion). Now while  has noted the precedent for this motion, I think it is not really appropriate to compare these two cases. If I am not mistaken, the case for Toddst1 was for far more egregious concerns over a longer period of time, with far more deliberations and was bound for desysopping should the case proceed, and their disappearance was also more abrupt and controversial as Toddst1 was an active administrator. The suspended case for Winhunter on the other hand was filed under controversial circumstances to begin with (by a now banned user), and every other element being quite distinctively different without going into details of that AN/I discussion. In short, I think the general characterisation of the Winhunter situation has been somewhat incorrect, as it was not immediately clear that should Winhunter provide an adequate explanation (rather than the insufficient comment at AN/I) and participate in the potential case actively, that the case would conclude with desysopping. This motion has potentially skipped one step procedurally speaking, and while it is certainly not ideal in nature, it does provide the clarity for the time being, and I don't think Winhunter is coming back anytime soon, so all of these bureaucratic deliberations would be moot after all. Alex Shih (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are the only one that complete gets the point I was trying to make. It is a matter of procedure, and the two cases really can't be compared directly, in spite of a superficial similarity.  I would also add (re: Swarm) that "under a cloud" is generally something that the Crats decide, not Arb, and they only do so when the bit is requested, not when it is surrendered. In the end, this is still a desysopping motion.  NYB wouldn't have proposed it if there wasn't any possibility of him regaining the bit, so obviously this is done to insure he CAN'T regain the bit without an RFA, thus he is desysopped for all intent and purposes, via this motion, which creates an exclusive method for getting back the bit, and basically forbids Crats from giving it back without an RFA.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Under a cloud or not?" (a phrase I've never cared for) is decided by the bureaucrats, except that there's a presumption of "circumstances of controversy" where an admin resigns while a request for arbitration is pending against him or her. This has been policy for at least a decade. For purposes of this policy, I think it's legitimate to treat becoming totally inactive for a full year, beginning shortly after a case is filed, as an extreme form of resigning. As I mentioned above, the alternative would be that theoretically, ArbCom might have to hear a case involving events all of which occurred years earlier, which does not seem reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For me, the intent of the recent motion was not to decide for the bureaucrats on the matter of whether this is a default resignation under a cloud. It was to provide further clarity to the 2017 case motion which provided conditions on how the "case will be closed". The 2017 motion clearly provides a timeline, which we have recently met. Winhunter's past activity record was taken into consideration. Proceeding with a case absent of all parties was not realistic alternative. There have been cases that have gone forward without the participation of the admin in question; it has been a longstanding precedent that the participation of the named party is not required. With respect to this case, it was decided then that the case would not remain indefinitely open for the return of the named parties. In this case, doing so would have set a bad precedent and provided incentive for admins to out-wait the process. Kicking the can too far down the road is not a reasonable prospect and becomes taxing on the community to assess the situation against a different time on Wikipedia, and against old policies and guidelines. I do not think anyone reasonably assumes a case will be held indefinitely, but in this case, resignation or desysop by inactivity seemed like obvious close for the already open case. Mkdw  talk 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Stanley Matthews (lawyer)
Since you commented regarding this issue in 2008 and then in 2015, the discussion at Talk:Stanley Matthews (lawyer) may be of interest. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'll comment there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

September 26: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)