User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Jan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy New Year Newyorkbrad!

Happy New Year!
Hello Newyorkbrad:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Template:Did you know nominations/Roast Busters

Newyorkbrad, you posted to this DYK nomination last month saying that it should not be allowed on the main page because of the BLP issues.

It has apparently been edited quite a bit in the hopes of removing the BLP issues, and the article was renamed from Roast Busters to Roast Busters scandal. However, when an arbitrator says something should not be mainpaged, it carries a great deal of weight, such that I'm reluctant to call for a new reviewer if the article is still problematic. Can you please stop by again when you get the chance and give your opinion as to whether, from a BLP standpoint, the article is still problematic, or could now be mainpaged. (And also, whether the remaining BLP issues are fixable, or whether they're so endemic and difficult to eradicate there's no point in continuing the nomination.) If it is okay to mainpage from a BLP point of view, I'll call for a new DYK reviewer.

Many thanks for your assistance. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that people have worked to address the issues, which are partly a function of the dreadful real-world situation. However, even if the article is okay at present, it has the potential to erupt into a BLP problem again at any time. In addition, the proposed DYK hook seems to be about an innocent-bystander coffee company that was dragged into this entire situation through no fault of its own whatsoever.
Under these circumstances, my personal preference would be not to mainpage the article. But I'll emphasize that that's just an individual opinion and not any sort of "BLP veto" at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

my user page

can you help me about my trouble because your vote to delete on my user page, former account and former account's talk page on miscellany for deletion, but no one delete it. actually i want to rest from wikipedia for a while (or forever) and i want clean out my mess, i just change account to keep my privacy but this two user problem attack me User:DrKiernan and User:SeeingMole, especially User:SeeingMole's contribution's case it's same alike me (change account) and his contribution it's only for attack me and drag User:DrKiernan to attack me to. i think User:DrKiernan it's very rude and unfair to patch boxes on my user page and former account's page. please.--KreanMek (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This user has been annoying a lot of people on the pages he has edited. He claims on his user page that his level of English is "professional" but as you can see, it's far from it. Most of his edits are his personal opinions and unsourced and often it's quite hard to even understand what he's writing. Now he's even trying to troll me by claiming that I have also changed my account name? Well, I've been using this one and only account for over 7 years, and all the data in my user page is correct. Unlike this guy who suddenly copied from another user, a table of many prominent Thai editors to his Thai user page and claimed that he knew them. The table of names was quickly removed by one of the mentioned user citing that he doesn't know him. Personally I'd actually rather like this guy to be banned from here.SeeingMole (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Odd coincidence that there are some similarities between this situation and the Mbz1 one immediately below. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting the user page (we don't typically delete user talkpages, and trying to delete this one would create an unnecessary controversy). The best solution here might be to rename the old account to something arbitrary, although that would not change all the references to the former name on talkpages. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

James Norton

Thanks for your informative comment. But I happened to take Mr Norton, and his apparent beliefs, quite seriously and sympathetically. And I offered him to email me privately. I wasn't sure to whom you were addressing your comment about a "tweet to millions of people". Maybe I should have ignored him? or reported him for 3RR?! Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion about tweeting was made by another editor on that talkpage (his comment is directly under yours). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. The thought had also occurred to me that this anon London ip might be an aggrieved third party, intent on portraying Mr. Norton as past his best. Poor James. Perhaps he's feeling particularly victimised by the apparent hegemony of academia and the "new web Bible"? I wonder if we will ever know, "sob". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the purposes of the e-mail volunteer system ("OTRS") is precisely to allow us to ascertain whether someone claiming to be an article subject is in fact that person. (The same concern arises with copyright releases.) The subject is never required to use such system, but when he or she is willing to, it is a way of eliminating concerns about imposters. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, OTRS.... which I have used myself, a few times, when trying to get copyright images uploaded to Commons. Good luck, James. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

links on notifications

Happy to fix the links, what is wrong with them? they look fine on my view? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

nm, i see what you mean. fixing now. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand it can be confusing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI, I would personally not consider this statement involvement to the point of needing to recuse yourself, but you did previously comment on one of the prior RFCs [1] The currently proposed text relies greatly on Halbrook (as the one who has done the most work citing his primary sources), but does include other sources to avoid overreliance on a single voice Gaijin42 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder. I agree with you that I have no reason to recuse over that comment, and I will not do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, the incorrect link you mentioned above was generated by the subst template listed in the arbcom filing instructions. Perhaps that template should be fixed if it is generating incorrect links? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll ask one of the arbitration clerks to take a look at this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian,

You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Thank you for the notice. It sounds like a good event, but unfortunately I have a scheduling conflict that day? (Why am I telling this to the bot?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's see if the bot answers you back. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Another joke intervention?

Is this another of your "dip in, dip out" interventions? I don't follow your methodology at all. In any case, I'll post where is required, until there's a sanction telling me otherwise. Or, of course, Medeis asks me not to after apologising for her personal attack. Having said all that, it appears that you've been tapped up by her, so all bets are off. If you'd like to take me to AN/I (yet again) or Arbcom or wherever, please do so, and stop with the pathetic "threats". I'm midway through preparing a rather substantive RFC against Medeis and Bugs, but your intervention could curtail that. Which is fine, but either way, stop messing me around. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't go to the talk page of an editor who's just been asked to stop interacting with you and taunt them. An RFC may be a splendid idea, though it seems predestined to reach an obvious conclusion, which is that the infantile feuding among the three of you is disrupting the site and needs to be stopped, if necessary by page bans. In fact, I'm not as confident as Laser Brain that that shouldn't have been the outcome of the ANI threads. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised and disappointed that you do this "drive by" involvement thing. Perhaps that's what Arbcom is all about and why there's little-to-no respect for it any more? I don't know. What I do know is that you cannot simply arrive somewhere and deliver "instruction" to do something or other, just because you're Arbcom. Unless you've all suddenly developed "super powers". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with my being on ArbCom. It has to do with the fact that your behavior vis-a-vis Medeis is consistently problematic; the talkpage comment that led me to warn you off being only one recent example. I defer at this point to the discussion that another administrator has started about imposing some sort of community sanctions on all three of you. No one is stopping you from starting an RfC, although the better remedy would be self control on the part of all three of you. If you, and they, continue in this vein, my personal disapproval will be the least of your worries. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
So you're going to let Medeis refactor my comments, leave my signature against a comment I've never made? I sincerely hope not. You need to start acting rather than posturing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Since your telling TRM not to post on my talk page last night (something I have told him myself before) he has reverted four times when I redacted his comments, leaving only his signature so your warning would have some context. He appears to be continuing this. Please warn him further or take whatever action you find appropriate for this edit warring. (PS., I have notified him that he is welcome to forward any constructive communication to me through any admin of his choice. Hopefully that will happen some day.) μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Selective refactoring of talk page posts is inappropriate. Obviously. It could give a false impression. Thank you Medeis for allowing me to remove my signature from your post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I select deleting everything after the initial warning. I don't care whether my comment stays or not; the point has been made.
Beyond that, I'm actually starting to wonder if this whole situation isn't likely to end up with someone indeffing all three of you, if this whole pattern of behavior continues. There is absolutely no reason that any of you continue to behave in this manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
And as for "indef", please, get a grip. We have editors regularly calling each other "cunts" and they just get a pass. This is small fry. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't approve of incivility in any context but the editors I expect you are thinking of tend to do it in their own backyards, where the problem at least is confined. The feuding and name-calling that you are part of have created misery and dysfunction on WP:ITN, which is an important process for maintaining the main page, and on the reference desks, which perform a useful function including for new and prospective editors. I didn't say that I was going to indef anyone at this time, but it is by no means out of the question that someone will if this goes on—which is one of the many reasons it should cease. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Considering your approach and your view on this topic, having been contacted personally, I look forward to your actions rather than your words. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that there is a community discussion taking place, no one should act unilaterally. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Particularly those who have had off-wiki communication. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you're referring to; if you mean me, I have had none. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Brad, can you please either take action or tell me what to do? I did not invite this interaction. This is a good half hour I have wasted yet again with TRM thinking he's entitled to rule what goes on and is retained on my talk page. Yet I get hints that I may end up being blocked due to this. I haven't put anything on TRM's talk page or reverted his actions on his own page. This is beyond absurd. All I want is total disengagement. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I've removed what appears to be the source of this mini dispute. And it's a good thing I'm stepping away from the keyboard right now, because I really would be tempted to block anyone who flares this up again for a significant period of time. It takes remarkable effort and persistence to get me, of all people, this frustrated on-wiki, and the interaction between the two of you has done it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Well good for you. Just because you're frustrated, it doesn't allow you the latitude to rush about asserting "instructions" or threatening "indef blocks" when other machinations are in place in an attempt to resolve this topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your question

Hi, with regard to this question, did you have in mind all of Thryduulf's observations or part of them, such as the most recent point? I am concious that it would probably be unhelpful to write a long response but I'm happy to lay something out tomorrow, if necessary taking all their points in turn. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Primarily his question about whether the article you want to write is really within the scope of the current restrictions, and whether a minor clarification rather than a full-fledged amendment might suffice to resolve your request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I'll spend some time thinking about how to explain what might work tomorrow. The main thing is to find a way of enabling me to feel more confident in discussing LGBT projects in Jan/Feb with the archivists which are bound to touch sexuality and BLPs, I don't want to give a false impression for outcomes that I will not be able to deliver on, depending on what might or might not get agreed in March. At the moment I'm not confident at all, and walking away from these prospects seems a lot easier, if a sad conclusion. --Fæ (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to William Brennan and Lewis Powell
New York Writers Hall of Fame (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Richard Wright

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Domo arigato, Mister Roboto. I'll fix these. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for (redacted). - 2001:558:1400:10:B9FF:AB59:868A:DE42 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Thank you" notes are always nice, but I wish you'd phrased that one very differently. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Honestly, Elvey's comments almost seem worth a NLT block to me. Even in situations where there's no actual threat of litigation being made, stating outright that another user is behaving in a criminal fashion and that "I strongly believe I have witnessed criminal activity" is sure to produce a chilling effect on the behavior of other editors - which is one of the reasons why we have NLT in the first place. As per the NLT pages, a comment like that "severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral." Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that this comment was not acceptable, which is why I removed it and asked him not to repeat it. At this point I'd rather not draw additional attention to it (which unfortunately this very thread may wind up doing). If he repeats the comment I am sure someone will take stronger action. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Since the original poster was a troll, and the only subsequent poster besides you has been me, feel free to delete this thread if you'd like, as doing so may avoid Streisanding anything. (I mean, you could do that if you desired since it's your own talk page anyway, just felt like clarifying that I'd have no issue with it/wouldn't try to recreate it/etc.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Elvey's talk page.
Message added 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elvey (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond there. As a general note, I watchlist pages I post to. Unless it's clear that I've missed something, leaving a talkback template for me is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

DS review

I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views.  Roger Davies talk 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well...

Well,Newyorkbrad, you said "a", and now is a good time to say "b", I mean unblock the user, especially with Jimbo supporting this. No, I understand that this is extremely dangerous task to unblock somebody who has been blocked for two years, and who is not going to edit Wikipedia anymore, but I have good reasons to believe that if you do, the sun will still set in the West, the worlds will not collide, and Wikipedia articles will still show #1 in Google search results. Do, the right thing,Newyorkbrad. I assure you it feels good. 71.202.123.162 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've posted in the thread on the administrators' noticeboard and am hoping for some input from other admins. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, you got some input from one more admin: Jimbo Wales, but here's the deal: The user states that he is no longer interested in editing Wikipedia. Blocks are not for punishment. Why to unblock him you need any input from anybody at all? What the worse thing that could happen, if he's unblocked? 71.202.123.162 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Request to TPWs: I would appreciate more input in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Indef blocked User:Trongphu still socking. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
And still there's no more inputs. I guess most admins are not here to right the world's wrongs, and not here to fix every thing on Wikipedia. They just don't have time. So, why don't you unblock the user yourself? Thanks.71.202.123.162 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks for helping this person. I guess everything has its purpose. When I was refused in the similar request I did not know what good could come out of that, but it did! If my request were satisfied, I would have kept my promise, which means I would not have been able to help this person. Who knows maybe he needed help more than I do. I am Mbz1, and I have never harassed anybody, and I have never kicked a person who is down.71.202.123.162 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Meta on infoboxes

Your meta-comment from ammendments page
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Sadderl

Meetups coming up in DC!

Hey!

You are invited to two upcoming events in DC:

  • Meetup at Capitol City Brewery on Saturday, January 25 at 6 PM. Please join us for dinner, drinks, socializing, and discussing Wikimedia DC activities and events. All are welcome! RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
  • Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, February 1 from Noon – 5 PM. Join us as we improve articles on notable women in history! All are welcome, regardless of age or level of editing experience. RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.

I hope to see you there!

(Note: If you do not wish to receive talk page messages for DC meetups, you are welcome to remove your username from this page.)

Harej (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Request

Newyorkbrad, last night I asked Jimbo a question about the arbcom transparency, and he agreed with me that "everyone should have the chance, in public, to face their accusers and rebut claims". I have never had such an opportunity.

I state:

I state that each and every statement I made in my RFC was supported by at least one on-wiki diff.

I am not interested in editing any Wikipedia sites ever again, but I'd like to leave your project in peace, and hopefully help others in a similar situation to do the same. In order to do it one of two things should happen:

  1. I am presented with valid evidences (supported by diffs) I harassed somebody. Then I would review them and apologize.
  2. If #1 cannot be achieved I am unblocked and allowed to leave in peace. 69.181.42.248 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, there were lots of screams and lots of lies during my persecution, the lies I was not allowed to rebut, but there was no single evidence of an alleged harassment. It happened almost 2 years ago. Isn't it about time to present the evidences, if any, and let me to rebut them? Would you please do the right thing.69.181.42.248 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

An eye

Are you keeping an eye on Robert Spitzer (political scientist)? Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I had to be offline for about 24 hours but have just taken a look at the recent editing, and posted on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's wiki-thought for the day

(first of a series?)

You know you've been on Wikipedia for too long when ...

... you're listening to the radio, and they play a great song by Slade, and for a moment you think the line goes, "BLP and there ain't no source."

(signing for archive bot) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to TPWs for help with a policy essay

After this discussion the other day and this one last night, I am convinced that we need to fundamentally reevaluate how we as a community respond to BLP subjects (or people affiliated with them) who object to content in their articles. I am in the process of thinking through an essay and perhaps a policy proposal on this issue.

If anyone can suggest other instances from (say) the last six months in which a BLP subject come onto our wiki to correct or dispute information in his or her article, and was not treated appropriately, I would appreciate your providing a link to the discussion.

Conversely, if anyone can identify instances in which subjects were treated with courtesy and given helpful guidance on how to proceed, those would be quite useful as well.

Please note that this is a separate issue from whether the content of a given article actually violated the BLP policy. Our article subjects are entitled to respectful treatment and useful guidance (rather than, for example, a spate of template warnings)—regardless of whether their specific concern proves to be founded, unfounded, or debatable.

The purpose of this effort is not to identify specific admins or other editors who may have behaved poorly, and I hope that no one will misuse it for that purpose. My goal is to ensure that we improve our performance in this area, because while some of our written policy is sound, our facts-on-the-ground performance is too often deficient.

My thanks to everyone who can provide me help with this. I have rarely felt as strongly regarding any issue in my seven and a half years on this project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a purported subject asking for help. Talk:Klee Irwin Notice from the article page history how the problem has festered; I first looked into this in May 2013, but was unable to resolve it. Jehochman Talk 02:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
If you have your reading glasses on and hours of time on our hands, you can check out Talk:Matthew Bryden and related Talk archives, COIN, BLP and ANI posts. Lots of hidden text in how a POV pusher kept pointing out the PR rep's COI and goading them. It was a huge amount of work to actually enforce BLP against an editor that insisted on violating it in an overt way, using canvassing and COI accusations to deny consensus. Lots of WP:POV RAILROAD tactics, like false narratives.
I have a potential COI with this discussion? I guess maybe. Since I am sometimes the person representing a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 08:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Kudpung handled a situation well on editor retention, but I think it had been mishandled to that point. Some of the answer could be through schemes such as the Wikipedia:Death_anomalies_project - OK most of the time these are no longer BLPs, but do pick up some of the most embarrassing BLP mistakes. I've also experimented with trawls for phrases such as "punched him" and tested extending that to Mafiosi and escort - the tec exists to do something sizable that way but we'd need to recruit a team to do the trawling. I think that we have the technology to tighten our BLP handling in either of two useful ways, flagged revisions as runs on DE wiki or trawling for possible infractions, the former would require consensus and probably won't get it, the latter can just expand within existing policies. As for mishandling people raising BLP concerns, yes we have a problem, but I'm not sure how to address that, whereas I can see ways to reduce those BLP incidents. ϢereSpielChequers 09:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole pinged me about this discussion. I've made some edits to this section of BLP (diff), which discusses how to handle BLP subjects when they arrive to correct errors. I've added a sentence about the need for kindness, and two shortcuts: WP:BLPKIND and WP:BLPKINDNESS. They might help to draw more attention to this. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the help. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • User talk:Jpmanoux was identified as the subject of J.P. Manoux and account transiently blocked until the identify could be confirmed; while he was frustrated with the length of time it took to resolve, all in all I think we did okay. He let us know he spells his name without a space between the initials; one editor gave him some bureaucratic MOS nonsense but another just moved the article to the preferred spelling. While reviewing the occurrence in preparation here, I've noted that many articles spell his name wrong; I've asked the smart folks at Village pump (wikigeek) if there's a way to fix that suitable for a lazy Ent.
  • Personally I think the existence of this article is disgusting; it represents a concerned and successful attack to demean a person. I find it unfortunate that our policies have made us accomplices in the continued references to it; that is, it really can't be argued the article doesn't meet WP standards of being well-sourced from reliable sources. At this point, a decade later, the Wikipedia article is a (or the) primary factor in keeping it popping up on google searches. At one point there was some effort to have the primary search term for the individual link to a disambig page but fortunately wiser heads prevailed. NE Ent 23:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again to those who commented. I'll hopefully get this essay written in the next week or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts on response to Mass Surveillance

I just wanted to point you to a discussion ongoing about whether we should join with the EFF, Mozilla, Free Press (organization), and others to respond to mass surveillance on Feb 11.

I will leave it to your own judgement about whether you should offer your opinion or not. You have a unique and singular role in the project. More than anyone else on the project, you are our "trusted, neutral referee", you're our "Solomon, the wise judge" that people can go to to settle disagreements.

So I wanted to alert you to the on-going discussion about if, and how, we should participate. I know I, for one, place great stock in your words and your analyses--- and I'm hardly alone in this. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very sincerely for your letting me know about this discussion and also for the kind words about me personally. (I'm not sure I'm the judge people use to settle disagreements; there are plenty of times when my arbitrator colleagues have outvoted me 14 to 1. But I digress.)
I've read the discussion on Jimbo's page and everything I might have had to say has been pretty well covered by others. Suffice it to say with my lawyer and public policy hat on that in the analogous context of cellphone metadata surveillance, I sympathize with much of what Judge Leon wrote—but there is also great merit to Judge Pauley's observations about why at least some of this activity is necessary. All of us—I believe—wish we lived in a world in which the neither the United States Government nor any other government had reason to engage in widespread Internet monitoring or any interest in doing so. Alas, that is far from the case.
I think there is merit to Wikipedia's promoting awareness of the need to balance legitimate governmental objectives with the avoidance of unwarranted intrusions into the personal privacy of the general population. And of course, our content will cover the ongoing controversy about where to draw the line. I am hesitant to see the project qua project "take sides" in disputes that don't relate directly to Wikipedia and Wikimedia. This one of course is related to an extent, but only to an extent.
From the discussion on Jimbo's talk, it looks like the consensus is emerging to do something relevant on the main page that day. We have previously attuned the main page content to something going on that particular day, such as the presidential candidate biographies on Election Days, which may be a useful precedent to point to here. I would not support a site blackout, and I'm not sure that banners on every page are the way to go, either, though it remains to be seen just what the proposed banners will say.
If I think of anything useful to add to the discussion, I will go there and add it, but I think I've said my piece for the moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Move like this

I like this move, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No wonder I got no reply for this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to add entries

User:Newyorkbrad/List of editors with oxymoronic usernames

Perhaps FerociousLettuce, CarnivorousFungi, Cowardly Lion, AtheistJewInGermany, IntelligentFool, WalkingTelephone, SingingLemon, and Oxymoron? EdChem (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Darkness Shines, for one. The scope of oxymoron is not very clearly defined, with a spectrum ranging from logical or semantic self-contradiction (like NativeForeigner, a ‘strong’ example), through practical impossibility and grotesque incongruity, to mere oddity or non sequitur.—Odysseus1479 05:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oi,my user name is a song title. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No "inspiration credit" for the Ent? NE Ent 13:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Received and now responded, albeit a day late. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ars longa, Vita brevis

OK, I am not Horace. But I think there might be a decent motion which someone might propose on the order of:

The Arbitration Committee has many times in findings and principles affirmed the extreme importance of WP:BLP being strongly followed. To that end, any misuse of sources for any biography of a living person, or any use of a biography of any living person or article related thereto to defame any such person without extremely strong sourcing shall be treated as being under discretionary sanctions, to be enforced specifically at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and any articles where such improper edits or actions occur shall be clearly labeled as subject to discretionary sanctions.

Legalistic enough? Collect (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Manning

For the information of those who were involved or are interested in the Manning naming dispute, you may be interested in this decision issued today by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Note both the majority opinion by Judge Thompson and the dissent by Judge Torruella.

I am mentioning this here as a point of information only. Please do not discuss the merits of the court's decision or reopen the article-naming dispute on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting decision, thanks for the link. If I may, a couple of questions:
  1. Am I correct in thinking a case on Manning's rights would go to the 10th Circuit?
  2. Would this 1st Circuit decision be seen as persuasive?
  3. Is this the sort of case that the Supreme Court might take, to consider the 8th amendment issues?
I hope asking these questions is ok, I am not asking about the merits or agreeing / disagreeing with the decision made, just trying to see if I understand the implications. Thanks, Brad. EdChem (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
SCOTUS is unlikely to take on a case until there is a circuit split on the issue, so if people are looking for SCOTUS to endorse the 8th decision, they should ironically hope for Manning to go to the 10th circuit and lose, to encourage SCOTUS to resolve the split in their favor. Until that time, this decision only carries precedent in the 8th, but judges elsewhere are free to be persuaded or not (constrained by any local precedents). Being persuaded or not (imo) probably has more to do with pre-existing political/social biases than the argument in this ruling, unless there is some water tight logic somewhere. Also, the applicability of this precedent will be highly dependent on the findings of fact being similar in any other cases. as discussed in the ruling, the circuit reviewed the law de novo, but only evaluated prior findings of fact for clear error. Lots will depend on the subject at hand and what type/severity of gender issues they have. Also the applicability of the logic in this ruling (even where it is water tight) depends on the scope of the prior precedents this court relied on. If those are SCOTUS precedents, or precedents that have been confirmed in multiple jurisdictions, the ruling will be more likely to be repeated in other circuits. If most of the prior precedents were local, then the other circuits have a blank slate. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, I'd rather not have this page become the general information center for this issue, but the First Circuit's ruling certainly is in tension with rulings from some other courts. One, slightly older case (Seventh Circuit per Posner, J.) is here, and compare the same Circuit's later decision here. There are no doubt more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

SPA

Since you requested all involved editors to step away from the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) article, we all did...except the SPA account Lightbreather, who has been having her way with the artcle. She has a HISTORY of article ownership issues, and edits gun-control related articles exclusively. Her "mentor" StarryGrandma recently embarrassed Wikipedia by denying the article of a prominent reporter of the New Your Times. She was overruled with THIS Snow Keep. You may already know that I am pro-control, just as these two editors are, but they are not putting Wikipedia ahead of their own politics. Next to them I look like a constitution waving, assault weapon toting redneck. I will not edit the article until you have finished your review, but I hope you finish it soon. They are not putting the encyclopedia first. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I do not think your characterization of User:Lightbreather as an SPA is helpful here. Rather than argue about that, could you please explain in a little more detail why you think Lightbreather's edits are problematic. Please give specific examples. The most direct point on which the two of you disagree on the talkpage seems to be the use of the word "activist," which can be addressed straightforwardly enough. Overall, my view is that the entire issue of gun control seems to be receiving undue weight in the article relative to everything else Professor Spitzer has written about and accomplished, which I find troubling. Also, while your concerns about use of primary sources are understandable in theory, is there anything currently contained in the article that you believe is inaccurate or unreliable? I prefer not to see longstanding banners on BLPs unless there is an actual, specific issue being addressed. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Newyorkbrad, for including me in this discussion. I am also including my mentor, User:StarryGrandma, because I think she ought to know what Sue has said about her.
BTW, Starry IS my mentor, and not my "mentor" - in quotes. She (Starry) has told me I must ignore people who write bad things about me, and I'm doing my best, but if you have any specific questions for me in response to what Sue has written - or anything else - ask them on my talk page and I will do my best to answer them, with plenty of diffs. I had a very stressful first 6 to 8 weeks on WP and came close to getting banned (or blocked, I never can keep straight the difference) before Starry came along (plus a handful of other editors and admins who opposed the idea - some even guys who have different ideas than I about gun control, but who also have learned to mostly AGF with me). Lightbreather (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Let me see what specifically Sue Rangell comes back with, and we'll take it from there. Incidentally, the reference to the Judith Newman AfC is irrelevant and I don't know why it was mentioned in this thread. That topic should not become part of this discussion, but I'll note in passing that the version of the article that was declined at AfC was very different from the version that was ultimately kept at AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have very little to add, other than to ask Newyorkbrad to look AT THIS, and see what happens when an SPA is allowed to edit unchecked. The subjects own quotes have been taken down, along with the strongest of the secondary sources. All of the secondary sources refer to the subject as an "advocate", which is the word that should be used, not "activist" which some feel has a negative connotation. And I feel that the gun control advocacy section could be limited to a single paragraph. As for Lightbreather, it *is* an SPA account, and it is attempting to whitwash the subject's politics completely out of the article, without any consensus. Creating this false neutrality is bad for Wikipedia, it is part of the "chipping away" that I have mentioned in the past. When people see an article written the way this one now is, they will get the impression that Wikipedia is not neutral at all. I asked to get a consensus about whether or not the subjects political leanings should be mentioned, that consensus so far is more or less even, leaning towards including the information (That's going by a simple count of the ivotes, which I know isn't always the main factor) But I hope that it will be part of Brad's considerations, as I am not the only person who sees things that way. Hopefully Brad will be able to come up with some guidance that everyone is unhappy with, if everyone is unhappy, it's probably fair. :) Thank you and be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the article looks to me to be in pretty decent shape at the moment. Why don't you point me to the two or three most important things or quotes that you think are not currently included, or are included but shouldn't be, and we'll work with that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Most humbly, I think it would be best if I stepped away from the article completely at this point. I am not on a crusade or anything. If you think the article is in good shape, then I suppose it is. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Philippe's talk page.
Message added 05:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

  1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If that's how you feel about peer review, the hell with you, too. I'll take a look tomorrow and see if I have anything to add. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. No, that's not how I feel about peer review. I enjoy peer review! :) I just thought you'd be interested in the subject matter as the book is written from a legal academic perspective. Thank you for your interest in freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My RFA comments

In regards to the RFA, its not like I haven't been arguing at brick walls to make the RFA process easier, better and faster for the last 4 or 5 years or anything. With no success I might add because the majority of the admins in "power" want this process to be draconian, archaic and painful to prevent them from losing power. I'll be the first one to vote for any attempt at another process. Even a bad idea is worth a try to end this stupid and outdated process. Till then though, my oppose rationale stands and its up to the bureaus to dismiss it at the end (not that it will affect the outcome of the RFA anyway). Why should I be gentle on RFA's and be nice in my comments when no one else does? I tried for years to help and tried to be calm and patient and taste my words before I typed them and what did it get me? I got spit on and told I couldn't be trusted by some of the most abusive editors and admins on this site. No one did a thing when they were posting nasty messages to my talk page, blindly reverting changes to their articles or blocking me instead of the ones who violated the rules because I wasn't a member of "their" project. So now, if you think I have a bad rationale for an oppose vote I really don't care. Because no one really cares how nasty or abusive the comments, editors and admins are on this site except me and I am universally hated for pointing it out. Kumioko (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It is one thing to express your dissatisfaction with how Wikipedia governance operates (or doesn't operate) by taking out your hostility on people is senior positions such as the arbitrators. That doesn't exactly thrill me and it may thrill some of the newer arbs even less, but it is par for the course given our roles within the project.
It is quite another thing to vent quasi-random hostility at innocent RfA candidates. As you yourself emphasize that you yourself have pointed out many times, the RfA process often suffers from an excess of negativism. While the discussions of how the process might be changed have not reached any consensus, I don't think a single person has opined that what is needed is even more snark and nastiness, or more opposition !votes based on petty issues and non-issues.
It is not as if the candidate messed up the transclusion in a fashion that betrayed an ignorance of basic wiki markup or the like. The error that he made, and quickly corrected, was minor and could have happened to anyone. I've certainly done worse.
Your opinion that "the majority of the admins in 'power' want this [RfA] process to be draconian, archaic and painful to prevent them from losing power." I don't think that is true at all. I will go further: that assertion is false.
The tone and substance of your comments above suggest to me—I hope I am misreading this—that you now feel at liberty to oppose RfA candidates in a deliberately obnoxious manner, because you no longer want to be "calm and patient" or "gentle and nice" in commenting, because some other !voters are sometimes "nasty and abusive," and because your complaints went unheeded in some unrelated dispute. That is the epitome of disruptive point-making, and I hope you will not engage in it.
Let me step back. There are certainly ways we might improve the governance and operation of this website, and I respect the efforts of those who point out the flaws and how they might be corrected. I know you perceive yourself in such a role. But at this point, you are so totally embittered that you are seeking petty excuses for lashing out at total wiki-strangers, while at the same time bemoaning the meanness and rottenness of the quality of discourse. If opposing an RfA candidate because of a short-lived transclusion error, which you acknowledge is attributable to confusingly written instructions as much as anything else, is what your criticism of wikiprocess has degenerated into, then it is certainly time for you to rethink the entirety of your participation here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You just wrote a lot of words, much of which honestly is true and accurate to tell me to stop being a jerk, but yet, there are countless others on this site who are admins who actively engage in much much worse, yet you say nothing. And you wonder why I don't care anymore? Its out of desperation after having tried literally everything else to get the process fixed. I've tried literally everything and in many of those instances multiple editors attacked me in a fashion far harsher than the words and vote I left on that RFA. Yet you nor anyone else did one thing. No comments telling them to be nice, nothing. I can give examples of not just me but a multitude of others. So you'll excuse me if your well meaning and accurate statements don't carry much weight at this point. No more than my comments mean anything to you or the rest of the arbs and admins. To answer a question above though, I am a little bitter. But not about not getting the tools. The thing that pisses me off more than anything else is being told that I cannot be "trusted". If I didn't have the technical ability or the demeanor that's one thing. But to say I can't be trusted, when this place is full of abusive admins who openly violate policy, bait other users so they can have an excuse to block them, hound them incessently over every little edit because they are exempt from involved, etc. Then to have no one, not even Arbitrators like you who should be standing up for these editors who are being run down and run out of the site, do a thing. Except of course to tell me I'm not trusted. You'll excuse me if my attutude isn't as good as it could be. When you and the other arb's start doing something, because you are the only ones who can, then you can talk to me about my attitude ok. If my attitude is that much of a problem just block me already. You'll probably get showered in barnstars for doing it. You can even give me one of those cool little banners that says blocked per Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There, I removed my oppose and that whole useless part of the discussion. Kumioko (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep and I scrambled my password and removed my email address. So lets see if I can actually stay gone this time. I've got better things to do than keep wasting my time here. Maybe I'll go study law. I coulda been a lawyer by now if I would have gone to school instead of wasting my time here all these years. :-) 108.45.104.69 (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Why on Earth would you want to be a lawyer? Anyway, criticising the RfA process or even administrators in general is a definite no-no, as enshrined by NYB and his buddies in my ArbCom sanction, so you'd have been wasting your time to hang around anyway. Eric Corbett 00:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Lol, I've already got 4 Masters degrees anyway (well three and a Masters cert whatever that is), what do I need another degree for? You have to be an out of work high school drop out living in your mothers basement to edit here. Well to be an admin anyway. Educated adults mostly aren't welcome unless their willing to ignore policy and allow miscreants on a powertrip to do whatever they want. Now I'm going to go and play some GTA5 and build up my criminal empire...108.45.104.69 (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Poetry

Do you remember the poetry efforts? My try came later, and was discussed here, mentioning your name. I'd be interested in your independent opinion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My wikipoetry, such as it is or was, is of the humorous variety, or at least I tried. I'm not much good at evaluating the more serious stuff. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
My critic had objections to the last line, while I thought the last link lifts, no? - heard too much Wagner in my life ;) - for more uplift, I invite for PR, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Did you know that a blue duck attacks the German Main page right now? I guess with 28 bites, - had to happen on the 28th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A hand-typed thank you

Thanks, Newyorkbrad, for your support of my RfB and thank you more so for your long-term confidence in me. I clearly recall your support for me in my very first RfA, which was back in March 2007, and your later support in my successful request. I also remember you being kind and helpful to me when I was relatively new. Best. Acalamari 19:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm glad to have provided deserved support on both occasions, and I hope the advice I gave the first time around (which on rereading I hope didn't come off as too condescending) was helpful to you. I am finding it hard to believe that was seven years ago, though! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Nah, you were never condescending; in fact, you were just the opposite! I knew the RfA was doomed and seeing your support brightened my feelings at the time. You were most definitely helpful. :) I'm also amazed that it was almost seven years ago. Thanks again. Acalamari 21:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yea?

"a fair discussion"? And what exactly is "a fair" discussion in your own opinion, if you have any, Newyorkbrad? Is a discussion, in which a defendant is not allowed to participate seems fair to you? Is a discussion in which half of the votes made by heavily involved users seems fair to you? Is a discussion in which no single evidence of an alleged harassment is presented seems fair to you? Is a discussion, if what one of the dirtiest Wikipedia's troll using the lies he got from the hacker of a private email account seems fair to you? And if you answer "yes" on any of above, I am not sure how you could live with yourself. And if you answer "no" to any of above, and do nothing to overturn that unfairness, I am not sure how you could live with yourself either.71.202.124.160 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't that discussion almost three years ago? Isn't discussing stuff that old a certain variety of trolling tactic? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There has recently been an AE block on NinaGreene (sp?) under this case, fyi. EdChem (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I know that, EdChem, but thanks for the reminder. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually Newyorkbrad linked to that discussion today. 71.202.124.160 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"I am not sure how you could live with yourself". Enough said. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Newyorkbrad, it is what Larry Sanger said about some Wikipedians
  • I'd like to add to the quote: one could show "no sense of grace, humanity, or even style" not only by "making high-sounding declarations and announcements" but also by ignoring a person and the facts. Ignoring facts does not make them go away. As Mahatma Gandhi said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." I pity you, Newyorkbrad.71.202.124.160 (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Larry Sanger, in my view, is so embittered regarding Wikipedia, that very little he says about Wikipedia should be taken seriously. Is he known as an arbiter of grace, humanity and style? I certainly don't think so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, EdChem and Cullen328. (I don't think we should continue the discussion here about Larry Sanger, though.) Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
"Support"? Do you feel as you need support? It's funny. I thought I am the one who needs support. By the way after I made the first post I saw a dream. In my dream you responded to me, and asked me to present the evidences that half of the users who supported my ban were heavily involved with me. It was a good dream, but then I woke up, and of course there was nothing of the kind from you. 71.202.124.160 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Jan&oldid=1144299248"