User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Sep

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

Arbcom

Also - I haven't looked to the tranches - but I sincerely hope that you too are running again. While I've had issue with some the bureaucracy/process with arbcom of late, I sincerely feel that there are individuals who give thoughtful (Shakespeare's usage as "thought-filled") consideration of cases. And that is what I most look for when trying to guess who I should lend support to in the elections.

In case I miss it, consider this a direct request to be canvassed/be reminded about the elections when they come up : ) - jc37 19:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Melford Stevenson

Thank you for the copyedits there. --John (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Russell G. Lloyd, Jr.

With all due respect, I have no idea how you'd be able to tell what someone's disabilities allow them to do more easily or just as easily. Dru of Id (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this matter, whereas you obviously have a strong preference for how to handle it. Therefore, in the interest of colleagiality, I've withdrawn my !vote on the MfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Jim Wallace (politician)

After you reverted this user's edit in Jim Wallace (politician), it seems that another account was created and readded the same information and marked it as minor. I am not sure how to exactly proceed so I thought I would let you know. LlamaDude78 (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

AC request

I read your comment, demanding that an editor about whom a case is requested, respond to the concerns raised. I remember a recent case that looks similar to me, admin using tools when involved, giving no comment. It looks similar but was treated differently. Are some editors more equal? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I evaluate each case on its own merits, which include all of the relevant facts and circumstances. I hope that is what everyone would do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
That include ArbWorld being afraid of Raul? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: what you said is as correct as not helpful (at least to me). In the other case, "incorrect use of tools needs to be taken very seriously" was mentioned, but I saw no reaction, therefore my question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
(adding, belongs here) You said: "It is fundamental to adminship that when questioned, administrators be willing to explain and discuss their actions. This is true when any editor asks why the admin did something, and is certainly true by the time matters reach the stage of a request for arbitration. ... More than a week has now elapsed, however, without any further word ...". True, both cases, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I will admit, I went down the list in Brad's lengthy vote to desysop EncycloPetey for admin abuse, summarily, and said, yup, that applies to Raul, that does, that does, so does that. One failed to cooperate, so did the other (at least Petey gave a statement). The only difference I can possibly see is that one is a bureaucrat, and so tasked with greater trust and responsibility. That presumably, is why ArbCom gave Raul a break and will desysop Petey. Oh wait, Raul's the crat. Well, it's totally about who you know and who they don't want to go up against, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not teh 'crat-bit, it's his being a former arb && m:ComCom. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC) (& teh house o' fa)
Quite possibly. He used that to torpedo TCO's JSTOR proposal too, and deep-sixed it so much people are STILL waiting for JSTOR.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I just wrote a response here which was lost in an edit conflict with Wehwalt. It is probably just as well. I'll come back to this thread later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

When you get an edit conflict, your text is offered at the bottom; they're no reason to lose any text. I get edit conflicts all the time and frequently merge interim edits into what I'm doing. If you see an edit conflict coming, you can merge it in and save the combiined edit without actually getting a conflict. Sincerely, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to pile onto a pointless debate here but its human nature to favor those editors with whom you have a positive repoir. I have also been very critical of many of Arbcom's decisions of late but this fact isn't surprising to me. I am more concerned frankly about the utterly inconsistent and disproportionate ways that cases are chosen and decided. Many Arbcom members have all but admitted that if the vote to work on a case they already have some preconceived notions of guilt (or else they wouldn't choose it in the first place) so to me any facts, debate or time spent on the case from that point on is really just a waste of everyones time and historically represents Arbcom's physical displays of disrespect for other editors time. If the results are always the same with very little degree of change, then why would an editor spend the time to comment unless they were one of the ones who were seeking the punishment. The whole process is one sided and destined for a verdict that is slanted in a negative degree for the editor before the committee. Kumioko (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Two sidebars; (1) Yes, it is human nature to act as you suggest. What ArbCom should be doing (and is not) is recognizing when such bias enters the system and appropriately adjusting their responses and actions. (2) It would be an interesting study to look at past case workshops and see how much of the workshop pages work is reflected on the proposed decision pages. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course I have no measure of scientific proof but from what I have seen the result of the Arbcom determinations have very little to do with the discussions on the talk page (Arbs rarely even comment on them) and the decision is done based on offline, private or semi private communications between the members of Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I dunno. On the one hand, that's probably true, as others have noted. On the other hand, as someone who knows virtually nothing about either the EncycloPetey situation or the FA situation, the requests read very differently to me, in both the tone and the substance of editors' statements. It doesn't seem surprising or hypocritical to me that the Arbs handled the cases differently. As for edit conflicts, I've been saved more than once by a fortuitous edit conflict from posting something ill-advised. That may be what Brad was getting at. MastCell Talk 17:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Some very good points and IMO very accurate and unbiased comments. Also some very troubling inferrences and perceptions though. Several trouble me deeply. Kumioko (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is a little bit out of control. On another page, someone just posted that based on the colloquy above, I had to be taught today how to deal with an edit conflict. What actually happened is that I hit the "back" button without thinking and in that matter lost the text, and decided to step away from the computer rather than re-post it. One really can assume minimal editing competence even on the part of the arbitrators.

I recused myself from voting on the aspect of the "Feature Articles" request for arbitration that dealt with Br'er Rabbit because of a series of recent negative interactions between myself and him. (That is the calmed-down version of what I had written earlier that didn't post, and if I see many more posts from Br'er Rabbit along the lines of "ArbWorld [is] afraid of Raul," I am unlikely to remain calm.) That being said, I find the comparison between the recent allegations against Raul654 and the allegations against EncycloPetey to be unconvincing. I say that even though, as is well known, I have criticized other actions by Raul654 in the past. Raul654's status as a bureaucrat, which he barely uses these days and which is almost forgotten by many, is irrelevant. Raul654's status as a former arbitrator is also irrelevant, except insofar as it may explain part of Br'er Rabbit's animus against him. I am not much familiar with Raul654's role at ComCom or with the reference that's been made to JSTOR.

I haven't yet voted on the motion to desysop EncycloPetey. It's common knowledge that I'm generally the last arbitrator to want to desysop or otherwise sanction anyone; anyone in doubt about my view that administrators working in good faith should be excused for occasional errors of judgment should take a very careful look at the proposed decision page in the Perth case, which is the most recent case the Arbitration Committee decided.

It is flatly false that the Arbitration Committee's accepting a case represents a predetermination of guilt or of what sanction will be imposed. It is obviously true that if we accept a case, it means we've concluded that there is likely to be some sort of problem involving one or more of the parties. Why would we put anyone through an arbitration case if it was obvious there wasn't any problem? But I could rattle off a laundry list of cases that we accepted for arbitration only to conclude that no one should be sanctioned, or that only one or two of a long list of parties should be sanctioned. Of course, when we reach such a conclusion, we are criticized for not doing enough to protect the project from "abusive" administrators and editors, and thereby driving other editors away. I certainly am not endorsing the results reached in every arbitration case decided during my time on the Committee—I have probably cast more solo dissenting votes on findings or remedies than any other arbitrator ever—but the suggestion that we automatically impose sanctions on everyone who comes before the Committee is flatly mistaken.

It remains the case that it would be in EncycloPetey's interest to make a statement, along the lines of what I've discussed in the arbitrator comments section. I also would like him, and others who are commenting on the case, also to focus on what SilkTork had to say in the original arbitrator comments section (just above the motion). SilkTork has encapsulated better than I did why blocking (and to a lesser extent, page-protection) by an "involved" administrator is not just a technical violation of one of Wikipedia's abstruse policies and guidelines, of which we have far too many at this point, but is a serious matter. I think it's important that EncycloPetey, if he wants to remain an administrator, engage with that issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How about Raul's long-term animus towards me? He screwed up the original Coolcat case close, flipped my May 2008 unban off, and blocked about four of my accounts while hyper-involved in the FAP dispute with me, and he edited through user page protection against other admins' decisions (who knew better what was going on). And he refused to deign to even comment at the case request. And you just all just looked the other way.
If you're losing edits by backing up, that would mean you're using Internet Explorer, which sucks. The browsers I use don't lose the text when backing up. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Any issues relating to Br'er Rabbit and any issues relating to Internet Explorer will both have to be resolved by others than me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering what godawful browser would do such a thing, when I saw BR's post above. Man, if my browser lost text in the edit field that easily, I might never manage to post at all. I'll save everybody the trouble of adding "No great loss" by doing it myself. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC).
SeaMonkey's leagues better than Microsoft's retarded browsers. It's part of the Gecko family, albeit the strange little brother ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@Brad: Have any members of the Arbitration Committee made any attempt to contact EP other than on his local talk page? So far as any evidence we have in hand suggests, EP left this project on August 29, 2012 and has not read anything since, including anything arbitrators have written since. I consider the proposals made by AGK and SilkTork on EP's talk page to be out of line, but in the very least EP should be made aware of them and given the opportunity to respond. He has not been given that opportunity. As of now, there's been a unilateral granting of time, but no granting of knowledge of what is transpiring. Given the absolutely atrocious way in which ArbCom treated EP up to the point he made his statement (and left the project), I would not at all be surprised that he hasn't read any of it. I find ArbCom's general prevailing attitude of "Well he won't respond, so let's (as BD2412 said) give him the death penalty" to be despicable. This isn't some casual drive by vandal we're talking about here. This isn't some discovered nest of sockpuppets with an admin at the top of the nest. This isn't some ban evading editor. This isn't some failed restart editor caught with his pants down. This is a long time editor with five years as an administrator conducting apparently stellar work. ArbCom has treated him with utter disdain. In the very least, one of you could lift a finger and bother to inform him of what is going on. At least one of your august body decided to investigate to see if he'd been active elsewhere on WMF projects. You know where he works elsewhere, so inform him. At least give him a flippin' chance. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe he has been e-mailed by one of the arbitrators, and I'm sure he's been e-mailed by some of his supporters as well. And I'm the arbitrator who has taken the lead in slowing this process down to make sure EncycloPetey has ample time to post anything he wants to, so I'm not quite sure why this vitriol is being directed at me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It is directed at ArbCom, not at you specifically. In abstract, I said as much in this post. With respect to his being e-mailed, do we know for a fact that he has been e-mailed subsequent to this post by SilkTork? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The point about EP editing on other projects (Wiktionary to be specific) is something that should really be discussed more. I can understand the attitude of 'oh, he is editing there, so he must be aware of what is happening here, why is he ignoring us?', but until you get a response, you can't say for sure that the message has been received. And going over there and leaving a message for him would actually be rather rude (he would be quite justified in turning around and telling whoever left the message to go away [or something less polite] and stop harassing him). The most that would be acceptable is asking someone who is a regular on Wiktionary to pass on a message. That is why I suggested suspending the case request in its 'nearly opened' stage. That might seem like the worst of all possible options, but it actually sends out the right message: (i) It's not so urgent that it needs to be wrapped up and dealt with now; (ii) It is serious enough that EP should deal with it on his return; and (iii) no-one can force volunteers to deal with things if they don't want to deal with them (quite what admins can be forced to deal with before tool removal is needed for failure to respond is not clear). It is clear that the desysopping will pass, but I do think that EP should be able to request that a case be opened on his return if he still wants one. I would also add that I would invariably advise anyone facing an arbitration case about to be opened about their conduct, to take a break for a period of time (a couple of weeks) and ask for the opening of the case to be delayed until that point. In the real world, cases can take months to come to court. ArbCom is not a court, but being able to build in delays should not be impossible (this would not apply to multi-party arbitrations about a volatile and current issue). Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth, please post this on the RfAr page where all the arbs can see it. Meanwhile, it used to be that ArbCom-directed desysoppings usually had the proviso that the (ex-)administrator could request adminship back by a new RfA or by appeal to ArbCom. I wonder if allowing such an appeal here, which might (or might not) be granted in due course if the problem that led to the desysopping were resolved, would be worthwhile here. Although it might sound like I'm changing the subject, it's really an analogous idea under a different name. (The counterargument, of course, is that this represents a shift in authority from the community as a whole back to the Committee, and there were several editors and a couple of arbitrators who opposed such provisions for that reason....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Cross-posted. Some (not all) of what is being said on some user talk pages should be made more visible as well. Hammersoft, if you are reading this, could you suggest anyone who could leave a message for EP that he would be guaranteed to see and wouldn't brush off or ignore? Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have had no prior interactions with EP, and know of nobody that could be approached. Given that, I took on the task myself. See Wiktionary:User_talk:EncycloPetey#Cordial_note. I find it astonishing that it should require someone from outside of ArbCom to do this, and to inform EP locally on his talk page that the motion had started. Whatever are the clerks for, if not this? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that it mattered. EncycloPetey isn't doing anything on this project, and hasn't even edited Wiktionary in 3 days. But, gotta rush rush rush! Brilliant job ArbCom. ArbCom rushed to accept the case before he'd even logged in again, going net 4 to accept [1] in less than three hours. ArbCom rushed to push the motion forward as fast possible, without bothering to notify EP, getting to the required 8 majority in less than 12 hours [2]. ArbCom rushed to clear the motion out and desysop him less than 14 hours after he'd been notified on Wiktionary. Rush rush rush! Just gotta ram that home. A day ago, I asked AGK if he would step down from ArbCom and resign his admin bit if I found six administrative errors on his part. Despite being active on the project (even EP wasn't active), AGK hasn't responded. ArbCom was incensed that EP didn't respond. AGK doesn't respond and that's just fine, right? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

re Judge Richard M. Berman

He has taken senior status. However, his FJC Bio was not updated to reflect that fact. I have reverted my edits and will send the FJC a little note to properly update his bio. Safiel (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That explains things. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi Newyorkbrad. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I'll sit this one out. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.

Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of the National Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!

Kirill [talk] 18:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser Request

I apologize if I completely misunderstood what I read at the CheckUser page, but I gathered I was supposed to contact a CheckUser and you were the only name I recognized. Anyway, I have this strange feeling that User:Bartholomew45 and User:Tennis Waffles are the same person based on their activity at Curtis Hibbs. Thank you. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Term expiration March 3 vs 4

This has been discussed many times. Most debaters insist in confusing the term with the session. The term was held (and always stated as such in the sources) to end on March 3, the actual session sometimes (not always) was continued after midnight until business was finished. Sometimes the session ended on March 2 (when March 3 was a Sunday), but on the other side, the House sessions started mostly in December and never on March 4, and these same debaters insist that the term began on March 4. You can't eat your cake and have it too. I discussed this very recently again, I'll have to find that talk page again... Kraxler (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I know this has been discussed many times; I believe I was the first to raise the issue, back in 2006, and I think at the time the consensus was for March 4, but obviously this affects a large number of articles so I am sure I've missed multiple discussions over the past couple of years as I've become involved in other wiki-things. So I definitely would appreciate any links you can provide to more recent discussions.
I understand the distinction you are drawing between "term" and "session," but I am not sure that it's relevant. Suppose that in a given Congress, they were efficient and finished all the the business early and adjourned sine die on February 1. The Members' terms still had to end at a given date and time, and the given date and time was at noon on March 4th. Conversely, the term of new Members always began on March 4th, even though the new Congress often didn't convene on that date.
To me, the relevant question is simply: "If you walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 10:00 a.m. on March 4 of an odd-numbered year when Congress was in session, would the Members participating be those of the outgoing Congress or the incoming Congress"? The answer is, the outgoing Congress. And it simply doesn't make sense to me that a Member would be permitted to participate in the House or Senate session on the morning of March 4th, if his or her term had expired on March 3rd.
(The usual response to this point is to draw the distinction between calendar days and legislative days—but this too has always struck me as irrelevant, because terms aren't measured by legislative days. If a given Congress adjourned sine die on March 1st, but the Senate was still on the legislative day of February 15th, we wouldn't report the Senators' terms as having expired on February 15 any more than we would report them as having expired on March 1.)
The principal source of confusion on this issue, I believe, is the Congressional Biographical Directory, which for reasons that remain utterly obscure reports the expiration dates as March 3. This has now been recognized as an error by the Congressional Historians' Offices, and I have a communication from a staff member indicating that over time the dates are being corrected in the Directory, but I acknowledge that this private communication is not a reliable source in and of itself.
Anyway, as I said earlier, I don't have the time or inclination to make a huge wiki-deal of this, but for what it is worth, I am still convinced that all the listings of "March 3" convey inaccurate information, albeit trivially so. I'm still looking forward to the links you can provide. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm impressed with your argument, most debaters do not argue at all here, but start right away with personal attacks. But there seem to be a few misunderstandings in your argument:
  • The distinction of "term" and "session" is important, because the legal term to which a member has been elected is distinct from the actual session. The session never began at the beginning of the term (pre-20th Am.) and certainly members can sit after the term expired. This phenomenon is known as "holding over." (New York State legislators chosen by the Constitutional Convention in 1777 to represent the areas under British control held over for years, not a few hours...).
  • The US Constitution did not mention any time of day for the beginning of the term, and did not mention any date at all for the end of it, it said a term of two years. Certainly a year (as a measure of time) begins on a given day and ends on the previous calendar day of the the next calendar year; like the calendar year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31. A span from March 4, year, to March 4, year+1, was in olden times known as "a year and a day", and had a legal distinction of its own.
  • The "legislative day" is intended to mean that although midnight had passed, the proceedings were recorded in the journal under the "previous" date, even if the session ended let's say at 4 a.m., possibly to avoid confusion with proceedings started in the morning, after the members had slept, since the reading, and the approval, of the minutes was necessary to begin a new legislative day. This innocent tradition was much time later used on the last day of the session to continue sitting until business was finished. The declaration about "the noon hour having arrived, I declare adjourned" was used once in history, perhaps, but has no legal status. It possibly was used because the noon hour had passed long ago, on that day... There is to my knowledge no occasion when a "legislative day" lasted longer than two calendar days.
  • The Congressional Biographical Directory is full of mistakes, and I'm very cautious to use it as a source, since it is not really reliable. I also noticed that the listings of the Congress members once available at the GPO website, were taken off the air. So the Congressional Historian got cold feet? Interesting. Kraxler (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
(Thanks for your detailed comments. I'll respond this evening.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
My last discussion of this was here. My main "source", the listings of the GPO (which were excellent, and contained only two mistakes I could identify), have disappeared.
Somebody gave this "source" about the famous resolution of 1851. Although published on the U.S. Senate website, it contains the blatantly false statement "Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis declared that his term had expired and refused to vote when further roll calls were ordered." In the actual Senate Journal of this session (the ultimate source) you can read: on page 251: "Mr. Mason expressed a doubt whether the term for which he had been chosen had not expired; and desired, if he continued to act, to be qualified as a senator for the ensuing term." Thereupon this resolution was passed: "That inasmuch as the second session of the thirty-first Congress does not expire under the constitution until 12 o'clock on the 4th of March instant, the honorable James M. Mason, a senator elect from the State of Virginia, is not entitled to take the oath of office at this time, to wit: on the 4th of March at one o'clock a. m." The preamble of this resolution is also blatantly false, as the U.S. Constitution does not state any time of day for either the beginning or the end of a congressional term. Only the 20th Amendment stated expressly "at noon on January 3." You can also read on page 280 that the Senate adjourned on "March 3, 1851" (no mention of "noon") although we know that the session continued a few hours after midnight. This statement of the ending date was the original reason to give March 3 as the legal term end, so I guess the Congressional Historian (Is this the same person who wrote the text on the US Senate page??) got confused by our discussions here, but I think he should reload the listings for the time being and take further action after our discussion came to a conclusion. Kraxler (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your two substantive posts above, and I've taken a look at the prior discussions you reference. A few points in rebuttal:

  • I agree that we need to focus on the term of Members rather than the sessions. (Although I don't think it's true that prior to the Twentieth Amendment a session never started on March 4; in years when a new President took office a special session of the Senate generally was convened on March 4, for the purpose of ratifying Cabinet appointments).
  • Although the GPO listings you cite may no longer be online, they are parallel to the Congressional Biographical Directory, which is still online (and whose hard-copy editions dating back to the Nineteenth Century are widely available as well). I agree that the Biographical Directory and cognate sources are the best evidence for the March 3rd point of view, although I still think they are outweighed by the other evidence I've cited above (such as the quotations from the 1917 Congressional Record that I have referred to).
  • You have defined "holding over" correctly, but this concept has never been applied to the United States Congress. A "holding over" situation may exist, either at common law or in some jurisdictions by statute, where the term of an incumbent officeholder has expired but no successor has taken the incumbent's place. Under that circumstances, the incumbent is allowed to continue performing the powers and duties of his or her office because otherwise they could not be performed at all. But as I've said, this concept has never existed in the U.S. Congress. Your suggestion that sessions of the outgoing Congress held on the morning of March 4 represent "holding over" by the outgoing Members proves too much—because if the outgoing Congress's term ended at midnight on March 3, but the Members were able to continue sitting on March 4, then why couldn't they also sit on March 5 or March 6 or March 7, so long as the new Congress hadn't convened? I think we can all agree that that never happened, which provides support for my view that the outgoing Congress was permitted to sit (and sometimes did sit) until the term of the Congress expired.
  • As further evidence that holding-over was not the practice in Congress: in the years of legislature-appointed senators prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, there were lots of instances of vacancies when a state legislature couldn't muster the votes to elect a senator prior to March 4th. In no instance did a senator whose six-year term had expired on March 4th continue in office beyond March 4 of the sixth year, as would have happened if senators held over past the expiration of their terms until they were succeeded.
  • I don't think you are using "legislative day" correctly. It's a purely technical term, keyed into the Standing Rules of the Senate and (to a lesser extent) those of the House, which refer to events that need to take place on different legislative days, or the agenda to be followed on each legislative day, and so forth. In the House, a calendar day is usually the same as a legislative day, although there have been exceptions. In the Senate, though, legislative days have frequently lasted beyond two calendar days, and there have been sessions in which each legislative day lasted for weeks or months. This was achieved simply by having the Senate recess rather than adjourn at the end of each day's sitting, and had parliamentary consequences such as avoiding second readings of bills, resolutions going over under the rule, and so forth.
  • The fact that when a sitting of the House or Senate went past midnight, the proceedings are those of the preceding legislative day, is simply a function of the fact that a sitting is terminated by recess or adjournment; in the absence of an adjournment, the prior legislative day continues in existence. And during the period we are discussing, the Senate and House generally began each daily sitting at 12:00 noon (committees met in the mornings), so any late-night/early-morning meeting would necessary have been a continuation from the day before.
  • Also, if you haven't already seen it, please see the discussion in Hinds Precedents secs. 6694-6697 link.
  • (Late addition) Another thought—Is there any dispute that the Presidents' terms ran until 12:00 noon on March 4? (There are innumerable examples of outgoing Presidents signing bills into law on the morning of March 4, and there are plenty of statutes on the books captioned "Act of March 4, 18XX", so it would be hard to dispute this.) If not, is there a contention that the Congressional and Presidential terms didn't end at the same time?

I'd be interested in your thoughts on all of this; no rush though. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it point by point, following the above order:
  1. Senate yes, many times on March 4 there was an extra session with a different majority, since one third of the Senators went out of office, and most of the new ones did not care to travel to Washington D.C. for one day. As I said above, the new House never convened on March 4. (Famously the 1st House had no quorum in 1789 until April 1, and in the absence of a Clerk, no records were kept of the quorumless days.)
  2. The Biographical Directory (and Congress bios linked in the articles) states March 3 as the end of the term. We can't change the sources to make them fit into our opinion. That would be WP:OR anyway.
  3. The outgoing members claimed the right to sit until business was finished, as is proven by the abovementioned resolution which begins with a blatantly false preamble. They really could have sat forever, as long as the new members did not appear. The question is "Would the next Congress have annulled acts of the previous members done on March 5 and beyond?" Probably yes, so they did not dare to go beyond that controversial morning of March 4.
  4. Ok, let's drop the "holding over" for Congress members.
  5. Please give me a link to a Journal in which the proceedings of more than two calendar days (i.e. Day D and Day D+1 after midnight) are recorded under the same date.
  6. Quite right, the committees sat in the morning to prepare reports for the session, that's a logical/temporal sequence. So if the committees were sitting on the morning of March 4, would it have been the committees of the old or the new Congress? Or was the morning of March 4 used to receive the credentials of the new members, to begin the session at noon? There we are again, you can't eat your cake and have it too.
  7. Hinds Precedents are not law, they are guidance for internal rules, and permit the passing of any resolution reversing everything.
  8. The President is an executive officer, and remains in office until the successor takes office. There is no question that a President might hold over for a week, if neither the President-elect, the Vice President-elect or a quorum of Senators, who could elect a Temporary President of the Senate, appeared in Washington on March 4 (as the succession stood at the time), an almost impossible occurrence, certainly, but we're discussing moot points here anyway.

Concluding, the original journals (the most reliable source under the Wikipedia guidelines) of the sessions give March 3 as the end. In the absence of any more clarifying legal disposition which states the end of the term, this is the generally agreed upon date for the end of the term. That the session sometimes ended on March 2, sometimes on March 3, and sometimes early on March 4, is irrelevant, since the House sessions never began on March 4 either. Discovering now that once the Senate (or the House?) sat until noon on March 4, can not change the past, and can not be generalized. Metaphor starts If you sign a contract to work from 9 am to 5 pm, and your boss ask you one day to finish urgent business, and you stay until 10 pm; would you say then that your working hours were always from 9 am to 10 pm.? Metaphor ends Kraxler (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(Just noting that I've seen your reply and probably won't be able to respond with sources until sometime next week. I'll ping you when I'm able to get back to this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a comment in passing that the president does not hold over if a successor does not qualify, at least not under the 20th Amendment, Section 3 and before that under the 12th.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
We are talking here about the times before thw 20th Amendment, Wehwalt. So what would have happened under the 12th Amendment if by March 4 no President and no Vice President were elected (no majority in the Electoral College in a three-way race would suffice here), and Congress had not assembled since the election, or had no quorum, or had no majority for any candidate in either house? The outgoing President would just have gone home, and turned off the lights? Kraxler (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that the president (most 19th century presidents after the Era of Good Feeling left office on March 4 as highly unpopular men) would have been content to go off that constitutional cliff alone. He'd at the very least have summoned Congress into special session and might even have sent a message to state governors asking them to have legislators also brought in specially to deal with a possible constitutional amendment. Jeez, if it was Buchanan the North might have succeeded.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
in the earlier years, there was some confusion about what would happen under this scenario, which is one reason that in 1800 and 1824, extraordinary efforts were made to resolve the electoral impasses before 12:00 noon on March 4th. I believe that in later years, even before the Twentieth Amendment, this scenario was covered by statute making clear that in this circumstance, the Vice President-elect would act as President. In the federal government, unlike many state governments, holdover provisions are almost entirely statutory and there has never (as far as I know) been one applicable to the President.
I still don't see any basis for your statement that the outgoing Congress could have sat forever, given that it never happened even once. As you correctly point out, for most years (not all years—1917 which I've discussed elsewhere, being a prominent exception, but most years), it's not as if the incoming Congress was waiting in the hallway to convene at 12:00 noon on March 4th, shooing the outgoing Members out of the Chamber. Yet not once did they sit past 12:00 noon on March 4th, even though several times they sat until 12:00 noon on March 4th. I think that's pretty good evidence that it was viewed as a bright line of term expiration at that moment.
I understand the WP:OR policy; the issue here is that we have contradictory sources.
More to follow (I need to hit the library for some references when I have a chance). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I recall at least one reference to the Senate sitting so late on March 4 that they were forced to stop by the need to swear in the new vice president and attend the inauguration of the president. I will look for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've quoted a couple of instances on-wiki here, and there are more in the Hinds Precedents I link to above. Still more would be very welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. I'll look for stuff, but I'm not going to treat it as urgent, after all, they did it, and they don't do it anymore, and very little is going to change that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In my above proposed (hypothetical) scenario there is no Vice-President elect. Please read carefully and answer accordingly.
  • Which are the contradictory sources? The Journals say March 3, the Congressional Record says March 3. The March 4 is stated, as far as I know, only by original researchers who confuse the term and the session. The Continental Congress called the 1st United States Congress to convene on March 4, no time of day given, so that it has been considered for decades as a dated day (from midnight to midnight), and the end of Congress, the term being legally "2 years" must be the last previous calendar day. I quote myself again: "That the session sometimes ended on March 2, sometimes on March 3, and sometimes early on March 4, is irrelevant." The presidential issue is irrelevant to the congressional term too, since there is separation of the powers, and during some time, later, Congress convened on January 3, and the President was inaugurated on January 20. Any way, what do you think of my metaphor? Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, then why aren't the presidents from Hoover on back deemed to have finished their terms on March 3? I don't see anything in the 12th Amendment about "noon".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Read the above discussion, the answer is there, Wehwalt. Anyway, rather than changing the subject, you should answer my question. "Debate" means that the interlocutor addresses the locutor's points, not throwing disconnected tidbits of info about. Kraxler (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(outdenting for readability) Actually, I haven't seen any Congressional Record or House/Senate Journal that refers to term expiration on March 3rd, although I have acknowledged the Congressional Biographical Directory. If you can give me specific references to the Record or the Journal expressly stating that a term ended on March 3rd, that would be of interest. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In the above discussion there is a link to "page 280". It shows that the last recorded date of the session is March 3. This is the same procedure for all Congresses before the 20th Amendment, except when the last day was March 2. (In the old days there were no sessions on a Sunday.) The following essay may help to understand the matter. Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Essay on congressional term expiration

The question for the historian is: What do the sources say? If there are contradictory sources, who says what? Is it possible to establish what really happened? And, finally, what may one conclude? Let's apply this procedure to this case:
The Continental Congress called the 1st Congress to assemble on March 4, 1789. No other authority exists for the beginning of the term, the Constitution (before the 20th Amendment) did not mention any date, or time of day. The Constitution says that representatives should be elected every "two years". No other authority exists for the length of the term. No authority at all mentions explicitly the end/expiration of the term. Calculating two years (not two years + one day!) one arrives at a term lasting from March 4, Year, to March 3, Year + 2, considering full calendar days. This was stated as such in the Congressional Biographical Directory for about 150 years without being questioned.
Who says otherwise? A Senate resolution (as stated above) which claimed the right for the Senators to sit a little beyond midnight ("at 1 a.m."). Resolutions are not binding on anybody, except those present. Senate resolutions are not binding in any way on the House and vice-versa. The sitting members claimed unilaterally to sit until they are finished. They did so once, or possibly a few other times. This can not have any bearing on the legal term of office. A law needs three readings in either House, a constitutional amendment must be ratified by a number of States. A resolution is not even binding on the next-term Senate. It might be used as a precedent on another occasion, but the next-term Senators might just vote the other way round, it depends on the majority present.
Apparently there is evidence that, on a few occasions (2, 3??), the outgoing Congress was in session as late as noon on March 4, under a unilateral claim that they could do it.
Conclusion: The Senate or the House were sitting occasionally a few hours after the legal term seemed to have expired. Since no legal authority expressly states the end of the term, subsequent legislators, following common sense, did not find any reason to take exception to the practice. At the same time, since the original Senate and House journals always recorded the last day of the session as March 3 (even when the session lasted until a few hours after midnight) the congressional records, and the Congressional Biographical Directory stated the term as March 4 to March 3, adopting it as a convention, disregarding Sundays, and over-time hours, to avoid confusion.
The reader of an encyclopedia who reads "served in Congress from March 4 to March 3," should know that it implies, among other points, the following (perhaps to be explained in some pertinent Wikipedia article):
The House never assembled on March 4, the regular session began early in December, nine months later. In the meanwhile none of the members set foot in Washington DC (except in the case of earlier special sessions, on very rare occasions). Some were serving in State Legislatures, who when asked to resign on March 4 (the two offices being incompatible), said that the term would begin only when taking the seat. Resolutions (there we are again!) to this effect were passed in the New York Senate, and perhaps elsewhere.
The Senate usually held a special session on March 4, without the outgoing members, and without most of the incoming members (only representives who were elected to the Senate, and other federal employees and officeholders present in Washington DC would qualify on this day) to inaugurate the President and Vice President, or vote nominations, if a quorum was still present. Most first term Senators were not there either, until December.
The session might have lasted a few hours after midnight, and perhaps three times in 150 years until noon of March 4 in odd-numbered years, to finish the tedious proceedings of final votes on bills to be enacted. Since this was not recorded (the last recorded day being always March 3, except if it was a Sunday) it is impossible to say, in the vast majority of cases, at what hour (and date) the House or Senate really adjourned.
Final conclusion: It is unwarranted, and must be considered WP:OR, to say that all terms of Congressmen at all times before the 20th Amendment ended on March 4. Absolutely no source says so. Even the above quoted resolution of 1851 does not say so. (Please read carefully!) It says in the preamble (falsely invoking the US Constitution which is silent on the matter) that "...the session...does not expire..." (not the "term" of the Senator!). Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter
Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

  • This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
  • It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
  • If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
  • The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
  • Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
  • Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
  • Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Coming attraction

For years, I've been meaning to write a long essay about what I think is working well, and what is not working well, about different aspects of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, my aspirations for that essay have wildly exceeded my ability to block out the concentrated thinking and writing time that it would require. As a result, that essay has never gotten written, and I've finally realized there's no prospect of its getting written anytime soon, either.

Therefore, I've now set a more realistic objective for myself, which is to write up a couple of paragraphs of my observations two or three times a week. My hope is that sometimes my comments on the issues of the day will lead to comments by others, and maybe even occasionally something will actually get done as a result.

I will use my best efforts to write this page in English rather than in Bradspeak, and to avoid the tl;dr syndrome for which I've achieved widespread infamy. On the other hand, I'm still me, so no promises on either count.

Those interested can watchlist User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog and look for the first post in a day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

clarification request

Pretty sure this contains a typo but I'm not getting what you intended with the phrase "overused oversimplified" Nobody Ent 18:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "or" is missing. I'll go fix it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Sep&oldid=1077913533"