![]() | 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. |
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of
your recent edits, such as the edit you made to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, did not appear to be constructive. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. Thank you.
NE Ent
09:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey there. As an uninvolved participant in an ArbCom case on info boxes, I wanted to ask an opinion about this. Since you were the one who proposed a community-wide RfC on info boxes in order to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article at that arbitration case (which was closed during my two-month long semi-retirement), I was wondering if it's possible to start up the RfC. Any thoughts or ideas about this? Regards, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's much sense in re-fighting an old RFAR. The simple fact of the matter is that I repeatedly asked for proof that this was a true project-wide dispute and none was really adduced. If Arbcom seized on lack of evidence as proof of a broader dispute then they did everyone a grave disservice. There's a raw statistic which might help shed light on this: {{ Infobox}} is used on 1.8 million articles, or roughly 41% of all articles on the English Wikipedia. Even that number is low as there are plenty of infoboxes which don't use it as a base. If there's truly a project-wide issue I would have expected broader participation in the RFAR and a greater groundswell for RFCs to resolve these matters. None of this is happening, because for most people this isn't a controversial issue. This is leaving aside the entire question of content re-use and portable data, both of which are pressing matters in web design. Whatever. I spend enough time fighting that battle in my actual job; I'm not going to fight it here, too. You don't have to buy my view that this was ultimately a parochial dispute with a small cross-section of editors. I'm not selling it. I'd rather be editing articles, and the portions of the project I edit aren't disturbed by this intractable problem. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
And, Andy's role should be viewed in the context of other assaults made on FAs to promote personal stylistic preferences by like-minded technical editors, and the effect that (and the alliances) had on the FA process. Keep in mind that in most historical lame technical style issues, style warriors attack FAs first (in one recent case, moving from one sock to another to escape detection and achieve maximum changes to FAs without detection, aided, fyi, by some arbs), because they believe that if they can install their personal preferences in FAs, they will achieve trickle down to other articles. Same happened with the date-delinking debacle, the stylistic citation preferences furthered by a one editor, Br'er Rabbit et al and his associates, and in the infobox wars. Whether Andy's role was peripheral or central, FAs are often a first target, which is why most of the FA community has long known just what was going on.
In response to Mackensen, it doesn't strike me that you are reading what is on this page any more than Gerda is; diffs are there, please read them. There is still disruption, there is still proxying, and there are still undefined issues about infoboxes. I hope you will work to understand those issues, and realize that Wikipedia is not the same place it was five or eight years ago. It is much nastier, and it is much harder for the arbs to get a handle on things, so they perhaps have made a decision to limit the scope of cases, and focus only on the worst offenders in each case. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey NYB - I was wondering what the right place would be to raise discussion of an old ArbCom subject. Specifically, we're coming up on the three-year anniversary of Case/Abortion, at which point some of the remedies expire. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 13:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to make one correction to your statement on the Noticeboard talk page. I never took a position on the Manning article name change, either for or against. I did not participate in the move discussions. I just presented evidence of what I perceived to be open activist involvement in the matter. Cla68 ( talk) 23:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Brad! I didn't know you were familiar with Peter David or comics! Are you a fellow comics reader like me? Nightscream ( talk) 05:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I see a year ago you did a "speedy keep" at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica and now an associated TfD has arisen Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 9#WikiAfrica subpages. I also stumbled upon some discussion here and here. I don't know the background but it looks likely you do. Can you help? CoI declaration: no-one pays me anything except for my pension! Thincat ( talk) 14:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I've now had a message on my talk page. [4] If you're busy perhaps there is someone else with background knowledge who can sort things out. Thincat ( talk) 23:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll have limited online time and access this weekend. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Over here. John lilburne ( talk) 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Not to include these facts is a distinct disservice to our readers ... That those facts will have a harmful effect on a living person is regrettable ... We are not a social services agency, here to make everyone feel better about themselves ... we are here to write a critique of bad behaviour
It appears that my IRC cloak has expired (it's been a year or so since I logged on). Could an IRC op (or whatever the proper terminology is) please re-issue my cloak (ditto). If there are any questions please e-mail me. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The reasons you don't want me to discuss that user's ban are not at all obvious to me. I was merely adding my voice to the discussion and expressing support for the ArbCom's decision. What's wrong with that? It seems to me that, as a previous victim of the banned user, my perspective might be particularly useful. However, if you don't want me to offer any more comments, I won't. It seems the matter is essentially done and settled anyway. I just don't think there was any reason to call me out like that. Everyking ( talk) 00:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
He changed the work done on many pages that would no one but he also changed things that would hurt people, such as this. He is a self-righteous paladine. Please take no offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 01:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So this where the wiki battle begins I see. By the way do u know what a paladine is?
Did I spell it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 01:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
why did u remove my correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 01:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. thank you for showing me the error of my ways. How did you even see it? Plus I thought it to be more polite to talk before interrogating you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I dont have a talk page. but Guess what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 01:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
boobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 02:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I have returned and I apologize for my previous trolling. It was inappropriate and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 03:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Brad, I am the troll from earlier. I have created an account and you seem to be a very good user. Would you please visit my new page and help my get my talk page started better. Thank you. The Tmoney ( talk) 19:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
At the request for removing a topic ban you stated "I have enough concerns about Iantresman's past editing in these topic-areas that I can't support this motion at this time." While the edits have not been within the article space, Iantresman 's talk comments have been troublesome additions to sprawling circular non productive "discussions". Particularly troublesome is the content in this section, wherein Iantresman displays a complete lack of competence in reading the sources or is fully attempting to push a pseudoscience agenda. Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#And_now_.22widely.22 As a background for the discussion it is whether or not it is appropriate to describe Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" as being something that is "widely" held to be pseudoscience. Barney has created a list of scientists to back the claim, Iantresman attempts to counter by taking statements completely out of context.
What would the next steps be to remove this disruption from the talk page? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your message. On the point, I am not sure if the US nationals enjoy the same visa requirements as the US citizens? As I understand their passports are marked on annotations page as such. If they don't enjoy the same visa requirements as the US citizens then the article did not and does not reflect their visa requirements. That being said, I can't find any online resource that would provide more information on visa requirements for the US nationals.-- Twofortnights ( talk) 02:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Without Roger and Risker much weight falls on your shoulders. You and Carcharoth are all that is left. Dave (Worm) has exceeded all expectations .. and with 28bytes and Floq coming on board - perhaps there is a chance. Teach them Brad. The project should be as you say - but I know that you prefer to be "one voice". Please use that voice to teach. — Ched ZILLA 02:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Brad, how busy are you? Per this, I need to divulge my old account name to one arbitrator, for them to "conduct a full review and confirm that the previous account holds no history that would be of current concern or criticism by eligible voters." If you have the time and the inclination, I'd like you to be the one to do that. But I'll pester one of the other five arbs in your tranche if you can't do it. Thanks. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Final exam for wikilawyers. (Note: revised and expanded from previous versions some of you may have seen.) Enjoy. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
In a discussion here that is now archived, I requested to be informed how to understand "disruptive edits", - a term that might be interpreted differently. There was no answer to the request to see a specific example, so I ask you and everyone ready to help my understanding the opposite way: do you think this edit was "normal", "bold" or "disruptive", and why. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, since you strangely pinged me to this discussion, and have continued here in spite of NYB advising you to back off, I have looked up the case and the clarification request. Here, both SilkTork and Fuchs say that "When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested." Please stop proxying for inboxes on NYB's talk page. I don't understand why PotW is still adding infoboxes for you, but then I'm not an arb or an admin. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
"Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". I will not discuss if the restriction not to add an infobox to one's own article makes any sense before the arbcom election. The new article is about a journalist, other journalists have an infobox. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you free to take a look ? Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:25, 27 November 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. |
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of
your recent edits, such as the edit you made to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, did not appear to be constructive. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. Thank you.
NE Ent
09:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey there. As an uninvolved participant in an ArbCom case on info boxes, I wanted to ask an opinion about this. Since you were the one who proposed a community-wide RfC on info boxes in order to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article at that arbitration case (which was closed during my two-month long semi-retirement), I was wondering if it's possible to start up the RfC. Any thoughts or ideas about this? Regards, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's much sense in re-fighting an old RFAR. The simple fact of the matter is that I repeatedly asked for proof that this was a true project-wide dispute and none was really adduced. If Arbcom seized on lack of evidence as proof of a broader dispute then they did everyone a grave disservice. There's a raw statistic which might help shed light on this: {{ Infobox}} is used on 1.8 million articles, or roughly 41% of all articles on the English Wikipedia. Even that number is low as there are plenty of infoboxes which don't use it as a base. If there's truly a project-wide issue I would have expected broader participation in the RFAR and a greater groundswell for RFCs to resolve these matters. None of this is happening, because for most people this isn't a controversial issue. This is leaving aside the entire question of content re-use and portable data, both of which are pressing matters in web design. Whatever. I spend enough time fighting that battle in my actual job; I'm not going to fight it here, too. You don't have to buy my view that this was ultimately a parochial dispute with a small cross-section of editors. I'm not selling it. I'd rather be editing articles, and the portions of the project I edit aren't disturbed by this intractable problem. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
And, Andy's role should be viewed in the context of other assaults made on FAs to promote personal stylistic preferences by like-minded technical editors, and the effect that (and the alliances) had on the FA process. Keep in mind that in most historical lame technical style issues, style warriors attack FAs first (in one recent case, moving from one sock to another to escape detection and achieve maximum changes to FAs without detection, aided, fyi, by some arbs), because they believe that if they can install their personal preferences in FAs, they will achieve trickle down to other articles. Same happened with the date-delinking debacle, the stylistic citation preferences furthered by a one editor, Br'er Rabbit et al and his associates, and in the infobox wars. Whether Andy's role was peripheral or central, FAs are often a first target, which is why most of the FA community has long known just what was going on.
In response to Mackensen, it doesn't strike me that you are reading what is on this page any more than Gerda is; diffs are there, please read them. There is still disruption, there is still proxying, and there are still undefined issues about infoboxes. I hope you will work to understand those issues, and realize that Wikipedia is not the same place it was five or eight years ago. It is much nastier, and it is much harder for the arbs to get a handle on things, so they perhaps have made a decision to limit the scope of cases, and focus only on the worst offenders in each case. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey NYB - I was wondering what the right place would be to raise discussion of an old ArbCom subject. Specifically, we're coming up on the three-year anniversary of Case/Abortion, at which point some of the remedies expire. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 13:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to make one correction to your statement on the Noticeboard talk page. I never took a position on the Manning article name change, either for or against. I did not participate in the move discussions. I just presented evidence of what I perceived to be open activist involvement in the matter. Cla68 ( talk) 23:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Brad! I didn't know you were familiar with Peter David or comics! Are you a fellow comics reader like me? Nightscream ( talk) 05:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I see a year ago you did a "speedy keep" at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica and now an associated TfD has arisen Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 9#WikiAfrica subpages. I also stumbled upon some discussion here and here. I don't know the background but it looks likely you do. Can you help? CoI declaration: no-one pays me anything except for my pension! Thincat ( talk) 14:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I've now had a message on my talk page. [4] If you're busy perhaps there is someone else with background knowledge who can sort things out. Thincat ( talk) 23:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll have limited online time and access this weekend. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Over here. John lilburne ( talk) 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Not to include these facts is a distinct disservice to our readers ... That those facts will have a harmful effect on a living person is regrettable ... We are not a social services agency, here to make everyone feel better about themselves ... we are here to write a critique of bad behaviour
It appears that my IRC cloak has expired (it's been a year or so since I logged on). Could an IRC op (or whatever the proper terminology is) please re-issue my cloak (ditto). If there are any questions please e-mail me. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The reasons you don't want me to discuss that user's ban are not at all obvious to me. I was merely adding my voice to the discussion and expressing support for the ArbCom's decision. What's wrong with that? It seems to me that, as a previous victim of the banned user, my perspective might be particularly useful. However, if you don't want me to offer any more comments, I won't. It seems the matter is essentially done and settled anyway. I just don't think there was any reason to call me out like that. Everyking ( talk) 00:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
He changed the work done on many pages that would no one but he also changed things that would hurt people, such as this. He is a self-righteous paladine. Please take no offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 01:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So this where the wiki battle begins I see. By the way do u know what a paladine is?
Did I spell it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 01:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
why did u remove my correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 01:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. thank you for showing me the error of my ways. How did you even see it? Plus I thought it to be more polite to talk before interrogating you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I dont have a talk page. but Guess what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 01:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
boobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 02:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I have returned and I apologize for my previous trolling. It was inappropriate and wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.39.145 ( talk) 03:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Brad, I am the troll from earlier. I have created an account and you seem to be a very good user. Would you please visit my new page and help my get my talk page started better. Thank you. The Tmoney ( talk) 19:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
At the request for removing a topic ban you stated "I have enough concerns about Iantresman's past editing in these topic-areas that I can't support this motion at this time." While the edits have not been within the article space, Iantresman 's talk comments have been troublesome additions to sprawling circular non productive "discussions". Particularly troublesome is the content in this section, wherein Iantresman displays a complete lack of competence in reading the sources or is fully attempting to push a pseudoscience agenda. Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#And_now_.22widely.22 As a background for the discussion it is whether or not it is appropriate to describe Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" as being something that is "widely" held to be pseudoscience. Barney has created a list of scientists to back the claim, Iantresman attempts to counter by taking statements completely out of context.
What would the next steps be to remove this disruption from the talk page? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your message. On the point, I am not sure if the US nationals enjoy the same visa requirements as the US citizens? As I understand their passports are marked on annotations page as such. If they don't enjoy the same visa requirements as the US citizens then the article did not and does not reflect their visa requirements. That being said, I can't find any online resource that would provide more information on visa requirements for the US nationals.-- Twofortnights ( talk) 02:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Without Roger and Risker much weight falls on your shoulders. You and Carcharoth are all that is left. Dave (Worm) has exceeded all expectations .. and with 28bytes and Floq coming on board - perhaps there is a chance. Teach them Brad. The project should be as you say - but I know that you prefer to be "one voice". Please use that voice to teach. — Ched ZILLA 02:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Brad, how busy are you? Per this, I need to divulge my old account name to one arbitrator, for them to "conduct a full review and confirm that the previous account holds no history that would be of current concern or criticism by eligible voters." If you have the time and the inclination, I'd like you to be the one to do that. But I'll pester one of the other five arbs in your tranche if you can't do it. Thanks. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Final exam for wikilawyers. (Note: revised and expanded from previous versions some of you may have seen.) Enjoy. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
In a discussion here that is now archived, I requested to be informed how to understand "disruptive edits", - a term that might be interpreted differently. There was no answer to the request to see a specific example, so I ask you and everyone ready to help my understanding the opposite way: do you think this edit was "normal", "bold" or "disruptive", and why. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, since you strangely pinged me to this discussion, and have continued here in spite of NYB advising you to back off, I have looked up the case and the clarification request. Here, both SilkTork and Fuchs say that "When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested." Please stop proxying for inboxes on NYB's talk page. I don't understand why PotW is still adding infoboxes for you, but then I'm not an arb or an admin. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
"Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". I will not discuss if the restriction not to add an infobox to one's own article makes any sense before the arbcom election. The new article is about a journalist, other journalists have an infobox. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you free to take a look ? Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)