User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/May

YGM

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014. 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.

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

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

Availability note

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

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.

Crunch, crunch!

Here are some chips to go with your fish!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

examples of pretty blatant personal attacks

[1] 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

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

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

[4] 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)

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)

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) .

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)

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)

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

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)

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 district 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 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 succession 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)

I still believe that where "Wikipedia practice" is not in conformance with actual reliable sources, that it is possible that "Wikipedia practice" is the problem and not the solution. Cheers. I also note you fail to see the problem in the direct personal attacks by one and only one party here. My "rhetoric" has been exceedingly temperate, and I would like you to note that explicitly. Collect (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Would it perhaps be valuable to name the succession boxes with the census date (IE, the 2010 13th District, the 2000 13th district), and therefore there is only truly succession within the time period of redistricting? If it is non-sensical to list succession across such redistricting, why are we doing it? Its not really the same district, it is a new district that just has the same name. For cases where the bulk of an identifiable geographical area switched numbers, we could link to the new district(s) at the end of the life of the old district. This seems rather analogous to how we deal with succession in the British Peerage, for multiple creations. For example see Earl of March where we have Roger_Mortimer,_1st_Earl_of_March and Esmé_Stewart,_3rd_Duke_of_Lennox both listed as "New title" for the "Earl of March" and no continuous succession between them. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, my point about rhetoric was that exaggeration about the importance of this numbering issue as a BLP dispute, if such an approach is taken habitually, can undercut the necessary attention given to more pressing BLP concerns. I haven't said you called anyone else names. Beyond that, I have no great desire to review the talkpage history to quantify who has been how rude to whom. Frankly, too much of Wikipedia has struck me lately as a rudeness parade, and I am finding it very depressing, given that one of the things that attracted me to the project a few years ago was the atmosphere of collaboration and collegiality.

Gaijin, I understand the appeal of your suggestion, but it might be too complicated to implement in practice. You can raise it with the editors who regularly update the succession boxes and see what reaction you get. Personally, I'm still exhausted from my partly successful attempts to convince everyone that the presidential and congressional succession boxes from before the Twentieth Amendment need to show the term-end dates as March 4 rather than March 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC proposes to Template:Infobox officeholder to deprecate use of predecessor or successor names where there is no connection as a result of redistricting. Which should solve this. Collect (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That may be a good formulation for an RfC, but I'm not sure you've found the best place to have it. Although I'm not sure off the top of my head what a better one would be. Giving neutral notifications to the relevant wikiprojects would be helpful, if you hadn't already planned to (perhaps you had). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Noted at BLP/N. The only "prior discussion" was in terms of "Secretary of State" etc. and there was no discussion of "predecessor by district number" in the past that I could find. Where a rule "followed absolutely logically" has an illogical result, that rule is simply wrong. Or simply read "Pigs is Pigs." And the only place to affect the template is at that page - no where else would directly deal with the issue. Collect (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject Congress is one obvious place, and if there's a project that governs state legislatures that would be another. It's in your own interest to notify the Congress project, because if there's an RfC on the template and your view prevails but few editors participate, making changes will surely be resisted on the ground that the relevant people weren't aware of the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Brown

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)

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)

How are you finding the experience so far? I noticed that you must've read your statement a few times at least already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Candidly, if I weren't familiar with it, I would probably find the process a bit bewildering. But the experience is less stressful for me that it might be for others because I could guess the likely outcome of the case. (I say that based on my experience; I have had no off-wiki discussion of the merits of the case with the other arbitrators.)

I found the 500-word limit both helpful (in getting me to make my statement more concise than it would otherwise have been), but also frustrating (because there are useful observations I think I could make now, but I've maxed out). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United States

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)

Collect, I would appreciate it, if you're going to speak ill of me, that you notify ME in and give some diffs so that I can defend myself. Lightbreather (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You iterated a "notification" to me about a topic in which I am not particularly active at all, and where the "notification" came after I opined that all three edit warriors were culpable there at AN/EW. And note that I politely asked you not to repeatedly post on my UT page -- which you immediately decided to ignore to make a point of some sort. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You said, Unless you have strong reason to post here [your talk page], don't. [5] ... Unless I have a strong reason - I won't. (Sorry for the drama, NYB.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

C

Brad, contrary to your recent assertion, to the best of my recollection I never said in 2011 that I was unaware that there were later editions of Black's than the 1979 edition, or anything like that. Such a statement by me would have been preposterous. What I was unaware of in 2011 is that any later edition might have changed the definition in question.

Later editions very often add new terms, and remove terms, but it is much less common to completely alter a previous definition. I happened to have the 1979 edition handy, and quoted it accurately, and cited it accurately. If you had ever allowed me to present evidence in my own defense, I would have pointed out that the definition I used was still current as of 2000 per reliable sources.[6] When I was corrected, I did not object at all; I enjoy being corrected on the rare occasions when I make mistakes. I immediately used the new definition to track that definition down on the internet, and accordingly corrected the editor who had corrected me. And he thanked me for it.

It is extremely common at Wikipedia for editors to make mistakes, and to be corrected. If you are saying that, as a lawyer, I should be held to a higher standard with regard to law books, then perhaps I should hold you to a higher standard with regard to ignoring your own rules and the other BS that I always see at ArbCom (like your profound silence in the face of MastCell's disgusting attacks of this week).

Also, I don't recall having ever said that I was "unaware that there were later editions." As I recall, I assumed that there were indeed later editions. Can you please give me a diff to where I ever said that I was unaware there were later editions? Otherwise, your assertion sounds false to me.

This is not a particularly friendly message for you, but maybe you'll accept that it is at least civil.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your message is perfectly civil and I have no problem replying to it. (Although I am curious what your section heading means.)

You wrote on the proposed decision talkpage that "I quoted the 1979 edition because that's the one I own." I reread that yesterday, and took it to mean that you hadn't been aware there was a later edition. You are right that more accurately, I should have written "didn't have access to a later edition" instead of "didn't know there was a later edition," and I will amend my comment on the clarifications page accordingly.

However, I think you are missing the (somewhat) bigger picture. The point of what I wrote this morning was that I accept your assertion that the "misrepresentation" sub-finding was flawed, and I do not believe that finding should have been contained in the decision (even though I am convinced that omitting it would not have affected the remedy result). Thus, I'm not sure that we have any substantial disagreement on the "misrepresentation re Black's Law Dictionary" issue, even though I misinterpreted a detail, and I apologize for any confusion in that respect. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"C" stands for comment, just like in edit summaries.

I think I was very clear at ArbCom this week that I would approach policy-changes more carefully. I would like to discuss with you the policy change that I did in 2011, but do not want to impose upon your time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only, I accept that you will approach any editing of policy pages appropriately. I'll be glad to read anything you want to tell me about what happened in 2011, but for better or worse, it's become fairly apparent this week that our dialog isn't likely to change the outcome of your amendment request. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, maybe some other time. Take care IBM.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-profits

On a related subject, my understanding is that WMF and Wikipedia are 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. (Don't worry, I am not going to make any legal threat here.) Like any other non-profits, they are entitled to engage in issue advocacy. If the Arbitration Committee engages in issue advocacy in some of its decisions, e.g. by concluding that some material is given "undue weight," then that is perfectly fine, in my opinion, as a matter of behavior by a non-profit organization. If that is what's happening, then I would urge you to let it be clearly stated in policy, so that participants understand what's going on. In contrast, if ArbCom is judging editors and their behavior as a means to indirectly weight particular content, then that's another story entirely; it would be legal, but the ethics would be much more doubtful than if ArbCom just made direct decisions about undue weight in pursuit of issue advocacy. It's a matter of straightforwardness, and I think ArbCom should be straightforward even if I might disagree with the type of advocacy ArbCom engages in. For example, if ArbCom announces in policy that it is pro-choice, then fewer editors would waste their time trying to insert information that is not pro-choice, and fewer editors would face sanctions for reasons that mask issue advocacy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In my experience on the Arbitration Committee (I am the senior member in point of service at this time, looking somewhat forward to my tenure ending at the end of the century*), the Committee does not base decisions on the real-world political preferences of its members. Certainly I do not do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that some Godzilla-like creature tweaked your comment, Brad. In either case, I bet my tenure is shorter than yours.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

* I originally wrote "at the end of the year." I appreciate the desire for another 86 years of my arbitrating, assuming that the project and the Committee last that long. But given that I was asked this question two years ago, it is definitely time for me to say dayeynu this time around. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Question for talkpage readers

I believe it's now been a couple of years since we enabled Pending Changes (type 1) on En.

Has there been any organized review, once we got past the "test" phase, of how well PC is working? Indicia would be the ratio of bad edits kept out of articles to good ones delayed, how long it takes edits to get past the reviewers, and so forth?

This has been on my mind for a long while, but I ask it tonight because in a Wikipediocracy brainstorming thread, someone proposed to extend PC to all BLPs and company articles, bringing the question of how well it's worked so far to the forefront. I have supported PC for BLPs at times in the past, but as a theoretical matter without any data to evaluate it by. At this point it would be useful for all concerned to be better informed by actual experience on this project.

Relatedly, is there a cogent summary (in English) of how well PC has worked on other language projects that use it more widely? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There are SQL dumps purporting to contain metadata about all the flagged pages and revisions, with about 1800 pages and 360k revisions in the 2014-04-02 dump if I'm reading it properly (I'm hazy on the relation between flagging and PC). Unfortunately this info is not recorded in the XML revision history dumps (it probably should be) which makes figuring out your stats a little less convenient, though if you really want the info you can probably get a BOTREQ regular or someone like that to extract it for you. I think the acceptance patterns will vary depending on what kind of page it is (I looked at some revs of April 30 since that was the first PC1 page that I found), so the best approach is probably to manually look at a reasonably sized random sample.

Subjectively as an IP editor, I run into PC1 much less often than semi-protection. It's rare enough that stats probably don't mean much, as no cultural habits have developed. I do remember getting some occasional good faith edits rejected, but semi-protected edit requests get ignored all the time too. I'd oppose PC1'ing all the BLP's (or other large swaths of articles) since it still messes up the BRD cycle (usually unnecessarily). I'd support instead automatically noindexing all the BLP's and other articles about the activities of living people (such as articles about companies and bands), to mitigate the harm of bad BLP edits and also to de-incentivize a lot of COI editing and other spam. That should remove most of the need for PC1. The Google index on article space is the elephant in the room of almost every conflict on Wikipedia, and it's a pure accidental externality to our mission. I'd frankly be overjoyed if we killed it off completely, so we could get on with writing an encyclopedia instead of a cloud-based SEO app. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

[redacted, I mis-identified the reverted edits, need another way to identify them]. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• There are about 2000 pages under PC now, about evenly divided between date articles (e.g., August 5) that are little-watched and prone to subtle vandalism and addition of non-notable people and other subjects; BLPs, tending toward either highly active and very little-watched articles; and a hodgepodge of various articles prone to vandalism and nonsense edits. The edits tend to be taken care of fairly promptly; many are managed by the various anti-vandalism bots. Other than analysing each individual change request, I don't think there is a good way to assess the "quality" of edits that are being kept and/or rejected. Risker (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• I think it's possible to get a picture by random-sampling a reasonable number of pages and examining the edits. I spent a few minutes looking at FIFA 100 and didn't like all of what I saw, but my sampling method was messed up and I'll see if I can try a different way sometime later. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for the helpful replies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot request

A few months ago I created an article about an organization, and then created about 30 incoming links to that article (from bios of people who have been honored by the organization). It turns out I got the organization's name slightly wrong, and I'm going to move the page to the more accurate name. Of course I don't need to change the name on all the pages with the links, because there will be a redirect, but I think it would be discourteous to have the wrong name still appear on Wikipedia 30 times, so I'd like to fix them. Is there a bot around that does this sort of thing? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's just 30 I'd use Special:Linksearch and fix them manually, asking for some help here or on the article talkpage (I'll do some of them if you want). If you really want a bot operation, WP:BOTREQ is the usual place to request one. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't need a bot, just someone with AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) to run through the articles quickly. You can make a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks if none of your talkpage watchers with AWB jump in first... WJBscribe (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I am going on a little wikibreak, and I just would like to make sure that my wikibreak message is within acceptable bounds. Does it violate any policies or guidelines?

Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. Feel free to comment on the substance, but otherwise a yes-or-no would suffice. In absence of same, I will assume it's okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). It sucks. NYB may be too... too... (tries in vain to find a complimentary version of the words that come to mind) too whatever to tell you so, but it really does. Asking for "policies or guidelines" to prove that there's something wrong with it is... is... hmm. Again words fail me. Not doing so well with them today. I may be back after I consult Wordsmyth.net. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC).

You misunderstand, Bish. The question is not whether NYB likes it, or agrees with it, or admires it, or would give it an A+ if he were teaching me English, but rather if it is allowed on my talk page. The last thing I want is to provoke another bureaucratic shitstorm. A simple "yes" or "no" will do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not instead use a wikibreak message that says "Everyone look at me! Everyone look at me!"? It would definitely be allowed, and would achieve exactly the same goals you're trying to achieve with this one (or, at least, with this thread on Brad's page). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so there is no content in this wikibreak message that might be of interest to anyone. It is simply an attempt to attract attention, not legitimate criticism at all. I disagree. In any event, I would like to know if it is allowed or not. I note that Bishonen has had an ad hominem attack against me at her user page forever, so this one of mine seems rather mild. But she's an admin, of course, so no rules apply, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Misunderstand? Wasn't that what I said, and what I specifically objected to, about your question to NYB? Namely that you asked for proof that it wasn't allowed. For policies and guidelines. You know? By the way, about the words failing me, it's not so much that they really fail me. I've got the words, it's just that they're… strong. At least the ones that I'd use to characterise your wikibreak notice and your question are strong, Anythingyouwant, and you wouldn't like them, and then you'd likely make a fuss. I'm sure it would be a fuss replete with bits of policies and guidelines, but that's not to say I'd like it any better. Ad hominem attack? Oh, you mean the reference to your RfC of me? And here I thought I was being tactful in not mentioning it at this juncture as an example of your use of policies and guidelines — I figured "What the hell, water under the bridge, I won't embarrass the guy with that ancient history". Oh... if you mean the "socking" thing, you're absolutely right, I'll remove it right away. (It hadn't actually been there that long.) Now can I please get to post this without any more edit conflicts? Bishonen | talk 17:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC).

Sorry, there, Bish, but I asked a yes-or-no question of NYB.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

By WP:POLEMIC standards it's pretty tame as such things go, so posting it here on Brad's page does seem like a reach for attention. My main criticism of the content is that the "beyond the pale" quote is obscure, and difficult to read because of the green font. By comparison with your post, I don't agree with everything in this but it's written as more of an attempt to persuade. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then I will keep it unless NYB says it's not allowed. Yes, I also wanted to be heard on this. Maybe I'll darken the quote, thanks. I looked at the essay you linked, which is interesting, but I think my blurb avoids the TLDR problem. I agree with that essay to some extent; it would be better to have a Wikipedia legislature than to use editors as pawns in order to affect content. But on the other hand, I think decentralization is necessary to handle problems with users, much like the American jury system.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I know you asked for a yes-or-no answer, but the answer is probably "it's in a gray area." (The relevant guideline page, for what it's worth, is Wikipedia:User pages.) The bottom line is that I don't intend to do anything about your posting that message, but I can't guarantee that no one else will. Perhaps it would be better if I could give you a "the decision-maker has decided" response of the type you're looking for—but that would be just the sort of hierarchical, top-down approach you are complaining about.

Beyond that, I'll keep this brief, but your premises are wrong. You happen to have interacted with the Arbitration Committee (which I assume represents or at least part of what you call "the hierarchy") multiple times, but in fact, the ArbCom plays a much less central role than it did a few years ago. It would also be interesting to know how what you perceive as our "agenda" was implemented in the recent Austrian economics case.

Enjoy your break. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad, I'll look at the Austrian thing. Have to run now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Availability note

Mostly offline until Monday due to family plans. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The encyclopedia anyone can edit

I just wanted to respond to your history comment. In case you didnt notice, it wasnt from me. That said, its called the encyclopedia anyone can edit. That includes editors you dont like or agree with. You can continue to delete my comments, but you cant do anything about me posting them...unlesbyou changethe project to the encyclopedia anyone brad wants to edit. Btw, i do agree with that editors comments. Kumioko 2607:FB90:313:D303:A320:83DB:338E:D9F2 (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think there is nothing that can be done to stop people who are knowingly and intentionally disrupting the project, by flagrantly posting in disregard of a ban with the intent to cause distraction and rangeblocks, from continuing to do so, you are mistaken. Thus far, no one has taken any of the various steps that could be taken. It would not be in your interest to press your campaign until you create a risk of that changing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that could be done, including overturning my invalid and inappropriate ban for critcising abusive admins that think they are above the rules. Also, nlnone of my comments are disruptive, the disruption is caused from egotistical admins blindly reverting my edits to shw the community what gapoens to editors that critcise admins and the arbcom. You could also try a lawsuit and explaining to a court how a ban, from an anonymous group is valid and how wikipedia really isnt free, for that not anyone can edit it. Of course you would need to eplain ho flimsy and contradictory policy is here and how the wmf doesnt get involved in the community affairs. Good luck. Kumioko. 2607:FB90:313:D303:A320:83DB:338E:D9F2 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A civil action for injunctive relief is one of several possibilities that occur to me, although that one wouldn't be my call. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

True, i can think of several myself. But we both know that type of suit has requirements that my posts dont meet. Kumioko2607:FB90:313:D303:A320:83DB:338E:D9F2 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some steps that would have to be taken beforehand, certainly. As I said, it's not my call whether to proceed in that direction, though I will certainly express my view (outlining both pros and cons) if asked by those who could take such a step. There are other possible actions that could be taken against a chronic abuser that I choose not to discuss on this page at this time, but whose likelihood increases each week you carry on in this manner, and the possibility of which you disregard at your peril. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed i can think of several legal option myself, most of which have no precedant on wiki. Some like a dmce to my internet provider would probably be ognored by them at first and just make me use one of the 100 free wifi spots around me. Plus i would be less compelled to sign it as kumioko and make it hard to know its me or just some innocent ip.2607:FB90:313:D303:A320:83DB:338E:D9F2 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Meet up with us

Happy May!

There are a few meetups in DC this month, including an edit-a-thon later this month. Check it out:

• On Thursday, May 15 come to our evening WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle. If you're available Thursday evening, feel free to join us!
• Or if you prefer a Saturday night dinner gathering, we also have our May Meetup at Capitol City Brewing Company. (Beer! Non-beer things too!)
• You are also invited to the Federal Register edit-a-thon at the National Archives later this month.

Come one, come all!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

Hello Newyorkbrad, a moment of your time please. You said we shouldn't run this on the front page. It is claimed that, since you added your opinion, the article is seriously improved. I would like to ask you to revisit the discussion and, at the bottom, (briefly) state if you are still opposed. It is a matter of some contention, to put it mildly. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• PS--I just saw the "family plans" notice, and if you can't weigh in until Monday, that's fine. Enjoy your weekend. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is certainly in much better shape now than it was when I posted that comment. (I'm idly curious whether most of the expansion and upgrading originated with editors genuinely interested in Russian/Ukrainian legal/political figures, or whether it was more driven by the need to create a frame to hang the anime stuff on, but I suppose it doesn't really matter.) I still wouldn't mainpage this if it were up to me, but in fairness, I can no longer claim it would be absurd and a BLP disaster to do so. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, yes, somewhat, though an unequivocal "yes" or "no" is always easy, and I prefer it if you could be more black and white, which is after all the American way. Also, and I say this with the greatest respect, I don't think someone in your position (family man, ArbCom member, respected member of the bar) should use "mainpage" as a verb as if it were 2014 already. I won't template you for it, of course, but please maintain proper decorum. Thanks for taking the time, NYB; I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia meeting

Join us in New York!

I read something about a Wikipedia meeting in New York in May, emphasizing (IIRC) legal issues. I don't seem to be able to track down the information. Is this something you know about?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Sorry for not inviting you personally. The conference is Friday 30 May - Sunday 1 June in Lower Manhattan at the New York Law School as described at the WikiConference USA website. All are invited. Registration is free. We provide food and eight hours a day of Wikipedia for three days. The schedule is on that page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see the page for Wikiconference New York. I wouldn't say the conference as a whole will (over)emphasize legal issues, but I'll be giving a talk on some. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt responses. I subliminally conflated the venue (New York Law) and the subject matter. I hope to make it for part of the meeting, will follow up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Decision in the Raphael Golb case

Decision of the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) today in People v. Raphael Golb, which I discussed here. The court affirmed the criminal impersonation and fraud convictions, but reversed several other counts including the convictions for aggravated harassment and unauthorized use of a computer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Another case which is relevant to TOS violations and legal repercussions is MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting case, though it goes off on a different point from Golb. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Gendering

Hi, I don't normally make much of a fuss about this, but I prefer to be referred to in gender neutral terms on-wiki. This can normally be done by referring to my account name or just defaulting to "they" when it is necessary. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Noted. I hope it's okay if I use "Fae" as opposed to "Fæ." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. One of my legitimate alternative accounts is Fae, so there can be no confusion. --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"right to be forgotten"

Although I realize we are not hosted in the EU, it seems like this ruling could have some impact on our BLP policies, and certainly may have a more profound effect on some of the other language wikis. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?src=twr Gaijin42 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is not happy. Iselilja (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This raises a host of issues for Wikipedia, some of which are obvious, and others of which are less so. (One consequence is that Wikipedia editors' decisions as to what information to include in BLPs will become even more important in affective subjects' lives if other sources of information about them are rendered inaccessible.)

I'm going to address this subject in some depth in my talks on "Wikipedia and the Law" and "the Current State of the BLP Problem" at Wikiconference New York in two weeks. I'll link here to the videos of those talks when they're posted after the conference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Google case was no surprise to anyone looking at EU privacy decisions in the recent past. It does, however, strengthen my position concerning material in BLPs pretty greatly. This is not a "partisan matter" at all (for me it was never "partisan") but one of WP following what the laws now require of us. Collect (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting development.

One would think this unlikely to have a significant impact on many of the BLP articles here in light of Wikipedia's notability requirement, but what effect will the disappearance of online material have? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We will have to be vigilant about putting everything into archive.org or something. But some of the stories I've read on the law went beyond google and said that newspaper searches, archives, or facebook links to articles and whatnot need to be taken down as well. If that type of action is upheld, it would surely be force on wiki as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear NYB's take on the legal implications of this, because there is a great difference between "famous people" and "ordinary citizens" with respect to information in the media.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Prior decisions make this pretty clear - the standards for any claims about living people will have to be strengthened a great deal - unless we assume EU courts will find everyone here "notable" because we assert that they are "notable". AFAICT, EU does not use that distinction. Collect (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the ruling might usefully impel us to reconsider our criteria for notability and undue weight in borderline cases. But what the overall effect will, for better or worse, be is a good deal more complicated than that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Has any major court decision anywhere been clearly for better or for worse at the time it was made? AFAICT, this one is only "for different" just like the rest. Collect (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say "yes" to your first sentence (e.g., Plessy for the worse, New York Times v. Sullivan for the better). But my reference to "better or worse" wasn't aimed at the court decision itself, but at its potential effects on Wikipedia (not just English-language Wikipedia, of course).

I'm afraid I don't follow your second sentence; would you kindly rephrase it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We can have no idea right now whether it will be "good" or "bad" for how Wikipedia treats BLPs - it only guarantees that we will have to treat them differently than heretofore. And, at the time, "Plessy" was a "popular decision" (7 to 1 IIRC) AFAICT - no? People at the time would not have generally called it a decision "for the worse". Better and smoother phrasing? And since foreign courts do not use the Sullivan standards, it is still fairly easy to shop for libel jurisdictions (Singapore, anyone?) reducing its value substantially. Collect (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit : GNG is a much lower bar than the celebrity/politician "in the limelight" that loses privacy protections most places. We are chock full of people who pass GNG by a mile, but are still not "wellknown" who have tons of negative or personal info in their BLP.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Even so, there is WP:RS, so any online sources used in BLP articles are not likely to be ephemeral.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Even where the non-ephemeral source exists, the Google ruling appears to forbid Google from linking to such a non-ephemeral source. Including linking to Wikipedia where it is such a source covered by the EU ruling. Collect (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A question about redaction

While archiving the Gun Control clarification request (now archived here, Lightbreather asked whether you or I could answer a question posed in that request, which I believe is repeated at my talk page. I think Lightbreather is correct that this question will get lost in the process if not asked again; I do not feel comfortable answering, so promised to alert you. (Not a rush, I know you have other things on your plate).--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The request has been archived into obscurity, so unless the accusations are extraordinary bad, it might be best to drop the redaction request. If appropriate, a courtesy-blanking of the page or section in question might work. If there are follow-up questions, the arbitrators who drafted the case might have more background than I. (Unrelated PS: don't miss my note on your talkpage). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, assuming for now that what's done is done - for future reference, 1. Is asking for a redaction bad form? and 2. Is it OK to redact something one says in an ArbCom discussion? (If I understood Scal, ArbCom comments should be left unredacted.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a strong view one way or the other, as long as I can figure out what is going on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014. 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.

Kurtis ^(talk) 08:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Received, and responded. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I baked it myself. (No arsenic, I promise.) I hope the pie's sweetness shows that I feel no bitterness toward you for the topic ban. Steeletrap (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Please eat this first. It's important to have well-balanced meals. If you eat the pie first, you'll spoil your dinner! Steeletrap (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Availability

Traveling with limited online time and access until Thursday. Then back for a day or two, but probably limited again over the holiday weekend. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record

As you know, I've said this to some of the arbs privately, but I just want to go on record as saying it publicly as well. I understand how annoying the editor in question has been, but it's simply not right to deal with it by contacting their employer, regardless if it's "standard procedure" for people who continue to post here after being banned. It bothers me a great deal that a number of editors I respect do not seem to see why that is. 28bytes (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Have arbitrators been doing that? And if this is about Kumioko, he's pretty low on the WP annoyance scale, in my opinion. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I respect that Arb as a whole or WMF may decide that this kind of threat is required, but the Committee is pretty good at filtering itself from the over-zealousness of any individual Arb and acts as a check and balance internally. Allowing individuals to do so is opening the door to abuse, or claims of abuse, and potential legal liability for the Foundation if the threat is carried out. We are talking about real human lives here. I don't want any individual to decide when getting someone fired is justified. This would grant them the power of judge, jury and executioner with no oversight. I maintain that current policy already prohibits this as an excessive threat. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • We contact employers? Editors have been blocked over that, of course; I hope this is not our usual MO. Kumioko, if that's indeed what this is about, is a pain in the rumpus. I used to be sympathetic, even with all the socking, but the trolling is getting to be too much. Anyways, I hope that Dennis is correct. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's about Kumioko, with discussion happening in various venues. Neotarf left some links on my talk page. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
      • It is also troubling that there appears to be no policy (at least one that's public and easily accessible) regarding this kind of action. Making it up as you go simply doesn't cut it (or shouldn't cut it). Intothatdarkness 16:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko reports that his employer has been contacted, linking his user name with his name in real life. The arbitrators have now lost any moral high ground they might have once had. —Neotarf (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because an arbitrator/admin sent Kumioko that email message doesn't mean that it was an ARBCOM sanctioned action. Not every act (probably not most acts) by an arbitrator represent the arbitration committee. But I agree that there should be a policy concerning contacting ISPs of long-time abusers posted on Wikipedia. 19:06, 20 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz (talk • contribs) (UTC)

I suggested at WT:AC that any such notifications should only be done by the WMF itself or by formal delegation following some kind of process involving communication with the WMF. The notifications are about WMF TOS violations enforceable off-wiki rather than wiki policy that can only be enforced on-wiki. Since random editors don't have the legal standing to enforce the WMF TOS in court, they shouldn't be attempting vigilante enforcement with ISP's either. Apparently it used to be done informally but also only for vandalism rather than more serious abuse. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

True or false...

You don't want to be re-elected as arb? I feel like I'm always the last person to find out or something. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

True. December will be seven years since I was first elected and that is enough. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess...though for the sake of this place, it would probably be good if you didn't leave a complete void before the elections. I expect to disappear once again very soon without much warning as this was a brief stopover; there's way more to life than just what happens around this place of course, be it personally or from the point of view of the profession. And as far as this place is concerned, I've frankly witnessed enough across all spectrums. In case my absence coincides during a period where you are being given goodbyes, as you still have some months left, my uninvited sentiments (in advance): at least as far as a number of cases when I was active on-wiki, I have appreciated a significant amount of your work while I have been buzzing in this area in one form or another. If you do not go for re-election, I wish you will find more time away from (or disengage from) what you have been doing in the past few years and spend even a greater fraction of that time on helping the community more directly, particularly in areas where it will benefit from your input, and where the community can provide you with the perspective some (rightly or wrongly) suggest you may have lost over time. And to be clear, I am not talking about any one category of users when I refer to the community. There are issues away from this site which I appreciate have also had more of an effect on you more recently, but I'm not convinced about what you are actually positively achieving by going through it all. Anyway, I hope it will all work out in the end, and thank you. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I completely understand your decision and I think it is great that you served three terms. But it will be quite a loss for the AC as you had the perspective of someone who has seen it all at this point. I especially appreciate you often taking the time after a case result to communicate with editors who had questions about it and your ability to communicate clearly and impartially. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much NYB's 7 Years an Arb that will be missed, it is the ability (or inclination) to attend to detail, still seem the big picture, and at the same time AGF. Many arbs seem to assume "guilt" - I have even seen one state the outcome of the case in the motion to accept it - not read the evidence in the decision, let alone the workshops, and loose sight of the purpose of arbcom - which is to decide intractable cases - egregious bad behaviour is dealt with by the community. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC).

stand and sing

DYK ... that the hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? - in that hook I explained my first reaction to the closing of the arbcom case that had been called "Infoboxes" - I don't why, it had more to do with ownership. "Ich steh hier und singe" (I stand here and sing) is linked on top of my user page. Good news: I came to be really pleased by the restriction to only two comments in a discussion, then walk away and do something more productive, also: discussions have become quite nice, almost angelic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Arb Com Gun Control Sanctions violation?

A discussion was begun on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous in regards to debating and discussing the general subject of gun control and how such a ban in the US would work[7] in what appears to be using the reference desk to game the system around arbcom discretionary sanctions, or at the very least just ignoring them. My self and another editor have tried to collapse the discussion. I have suggested that the discussion is best taken to the Wikiprojects and warned the IP editor that they may be in breach of arb com sanctions as any edit on the topic must adhere to Wikipedia policy, guidelines and best practice. The discussion is beginning to attract the attention of editors that are expanding on the discussion that appears to violate the Reference desk guidelines as a debate. Could you check it out to make sure that everything is fine.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has again been collapsed, (hatted actually) by AlexTiefling. I support this hatting as this was an inappropriate venue to begin a political discussion, especially one that is under Arbcom sanctions. The editor was warned several times that the Reference desk is not a discussion board and that the tone of the question and wording was badly done and would only allow opinions and no real true referenced answers.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping didn't ping (?)

Featuring quotes about you at the top of my page,[8] I thought I pinged for courtesy, but per this discussion, it looks like I didn't. ("you have to sign in the same edit you're adding the notification.") Sorry about that, consider this a belated ping. (Because, you know, what's the fun without pinging?) darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 08:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for letting me know. I indeed had missed these. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Washington, DC meetups in June

Greetings!

Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:

• On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts!
• Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia.
• The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
• Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
• Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.

Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Fear and retaliation

Regarding this, you wrote than an editor should not feel any "fear of retaliation" for expressing his or her opinion. Can you see why many Wikipedians nevertheless feel this kind of fear is very real and valid? Do you think it is a problem that people feel that way? Do you think anything should be done about it? Everyking (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of my edit there was to allow the IP to continue participating on that page, rather than have him or her keep being reverted, which is what otherwise was going to happen. I did this even though I disagreed with what the IP wrote, and even though the letter of policy would support reverting that edit (under the "participate in project-space discussions through your main account" principle). It is frustrating that efforts to bend over backwards to allow dissenting voices to participate are cited as attempts to stifle criticism. The old saying that "no good deed goes unpunished" comes to mind and I not for the first time wonder whether such efforts on my part are worthless, if not actually counterproductive.

(Sometimes I feel that if I write on Wikipedia that "the sky is blue," someone on Wikipediocracy is going to say "that idiot Newyorkbrad denies the existence of nighttime"; and if I write "the sky is blue except at night," someone is going to say "Newyorkbrad's artificially cheerful approach is to pretend there are no clouds"; and if I write "the sky is blue except at night if it's a clear day," someone is going to say "Newyorkbrad is a scientific illiterate as he's obviously never heard of solar eclipses"; and if I write "the sky is blue on a clear day except at night or when there is a total eclipse of the sun," someone is going to say "look at that longwinded, pompous ass Newyorkbrad who can overcomplicate and wikilawyer even the color of the sky, and he's probably a lousy lawyer anyway, and anyway let's make rude comments about him for no reason six more times in this thread just to piss him off." I vent, but I digress.)

I do not agree that editors who criticize administrators, arbitrators, Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, or all of the above, are in legitimate fear of retaliation such that they need to post via anonymous IPs rather than their registered accounts—even though I catered to the IP's stated concern in this specific instance. Several editors, including both administrators and non-administrators, posted in the thread you cite as well as the related thread on Jimbo Wales' talkpage without being retaliated against or expressing fear of such retaliation. It is absurd to suggest that editors aren't free to criticize one or more arbitrators, or the Arbitration Committee as a whole. As I've said before, I think that among the long-term editors on this project, there are only about four who haven't strongly criticized ArbCom at some point or another, and three of those are probably bots. If we spent our time retaliating against anyone who's said a harsh word about us we'd do very little else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I applaud you for making an effort to preserve that IP's comment. I'm not criticizing you for that at all.

You say that posting critical or dissenting views is safe, but I and many others certainly do not agree with you. My questions to you were not so much asking you whether you thought the fear is valid (I already knew the answer to that); they were asking if you can see that the perception exists, if you can see why, if you think it's a problem, and if you think something should be done about it. Everyking (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't see that perception as widely existing. But then again, if it did I might be the last to know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have that perception, and there's that IP also, so that's two of us. Maybe it's just the two of us? But there's also the legions of people who have been banned or otherwise sanctioned over the years—perhaps they might also have some concerns? Everyking (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a very small segment of the community that does fear posting dissenting views, or feels they must temper them. Some time ago, I was privately warned by someone with more bits than I had against speaking out, so it may not be completely unfounded. I think that most of the time, the fear is unwarranted, but it still exists. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can clearly define the size of the segment that fears to post dissenting views (and I think that the use of the term 'dissent' is telling in and of itself), especially if you're part of the established crowd. I tend to lurk in the background, but when you see things like the flap over Kumioko (who can be annoying) possibly using a DoD ISP one does wonder. There are a number of other editors (and at least one Admin) who do the same thing, and it excites little comment (even when their contributions may be marginal). Considering that discussion on Wales' talk page tends to be heavily policed by self-appointed watchers it's also easy to get the impression that contrary or different opinions about Wikipedia's functions are not welcome. It is also disturbingly easy to clamp down on contrary opinions by using the "no polemics" stuff...although I do note a number of blog-like postings and pages being maintained by those who have opinions more in line with the establishment. Intothatdarkness 15:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that I can only guess as to the number of people who are afraid to speak out, and as such I would err on the conservative side. While I am part of the "establishment", it isn't a secret that I empathize with those that feel powerless, and have talked with a number privately. I certainly can't speak for those that feel disenfranchised, but I try to speak out for them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

In many cases all it takes is the perception that there will be retaliation to silence some people. And how many others just give up and walk away? When the culture becomes closed, it becomes easier to close off discussion. And the real lack of transparency and accountability at the upper levels (at least as they're seen from the regular user's vantage point) does nothing to counter that perception. Intothatdarkness 15:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a perception, especially on some external sites, that arbs use the checkuser function against people they perceive to be their enemies, without bothering about diffs or SPI reports. —Neotarf (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I became more active on offline Wikipedia criticism sites when I received a intended-to-be-chilling visit on my talk page by Drmies and Kim Dent-Brown after critically discussing goings-on at AN/I. diff It wasn't the only such incident to sway my opinion. →StaniStani  01:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at that with interest, although those two admins don't in my experience have terribly fearsome reputations. (I'm not sure whether that's a compliment for them or not.) Do you have a permalink to the ANI thread, by the way? It will take me a little time otherwise to fish it out of the archives. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The link is included at the end of the diff. The diff only covers a handful of sentences, and then you will see, Link to AN/I slapfight. It was connected to a sockmaster, PaoloNapolitano, who was trying to get me blocked. →StaniStani  03:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Do I need to say explicitly that I did not intend to chill anyone? Maybe it depends on what one calls "chilling", but I'm having a hard enough time to detect my own intentions, let alone someone else's. Newyorkbrad, you'll be pleased to know that at this very moment in time the sky over Alabama reflects light onto my very eyeballs and the surrounding environment in the frequencies humans usually associate with "blue". It's a real pretty day, and if I didn't have to take my car to the shop today I'd invite you over for coffee. No, let me correct myself: you're always welcome. And you can stay the night if you like; there's grits for first breakfast, often. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Stanistani, thanks for the reference. I've read through the thread as best I can (it's hard to glean the full context of a discussion from two years ago). I don't think Drmies or Kim Dent-Brown were intimidating you or trying to. I think what they were saying was nothing more nor less than "we disagree with the person who complained about you, as you haven't actually done anything wrong, but you might possibly be a little more polite next time." If that is what drove you to the Dark Side becoming more active on the critic sites, I would say that it might have been the last straw in your mind, but I suspect you must have been pretty well disaffected even before that.

By coincidence, in looking at that same ANI archive page, I came across a certain lengthy unblock discussion that seems have been going on around the same time. Not to mention any names, but you'll be familiar with the one. Geez, what a fustercluck that turned out to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I don't hold grudges. I didn't even complain except on my own talk page, and later I archived that. I'm not here to battle. I simply moved the energy from that weird little incident (and other intimidation, including the Santorum debacle and 'cooperating' with a few notoriously uncooperative editors now banned) into reform, over on a site I helped get started, where hundreds of people work to promote a better Wikipedia, and thousands more come every month to read and think. I like Alabama, I have friends in Huntsville. Perhaps someday I can break bread with you. →StaniStani  01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Stanistani, you're always welcome here, and if you're lucky I will have baked that bread myself. And I'll make some hummus to put on it. I have little affiliation with Huntsville, though I seem to work for Jimbo and I drink the beer from that place; I'm a little bit further south, for better or for worse. I'm still hoping we'll have a wiki meet-up here, and Jimbo, LadyofShalott, NYB, Malik, and other cool cats will attend. Not everyone avoids Montgomery, fortunately: I got to attend a lecture by Jim Zwerg a year or two ago, another sort of homecoming. I'm not familiar with the details of the Santorum debacle, or even which debacle you're referring to--I was sideways involved with some renaming dispute, and even thinking about that makes me want to brush my teeth. At any rate, I don't hold grudges, and I know you are a net positive, and you got a pretty cool user name. Call me when you're in the neighborhood. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

We all (I hope) support you in allowing that editor to contribute.

There is, however, fear of retaliation. I have received a significant number of email and face-to-face confirmations of that. And it is not unfounded, though it may be exaggerated. It is basic psychology to classify other editors as "good" or "bad" actors. That is why criminal law has so many protections for defendants. We should not be surprised to see this mechanism operating on Wikipedia, even without taking into account our editor demographic. Fight or flight response does the rest.

Moreover to dispel this perception we need well-considered, evidence backed, responsible action when we are dealing with sanctions. Those relatively early Wikipedians who set up talk page warnings understood the value of this - engage in discussion, AGF, and sanction only to protect the encyclopaedia.

Blocking on a whim, not understanding policy, abusing checkuser status and so forth, all undermine the intended collegiate environment. There are other issues I won't expound on here, but the culture of fear, whilst maybe not universal is certainly real.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC).

At the core of Wikipedia is a culture of fear paired with a policy of denial. Admins systematically ignore legitimate criticism and pretend, with phrases like "water of a duck's back", that systemic problems aren't there. It is the bankrupt strategy of a system that has no reasonable ground for operating in the way it does. Generally, editors who actually look at what goes on here dare not speak out. Kumioko repeatedly pointed out core issues in straightforward and easy to understand ways. Eventually he went into meltdown trying to butt his head against a system set in concrete. The system is wholly under the control of admins and their drama board devotees. Change from within is just not going to happen. Instead, we get the demonisation of Kumioko. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Admins blocking on a whim has also been a big problem here, and another that NYB has chosen to ignore. Have I ever told you about the time I was blocked for using the word sycophantic? Eric Corbett 23:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for sycophantic! Pah! Desysopped for tosh! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Loose cannon admins who block on personal whim is just one of the elephants in the room that admins pretend aren't here. Some admins seem to prefer partying. That would be great if admins were partying against a background of a fair and equitable system. But they aren't. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand partying in this context (WP:ENGVAR?) In the US partying generally means socializing with intoxicants. NE Ent 09:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Another perspective

I've given this some more thought. As I said, I personally haven't experienced this or seen it as a problem. but then again, I'm not necessarily the person who would know. The person who might know better might be an inexperienced editor or one who's been around for a long while but isn't an admin.

I can't really step into the shoes of such a person today, but what I can do is think back to myself when I was a newbie, which was back in 2006. Granted that the English Wikipedia and its culture of 2006 are not the English Wikipedia and its culture of 2014—but I'm doing the best I can here.

I came to Wikipedia to work on some articles, and I got sucked into the backstage, administrative apparatus soon enough and started spending some wikitime there and commenting on different situations and issues. When I did, it wasn'twith any predisposition that the admins or the arbitrators or any other part of the wiki "establishment" was always right.

Granted, my starting premise was that the encyclopedia we were writing was a worthy project and that the community that was writing that encyclopedia was a well-meaning one. But I had no trouble, even in my first months here, speaking up when I thought a mistake was being made. I posted to workshops on arbitration pages, objecting to arbitrators' proposals that I disagreed with, sometimes in strong terms, and suggesting alternatives. When I saw bad blocks I brought them to the noticeboards and got them overturned. I know that I was considered a major pain in the neck by some of the senior functionaries at that time.

Yet throughout this period, I never felt that I was courting blocking, banning, or any form of wiki ostracism by speaking up, and indeed none of these things happened. What did happen was that I wound up with a successful RfA relatively early in my wikilife, and on the ArbCom. As I said, wiki 2006 isn't wiki 2014, but I happen to think that if someone like me came along now rather than then, he or she would feel the same freedom to say what was on his or her mind as a new editor that I did; I certainly don't see any greater tendency among administrators or functionaries to "circle the wagons" today than I did then.

I can speak only for myself, and I invite responses from those whose experiences have been different, but this is the additional perspective I promised to provide as to why I don't instinctively agree with what Everyking and Intothatdarkness suggested above. (Ping also: Stanistani, Neotarf, Drmies, Dennis Brown, Rich Farmbrough.) I'd welcome anyone's thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I realize that my opinion hasn't been solicited and may not be wanted but I am going to make one anyway and if its not wanted then it can be reverted as any other unwanted editor. I think comparing the 2014 environment with the 2006 one is kinda like comparing Mcdonalds to Wallmart because they both sell french fries. Editing in 2006 was way different, there was a genuine desire back then to build an encyclopedia, problems were fewer and the editing environment was much more pleasant. The 2014 Wikipedia is a hostile place towards new editors and old non admin editors alike. Kumioko tried to fix this and they were ran out of the project and their employer contacted. Some agree and some don't with what happened but one thing is certain. A lot of people saw it and a lot of editors will think twice before questioning admins. Maybe that was the intent and maybe it wasn't, but that does not make this place better if editors feel they cannot speak their minds without fear of retaliation. In the early days of the project all one needed to do to be an admin (pre 2007) was to put in a little time and ask. Now they have to carefully manage their edits, participate in the right areas, don't bring too much attention to themselves and make sure their vote percentages are good in the stuff for deletion/discussion venues. Lapses in any of these areas will lead to a failed RFA, likely for the rest of the time they are on the project. I recently saw an editor apply for the tools and got declined because of an incident 4 years ago. If 4 year old stuff is still coming up, then that proves there is little hope for most editors to pass an RFA. 108.28.162.195 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I shares your experience, largely, up to where I got proposed for admin, and passed. Shortly afterwards I left the "user behaviour" boards - not deliberately, but because I was busy with other things. I met some unpleasant people, and took what I believed the "Wiki way" - for example voluntarily surrendering my bot-flag and re-applying for it - having a bot that could be stopped by anyone, including IPs. This proved unsustainable when I was subject to a joint attack by several editors, mostly with some Wiki-Caste behind them - I don't believe it was co-ordinated for a moment, but I can see why others in a similar situation would think so.

Lets look at why people might think that - firstly off-wiki contacts abound

1. Direct email between admins
2. Many mailing lists, some of them private, some not even acknowledged (including ones run by very senior people in the past)
3. IRC channels including the sekrit/sooper sekrit ones
4. Face-to-face meetings, that are mostly admins

Example: I wandered into the en:wikipedia IRC channel a few times (no public logging allowed) and on one occasion found people were spreading rumours about me. It is safe to assume that this happens a lot, and (from other examples, such as leaked ArbcCom mailing list) that people feel even more free to say things against common decency and WP mores in "sekit/sooper sekrit" fora.

Secondly it is undoubtedly true that a significant number of editors (admin or not) bear grudges - even if they are not concious. I had the pleasure of meeting a widely respected author in Washington, his recollection of me was negative - pressed he pinned it down to marking and ISBN number as wrong. I could give several other examples.

Thirdly if you are an outsider, not a "policy wonk", or of a certain mindset, then the (even arguably correct) actions of teh establishment will look like cabalism.

Fourthly we treat fellow editors badly. I would insert an example I noted while I was blocked but my archives are not yet sorted out. But WereSpielCheckers * Co's test of new accounts showed that.

Fifthly, admins and arbs (and established policy using users, who (to the relatively new, or relatively shy, or "content only" editors) may amount to the same thing, flout the rules, whether through IAR, misunderstanding, mistake or (dare we utter it?) stupidity.

Sixthly the marginalisation of IPs and the arrogation of power to Arbs/CUs/Admins/Rollbackers/Established users etc etc. We have constructed a real caste system and should be ashamed of ourselves. We should promote 2000 new admins, abolish intermediate rights, separate Arb - CU - Audit functions, set up a temporary task force to reduce and simplify policy and guidelines.

Seventhly there is a history of "bad actors" in the admin (and indeed arb) corps. And a further history of us failing to deal with it in a good way - at least at first. From Mantemoreland, "Anvil" and Essjay, though to Jclemens and Rlevse. And of course the current case - where we have Arbs saying "Yes anyone issue an abuse report to an employer" and even "I would have sent it" - yet we do not see them publishing their real names, ISPs and employers? This makes their words unbelievable, and increases distrust of the "ruling elite" (Can you believe an arbitrator was recently foolish enough to make a revdel on a page where their behaviour was being discussed?)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC).

On the whole, I think your experience is consistent with many people's experience, in the broadest of ways. A bit Norman Rockwell-ish, and less bumpy than my own, but normal enough. Being an Arb, I can't help but to think you are a bit shielded from the trenches, most in authority are. Not your fault, but just as you know things we wouldn't know, we see things you may never see. Time is a fixed thing and we spend it differently. I tend to migrate towards those who question authority (sometimes to the chagrin of my peers), as I've always been one to question authority, even while respecting the role it plays in keeping order. I think we should be skeptical of those with power, but still polite and respectful for the office itself. I believe part of the problem is that Wikipedia is a huge place. There are plenty of corners to hide in and get your impression of the place. Not all those corners are so nice, and there is no way to effectively police the entire Wiki. There will be editors who edit in an area and whose only interactions with "authority" (admin or self appointed) comes in the way of warnings. threats and templates, perhaps unearned, all with little to no oversight. This paints a picture of Wikipedia that isn't the same as yours nor mine.

Most people loathe the idea of "reporting" someone and a few are simply afraid; it is their nature in the real world as well as here. Others, such as you and I, aren't afraid to stand up and give an opinion, our different careers demand it, as a matter of fact. Then there are simply those that are paranoid or very contrarian by nature and will always see the worst in any action or comment. Who will see a block of someone who was belligerent but correct on the edits, and see that as a means of censorship. Some people are simply that way, and they may drag easily impressionable editors along for the ride.

One of the things that I have learned by helping out at WP:WER is that often, fear isn't always reasonable but it is still real to that person. Or maybe the fear is blow out of proportion. Some admin will come on strong, perhaps too strong, and not every man or woman handles that well. Or it is just a strong personality conflict, with one or both parties sparing for who can be the most blunt. It happens, and the impression stays with the person with no power much longer than it does with the person with power (admin). It creates an unintentional but permanent impression. Other times, perfectly innocent and normal processes trigger a response from someone that is out of proportion to the real "threat", that there simply is nothing we can do. That is human nature, some people are just wired that way, there is no "fix". Wikipedia isn't therapy. We don't point at those people, but obviously they exist.

Admin aren't the biggest cause, but it does happen. You and I speaking out when an admin is too gruff, without undermining the authority in their action, can be helpful but is a thin line to walk. It doesn't win you friends but it should be done, and people without bits need to see that people WITH bits will speak out when it is needed. Not Arb action, just speaking out on style or conclusions when it is warranted. There is a stronger, wider ranging lack of trust in that area, the theoretical blue code, which may sound odd to you and I, as we couldn't get 5 admin to agree on pizza toppings, yet that fear exists and we have to be aware of it. I don't think it is our biggest problem here, but it does exist and I think awareness of the problem makes it easier to see and less likely to happen. And remember, people who fear are the least likely to ever speak up for you to read about. Sorry so long, I won't make a habit of it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The last thing we need is another noticeboard or the like, but one way, admittedly probably silly, is to maybe create a page which could be prominently linked to in enough places to make it accessible, even to IPs (I have no idea how to do that, of course, but I'm the idea man - I don't deal with piddling things like details or problems) which might somehow allow quick e-mail to one (or more) experienced editors, in which an unidentified editor could suggest a change or indicate an area where they see problems? Honestly, I remember even getting fairly regular e-mails from registered users, not IPs, regarding the conduct of other editors on articles, because the senders were afraid of retaliation of some sort on that or other content. And I know that even my local police have a listed number at which individuals can leave anonymous messages regarding activities of others. The cops I've known hate having to deal with such calls, because many are cranks or general bitching or whatever, but there are also several from people afraid of retaliation. Maybe what we might be looking for is a sort of (maybe blank?) noticeboard with a link to sending a possibly preformatted anonymous message to editors who've signed up to receive them. Not being particularly attentive in that area, for all I know, we may already have one. If that's the case, of course, ignore this - it's just me being stupid again. And, NYB, I think you'll probably have to remember that some people will criticize you most strongly for being insensitive about the color-blind when referring to the color of the sky. Shameful. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

First, I just want to make it clear that the comment above was clearly and I hope obviously intended as a joke, and in no way to be interpreted as being in any way anything like a legitimate basis for complaint. And I apologize if it seems that I was in any way indicating anything but contempt for the kind of smart-ass comments you indicate are made about you on other, um, revenge sites. Also, I have started a possible discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#noticeboard for anonymous complaints, particularly for cases of fear of retaliation about I guess what sort of structure such a possible noticeboard might have. I have a feeling someone with a law degree might know more than someone with a religion/cultural anthropology degree about basic legal matters, and would welcome your input or that of anyone else who might see this regarding whether such a proposal is potentially useful and/or workable. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think WRT groupthink, badsites, us vs them mentality and bullying and hypocritical behaviour were on the whole worse then than now. Can't be fucked giving examples right now as need to do some content editing to put myself in a better mood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

NewYorkBrad....Casliber....Jimbo....Queen Elizabeth....are all Reptilians, so they are part of the galactic power structure that mere humans or subhumans are unknowingly subservient to....it is just the way things are.--MONGO 14:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

See User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You is "geographical"? WTF does that mean? You is like mebbe baby Cybertron or Mogo? John Carter (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure all the non-admins posting here are keen to welcome their reptilian overlords. And I wouldn't have posted even that little if I wasn't already a dead user walking. (What was the question again?) —Neotarf (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N

Kindly review [9] specifically such edits as [10], [11], [12] and note I not only listed all my watchlisted articles, and cited a handful which made clear my editing sans regarde to any political POV, and I also demurred strongly on the use of that noticeboard for specific and gratuitous direct personal attacks.

Note also in the past: [13], and innumerable similar edits. Each time he escalates his rhetoric, which I find a tad outre unless his goal is specifically harassment. [14] shows Lar using MzM's wikistalker tool -- which I then experimented with on a substantial number of editors chosen to have similar edit counts. The cavil came back: Who are you quoting? What is "random active editors?" What tool did you use to select them? Wait, don't answer, I've figured it out - this is pseudoscience, right - where you use the trappings of science, but then just say what you think is true? Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC) where the tool has first been used by Lar (later chased away). As soon as you selected by hand, you turned statistical analysis into pseudoscience. There are actual professional mathematicians and statisticians reading this. The way you do a study is to create a hypothesis, design a test, execute the test, report the results and draw conclusions. You didn't follow this model, but you did use the trappings of a study. Look, if you want to say "I futzed with a tool for a bit and it seems to me (conclusion)" go crazy, but please don't dress it up in the trappings of science. Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC) which was odd as I used 'editors in sequential number of edits which is a quite scientific methodology. I suppose this was my first truly "interesting interaction" with that editor, but he has decidedly kept up on my edits <g>. You have presented a hypothesis with a word that does not have meaning. What is "connectedness?" Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC) , ##This will be my final say here, as it's become clear that you're not listening. What you want to do is present your Hypothesis, then present a test of your Hypothesis, then report the results of that test, then draw conclusions. If you use words that are not clear and plain in meaning, you'll want to explain their meaning - typically accomnplished by saying "WordIMadeUp means (blah)." - you'll see how that's different than whatever you wrote directly above, which at no point defines "connectedness." Finally, after designing the test, you'll want to wait for comments from others, as they might help you see weakness in your test design. Now, I grant you the lastword. Hipocrite (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC),

[15] shows hi deep concern for WP:BLP. One may note the absence of his addition currently. [16] also shows his abiding concern for WP:BLP. Not in article for fairly obvious reasons. He monitored my user talk page [17] , [18] shows a "dismissive attitude" far beyond anything I ever posted on Wikipedia. And [19] has him "apologize" for using "YCSI" to me in a post while using it as a section title on my UT page! [20] is a splendid example of further harassment on my UT page. Not to mention [21].

The icing on the cake is [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] , [29] which was textbook harassment two years ago.

In short one editor has quite a fixation on me, me personally, and on my edits. I suspect strongly this dates back to Lar and WMC, but why he is fixated on me personally is outre. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I will need to spend my wikitime for the next couple of days finishing up preparing my talks for the wikiconference this weekend, but I'll take a look at this after that if the problem persists that long.

Incidentally, what is the status of the RfC on political succession boxes? I'm afraid I lost track of that one, and meant to get back to it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The RFC has near unanimous approval -- especially since providing "absolutely correct information which is absolutely useless" (the anecdote about the helicopter lost in fog near Seattle comes to mind) is not a truly great encyclopedic usage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I know that one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I can’t think of a search term that would lead to a proper telling of the joke without giving away the punchline, so here’s a short version. Scenario as above, disoriented pilot spots a lit office window and approaches; passenger writes “Where are we?” on a memo pad and holds it up to the window; after a moment someone inside holds up a sign reading “In a helicopter.“ Pilot immediately sets a course and soon lands at an airport; passenger asks how he knew where they were; pilot replies the only place that office could have been was Microsoft HQ.—Odysseus1479 20:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)