User talk:Newyorkbrad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC
Wikimedia LGBT outreach logo.svg

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

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

You've got mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Newyorkbrad. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 08:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC). 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.

Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 08:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Roma locuta est and AN talk[edit]

Nice to see that literacy has taken hold in ArbCom <g> although I find any arb seemingly acting as "primus inter pares" may be taking classics too literally (noting some dicta therefrom). More to the point, have you read the interminable "civility discussion" at AN Talk? In particular the point raised that an editor with a great many edits should not be deemed incivil for a minuscule percentage of edits using impolitic language (or arcane references in Latin) while other editors with fewer edits get a bye for using "c**t", "f**K" and the like depending on which admin is deeming the words a violation of decorum on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I read enough of that discussion to know I didn't want to read any more of that discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah...I read too much myself to be honest.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Availability note[edit]

Rock all night, sleep all day,
It don't matter what they say,
Ain't never gonna change my ways
And I won't be back till Monday.
Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
👍 Like--Mark Miller (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
And I'm gonna rock and roll all night, and party everyday".--Mark Miller (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse[edit]

Very nice to see you at the Teahouse. Please drop by any time. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Cosmologist downgrade protection[edit]

First off, thanks for the help over at AN/I. Although it was beyond what I had originally proposed, I think it was the right thing to do, and it looks like that's what the consensus was (I think I may have been excessively cautious about this because my interactions with Holybeef have been very frustrating, and I was worried that would bias me). In the related case regarding the fluctuating-IP editor (here), the result was unfortunately 1 month's full protection on both pages. Since there is no "content dispute" without Holybeef and the other editor is an IP editor, would it be possible to drop the temporary protection from full to semi-protection, so the (logged-in, autoconfirmed) editors left at the respective pages can start the cleanup? Let me know if I'm out of bounds by asking this directly to you - I'm not sure if it's the sort of thing I should be doing via an {{edit request}} or appeal directly to the protecting admin (Ged UK), but it seems like a natural follow-on to the Holybeef action. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Oops, forgot to give the page links:

Sorry. Thanks. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait until tomorrow to see if there are any unanticipated developments. Assuming not, I'll lower the protection then (or if I'm not here, any other administrator should do so). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good, no rush - I think in the current state of both articles there's nothing potentially libelous, just a very minor POV issue on Alan Guth, so it's nothing that can't wait a bit. Thanks. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It's done :) GedUK  12:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandal[edit]

That user is making disruptive edits at own talk page. Do you need to remove the user's access to editing its own talk page? You blocked the user without revoking the user's talk page access. Eyesnore (pc) 01:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like another administrator already got to this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

dubitante[edit]

Where one has well-founded doubts about even taking on a case, then one should simply oppose taking it on. "Dubitante" is more apt for decisions after a case has been accepted where a judge thinks a precept or proposition is wrong but where he does not feel competent to declare it invalid on his own. Appeals courts are generally the ones to look at the invocation of the term, and are generally far more willing to rule on the underlying precept or proposition. Frankly, the case is, IMO and IANAL, to be a hopeless morass quite equivalent to having the committee thank a long stroll in the Everglades. Tell me when you are south of Lake Okeechobee. Collect (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Put it this way: Why do you think the Justices don't typically record dissents from grants of certiorari? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Certiorari is generally a writ for a lower court to review (not reverse) a previously decided case - not a decision about whether to hear a case in the first place as a rule. (SCOTUS uses certiorari to basically hand the ball back to the lower court and not to indicate that SCOTUS actually decided that the decision has to be reversed, AFAICT. All it means is that 4 justices agree the matter should be reviewed.) The judge in the case being appealed may have done so "dubitante" - but one does not "dissent" from forcing a review of a decided case. In the example at hand, the WMF issue was not yet a case at all, much less one which had been decided. Be sure to use bug spray. Collect (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You've missed my point; perhaps my fault as I wrote in haste. A justice—or an arbitrator—may express reservations about accepting a case, as I did to some extent in my preliminary comments on this one. But once a majority of one's colleagues have taken the case, there's limited utility to continuing to intone "this is a mistake, I know better than the rest of you, and we shouldn't be deciding this." Sometimes it's better to say, "I wasn't sure this is the right move, but the rest of the Committee were elected just as I was and have their share of wisdom, and the majority has ruled so let's see what productive we can do with this." I've written about this question before, as have scholars of real-world tribunals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Book review[edit]

Hey NYB, just reminding you about this. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; I'll be finishing it up tonight (NY time). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are you reverting the dynamic IPv6 user?[edit]

You've done it twice with the rollback tool, (which is only meant to be used for vandalism), and I'd like an explanation. Suspicion of socking/off wiki canvassing is dealt at WP:SPI or WP:ANI. Additionally, what rule did the IPv6 user break. The block reason is 'absurdity' and does not offer any context or reason behind it. Tutelary (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It was kind of you to think of me Tutelary.
I should let Mr. Matetsky speak for his own actions, but I will just say that I have found, over many years of editing Wikipedia via IP, that most administrators feel very comfortable taking harsh action against IP editors. I don't mean that cynically or hyperbolically - there is really a large group of administrators who believe that any process-oriented or mildly-negative comment by an IP is evidence of "suspicious" or "trolling" behavior. I don't know why it came to be that way, but I am used to it. 2601:7:1980:BF6:7440:4B16:768B:EE69 (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my prior action and have repeated it. The impropriety of the edits I reverted is self-evident. I will add that while I didn't rely on IP's likely being a banned editor as the rationale for my reverts or blocks, the gratuituous use of my real name is a strong marker that the IP is one of a small handful of banned editors, none of whom are permitted to make even legitimate edits, much less gratuitously inappropriate ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll drop it, but I do like to ask admins about their actions regarding IPs/brand new accounts especially due to the fact that they may be a legitimate, interested editor which may be bitten by the encounter. Carry on. Tutelary (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, I appreciate your interest in protecting IPs' right to edit and to enjoy equal consideration of their edits. I first edited as an IP myself, all those years ago, and it was the fact that I felt welcomed into a productive, collaborative environment that led me to go ahead and register an account. It was the specific edits of this particular IP, or range of IPs, that immediately struck me as problematic, and not the fact of his or her IP-ness. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, though I would be a bit more precise with your block reasons. 'absurdity' doesn't really say any detail about what happened or why you blocked for it. 'harassment' is better but still needs more context. Tutelary (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
You may be right. One gets a bit jaded after dealing with the same handful of trolls for years and years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alger Hiss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanley Reed. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding publicly accessible Arbitrator data[edit]

Thank you in advance for your grossly under thanked efforts on the Arbitration committee. I would like to get an initial thought about a project that I've had noodling around in my head. When Arb elections come up with the exception of the candidates statement, there is some information available, we are potentially missing components that would compose performance based metrics. I am toying with the idea of going back over the cases in which an arbitrator has been on the committee and extracting data (Did the arb vote on the acceptance of the case request, Did the arb ever comment in the evidence, Did the arb ever comment on the workshop, How long between the Proposed Decision being posted and the arb's first response to the proposed decision, Did the arb participate in the motion to close). The idea is to get a more immediate idea of which arbs are underperforming and which ones are meeting performance expectations. I know this leaves out an entire different set of data in terms of the private ArbWiki and the committee's mailing list, but the voting public cannot make evaluations on non-pulbic data. Part of this is driven by the perennial promise by members of the committee to be more transparent with its deliberations, yet the promise always being minimally (or never) delivered on. Do you have any thoughts prior to my starting this project? Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words at the outset of your post.
I'm not sure it would be easy to measure the quality of an arbitrator's performance in statistical terms as you propose. As one example, thinking back on six-plus years of my own performance, sometimes when another arbitrator posts a proposed decision on-wiki I vote right away (presumably that would reflect positively in my statistics) while other times it takes me a few days to vote because I'm traveling or distracted (I suppose that would be a negative if the delay lasts beyond a certain point). But what if I'm following the case closely but am holding off on voting because editors are commenting on the proposals on the talkpage and I want to evaluate what they have to say before I make up my mind—does that put me in the "dilatory voter" column or the "thoughtful, deliberate arbitrator" one? And so on.
All that being said, I suggest that you speak with Paul August, who kept track of this sort of statistic for several years. I believe Carcharoth did some of this sort of thing too awhile ago, but I may be misremembering. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Ideally my project would have been more of making the data more accessible, not to pass judgement on the data. I envision the data as more a drill down per arbiter that has the digested data per case, and then a summary section per arbiter that gives average delay and percentage of the "Yes" to the binary questions. I would see this as potentially useful data to people who write the arbitration voting guides in the sense that they could focus on whatever criteria to determining the good/adequate/bad thresholds for response. I would also see this data as useful when looking at ways to streamline the Arbitration process because I believe that 3 months for a case single threaded is far more deliberation that SCOTUS gives it's cases. Hasteur (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand. I suppose the other relevant consideration is how many of the sitting arbitrators will run for reelection. (I have no information except that I'm not.) I'd be reluctant to see you put umpty-ump amount of time into creating a database to help decide which arbs should be returned to office or not, and then it turns out that few of the sitting arbs seek another term. But there's probably no way of knowing that until at least October.
Frankly, at this point the importance of ArbCom these days is widely overstated; as you've noticed I'm sure, we decide a lot few cases now than we used to (for reasons I've blogged about), so the role of ArbCom is decreased relative to that of community/noticeboard decision-making, which has been under-studied. But that is a different discussion.
Finally, I absolutely agree that three months is too long for the ArbCom to resolve any case. (How long it takes the Supreme Court to decide a case is a different discussion we won't start here.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The activity reports referred to above are at the ArbCom history page: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History#Activity reports. I did that half-yearly one back in 2009. It looks like Paul August did stats for the years 2008-2011. Whether he did more than that, I don't know. Hope that helps. I've sometimes thought that individual arbs should keep their own records of what they do, as they are best placed to do this. Carcharoth (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The 2011 data is the type of data I am interested in bringing to the surface and making easy to read for end users considering candidates for Arbitration (or re-election of expiring arbiters). Thank you Carcharoth Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Really?[edit]

[1] Not sure what happened here, but I hope that was an accident? Risker (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)