User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Jan

Antisemitic IP editor

I'm completely agreeable to as long a block extension as you want to place on the infinitesimal IP 12.176.152.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and I would be entirely untroubled if that individual never darkened our door again. I think I've been spending too long dealing with the trolls who have non-static IPs, where the longest useful block is a day or two. Rest assured that the next block will be much, much longer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with IP editor

Hi. I really need some administrator-to-administrator advice. Can you offer your opinions on Question 2 - 5 that I've posed at the top of this discussion?

Everyone else participating there is only focusing on Question 1, which I thought would be answered more quickly and straightforwardly, and is already being discussed at Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case If you want to offer your insights on Question 1 as well, can you do so there? Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point

Here. Now the question is whether ArbCom wants to directly evaluate Δ's 2000 clean-up edits from last autumn (with respect to the community sanctions), or if ArbCom wants to limit itself to a meta-evaluation of the ANI discussion of those edits. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark 2nd FAC

Hi. If you have any free time (!) and/or need a break from ArbCom stuff (!!), could you take a look at the current FAC discussion for United States v. Wong Kim Ark? Some disagreements have arisen — apparently over how to avoid OR/SYNTH on the one hand, or cherry picking of sources on the other — and I feel a third (or even fourth) opinion would be helpful in order to make it clear which way the consensus lies. Thanks. — Richwales 17:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

sigh

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Qian Zhijun.--Scott Mac 02:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I would gladly be bold and copy-edit an issue where I was certain no synthesis of intent was involved. Where your words say "without creating new problem" the copy-edit depends on whether or not you mean "without creating new problems" or "without creating a new problem". Please self correct this inconsistency so it reflects agreement with your intent, as I am curious. Thank you - My76Strat (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll fix it now. Thanks for reading so attentively. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Remedy 7, 2nd ¶, 1st sentence "tooks" for "tools." It's certainly interesting, but if part of the thrill is editing fast... This may devolve rapidly towards the same result as the earlier option, only with Beta enforcing the decision. Hope not. Jd2718 (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "per calendar day" in your proposed remedy 7 for Δ, I suggest you clarify this as to time zone. Suppose Δ edited 4 articles between 11 pm and midnight (his time) and another 3 articles between midnight and 1 am the following day. This would be acceptable under remedy 7 for his time zone, but it would constitute 7 articles edited on a single calendar day in either of the time zones one hour different from Δ's time zone. This is exactly the kind of ambiguity that has caused endless problems in the existing sanctions. Please, if ArbCom is going to pass a remedy like this, define a time zone so that "calendar day" is unambiguous and make sure that the potential for a repeat of the debates of the past is minimised. EdChem (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If it appears we have achieve a consensus on the remedy, I can work on some fine-tuning. I will, however, be sad if we wind up with something like this, and then there is a debate because Betacommand made 3 edits at one time and then another 3 edits 23 hours later. I'd say that if the edits appear to be consistent with a per-day limitation at Betacommand's location, that should be satisfactory. The real purpose of the proposed remedy is actually not to have repetitive editing at all, outside the scope I've outlined; "no more than five at a time" is designed mostly to reduce the potential for "wikilawyering" about the remedy rather than increase it.

Not addressed specifically to you, EdChem, but it bears emphasis around here sometimes that (this is something well-known to lawyers) no language of a policy of a decision can ever be entirely free of ambiguity. The application of common sense (or in wikiterms IAR) is always required). Judge Posner's classic example is a sign that says "KEEP OFF THE GRASS"; the police officer responsible for enforcing the rule would be ill-advised to admonish a groundskeeper who was cutting the lawn, nor to arrest someone fleeing an adjacent burning building who found cutting across the grass to be the shortest way to get away. And it is not necessary to change the wording to "KEEP OFF THE GRASS, EXCEPT FOR GROUNDSKEEPING PERSONNEL OR IN EMERGENCIES" before we expect the rule to be implemented with common sense and a sense of proportion. This observation has abundant Wikipedia analogues. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My example covered 7 articles within a 2 hour period, just to clarify. As for common sense, I recall the ANI debate on "pattern of edits" and just today I have seen an editor argue that Rick Santorum is only "allegedly" anti-gay, so I have serious doubts about common sense being widespread around here, unfortunately. I applaud the idea of reducing the potential for wikilawyering, I just fear that "calendar day" without a time zone opens the door to debate if he appears to have too many edits in any time zone. EdChem (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012. 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.

209.137.146.50 (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Process at ArbCom

Noetica added me, along with ten other editors to a complaint that had been brought by admin SarekofVulcan (∆ edit, here). That just seem so wrong. Greg L (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Ross and Albert Cohn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)