User talk:Newyorkbrad: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Signing off for the night before I lose my temper and say something I'll regret. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You should've known this spectacle was never going to be resolved from just a 2 hour consensus at ANI, but I've put my comment in this section so you know why you got chips in addition to fish. Actually, you've also been given the side for not being too passive. Either way, I trust you will take this feedback in the spirit that it is intended. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see you back on-wiki.

I actually did think my re-re-closing would "stick," but I won't post-mortem it right now. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On a totally unrelated note, has arbcom covered discretionary sanctions over Jewish and Middle East topics or is it limited to I/P conflict only? If it's the latter, would it be essential for an amendment request or can it be done on its own motion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, there are no discretionary sanctions currently available for "Jewish and Middle East topics" outside the Israel-Palestine disputes. If you want to raise this with ArbCom, you could do so on the amendments/clarifications page, though I can't speak for how anyone (including myself) would react, or if nothing else has worked and there is reason to do it you could request a case. DS can also be imposed at the community level where warranted (I haven't evaluated whether it would be warranted here). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think I want to raise this with arbcom now as I still have doubts about whether it will be helpful to the articles in that topic area, but I will bear that in mind if I notice more issues pop up when I am about. What I would like to raise with each and every arb though is, on another totally unrelated note, the issue EdChem has raised at the AC Noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. 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 | talk 09:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You're invited to the Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014

On May 3rd, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts will be hosting a Native American and Chinese Art edit-a-thon from 9:00-5:00 pm. You are more than welcome to attend, as there will be free food and drink, and an outing afterwards. If you are interested, please sign up here, as we would love to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Ed Rodley's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm forbidden from editing pages. But am I forbidden from participating in talk pages? Steeletrap (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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."

Yes, topic bans cover talk pages. The better question is if they cover user talk pages, and more specifically, your own user talk page. (There is a discussion ongoing on the latter question here Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Do_topic_bans_extend_to_the_banned_editor.27s_user_talk_page.3F Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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: Rich Farmbrough, 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)[reply]

Appears to have a new owner who not only closes his own RfC (finding that his own position "won" of course) but then makes substantial changes and reverts to that article in support of his "close." I demur on playing his game, but suggest you note his major and substantial of a respected historical argument which no one objected to, with the "Nazi nut" argument, and seems to think demolishing the "Nazi nut" argument is all the article needs. I would note that User:The Four Deuces also demurs on conflation of the two distinct arguments and positions, but Lightbreather, who you doubtless recall from his statements at the case, seems to think he now has carte blanche to make the article conform with his own position regardless of any RfC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the request and posted a statement. Interestingly, I believe this is the first time I've been named as a party to a request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newyorkbrad. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Received and responded. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[2] The real problem is that Collect is not even internally consistent. How could Rangel be a problem if "Preceded by Clarke" is not? There's obviously some odd ulterior motive here, or Collect is being monumentally sloppy in his edit warring. Either way it's time for Collect to walk away

[3] Either there's an odd ulterior motive or he's being monumentally sloppy. You pickem

[4] Carefully review the article. Why is Rangel so unacceptable if Clarke is fine? Was Collect being incompetent or duplicitous?

[5] If Collect isn't engaging in specifically duplicitous behavior, he'll revert to the status quo, and take this to the appropriate wikiproject to see if there's a global consensus for how we deal with redistricting (hint: there is, and it's how the article used to be). Perhaps he'll try to change the consensus. If he is just playing "conservative activist," (queue Collect insisting he's not a conservative activist) then he'll just yell "SOURCES SOURCES BLP BLP" more, which seems pretty much 100% irrelevant to how we deal with redistricting in infoboxes.

IIRC, that editor has been multiply sanctioned in the past for his BLP edits (including mentions in more than one ArbCom case), and for attacks on other editors. He is currently under Climate Change sanctions for sure. I further suggest that this is the type of edit which ought to be noted by the Committee, rather than searching for "bosh and twaddle" quotes <g>. I avoid the drama boards, but this "interesting behaviour" seems almost to get me to post there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recollection is false. I have been sanctioned for edit warring, which is why I have no desire to revert your violations of the MOS regarding succession in congresspersons. Aren't you supposed to alert people when you talk about them? Further, why exactly did you leave Clarke in the bio? Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly no need as you are blatantly following my edits. And was there any finding about you in the Climate Change case? I suppose you do not count: 17) Hipocrite has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality and 14) Hipocrite is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3. seem to be more than simply "sanctioned for edit warring" as far as I can tell. That editor has been a frequent denizen at AN/I for personal attacks, which is his major continuing problem entirely, and has been so for many years per AN. AN/I , and Arbcom decisions. Collect (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

Collect, two can play that game - remember that RFC where you were basically slapped for exactly the same thing? And then the arbcom case where you were slapped, again, for the same thing? Step right off your high horse. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The one which Ikip apologized for where he CANVASSed 14 editors -- of whom a bunch have since been site banned for such things as socking? That one? The one where I was berated for saying we should not call "Joe the Plumber" an "illegal plumber" or "plumber's ass." in his infobox as "occupation"? That one? And kindly tell me what ArbCom case had any "slapping" of me - if you wish to use the "bosh and twaddle" example of "incivility" I suspect you are well past that level. By a few miles. But I suspect NYB can tell reality from fantasy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(holding comment) I'll look at this later today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could the two of you please stop, here and preferably elsewhere as well, until I have a few minutes this afternoon to read through the material? I think I have a sense of what is going on here, but need to confirm it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my take on this. First, the fact that the two of you don't like each other is beyond my control. There is no reason to personalize a dispute that is purely a technical one of nomenclature.

Collect is correct that Rep. Rangel did not succeed Rep. Grimm as a Member of Congress in the everyday sense, given that (1) Grimm's district and Rangel's distract have no geographical overlap, and (2) Rangel is still serving in the House. No one would write in the article text that "in 2013, Rangel succeeded Grimm as representative of New York's 13th Congressional District." If someone did write that, likely as a result of not being familiar with the redistricting, it would be uncontroversially fixed. Nor would anyone write in the article text, or any comparable context, that Grimm succeeded Rep. Yvette Clarke in the 11th District. Their districts are equally unconnected.

The issue arises, as both of you know, in the succession boxes, where the references are by Congressional District number, even though the redistricting process often leads to discontinuity in the territory a representative represents, especially when a state has had a gain or loss of seats. This can produce absurd-seeming results, such as the one you have identified, as well as oddities when a sitting representative's seat is renumbered without his or her having any break in service. As an example, see Norman F. Lent, an article I picked because Mr. Lent was my congressman growing up and because many years later, I got to post the welcome notice on User talk:Normlent after he edited his article. Lent served in the House representing basically the same area of Long Island from 1971 to 1993, but the districts were renumbered in 1972, and so according to the boxes, in 1973 Lent succeeded John Wydler (in the 4th District) and Wydler succeeded Lent (in the 5th District). Or for another oddity, see Rangel's article, where the continuing reduction in New York's number of districts has Rangel "succeeded" by José Serrano twice in a row.

This may seem an odd way to construct the boxes, but as far I can think of, there is no real alternative. There are some cases where it is obvious which district is the continuation of its predecessor because the territory has not changed materially, and a few districts that have their own institutional histories (the classic example is the "Silk Stocking District" in Manhattan) but in a great number of others a new district is not the indisputable the lineal successor of a predecessor in a territorial sense. Thus, while I haven't reviewed the discussions that must have taken place at Wikiproject Congress, but I am certain the conclusion has been reached that using the district numbers by state is the only practicable alternative. And it is true, if only trivially so, that if one asked the question "who represents the 13th District of New York" in 2012, the answer would have been "Rep. Charles Rangel," and if one asks the same question in 2014, the answer is "Rep. Michael Grimm." So the succession boxes convey accurate information, at least in that narrow sense.

Perhaps the answer is some sort of a footnote or qualifier, but this should be done on some sort of systematic basis, if it can be done at all. In the meantime, both of you need to turn the rhetoric down a bunch of notches. This is a technical issue about successful boxes, and while I strongly endorse Collect's call for accuracy in BLPs, I do not perceive this as a BLP issue. Getting BLPs right is critical, but raising every content dispute in a BLP article to the level of a BLP violation will have the unfortunate effect of diluting the attention that can be given to the truly troublesome violations. I also don't see the need for attacks and counterattacks on this technical point based on which editors might be considered conservative or not.

I hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]