Jump to content

User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2016/Jul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sunday July 10: WikNYC Picnic @ Central Park

Sunday July 10, 3-8pm: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Manhattan's Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

3–8pm - come by any time! The picnicking area is the southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater, just inside the park at Central Park West between 81st & 82nd. Enter the park at West 81st St.
Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia NYC banner!
Subway: 81st Street – Museum of Natural History, C Line

We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

BU Rob13

You were near the top of the list giving this individual at RFA the NYB Seal of Approval™, yet anyone with a modicum of common sense looking at first edits knows that the answer to Q#6 dealing with previous editing at WP is utterly untruthful. What do you know that I don't? Aren't you the least bit concerned of duplicity here? Carrite (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is "probably a good number of things, but none relevant to this RfA." The answer to your second question is no. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I've just figured out whose sock this is. It's not that hard, just have a look-see at Templates for Discussion and ask yourself which of the un-tooled regulars there could rack up 40K automated edits in 9 months... He SHOULD NOT have tools and WOULD NOT if he ran under his own name,,. Carrite (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Personally I have dismissed these concerns as lacking any sort of basis in evidence. I know from experience that some people learn fast and can pick up new skills without difficulty. Given that this explains their early aptitude I have no reason to assume a more nefarious explanation.
That being said, my position is based on the fact that these accusations lack evidence. If you know something the rest of us do not then that could be convincing to me. However all I have heard is the repeated assertion that a new user can't figure out how templates work, something I know be false about anyone who can read instructions. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 14:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I challenge you to find a single instance in the entire 15 year history of WP in which a first edit is to Templates for Discussion using correct bolding form for the Keep. Carrite (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Carrite: I don't frequent Templates for Discussion and have no idea whom or what you are talking about. If you have substantial evidence for your very serious allegation that an active editor with a problematic history is seeking adminship under an undisclosed alternate account, then you should contact the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Echoing what NYB said; I'm familiar with all the usual suspects AFAIK and I have no idea who you're talking about. (Assuming this list represents the regulars at TFD, I only see three names I'd consider problematic there and I'd eat my hat if it's any of them.) FWIW, racking up 40,000 edits in nine months is easy enough; I made 1000 edits in a couple of hours a few days ago doing a bulk grammar cleanup of "between a to b", and when I was testing the original version of Huggle circa 2008 I made over 16,000 edits in a single month. If you want a quick-and-dirty way to judge if User 1 is likely to be a sock of User 2, drop the pair of them into Paragram, which is very difficult to fool and throws up surprisingly few false positives. ‑ Iridescent 15:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

Does WP:BLP not apply here now?[1] It would seem that requiring an editor to gain consensus before removing "challenged (via reversion)" edits would not be in line with BLP whether there are sanctions or not. Doc talk 06:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: That's a very good point. Please make it in the arbitration discussion, unless you'd prefer for me to do so. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I would definitely prefer that you bring it up. Coffee has already blocked me twice, threatened to block me for removing poorly sourced material in a BLP, and is running the discretionary sanctions in a manner that I believe is uneven and inappropriate. For these reasons I think it's better than an admin such as yourself address what I see as a pretty major conflict with BLP policy. Cheers :) Doc talk 03:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Spam?

Hi NYBrad. Do you consider these links they are adding to be spam that should be rolled back? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not. If a library contains a significant collection of primary resources relating to an article subject, it is a service to readers to include that fact. If a link is available to the finding aid, so much the better. I've seen representatives of libraries criticized or even blocked for adding such links, and I think that's a major error, both in terms of our making the information available, and also in terms of relationships with cultural institutions like libraries that people are working hard to improve through GLAM-type projects. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks, although I think that the library should bear the burden of demonstrating that the link is to a very significant collection. I note, in addition, that many subjects have papers in dozens of libraries. I don't think that WP:EL permits us to link to all the library collections that have papers of subjects. Nevertheless, based on the strong feeling you expressed, I'm going to ignore all these links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: If a library were to link to every single one of its holdings, that might be a problem. And it would be perfectly appropriate to ask an editor who seems to be representing a library—although that's just an assumption at the moment—to add only the best links at first, and to respond to any questions anyone has about the holdings. But this librarian or library representative is a brand-new editor. When I went to check out the userpage, the account hadn't even been welcomed yet (which I have done). Like any other brand-new editor, this editor should be given of the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he or she is acting in good faith and adding information to Wikipedia that he or she believes will benefit the encyclopedia and be helpful to the readers. If there are questions about the quality of the contributions, one can go to his or her talkpage and start a conversation about it.
What isn't the best practice is a mass rollback of good-faith link additions. After all, even if "the library should bear the burden of demonstrating that the link is to a very significant collection" (I might agree with "significant", not with "very significant"), they aren't in a position to do that unless someone asks the question. What I am concerned about is a scenario in which an entirely well-meaning representative of an library or archive or other institution comes here in good faith, adds a couple of dozen links to the collection, they are all reverted, and the person gives up on Wikipedia. That's a lose-lose outcome and I fear that it happens all too often.
I am sure these issues have been discussed before and I invite any interested TPWs to provide links. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I'm glad to have read your views on this. But let me just add that this is a situation where a new editor begins by adding only information with which they have a WP:COI, adding links to collections held proudly in the institution that they are affiliated with. It appears that I would set the standard for encyclopedic noteworthiness higher with respect to collections of papers at libraries than you would. In my experience, usually only the two or three of the most significant collections of a particular person's papers are of encyclopedic interest, and that allowing library personnel to link to their *own* institution's collections is not a very good way to figure out which collections are the most significant for a particular person. I hope, however, that one of your TP readers will let us know if they have seen other discussions on this. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Ssilvers, if you're interested in this subject generally, then you should talk to the WP:GLAM folks, such as User:Sadads. AFAICT, this is something that we actively encourage. If an article accumulates multiple links to a subject's papers (does that happen much? I thought that most people's papers were normally kept in a single institution), then editors can figure out at that time which links they want to keep. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about that kind of editing too. In my work at the WMF, I had a research intern find published case studies from libraries about "just adding links to Wikipedia" and their are at least 100 -- and every medium to large library or archives conference I have been to, a case study of an organization adding links to Wikipedia is either presented or talked about as a digital discovery solution. The profession has found a lot of value in the links, and for a number of different reasons we benefit: after all if one of our readers has reached the external links section, they are looking for something -- and with the kinds of topics that most of these collections care about: our readers of them are researchers of some sort (either hobbyists, students or professionals).
The best solution, seems to be redirecting the energy of these organizations with good guidance that is coloured by our experience doing effective GLAM-Wiki as a community so that its more than just linking. In my work with WP:The Wikipedia Library, we developed WP:TWL/CP which provides very targeted advice for Library and Archive professionals that want to link to their collections. If you discover that they are hiring students to do this, I would recommend pointing them at WP:TWL/I: it does a really good job outlining the skills/learning needed for students to engage (and do more that "just add links" -- actually contribute in a way that the WP:WEP allows us). I figure if the goodwill to contribute is there (after all thats all the libraries think they are doing: contributing to our readers access to research), then we might as well focus that contribution into not-surface-level work, Sadads (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
We have had many occasions of representatives of libraries adding links to articles on people who are represented in their archives--in principle this is a ver helpful thing, but only if done with discretion. Most famous people have scatterings of material in a great number of different archives, and I think the proper rule is to give links only to the principal one(s) (I think that's a better term than significant.) There have been some inappropriate examples. These instances needs to be checked, and I will do it.
We have also hd the much more troublesome practice of librarians adding links to their holdings of rare books; there are examples where there are in fact of only 1 or 2 copiers known, and then it's appropriate, but for most major authors dozens or hundreds of libraries will have copies of their first editions in their rare books collection. There are a very few rare books (the Gutenberg Bible for example) that are so famous that a list of every surviving copy is relevant content. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sadads and DGG. I will leave it in your hands if either of you want to follow up at User talk:Cmweddle in any way. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hoping to close WP:AE#Wuerzele

Hello NYB. Based on your comments of June 24 and 27, do you want to propose a warning to User:Wuerzele, or even just issue one yourself? It does not appear that anyone seriously wants to issue sanctions, though there is a lack of good feeling between editors. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I've held off on any further comments because I've been waiting for Wuerzele to post a statement, but he hasn't edited at all since June 24. What's the usual practice on how long we hold an AE request open when someone is offline? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
In a case where we thought sanctions were likely, we could put the request on hold. May not be worth the trouble in this case. It seems that Wuerzele is a prolific contributor to other areas. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that there seems to be a genuine dispute as to the scope of the topic-ban, which I'm reluctant to resolve in absentia. But we can't hold the report open forever, either. Let me think about this overnight.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Thanks again for checking in with me. I've posted a suggestion on AE. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI thread closure

Don't have an issue temporarily closing the thread but "although it might be better to wait and see whether there are any further problems"? Really? There seems to be an ongoing pattern of poor behavior here. Why not attempt to put a stop to it now with a clear warning? --NeilN talk to me 15:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: The problem is that unless I've missed something (which I admit is quite possible in that morass of a thread), Beyond My Ken hasn't participated in the discussion. Nor can BMK be accused of intentionally ignoring the discussion, which opened just about the same time he signed off for his trip. It is obvious that this editor would be doing himself and everyone else a favor if he sanded down his rough edges and lessened his degree of snark, but I don't think we can close a noticeboard thread with an "official" warning before the subject has had a reasonable chance to respond. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and said as much in the discussion. However I believe the discussion should be re-opened when BMK comes back, further problems or not, and a proper close be formulated depending on his response or non-response. --NeilN talk to me 15:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
If you think it would be desirable to reopen the discussion after July 10, you or anyone else are free to do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Brad, with respect, this is how a problem persists for eight years. There were further problems while the thread was open. There will be further problems when he gets back. He's got enough enablers as it is; they don't need encouragement. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen: "That is the advantage of being a pessimist; a pessimist gets nothing but pleasant surprises, an optimist nothing but unpleasant." (Nero Wolfe in Fer-de-Lance by Rex Stout). Please proceed as you think best. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the discussion which I believe was intended to be temporarily closed has now been manually archived by Softlavender, who wasn't only an involved editor but one who appeared to be dismissive of the concerns others expressed regarding BMK's conduct. DonIago (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Any uninvolved administrator can bring the thread back from the archive if warranted. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Side note: Beyond My Ken has resumed editing and accusing so I presume their vacation is over. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
How do you want your closing statement to be shown if the thread is re-opened? --NeilN talk to me 20:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I am about to boldly re-submit my complaint to AN/I, linking to the previous discussion. Furry-friend (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
AN/I#User:Beyond My Ken. Furry-friend (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

ani which you may be interested in, includes diffs

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert Adrian

Meanwhile, the edit history on Robert Adrian is fantastic. I don't think either edit got the message. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Unfortunately not. I've been in contact with Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant on her talkpage and User:HappyValleyEditor via e-mail, but I don't seem to have made much progress. And you've seen the thread on User talk:Maybeparaphrased as well. Something about the whole situation seems "off" to me but I can't put my finger on what it is. The whole interaction reminds me more than a bit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian, but I haven't done the casting yet. Anyway, since my "too diplomatic for [my] own good" methods don't seem to be helping so much, please feel free to try yours. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
"I haven't done the casting yet." I really perked up at this. I'm thinking musical. Could be great. Hamilton look out -- Broadway here we come! Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
ANI: the musical. So, Titus with more talking? I'm thinking Taymor. Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW

In response to a comment you made elsewhere, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Montanabw(talk) 21:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thanks. I knew of the activity but didn't recognize the name. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

required arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#I wish for some resolution of the harassment, wikihounding, wikistalking, and attempts to WP:OUTING of me over the approximately last 60 days by user HappyValleyEditor and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

(Just signing here for the archive bot.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Word substitution

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, I think you mean circumspect, not circumflex. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Chaos5023: Thanks for letting me know, but the malapropism was intentional. The request concerns editing about diacritical marks, so my comment worked in the words "acute", "grave", and then "circumflex". Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
lol, very good. I even went looking briefly for that to be the case but didn't see anything obvious on the page in a quick skim so gave up. Should've looked more closely at your comment. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That is the difficulty with self-declaring as American (though maybe that is only after you were outed) whilst writing as if you were British. Thincat (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Might I suggest...

in addition to the option to provides thanks for at edit, that we add a "groan" option. (For the tps who may not know what I'm talking about:this edit.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I swear, I posted this before seeing the comment above.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hehe, great minds ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee and Sphilbrick: With regard to my comment on GoodDay's request, I wish you would both stop being so diacritical. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Here, stop complaining and have an umlaut. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Just a breve episode of cedillaness—although all the groaning might macron think there‘s some digestive upset going around. I’ve noticed that a twisted colon can lead to diæresis.—Odysseus1479 20:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Your guillemet, I don't caret all for this–I say it has to come to a full stop.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Re. Lisa Lewis AfD

I posted this comment before noticing that you had already closed the AfD. Would you mind if my post is left to stand? I'd really appreciate it. Kurtis (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kurtis: I have no problem with your comment remaining. Thank you for asking. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
No problem - thanks Brad. 👍 Kurtis (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You may not be aware that User:Newzealander838, the user claiming to be Lisa Lewis, and prompting the deletion of the article, has been blocked by User:Materialscientist for deleting content from the article. This seems a bit strange given that you WP:SNOW deleted the article, suggesting it might have been deleted under WP:BLP, and we are supposed to not bite subjects of articles who reasonably complain about them. Any chance you two admins could discuss unblocking her? --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'd welcome Materialscientist's thoughts here. That said, I suspect that with the article deleted, Newzealander838 may not be interested in editing further anyway. Given some of the things alleged in the AfD discussion, as a practical matter, it may be best to leave the block alone if there isn't an unblock request. Also pinging Iridescent as he identified the article as appropriate for deletion and posted the AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with NYB on both points. I see no reason to doubt that the removals were all an effort to address what she considered an imbalanced biography of her (and looking at the original article she has a definite point). Jumping straight to an only warning for a newly-registered user trying to address what they consider a genuine problem is harsh to say the least; it's not reasonable to expect every new user to understand Wikipedia's arcane policy, and our main page proudly boasts the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit provided they make no more than three reversions to the same page in a 24-hour period. That said, I agree that we shouldn't be unblocking unless she specifically requests it, since there's obviously something unusual going on here and she's given no indication that she has any interest in writing about any other topic. (Although I look forward to the inevitable "Wikipedia bans politician and sportswoman for daring to complain" piece in The Register in the near future.) ‑ Iridescent 16:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Some requests

Newyorkbrad:

I'm asking a small number of admins whom I especially respect and admire to do a few things for me, so these could well have been already accomplished by the time you see them.

Finally, I want to thank you for being an excellent admin, one of the very best on Wikipedia. I'm sorry we were never closer, and sorrier still that you clearly disapproved of some of my behavior. Nevertheless, I hope you continue to guide and protect the project for many years to come - and you should definitely run for ArbCom again!

Yours, EF

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Join us this Saturday (July 30) at the Philadelphia Wiknic

Join us this Saturday (July 30) at the Philadelphia Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit". This is an opportunity to meet other local Wikipedians, have fun, and discuss potential projects.

The event is this Saturday, between 1pm-5pm at the Picnic Grove in Penn Park.

(To unsubscribe from future messages, remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list.)

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia, but alas, must be elsewhere. Hopefully next time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for closing panel service at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request

Talk:New York/July 2016 move request is undergoing, and given the importance of the topics involved, I have suggested a three-member closing panel. I think that you would be uniquely qualified to serve on such a panel. bd2412 T 17:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: Thanks for thinking of me for this. I'd ordinarily be glad to help, but as you know, I live and work in Manhattan ... or as we say in affidavits of service, "in the County, City, and State of New York." In reading through the RfC, I see at least one comment to an editor who is from New York suggesting that this fact may skew his perception of the issue vis-a-vis how others might see it. I don't know if that's a concern in term of my being part of the closing panel. I know that may sound like a reach, but a couple of years ago when I was requested to do a close, someone made a post hoc objection to my being the closer on the thinnest ground imaginable, so I would want to make sure this doesn't bother the participants.
Also, timing wise, I'm going to be out of town this weekend and not online much, if at all, until Monday. I don't know if that is a problem from a timing perspective. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The case won't close until Monday, and there's pretty much universal acclaim for you being on this panel (balanced by a non-American, although I doubt that an evaluation of consensus will hinge on the location of the panel members). Either way, please check in at the discussion at the bottom of the page. bd2412 T 17:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, NYB. No need to respond to this, but just wanted to let you know, I don't think I want to help close this anymore - Per this. I sincerely wish you well. - jc37 06:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure "congratulations" is the correct word, but I am onboard. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be reviewing everything and posting my comments this evening (US EDT). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't (almost 6:20, the next morning). 87.71.65.84 (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no deadline. bd2412 T 14:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@BD2412:, thanks, but I do plan to post my thoughts today. I started analyzing last night, but decided to sleep on a couple of aspects of the wording. @87IP, thanks for the reminder. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've now posted my thoughts. I look forward to hearing from my two closer colleagues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. It is indeed a tough call. bd2412 T 22:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Condorcet voting paradox summary

Hi I saw your comment at requested move on New York. Interesting point. I think your summary of the Condorcet voting paradox would be clearer if shortened to "A>B and b>c and c>a", and maybe more technically correct, rather than "a>b>c and b>c>a and c>a>b". Cheers, --doncram 00:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right about that. I'll make the change. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2016/Jul&oldid=1090591243"