User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Mar

Invitation to a discussion: Wikipedia and legislative data

Hi Newyorkbrad, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!

• Please sign up here
• Announcement on Cato's blog
• Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
• Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend an event in that day (I have to be in California on business), but please let me know how it goes, and hopefully I can attend something similar another time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hi! Did you get the email that I sent you a few days ago? --Rschen7754 09:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. At long last I should be able to get to this in the next 24 hours. Sorry for the delay. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

TY

I just wanted to drop a proper "Thank You" for looking at the Cla68 situation. Best Regards, — Ched :  ?  23:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, March 9!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 13:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS Guide RFC

As I understand it the above RFC is to add guidance to Baltic related articles. If this is correct, would not the following RFC at [1] be proposing the same sort of MOS addition. Would it be a benefit to the proposal to format in the same manner, using a blanked page or is that for when such a page has already been determined to be needed through an additional process, like arbcom or mediation?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really have a view on this. In the RfC in which I commented, it was fairly apparent to me that the process was misfiring, and I was hoping that a gentle word would set it back on course. However, I'm not really familiar enough with all the processes for developing the MOS to opine how the RfC that you link to should be formatted. (Frankly, I'm not sure that the issue raised there is a "manual of style" issue at all.) I don't see any need for ArbCom to look at this issue at this stage; not sure whether some other form of dispute resolution might be needed. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to find the best way to determine what is being proposed so that, if this is supported by consensus it is on the right path. I will ask for some guidance through one of the boards or another admin. But again, thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi Brad. I've used a quote from you at the village pump and thought it would be courteous to let you know about it. The quote is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict rangeblocks to CheckUsers. And since I'm here I figured I might as well thank you for the many years you have volunteered to the project. Thank you. 64.40.54.138 (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Baltic blowups

Howdy NYB. It looks like Jaan & Nug are not gonna follow your advise & let others participate at MOS-in-question. Apparently, they don't wanna 'shut up'. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you probably have more posts on that talkpage than anyone. I think all of you should stand down a bit and let other editors comment. After all, the purpose of an RfC is to allow for additional editors to weigh in on a topic of controversy, rather than have the same three or four or five people repeat their position over and over again. I'm afraid you've been doing that yourself, and I'm also afraid that when you've done it in the past, you didn't do yourself or your position any favors. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll willingly stand back & let others have their say. I doubt that Nug & Jaan will do the same, however. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your personal attacks decrying nationalists there has no place in cordial discourse. And now you resort to lobbying on admin pages. Nothing changes. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be travelling this weekend with limited online time and access. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Unintentional revert on this page

I apologise for this edit. I would not knowingly have done it, don't remember doing it, my little brother had no chance to do it and wouldn't have done it, and I don't drink or take drugs. I am not sure what happened, but it appears that I misclicked on rollback (happens occasionally) and for some reason didn't notice (never happened before, I believe).

As other recipients of this message have answered already and you have edited after this revert, I am reluctant to restore the post. But I thought you should know so you can restore it if you want. Hans Adler 06:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the misclick. Don't worry, these things happen. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Informers

Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [2]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that the Committee received (at least) one inquiry from a non-arbitrator asserting that Malleus Fatuorum and George Pondevero were the same user. The name of the individual who made the inquiry has not been made public, but it was not an arbitrator, checkuser, or other functionary. My initial reaction was not in favor of pursuing the matter in the absence of evidence of misconduct, but such allegations were made, and after a lengthy review and discussion, the result was the statement that was posted on-wiki.

The Committee's vote on issuing the statement was published on-wiki here at the same time the statement itself was published.

I was not in favor of issuing the statement at the time it was issued. I did not vote to "oppose" the statement, since I was ultimately and reluctantly persuaded that its factual assertion of a connection between the accounts was accurate. I also fully understood the basis for some arbitrators' concern that doing nothing might perpetuate a double-standard regarding how different editors are treated. However, I could not support issuing the statement because I did not see the necessity for taking any action, especially after Malleus Fatuorum had retired and stopped editing, and I was deeply troubled by the prospect of the drama that has foreseeably resulted. I made these points during the Committee's discussions, but the vote was to proceed with the statement you have seen.

In continuing this discussion, terminology such as "Gestapo state" is inflammatory, offensive, and should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, you have gone some way in restoring my confidence in the Arbcom; it's a shame that they didn't listen to you isn't it. Gestapo is a strong term, but it also operated on anonymous tip-off a dn used secret courts for trumped up charges, rather than risk a public trial; so perhaps it's no surprise that the comparassion is made. Perhaps Inquisition is a better term.  Giano  16:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to hear your original position on this. I believe it was the only reasonable one.

Maybe this is a good occasion to repeat an observation that I have made before: The general community, and unfortunately also Arbcom, has an unfortunate tendency to make situations worse when they can't agree on them. As we all know, proposing to split a baby in two can be an excellent move by a judge; in this case, Arbcom has managed to carry it out. That's not a good sign at all. And once again, this has led to Arbcom joining into the general mobbing of an editor instead of resolving the problem. Hans Adler 18:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea party arbitration extension

I have not participated in that discussion, though I commented on the case request, and have been interested in presenting evidence to balance out the current tenor of discussion. Would it be possible to extend the evidence to the end of the week? Even the actual parties of the case started out late when it came to providing evidence so extending it a few days would be beneficial all around I think.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29

In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Heads up!

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.

Mike V • Talk 04:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see this

Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read your post, which frankly is more direct than the original request for arbitration was. I will take another look at this, but I will have limited time on-wiki for the next couple of days (family plans over Passover), so it will be after that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that. As the others suggested, today I seeked again mediation although I believe that the problem is far beyond merely content dispute. This[3] and this[4] is what happened. They (Cambalachero and MarshalN20) have obviously no interest on resolving anything. Look what MarshalN20 said in here, for example. It's all a joke for them. --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The joke here are all of the accusations of fascism and nazism made by Lecen. Am I supposed to take them seriously?

Lecen's behavior has been noted as both childish ([5]) and exhibiting WP:OWN issues ([6]) by independent editors. The whole problem is efficiently summarized in WP:DIVA.

Furthermore, as I wrote in the Mediation talk page ([7]), the WP:BRD process has not even taken place for this user to take the matter to mediation (much less ArbComm).

I may not have the 12 FA stars that Lecen constantly brags about, but I am a user with an integrity certified by a handful of barnstars. However, if you agree with Lecen's perspective of things, then perhaps my two GA's (Pisco Sour and Peru national football team), should also be thoroughly hounded for their pro-Nazi bias.

Heil Pisco!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Lecen writes this snarky brag about the ArbComm case: "You were able to convince them when I and everyone else failed. Thank you." ([8]).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be making the mistake of assuming that we have already reached a decision in this case. I have not even reached a preliminary decision and I don't believe the other arbitrators have either. All that has been decided so far is that there is a serious dispute among editors, involving serious allegations, that won't likely be resolved short of having an arbitration case. There is nothing for anyone to be snarky about or brag about at this stage of the case, on any side of the controversy. Let's focus on getting to the bottom of the dispute and resolving it rather than calling each other names. That goes for everyone.

Further posts about this matter should be made on the arbitration pages, where all the arbitrators and interested parties can see them, rather than here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistake. Lecen's statements regarding the ArbComm case confused me into thinking this matter was solely meant to judge a particular editor. However, if ArbComm will also take a good look at Lecen's behavior, then I am all for it. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"...you managed to convince the Arbitrators of the necessity of an Arbitration. You were able to convince them when I and everyone else failed." This is what I wrote. I have nothing else to say here. I'll wait for the arbitration. --Lecen (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thomas E. Dewey

Somewhat to my surprise, it does appear you are correct about the term of office dating for New York state, ergo I have undone my edit to the article in question (as well as edited a previous reference to "1955" being the date that he left office, added by someone else in another section of the article). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (and sorry about the delayed acknowledgement). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)