Jump to content

User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2015/Dec

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


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Judiciary of New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Appellate Division. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Domo arigato, Mister Roboto. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Dec 9: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC; Dec 12: Art & Law editathon + Dec 13: Black Film editathon

Wednesday December 9, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project!

We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, and welcome input from community members on the sorts of projects the chapter should support through both volunteer and budgetary efforts.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! (One talk this month will be on use of Wikipedia press passes for photographers.) Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Bonus events, RSVP now for our upcoming editathons:

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Article collaborator wanted -- Modest Stein

"A Live Wire", cover of Puck (magazine) v. 76, no. 1953, for August 8, 1914, painted by Modest Stein.

I've been doing some work recently involving old pulp magazines, and came to the conclusion that the cover artist for many of them, Modest Stein (1871-1958), should have a Wikipedia article. In Googling him last night (actually I began by looking for his Wikipedia article and discovering that there isn't one), I was startled to learn that besides drawing lots of covers for publications like All-Story Weekly and Detective Story and later becoming a portrait artist, he is best remembered as a confidant of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. There's clearly a story waiting to be told here, but it's one a bit outside my expertises ... does anyone have access to good sources in any of these areas who might want to work with me on this one? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeing little response from those likely more suited for the task ... how would this work? Would you want to work in main space directly, or in your private space initially? Would you prefer to wait until enough can be found so a good article (or even good article) can be written, or to start with a stub with dribs and drabs of sources? --GRuban (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I recommend just doing it in mainspace. I don't think I've ever used a draft. With most articles the traffic and vandalism is really low, so edit conflicts are nonexistent. And sometimes some helpful passersby fix typos, cats etc.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Cas, I disagree with you somewhat there; there are often good reasons to work in sandboxes. The two obvious cases are (1) writing something on a controversial topic, and taking an "incorporate the material from one source at a time" approach, in which case you don't want a live article which only presents one side of the matter because you haven't yet got around to incorporating the material giving opposing views; and (2) where you plan a total head-to-toe rewrite of an existing and already adequate article, in which case it makes more sense to keep the existing article visible until such time as the rewritten version is of a better quality (good example here). Working in a sandbox and then cut-and-pasting (rather than moving the sandbox) also has the advantage of the article history not being clogged with hundreds of minor edits as you fix your own grammar and typos prior to going live (although doing it that way depresses your mainspace edit ratio if that's important to you; for attribution purposes it's also not really viable if more than one person made significant edits to the draft). ‑ iridescent 11:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I actually just meant "draft" in the sense of "an early version" and hadn't thought yet about where to write it. I've actually done all my article drafting in mainspace before, though I've used my sandbox for some other things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Fairly obvious suggestion if you haven't done so already: go through List of science fiction and fantasy artists looking for articles which actually have decent sourcing and writing, find out who wrote them and ask if they'd be interested. ‑ iridescent 12:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found a large resolution public domain scan of one of his illustrations (there are plenty of PD images online, since he illustrated many magazines before 1923, but this one might be the largest resolution, it's from a Library of Congress scan), have started a few links at User:GRuban/Modest Stein, and have access to Sasha and Emma: The Anarchist Odyssey of Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman, by Paul Avrich and Karen Avrich, and Emma Goldman's Living My Life. I often work slowly (case in point), and see you do too, so if we want to make a DYK, we should work in one of our private spaces, or we might well take longer than a week to put together an article. If other collaborators want in too, we can probably let them in too; I don't anticipate any trouble with edit warriors, as he's been dead a while. --GRuban (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@GRuban: Thanks. This is good stuff. I have to be pretty much offline this weekend (chairing these events) but will be back to you on this early next week. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Then I must expect long periods of inactivity interspersed with flashes of brilliance. Sounds acceptable, except for the likelihood that I will be found mysteriously murdered. Oh well, have to take the rough with the smooth, I guess. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Objection!"

Re your "This dispute and case have multiple causes, but a main one of them is Eric's refusal on principle to appeal blocks".

Eric's decision (and principle) to not appeal blocks, doesn't cause anything - let alone a "dispute". (It might spark or be catalyst for others to decide to initiate a dispute, but it certainly isn't the cause of one. So why make that statement and misuse that word, it's sloppy and untrue [i.e. false blame]. p.s. You are an attorney?!) IHTS (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO, I think you need to read the entire post, including the linked essay(?) about the feminine parental unit who makes the "rules", to ascertain the full context of what is offered. While I agree with you (IHTS), that Eric's principles are not the "'main' cause" of a lengthy, and ongoing, dispute ... well - not a question to me, so I can't answer for NYB. Apologies to you both for my interruption. — Ched :  ?  07:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: (and also @Hawkeye7: who made a similar point on the PD talkpage)): Thanks for your comment, but I do think Eric's position that he won't appeal blocks was a significant contributing "cause" of the case, at least in the "but-for causation" sense of "if he didn't do that, we wouldn't be here." As evidence of that, consider the hypothetical scenario in which all prior events were the same: Eric makes his comments on User talk:Jimbo and Kirill blocks him for 30 days. But now suppose that Eric posts an unblock request, triggering a spirited discussion on AN or AE. Based on all the input we've seen on the case pages, the weight of administrator opinion is that the block length was excessive, and hence the discussion would have concluded with the block shortened to a more proportionate length, say 3 days. (There would have been people, perhaps including myself, arguing in favor of overturning this particular block altogether, but there might well not have been sufficient consensus for that.) In those circumstances, I don't think Black Kite would have felt impelled to bring a case, and I don't think Yngvadottor would have acted unilaterally with an ongoing, productive discussion taking place. Hence my conclusion that more likely than not, if Eric had posted an unblock appeal, we wouldn't still have this case pending five weeks later. That wasn't meant as an aspersion or blame-casting, just a passing observation, and of course, you or others may analyze the facts or the hypothetical differently. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
There would have been no discussion. Yngvadottor would have acted unilaterally to lift the block out of process. In the Civility case, ArbCom called this wheel-warring, so an ArbCom case may have immediately followed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It is plausible that, in a counterfactual universe, if Eric Corbett always appealed disproportionate blocks (aka those with "deterrence"/"recidivist" rationales) that there would be fewer unilateral unblocks, and therefore, putatively, less drama overall. But why assume that an IAR unblock, when the blockee is not actively appealing, is any less likely, when the blockee *is* actively appealing? Sitting arbs seem stuck on the idea, that If There Was Only A Firm Rule, that nobody could be unblocked, unless that blockee *personally* started the appeals-proceedings... but that is illogical, because WP:IAR trumps even the firmest of "firm" rules like that.
  A more interesting question, in my mind, is why the original block was made unilaterally, as in, without opening up a discussion at the AE noticeboard or usertalk. The unblock is invariably referred to as unilateral, aka a cowgirl unblock, and people using such language also tend to invariably point out the it was "out of process" and therefore presumably bad. What about the block, though? It was unilateral, it was even arguably out of process, although within the wide bounds of discretion given to individual admins.
  In mainspace, we have wiki-tradition which encourages people to be WP:BOLD when thinking about making an edit, since it is easy to revert, but we have rules about re-reverting. Arbcom seems pretty intent on setting policy which makes the bold unilateral block easy, and the bold unilateral unblock perilous, as a means to deter a hypothetical wheel-war (aka the re-block). Personally, I'd rather see bold-reverts discouraged in mainspace, and bold-blocks discouraged in arb-space, not vice versa. Is that latter thing actually a dedicated namespace yet? Hmmmm. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me jump in and answer that one. People like myself will never report a violation to AE because we will be blocked. It will be called a vexatious complaint and they will block the reporter. That is why the person who reported the violation to Kiril wants to remain anonymous, and why Black Kite was demanding that Kiril be forced to disclose the editor's name - so a block could be issued as a warning to others. That is why Courcelles was pushing for a change in procedure to allow violations to be reported to ArbCom instead. Kiril knew full well what would happen if he took the issue to AE for discussion. Black Kite would close the discussion within minutes, as he did in AE1. And John did in Civility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting set of comments, though I think I won't pursue these issues further at this point. FYI, the size of "arb-space" has actually shrunk dramatically over the past few years, as I've discussed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I read your BradBlogTM and enjoy it, especially the bit about Food Stays In The Kitchen. And while I agree that the case-load is much reduced now, I submit that the impact of arb-remedies is higher than ever: *all* our million-plus BLP-pages broadly construed are now under discretionary sanctions, *all* USA politics pages broadly construed are under arbcom's remit now, any comment *anywhere* on gender broadly construed is potentially subject to AE sanctions, and so on. This is a far cry from 2008, when Scientology and WP:ARBPIA were the topically-narrow hotbeds of arbcom-related activity, tightly-construed WP:MEDRS was fresh off the presses, and WP:ASPERSIONS had yet to be codified. I'm sure there is a Latin phrase for "legislating from the bench" though I don't know what it is.  :-)     Kritarchy maybe, but we just have a stub for that? In any case, I'll take the hint about pursuing these issues/questions elsewhere-ish.
  p.s. Despite my numerology joke, I do think arbcom has a definite role on the 'pedia, especially extra-tricksy cases where checkuser/oversight evidence is involved -- a very tough job, and a very valuable one. I just wish there was a clearer goal beyond halting disruptive behavior, to go ahead and take a stab at solving intractable content-disputes and personality-disputes which *lead* to that disruptive behavior, if at all possible without sprinkling WP:ACDS templates everywhere, like a wikiproject gone wild. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
You're right that quite a swath of the encyclopedia is now theoretically subject to discretionary sanctions, but it's also fair to say that only a small fraction of the articles that could be subject to DS are actually affected by them (particularly in the very broad category of "all BLPs"). Note also that in recent years, community discussions on ANI have placed some articles or topic-areas under the equivalent of DS, so it's not an ArbCom-only institution any more. Basically, at this point we have two sets of editing rules: standard rules, for topic-areas without an adjudicated long history of editing problems, and tighter rules (permutations on the DS regime) for the more problematic articles and topics. Whether this is too much of a good thing, or not enough of a bad thing, or some other permutation, is again left for others to ponder. I'll probably have more thoughts on this another time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that not to appeal can be a matter of dignity. I learned the phrase "swallow your pride" only today but it seems to describe well what you have to do in order to appeal to the same group of people who you think treated you unfairly. I finally did it (even successfully so) but kind of ashamed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
That's a different type of appeal, actually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the shame is different, though, - something Eric successfully avoids. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Well put. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"but-for causation" sense of "if he didn't do that, we wouldn't be here." Logical fallacy. (You are the cause of a car accident, simply because you drove that day. [If you hadn't, there would have been no accident.] Person A murders person B. Person B's mother caused the murder: if she hadn't given birth to person B, there would have been no murder.]) Are you sure you don't want to send refunds in the mail to your attorney clients?! IHTS (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed (to the argument, not the personal attack). A dispute only exists when someone challenges an action. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


@Ihardlythinkso: You may take it that I am thoroughly familiar with the various legal doctrines of causation, including among other things the differences between the Cardozo and Andrews positions in Palsgraf, the differences between transaction causation and loss causation in securities cases, and even including the reasons, which you've intuited, that but-for causation without more is not enough to impose liability in a tort case. Actually, here, Eric's refusal to appeal does goes one step beyond mere but-for causation in leading to the case, because there was a degree of foreseeability, which is absent in your two attenuated hypotheticals; but that is neither here nor there. It would be interesting to have a lengthy and scholarly discussion of all of these concepts and their wiki implications— but I'm not going to have that or any other discussion with you, because the comment you've just posted is the single most offensive thing that's been said to me on-wiki in nine years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me? (Offensive?! It wasn't serious. But you are simply wrong swinging word "caused" w/o qualification, as that defaults to common dictionary meaning. I was about to quote George Carlin: "Your birth certificate is proof of guilt!" But that presupposes a sense of humor.) IHTS (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: If it was non-serious, then I withdraw my comment and I'm sorry I overreacted. Sometimes humor doesn't come through in writing as readily as we would like; I've been on the other side of that myself more than once. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
BTW your "degree of forseeability" presumption is bogus. (It presupposes Eric spent any time "forseeing". What I think is, due to the absolute nature of impossibility he might appeal a block, his thougths about it simply close shop at that point. [He's a very logical person. What would be the point of "forseeing" given the fact? Eric doesn't use superfluous words. I'm guessing he doesn't partake in superfluous thought, as well. Your argument supposes the opposite. Or assigns your own thought expectations to him, but you are two different people.]) IHTS (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a moot point, I suppose. I fear that none of our dialog is helping the arbitrators get the case closed.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I find the notion that this ongoing mess is all my fault because I refuse, and have always refused, to appeal blocks to be very interesting. The appeal model may be suitable for children, but it's simply unacceptable for grown adults. Eric Corbett 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: No one has used the word "fault." But I do think it is true that if you'd posted an unblock request template on that fateful day in October, the ensuing events would have played out very differently. Make of that what you will. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
In this instance "fault" and "cause" are in my view synonymous. But I still fail to see why I am to be blamed for the actions of others. They may take whatever principled stands they like, as I hope may I. I've been here for I think nine years now, and have never appealed a block; if by some miracle I survive for another nine years I will still never have appealed a block. I cannot control the actions of others, and nor would I ever consider trying to do so by debasing myself by appealing. Eric Corbett 23:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Another nine years!? Jeez, another nine days would be too long for many people, Eric. You've never been appealing in the least. 217.38.82.227 (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
But his writing has, which is what should count. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps NYB might like to explain why I'm expected to put with that kind of abuse every single day, without ever reacting. Eric Corbett 00:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I blocked the IP a while ago, FWIW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Brad, you keep insinuating that Eric did something wrong by simply not appealing his block, which is an odd position to take. One would think the ArbCom (I realize you aren't on it anymore) would look approvingly on not appealing blocks, as it suggests the user is calmly waiting out his sentence instead of blowing up, regardless of whether the block was right or wrong. Wouldn't it be good to clarify at least that you agree that a user is always entitled to not appeal a block? Everyking (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Everyking here. NYB, your position looks uncomfortably close to the old-style "block everyone involved one at a time until the problem stops, and if anyone didn't deserve it let them appeal". The spirit of Kelly and Raul ought to be long-gone by now. ‑ Iridescent 01:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent:, @Everyking:, @Eric Corbett:, et al.: Or maybe what I'm saying is that in some instances, the ordinarily sensible rule that only the blockee can appeal the block is counterproductive? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
That is a very sensible position to take, but it's not the position people seemed to infer from your comments, so you probably should have made that clear instead of saying "take from that what you will" and letting everyone assume you're blaming Eric for not appealing. Everyking (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to imagine a system where everyone can appeal blocks, so we will have appeals that the length of a block was inadequate, and a longer block is warranted.Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
NYB: If you are going to work this hard anyway, you should have stayed on the damn Committee. NE Ent 01:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: Nah, I'm not working hard at all; this is an easy case, and we all know the arguments by heart by now. You haven't seen me posting on the Catflap08 case or GMOs or Israel-Palestine 6, have you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • NYB did miss the mark a bit with the unblock request comment, but I took it in the larger context. The more I think about it, the more I think we need to allow amicus appeals at least on a case by case basis. Putting Eric aside, there are plenty of circumstances I can envision where an editor gets blocked in good faith but in error and could leave. We should be able to fix it on our own and invite them back. We can be too rigid at times, myself included, and we need to be aware of that. Judging someone as having too much pride on top of giving them a bad sanction isn't really a solution, it's putting salt in a wound. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Why do you say "too much pride" for "too much decency"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm using the words of the judges, not the words of those being judged; it was intentional. It doesn't imply the judgement is correct, only that it has been made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Got it, you are right, - look for swallow above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for this - I was worrying that it was going to get a bit tricky ... Best wishes 77.96.249.228 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. This was actually a pretty straightforward situation to address. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Brad. Did you intend to make the IP block indefinite? --NeilN talk to me 22:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - straightforward if you're an admin - potentially less so if you are a non-admin user on a (partially successful) break! I had visions of a Bit Of A Thing developing, so I am grateful for your rapid intervention. :) Best wishes 77.96.249.228 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully the problem stops at this point. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think co-ed is disparaging...

(and I can't source that) then how do you feel about pageants? Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In my lifetime I've paid virtually no attention to them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: As for the usage point, and without overintellectualizing things or getting deeply enmeshed in the social issues, the term "co-ed" was coined when most colleges contained entirely or primarily of male students. When previously-male-only schools started admitting women, the colleges because "co-educational", and the nonce-word "co-ed" was coined, referring to the women whose presence occasioned the change. But the fact that the term was applied to the women and not to the men signaled that the men's presence had been the default and the women's presence was the innovation. Now that most schools have been open to both women and men for many years, that singling out can be seen as an artifact of the bygone age. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  • In the military, we had "co-ed" dorms, even though there was no "ed" to what we did. Many (formally) fraternal clubs like Lions or Elks now consider themselves and events "co-ed" [1]. It's still used by the media in titles [2], [3] although usually in educational context. Co-ed tennis matches and other competitions use the term often enough. I'm not sure if "artifact" is completely accurate, even if it is less often used, but usage has spread beyond university settings. As you point out, it still tends to be more about including women in areas they weren't welcomed before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: I don't think anyone objects to "coed" or "coeducational" as an adjective referring to an institution that educates both women and men. It's referring to an individual student as a "co-ed" that I believe is perceived as an out-of-date locution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, to that I agree, it is a bit old fashioned to use as a noun. I saw a couple of news articles on a google news search where it was used as a noun, but after clicking, it has been removed from the title, I assume by the editor. That kind of supports your notion as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Your Record is Safe

Well, your record support level of 89.01% from the December 2010 elections is safe once more. I thought there was an outside chance Casliber might challenge it this year, but it looks more and more like that level of support won't be achieved again. Interestingly, he was the number 2 candidate that year, and his support percent is nearly the same this year as it was 5 years ago.

For those who may be interested in the trivia, these are top support-level candidates in each election since secret balloting was introduced:

Since 28bytes did not take his seat, you (NYB) remain the only arbitrator in the history of the Committee to have received greater than 80% support. WikipediaHistorian (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Casliber received 92% support in 2008. NYB received 97.35% support in 2007, which is indeed the record. Risker (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You are quite right! I only meant to refer to the elections after secret balloting was introduced, since the dynamics seem so different from the old system. But I'm glad you added the context of the older public ballots as well. WikipediaHistorian (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually going to take that back. Flcelloguy achieved 99% support and Kirill Lokshin 98% support in the 2006 election. Risker (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@WikipediaHistorian: Thank you for your post here (and especially so if, as appears, you initially registered this account just to post it!). This community has been extremely kind to me, including in those elections, and I will never forget it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure! It's an odd hobby to be sure, but for many years now I've found it quite interesting to take a few moments each month to read the latest "goings-on" with arbitration at Wikipedia. I suppose it's a bit of SCOTUSblog mixed with Jerry Springer.
As a side note: I've always wondered how you found the time to donate so much of your energy to Wikipedia... I was recently looking into law school, and in my considerations I read many articles indicating that BigLaw is - with the possible exception of investment banking - just about the most time-consuming career out there. Indeed, many seem to find it incompatible with genuine work-life balance. Given that background, I am impressed that you were able to spend so much time as a volunteer over the years. WikipediaHistorian (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
As opposed to medical subspecialties...whose life is just a lark ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks

For supporting my return back in 2014 and assuming good faith in me. I hope to make you also feel that it paid off.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Question

Viriditas's conduct, here and on Kevin's talkpage, is especially out of line and must not continue

How is my conduct out of line? Multiple editors pointed to Kevin's inability to follow the basic rules of "ordinary people", such as the word count, and I made light of these concerns by treating Kevin as a "superhero" who is above the Earthly concerns of mere mortals. Since when is humor out of line? Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Such an attempt at humor is misplaced when it's predicated on something as unimportant as a misunderstanding about the word count on a request for arbitration that is already being accepted 9-to-0; and when it is heavy-handed and sarcastic and hurtful and targeted at the userpage of a fellow Wikipedian who is currently the subject of an arbitration pile-on and manifestly is under heavy stress; and especially, also, when it isn't funny. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
But that was the sole intent of the humor: to highlight the unimportance in a funny way. I'm sorry, but I think you, Kevin, and others take this way too seriously, and that is a greater problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec) From a neutral talk page and arbitration page observer: When you (Viriditas) followed "I was not trying to use your poor health against you" with "if Mr. Gorman has superpowers, presumably brought on by his mutant genetic code or terrible illness", the way I read it you gave the lie to your former statement and persisted with your latter one in mocking him for his having been ill. If you had a camaraderie with him then it could be explained as good-natured ribbing, but in an adversarial setting it is hard to see it as anything but bullying. alanyst 00:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Using humor to bully? Bully him to do what? Do you even know what the word "bully" means? Because I don't think it means what you think it means. And superheroes often get their superpowers from some kind of illness or malady, so it was entirely consistent with the metaphor. I'm getting the distinct sense that normal means of communication cease to work on Wikipedia for the above reasons. Seriously, your observations are funnier than my attempt at humor. Bullying a man by referring to him as a superhero? You can't be serious. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Reading all the posts - NYB's points are absolutely valid. Collect (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
This from someone who believes that mandatory noticeboard notification is a form of "harassment".[4] Thanks, but your judgement on what constitutes harassment long ago crossed over into the boy who cried wolf territory. I mean, your talk page history edit summaries alone returns 55 hits for the word "harassment", which is like some kind of Wikipedia record. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you read the comments made by others - your personal attacks on me here are inane, and make my points and NYB's points exceptionally clear. I have found that some people who have accused me of BLP violations may, for example, in some cases have been blatant plagiarists, sock masters, etc. in the past. And, indeed, been found to have harassed editors.
The example you gave just now, amusingly enough, was, indeed, harassment of me and others by one editor who later apologized for his behaviour. I commend you to follow his example. See [5]. Note that Jbhunley, Cullen328, Sam Sailor and a host of others also viewed that editor as harassing folks, in my case by nominating an article for deletion about the first African American post office letter carrier [6], his complaint the day before about me for "edit warring" [7], Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_Horror_Movie_Database closed by Sandstein with the comment "I am discounting the solitary "keep" opinion by Pizzole because of their disruptive conduct related to this discussion, which includes filing three frivolous retaliatory AfDs", Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thaddeus_Seymour, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David P. Levin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Burnham, and then try saying I "cried wolf" with a remotely straight face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay then, Viriditas, take it from me. It was bullying behaviour. Cut it out. Making fun of people in distress isn't humorous, and is almost always bullying. Risker (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't bullying behavior at all, as I wasn't making fun of anyone. I was making fun of the idea of ordinary people who have to follow word limit rules, and superheroes who don't because they are extraordinary. I also previously alluded to Kevin's superhuman abilities the day before when I described his lengthy and rapid fire comments, so I continued the superhero metaphor over a period of two days. It's entirely consistent with humor and displays no bullying of any kind. Most, if not all superheroes, are "sick" in some way, either physically or psychologically. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Your continued attempts to justify your cruel words when everyone else is telling you that they were not funny or helpful points to the extreme WP:IDHT behavior. Please drop the stick before you face sanctions. Just quit now and stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Liz, there is nothing cruel about referring to someone as "a benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers" based on "tragic elements and/or freak accidents that result in the development of the hero's abilities". Please don't imagine cruelty where none exists. I admire Kevin's tenacity and good work in spite of his circumstances. That is hardly "cruel". Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm breaking my self-restriction until the case is over at least this once: Viriditas, when you start off by talking about someone who you are not on remotely friendly terms with an who is ill being ill, and proceed to write it off as not really talking about their illness, only to go on to make the post that you did aimed at the same person, someone who is in fact chronically ill thanks to a series of extremely unusual, extremely serious genetic mutations, you're not making a joke. I shall leave the rest of this post as an exercise to the reader. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Did I bully or insult you by referring to you as a superhero with extraordinary powers beyond mere mortal men? Where I come from, that's a humorous compliment. It's really hard for me to see it otherwise. Is it possible that you and others are being a tad too sensitive? Most people have genetic issues, some worse than others. And many people have chronic illnesses. Was I making fun of your predicament, or was I in fact promoting your tenacity and strength of will to thrive? Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, you now have Risker telling you to calm down. That should mean something. You have a history of unprovoked bullying, PA, harassment, and making frivolous ANI reports and if I have to I will pile on with a few more diffs that will get you blocked and banned if you do not soon adopt a collaborative attitude. Plain and simple: your sense of humour is at best facetious, and at worst, totally unacceptable, cruel, and spiteful. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Viriditas: I got pinged above so I might as well chime in. The comments you made were mocking and cruel and, based other material you have written about admins and ArbCom (Whether those were intended to be humorous as well, or not.), I perceived the comments, when I read them at RfArb, to be intentionally mocking. Your attempts to explain them away with 'but superheros are good', in my opinion, shows either tone deafness or mendacity. When several people tell you your communication style is seen as bullying or cruel rather than humorous it is probably best that you apologize and cease attempting to be funny since, regardless of your intention, your sense of humor does not translate through the medium of the written word. JbhTalk 13:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the arbitrators has addressed this matter and I believe we can close this discussion. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Connected contributor

It looks to me as if at some point the "notable Wikipedian" template became "connected contributor" and this eventually became, in effect, "COI spammer". I think the two functions are separate and should be diverged: some Wikipedians are notable in their own right and have articles, others are closely connected to a subject and that is a fact of which readers could legitimately be reminded when evaluating talk page comments. Or am I barking up the wrong tree here? Guy (Help!) 00:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What you are saying makes sense, though I haven't used these templates and am not really familiar with their history. (Most of the discussion of them I've read is in the context of their disputed application to the Wikipediocracy article, which I certainly hope is an atypical discussion of the template's usage, in many ways.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I tend to ignore articles like that - the users of anti-Wikipedia forums have always WP:OWNed the articles and some of these editors in the past have planted stories in the press so they can cite them to support beliefs which I knew at the time to be objectively wrong. These articles are a lost cause IMO. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I'll keep an eye on it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Message from an IP about AE2

I was going to bring this up on the talk page for the decision, but turns out it's semi-protected. From my reading of wiki-drama you seem to be someone with a level head, so I figured I'd pass this through you first, and see if you think it's worth bringing up. The current motion to topic ban Giano from discussions on Eric's conduct seems to be written in such a way that simply thanking Eric for making an edit, or discussing Eric's conduct as it pertains to writing an article would put Giano on the hook. The actual text is "Giano is topic banned from any discussion involving the conduct of Eric Corbett." Should that be brought up to the arbs? Thanks for any insight you can offer. 71.11.1.204 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

t/p/s It certainly is, I.M.O. This should be clarified. It is so vague as to be begging for future GF edits to be turned into drama fodder. I think the terms of it (and I hope it is unsuccessful) should be seriously well defined. "General interactions such as collaboration on article creation, related discussions on talk pages, and other activities which would normally be expected amongst colleagues in content creation, and policy pages which involve the improvement of the project through community comment are exempted" Something along those lines. Irondome (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Any chance you, or some other help talk page stalker, could post this on the PD talk page? It's semi'd or I would have done it myself. Thanks. 71.11.1.204 (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Assuming the restriction is a good idea (as to which my views are more-or-less irrelevant), a better wording might be "Giano is prohibited from discussing any alleged misconduct by Eric Corbett." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hi Newyorkbrad, just a note to say that I've sent you an email. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 13:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sandgem Addict: Received it, and will respond over the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. :) -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 11:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Just seen your response, thanks. :) -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 03:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Thank you for the notice, but I don't plan to add anything further in this case, and you can drop my name from the notice list. And also, a belated welcome to the clerk team, of which I'm an alumnus. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: Ok, will do! Thanks a lot :) Mdann52 (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Search engine question for TPWs

Okay, I have another question, which I can post to one of the Village Pumps or the Help Desk, but in the past readers of this page have been able to solve most any wiki-conundrum I've had.

In a recent discussion off-site, someone referred to a short story written by an author named Sidney Southgate. Someone else responded that "Sidney Southgate" was a pseudonym used by the English author and journalist Thomas Moult, and this appears to be so.

As I was quickly checking this out, I Googled "Sidney Southgate", and indeed the WP article Thomas Moult was one of the top hits.

My question for this group is ... why was it one of the top hits, or put differently, how did the search engine "know" that Moult should be a hit for Southgate? The reason I am puzzled is that there is no direct link between Southgate's name and the Moult article. Moult's article does not mention the name Southgate, and there is no redirect from Southgate to Moult.

Does this reveal something interesting about search engines, or about Wikipedia, or am I just missing something obvious? My thanks to anyone who can help.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No answer yet? Quality of (talk page stalker) going down ... my guess (and it's strictly a guess) is the juxtaposition of Sidney Southgate (Thomas Moult) in some of the old books is sufficient to link them. If we had a reliable source, I reckon a redirect would be in order, but I don't know that the adjacent listing of the names is sufficient. NE Ent 03:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Solved. It's a well-known aspect of how search engines work. There are links on other web pages which have the text "Sidney Southgate" as anchor, but link to the Wikipedia article. See Librivox.org, which has a link with text "Wiki - Sidney Southgate". It's basically the same mechanism as the old "Google-bombing", though here used for good instead of evil. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Google's "Hummingbird" algorithm implemented semantic mapping. Words are now converted to meaning, and then search hits are generated against meanings rather than the literal words. There are a variety of signals Google can used to learn synonym and figure out what people want when they use alternative names for things. Try a search for Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), or Stephanie Germanotta (Lady Gaga). You can also search for Daesh, and you'll get a page full of ISIS and ISIL results. Google is especially good at dealing with pen names, stage names, and pseudonyms. They may be using Wikipedia as a resource to identify these relationships. The links Seth mentioned are one signal, but there are others, and this phenomena you observe can occur without any Google bombing. Jehochman Talk 02:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Need some help involving law articles

While I would hope you might have time to look into an issue personally, my main goal is to get the name of an editor who is a lawyer, who might help out with some problematic edits. In theory, it should not have to be a lawyer, but the editor is suggesting that general polices do not apply to articles about the law - my initial reaction is that this is preposterous, but I'd like to back it up with something more definitive.

The short summary is that an editor posted some concerns to my talk page. The timing was unfortunate, as I could not get to it immediately, and it metastasized before I could take a look. I fully expected to see wikilawyering over fine interpretations of policies, but that does not seem to be the case. On the one hand, that is good, as the edits I have looked at seem clearly wrong, but that may lead you to wonder why I am here. In short, I'm struggling with the notion that an editor who started in 2004 is making errors I would expect from a rank newbie, and I am wondering if I am missing something.

It seems quite straightforward to reject the notion that one can use a Wikipedia article as a reference, and this editor not only did that, but used a redlinked article, so wants to use an article they plan to create in the future. Again, I think I can handle that specific issue, but the editor has 29K contributions over eleven years, so if the recent ones are typical, we may have some work ahead of us, which is why I am looking for advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@S Philbrick: Thanks for thinking of me. I need to go offline shortly, but will get back to you on this probably tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
No rush--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

One very specific question

Let me try one very specific question. The editor cites European Union law as an example of an article which presumably illustrates acceptable editing (I do note the editor in question is a major contributor).

It is my opinion that redlinks such as those in the Remedies for breach section:

do not belong.

In my view, this article is a disaster. (see the footnotes)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

European Union law is far from any area in which I have detailed knowledge. Can you be more specific about why you see the article as a disaster? I suppose I see some of it already: as a general reader, I find the article to be a bit too dense with detail to be readily followed. But perhaps you are thinking of a deeper issue? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Disaster" is probably a bit over-the-top but I'll explain my reaction. One of the most amazing things about Wikipedia is that we allow just about any Tom, Dick or Jane to edit articles, even moderately technical articles such as legal articles. How on earth can this possibly work? One of the key ways that this works is that if this anonymous person adds something of substance to an article, they are expected to back it up with a verifiable reliable source. Very roughly speaking, it works. However, in this specific article I see approximately 30 red links in the references. This is doubly troubling (subject to a caveat I will explain). We take the position (which sometimes surprises outsiders) that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We tell people to take everything they read with a grain of salt, but if something is important to them and they want to know if it's true, look to the footnotes and go look in the reliable sources. This ought to mean that we would never find a wiki link to a Wikipedia article as a reference. (It doesn't mean there should be no Wikipedia links in references; it is perfectly acceptable for example to provide a reference to Thucydides in footnote 39 and include a blue link to an article but that's a convenience link. The real point of that reference is to point the reader to a reliable source that supports a statement. In contrast, we have some footnotes, e.g. footnote number 25, that link to other Wikipedia articles.)

Blue links in the main text are fine; they lead a reader to more information on a subject which itself should be referenced, so I am perfectly happy with blue links in article text, but a footnote ought to lead to an external source that qualifies as a reliable source. It is bad enough that some of the references are to blue linked Wikipedia articles, but many are to red linked articles. We are basically telling the reader - "trust this statement, you can see that there is a reference to some other article in Wikipedia that hasn't been written yet". Seriously?

I said there was a caveat. I am not a lawyer and perhaps a lawyer reading these footnotes will see as in the case of footnote 84 the phrase "IRLR 15". That may well mean something to a lawyer and points them to an external reliable source. While it may be the case that many readers of this article will be lawyers I think our goal is to make it accessible to the general public. As a member of the general public I don't have a clue what is meant by IRLR or ICR or CMLR. So maybe these are truly references to reliable external sources but I think we need to do a better job of letting the reader know how to find the information.

Following up on footnote 84, if the claim in the text is backed up by that specific case I think the footnote ought to point to an external reference in such a way that someone like me could figure out how to find it. If the case is important enough that it deserves its own article, great, let's have someone go ahead and create it but I don't think the red link to the case belongs in the footnote before the article exists. I grant that the Wikipedia community has differing views on this and some see red links as suggestions for future articles, but it is my view that that paradigm worked well in the early years and should no longer be the operative rule. I'd like to see a wiki project make list of necessary articles and this case might belong on that list but I don't think it should be a red link either in the main text of an article or especially not as a reference.

I haven't read a lot of American law articles and maybe I should read some to see if that's the accepted paradigm for American law articles but I don't think it's a good idea.


To summarize, we developed a decent paradigm for readers of Wikipedia:

  1. Read a statement in Wikipedia but don't take it at face value
  2. Look for the footnote following the statement in question
  3. The footnote will clearly identify an external reliable source which will support the claim in the statement

Many of the footnotes in this article failed to meet that reasonable standard

I'm getting pushed to follow up on this issue; can you suggest someone else with experience editing legal articles?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
{ping|Sphilbrick}} Sorry again for the delay in responding. I've now looked in more detail at the question you raise. In general, I agree that sound referencing in articles is always a good thing, serving the double purpose of helping verify that article content is accurate, and providing leads for readers who want to explore more deeply. But as with anything there can be too much of a good thing: I for one find it a little distracting when a long article contains a footnote every seven words.

As you intuited, the symbols that you are looking at refer to law reports, that is, books (or these days online sources) that reprint legal materials such as judgments of courts and tribunals. Please see law reports and legal citation and for more detail, case citation. For example, "IRLR" means the Industrial Relations Law Reports (a series collecting U.K. cases relating to labor law). These citations typically are, as you infer, to primary sources. In an article about a case itself written soon after the case is decided, heavy reliance on the report of the case may be unavoidable, but in a survey article it would be good to see citation to secondary sources in addition to (I don't say instead of) cites to the cases themselves.

Beyond that, as I mentioned, my expertise is primarily in U.S. rather than European law. If you're looking for a subject-matter expert on the latter, and no one reading this page volunteers, I suggest you post to the Wikiproject Law talkpage, or alternative to a wikiproject on the EU. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to correct you on one very important point. A case report (almost invariably in Europe or the UK) is a secondary source. The primary source is the official transcript. The reporting companies will summarise the judgment in a headnote, but because the reporting companies are private, this means it is not part of the judgment. The same would go for the Official Journal, for example, in the European Union, or Eurlex. Usually, the best practice is to give a "neutral" citation and then there's actually a legal judgment on an order to follow for other reports. Wikidea 18:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, NYB, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and you too. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


Q

Your !vote for Future Perfect at Sunrise RfA: "Support per nom, good answers, comments above. No issues here. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)" The fucker blocked me for two weeks. Do you think his block was justified or an abuse of tools??? Thx & Merry Xmas. IHTS (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: I didn't recall seeing this block recently, so I just checked your block log, and I see that the block was a full year ago (December 24, 2014). I'm not going to go back and comment on a long-expired block from last year, even if you'd provided me with a link to the relevant discussion, which you haven't.
However, I do notice that the block reason stated in the log is "personal attacks." I can't exactly say that the wording of your post makes it seem unlikely that you made personal attacks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
So typical. (To indirectly blame, without any basis to blame. To intentionally overlook and/or ignore the fact, that an unwarranted block might leave residual feelings of resentment [and commentary in memory of same]. One year ago or one day ago, do you suggest somehow I forget and not resent an admin's abusive block based on personal grudge?!]) You !voted for this guy, so of course in your non-response to me there would be no negative about him, only me. (Why even bother to respond?? When no intention to be responsive?) The bigger picture, Mr. Brad, is that you're a defender (and pretender) that the WP governance is somehow intact, or good, or good enough. (Why is that? Because you've been a direct participant!?) One of the most prolific content editors hasn't edited substantially for quite a while now, w/ absurd Arb results pending, he's a constant target for any abusiveness thrown (including nasty artifacts like "misogynist" label, repeatedly, when that is total BS, and no admins step in to stop it) and imaginary accusations of wrong-doing in repeated attempt to ban. And now he doesn't even edit, this place is so great ("house of horrors" - his words). The WP environment is no so great Brad, and it was just as bad and abusive plenty before my time, and the reasons it is bad have remained constant: the freedom of people in power to be irresponsible and execute grudges, and a civility policy meme enabling said exeutions. WP is not so wonderful ... I just thought you should be reminded in mind w/ your Arbcom retirement. Your reaction to blame me now (and earlier with "I've never been so insulted on WP") is testament to defensive reaction, nothing positive. (Do people want some positive ideas? On what WP's problems are and how to fix them? I doubt that, else they'd be asking people like Eric, and the other massively experienced content editors on board, what their ideas are to improve the WP. [I've never seen that happen. Even once.]) I was abusively bocked by Future Perfect no matter what distraction you like to produce to ignore it. Happy Holidays I think I'll never waste my time w/ you again. IHTS (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
If you had asked pretty much anyone else the same question ("you supported 'this fucker's' RfA in 2006; what do you think of his block of me in 2014?, which incidentally you have to research from scratch yourself as I'm not giving you any other information about it"), do you think you would have gotten a much different answer? I hardly think so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Why should someone who was abusively blocked for two weeks care about your feelings when honestly using expression that accurately describes my feelings about it?? (Besides, I already knew there was zero chance you'd do anything about that past block. So making politically correct talk with you about it achieves what exactly?) You may have inadvertently put your finger on one of the ills of WP other editors have already identified it before however - leftover resentment following unaddressed and WP systemic admin abuse. One thing I think people don't get, is one reason Eric has defenders. Because if even an editor such as he has no protection from this crap, then what is the expectation for the likes of the rest of voluntary editor contributors?? I didn't make you respond the defensive way you responded. (Complaining about looking up diffs in this case? Give me a break. As if that would have made a different result!) I've always respected your time (thx for it BTW), and I do now as well, so no more to say. IHTS (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In a way as due to your Arbcom history it's made you a WP icon and you "represent" WP governance (a la Jimbo representing WP generally). So really this thread was just a vent to let you know "the other side" if/when you retire imagining WP is on a good course or whatever other fiction you might conjure to make yourself feel fulfilled re WP legacy you helped construct. ("House of horrors" is amazing. Eric's has talent for use of words that are most apt for the points needing to be made. [Or don't you think so? {Trick question.}]) I didn't mean to abuse your attention. The point is bigger than me. But again am surprised by your consistently defensive responses. If you think all language must be polite, that is first inappropriate and absurd notion, but inconsistent too: why are there still WP essays or redirects that exist that supplant he need for derogatory name-calls, e.g. DIVA? DICK? There is no consistency in WP governance, I'm not the editor who called the environment anarchic. The fact Arbcom is overburdened by legal procedure when motions get made and !votes out of pure bigoted dislike, just adds another layer of absurdity. WP really needs to be redesigned from the bottom up. By intelligent & experienced people. Thanks again and good holiday to you. IHTS (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh one other last thing ... If you bump into Future Perfect whom you helped promote to admin, could you please have a word with him if you see fitting. (Specifically, based on his two-week block and justification commentary, he seems to fancy I'm on some sort of Arbcom Civility Sanction Broadly Construed [e.g. blaming me for saying someone was "stupid" when I never did or thought or suggested or implied or hinted at any such thing] and on a non-warning violation-punishment basis [i.e. not preventative] and with an escalating block schedule. [So you might see a little bit how this might possibly concern me since after his two-week block triggered by not saying something he didn't like, he no doubt aims to make the next grudge block he cocks off for one unholy {expletive removed} month.) Thanks for your consider. Sincere & Merry Xmas. IHTS (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh one more thought: in his commentary Future said some word about an overall pattern of incivility re me. (Oh yeah right. And what about his grudge-focused performance as admin - can I have an opinion about that too? Funny, opinions and $2.50 might buy a cup of coffee, while the difference is I have no practical recourse, whereas what he can do as admin in this lovely governance system is simply flick a button to execute a two-week, one-month, or indefinite block depending on his mood and the level of grudge he likes to extract, with made-up rationale, and with an admin friend to remove Talk page access if I express any frustration in the least. But I can "take him to Arbcom", right? So that's completely fair right and any complaint re imbalance or admin abuse is really a foolish notion indeed.]) Signing off. Again thanks. And again happy holiday. IHTS (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, NYB is probably not aware of the extent of your PA, incivility, and harassment over the years that has managed, along with my enduring patience, to stay under the radar. Give it a rest now please because there is enough material out there demonstrating a pattern that would probably get you indeff blocked and possibly banned. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This conversation, combined with a bit of reading about the history of diplomat Brad and disrupter IHTS make it crystal clear who should get a gold medal and who should be blocked for tendentious personal attacks. Thank you, Brad, for all you've done, and continue to do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Saturday January 16: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference

Saturday January 16: Wikipedia Day NYC 2016

You are invited to join us at New York University for Wikipedia Day NYC 2016, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference as part of Wikipedia 15, the project's global 15th birthday festivities. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

10:00am - 7:00 pm at NYU ITP Tisch School of the Arts, 721 Broadway (between Waverly and Washington Place)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

|}

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2016 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you, your family and friends. May you have happy editing!

Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
May our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget arbcom (I didn't keep that on my talk), and celebrate Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Paslm 126:2: "Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Note Psalm 26:1, the situation: "When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream." - Singing is easier for me now, that my captivity has turned. Today is the first birthday of the infobox on Handel, DYK? We celebrated Beethoven on 17 December, with sweet music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Joe job

Brad, is all of the content from Users Pennsyldyck, Schmegory Grohs, and Schmeggory Gross going to be retained for public view and archiving? It seems that in other similar situations when a user is intending simply to perversely attack a living individual, those outbursts are often rev-deleted (or whatever you call it). Please comment. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:542D:8094:6123:D756 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The offensive trolling by the last of those accounts was so over-the-top that I blocked it immediately without even pausing to think about the username, and I didn't notice the other accounts at the time. Of course it's now quite obvious that in addition to trolling these were also harassment accounts against the person whose name was being spoonerized. I don't perceive this as a real Joe job, because it's quite obvious the target of the trolling/harassment was at least as much GK as JW and there wasn't a real effort to conceal that, but I've still deleted all the pages associated with the accounts I could find as well as the few remaining live edits. (If I've missed any, it being past midnight, anyone else should finish the job). I think by this point there may be too many subsequent revisions on User talk:JW for revdeleting to make sense, but if it helps, I state here that no one should believe GK made these edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2015/Dec&oldid=1089747880"