User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Feb

Mention of 9/11 conspiracy theories in the September 11 attacks article

Hi, Newyorkbrad. Hope you and your loved ones had a festive Channukah and a happy New Year celebration. I was reading the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer, and a letter in the letter column mentioned a New York Times article that quoted you regarding the ArbCom decision to remove of any mention of 9/11 conspiracy theories from the September 11 attacks article on Wikipedia, even a wikilink to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. What was the precise scope of that ArbCom discussion? Was it to remove any and all mentions of such claims, even summarized ones and wikilinks to the appropriate article on conspiracies? Or was it something more narrow, and the Times piece is just distorting it? I ask, because on December 30 someone did add a small section on the cultural impact of the attacks to the attacks article, and it indeed includes a wikilinked mention of the conspiracy theories. I intend to respond to the Skeptical Inquirer (though not harshly, since being bimonthly, the letter was likely written and the issue printed before December 30). I'm just trying to research and clarify. Do you have a link to that ArbCom discussion? See you at the Meetup! Nightscream (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Did you see my above message? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: you have been quoted (and interpreted)

here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark 2nd FAC

Hi. I assume you're very busy with other things (!), but since you offered some comments at the first FAC (last September) for United States v. Wong Kim Ark, I wanted to be sure you were aware that this article is going through a second candidacy bid (see here). A lot of additional work has been done to the article since September. At the moment, two people are supporting promotion of the article; two people are opposing; the two opposers are, to some extent, opposing each other (so that it may not be possible to satisfy both of them); and questions have been raised as to whether the objections raised by one of the opposers are germane to the FA criteria or not. If you do, by any chance, have the time and the interest to revisit this article and comment at the FAC in whatever way you feel is appropriate, I believe the additional input would be helpful. Thanks. — Richwales 19:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And additionally, I'd be grateful for any help finding a proper cite (in the spirit of Bluebook, if perhaps not 100% Bluebook-conformant) for the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. I was strongly advised to cite every legal item in the article, and I think I've managed to do this for everything except this treaty. — Richwales 22:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC) That's OK, I found the cite. — Richwales 07:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You are a reasonable decent person, apparently I'm not - you're included in a discussion of possible Rlevse socks

Hi Brad... You are mentioned in this section of user talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. In that section, I am suggested as one of four editors who might be socks of Rlevse, in contrast with four "reasonable decent persons" (you, 28Bytes, Kaldari, and Volunteer Marek). This is on the basis of a discussion of a DYK nomination from about a year ago. I have started a discussion here about the section, in which you are mentioned in passing, and I thought it polite to draw your attention in case you might be interested in seeing it or contributing. FYI, the sock allegation isn't bothering me (it's ridiculous) but I don't think I've done anything to deserve to be portrayed as indecent, even if by implication, and the section seems to me to be impolite. EdChem (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for bringing the matter to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page. That seemed to have worked as gasoline for fire. I should have known better. On the other hand, Kiefer.Wolfowitz was already commenting on the Rlevse topic in the Civility Arbitration case... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the following response on my page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz replies to EdChem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hi EdChem, What I wrote was ambiguous for the general reader, and I am sorry to have irritated you. My intentions should have been obvious for anybody who reads this page or regularly reads other talk pages to which I contribute. I was asked to think about why Rlevse or one of his sock's would have a conflict with me, and I tried to answer the question. Sexy Cora worked in pornography, one of Rlevse's interests. Rlevse and his socks concentrated on DYKS and biographies. Sexy Cora's proposed DYK was a source of conflict, in which you four might have been irritated by my "moralistic" tone---"moralistic" has negative connotations, of course, and my statement was retrospective self-criticism. New York Brad and Kaldari are regularly criticized by Malleus F, with whom I am friendly and for whom I have due (i.e. tremendous) respect. I try to say a good word for both, once in a while, for the sake of peace and justice. The Sexy Cora DYK was the first contact I had had with either. If I say that NYB is A, then there is no implication that you are not A, of course. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Betacommand 3 (again)

Based on your lack of editing this past week, I suspect you're busy elsewhere in life, but I feel I should mention that the Betacommand 3 is likely to close with a site ban in the next 24hrs. I see that although you have proposed your own remedies, you have not voted either way on the ones that have received most support insofar. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now voted on all the proposals in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt

you blanked my userpage with this edit summary:

(improper reference to living person, trolling; do not restore)

. even though i have been stalked and doxxed by brandt, your concern is duly noted, and i have restored my userpage without the caption. -badmachine 00:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been "outed" by Daniel Brandt myself and have serious concerns about some of his activities, though I'm not familiar with what he may or may not have done in your specific case. In my experience, problems either with him or with anyone else are not satisfactorily addressed by posting an obnoxious comment in an image caption on a userpage. I also find the GNAA usebox to be trollish and inherently disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

if you have further problems with my userpage please take it to AN/I kthx. -badmachine 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that User:Weev 4real is one of our editors, I'm not sure if claiming to be a GNAA supporter is as bad as someone claiming to be a National Socialist, even in jest. Still ANI seems ripe for trollishness today more than usual. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/National Socialism and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist, both closed as a speedy delete by me; see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we both agree on prompt and resolute measures for ending at least some types of disputes. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Except consensus can change [1]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas has been accused of being a national socialist (Nazi) for half a year unfortunately, on account of one user box, that was contradicted by another hundred or so of his other hundreds of user boxes, despite WP:NPA's prohibition against unsubstantiated allegations-speculations about a user's political beliefs.

Lihaas had previously clarified that he disliked the Nazi-centered understanding of "national socialism", which excluded earlier, non-German, and later interactions of nationalism and socialism. (C.f., the Bellamy brothers, Looking Backwards, and The Pledge of Allegiance).

Lihaas voluntarily changed his user-box to clarify his concerns and further stated that he was a libertarian, as I had suggested some time ago, noting a history of free-speech advocates like John-Boy Walton publishing horrible writings.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"I recall that the latter recommendation, at least, did lead to some useful discussion and policy clarification"

Do you mean Wikipedia:Community discretionary sanctions? T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Very possibly. Thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

NXIVM

Do you get the Times Union? Chrisrus (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not very often, sorry. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if you followed a particular local story. Chrisrus (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Desysopping

If behavior warranting desysopping would normally not be dealt with, but because it was related to an arbcom case the question of desysopping is raised and voted on, I can understand your reluctance to vote to desysop "while we're at it". But I would encourage you to consider that perhaps the real problem here is that it is too cumbersome to desysop administrators in normal cases that don't otherwise go to arbcom. I understand you appear to disagree with desysopping in this case anyway—I'm only asking you to reconsider, in general, whether the fact that admin misbehavior would have gone unnoticed if not otherwise caught up in an arbcom case is relevant when deciding whether to desysop. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Having considered the matter, I do still think the "it's happenstance we're here" factor is relevant, although I agree with what appears to be your view that, at least most of the time, it shouldn't be the deciding factor. (Another point you could make against my position would be that the drama that followed from this particular block, which is what brought it to arbitration, was predictable, so it's less a pure happenstance we're here in this instance than it might be in other ones.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

United States v. The Progressive

• United States v. The Progressive

This is a fascinating legal case, want to collaborate on improving the page with me? Please leave a note on my user talk page, — Cirt (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember the case from when it was happening, though it's a long while since I have read the opinion. Per the note on the bottom of this page, I'm going away tomorrow for a few days, but I'll be glad to take a look at your work when I get back. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your conundrum

I'm sure you won't miss this; just to note that I would value your considered comments, here, at WP:AN, or both. Geometry guy 23:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up and for taking my asides on the proposed decision page so seriously. I noticed that also you may be the only one who remembers the long comments I made in voting to decline the previous RfAr involving Malleus Fatuorum. I wish that with respect to at least one particular item on the proposed decision page, I were having as much luck in persuading some of my colleagues on the Committee to pay such close attention to what I have to say. :)

Anticlimatically, my own view on the "conundrum" is a thoroughly unhelpful "it depends on the circumstances and it may not always be helpful to have too rigid a set of rules about it." Beyond that, most of what I might have to say about the issue has already been said by one or more of the other commenters. But I've read your proposal with interest and will continue to follow the discussion. Thanks again and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I agree with you that rigid and inflexible rules can be unhelpful (I'm a fan of WP:IAR and WP:BURO), but some editors look for guidance more than others (I have just released an essay on this at WP:MOSES): guidelines may not always be helpful, but they can steer editors away from repeating past mistakes. Your conundrum is but one example: the whole "first mover/second mover advantage" debate is confused, and needs to be much more informed by guidance and principles than practice, because the same problems keep recurring. There should be no significant political advantages in the way blocking and blocks are handled: we should default to something sensible, or at least acceptable and minimally damaging.

As you may have expected, one group of editors opted to test a simpler solution to your problem at WT:BLOCK. The likely outcome is no consensus, as other editors have perfectly reasonable objections. But there is something to be learned from that discussion already: the distinction between a fixed term and indefinite block. The latter cannot simply be left to expire, when there is no consensus for them. My original proposal is still looking rather good (to me at least, obviously!) as a way of approaching the problem, if not the ultimate solution. Geometry guy 23:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be travelling with limited online time and access from Saturday until Thursday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitrary section break 2.
Message added 05:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My76Strat (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately, per my note about availability, above, I'm leaving for the airport in a few minutes. I'll take a look at the state of the discussion when I get home, and chime in then if it seems to still be relevant. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That is fine. I missed the note but certainly understand. I hope your travels are pleasant and I look forward to your safe return. Best - My76Strat (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

About banned users and the banning policy

Note October 2014: Since I'm linking to this old essay of mine in a vote I'm about to cast in an arbitration case, I've editing it to remove references to a particular individual, since they are no longer relevant and that individual is not here to defend himself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The most interesting issue raised by the current Arbitration Committee RfC has been broached by several people, including a few of my fellow arbitrators (I think Elen of the Roads got to it first). This is the vexed question of how Wikipedia should handle someone who we suspect is the second (or third, or fortieth) coming of banned user, but who is editing acceptably at the moment.

This is a harder question than some people think. There are some former editors whose conduct on or off-wiki was so outrageous that the policy of blocking their socks on sight and automatically reverting or deleting anything they write not only makes good sense, but is essential. On the other hand, the number of people who fall into that category is much smaller than the total number of blocked or banned editors, so having some banned editors sneak back in might be harmless. On the other other hand, pretty much every banned editor is banned for a good reason; contrary to what some of our critics say, we don't really ban people without one. But on the other other other hand (think of Arex), that isn't to say that an occasional mistake might not get made.

One response to allegations that someone is the reincarnation of a banned user can be "don't worry about it—either she will repeat the bad behavior that got her banned in the first place, in which case he will be found out soon enough, or she will not repeat the bad behavior, in which case what is the problem?" This is the response we usually use when we can't decide whether it actually is the same person or not. Beyond that, it may depends on the original reason for the indefblock or the ban and on much time has elapsed since then. The policy is clear that if we find a banned user who has returned under another name, even if she is now editing properly, we block her again and reset the ban, and anyone can revert or delete all her contributions. (See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting.) And as we've seen more than once, it puts people in a very difficult position when they are asked to go along with quiet, nonpublic exceptions.

I have a specific example in mind: a former user who was banned three or four years ago.... If he'd asked for permission to return, he probably would have been allowed back.

That's not what he did.... He's created a series of new accounts on Wikipedia, most of which have edited acceptably, though there has also been some trolling along the way. One of the accounts actually reached adminship before being caught and blocked, and he was by no means an unpopular administrator ... although there was plenty of eye-rolling in retrospect after he was finally caught about how blatant a put-on the persona had been.

So here's the point. This same person had yet another account, and under that username, he created a significant amount of valuable content—not FAs or anything, but good, solid articles that filled redlinks that deserved to be filled. And then he slipped up, and someone figured out who he was, and blocked him again. Being blocked, this editor-who-should-never-have-been left his contributions behind him, and frankly they were a stronger record of mainspace contributions than an awful lot of unbanned users could brag about. And later on, an administrator (whose actions were well within policy; I am not criticizing that administrator, or anyone really, I'm making a general point) went back through the account's contributions and deleted all the articles the user had ever created. From one point of view, this is what is necessary to remove banned users' incentive to come back and start editing again, without making a proper ban appeal. From another point of view, it's much less clear whether this was a sensible thing to do.

We (I say "we" because the admin who pressed the delete button a few dozen times was implementing our community policy)—we deleted his article about Black Apollo of Science: The Life of Ernest Everett Just, the acclaimed biography of a remarkable early-twentieth-century African-American cell biologist (a book memorably reviewed by Stephen Jay Gould in Natural History, which I've meant to read for twenty years). We deleted his article about the film River of Renewal: Myth and History in the Klamath Basin. We deleted his articles—our articles—about the Sarawak pygmy swellshark and the Melville Society and the film Lions in the Desert and the Azorean Maritime Heritage Society and a bunch more. (Added note October 2014: It would be interesting to check whether anyone else has rewritten those articles.)

(I'll acknowledge that I've drawn the list from the cry of pain he posted elsewhere when he'd noticed that his work was gone, though I have double-checked that he really did create all these articles and that they were good-faith, appropriate contributions.)

None of these articles would have been considered for deletion if it weren't for who wrote them. They were properly deleted in terms of our policy—but are either the encyclopedia or the community better off for having deleted them? I see all the arguments on both sides.

I say half-seriously that it really isn't fair of banned users to put us in these types of dilemmas. Fortunately, it doesn't happen all that often. Some people write lots of valuable content, and other people act really badly and get banned, and the overlap between the two categories isn't that large. Of course, the hardest cases for the ArbCom and for the community to handle arise, both pre- and post-ban, precisely when the same user is in both groups.

After all, we know how to deal with returning vandals, and we know how to deal with returning POV pushers, and we know how to deal with returning copyright-violators, and so on. But I for one am not sure I do know what to do when someone trolls us by sneaking back from his ban to contribute The Biology of the Cell Surface.

I suspect my TPWs will have thoughts on this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice essay. Personally I think it should probably come down to what they were banned for. Someone who doesn't play well with others who otherwise creates such articles... mightn't WP:IAR apply? I dunno either, but it's an interesting quandary. : ) - jc37 04:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If the user in question were to have been honest -- in fact, let me go further and say that if the user in question is honest in the future, and comes back as a new account, admits all his previous accounts, admits that he did wrong, and "stays away for a while and then asks for another chance while acknowledging that his misconduct must never be repeated"... then I will gladly reinstate the articles. DS (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have a viable option to a rebanning, and maybe we shouldn't. With the passage of time, there is a way back in for most of the editors we have banned, so if these editors care about the website over their own special interests, there are proper ways to return.--MONGO 07:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aesop's Fable:

A Fox of horrid moral fibre was a very good artist - but because of his character was determined to be properly and totally shunned by all the other animals of the forest. Still, he continued to secretly paint, and his portraits of Owl and Robin were so good, although signed with the name "Gnarph", that the Museum of the Forest placed the works in the Grand Gallery. One day, though, the Mouse found out that the "Gnarph" works were actually painted by Fox, and so Mouse went to the Grand Gallery, removed the paintings and had a wonderful bonfire.

The question remaining is (this is 2012, so there is no "moral"):

Is the forest better off by maintaining the proper shunning and destroying the paintings, or is it better off by keeping the art in the museum? Collect (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, a fable! Let me try!

An artistic Fox had such horrid moral fibre that he killed not just to feed himself, but to take pleasure in the suffering and death of others. He poisoned, he set fires, he planted explosives, and he made beautiful paintings. Other artistic animals became reluctant to contribute to the Museum of the Forest, because they were afraid that Fox would destroy them if he became aware of their work alongside his. The Museum directors told Fox to stop his evil and bloodshed, but Fox just laughed: "I make such beautiful paintings," he said, "that I can get away with anything! You will never interfere with such a talented artist as me!"

The Museum directors disagreed, however, and made an edict forbidding Fox to ever again submit paintings to the Grand Gallery. Fox laughed as he skinned Squirrel's babies, and said he did not need the Museum anyway, and that he had been foolish to be an artist because only fools made art. The next week, however, Fox began bragging that the Museum had not really exiled him, and that he was still submitting new paintings for the Grand Gallery. "Their rules mean nothing, for I am Fox and I do what I want!", he sneered, and other animals fled the Museum in fear. The Museum directors examined the newest paintings, and discovered that they had accepted several paintings signed by "Xof".

The directors passed a new edict, forbidding "Xof" from ever again submitting paintings. Fox laughed from his murder house, and said that the Museum was a colossal waste of his time; the next week, he pointed out that there were several new paintings by "Phocs", and besides the Museum obviously valued his work because the works of "Xof" were still on display. "Clearly", he said, "I have not really been exiled! The Museum still loves me! They need me, the pathetic fools! I am the best artist ever, and I can do anything I want, with no consequences! I need never apologize for anything I have done, and I will keep doing it! The Museum will never truly punish me, because they fear that I will stop contributing my beautiful beautiful paintings!"

As word of Fox's reign of terror spread, fewer and fewer other artists dared submit their paintings; some gave up on art entirely. The directors passed a new edict, forbidding "Phocs" from ever again submitting paintings. Fox laughed, and said that he hoped the Museum and all its art would be destroyed by a mighty earthquake. The next week, the Museum directors found that a beautiful new painting by "Renard" was entitled "portrait of the artist as he poisons a village's only well".

The Museum directors passed a new edict exiling "Renard" from the Museum, but Fox just laughed. "Your edicts are a farce and you are all weak! No one should contribute to your museum because you cannot protect them from madmen and killers! I shall return, and return, and return, under a hundred hundred different names, and you shall never dare to act against me," Fox said as he garrotted Woodchuck, "because my art is so beautiful! To see my art is to love my art, and to love my art is to love my deeds!"

The Museum directors passed a new edict, stating that henceforth, all paintings done by Fox, under any name, would be removed from public display and locked in a storeroom where no visitors were allowed. Fox was horrified. "Are you all mad?!?", he shrieked as the paintings were moved into the storeroom. "You are destroying my works of art! You are destroying my beautiful beautiful art! You cannot do this! People need to see my art! My art must be seen! You are destroying my art! You are slashing the canvas from the frames and burning it in a bonfire and relieving yourselves on the ashes! You fools! You hate art! You hate art, and you hate life! You are hateful and uncaring and you delight in causing pain! I shall never return to this cesspool of lunacy and evil, and no artists worthy of the name should ever contribute their work to this Museum of shame and horror!"

Fox spent the rest of his years alternately inflicting pain on others, belittling and denouncing the Museum to all who would listen, and painting dozens of exquisite cameo portraits. Periodically, he gained entrance to the Museum under false names, and added his portraits to the Grand Gallery. He would laugh and gloat about how much the Museum needed him when his works went undetected, and work himself into a frenzied rage of bloodlust and hatred whenever his works were moved into storage.

There is no moral to this story. DS (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone said on AN, but I'm not sure how true this is, that we should thank Z [another banned user, name removed here] for the "banned means banned" policy. In retrospect, Z could surely hold a long-term grudge or even a dozen and still have room for more, so I would not be surprised if Wikipedia's policy in this matter was indeed shaped after his psyche. More than one Wikipedia editor seems to have forgotten that the revolution eats its children though. Someone even wrote recently WP:Wikipedia does not need you. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to talk about grudges ASCII, might I suggest you look at the accounts screaming "ban him, block him, sock, bla bla bla" - and look at at those who were on the receiving end of sanctions he (Z) ruled on in AC cases, and those he issued blocks to ... then you might get a clearer picture of where the "grudges" really lay. Z could surely hold a long-term grudge or even a dozen and still have room for more??? ... I suggest you look a little deeper. — Ched :  ?  20:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at that deep enough, thanks. I might finish looking at how IP addresses from half a dozen colocs turned up at a certain FAR, which could explain how the CheckUsers were so confused in BarkingMoon case, but I have other wiki issues to dealt with, which I care more about. Besides, we've already established that "vanished doesn't mean vanished." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Very nice misdirection, and I did admire your "stop sign, "wait, there's breaking evidence" Hollywood theatrics; but, in the end, your oft linked to "eating our own" is what needs to stop. You've obviously been around a long long time here - so you know the score. As a project we are driving away good editors because of hard feelings, past disagreements, and focusing on "contributors" instead of "content". It needs to STOP. On all sides. Tell me how we get there from here. — Ched :  ?  21:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The theatrics, if any, were all pulled by Z who disappeared again when faced with scrutiny (yet again). If you insist, I'll put that data (with explanations) into a SPI for the record, but I don't see the emergency. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

NYB - my apologies, your talk page is not the place for this. ASCII - I don't mind having this conversation in the least - there's tons I'd like to say and get off my chest, but perhaps my talk, your talk, email, whatever is a more proper place than on NYB's talk page. I have some real life stuff that's going to keep me occupied for the next few days - but I can check in here and there. You're call. — Ched :  ?  21:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was perhaps unfair of me to single out a single former editor in this respect, despite his prominence. A quick look at the current WT:AC/N shows that multiple editors qualify for the "wikienemies are forever" mentality. At the same time, their dedication is not limited to wikifeuds, but extends to building good contents. So, it's a genuine conundrum if this is the "kind of editors we want" (if I may resort to Jimbo's catchphrase). Although Casliber said on Iridescent's page that it pales in comparison to the COI conundrum, I'm starting to think that in the long run it's probably close in destructive power. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The most important people are Wikipedia's readers. Restore the articles per not a bureaucracy. The museum fables are fallacious arguments because "the paintings" e.g. Black Apollo of Science: The Life of Ernest Everett Just aren't painted by Wikipedia editors, they're "painted" by real world people beyond Wikipedia and we service our readers better by having the articles than not having the articles. Nobody Ent 14:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a fascinating discussion. It occurs to me, however, that if Mr. Fox was painting things that ought to be painted, there are plenty of other painters around to paint such things. Are we to mourn the "lost paintings" of banned editors and shrug when other folks' creations are lost due to, say, overzealous new page patrolers, and people who don't know how to Google slapping a "prod" on something that's perfectly notable but under-referenced, rubber-stamp admins dutifully nuking it 7 days later in a batch, doing no research whatsoever before clicking "delete"? Fuck that. The first article I ever wrote here was deleted, not because I was a returning banned editor (I'm not) but because someone who didn't know how to use a search engine slapped a prod tag on it while I was away.

If we're serious about saying "if you harass and threaten editors on- or off-site, you will not be allowed to edit here", then we should lose no sleep over these "lost paintings" and instead paint our own to replace them. Here, I'll start. I created this stub with my non-admin account, so it will go through new page patrol. If it's deleted there, and no one cares, what does that tell us? That it's a non-notable book? Or that plenty of non-banned editors get their article creations about notable subjects "locked in the private storeroom forever", so to speak, and that a banned one complaining about the same thing happening to his creation is the height of hypocrisy?

Perhaps it's time to show Mr. Fox that he's not quite as irreplaceable as he thinks he is. So, who wants to tackle Lions in the Desert? 28bytes (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone else just got voted off the island. I suppose the 28bytes of justice will be unleashed on his contributions sooner or later. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You do know G5 is not retroactive, right? 28bytes (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No comment. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked about that here, but that's a whole different bag of hammers than a G5 deletion. A discussion on WT:BAN would probably be helpful to clarify the status on that. 28bytes (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

For those following along at home, Nobody Ent took up my challenge to re-create Lions in the Desert... and a new page patroler tagged it for A1 speedy deletion 5 minutes later. You can't make this stuff up. 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I know. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely off-topic: OMG, there are sockpuppeting admins, COI issues and huff retirements from WR too! [2]. Ha, ha, ha, they've just deleted some that from public view. Ask User:Volunteer Marek for further details. Some of it is back now. They have REVDEL wheel wars too. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, there's an amusing discussion about block evasion on User talk:Kilopi. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What was the last article you significantly contributed to?

Just a question, not an accusation. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't honestly know, which is something I'm not proud about. It's been far too long since I contributed meaningful content and this is something I regret very seriously. (I posted a list a couple of weeks ago, but that doesn't count for much.)

Like most people who wind up arbitrating or administrating, I came to Wikipedia to write articles. In my first year here, I wrote about 75 new pages, and in my second year here, a couple of dozen more. They weren't great pages, quite honestly—by current standards, they need more sources—but they were useful contributions to the content and they justified my being here.

Thereafter, I've obviously found myself spending more and more of my time on things other than content contribution. Why? Well, one reason is that the easy articles for me to write—the ones I wanted to write, and know some of the information in them by heart, and knew just where to look for the rest of it—those I've written already. A second reason is just that I've been busier in the offline world: I'm handling a major multinational litigation in addition to my regular law work, and I have been doing some law review work, and I co-edited a book in the past couple of months, and blah blah blah, I'm busy, but so too is everyone else really, so that's not much of an excuse.

Anyway, when I'm busy off-wiki, this reduces my time for Wikipedia work. But there's a limit to how much I can reduce the time I spend arbitrating; some of those responsibilities are non-delegable, and I like to think that in at least an occasional instance on the Committee, I bring an insight to a case or a discussion that others might miss, so I hate to sit out a case altogether unless I really have no choice. So it's my content writing that winds up not happening—and then I fall out of practice, and all of a sudden, I realize again that the vow I took in my RfA, that I wouldn't become an administrator at the expense of building an encyclopedia, is one I haven't been faithful to. This doesn't help an encyclopedia get built, and when it becomes typical of many of the arbitrators, it doesn't do much for the moral authority of the ArbCom either, as you have occasionally pointed out to us in your familiar, quiet, understated way.

You aren't, of course, the first to notice this, and it's something I have to fix, because I can write useful content and dammit I should resume doing it. (Although it won't be this week; see just above.) Thanks though for the reminder to that effect. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your obviously honest and straightforward answer. Maybe our differences of opinion aren't so far apart as you may think. Malleus Fatuorum 05:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The articles on consumer-advocate/environmental lawyer Donald K. Ross (author) and on George Anastaplo are inviting. :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Brad, you carry a self imposed burden of not sacrificing building an encyclopedia in being an administrator. You have your viewpoint. Here's mine (and please take with some humor); you're an idiot :) Allow me to show you some analogies;

• A tractor trailer is made to deliver goods. It can be evaluated based on how many road miles it makes, how many tons of goods it delivers, and its availability to perform its tasks. It does not operate in isolation. There is a distribution company that has to organize the supply chain of which it is a component. There are a number of employees of said firm who have to have the means to be at their jobs, which entails among other things loading and unloading trailers. There are oil wells that have to operate to produce crude oil. There are shipping companies that have to ship massive quantities of crude oil to refineries. There are refineries that have to process this crude into usable diesel. There are still other trucks that then have to deliver this fuel to truck stops. There are truck stops that have to be built and maintained in order to receive and deliver diesel fuel. There are tire manufactures that have to produce and maintain a stock of tires, and their suppliers. There are engine manufacturers who have to produce and maintain stock of replacement OEM parts for the trucks, plus their supply chains. There are a dizzying array of ancillary service companies that provide needed services to trucks and their drivers in order to keep them on the road; GPS makers, satellite companies, and launch platform producers to name a tiny fraction of these.
  • So yeah, you can evaluate yourself by how many articles you are or are not making, how many kilobytes of new content you are producing, how many references to are adding to questionable content. If you did so in isolation from everything else here, you would be ignoring the enormous effort that had to be expended just to get to the point where you could click "edit". You don't work in isolation.
• A infantryman on the front lines of a regional war is put there for the mission at hand. You could evaluate him based on his expertise in combat, the amount of days he is available and ready for duty, and his accumulated training level. He does not operate in isolation. There's a saying that war is 90% logistics. You can put an infantryman in the field, but if you can't supply him with food, water, bullets, weapons, clothing, protective gear, radios, maps, etc. he is completely ineffective. He's not responsible for those things, but he depends upon them to be effective. Without them, is fighting ability is virtually nil. There is no glory in driving a supply truck. Yet, without it that infantryman is useless. There is no glory in manufcaturing MREs. Yet, without them that infantryman starves. There is no glory in operating a machine that produces bullets. But, without those bullets the infantryman has nothing to fire. There is no glory in producing field maps. Yet, without those maps the infantryman is lost.
  • So yeah, you can evaluate yourself by how many corrections you make in articles, how many bad references you remove, how many grammatical errors you correct. Yet, without policy to back you up in making these decisions, the debates surrounding your activities would be endless.

I could go on for a while here but I suspect you get the point.

There are contributors to this project who feel that if you aren't editing, you're not really contributing. ALL of us contribute. You don't have to ever touch mainspace here in order to make incredible contributions to the success of the project. A printed encyclopedia depends on a whole host of contributors beyond content in order to get to the point of sitting on a shelf somewhere for people to peruse. An electronic encyclopedia is no different. Stop being so hard on yourself, and realize you ARE holding up your promise; you ARE building the encyclopedia, even if you never edit mainspace again. The notion that you must contribute to mainspace in order to be productive is antithetical to the crucial dependencies on which this project lies. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, if you listen to Sue Gardner's talk here, it's normal for people to move into management positions and stop writing significantly. She even gives Newyorkbrad as an example of old wise man guiding the younger editors (paraphrasing from memory). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Another conundrum

In your thoughts here and at the recently closed Civility case, there was second issue (after the "no consensus to unblock" conundrum) that caught my attention: why is MF so controversial, provocative, close to the edge; why can't he or won't he tone down his sharp edges a bit?

I have my own theory, so I made a small experiment on Arbitrators (sorry!) to test the basis for it. This took place at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Proposed_decision#"Editors are reminded not to engage in conduct that will not directly improve the level of discourse", where Pesky raised a concern that remedy was nonsensical, but was being ignored or misunderstood. I first responded in a light-hearted, ironic, overly clever fashion, illustrating the issue by the style of my response. This resulted in a witty response from MF, and little else.

The next day, I posted a much more blunt response. I dropped as much civility as I could personally accept, and engaged in hyperbole. An arbitrator responded in less than 15 minutes, setting in motion a response to Pesky's concern that resulted in remedy 7 being replaced by 7.1.

Now there may have been other factors involved, and I don't need to be told that a single experiment is not good science! However, the result did not disprove my hypothesis: when you want to be heard onwiki, don't tone your comments down! Our policies on consensus encourage this: if a third of editors disapprove of something, it makes a big difference whether they are willing to tolerate it anyway, or whether they vehemently object.

Wise editors only express strong views on issues they care strongly about. However, editors with very many contributions are going to encounter very many issues, as well as very many disputes. Such editors may appear antagonistic by voicing those issues strongly, but they would be wasting their time in commenting if they "toned it down a bit", because no one would pay any attention. Geometry guy 01:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto.

Similarly, a Midwestern friend told me about his experience living in New York. In the first months, New Yorkers would cut him off seemed not to listen to him and indeed would start to speak over him while he was in mid-sentence. So he adapted his speech, and sounded utterly sure of himself, in syntax and intonation, and functioned better in New York. :D

His experiences would not surprise anybody familiar with Deborah Tannen's dissertation, Conversational Style, which analyzed the discourse of a Thanksgiving dinner featuring three New Yorkers and three civilians. :D

(He also learned that if he wanted black coffee he should not ask for "regular coffee", at least until he was as far upstate as Binghamton.) :)

Alas, when he returned to the Midwest, people thought he sounded arrogant. :(

Perhaps Geometry guy is adopting an internet "New York" state of mind! ;D

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"It's good to remember that a dissertation does not need to be boring," commented Alton "Pete" Becker.

Just noting that I've seen this while quickly checking messages at an airport lounge. I'll be back online sometime tomorrow (US ET) and will take a look at this then. Regards to both of you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Brad... you and your stereotypically rude, abrasive New Yorker mannerisms. :] MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Give me the directness of a New Yorker, like those heroes defending Spider-Man against Doctor Octopus in Spider Man 2 ("You want to get to him, you gotta go through me!"), over the effortless superiority of the British public school any day! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless one learns that apparently "effortless" thing very quickly indeed, the British public school is a brutally unforgiving place! Pesky (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My experience has led me to believe that "effortless superiority" is usually neither effortless, nor particularly superior. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well said, MastCell! :D

This was removed from the article on Mathematical education, along with all mention of homework, as "controversial".

Nothing flies more in the face of the last 20 years of research than the assertion that practice is bad. All evidence, from the laboratory and from extensive case studies of professionals, indicates that real competence only comes with extensive practice.... In denying the critical role of practice one is denying children the very thing they need to achieve real competence. The instructional task is not to 'kill' motivation by demanding drill, but to find tasks that provide practice while at the same time sustaining interest.

— John R. Anderson, Lynne M. Reder, and Herbert A. Simon, "Applications and misapplications of cognitive psychology to mathematics education", Texas Educational Review 6 (2000)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:POLA at work! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is more to say here, but I would rather hear from NYB first. Let me simply note: (1) I love NYC and I have personally found interactions there very straightforward; (2) I strongly dislike sweeping character generalizations, whether they are about Americans, Midwesterners, New Yorkers, Irish, Brits, Californians, Scottish, gays, Harvard graduates, English, Australians, those educated in public schools, men, women, or small brown furry creatures from Alpha Centauri – differences between individuals are more significant and substantial than any trend, perceived or otherwise; (3) The ideal I would strive for is to be as polite and unabrasive as possible in effectively communicating my view on an issue (and that's not easy!). Geometry guy 23:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As usual, you are right, but wickedness has its short-term rewards ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh! Not for me: if I let the SnarkMonster off his lead too much, I then creep around feeling overwhelmed with guilt for far too long. I did a mild snark at an editor over an AfD way, way, back, months ago, and I still cringe when I remember it. On the other hand, the snark I did on my talk at one of the sinners in the December shitfest, though I struck it out, I don't feel guilty about. It was deserved; and for me to say it was deserved ... well ... that's quite something. Pesky (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

another example

Geometry guy's absolutely right. Here's another one where civil discourse (interestingly, on the civility talk page) achieves absolutely nothing whatsoever; and Nobody Ent says, in other words, exactly what GG's said here about why it doesn't work.

We're going about it all wrong. Editors calmly discussing differing opinions doesn't attract any attention. You should revert me with a snarky comment with an innuendo insult, I'll revert you with a sexist, ageist, and/or nationalistic insult. Next we go to ANI and sling mud at each other, and then we'll get some other editors contributing to the content discussion. Nobody Ent 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to start that RfC on that suggested tweak to policy, no matter how insane it might appear to be to do so. Pesky (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding: actually, come to think about it, the December incident is yet another example. Several people attempted to engage in civil discourse about the admin action there, directly with the admin involved, and got precisely nowhere. It wasn't until I gave free rein to exactly what my feelings were, on my talk (which has quite a few watchers), and the admin involved was threatened with taking the issue to ArbCom, that it was resolved. No progress until "the other side" showed its teeth, snarled, and shook its weapons. Pesky (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

TimidGuy Appeal

Hello Newyorkbrad, I have to point out that the TimidGuy ban appeal case has been already closed before your recent edits to it, the remedies enforced, etc., see [3]. I'm not familiar with ARBCOM procedures, but I would assume that your last edits were made with the assumption that the case was still open :) Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Um ... yes. Thank you for calling this to my attention. I had intended to finish my voting yesterday, but instead, yesterday morning I managed to slam a taxicab trunk on my head, and spent the rest of the day recuperating. My words of wisdom with respect to the remedies will, I suppose, remain unspoken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds painful. I'm afraid that I've reverted to the state the proposed decision was in when I closed the case. I can always place any comments on the talkpage if you like. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As you think best. For the record, I would have supported the vacatur of TimidGuy's ban, supported the topic-ban with respect to Will Beback but suggested incorporating a time limit, opposed both siteban alternatives for Will Beback, and was in the final stages of reviewing the evidence with regard to the desysopping (but leaning against it, which would hardly have made any difference as it passed 13 to 0). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, ouch, yikes, your poor head! Do the usual post-head-whack occasional checks on yourself, and take it a bit easy for a while, mm'kay? Whacks on the head are never to be taken lightly. Pesky (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I'm fine ... although anytime anyone disagrees with one of my votes or comments from now on, I plan to attribute it to the head injury. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Then more arbitrators need to be smacked, at least with a clue bat. I'm glad to hear you're ok. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, take it a bit gentle for at least a week after a hefty bash on the head; some post-bash complications can turn up, up to a week (or so) later. Don't allow yourself to be lulled into a false sense of security (I've known some real-life situations where over-confidence has led to disaster). Keep a close eye out; read this stuff. (>**)> Hugz. P.S. I personally knew this guy. Pesky (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That stratagem may work better for you than it did for me....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)