![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Newyorkbrad, I wondered if you'd be interested to read User:WereSpielChequers/Going off the boil? cheers Ϣere SpielChequers 11:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/English_Wikipedia_readership_survey_2013 -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Which Supreme Court Justice Are You? A Noncuratlex.com Personality Quiz
Feel free to post your results here. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.
I hope to see you there!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Harej ( talk) 04:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, NYB. If you'll reread the ANI discussion, there seems to be general consensus that should wickwack actually register an account, rather than use an IP but sign a name manually, he should not be blocked under good behavior. You have issued a block of six months, which implies he'd remain blocked even if he registered. I suggest you contact another poster at that discussion if you think me interpretation is off. Otherwise, I'd reword the ban to drop the six months and make it clear he's not banned if he registers and behaves. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 21:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Connecticut v. Doehr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assault and battery ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Bots can be annoying little creatures, but my experience is that it's best that they not be blocked. signed: chedbot. — Ched : ? 21:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 20:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you take a look at User talk:80.114.178.7? This IP is a sock of a globally-locked user. I wonder if they're using other IPs, etc, as they seem to be very active on many wikis. I've blocked this IP on Commons, and asked a CU/steward there to advise. Also, is the 1-year block good? I've seen other wikis where this IP is blocked longer. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 06:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Connecticut v. Doehr may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Connecticut v. Doehr may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Burnham v. Superior Court of California may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp. may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you look at the case of "Jax 0677" currently at ANI? It seems to me that the community restrictions are self-contradictory and basically baiting him to break his topic ban whenever he "may be asked to assist" by editing exactly the types of pages he's not allowed to edit. I honestly don't understand the big bruhaha over some nav templates, but I've seen several admins go ballistic over an AfD with a forgone conclusion and yet more duke it out over infoboxes (that is still currently featured at ANI), so this about par for Wikipedia 2013... 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 02:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Connecticut v. Doehr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bond ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Brad, I made this post at Jimbo's talk page, which included a question directed to you as the administrator who imposed Russavia's restriction. I would be interested in his thoughts on my proposed idea but obviously wouldn't want anyone to break a restriction, so I asked if he can respond there. If not, is he permitted to respond to the idea on his own talk page? Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 04:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join the
Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history! |
I noticed you're busy elsewhere for Wiknic, so I thought I'd mention this event. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 02:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi NYB, seeing as you have taken it upon yourself to deal with me I am now asking you to deal with personal attacks against myself. This is below the pale -- calling myself and another editor "parasites" is disgraceful. I will no longer be sitting idly by and putting up with personal attacks on myself on this project. Please take action against that. Russavia ( talk) 00:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the term "parasite" is divisive and should not be used to categorize contributors. However, I see that the editor has clarified his comment, explaining that he is using "parasites" to mean (my paraphrase) "editors whose contributions are mostly one or more steps away from actual content creation." For better or worse, that may describe your contributions lately, and it certainly describes mine over the past few years (although not the past couple of weeks!). Personally I don't think this is a valid metric for evaluating an editor's value to the project, as there are plenty of legitimate reasons for non-mainspace editing, this discussion being one of them; but I can't say that reviving the circa 2006 call for "less talk, more writing" is inherently illegitimate, although I'll end where I began and repeat that the sentiment can be expressed in a less inflammatory manner. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Newyorkbrad, but I must insist now that you take action on this. Wer900 has posted the following off-site:
Russavia percieved rightly being called a parasite a "personal attack". What does he think of the people who have been affected by his drama?
So his "clarification" is bollocks, and you should be taking action against it. I've always been honest on this project, and expect the same of others. Perhaps an interaction ban prohibiting Wer900 from commenting on or interacting with myself is warranted here, given the great differential between their on-project and off-project comments and intention of those comments. Russavia ( talk) 14:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
You really should rescind this user's topic ban, both because it sets very bad precedent, and because it is effectively no less a form of workplace bullying than what it purports to address. I am not going to sugarcoat the fact that I instinctively checked to see if your name was up for election after seeing this, and I don't have a vested interest in either of the associated parties, nor do I have any problem with you personally. That's how infuriating it was at first sight. — C M B J 09:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
(e.c.) CMBJ is absolutely right. Brad's actions are clearly 100% related to his upcoming candidacy in the elections in about sixteen months time. At his 2007 election, Brad received 552 supports and 15 opposes, a support rate of 97.4% and was elected to a 3 year term. Thanks to his rampaging through the wiki doing as he pleased with no thought about the encyclopedia, his support plumented at the 2010 election to a mere 89.0% (591 supports, 186 neutral, 73 opposed). Despite this, he scraped back on to the Committee as the first elected, and another 2 years of out-of-control self-aggrandising ego-driven editing resulted. Things turned at the 2012 election when the community recognised his intrinsic evil, dropping his support to an all-time low in his ArbCom career (584 support, 151 neutral, 89 opposed, a support rate of 86.8%). Based on this trend, re-election in 2014 (assuming he runs) is likely to see more than 100 oppositions and only a relentless and vicious campaigh against some innocent editor (like Russavia) will see him have any chance of gaining even a scintilla of approval from a community baying for blood, just as the Romans did when throwing Christians to the Lions. </sarcasm> Seriously, CMBJ, Brad has never fit the shoot-first and damn the consquences model of Arbitrator, and his actions have regularly been criticised as too lenient towards alleged disruption. The idea of him acting against Russavia motivated by political expediency is absurd, not least because the popular over-reaction would have involved a ban or stirring up a mob at a drama board, but also because he needs to campaign for masses of additional support by changing his style in search of cheap populism about as much as he needs to have his kneecaps replaced with fetta cheese. EdChem ( talk) 10:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the perspectives above. The only thing I would like to re-emphasize is that the action I took yesterday was not taken in my capacity as an arbitrator. I realize that this distinction only goes so far in some people's eyes (per comments on this page a month or so ago), but it still may be important to point out. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll be offline most of this afternoon and this evening attending a family event. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you knew but there is a discussion about one of your decisions on Jimbo's talk page. Kumioko ( talk) 00:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Suri 100 ( talk) 07:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
From Baltimore Sun: In 1987, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. [James] Stanley's claim in a 5-to-4 vote, pointing to a federal law which prohibits soldiers from suing the military. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she found the case "so far beyond the bounds of human decency . . . it simply cannot be considered a part of the military mission." Is there a Wikipedia article for this Supreme Court case? It relates to Edgewood Arsenal experiments. 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Great American Wiknic DC at Meridian Hill Park |
![]() |
You are invited to the Great American Wiknic DC at the James Buchanan Memorial at Meridian Hill Park. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :) |
Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.
Harej ( talk) 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If you enjoyed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, hopefully you might also like Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.
The book is quite a fascinating read.
I hope you're doing well, — Cirt ( talk) 07:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice user page. 108.207.243.46 ( talk) 03:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi NYB, would you mind if I were to ask you over the coming days about your views on various issues, which mainly will touch on censorship on this project, of both articles and images. Is this something you are open to do?
Russavia ( talk) 05:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Since you're both on this page, I'll just post here. At the article Pricasso I've removed the link to Commons (for the time being) put there by Russavia. It seems inappropriate while the deletion discussion is going on at Commons. It also appears to be a violation of Russavia's topic ban, which includes "indirectly" ... "posting pictures", which is exactly what he did. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
On the same topic Smallbones has noted above, Russavia has also just issued a similar threat against me: "I would sincerely suggest that you step back, and stop making such attacks against myself, because I am now collating diffs against yourself for future possible use" in response to my post at: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Pricasso. Nick-D ( talk) 10:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
(Writing a response to all this now. Please stand by.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict with Spartaz above)
Russavia, I'm glad to discuss these issues with you as long as the discussion stays on the line of productive and not provocative.
When I see or read ceci n'est pas une pipe what I think of more than anything else is how it and some other works of Magritte's were used in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter, a transformative tour-de-force of a book that I highly recommend to anyone reading here. Hofstadter riffs further on the use-mention distinction in a couple of chapters of Metamagical Themas, another of my favorite books ever. (Anyone who follows my edits excessively closely *waves to a couple of folks on Wikipediocracy* has noticed my shout-out to Hoftstadter and Raymond Smullyan every time I sign a guestbook.)
Incidentally, I can't mention Hofstadter here on Wikipedia without noting that when I first become of what Wikipedia was and how it works, I thought of this project as something he might have anticipated and hoped he would admire. Instead, it turned out that he read his BLP and it contained a bunch of errors and he said it made him sad. That in turn made me sad. I just looked at his article again and it seems to be in much better shape. There is some bickering at the bottom of the talkpage about whether an e-mail from Hofstadter saying he's happier with the article can be referenced; that sort of over-focus on the letter of internal policies at the expense of getting the content right also makes me somewhat sad, although this sort of focus on meta and meta-meta issues in the case of Hofstadter might be considered ironic.
I don't really understand what you were intending to ask me about the bodypainting image, but I'm afraid it doesn't particularly appeal to me or move me. Chacun and all that.
On the more general topic of "censorship," it is a truism that Wikipedia is not censored, but as I've written before in other contexts, in the case of a content dispute this statement must be the beginning rather than the end of the analysis. We are not censored in the sense that we do not adhere to arbitrary lines, particularly ones imposed externally, concerning what we can write about and how. But the statement that we are not censored, and that we do not censor ourselves, does not mean that we do not use our own collective editorial judgment about what we will include and what we will not. When we collectively decide that Joe's Garage Band does not meet our notability requirement and therefore delete an article about it, we may or may not be making a wise decision, but we are not "censoring" the good-faith editor who wrote the article. When we delete an article about a living person who was the subject of an Internet meme because its contents, while true, are gratituously damaging the subject's life, we are making an editorial judgment about how our encyclopedia treats the people affected by what it says, not "censoring" ourselves in any pejorative sense.
In the same vein, but closer to home, when we say that we won't include a depiction of a living individual that he and others reasonably perceive as having been instigated for the express purpose of including it on Wikipedia to annoy or harass him, we are making a value judgment about how we treat one another. And when we ask a contributor with a history of getting into quarrels arising from articles about national and ethnic disputes to refrain from posting cartoons that have proved nationally or ethnically divisive, we are working to maintain a harmonious environment on our collective project, not "censoring" anyone.
As for the issues surrounding Pricasso, some of your comments here and their tone support your critics' view that you are being provocative on purpose ("trolling"). Indeed, given everything that has occurred since you returned to English Wikipedia a few months ago (beginning with your first edit summary), it is increasingly difficult to avoid that conclusion. This is especially disappointing given that in your post the other day, you tried to create the impression that you were stepping away from pricking this particular blister. I personally have not endorsed all the criticisms of you from various sources in recent weeks (for example, I thought that classifying your query about Bulgarian copyright law as a topic-ban violation was a bit hypertechnical), but we do not need editors who are deliberately playing games and wasting people's time.
Mr. Pricasso is presumably a legitimate subject for an article, although it's not an article that I personally would have the inclination or expertise to write. I still think, and am not alone in thinking, that it was grossly inappropriate for you to induce Mr. Pricasso to create a depiction of Jimmy Wales and to include it in the article. You are under my directive not to include that on English Wikipedia, and while I have no authority on Commons, I think it is grossly inappropriate for you to include it there either, and I instruct you not to link to it.
Your turning the Pricasso article into a vehicle for taking a gratuituous snipe at a living person who happens to be a leading Wikipedian has made the article grossly internally divisive. For this reason, I do not believe it should be mainpaged, quite apart from any issues regarding its subject-matter.
As for the previous transgressive piece you promoted for the mainpage, I am sorry, but I have absolutely nothing to say about your Fucking article.
Finally, Russavia, your constant comments that you are collecting diffs on anyone and everyone are becoming enormously tiresome. I suggest that you drop that particular theme at once, both here and on other projects.
You are capable of making legitimate contributions without stirring up drama, when you want to. If you want to remain active on this project, clean up your act. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have absolutely nothing to say about your Fucking article.Hee! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you please reply to my email? Enough is enough 21:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.54.66 ( talk)
Please reply. You got my mail, yes?
I see your e-mail now. (I'm not always logged in to my Wikipedia account and my Gmail account at the same time.) I am considering whether and how to respond to this and your prior e-mail, but I acknowledge receiving them. Do not post further on this page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Brad, I've closed the LNC AfD as a speedy keep. I realize that my actions may be a bit out of the standard process, but in reviewing the AN discussion along with comments made at User:Iridescent's talk page I felt it was proper, albeit wp:bold. If you feel I am in error to do so, please feel free to revert; however, I trust that you and the people who are familiar with the subject are the best judges as to how this should be handled. Kind Regards, — Ched : ? 18:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I discuss on the article talkpage which I tottally disagree that it is a good edit by saying that and explaination of reverting the German anthems on the article that they are bad-faith edits a.k.a. vandalism NewFranco ( talk) 00:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
NewFranco, sometimes whether something is vandalism is a judgment call. Other times, it's easy. For example, if someone adds vulgarity to an article, sometimes called "poop vandalism", that's pretty obvious. If someone intentionally adds clearly false information, e.g., changes a person's birth date to something preposterous, that's easy, too. Another example is in the case of WP:BLPs, when someone adds very negative, unsourced material. For the most part, WP:AIV is reserved for that kind of vandalism, although less obvious vandalism is sometimes considered, particularly if there's a clear pattern of it. Look at the instructions at the top of AIV where it talks about obvious vandalism (bold in the instructions). Also, look at the AIV Guide, which is also linked to in the instructions. Reporting a user with whom you have a content dispute almost never belongs at AIV.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed this move. Was there a problem with the former name of the article, and had you discussed the move with anyone before you made it? Please note that the word "terminology" in a common one in English, whereas while "toponymy" may be technically more precise, it is a word that no one other than a professional geographer is likely to have heard of. Unless there is some reason not to, I am inclined to return the article to its original location, but I will be glad to consider your reply first. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Appearance of impropriety seems in need of substantial expansion. Both in the purely legal and in the wider ethical context there is plenty of material, and I don't mean just examples. 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 12:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of removing the "there's related media on Commons" template, as it contains (1 link down) the image that you tossed Russavia for trying to include in the article directly. To me, it seems to be a distinction without a difference whether one directly inserts an image that has been deemed a BLP violation or if one links to a gallery where it may be accessed by an additional mouseclick. Predictably, a Commons admin (Denniss) has shown up to object. Thoughts? Tarc ( talk) 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've not digged myself far down this mess, but I noticed when browsing their forum that you are registered there. Due to a possible conflict of interest I would recommend you to not make any further edits on the article. Regards. → Aza Toth 23:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've just raised this with the closing admin at User_talk:Crisco_1492#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAlexander_Montagu.2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Particularly whether you see him as not notable because either peers aren't notable, or because court cases aren't notable. Mostly though I'm concerned about the Wikipediocracy aspect. Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I see the talk page for Argentine history proposed decision is now off-limits to IPs, so I will respond to your comment about accusations here instead.
You know someone is going to use language like that (the proposed language) as an excuse for a block the first time someone describes someone's viewpoint without posting a bunch of diffs. People just don't post diffs in a normal talk page discussion, and blocking people for doing it, or threatening to, is a bit chilling to discussion. One approach to civility I've seen used effectively is that a statement should be "supportable", that is if you don't agree with a characterization, you should ask someone to provide diffs, not just nail them off the bat with some obscure rule. 203.81.67.122 ( talk) 14:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
How much longer must I have my reputation defamed like this? Please make it stop. Ignocrates ( talk) 20:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, I asked both Doug and Jay to ask you to reopen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ebionites 2. I assume the request will need to come through one of them. I have been stalked relentlessly, on and off-wiki, for the better part of the last 2 years. Its time to put an end to this. I will need about a week to prepare my defense and another week to prepare my cross. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
When I click on the red "notifications" numeral at the top of the page, nothing happens, and I certainly don't see any notifications. (That is, on my home and work computers, nothing happens. On my handheld, it's about 50/50.) Is anyone else having trouble with this? Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Besides, when I click on the red it gives me ... nothing. What is the usefulness of this thing? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)June 10 Arianewiki1 mentioned you on Talk:Caldwell catalogue.
(To MZMcBride above) Thanks. I was using Monobook. I just switched to Vector, and now it is working. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, it's adorable that you use "TPW" rather than "TPS." <3
@
MZMcBride: Following up in abject frustration ... my talk page has been active the last few days, and this newfangled thingie is horrid and making my editing experience miserable. I hate really dislike it. MZM, you seem to understand it-- it doesn't work and I can no longer read my talk page via diffs, and the notifications are incorrect and outdated, and I'm missing posts, and reading my talk is time consuming and requiring more clicks than the old orange bar did. Where did this thing come from, where did my orange bar go, how can I get rid of it, can I go back to the old orange bar that links directly to the last diff so I can read by diff, and so that I can not pollute NYB's talk page with my questions, where do I go to figure this mess out? Thanks in advance, an utterly frustrated
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Is Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 subject to the ArbCom sanctions in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion case? It seems to be all about allowing or prohibiting abortion under some circumstances. There's a drama thread at ANI about that article, so I though someone from ArbCom should know... 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 07:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there are two threads about that article now! WP:ANI#User:Arzel constant attacks and not assuming WP:Good Faith and Wikipedia:ANI#User:Anonymous209.6 POV Pushing. 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 07:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Unless the arbs are going to make a motion or group statement, I think it's time to close as without a motion/statement I see nothing further productive coming from it. PumpkinSky talk 18:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2". PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Signpost had a brief mention of this article at Lexology, encouraging corporate lawyers to edit Wikipedia on behalf of their clients. I would have thought that a lawyer representing his client who did NOT put his client's interests above Wikiapedia's (e.g. NPOV), while editing here would be committing a violation of legal ethics. Any thoughts welcomed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Newyorkbrad, I wondered if you'd be interested to read User:WereSpielChequers/Going off the boil? cheers Ϣere SpielChequers 11:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/English_Wikipedia_readership_survey_2013 -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Which Supreme Court Justice Are You? A Noncuratlex.com Personality Quiz
Feel free to post your results here. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.
I hope to see you there!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Harej ( talk) 04:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, NYB. If you'll reread the ANI discussion, there seems to be general consensus that should wickwack actually register an account, rather than use an IP but sign a name manually, he should not be blocked under good behavior. You have issued a block of six months, which implies he'd remain blocked even if he registered. I suggest you contact another poster at that discussion if you think me interpretation is off. Otherwise, I'd reword the ban to drop the six months and make it clear he's not banned if he registers and behaves. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 21:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Connecticut v. Doehr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assault and battery ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Bots can be annoying little creatures, but my experience is that it's best that they not be blocked. signed: chedbot. — Ched : ? 21:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 20:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you take a look at User talk:80.114.178.7? This IP is a sock of a globally-locked user. I wonder if they're using other IPs, etc, as they seem to be very active on many wikis. I've blocked this IP on Commons, and asked a CU/steward there to advise. Also, is the 1-year block good? I've seen other wikis where this IP is blocked longer. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 06:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Connecticut v. Doehr may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Connecticut v. Doehr may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Burnham v. Superior Court of California may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp. may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you look at the case of "Jax 0677" currently at ANI? It seems to me that the community restrictions are self-contradictory and basically baiting him to break his topic ban whenever he "may be asked to assist" by editing exactly the types of pages he's not allowed to edit. I honestly don't understand the big bruhaha over some nav templates, but I've seen several admins go ballistic over an AfD with a forgone conclusion and yet more duke it out over infoboxes (that is still currently featured at ANI), so this about par for Wikipedia 2013... 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 02:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Connecticut v. Doehr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bond ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Brad, I made this post at Jimbo's talk page, which included a question directed to you as the administrator who imposed Russavia's restriction. I would be interested in his thoughts on my proposed idea but obviously wouldn't want anyone to break a restriction, so I asked if he can respond there. If not, is he permitted to respond to the idea on his own talk page? Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 04:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join the
Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history! |
I noticed you're busy elsewhere for Wiknic, so I thought I'd mention this event. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 02:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi NYB, seeing as you have taken it upon yourself to deal with me I am now asking you to deal with personal attacks against myself. This is below the pale -- calling myself and another editor "parasites" is disgraceful. I will no longer be sitting idly by and putting up with personal attacks on myself on this project. Please take action against that. Russavia ( talk) 00:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the term "parasite" is divisive and should not be used to categorize contributors. However, I see that the editor has clarified his comment, explaining that he is using "parasites" to mean (my paraphrase) "editors whose contributions are mostly one or more steps away from actual content creation." For better or worse, that may describe your contributions lately, and it certainly describes mine over the past few years (although not the past couple of weeks!). Personally I don't think this is a valid metric for evaluating an editor's value to the project, as there are plenty of legitimate reasons for non-mainspace editing, this discussion being one of them; but I can't say that reviving the circa 2006 call for "less talk, more writing" is inherently illegitimate, although I'll end where I began and repeat that the sentiment can be expressed in a less inflammatory manner. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Newyorkbrad, but I must insist now that you take action on this. Wer900 has posted the following off-site:
Russavia percieved rightly being called a parasite a "personal attack". What does he think of the people who have been affected by his drama?
So his "clarification" is bollocks, and you should be taking action against it. I've always been honest on this project, and expect the same of others. Perhaps an interaction ban prohibiting Wer900 from commenting on or interacting with myself is warranted here, given the great differential between their on-project and off-project comments and intention of those comments. Russavia ( talk) 14:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
You really should rescind this user's topic ban, both because it sets very bad precedent, and because it is effectively no less a form of workplace bullying than what it purports to address. I am not going to sugarcoat the fact that I instinctively checked to see if your name was up for election after seeing this, and I don't have a vested interest in either of the associated parties, nor do I have any problem with you personally. That's how infuriating it was at first sight. — C M B J 09:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
(e.c.) CMBJ is absolutely right. Brad's actions are clearly 100% related to his upcoming candidacy in the elections in about sixteen months time. At his 2007 election, Brad received 552 supports and 15 opposes, a support rate of 97.4% and was elected to a 3 year term. Thanks to his rampaging through the wiki doing as he pleased with no thought about the encyclopedia, his support plumented at the 2010 election to a mere 89.0% (591 supports, 186 neutral, 73 opposed). Despite this, he scraped back on to the Committee as the first elected, and another 2 years of out-of-control self-aggrandising ego-driven editing resulted. Things turned at the 2012 election when the community recognised his intrinsic evil, dropping his support to an all-time low in his ArbCom career (584 support, 151 neutral, 89 opposed, a support rate of 86.8%). Based on this trend, re-election in 2014 (assuming he runs) is likely to see more than 100 oppositions and only a relentless and vicious campaigh against some innocent editor (like Russavia) will see him have any chance of gaining even a scintilla of approval from a community baying for blood, just as the Romans did when throwing Christians to the Lions. </sarcasm> Seriously, CMBJ, Brad has never fit the shoot-first and damn the consquences model of Arbitrator, and his actions have regularly been criticised as too lenient towards alleged disruption. The idea of him acting against Russavia motivated by political expediency is absurd, not least because the popular over-reaction would have involved a ban or stirring up a mob at a drama board, but also because he needs to campaign for masses of additional support by changing his style in search of cheap populism about as much as he needs to have his kneecaps replaced with fetta cheese. EdChem ( talk) 10:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the perspectives above. The only thing I would like to re-emphasize is that the action I took yesterday was not taken in my capacity as an arbitrator. I realize that this distinction only goes so far in some people's eyes (per comments on this page a month or so ago), but it still may be important to point out. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll be offline most of this afternoon and this evening attending a family event. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you knew but there is a discussion about one of your decisions on Jimbo's talk page. Kumioko ( talk) 00:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Suri 100 ( talk) 07:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
From Baltimore Sun: In 1987, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. [James] Stanley's claim in a 5-to-4 vote, pointing to a federal law which prohibits soldiers from suing the military. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she found the case "so far beyond the bounds of human decency . . . it simply cannot be considered a part of the military mission." Is there a Wikipedia article for this Supreme Court case? It relates to Edgewood Arsenal experiments. 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Great American Wiknic DC at Meridian Hill Park |
![]() |
You are invited to the Great American Wiknic DC at the James Buchanan Memorial at Meridian Hill Park. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :) |
Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.
Harej ( talk) 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If you enjoyed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, hopefully you might also like Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.
The book is quite a fascinating read.
I hope you're doing well, — Cirt ( talk) 07:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice user page. 108.207.243.46 ( talk) 03:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi NYB, would you mind if I were to ask you over the coming days about your views on various issues, which mainly will touch on censorship on this project, of both articles and images. Is this something you are open to do?
Russavia ( talk) 05:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Since you're both on this page, I'll just post here. At the article Pricasso I've removed the link to Commons (for the time being) put there by Russavia. It seems inappropriate while the deletion discussion is going on at Commons. It also appears to be a violation of Russavia's topic ban, which includes "indirectly" ... "posting pictures", which is exactly what he did. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
On the same topic Smallbones has noted above, Russavia has also just issued a similar threat against me: "I would sincerely suggest that you step back, and stop making such attacks against myself, because I am now collating diffs against yourself for future possible use" in response to my post at: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Pricasso. Nick-D ( talk) 10:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
(Writing a response to all this now. Please stand by.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict with Spartaz above)
Russavia, I'm glad to discuss these issues with you as long as the discussion stays on the line of productive and not provocative.
When I see or read ceci n'est pas une pipe what I think of more than anything else is how it and some other works of Magritte's were used in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter, a transformative tour-de-force of a book that I highly recommend to anyone reading here. Hofstadter riffs further on the use-mention distinction in a couple of chapters of Metamagical Themas, another of my favorite books ever. (Anyone who follows my edits excessively closely *waves to a couple of folks on Wikipediocracy* has noticed my shout-out to Hoftstadter and Raymond Smullyan every time I sign a guestbook.)
Incidentally, I can't mention Hofstadter here on Wikipedia without noting that when I first become of what Wikipedia was and how it works, I thought of this project as something he might have anticipated and hoped he would admire. Instead, it turned out that he read his BLP and it contained a bunch of errors and he said it made him sad. That in turn made me sad. I just looked at his article again and it seems to be in much better shape. There is some bickering at the bottom of the talkpage about whether an e-mail from Hofstadter saying he's happier with the article can be referenced; that sort of over-focus on the letter of internal policies at the expense of getting the content right also makes me somewhat sad, although this sort of focus on meta and meta-meta issues in the case of Hofstadter might be considered ironic.
I don't really understand what you were intending to ask me about the bodypainting image, but I'm afraid it doesn't particularly appeal to me or move me. Chacun and all that.
On the more general topic of "censorship," it is a truism that Wikipedia is not censored, but as I've written before in other contexts, in the case of a content dispute this statement must be the beginning rather than the end of the analysis. We are not censored in the sense that we do not adhere to arbitrary lines, particularly ones imposed externally, concerning what we can write about and how. But the statement that we are not censored, and that we do not censor ourselves, does not mean that we do not use our own collective editorial judgment about what we will include and what we will not. When we collectively decide that Joe's Garage Band does not meet our notability requirement and therefore delete an article about it, we may or may not be making a wise decision, but we are not "censoring" the good-faith editor who wrote the article. When we delete an article about a living person who was the subject of an Internet meme because its contents, while true, are gratituously damaging the subject's life, we are making an editorial judgment about how our encyclopedia treats the people affected by what it says, not "censoring" ourselves in any pejorative sense.
In the same vein, but closer to home, when we say that we won't include a depiction of a living individual that he and others reasonably perceive as having been instigated for the express purpose of including it on Wikipedia to annoy or harass him, we are making a value judgment about how we treat one another. And when we ask a contributor with a history of getting into quarrels arising from articles about national and ethnic disputes to refrain from posting cartoons that have proved nationally or ethnically divisive, we are working to maintain a harmonious environment on our collective project, not "censoring" anyone.
As for the issues surrounding Pricasso, some of your comments here and their tone support your critics' view that you are being provocative on purpose ("trolling"). Indeed, given everything that has occurred since you returned to English Wikipedia a few months ago (beginning with your first edit summary), it is increasingly difficult to avoid that conclusion. This is especially disappointing given that in your post the other day, you tried to create the impression that you were stepping away from pricking this particular blister. I personally have not endorsed all the criticisms of you from various sources in recent weeks (for example, I thought that classifying your query about Bulgarian copyright law as a topic-ban violation was a bit hypertechnical), but we do not need editors who are deliberately playing games and wasting people's time.
Mr. Pricasso is presumably a legitimate subject for an article, although it's not an article that I personally would have the inclination or expertise to write. I still think, and am not alone in thinking, that it was grossly inappropriate for you to induce Mr. Pricasso to create a depiction of Jimmy Wales and to include it in the article. You are under my directive not to include that on English Wikipedia, and while I have no authority on Commons, I think it is grossly inappropriate for you to include it there either, and I instruct you not to link to it.
Your turning the Pricasso article into a vehicle for taking a gratuituous snipe at a living person who happens to be a leading Wikipedian has made the article grossly internally divisive. For this reason, I do not believe it should be mainpaged, quite apart from any issues regarding its subject-matter.
As for the previous transgressive piece you promoted for the mainpage, I am sorry, but I have absolutely nothing to say about your Fucking article.
Finally, Russavia, your constant comments that you are collecting diffs on anyone and everyone are becoming enormously tiresome. I suggest that you drop that particular theme at once, both here and on other projects.
You are capable of making legitimate contributions without stirring up drama, when you want to. If you want to remain active on this project, clean up your act. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have absolutely nothing to say about your Fucking article.Hee! Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you please reply to my email? Enough is enough 21:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.54.66 ( talk)
Please reply. You got my mail, yes?
I see your e-mail now. (I'm not always logged in to my Wikipedia account and my Gmail account at the same time.) I am considering whether and how to respond to this and your prior e-mail, but I acknowledge receiving them. Do not post further on this page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Brad, I've closed the LNC AfD as a speedy keep. I realize that my actions may be a bit out of the standard process, but in reviewing the AN discussion along with comments made at User:Iridescent's talk page I felt it was proper, albeit wp:bold. If you feel I am in error to do so, please feel free to revert; however, I trust that you and the people who are familiar with the subject are the best judges as to how this should be handled. Kind Regards, — Ched : ? 18:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I discuss on the article talkpage which I tottally disagree that it is a good edit by saying that and explaination of reverting the German anthems on the article that they are bad-faith edits a.k.a. vandalism NewFranco ( talk) 00:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
NewFranco, sometimes whether something is vandalism is a judgment call. Other times, it's easy. For example, if someone adds vulgarity to an article, sometimes called "poop vandalism", that's pretty obvious. If someone intentionally adds clearly false information, e.g., changes a person's birth date to something preposterous, that's easy, too. Another example is in the case of WP:BLPs, when someone adds very negative, unsourced material. For the most part, WP:AIV is reserved for that kind of vandalism, although less obvious vandalism is sometimes considered, particularly if there's a clear pattern of it. Look at the instructions at the top of AIV where it talks about obvious vandalism (bold in the instructions). Also, look at the AIV Guide, which is also linked to in the instructions. Reporting a user with whom you have a content dispute almost never belongs at AIV.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed this move. Was there a problem with the former name of the article, and had you discussed the move with anyone before you made it? Please note that the word "terminology" in a common one in English, whereas while "toponymy" may be technically more precise, it is a word that no one other than a professional geographer is likely to have heard of. Unless there is some reason not to, I am inclined to return the article to its original location, but I will be glad to consider your reply first. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Appearance of impropriety seems in need of substantial expansion. Both in the purely legal and in the wider ethical context there is plenty of material, and I don't mean just examples. 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 12:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of removing the "there's related media on Commons" template, as it contains (1 link down) the image that you tossed Russavia for trying to include in the article directly. To me, it seems to be a distinction without a difference whether one directly inserts an image that has been deemed a BLP violation or if one links to a gallery where it may be accessed by an additional mouseclick. Predictably, a Commons admin (Denniss) has shown up to object. Thoughts? Tarc ( talk) 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've not digged myself far down this mess, but I noticed when browsing their forum that you are registered there. Due to a possible conflict of interest I would recommend you to not make any further edits on the article. Regards. → Aza Toth 23:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've just raised this with the closing admin at User_talk:Crisco_1492#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAlexander_Montagu.2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Particularly whether you see him as not notable because either peers aren't notable, or because court cases aren't notable. Mostly though I'm concerned about the Wikipediocracy aspect. Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I see the talk page for Argentine history proposed decision is now off-limits to IPs, so I will respond to your comment about accusations here instead.
You know someone is going to use language like that (the proposed language) as an excuse for a block the first time someone describes someone's viewpoint without posting a bunch of diffs. People just don't post diffs in a normal talk page discussion, and blocking people for doing it, or threatening to, is a bit chilling to discussion. One approach to civility I've seen used effectively is that a statement should be "supportable", that is if you don't agree with a characterization, you should ask someone to provide diffs, not just nail them off the bat with some obscure rule. 203.81.67.122 ( talk) 14:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
How much longer must I have my reputation defamed like this? Please make it stop. Ignocrates ( talk) 20:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, I asked both Doug and Jay to ask you to reopen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ebionites 2. I assume the request will need to come through one of them. I have been stalked relentlessly, on and off-wiki, for the better part of the last 2 years. Its time to put an end to this. I will need about a week to prepare my defense and another week to prepare my cross. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
When I click on the red "notifications" numeral at the top of the page, nothing happens, and I certainly don't see any notifications. (That is, on my home and work computers, nothing happens. On my handheld, it's about 50/50.) Is anyone else having trouble with this? Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Besides, when I click on the red it gives me ... nothing. What is the usefulness of this thing? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)June 10 Arianewiki1 mentioned you on Talk:Caldwell catalogue.
(To MZMcBride above) Thanks. I was using Monobook. I just switched to Vector, and now it is working. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, it's adorable that you use "TPW" rather than "TPS." <3
@
MZMcBride: Following up in abject frustration ... my talk page has been active the last few days, and this newfangled thingie is horrid and making my editing experience miserable. I hate really dislike it. MZM, you seem to understand it-- it doesn't work and I can no longer read my talk page via diffs, and the notifications are incorrect and outdated, and I'm missing posts, and reading my talk is time consuming and requiring more clicks than the old orange bar did. Where did this thing come from, where did my orange bar go, how can I get rid of it, can I go back to the old orange bar that links directly to the last diff so I can read by diff, and so that I can not pollute NYB's talk page with my questions, where do I go to figure this mess out? Thanks in advance, an utterly frustrated
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
14:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Is Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 subject to the ArbCom sanctions in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion case? It seems to be all about allowing or prohibiting abortion under some circumstances. There's a drama thread at ANI about that article, so I though someone from ArbCom should know... 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 07:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there are two threads about that article now! WP:ANI#User:Arzel constant attacks and not assuming WP:Good Faith and Wikipedia:ANI#User:Anonymous209.6 POV Pushing. 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 07:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Unless the arbs are going to make a motion or group statement, I think it's time to close as without a motion/statement I see nothing further productive coming from it. PumpkinSky talk 18:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2". PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Signpost had a brief mention of this article at Lexology, encouraging corporate lawyers to edit Wikipedia on behalf of their clients. I would have thought that a lawyer representing his client who did NOT put his client's interests above Wikiapedia's (e.g. NPOV), while editing here would be committing a violation of legal ethics. Any thoughts welcomed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)