User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Nov

October 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, did not appear to be constructive. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. NE Ent 09:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

'tis the season

Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo ;)

I placed my story here, first because November began but it relates to October, but also because of NE Ent's wisdom (linked under "season"), now archived, unresolved. I will need a course in Arbcomese. The closing statement of the clarification request is an abbreviation of something correct but by abbreviation incorrect, is not an answer to the first question at all (who created an article if not the one who contributed 80% or more of its content?), and not a good answer to the second question (will the addition of any infobox need to be sanctioned because I would want one, so it's "proxying"?). How do I proceed? Please see the end of my talk for some of the consequences of absurdity. It certainly makes for good conversations. I miss PumpkinSky --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Infoboxes

Hey there. As an uninvolved participant in an ArbCom case on info boxes, I wanted to ask an opinion about this. Since you were the one who proposed a community-wide RfC on info boxes in order to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article at that arbitration case (which was closed during my two-month long semi-retirement), I was wondering if it's possible to start up the RfC. Any thoughts or ideas about this? Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall that there was some discussion soon after the case about getting the RfC underway. I am blanking right now on where that took place (or maybe I was hallucinating it), but hopefully someone reading here would know. I think my arbitrator colleague Carcharoth had some thoughts on the issue, so you also might try him. As an arbitrator on the case I don't think I should start or take a leading role in the discussion, but I do anticipate posting some thoughts when it takes place. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The case left us with unresolved situations like this ("Ah how fleeting, ah how futile") where someone with courage is needed. How about an arbitrator himself? Or can we establish someone to check if an infobox is good for the project? - An RfC was suggested in the case but those for whom an infobox is not a harmless tool of information but an attack were against it. See more thoughts here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, that is a complete mischaracterization of both the content of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision#RfC and of the views of the editors who contributed to that section, including me. Lord Sjones23, I suggest you read that section for yourself as well as the comments elsewhere on that page by Carcharoth and by Johnuniq. There are some good suggestions for any future RFC on the subject and how to avoid it becoming a train wreck. Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That's good advice. I'll look into it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My brief suggestion would be, please wait until the new year (only 2 months away), and please go immensely slowly, especially at first - the way an RfC is introduced, and structured, is critical for bringing light (instead of heat, and tl;dr problems), to the issues involved. I gave more detailed thoughts at the arbcom case pages. –Quiddity (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As long as we're passing out advice for Sjones23 on launching the RFC, I saw over on his talk page that User:Mackensen really missed the boat with this: "Arbcom punted the case when it cast it in terms of a project-wide dispute, when it was really more of a localized issue involving about three wikiprojects with overlapping editors (and, of course, Andy on the outside)." No, wrong. May have looked that way to those not following closely because so many folks stayed away because of the nastiness. I don't know if I'd say ArbCom punted the case, but if the perception that they did exists, it was for lack of evidence when they probably rightly sensed that the disruption surrounding infoboxes was a huge issue, and the whole case was a proxy for broader user conduct issues and editor alliances. But no one presented that evidence (I didn't 'cuz I had more important stuff going on in real life and doing it justice would take two weeks of diff gathering). Sjones, if you buy what Mackensen stated, you are less likely to craft a workable RFC that will reach productive conclusions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I like every attempt to speak about infoboxes factually. I am part of an "alliance" (we call it a project) agreeing that infoboxes are helpful for readers. I learned the term "attack" here, please excuse me if I misunderstood and simplified too much above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are: [1] [2] How's that working out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Timely quote " ... WP:QAI's shenanigans at Featured Articles ... [3] iridescent 10:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As below: I would learn something if anybody (not only SandyGeorgia and Iridescent) could supply a diff for a "disruptive" adding of an infobox by an active QAI member after (!) that member joined the project :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's much sense in re-fighting an old RFAR. The simple fact of the matter is that I repeatedly asked for proof that this was a true project-wide dispute and none was really adduced. If Arbcom seized on lack of evidence as proof of a broader dispute then they did everyone a grave disservice. There's a raw statistic which might help shed light on this: {{Infobox}} is used on 1.8 million articles, or roughly 41% of all articles on the English Wikipedia. Even that number is low as there are plenty of infoboxes which don't use it as a base. If there's truly a project-wide issue I would have expected broader participation in the RFAR and a greater groundswell for RFCs to resolve these matters. None of this is happening, because for most people this isn't a controversial issue. This is leaving aside the entire question of content re-use and portable data, both of which are pressing matters in web design. Whatever. I spend enough time fighting that battle in my actual job; I'm not going to fight it here, too. You don't have to buy my view that this was ultimately a parochial dispute with a small cross-section of editors. I'm not selling it. I'd rather be editing articles, and the portions of the project I edit aren't disturbed by this intractable problem. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Then I'm additionally concerned that you may be out of touch with how people feel about getting involved in arbcases; a (correctly formulated) RFC (vs RFAR) will likely generate more feedback. And that there are 1.8 million articles with infoboxes may not reflect how individual editors working on individual articles feel about them, rather a wiser "pick your battles" issue. I have inaccurate information in medical infoboxes imposed by WP:MED convention upon articles I edit, and I choose not to do that battle. I saw uncited, undue information in FAC after FAC, plopped into infoboxes, and although I refused to promote those FAs, they are promoted today; did that come up in the RFAR? (Sample, promoted version, uncited info in the infobox that is nowhere to be found in the article.) A productive RFC needs to decide at what level consensus for infoboxes is determined. I have bowed to WP:MED consensus on medical articles in the interest of keeping the peace with other editors I respect, not because I want to spread inaccurate information in articles I edit. We have had extensive discussions about this at WT:MED, but you didn't hear about that in the arb case, did you? Who gets involved in an arbcase is not a measure of how extensive the issues are-- particularly when the arbcase involves the amount of and extent of acrimony and factionalism and other issues as that case involved. Further, arbcases are rarely about what they seem to be about on the surface, and the infobox case is a classic example of the case really being about other underlying issues. Perhaps you perceived it involved only three or so wikiprojects because those are the areas the most disruptive editors focused on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please let me understand better: give me a diff for one edit of a QAI member adding an infobox in 2013 that you would describe as "disruptive". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy here. The issue is not confined to classical music projects (broadly construed). It is an ongoing source of disagreement in articles on many arts subjects. Mackensen, I suggest you read the evidence I presented at the RFAR, which attempted to communicate some of this. Most of the evidence presented by the named parties and observers focused on classical music articles, because that was the flare-up that directly led to the case. However, that gives a skewed view of the situation. Like Sandy, I think that a thoughtfully drafted RfC could provide a much more complete picture and give everyone a pause for thought, even if it will probably end up reaffirming Wikipedia:INFOBOXUSE. – Voceditenore (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There are two disparate conflicts intersecting under the infobox heading here. The business of Andy pushing infoboxes and music editors resisting had been going on for something like seven years prior to the most recent case, and this may be what he's referring to. This overlaps with WP:QAI's feud with the FAC regulars, which seemed to blow up more recently. (I'd say about 2 years, when TCO brought out his infamous report.) Outside of infoboxes, my impression is that Andy's role in that fight, which encompasses FAs and potential FAs in general, has been peripheral, rather than central.

Anyway, I think the argument that because X number of articles have an infobox, uncontentiously, and Y number of people are not complaining, is based on a fallacious premise: that the use or non-use of an infobox should be determined on an encyclopedia-wide basis, like the use of reliable sources. Some subjects are very well-suited to infoboxes (say, chemistry); other subjects tend to suffer when crammed into key-value pairs, particularly in the humanities. I'd contend that the controversy centers on the music-related projects not because they happen to be hopelessly parochial, but because they have both a subject matter that's not very well expressed in infoboxes and an editor base well-knit enough to coherently resist that tool being forced on them. Of course, there won't be visible conflict in areas where infoboxes work well with the subject matter, which are many, nor where the editor base is spread too thin to register organized resisting (as in Sandy's example of WP:MED above). Choess (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of this, and I've read Voceditenore's evidence. I don't think infobox use should be determined on an encyclopedia-wide basis. Hence my question as to what, exactly, is the purpose of this RFC? As I said on my own talk page: " Projects that use infoboxes use infoboxes. Some don't. An RFC which either tried to impose them on those which don't want them or conversely tried to remove them from projects which did want them would probably be considered invalid." I also said this: "Crafting a binding content guideline regarding templates sounds like the source of endless controversy and I'm unconvinced that it's a wise use of anyone's time." Seriously: what exactly is anyone looking to accomplish here? Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with the general gist of the comments by Choess and Voceditenore, Choess's analysis misses a fair chunk of history. The issues spread by a small but vocal minority of editors in the FA process (leading to the departure of numerous writers, reviewers, delegates, technical support people, and the FA director) pre-date TCO's "report" by a few years, and he was but a small part in a bigger situation that unfolded. The only real significance of the TCO "analysis" was that he exempted certain editors (cf Iridescent post linked above, where he describes said FA writers) from the same criticism he made of other editors (ie, alliances, if I like you and you're my friend I won't criticize your cookie cutter FAs that you used to climb the WP:WBFAN greasepole).

And, Andy's role should be viewed in the context of other assaults made on FAs to promote personal stylistic preferences by like-minded technical editors, and the effect that (and the alliances) had on the FA process. Keep in mind that in most historical lame technical style issues, style warriors attack FAs first (in one recent case, moving from one sock to another to escape detection and achieve maximum changes to FAs without detection, aided, fyi, by some arbs), because they believe that if they can install their personal preferences in FAs, they will achieve trickle down to other articles. Same happened with the date-delinking debacle, the stylistic citation preferences furthered by a one editor, Br'er Rabbit et al and his associates, and in the infobox wars. Whether Andy's role was peripheral or central, FAs are often a first target, which is why most of the FA community has long known just what was going on.

In response to Mackensen, it doesn't strike me that you are reading what is on this page any more than Gerda is; diffs are there, please read them. There is still disruption, there is still proxying, and there are still undefined issues about infoboxes. I hope you will work to understand those issues, and realize that Wikipedia is not the same place it was five or eight years ago. It is much nastier, and it is much harder for the arbs to get a handle on things, so they perhaps have made a decision to limit the scope of cases, and focus only on the worst offenders in each case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If the diffs are there, please be so kind to supply one as an example for what you call a disruptive addition of an infobox (within the time frame: Br'er Rabbit was not active, Andy joined QAI on 25 January as you will have found out), because what you call disruptive I may just call bold or not even that. How can we talk if we don't know what a term means for whom. After "disruptive" I will have to understand what exactly you mean by "proxying", "nastier" and "worst offenders", but one after the other please. - You will have read that I was against the redundancy of infoboxes, but learned something within half a year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Right location for ArbCom discussion?

Hey NYB - I was wondering what the right place would be to raise discussion of an old ArbCom subject. Specifically, we're coming up on the three-year anniversary of Case/Abortion, at which point some of the remedies expire. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It depends on exactly what you think needs to be done, if anything. If it's just an informational post that the remedies will expire soon, the requests talkpage or the article talkpage might be the right place. If you think that extension or modification of the remedies is necessary (and can support that with evidence and you believe other editors would agree with you), then you could file a request for clarification or amendment. If you think the ArbCom remedies should be succeeded by community-based remedies, then I suppose that would go on WP:AN. If any other arbitrators are watching this page, please feel free to add your thoughts. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think some of the expiring remedies should be extended. Where would I file a request for clarification/amendment? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, what do you see as expiring in WP:ARBAB? There was a provision allowing admins to apply semiprotection on abortion related articles and talk pages imposed by motion in December 2011, which protection may not extend beyond December 2014 by my count, on any one article. The whole topic area remains under discretionary sanctions indefinitely. The DS provision could itself be used to impose longer semiprotections if needed. There does not seem to be any imminent change in the system established by Arbcom that might cause concern. It is regrettable that the Arbcom-endorsed RfC on the article titles seems to have reached no conclusion. The new article names, once they were agreed on by an RfC, were intended to last for three years. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The semiprotection is what I'm most concerned about. There are tons of minor pages in this topic area that get disruptive attention from IPs. I also noted the article names provision, but hopefully the article name fight won't start up again; it's seemed pretty quiet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles can be semiprotected, where warranted consistent with the protection policy, even after the formal ArbCom remedy expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction

Just wanted to make one correction to your statement on the Noticeboard talk page. I never took a position on the Manning article name change, either for or against. I did not participate in the move discussions. I just presented evidence of what I perceived to be open activist involvement in the matter. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Noted. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Peter David

Hey, Brad! I didn't know you were familiar with Peter David or comics! Are you a fellow comics reader like me? Nightscream (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a regular comics reader these days but I'm certainly familiar with the field, and have been reading Peter David's columns for 20+ years. Catch me at a meet-up sometime soon and we can discuss. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiAfrica templates

I see a year ago you did a "speedy keep" at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica and now an associated TfD has arisen Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 9#WikiAfrica subpages. I also stumbled upon some discussion here and here. I don't know the background but it looks likely you do. Can you help? CoI declaration: no-one pays me anything except for my pension! Thincat (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I've now had a message on my talk page.[4] If you're busy perhaps there is someone else with background knowledge who can sort things out. Thincat (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll have limited online time and access this weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to respond to my email, Brad. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You were mentioned

Over here. John lilburne (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.

As it happens, I read that thread on Wikipediocracy this afternoon and was looking at the corresponding ANI thread just now when my orange banner popped up. As of now, the names of the people who filed the harassment complaints against Mayor Filner are not mentioned in his article. Under policy and under the ArbCom decision in Badlydrawnjeff, they should remain out unless and until there is a consensus to include them. (I haven't studied the sources on Filner sufficiently to determine whether there is a good reason to mention these people.)

The point that Beyond My Ken was making in the ANI thread that was picked up on Wikipediocracy is one that has been made before in prior discussions about BLP issues going back at least seven or eight years. The issue is whether our policy against adding to the victimization of innocent, otherwise-non-notable people who are the victims of crimes or harassment, should take into account that mentioning such a person may not cause incremental harm because their identities are already splattered all over the Internet. My general view is that no, a person who otherwise shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia, does not suddenly warrant mention merely because his or her involvement in the incident has been publicized elsewhere.

That being said, there does come a point at which a victim's name becomes so widely known that it would be nothing more than a gesture to omit it from Wikipedia. Deciding when that point is reached requires sensitivity, editorial discretion, and the wisdom of experience. These are the same decisions that must be made every day by journalists and book authors and even encyclopedists. I've been thinking and writing about these issues for several years, and there is no one-size-fits-all answer. I will say this: the editors who speak loudly and in absolutes—I name no names here—are not the voices to be heeded in these discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

WP increases the splattering. The average lifespan of an internet page is about 100 days. Go to most articles here and the linkrot is patently discernible. Whilst a search today may result in a first page google hit, in a few weeks the links will mostly be gone, and confined to pathetic blogs that are on p100 of a search listing. WP needs to stop justifying these edits on the basis that the information is currently in ephemeral sources. Until such time I have no sympathy for WP editors that suddenly find themselves the subjects of attention on websites.

Not to include these facts is a distinct disservice to our readers ... That those facts will have a harmful effect on a living person is regrettable ... We are not a social services agency, here to make everyone feel better about themselves ... we are here to write a critique of bad behaviour

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, when it comes to putting up personal information OK. John lilburne (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oversimplification is the bane of these conversations.

The implications of the Internet for invasion of personal privacy through publicity given to private facts, even truthful facts, is a recognized and serious problem and is going to get worse. Wikipedia policy in this area is not perfect, and the implementation of that policy is especially far from perfect, but there is a policy, which experienced members of the community have written and strive to uphold.

You say the average lifespan of an internet page is about 100 days, and I will assume that this is true,but what is the average lifespan of a page of (for example) The New York Times, now available not only on paper and on microform, but on its free-searchable website? I wonder if "real" journalists deal with the same issues that Wikipedians do, knowing that if they mentioned some stupid thing that some 16-year-old kid did, on page C17 in the back of the paper on a slow news day, and that kid happens to have a relatively unusual name (say, Ira Matetsky as opposed to John Lilburne), that little indiscretion is going to follow that person on every Google search for the rest of his or her life. It is a deep fallacy to think of these as Wikipedia issues rather than Internet-wide issues. And they did not start with the Internet either; listen to my Wikiconference talk (which I must finish developing into an essay sometime soon) for print media analogues such as William James Sidis and Luther Haynes.

But I do not know why you have chosen me to have this argument with, as my views on the underlying issues here align largely with what I gather yours to be, and have since I started editing and thinking about these issues. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, or the horrifying saga told here and here and here, or especially the Hornbeck/Ownby DRV discussion. Please read, and think about, the points I made on these pages before you typecast me as the stereotypical Wikipedian indifferent to the well-being of its article subjects and the communities it serves. And also please bear in mind that I am not the dictator of Wikipedia and don't make all the decisions here, nor do I have the time or the ability to jump into the conversation every time someone says something I disagree with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the points you've made here, NYB. On the issue of further victimization of victims, and the permanence of information on Wikipedia, for what reason have we included, in the background of a presumed murder victim, negative information on the reasons for the divorce of the victim's mother? [5] Multiple editors have attempted over at least five years to have this irrelevant information removed; three editors (suddenly four, with a recent new addition) have resisted removal, and have opposed the addition of positive information about the victim's background. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted that part of the sentence for the reasons you indicated. More generally, that sentence (that someone filed for divorce) cites a source more than seven years old, so if the fact is relevant and notable, some update should be available. But I'd rather not overly change the focus of the discussion here from the general to the overly specific, so let's take this aspect to another thread if there's further comment on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oddly a web search for 'james sidis new york times', unquoted, does not return much from the NYT. Really what the NYT does is besides the point - "But mom he did it too" - what others do should have no bearing on what this site does. The interminable arguments that arise on each occasion that someone wants to insert some personal information about a victim of a crime into an article, sometime week after week, or year after year as in SG's example. Its ridiculous, why do people need to be having such discussions a dozen times a week iff there is indeed clear policy. It should be a simple case of STFU it ain't going in. Why you? Well you appear to have a tad more authority than 115.66.02.l07 and most others. A bunch of essays does little to address the issues whilst well executed "Single leg Arkwright with arms akimbo" pour encourager les autres may work wonders. John lilburne (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If I were suddenly empowered to go around Wikipedia declaring "STFU it ain't going in," my wikilife would certainly be more rewarding and more productive. Perhaps I will try it the year after next as a substitute for arbitrating.

There are easy decisions and then there are harder ones, and you continue to make the mistake of assuming that all the calls are straightforward. But I agree with you that there are too many easy calls that we bobble anyway.

Sidis was actually the subject of a New Yorker piece, not a Times article, which gave rise to a seminal court decision holding that revealing information from someone's background is not a tort. I'll write more about that here when I have some time ... you'll probably deride it as just another essay, but someone else might be interested.

The substantive point you have made, and it is a valid one, is that I (and other opinion leaders on this site) should be spending more time monitoring places such as the BLP noticeboard, stamping out things that should be stamped out and speaking more generally on the side of decency when these issues come up. I have many other calls on my time, both on Wikipedia and offline, and this was also the year I vowed to get back to more mainspace article-writing (which I actually accomplished for a couple of months), but I will renew my attempt to devote a fair portion of my wikitime to BLP-watching as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't make the mistake in assuming all are straightforward, you address the easy ones in a vigorous manner. The rest fall in line as everyone then knows what tune the bugle is playing. The problem is that every issue is treated as a borderline case. Comparatively few are actually borderline. BLPN is a joke, I gave up on it. Its the same arguments different articles week after week, a tedious time sink. BTW I had the impression that for inclusion on an ethnicity list there needed to be a reference or perhaps not. If ya'll can't get that sorted there is no hope for anything else. John lilburne (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

One other point, essays are all well and good in identifying a problem, I see plenty of those written at work, I'm not going to deride them out of hand. Intranet wiki articles written, analysis of hard to maintain systems, etc. All carefully documented and opined on, but woe betide anyone that comes along some time later with "I wrote about this here in 2010" because they'll be told that having identified the issue someone or some body needs to own it. They need to make sure that the issue identified is addressed. John lilburne (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that addendum; I think it helps clarify the point you were making. However, I'm not sure exactly what you realistically expect me to do here. If you want me to continue advocating for good practice in the BLP arena, I will do that. If you want me to speak out—and act—against more BLP violations, I will do my best to do that too. On the other hand, if you would like for me to "own the BLP problem" in the sense of taking personal responsibility for solving every BLP issue on Wikipedia, including ones I've never heard of, that I'm afraid is not something I'm going to be able to promise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

IRC

It appears that my IRC cloak has expired (it's been a year or so since I logged on). Could an IRC op (or whatever the proper terminology is) please re-issue my cloak (ditto). If there are any questions please e-mail me. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Only group contacts can do that. Please request one on https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dG1FTWV1RnNBVHFOSnExMHF6aUhya2c6MA Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

But Freenode is telling us that you are still registered and cloaked... check your password? --Rschen7754 01:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Rschen is right, your cloak is linked to your freenode NickServ account and as that hasn't been dropped, your cloak hasn't expired (cloaks don't really 'expire'). If you're unable to identify (i.e. have forgotten your password), you'll need to go to #freenode ^connect to request a password reset via email. Thehelpfulone 01:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt attention. I was just checking to make sure people are still reading here. Hopefully it was a temporary glitch; I'll try again later tonight or tomorrow, and if I have trouble again will follow the steps you've all suggested. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, Risker forcefully demanded politely requested that we help, so happy to oblige! If you have any further issues do let us know. :-) Thehelpfulone 01:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Having spent the past five years on a committee with Risker, I can attest that one ignores her polite requests at one's peril. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Banned user

The reasons you don't want me to discuss that user's ban are not at all obvious to me. I was merely adding my voice to the discussion and expressing support for the ArbCom's decision. What's wrong with that? It seems to me that, as a previous victim of the banned user, my perspective might be particularly useful. However, if you don't want me to offer any more comments, I won't. It seems the matter is essentially done and settled anyway. I just don't think there was any reason to call me out like that. Everyking (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see why it's in poor taste for you to comment on an action against Phil Sandifer, words fail me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't. You don't want people who have been abused by a banned user in the past to speak up in support of a measure to do something about the abuse? Why not? That really doesn't make sense to me. Everyking (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you seriously want me to remind longer-term Wikipedians, and explain to newer ones, why I feel as I do? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Righteousness

He changed the work done on many pages that would no one but he also changed things that would hurt people, such as this. He is a self-righteous paladine. Please take no offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So this where the wiki battle begins I see. By the way do u know what a paladine is?

Yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Did I spell it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If you actually meant to write "paladine," you did; if you meant to write "paladin" you did not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

why did u remove my correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It would have been more polite if you had asked me that to begin with. The edit you made on 867-5309 mentioned a family's telephone number (that was assigned to them after they couldn't use 867-5309 any more). There is no reason to include someone's personal telephone number in a Wikipedia article. That information isn't important, so it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia is), and it could be used to harass or annoy someone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. thank you for showing me the error of my ways. How did you even see it? Plus I thought it to be more polite to talk before interrogating you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have this article on my watchlist because (this may be embarrassing) I like the song. I saw the edit summary "(i added their new number)" and it looked like it might be a problem so I checked it out.

I'll post a proper welcome message on your talkpage now with some more information in case you would like to start editing more productively. If you check it out, please pay attention to the part about using four tildes (the tilde is the ~ character) to sign your posts on talk pages like this one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I dont have a talk page. but Guess what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You do have a talk page, for your IP address (click on the orange bar), but I've probably done enough lecturing here for one night.

I'm more than likely to regret asking this, but curiosity compels me ... What? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

boobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Fugs had a song about that, but I can't quote the lyrics on a family talkpage. Good night. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know: your mention of the Fugs led me (via a surprisingly small number of clicks) to review the 1960s FBI files on The Doors, in which a Fugs record is described as "the filthiest and most vulgar thing the human mind could possibly conceive." MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's probably up there, although my introduction to the Fugs was via Dr. Demento, so I only got the PG-13 version.

For anyone who's an aficionado of FBI files, I'll be giving a talk about "Rex Stout's FBI File" on December 7 at the annual Wolfe Pack Assembly.

(This is all probably remote in subject-matter to the interests of the OT.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Who may actually have meant palatine. Neutron (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have returned and I apologize for my previous trolling. It was inappropriate and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Brad, I am the troll from earlier. I have created an account and you seem to be a very good user. Would you please visit my new page and help my get my talk page started better. Thank you.The Tmoney (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

What would the next steps be?

At the request for removing a topic ban you stated "I have enough concerns about Iantresman's past editing in these topic-areas that I can't support this motion at this time." While the edits have not been within the article space, Iantresman 's talk comments have been troublesome additions to sprawling circular non productive "discussions". Particularly troublesome is the content in this section, wherein Iantresman displays a complete lack of competence in reading the sources or is fully attempting to push a pseudoscience agenda. Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#And_now_.22widely.22 As a background for the discussion it is whether or not it is appropriate to describe Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" as being something that is "widely" held to be pseudoscience. Barney has created a list of scientists to back the claim, Iantresman attempts to counter by taking statements completely out of context.

What would the next steps be to remove this disruption from the talk page? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think that the dispute involves good-faith, albeit misguided, editing, you can follow the usual dispute-resolution procedures (3O, mediation, etc.). If you think there is user misconduct by Iantreshman, you can take it to ANI. If you believe he is violating a specific remedy from an arbitration case, then WP:AE is the place to raise that allegation. (I'm deliberately not looking at the substance of the specific current issue in case it winds up coming back in front of ArbCom at some point.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

US nationals/citizens

Hi, thank you for your message. On the point, I am not sure if the US nationals enjoy the same visa requirements as the US citizens? As I understand their passports are marked on annotations page as such. If they don't enjoy the same visa requirements as the US citizens then the article did not and does not reflect their visa requirements. That being said, I can't find any online resource that would provide more information on visa requirements for the US nationals.--Twofortnights (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

At this point, the only significant group of people who are United States nationals but not United States citizens are the people of American Samoa. (The status of "national" was originally created to cover the Philippines, as Congress was unwilling to confer citizenship on millions of Filipinos, but obviously that is no longer relevant; it also formerly applied to residents of territories such as Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.) I believe that American Samoans carry the same passports as other Americans, so that it might be difficult for a foreign government (other than [Western] Samoa) to treat them differently from U.S. citizens, but I am not certain about the issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, according to United_States_nationality_law#Nationals_who_are_not_citizens that covers this issue, passports of US nationals contain the endorsement code 9 which states: "THE BEARER IS A UNITED STATES NATIONAL AND NOT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN." on the annotations page. This means that their passports do differ in a way. Similarly the British nationals do not enjoy the same travel freedoms as the British citizens. This could perhaps be covered by an additional section?--Twofortnights (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

teach

Without Roger and Risker much weight falls on your shoulders. You and Carcharoth are all that is left. Dave (Worm) has exceeded all expectations .. and with 28bytes and Floq coming on board - perhaps there is a chance. Teach them Brad. The project should be as you say - but I know that you prefer to be "one voice". Please use that voice to teach. — ChedZILLA 02:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that Roger is running for re-election. MastCell ^Talk 04:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Ched. I can't agree that Carcharoth and I, and Roger if he is reelected, are "all there is," as I have respect for the work of my other colleagues on the Committee; but I understand your sentiments and will bear them in mind. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for a favor

Brad, how busy are you? Per this, I need to divulge my old account name to one arbitrator, for them to "conduct a full review and confirm that the previous account holds no history that would be of current concern or criticism by eligible voters." If you have the time and the inclination, I'd like you to be the one to do that. But I'll pester one of the other five arbs in your tranche if you can't do it. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this on. If you can e-mail me the information in the next few hours, I'll look at it this evening. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You've got mail. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have conducted the analysis requested by the Electoral Commission and the candidate, and posted the results here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Today's assignment for TPWs

Wikipedia:Final exam for wikilawyers. (Note: revised and expanded from previous versions some of you may have seen.) Enjoy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Bold edit?

In a discussion here that is now archived, I requested to be informed how to understand "disruptive edits", - a term that might be interpreted differently. There was no answer to the request to see a specific example, so I ask you and everyone ready to help my understanding the opposite way: do you think this edit was "normal", "bold" or "disruptive", and why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you're pinging me to this issue, but out of curiosity, Gerda ... what prompted you to suddenly add an infobox to that article? Isn't there a sanction whereby you aren't supposed to do that, or am I missing something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, looking more closely, I see that is a diff from last March. Now I really don't know why you are pinging me to this discussion, or what would prompt you to suddenly raise this. Please do not involve me in future infobox issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought you remebered the discussion, which prompted me to ask for a diff of an example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Since SandyGeorgia has asked that you "not involve [her] in future infobox issues," you should honor her request and not pursue this issue with her. (And frankly, I think you would be well-served to step away from infobox debates altogether.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have a language problem, sorry. It's not a debate, I try to clarify terms, but can stop, of course. When I made the edit, I felt that it was not even bold, just a normal edit, - I am trying to understand who may think differently and why, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You said above: "I think you would be well-served to step away from infobox debates altogether." - Please define "debates" and "altogether". When I am requested "work your magic", I don't refuse. When a FA author asks me for comment on a compromise solution, I don't refuse. When I notice a "debate", I offer that compromise. When I see an article that would be better with an infobox, and I know there is no controversy, I suggest one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No controversy? Interesting choice of phrase, considering who added your suggestion, and their other additions. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

By no controversy I mean in this case that even a known "anti-boxer" has an infobox on a half-timbered building FA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Anti-boxer? In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade. See also Fists of Righteous Harmony, aka The Boxers. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I quoted that from I don't remember where, sorry. Next article with no good reason not to have an infobox is Mark Williams-Thomas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, since you strangely pinged me to this discussion, and have continued here in spite of NYB advising you to back off, I have looked up the case and the clarification request. Here, both SilkTork and Fuchs say that "When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested." Please stop proxying for inboxes on NYB's talk page. I don't understand why PotW is still adding infoboxes for you, but then I'm not an arb or an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand a few things.

• Andy is under a restriction not to add any infobox, not even to his own articles. To my knowledge that's what he does. Not for me (I do my own), not for anybody else. Please strike that accusation above.
• I don't edit for him (you may strike that as well), but I can suggest an infobox for an article he created. Saying here that such an article would be better with an infobox is not proxying, it's trying to improve Wikipedia. I assume you know that WP:PROXYING says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". I will not discuss if the restriction not to add an infobox to one's own article makes any sense before the arbcom election. The new article is about a journalist, other journalists have an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, you might want to drop the stick and give it a rest. We are at least elected to deal with this stuff; Sandy isn't. Leave her be. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a stick in my hands. Andy and I were accused above (unless I misunderstood, which is easily possible), I only tried to clarify. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Need some help

Are you free to take a look ? Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help with whatever it is if I can, though I'll have limited online time tomorrow because of the holiday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am taking this up with the oversight team.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)