This is an archive of past discussions with User:Newyorkbrad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oscar Polk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Once in a Lifetime (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.
Yes, this is the right page to reach me (Newyorkbrad). But please add new posts to the bottom of the page, instead of the top, to be sure that I'll see them. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Other websites cited in the opinion include www.bananalady.com, Youtube, wiseGEEK, and a Google search for "adult banana costumes." Anyone remarking ejusdem generis will be thrown off this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer but isn't that rather odd to be citing Wikipedia? I could see them citing her website as primary source material or her YouTube page but the Wikipedia cite is to explain a concept which she is supposed to have used thus it seems to hold some legal meaning. Are there not RS standards for such documents or am I being hopelessly naive?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Whether it's appropriate for a court ever to cite Wikipedia, and if so when, are live issues. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't be cited as the primary authority for a fact that's key to the decision of the case. However, it's less controversial where judges cite Wikipedia either as evidence that something is well-known or public knowledge, or simply as background information. For links to some interested cases, see Question 2 on my Wikipedia:Final exam for wikilawyers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
oy. I had no idea it was cited so often. I'm gonna go ahead and NOT take that test. Another, totally disconnected question Brad. I see a lot of people arguing here on wikipedia - we specialize in wiki-lawyering. My question is, if one were to do a study of "success" rates, defined perhaps as "convinced the other side" or "won the argument through consensus" or whatever, do you think real-life lawyers are more successful than the average wikipedian at bringing people to their side?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting question, but I haven't really worked with enough RL lawyers on here to know the answer. I would like to think that legal training and experience helps editors formulate logical, convincing positions and arguments, but that's not the same as saying it's true. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Does the court decision throwing out copyright claims and the use of that image of the Bananalady in a U.S. Government produced document make it public domain? IANAL so I say, Yes! Yes, it does (so does Chicago tribune [1]. And shamelessly abusus non tollit usum P.S. On general principal we should rename Dance notation w/o redirect and create first official appellate red link. --DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)File:Bananalady.jpgWikipedia right next to Black's Law Dictionary. Hurrah!
We aren't supposed to indefinitely block IPs. As you can see, the second IP above, blocked by Timotheus Canens, was for three months. I'm not sure there's any one standard for this banned user, so you could, if you wish, block for longer, but you should really change it from indefinite to some finite period. I was about to block for three months, but you beat me to it by a few seconds. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. The key for me that it's a low-risk block is that there are no other contributions in the history of the IP. But feel free to convert the block to three or six months. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Brad, Hope things are going well or you these days up there in sunny New York. Your right, the block isn't a big deal because all I have to do is get another one. No big deal at all. Its also not a big deal because I was just an editor and editors on this site are insignificant regardless of how devoted they are to the project or how many contributions they make. If someone isn't an Admin here they aren't wanted or needed. Just an expendable commodity. I also just wanted to mention that this edit sure seems like a violation of No legal threats. I guess since your as an Arb and admin though, your exempt from that too. I had thought you were one of the few good Arbs in the current group since you actually have some qualifications for the job. Guess I was wrong. Just remember whatever I am now is because you and your peers made me this way by failing to do anything about the abusive admin culture. All I wanted to do was contribute to the project but the malice of you and your peers showed me I was just wasting my time. Don't worry though, after this weekend I am going to be busy for the next few weeks so I won't be advocating that Arbcom do something about the abusive admins for a while. I'll just keep commenting about it on Wikipediocracy as I find the time. TTFN, Ta Ta For Now. KooMeOhKo. :-)208.54.35.250 (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
I'd like to thank you for your words. You were the only person who understood what I meant. But my time here is now over. When I saw that almost all Arbitrators were actually hostile toward me I realized that I was contributing for a project where I'm unneeded. For what I could see from the words of the other Arbitrators, they prefer other kind of editors. Good luck for them and for this encyclopedia. Anyway, thanks a lot. I wish you all the best. --Lecen (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you leaving, but I can understand your disappointment, and I'm sorry I wasn't more successful in leading my colleagues to understand your position. Best wishes to you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
standing strong
Thank you for speaking up with decency and fairness, treating editors as living people: "there was and is a human being who contributed his time and efforts to the project", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (20 September 2007, 13 October 2008)!
Hey, Brad,
On the Arbitration case proposed decision talk page for Austrian ecnomics, you wrote:
"Responding to SPECIFICO's original post: It is clear from the collective experience on Wikipedia that it is a recipe for disaster when biographical articles are edited most heavily by the article subjects' ideological opponents." Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
But it seems like for subjects who get dubbed "pseudoscience" or "fringe", it is almost always their detractors who dominate the article editing because editors who are neutral or sympathetic end up getting a DS warning on the talk page. This leads charges of bias and to cases being brought to AN/I which end up going nowhere. I think this is standard practice in this area, not an exception and wondered how it can be moderated and more balanced.
Although I, myself, have never edited any of these articles, just my noting that I see a general problem in this area has led to me being called "pro-fringe" (and worse) so that claim might pop up here, as well. LizRead!Talk!22:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. I have reenabled your ability to edit your talkpage, so you can post any request for the lifting or modification of your ban. No comment on the merits of any such request, or whether it should be decided by the ArbCom or the community. If you do make a request, I hope you will explain what you would do different in your editing going forward as opposed to how you edited in the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Kafka and Kremlology, or General Sanctions
I've long hesitated to impose a discretionary sanction, because it seemed so complicated. But now I've done one, a topic ban for caste-related articles, and I can't believe how much the procedure sucks and how hard it is to find stuff. Why didn't I just indef the guy in one second on my own authority instead of spending hours on this? I no longer remember where I found the template I used a week ago,[2] but today, as the user is just emerging from their block, I've realized it, the template, is all wrong. I just caught a non-working link, which in turn unravelled the fact that it's not an arbcom general sanction at all, it was decided by the community. So I went back to the userpage and amended the template.[3] But I bet there's a separate appeals procedure, too. It's a bit theoretical, as I reckon the person will find a simpler way, under the radar if you know what I mean, but of course I need to give them correct information. Do you happen to know? Is he supposed to simply appeal the sanction at WP:AN? That would seem sensible to me. But then I'm not a real Kremlologist. (Dear talkpage stalkers, feel free to inform me in words of one syllable and save Brad the trouble.) Bishonen | talk18:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
I hate to say it, but I'm afraid you've mixed up "community sanctions" with "ArbCom sanctions". I know, I know, it's hard to keep 'em straight. I'm sure a TPS will be able to point you to the right templates.
In terms of what difference it makes whether you sanction someone under "discretionary sanctions" (whether Arbcom or community) is twofold:
It's easier for another administrator to overrule you (e.g. by granting an unblock appeal) if it's a unilateral administrator action than if it's a sanctions enforcement action.
There are things an admin can do with authorization from DS that he or she can't do without a consensus (e.g. on ANI) otherwise. In an area not covered by DS, an admin doesn't have authority to say "I'm banning you from editing page X." (It was controversial a few years ago whether an admin can do this or not, so an RfC was held and the consensus was No.) This makes sense, as we don't want admins running all over the place routinely doing that, but the counter-argument is that "if I could block User:A for a month, I can equally say 'I'll block you for a month unless you stop editing Page Z.' So why can't I just say 'you're banned for a month from editing Page Z' directly?" But in the context of DS, such a page-ban or topic-ban is routine.
Has the whole set of procedures become enormously complicated? Yes, although there is a major ArbCom initiative underway headed by AGK and Roger Davies to simplify everything (e.g. by having all the discretionary sanctions rules at least for ArbCom-imposed ones in one place).
If someone really deserves to be indeffed, of course, it can happen, regardless of the methodology or the label that is used. And you share with me the trait that if someone convinces you that he or she needs to be indeffed, then everyone else probably reached that conclusion awhile ago. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Seriously? Are you sure I can't impose a topic ban per the community decision recorded at WP:CASTE, per which I've topic banned the user, and where I've recorded their topic ban? The page says "The standard set of discretionary sanctions are imposed on all pages about social groups, be they castes, communities, tribes, clans, kootams, gotras etc., explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal." You see where "discretionary sanctions" there links to? Yes, to you guys' discretionary sanctions. And your "standard set" there includes "bans from editing any page or set of pages" bla bla. I'm sorry, I know I asked, and I know you are a Kremlologist, but how in the name of logic can sanctions per WP:CASTE fail to include the possiblity of page and topic bans?
I do understand that my topic ban could be voided by another admin, so in that sense it's different from an ArbCom general sanction. But considering the phrasing of the community decision, how could I not have the authority to topic ban a user from caste articles?
All admins can indef on their own discretion, in any area. But this is a topic ban. I know I can't do that on my own discretion, so I did it per a pretty explicit community general sanction. No? Bishonen | talk18:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
Okay, so someone hooked the community sanctions DS format into the ArbCom DS format. That makes sense, but I hadn't been aware of it.
The main difference it makes is where do appeals go—to AE or to AN/ANI. Personally I don't think it matters too much.
I think you're fine. I also think that if I can't keep track of how all the rules work, there's no hope for most anyone else, and that bugs me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Was it, Salvio..? I know I took the template (yes, a template about caste articles, probably modified for the purpose) from an example I saw on a usertalk page. Had that been posted by you..? I seem to remember it may have been. Anyway, Brad, cool. Of course I shouldn't have said I'm not a Kremlologist, I should have said IANAL. :-) I'll just go modify my template on the page a little more, to say AN is his route of appeal (on my own authority, because of the logic of it). It's very theoretical. If you looked at the person's talkpage at all, you'll know why. Bishonen | talk19:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
[talk page stalker] This should be it right here, although it seems to be an essay rather than a policy page: "Editors or administrators wishing to overturn an action carried out under the direction of general sanctions require approval of the imposing administrator or a consensus at an appropriate community noticeboard."
The discretionary sanctions review seems to have ground to a halt. Salvio has asked an interesting question there about best practices, but the page has not been getting many page views for quite some time, so it is an unlikely venue for such a discussion. I have proposed a "take your arb to AE" week, where the arbs would cycle through the arbitration enforcement process, along with a focus group of admins to make recommendations about the procedures, but...<shrug>. —Neotarf (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, thanks, Neotarf. Useful! I knew that, theoretically, but I'd better note it so I can find it next time. My note collection on these things gets more like Kafka's notes for The Trial every day. Bishonen | talk10:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC).
Someone should write the novel. My notes are here, but I haven't delved into community sanctions that much. I was surprised by the assumption that admins could impose ArbCom sanctions; I have only seen that done at AE, with maybe the required preliminary warning by a non-AE admin. My general impression was that community sanctions were usually used when a topic had an admin watching over it, and were custom designed for the particular situation, with the admin being given wide latitude, while things only got to AE if there was no admin familiar enough with the topic area to make judgements about the editing. A curious side effect of using the ArbCom's discretionary sanctions as a boilerplate for community sanctions, is the question of whether they will change or not if the ArbCom procedures change. In this case it looks like blocks can only be for one year, but bans can be indef; while under the new proposal, the admin pretty much has a blank check as far as indef anything, the language is very broad. I'm curious in your current example about why there was no community ban, and/or how the situation came to your attention, (outside of looking for fresh material for the Clueless Complaint Generator). —Neotarf (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The quest for CCG material by the simple expedient of watching Sitush's page leads me into many strange places resembling the mines of Moria, but how do you mean, why there wasn't a community ban? The whole point of instituting general sanctions in areas plagued by POV battles (in caste articles especially by POV-pushing incompetent editors), is to simplify procedure so admins don't have to spend all their time in the slough of despond (=AN, ANI, AE). There hasn't been a community ban of the user because there didn't have to be; they were an egregious example. After a general sanctions warning (they removed it, but it was very proper) had been ignored, I used my single admin discretion. That's how it's supposed to work. BTW, they just now egregiously breached the topic ban, and I'm going to block them for it, also on my own discretion. There's no need to trudge desolately round the noticeboards for these cases. Bishonen | talk09:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC).
So community banning wouldn't work for this type of situation because the RFCU necessary for a community ban would be one big cluelessness fest. Understanding community/arbcom sanctions is a bit like trying to catch a train that is pulling out of the station. My tentative working model is that sanctions work when there is a huge clueless element that congregates for an event, like an election or the Manning naming dispute. It also works when there is a protracted dispute where the information cannot be determined by RS, like a territorial or religious based dispute, and BRD cycle is discarded in favor of pre-agreed edits. I will now posit the "benevolent dictator" or "fiefdom" model, that sanctions work when there is an admin with unlimited powers who is familiar with the topic area. Sanctions unfortunately do not seem to work very well in the situation where there is one disruptive individual in a group of clueful editors, or one clueful editor in a group of POV warriors. —Neotarf (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't find one, and I did look. By rights, it should be listed in WP:Template messages/User talk namespace. I did find one special purpose template for community sanctions, Template:Austrian economics enforcement, a case-specific template for notification. A bit inelegant, but serviceable enough. I don't see any specialized templates for warnings, blocks, or bans. It seems that curation, review, and updating of community sanctions templates has not kept pace with the Arbcom sections. Something the Bish tribe might be able to handle? —Neotarf (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Doubt it. There exists a perfectly cromulent warning template about the community general sanctions re caste articles, {{uw-castewarning}}. But a template for actually imposing such a sanction, no, I guess not. I'll have to roll my own until such time as Darwinbish creates a template. She's the only one in the family who's any good with templates. Bishonen | talk14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC).
Then you know it will have some teeth in it. I have added your formulations to the General Sanctions article. Perhaps some of the users who hang around your refrigerator might have some skilz? Tell them it is a game? It is astonishing how much people are willing to do for a cookie. Or how many people will fit a few pieces into a jigsaw puzzle if it is left out on a card table. Care only need be taken with the first template, before propagation. —Neotarf (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Neotarf, thank you for quoting me at General sanctions, always flattering, but when I said the templates are "in flux and liable to be wrong (old versions) in lists on WP pages", I was talking about the ArbCom sanctions templates. I suppose those will be updated everywhere when the major ArbCom initiative underway to simplify everything, that Brad mentioned above, arrives at the promised but still distant goal. For community sanctions, the templates apparently aren't so much in flux as non-existent. You may want to move the text you added (and there's a redlink too, some sort of fragment?). Bishonen | talk07:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
Fixed. This information does have the advantage of reflecting current practice, and probably best practice as well. But it's unfortunate that the Arbcom sanction templates have to be used for community sanctions. I once tracked that template back for two years, and it was astonishing to see the changes. It went from a warning template for misconduct, described as "hostile", then picked up a logging requirement, then became a notification template. All without any note of explanation on the talk page. I suppose it might be nice to have some sample language somewhere for anyone who wants to modify the template for community sanctions. —Neotarf (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Gun control
Lest you think the "decision" will actually affect that article in any remotely positive manner, I would call your attention to User talk:Lightbreather and his reaction to being told he had hit 6RR in a shade over a day <g>. I urgently suggested he self-revert and was told "if you feel compelled to report me, I will explain them and accept the consequences if necessary." I am not filing at WP:ANEW but it quite clear to me that the proposed decision is aimed at those who are not actually the problem, but who some see as seeking to have "bad stuff" in an article, even if reliably sourced. IMHO, when Wikipedia decides what is "good" and what is "bad" then we might as well toss out WP:NPOV as well. :( Collect (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Noted, but deferred to any other admin for action, if warranted. In my years of reading about lots of disruptive editors, I've managed to miss this one, and I think I'm just as happy to leave it that way. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
[4]. Do you suppose the user may have read a vandalized version of the Guide to appealing blocks.. ? (P.S., I'm going to block you for the above-mentioned pun, it's really painful.) Bishonen | talk09:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
Two edit-a-thons coming up!
Hello there!
I'm pleased to tell you about two upcoming edit-a-thons:
This Tuesday, April 29, from 2:30 to 5:30 PM, we have the Freer and Sackler edit-a-thon. (Sorry for the short notice!)
On Saturday, May 10 we have the Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon, in partnership with the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, from 10 AM to 5 PM.
We have more stuff coming up in May and June, so make sure to keep a watch on the DC meetup page. As always, if you have any recommendations or requests, please leave a note on the talk page.
(talk page stalker) I believe I can answer this. You have got a general topic ban and such bans also include talk pages: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
reading comp fail. The quoted passage establishes nothing, as "pages" could reasonably be construed as wp articles. (The word "pages" is often used in that way."
I have been glancing at this rather messy case. You cite, in a comment, a principle from a previous case which states
"Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as editing the same article from more than one account, is prohibited. A registered user's editing the same article from the user's registered account and from IP addresses has the same ill-effects as editing from a main and a sockpuppet account, and therefore is also prohibited."
This is plumb wrong, after the first sentence. Specifically WP:SOCK says "There is no policy against editing while logged out." Even the first part, while reflecting policy literally does not reflect the spirit - which is clearly that abuse occurs when the socking creates or is designed to create an illusion of support.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 09:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC).
There's no point in reviewing the facts of a case from six years ago, but in that case the editor was creating confusion by editing the same article from his registered account and from IPs. In my view then and now, doing this deliberately or as a pattern is improper. Of course, it is understood that occasionally one may make a logged-out edit without realizing it; and it may also be acceptable for an editor in good standing to edit from a registered account for some purposes and from an IP for others. If your position is that it's okay for the same user to deliberately edit the same article from a registered account and from IPs as a matter of practice, I disagree with you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
