User talk:Newyorkbrad

Additions and removals from cases

I removed myself from the Ireland names case in the middle of last month, shortly after it started. Got involved with a statement and, because of some comments, removed myself. The case was closed last night, and then Penwhale re-added me to the case saying "that's not really how we do things here, Deacon (removal/addition of party, post-opening, is actually needed to be done via motion UNLESS self-addition is the case -but not self-remove)", but as anyone can tell there are no such clear rules and I can't stand people bsing at me. I know there is the possibility of motions, but doing that would imply that the original addition carried authority when in actual fact it is pretty arbitrary (see my comment on Penwhale's talk page). I can leave it alone through fear of some punitive motion or something, but I won't be able to do so with a good feeling. Just for the record, my name being on the case doesn't bother me that much, even though being on a case is potentially damaging (Ncmvocalist declared after the Piotrus 2 case had started that I "was under arbcom review"). It's the getting reverted with an appeal to "rules" that don't exist or aren't good that actually bothers me. There is no clear process for being added to a case nor any transparent rules, so with that in mind, and since Penwhale or someone else is probably going to leave me a boring message about what they believe to be "rules", and since I can't do anything other than offer a token attempt to resist without fear of punishment, what exactly should I do? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence on a case page is "Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case." — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Standard practice (that I have seen) in open cases is for parties to be removed by motion. Being a party to a case doesn't imply anything in particular, but it would be bad practice to allow individuals to remove themselves as a listed party without checking with arbitrators or clerks first. Avruch ^T 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All of which misses the entire point I'm raising. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I will look into this when I get home tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I believe the question of whether or not candidates had been identified as a party in one or more RFARs was asked several times during the most recent election of Arbitration Committee candidates; as such, it is reasonable to intuit that at least some editors believe that being named as a party carries some form of weight, presumably negative. Might it be more reasonable to identify only those who are personally named in final decisions as parties to cases at the time of closing? Risker (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The list of parties almost never changes once a case is opened. Or do you mean limit it only to user who were named in the findings? Not being named in the findings does not necessarily mean they weren't a party to the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is true that there isn't a direct correlation between being named as a party and being identified by name in a final decision, although that might be a good reason to change things; on the other hand, there's also no correlation between being named a party and active participation in an RFAR, either. It's not a top priority for me, but it is something that bears thought. Risker (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of that was participation as a party in an arbitration case is seen as likely to lead to some level of scrutiny/review, which would be useful to see when considering a candidate's qualifications. I don't recall feeling that it implied that being a party was automatically negative, but could be my memory is a bit fuzzy. Avruch ^T 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It does carry some negative weight, though not necessarily and there's nothing in the rule book that says it should. Anyway, in this particular case I was named as a party (according to the user that named me) because my contribution was wanted. Certain things transpired that made me want to withdraw from the case - and I did - and by default, as there was no findings against or for me (nor any evidence for what it's worth), the exact reason besides clerk whim my wishes are not respected isn't clear. I'm faced with a choice between edit warring on the arb findings page [highly risky business or at least a large potential source of social disapproval] or making a big deal about it by trying to launch some motion [thus bringing more attention to me as well as establishing a precedent that arbcom motions are the only way to overrule arbitrary non-transparent infringing decisions by a clerk]. Or of course I could just accept it knowing this will get fixed eventually. As I don't really wanna do any of these, the only other thing to do is get an influential person to problem-solve or otherwise "clarify" the system. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As promised again below, I'll look at this by the end of the weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

email

Hi NYB: Can you please let me know via email if you'll be able to resolve the issues I brought up. If not, it's fine, but I would like to know, so that I can ask someone else to look into the matter for me. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your e-mail. Sorry about the delay. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:List

Sorry, for the late reply. It's the reading period here in Princeton, so any time I have to access Wikipedia has been spotty, although I'm sure you're well aware of this ;-) In any case, as for your list (which is User:Newyorkbrad/List of locations of manuscript collections for members of the U.S. President's Cabinet I suppose), it looks like an interesting topic, and I certainly can help you with formatting stuff. Here's one suggestion:

Secretary (Years in Office)	Department	Location
Thomas Jefferson (1789–1790)	State	Congressional BioGuide entry

This eliminates the need for the section headers by making it possible to sort between the secretaries of the different departments. My only quibble is that the table itself is a bit limited (only three columns), so any other useful data you can place in (any notable documents, possibly?) would go in another column. Hope that helps. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Liskula Cohen lawsuit

I didn't see that you removed the information earlier but I really think that the Liskula Cohen-Google lawsuit deserves some mention at this point. Please see Talk:Liskula Cohen. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You may wind up being right. I'll look at how coverage is shaping up in a few days. It will be an irony on two levels if after my comments, this winds up being the leading case in New York on when an ISP or website will be required to turn over IP information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX

Brad, according to Admin Noticeboards and RFARs are still being indexed. I can take AWB and run it over them tonight to add the tag to them. I think in a lot of cases, the pages have non-standard names and are thus not being picked up by the mass transclusions via archival templates. MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's an easier solution that will add even more functionality to RFAR in general. Add {{NOINDEX}} to Template:ArbComOpenTasks and then make that a mandatory include on every single RFAR case page/talk page. The old style stuff can be AWB'd out with the NOINDEX directly, but doing something like this and for all future cases would do it all in one fell swoop. Bad/good idea? rootology (C)(T) 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And the Admin boards WERE set noindex, but someone removed it from wherever it was (I have no idea where, but I'll it somewhere back now). rootology (C)(T) 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To MBisanz: Yes, please. After you had mentioned this previously I had been assured that all was in order on this point. Although I understand there is controversy about whether certain namespaces or pages should be indexed, I don't know of anyone who contends that (e.g.) Wikipedia arbitration workshop pages should come up in Google searches on people's names.

To Rootology: Please post your suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration and the Arbitration Clerks' noticeboard to see if there are any objections or thoughts. You can note that this sounds like a good idea to me and I thought that it or the equivalent was already in place. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, give me a couple minutes to draft it up. rootology (C)(T) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX is and was on Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all, but many AN pages like WP:AN/B don't carry that template, so NOINDEX isn't transcluded. Google+AWB will fix that and I'll leave it to Rootology to get clerk approval for the RFAR pages. MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, everything on Template:Editabuselinks except some of the top bar stuff should be NOINDEX. rootology (C)(T) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is odd, according to MediaWiki:Robots.txt, RFAR pages are supposed to be excluded by the software from google-dexing, and have been for sometime according to the edit history. Someone might want to ping a techie to figure out why it appears to be ineffective. It seems to be working fine for other pages listed like AFDs. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre. Well, double coverage doesn't cost anything is free of charge, so... rootology (C)(T) 19:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This should already be fixed. It was pointed out on Wikipedia Review last week. Apparently, the software has been updated as of January 4. If this fix is live, the older pages just haven't fallen out of the index yet. Cool Hand Luke 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's live. We're up to r45489. On my searches, the pages in google cache are pre-Jan 4 (such as this timely example, Aug 22), or have been redirected from someplace not covered by the exclusion, like Wikipedia:Plautus satire vs Raul654. Cool Hand Luke 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the current search results, almost all of the RFARs showing up are redirects. Rootology's solution covers them. Otherwise we would have to delete all the redirects, or noindex the pages with redirects one-by-one. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Brad, the proposal is up here. rootology (C)(T) 19:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Snow

Hopefully it won't be bad, although the forecast is looking rather messy at the moment. If I can't make it to Hartford, I'll be able to get to NYC on the 18th. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Additions and removals from cases: reminder

Hi, Brad. You were going to take a look at this issue, see [1], but I think you must have forgotten, unless you dealt with it in another forum. Meanwhile, I have removed Deacon from the list of involved parties, on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, with a plea for reasonableness and IAR, though I rather expect to get a "Please do not edit this page directly unless" instead. See [2]. Big Momma 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

Still pending on my "wiki-to-do" list with too, too many other things. I'll get to it this weekend, /me promises. Um, what's with the signature? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oblique reference to Deacon's mention of getting in a Big Man to cut the Gordian knot. Big Momma Dino bigger than Big Man, and I hope little User:Penwhale knows it. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

Block log reason: "implied threats to kill and eat an arbitration clerk". :) Okay, maybe not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidential resignation

Altho the Art.2 Clause 6 of the US Constitution states in vague terms what would happen when a president resigned, it did not say exactly how a president would resign. The vagueness of clause 6 is such, that it's interpretation was running entirely on precedent of what previous presidents had done till the twenty fifth amendment set out the clearer rules now in place. The twenty fifth amendment also takes precedence over clause 6, and since it does allow a President to rescind his resignation within his elected term, Nixon could have done so. --Barberio (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, no.

There has been statutory provision for resignation of the President since almost the inception of the country. A statute enacted during the Second Congress expressly provided that "[t]he only evidence of a refusal to accept, or of a resignation of the office of President or Vice President, shall be an instrument in writing, declaring the same, and subscribed by the person refusing to accept or resigning, as the case may be, and delivered into the office of the Secretary of State." (Act of March 1, 1792, c. 8, § 11, 1 Stat. 241.) This provision has been in effect continuously since then without change, and was included in the successive compilations including the Revised Statutes of 1874 (Rev. Stats. § 151), the Compiled Statutes of 1913 (3 Comp. Stats. § 221) and the United States Code (see, Presidential Succession Act of 1948, 3 U.S.C. § 21). The statute is still in effect and is one of the few provisions in the entire United States Code to have lasted from almost the inception fo the country to the present without substantive change. The statutory provision was followed both before and after adoption of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment during the resignations of Vice President Calhoun (1832) and Vice President Agnew (1973) as well as President Nixon (1974).

There was no express constitutional provision for the Vice President to become President upon the resignation (or death) of a President until 1967, although the precedent had been clear that the Vice President becomes President (not merely Acting President) since the John Tyler presidency. This is the issue as to which any theoretical dispute was put to rest by Section 1 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment: "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." This says exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting: Upon Nixon's resignation, Gerald Ford "bec[a]me President."

Section 3 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provides that the President may transmit to the Congressional leadership "his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President." This provision relates to a President's temporary inability to perform the powers and duties of office. It has been utilized in several instances for periods of a few hours, when a President has undergone surgery requiring general anesthesia. It has nothing to do with the President resigning office altogether, as Nixon did. As noted above, Nixon's resignation letter was addressed to Secretary of State Kissinger, not to Vice President Ford and Speaker Albert. I'm thoroughly familiar with the literature in this area and I've never seen any suggestion before that President Nixon's resignation was revocable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, all statutory frameworks were based on precedent of what previous presidents had done. And statutory law explicitly *can not* conflict with constitutional law, so as soon as the Twenty-fifth Amendment was ratified, all that statutory law was defunct.

Now, while you may say clause 3 was intended to only apply to temporary resignation, it does not say that. It simply states that voluntary withdrawal is enacted, until a letter reversing the withdraw is received by Congressional leadership. This is the only clear language in the constitution defining a voluntary method of stepping down, so it's the primary law applying to a letter sent to the congressional leadership resigning the office.

Now, if it was intended that resignations be unrescindable the creators of the amendment should have explicitly said so. --Barberio (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I can (barely) make out the substance of what you are trying to say, but unless I am wrong, it is fanciful and unsupported by any authority I can think of—neither caselaw nor commentary nor the intentions of the drafters as reflected in the Congressional reports and floor debates. If you or anyone can cite any authority of any nature for this position, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, as both a wikilawyer and a real-world lawyer, I have to tell you that this is just a terribly poor argument.

One question that you haven't answered is, if your position were correct, what is the purpose of the word "resignation" in Section One of the Twenty-fifth Amendment? Your understanding would read that word out of the section, violating the canon of interpretation that no word of a statute (or a fortiori of a constitutional provision) is to be left nugatory and without effect. It is clear that Section One and Section Three are intended to cover separate domains, the former dealing with full-fledged resignation from the presidency and the latter with temporary incapacities.

Incidentally and as a matter of information, the idea of an elective position from which one is not allowed to resign (temporarily or permanently) is not unprecedented. This was the historical position in the British House of Commons, for example (which is why Members of the Commons seeking to resign office must formally be designated by the Crown to a nominal office such as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. There is even a recent law review article (Josh Chafetz, "Leaving the House: The Constitutional Status of Resignation from the House of Representatives", 58 Duke L.J. 177 (2008), SSRN link here), suggesting that this may have been the original constitutional intent with regard to members of the U.S. House of Representatives—although Representatives have been resigning without anyone's approval for hundreds of years and it is a bit in the day to raise this argument other than as a purely theoretical exercise. But none of this has anything to do with the President of the United States. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Child editors

Thanks for starting the thread about child editors on SandyGeorgia's talk page. I have added a rather large post that I hope you have time to read, at your leisure. Awadewit (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, SandyGeorgia really started the discussion, but I will certainly take a look at what you contributed to it. I haven't really participated in the discussion this time around, beyond having asked her what she meant in her initial comment, but I may in due course. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, was just coming over to tell you that Awadewit had added a thought provoking post there; unless there is further discussion, I'll likely archive it with my usual talk archive on the 15th. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 18th, Columbia University area Last: 11/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States

Would you like to co-nominate the page at WP:FLC? One of the main issues at the FLRC was that it was unsourced and the introduction wasn't up to scratch. I have spent the weekend gathering references for each president and have added them into the article this morning. The Lede was rewritten during the FLRC, so I think all the issues have now been resolved. There isn't much more than can be done to the list. Let me know if you want to.

I have asked the same to User:Ace ETP Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it within the next couple of days. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested on the proposed temporary injuction

A few months ago (September), Lightmouse wrote a javascript tool that can help delink dates AND convert them all into one format. It is not a fast-working tool at all; it would take at least 10 minutes to do maybe even 20 articles. And that's working quickly. I sometimes use this while reading articles and doing some generic gnoming. Would the use of this be against temporary injunctions 1 or 1.1? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... I'm not certain exactly where the line should be drawn. I think I'll defer to Wizardman on this, as he proposed the original injunction; I just tried to improve some of the wording. You can also post your question on the motions section workshop page or the proposed decision talkpage so other arbitrators can comment as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminbots motion

Hi, I think it is here Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Closed motions. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Too right

Sums it up well. Dlohcierekim 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

With respect for your comments, here was my reasoning at the time. During the hour or so following Bish's announcement there was an unusual flurry of activity at ANI, even by Wikidrama standards. People were getting 12-15 edit conflicts as they were trying to post. The cluster of time stamps at Wikipedia:ANI#Indefinite_block.2Fban_of_FT2 is a good indication of how dense things were. Past experience has been that when things remain too heated and chaotic a dispute may grow new heads like a hydra. So the immediate concern was to bring things to a more structured environment.

Shortly after RFAR opened things did calm down at that ANI thread. It was likely to end at RFAR anyway, and if I had to err I'd rather bring it there a little early than a little late. I'm not cunning enough to initiate RFAR with the intention of certifying an RFC, but people caught their breath enough to start one. Any alternative to arbitration is a good thing if the alternative works.

Here's hoping you can see that decision as a sensible one given the situation at the time, even if you personally disagree with it. Durova^Charge! 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)