User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Jan

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


Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Newyorkbrad: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 16:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Newyorkbrad. 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.
Received and will respond tonight or in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey buddy :)

Hi Brad,

Do you think spending time on Wikipedia helps you to be a better lawyer? I'm not a lawyer myself, and don't know anything about the profession, but here at Wikipedia one spends so much time dealing with spoiled psychotic drama queens that I thought I'd ask. --Волфрам карбид (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to think hard about whether my six-plus years on Wikipedia have made me a better lawyer. But among other things, my writing on Wikipedia has provided an outlet for my avocation in legal history, which I have very little opportunity to put to use in my real-world job. And although the analogy between the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and real world courts is one that I try not to overuse, there are some respects in which the ArbCom's decision-making processes resemble those of a multi-member appellate court with a discretionary jurisdiction; to the limited extent this might conceivably help me empathize with the thought processes of the judges I appear before or write about, that can't be a bad thing. (Incidentally, I'd prefer not to adopt your characterization of my editing colleagues as "spoiled psychotic drama queens.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


Did you mean the illegal war on drugs? Or the war on illegal drugs? [1] Mad as hell on my talk, section "Back"; perhaps you have some clarification, since no one else will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The "war on drugs" means initiatives to combat illegal drugs (or perhaps more precisely, the use of illegal drugs). If you think a copyedit is warranted, feel free or let me know. A propos of that article, please see the thread I've just started on its talkpage.
Regarding the discussion on your user-talkpage, although I crossed Matthew Townsend's path a couple of times over the past few months, the first time I recall seeing an allegation that he was a sock of Mattisse was a veiled but easily interpreted comment by Malleus Faturoum on his talkpage two or three days ago. I brought that allegation to the attention of the Arbcom mailing list, and apparently some others brought it to the checkusers around the same time, all culminating in today's block. I'm not aware of anyone's knowing that MT=M and not speaking up about it, though those you have asked directly will I am sure speak for themselves. (Note that Iridescent, who was one of the people you mentioned, has been basically inactive all year.) Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you mistyped then ... you put "illegal war on drugs" when I think you meant "war on illegal drugs". I'd fix it, but it's generally better that I keep my hands off Wehwalt's articles ... On the other matter, I've put a direct question to SilkTork, since he was a former mentor and appears to have had an inkling. Yes, Iri was absent, but that didn't stop him from dissing me ... oh, well. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Nixon, I understand why you thought I might have mistyped just looking at the diff, but if you read the article itself I believe it reads correctly. There was a bit more rewording than just adding "illegal." But I'll look at the paragraph again in the morning; I'm going to sign off for the night pretty soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
FWIW that bit looks just fine to me: “War on Drugs” is a piped cross-reference, so the formatted text reads simply "illegal drugs”. It only looks wrong in the typescript—if you ignore the brackets. That said, I don’t much care for the “he initiated initiatives” just before: it jingles.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's infelicitous. I'll fix it unless someone else gets to it first. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It would perhaps be better if I were informed of discussions regarding articles in which I take a role in maintenance. That way I can keep things straight. As for Mattisse, Sandy, your tagging campaign is very ill-advised. You have a conflict of interest and should not be doing anything with Mat's contributions.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome for the help (rest ignored). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is somewhat off topic. There is also an article for Presidency of Richard Nixon. It's a fairly new article and your contributions would be appreciated. Mitchumch (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well intended, and a correct sub-article, but unfortunately created incorrectly by an admin who should know better. That was a direct copy-paste from Richard Nixon without attribution, which is a no-go on Wikipedia. Somewhere around here is a template that can be added to the talk page to attribute the text to Richard Nixon ... I don't know where to find that template, or I'd fix it, but someone should have reverted the admin when it was first created, and asked him to create it correctly with attribution in edit summary. I meant to bring that to someone's attention, but I decided to retire from Wikipedia instead ... and then I forgot. We can't just copy text from one article to another without attributing it. And copying over the citations would have been nice, too. The article was created all wrong, and I don't know how to fix it now, but not my problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Found the relevant template at Talk:Stephen Hawking and dealt with part of this: [2] The citations still need to be copied over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you were able to deal with this. It's not a procedure I'm familiar with either. On the other hand, the good news is that in the past few weeks I've been able to spend a little more of my time writing a bit of content, as opposed to on the purely administrative side of the wiki. I hope and expect to be able to keep that up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, now that is exciting news! And we could use some of that 'round here! Would you be interested in reviewing law articles at FAC, and can I ping you? As a layperson, I've had a rough time sorting out some of the leads, since they often assume a level of legal knowledge that dummies like me don't have. I don't usually read further into the law articles at FAC (now that I no longer have to), but it's a concern when a layperson can't understand at least the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
And, now, found WP:CWW (copying within Wikipedia) in the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd be glad to comment on law-related (or other) articles that are being considered for FA status and make suggestions regarding style, sources, etc. However, I'm probably not the right person to figure out whether the lead is understandable by a layperson; for that, you probably want someone who isn't a lawyer. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot blocking/unblocking policy

An RFC was started after/during the case. I'll put details on the Amendment page if I find it later. Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Thanks. That would be helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

More on the SSDI

A brief note to thank you again for the help with Robert Joseph Parks and confirming his death date. I'm not sure if you saw my follow-up here, but some of the things I mentioned there are maybe best discussed elsewhere, and here is probably as good a place as any (Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a suitable place to discuss potential articles). The other person I have been trying to find a (presumed) death date for (as well as Atalla who I mentioned on that talk page) is someone called David George Croft Luck, who I saw a tantalising reference to in relation to some legal case (for some reason). I presume it is the same person as the George Luck who is a redlink at Stuart Ballantine Medal. Anyway, he was born in 1906, did some sort of work on radar, and I've drawn a complete blank on finding any obituary or later information on him. Would you have any ideas? Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing beyond the obvious searches I'm sure you've already tried is immediately occurring to me, but I'll try to do some poking around on these two individuals during the next few days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. The legal stuff can be seen here (a Google Books search), which revealed that (quoting from two of those hits):

"The respondent, David George Croft Luck (whom we will call David Luck), was born on July 26, 1906, at Whittier, California, in the United States of America. His parents were Frederick Charles Luck and a spinster with whom he was living" (The Times law reports - Volume 56 - Page 915)


"On October 23, 1925, the father signed the following declaration : This is to certify that I, Frederick Charles Luck, do hereby publicly acknowledge David George Croft Luck, the offspring of Martha Croft, sometimes known as Martha Croft Luck" (A shorter selection of cases on the conflict of laws - Page 386)

Was presumably still around in at least 1949 when he published Frequency Modulated Radar and the Ballantine Medal award was in 1953. And from here:

"Luck, David George Croft. Born 1906. Educated at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. S. B., 1927; Ph. D., 1932. Research engineer, Radio Corporation of America Laboratories." (The United States quarterly book review - Volume 6 - Page 250)

It seems to be one of those cases where you have to search for "D. G. C. Luck" and "David G. C. Luck". The latter threw up the Swett fellowship in Physics from MIT in 1929. He also got the Pioneer Award from the IEEE in 1953. Should be enough for a stub, but it is frustrating that nothing seems to have got recorded about his death, unless he is 106 and reading this... (not impossible). Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to report that I've poked around some more and haven't located anything on either of these two individuals. If I think of anything else to try, I will let you know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Making RFAR threads easier to follow

I don't know where else to make this comment, but could you talk to your fellow arbiters and see if it's possible to update the section heading of the tally in the edit summary when the section edit is updated? Otherwise clicking the section link doesn't go to the right section. Ryan Vesey 23:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing but I would have no idea how to do this. Perhaps if you posted on either Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests and/or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard, someone might have a suggestion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You don't know how to change the section? You'll notice that the edit summary for this section is autofilled with /* Making RFAR threads easier to follow */ If you change the section heading, and you change the text inside /* and */ you can make the section link post to the correct area. Ryan Vesey 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I thought you meant to have a bot or something change it automatically. I will try to remember to change the tally in the header, although it's sometimes all I can do to remember to change it in the edit itself. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tour of Consumer Reports' laboratories

Wow! Laboratory tour!

On Tuesday January 15 at 3pm Wikipedians are invited to join a tour of laboratories at Consumer Reports in Yonkers. If you would like to attend please RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/January 2013. If you have questions feel free to ask on that page or contact me on my talk page or by my office phone at 914.378.2684. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but can't make it that date. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Social/structural change in Wikipedia

If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of anything else off the top of my head, but I if I do I'll let you know. In terms of the discussion being splintered, I think that depends on precisely what the scope of the discussion is supposed to be. If it's "overall discussion relating to governance," I'd be concerned that if we try to discuss every issue related to governance in one place, the result would be sprawling and confusing, and nothing would be accomplished. We may actually be better off with much more specifically focused discussions, although I agree with you that interested people should be enabled to readily locate them all. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Your dashing question

Re. your question at RFAR, I believe the answer is mostly at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, although that seems to have been followed by yet another big discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 124 – can't say how far in all that the "official" mandate went. Fut.Perf. 22:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at these. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for linking to your 2011 comments on this issue. Alanscottwalker comments that "ramming consensus down throats (is not a good thing)", and "Guidelines have built-in flexibility, more so than policy" (so are preferable). As others point out, it's not a "one size fits all" thing. Airports—for example—are free to choose names with or without hyphens or dashes, and it's surely not Wikipedia's job to correct names that are "wrong, because MOS says so". LittleBen (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal jurisdiction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Domo arigato, Mister Roboto. Fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Committee dealings

In the last AC election cycle, I asked Elen a number of questions. At least one of the responses seemed to suggest that the AC committee as a whole "tolerated" Merridew's editing. This still makes no sense to me. At one point I asked

"So if someone edits from account A, then account B, then account A, then account B, then account C, then account A, and then account B, that's just editing from "a single account at any time"? Under the interpretation that a user can switch back and forth between accounts successively, what sort of editing would even be socking, let alone violate the so-called "restriction"?"

I never got an answer, and I think that leads to a few questions. Was the AC fully aware of all of Merridew's socks at the time they were operating? The user was editing with multiple undisclosed accounts at the same time. Elen claimed that AC allowed the user to continue editing in the manner in which he did, while under the remedy

"User:Barong is directed to edit solely from that account. Should Barong edit from another account or log out to edit in a deliberate attempt to violate this restriction, any uninvolved administrator may block Barong for a reasonable amount of time at their discretion."

(I'm aware this was allegedly amended, but the amendment was not logged; my recollection is that the user was allowed to edit under a different, specific account.) Is there something I'm missing in this remedy? Elen said the remedy was not intended to permit sock puppetry, and that does appear to be the literal sense of the remedy. Did the majority of the arbitration committee actually agree that very same remedy permitted tendentious editing from sock puppets? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The intent of the remedy that was adopted was that this editor should edit from a single account at a time, rather than from multiple accounts. Some disagreement arose as to whether this meant he had to stick with one account permanently, rather than being allowed change from time to time. Although I honestly don't recall all the details, I believe the consensus was that some leeway was permissible if he wanted to change to another account, as opposed to "he must stick with the current account name until the end of time." On the other hand, this did not mean that he was supposed to take on a new account every day either, under a pretext of "I've only edited from one account in the past 15 minutes." The ABABCAB scenario is certainly not what was supposed to happen. Speaking for myself, I wasn't aware of all of the different accounts the editor was using in the past year. I can't speak definitively for other arbitrators, but I don't believe they were either. And of course tendentious editing is not wanted by any of us at any time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as I recall the scuttling of the Barong account made the "stick with one account permanently" option moot. pablo 16:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
So, the follow question is why nothing was done when this was pointed out to the AC [3] ? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that at the time, there was some hope that this long-time contributor, who had some very good qualities and some very bad ones, could be induced to drop the bad ones and contribute productively. Unfortunately, the situation continued to deteriorate over the ensuing weeks—it got to the point where I got into a bitter argument with this editor myself and wound up recusing from any further discussion of him—and you know how it turned out. It's not quite fair to review the thread you sight with hindsight about what came later; on the other hand, it may be fair to cite this as one of the instances in which a flawed contributor was given too much, rather than too little, leeway, and too many, rather than too few, last chances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
It was already hindsight for a number of us by May 2012. That thread provided evidence to the AC that the user was directly violating the AC remedy, and the attacks in that thread should have been intolerable. Yet nothing happened. So what policies and procedures will the AC put in place to prevent this situation in the future? I have some ideas. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're busy, but couldn't you make some response in over a week? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I overlooked responding. Any suggestions you might have would be welcome. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I would first like to hear what policies and procedures the AC has come up with to prevent a similar situation from occurring, as part of their reflection on how they handled this case. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll address this after I get home from my trip (see bottom of this page). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


Is there a page somewhere that could help me figure out how an arbitration case works? I've never seen anything having to do with arbitration past the requests page. Ryan Vesey 21:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

One "official" page is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. I suspect there may be a couple of other pages that would be helpful as well, which I will try to locate, or ask my TPWs to point out. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
A very unofficial guide is User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration. While I won't vouch for its contents, there are some useful kernels of truth contained within it. Risker (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
That one is well-written and concise and, in Nero Wolfe's words, it "contains truth"—but overall it's a bit too cynical for my taste. YMMV. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, on this topic, I'd really like to see something official that says who should be party to an Arbcom case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So would I sometimes. However, my take has always been that the importance of "party" status is actually overrated. The impolrtant thing is to make sure that everyone who might have useful information to present is aware there's a case, and that anyone who is at risk of criticism or sanctions in the decision is aware of that fact. Time spent arguing about the "official parties list" is sometimes not well-spent. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
"A list of parties to the case should include those perceived most at risk of criticism or sanctions, but may include all those likely to have useful information to present", then? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that having information to present means that someone should be made a party, though it may mean that the editor should be advised of the case and invited to provide a statement or evidence. The parties are usually those editors perceived as having participated in the events resulting in the dispute. (I may add to this answer after I get home from my trip.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
A "party" is an editor who wants to be allowed to present between 501 and 1000 words of evidence or between 51 and 100 diffs; other amici curiae are limited to no more than 500 words and 50 diffs. On the other hand, the ArbCom usually won't impose sanctions on a non-party without explicitly notifying that individual first (and possibly adding them to the 'official' list of parties); any listed party is presumed to be paying attention to the case and is expected to be aware of sanctions being discussed.
Your mileage may vary, but as far as I can tell the evidence limits are about the only concrete difference between parties and non-parties to a case. While individual arbitrators will sometimes offer up their own personal guesses or opinions about the boundaries of a given case (particularly in their case acceptance votes, e.g. "Accept to consider editwarring between Newyorkbrad and TenOfAllTrades", and occasionally in response to some of the early evidence submissions) the committee seldom offers a collective, enforceable statement of a case's scope. Often the effective scope of a decision – and the full list of editors affected by it – isn't apparent apparent until shortly before the case closes, in the proposed-decision stage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


Bishzilla didn't mention you here. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC).

As long as you didn't not mention me in the same breath as you didn't mention Abd and FT2, I forgive you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Good answer. "ROARR!!" would have been better still. bishzilla ROARR!! 11:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC).

Availability note

I'll be travelling with limited online time and access from tomorrow (Friday, January 18) until Sunday, January 27. I should be able to check in occasionally, so I won't mark myself "inactive" as an arbitrator, but my editing will be limited. I should be able to focus on pending projects and articles during the week of my return. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


When you then come to looking at your backlog, you might find this flashlight a little illuminating. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly one perspective on the situation. Perhaps the various arbitrators' comments on the request for arbitration will also prove helpful to resolving the issue. (Well, we can hope to be useful, anyway.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee
Wikipedia Administrator.svg

Wishing Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Jan a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- Pratyya (Hello!) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I find it very hard to believe that it has been six years already since my RfA. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy Adminversary :P Have a nice day. — ΛΧΣ21 20:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


Just FYI, I've quoted part of your Volokh Conspiracy interview here. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I is at FAC

Hi, Brad. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll try to take a look now that I'm back from my trip. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)