User talk:Newyorkbrad

This is Newyorkbrad's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

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)[reply]

Interesting decision, thanks for the link. If I may, a couple of questions:

Am I correct in thinking a case on Manning's rights would go to the 10th Circuit?
Would this 1st Circuit decision be seen as persuasive?
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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

Fuck peer review, again

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 (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

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

~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There, I removed my oppose and that whole useless part of the discussion. Kumioko (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]