User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Nov

Authority to topic ban?
Hi, Brad. I just put a lawyerly question on WP:AN, but I'd really like to unblock the user as soon as possible, and I don't want to end up with an unenforceable ban, so I thought I'd ping a real wikilawyer. :-) If you're around, and have any thoughts in the matter, it would be great if you'd respond, there or here. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
 * (Does the union of "a Wikipedian" and "a real lawyer" produce "a real wikilawyer," or is that description specially for me? Nah, never mind, don't answer that. :-) )
 * I would think that if an editor agrees that "if I'm unblocked early I won't do X," the community has the right to assume that if unblocked early the editor won't do X. Although I can imagine situations where an administrator could potentially overreach in proposing such a deal, as long as the conditions are reasonable that shouldn't be an issue. And as I've said on-wiki before, I'd actually like to see more of that sort of thing in appropriate cases (e.g. "don't edit the article you've been edit-warring in for the next day" in lieu of a 24-hour 3RR block for a good-faith editor who's gotten carried away on an issue). Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We probably need to codify this just to spell out the basics, but I've seen it used several times with no issues, so I assume it is fine, if only due to WP:IAR. There is no need for any more than a couple of sentences in policy.  There are plenty of protections as it is: The blocked user can always say no and request a different admin review.  The community can always review any action any admin does, like any other admin action.  And they can lift the ban after they have shown it is no longer needed, like any other tban.  Essentially, the admin is acting on behalf of the community (as we do with any admin action) and offering a better solution than having the editor staying blocked.  Seems like something we would want to encourage in many situations. Dennis - 2&cent; 01:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you both, and Jehochman for fixing the bradspeak. I have offered the user an unblock. Six months may seem like a long ban, but on the other hand it's a very small topic area. I'm sure the user can find plenty of other fields for their contributions. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC).
 * I'm reminded of WP:NOJUSTICE, which makes the primary point that there is no "justice" at Wikipedia, only solutions. Any solution that is reasonable, gets people back to editing, and prevents disruption, is indeed a good solution.  Dennis - 2&cent; 01:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this really what y'all meant by the admin board ban?
This?. Some of the usual suspects are whipping themselves into an orgiastic frenzy because I dared to bring a matter to ANI. I was pretty sure that our understanding was that exceptions were possible if it was a matter in which I was personally involved...e.g. I am named in an ANI complaint or am in need of admin assistance in a case in which I have already been personally involved in, i.e. Gamergate. As I understood the intention of the topic ban, y'all wanted to get me out of admin-area topics in which i had no prior connection to. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I voted against that remedy, so someone else should probably opine on what it means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a legal term
I came across a source discussing this, but I can't find it now, and I don't remember the magic words to search for. Someone was opining that the 4th circuit Halbig en banc review may get put on hold to see what happens with King at scotus, rather than wasting time on something that will get mooted. They had a particular term for this (waiting), but I can't remember what it was. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Most likely the term you want is stay. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the magic word was abeyance Gaijin42 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, but actually "stayed" is the more common term in this context, at least in my state. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You are certainly orders of magnitude more of an expert in the area than I am, but my layman's interpretation of stay is to suspend a ruling that has already been made. Of course my legal knowledge is 1/2 reading cases/blogs, and 1/2 watching perry mason so my interpretation is obviously suspect. Here is the ScotusBlog entry I was looking for at the time I made my original post above. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/delay-sought-on-health-care-at-appeals-court/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Latin Phrase
Quousque tandem is how the First Speech against Catilina begins: "For how long are you going to abuse our patience?" The backstory is Catilina's attempt to overthrow the Senate and assassinate Cicero the evening before. It gets only more vehement and much better further in: Ad mortem te, Catilina, duci iussu consulis iam pridem oportebat! "You should have been taken away to execution long ago!" But policital realities are against taking that path: ''Tum denique interficiere, cum iam nemo tam inprobus ... inveniri poterit qui id non iure factum esse fateatur. Quamdiu quisquam erit, qui te defendere audeat, vives'' "Only then will you lose your life when no one so criminal can be found who won't believe that it wasn't done with good cause.  You will stay alive as long as you find a defender."

Wikipedia and the Roman Senate are strikingly similar. No constitution, no laws that the members are bound by, an assembly of more or less powerful people, led by force of personality.

Do ban Carol, though. 67.255.123.1 (talk)

as far as 'Quousque' v 'Quo usque' goes, the old Romans allowed words to be run together; the two mean the same. English as she is spoke nowadays has this too, whoever, whatever, henceforth etc. The Germans love all this; some German words can be several metres long. pablo 19:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes; 67.etc but the usual takeaway from someone quoting that is simply that patience is being tried.

GGTF case
I recommend you consider a change of the point on "expletives" to "profanity", which is a much more apt description. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, but then we'd have to distinguish among profanity and vulgarity and obscenity, which to purists are three quite different things. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, "vulgarity", as I'm sure you are aware, is about being "common", "low", or "coarse". Whereas "profanity", as I'm sure you're aware, is about being disrespectful or irreverent. Hence, I think it is quite clear that "profanity" is what is at issue here, not "vulgarity". "Expletive" is not a good description of anything. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Man, your hope that Sitush now understands that he should not write articles about editors he's in conflict with seems to be contrary to what Sitush is actually saying. See his reponse to Demiurge in ggtf talk page please! DoctorTerrella (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Help please
At User_talk:Worm_That_Turned, I'm having trouble getting a response to my request for at least some of you on the Committee to have a look at something that happened yesterday that you may or may not find relevant to a case you're voting on as we speak. Could I ask you to have a look? Reply anywhere you like. P.S. Dennis has already "unhatted" per my request. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen it and I believe other arbitrators have also. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

My comment on the Proposed decision talk, and yours
Brad, I had second thoughts about speaking so unkindly to Neotarf, who is a guest in Bishzilla's pocket, and removed my post. I realize you had sort of commented on mine, or at least used my comment as a background to yours, sorry about that. I hope you don't mind. Maybe you could just change the "concur"? Bishonen &#124; talk 00:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC).
 * Done. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Short
Re [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests&diff=634170913&oldid=634162336], seems to me a certain arbitrator is is getting very short. NE Ent 03:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Quack, quack. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Court decision citing Wikipedia articles about Hasidic Judaism and Chabad
See Lubovitch-Chabad House of Illinois, Inc. v. Northwestern University, decided today by the Seventh Circuit. Opinion by Judge Posner and a short concurrence by Judge Bauer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be lying if I didn't admit that made me a little uneasy, knowing we often have articles vandalized or in the middle of POV wars. I'm sure the article wasn't a deciding factor, but it still raises the bar on accountability when any US Court of Appeals uses us as a source.  Dennis - 2&cent; 01:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is funny that the section they're citing has no single reference to a reliable source. 117.27.245.98 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oy vey. What next? Wikipedia-guided surgery? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If by Wikipedia-guided surgery, you mean that a surgeon might provide patients with a list of background sources to use in learning more about their disease, and that such a list might include Wikipedia articles. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if some doctors already recommend Wikipedia to their patients.  (Whether or not they should do so is a separate question.)  But neither such hypothetical doctors, not the judges in this case seem to be relying on Wikipedia to guide their actions.  Rather the judges simply seem to be suggesting Wikipedia as a way to learn more about a topic peripherally relevant to the case.  Incidentally, Judge Posner, the author of the opinion in this case has a long history of citing Wikipedia, . and his Seventh circuit does so far more often than other appeals courts (as of 2012) .  Dragons flight (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is still true. See here for some more sources on courts citing Wikipedia, a subject on which there is now a fair amount of literature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had patient relatives cite something on they read wikipedia to me when discussing treatment options, and one of my colleagues saw my name pop up on a medical article on a smartphone as at the top it said "last edited by Casliber" which doesn't happen in the desktop display. Interesting times....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If I learned that my doctor is a Wikipedian, I would have changed the doctor at once, and the same with my attorney. If I found out my attorney is Wikipedia's arbitrator, I would have fired him. To survive being an arbitrator one should be so deliciously dishonest, so horribly cowardly... not the qualities I'm looking for...  117.27.245.98 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you aren't sending the retainer check you promised?? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology
I should probably apologize for my comment, even figuratively speaking it was incredibly insulting and I shouldn't pop off at the mouth like that. I think you missed the mark on the comment when it was originally made but damn it I could do better in communication sometime, either way it was out of line on my part. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

27k worth of text added
I didn't want it to come to this but I am coming to you for an opinion regarding 27k worth of material that Rich has added to the GGTF arbcom page. Is this what you meant by responses? If everyone did the same thing as Rich here we would have a page that quite possibly would break Wikipedia (Or very very very slow load times). The whole thing is a wall of text and an eye sore and I ask you to address it. I will ping so he knows I came here. I thought hatting the section would at least make things easier to navigate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC):
 * It actually breaks search to hat it. We have a table of contents to enable speedy navigation. If a significant number of people want to address the proposed decision on an item-by-item basis (say another three or more) we could trivially refactor into a threaded discussion.  I know you disagree with some of what I said, I would rather hear your reasons for disagreeing about substantive matters than waste time on formatting issues. To start with, do you support any of the site bans, and if so why? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC).


 * I understand you want to get your point across to the Arbs Rich but all I am asking is that you condense the info. There is a way to get your points across by not repeating word by word in a copy/paste format the entire proposed remedies section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly is a greater contribution, measured in terms of size, than we are used to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See! Eric could take lessons... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

In all seriousness, I have to focus on something other than this case tonight, so I'll leave this issue for other arbitrators or the clerks to work through. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The statement
Sorry I wasn't able to get to it today. After seeing how the talk page has degenerated, I can understand your wish to move forward, things are quite out of control. This is the virtual version of mob violence, it is a palpable wave. I can't imagine similar outbursts against gays, blacks, Jews, ... by now the normal people would have been able to step in and revdelete everything as vandalism. Best I stop for the evening before I say something I'll regret. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please post your statement as soon as you can. You should ignore anything extraneous and focus simply on the evaluation of your behavior in the proposed decision. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, I know, I'm still a bit medicated and on crutches, but stepping away from the keyboard for a while seems to have helped, and I will post something tonight. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Summary now posted here, there is a more detailed analysis of diffs upthread. Most of these diff aren't even about Gender Gap group. —Neotarf (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI IBAN
Hi, you've been quoted at this ANI. Given the iban between him and me, I also request that you as an admin formally notify the subject of my complaint. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about this thread. I do not think I would have been the proper person to advise The Rambling Man of the discussion. Fortunately, someone else has already notified him. (I also note that he's posted on his talk that he is away right now.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I'm around for a while longer. I look forward to any action against me.  It'd be rewarding to see how such esteemed members of the hierarchy treat content editors who just vocalise their disagreement, while completely ignoring others who directly abuse people.  We'll see.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you simply vocalized your disagreements with other editors in reasonable terms, I don't think there would be an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you didn't just wade in and act like a schoolmaster then we'd be in some form of agreement all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nichols
I've sourced the plays in the 70's and 80's section and marked the nom ready. I don't know if you want to ping Thryduulf or if you think he might see that as harassment. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I love that movie
I love that movie. One of Kubrick's best in my opinion.

Did you know it was originally written as a serious drama? They decided it worked better as a comedy and only changed the script a little. By providing dead-pan presentations of dramatic writing they achieved a comedy masterpiece. Chillum 02:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Iago: Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161
What would you say if there were three guys, and one said, "NYB is a thief", another said "NYB is a murderer" and the third said "NYB is a blasphemer". So they all go to a judge and the judge writes up a ticket that says "NYB is a murderer, a thief, and a blasphemer". And each one votes for it, because at least part of it must be true.

So that's what this Arbcom case looks like to me, and it looks like various arbs think so too, because several have expressed some reservations about various parts of it. I've gone into it at length Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision. For one thing, as you noted, the name thing isn't spelled out, as far as what actions should have been taken, what actions were taken, and there are probably some addition issues revolving around multiple requests to stay off of talk pages, which complicates the venue question, as well as answering a direct question from arbitrator, and why the venue wasn't redirected at that time if it was not the correct one. But if the finding of fact is going to refer to "normal dispute resolution", and the remedies refer to "appropriate channels", what those channels are should be spelled out, if this thing is not to look like a kangaroo court. Likewise with the question of "passive aggressive". I can go into the reasons for wanting to start a dialogue about it if you're interested, but the real question is: Why am I being dragged off to Arbcom because I want to start a dialogue about it. Is it taboo to discuss this subject? And why is Arbcom using an opinion expressed by a user on a talk page as a reliable source for the purpose of determining, in a finding no less, that "passive-aggressive behaviour is not necessarily linked to mental health." This kind of begs the question of the phrase being used as an insult, as a circumlocution in the "if you don't want to be called passive-aggressive, don't act passive-aggressive" meme, and to stigmatize mental health problems (compare with "retard"). I am asking for this to be broken up into sections, where the separate parts of the question can be voted on separately.

Finally, it is no secret that I have wanted to "retire with dignity" for some time, but this arbcom case is leaving me with the burden of more and more wikilawyering and more and more appeals ... every day this place is making me more and more like Kumioko. I wonder if this is what he went through. —Neotarf (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My view is that you would be well-served by disengaging for awhile from any activity on Wikipedia that isn't related to actually writing articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ira, that would have been my first choice, but as you may recall, I was named as a party, after the case started, under very non-transparent circumstances. I tried to walk away, but was given no choice. And if I do disengage, then what? Won't those who wish to humiliate me get to define the narrative?   —Neotarf (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Civility paroles
Re: ... yes, those are fair points, and it's not like I have a better idea. But then, I think the entire idea that civility can be "enforced" is fruitless and the root of some really misguided thinking. Civility can be modeled&mdash;and you've been as outstanding a model as anyone over the years&mdash;but it can't realistically be "enforced". We can either accept these sorts of editors because the good outweighs the bad, or we can separate them from the project (because the bad outweighs the good). Either approach is arguably reasonable. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect these sorts of editors to change&mdash;at least, not in response to a set of restrictions crafted by ArbCom. MastCell Talk 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that Eric Corbett has indicated at times over the past months that he is willing to change his approach&mdash;though at other times he's given contradictory signals&mdash;so there is just a chance the approach might work in his case. And the fact that some other editors will be demoralized if he is outright banned now without a final chance, while it would not deter the Committee from acting if consensus were clear, is a legitimate factor for us to consider where consensus remains confused. Anyway, we'll see what the other arbs say. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Having watched this Gender Gap arbcom develop, it seems that some of your colleagues are determined to ban Eric, come what may. This is unfortunate, given that civility issues should never trump content creation. LHMask me a question 00:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While I've opposed the siteban proposal, I do not agree with your absolutistist formulation using the word "never." Clearly there is some level of incivility and personal attacks that would require removing an editor from the project even though he or she is generating good content. We collectively do ourselves no favors if we, in a hypothetical case, retain one problematic editor but in the process that editor drives five others away. The issue is one of line-drawing and of predicting future behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume both of you have worked as managers/supervisors/leaders at some point in your professional careers? If so, I'm going to go out on a limb and propose then, that you have some agreement on universal management practices which help organizations operate effectively and succeed, or at least helped your organizations to do so.  I have no comment on the current case, but remember that Wikipedia is an organization and, instead of trying to treat it as some kind of special snowflake of an utopian ideal in which we make up things as we go along and hope that they work, that it might be better to approach it as if we were all working in an organization that was actually expected to deliver on measurable progress or else go out of business and you guys (the arbitrators) were expected to ensure that that happened. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That analogy works to a point, but only to a point. Obviously an editor behaving as Eric Corbett has would probably have been terminated at most workplaces. But equally, plenty of other editors would have been terminated for indecorum if Wikipedia were a workplace rather than a website, who instead are tolerated and even praised for their straightforward language and at times their criticism of the management. The management of a large online community is not the same as the management of a McDonald's franchise or a haberdashery or a law firm: for one thing, we are not all face-to-face in an office environment, and for another thing we are (with limited exceptions in places like San Francisco or Philadelphia) all volunteers rather than paid. That doesn't mean we should avoid applying "universal management practices," but it does mean we must apply them mutatis mutandis (to use a phrase that will make S.G. proud) rather than reflexively. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we telecommute here. Anyway, if a boss in the real world puts an employee on probation or parole, who is responsible for following up and imposing sanction if the employee violates the parole?  Usually the same or equivalent boss, right?  Is there an adequate administrative support structure in WP to enforce your remedies?  I propose that there isn't, which is why civility paroles haven't worked in the past.  Would that effect your proposed remedies if you were the one solely responsible for enforcing them? Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm wiki-egotistical enough to think that it might work well if I were "the one solely responsible" for a number of the decisions around here. But that's not how a wiki works, or should work, and anyway I'm burnt out a little at this point in my tenure plus I have a day job. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cla68 brings up a good point, though, in that the problem here is hardly unique to Wikipedia. To take only one example, the issue of handling the "disruptive physician" has been the subject of extensive study and published research. (It may surprise some of you to learn that there are physicians who do excellent work by many metrics&mdash;stellar research, massive amounts of grant funding, international prominence, department chairmanships at major academic medical centers, etc&mdash;but whose behavior is uncivil and disruptive, sometimes driving off other team members, negatively influencing impressionable trainees, or poisoning the atmosphere). I think it's possible we could leverage some of the knowledge and experience that's been acquired when it comes to dealing with people who do good work but detract from a collegial atmosphere. As Brad points out, these ideas would need to be adapted to Wikipedia's unique milieu, but they are still potentially useful. While there is no magic bullet or universally effective approach in the literature, there are some constants. These include reacting to incidents in real time without allowing them to fester; communicating clear expectations; avoiding mixed messages; holding all team members responsible for modeling appropriate interactions; applying remedies equitably; developing constructive outlets for dealing with inevitable frustrations; and providing adequate peer support for "disruptive" individuals who are interested in changing their default mode of interaction. I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia sucks at all of these. It's also evident in the literature (although perhaps a statement of the obvious) that physicians react best to feedback from their peers, and tend to reject behavioral advice from people who, in their view, don't understand their experiences. If you're interested in the literature, PMID 25188980 is a pretty good how-I-do-it narrative in terms of dealing with these issues (although probably not freely available outside academic-institution firewalls). PMID 25067803 is also interesting, in that some of the descriptions of disruptive surgeons could easily be transposed to the issues at hand here. MastCell Talk 18:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt that Wikipedia will ever be at the point where the Newyorkbrad can require that an editor undergo 'a formal neuropsychiatric examination', which seems remarkable enough for physicians for whom this physician-executive is concerned about. But perhaps we wouldn't really want to see the results of such results among Wikipedia editors in any case. NW ( Talk ) 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * While there could, in a hypothetical world, be constructed such a scenario in which incivility becomes so over-the-top that content creation might be trumped by it, nothing Eric's done touches that level, or even close to it. LHMask me a question 00:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wish the prohibition remedy was offered to Carol, too. PS: Neotarf's retirement template is confusing me ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I once explained the retirement template here, if that helps any. —Neotarf (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The analogy to acceptable workplace behaviour is often mentioned. The other side of that is of course that employees would be terminated if they didn't do any actual work. However editors are not the employees here - they are the product. pablo 09:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you say that for our readers, the encyclopedia is the product? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That too - but the unique selling point of 'this' encyclopedia is the way it is being built. pablo 12:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a selling point. Fortunately, it is not widely known. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Employees are terminated if they don't do work (but its amazing how long some go unnoticed). On the other hand, some employees work is not really related to the product of the company, but rather making the company itself run. (HR, IT, Legal, Ergonomics, Workplace-happiness etc) The trick is finding the balance where those roles are aiding in the ultimate value to the company, rather than hindering it with bureaucracy and process or overhead. We certainly have the same balance problem here. The admins, arbs, etc certainly fall into that bucket (when they are acting in that capacity). So do those that want to focus on improving policies and improving the environment. Carol et all may be wanting/trying to fill that role. Its up to the community (or in this immediate case the Arbs) to decide if they are more on the helpful or more on the hindering side of the coin, but the concept is valid, even if the execution is flawed. Mast Cell's physician analogy is quite apt. Thanks to his post, I now am picturing Eric as House. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems so cruel to ban Carol for feeling under siege while not only giving Eric a pass, but threatening admins with desysopping. An admin unfamiliar with him (rare, but who else would?) would take one look at his block log and give him at least a month, and then run afoul of ArbCom. (Why would this even be discussed? Surely they should assume that he will change.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My objections to the edit by Carolmooredc, in addition to the overt threat against arbitrators and others, include aspects that I will not discuss on-wiki.
 * I think you are misreading the proposed remedy regarding E.C.; see the last sentence thereof. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Very sad. I think I'll take up your advice to Neotarf and disengage from article writing for the time being. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye7, he said exactly the opposite. He advised Neotarf to "disengage for awhile from any activity on Wikipedia that isn't related to actually writing articles" (my bolding). Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

succession template
IIRC, we had pretty much settled the issue of when "successor" or "predecessor" made no sense after a major redistricting/renumbering of districts - and made that clear in "Template:Infobox officeholder". Now some folks are using "Template:Successor" which AFAICT should follow the same rules - but they point out that the fact that a bit of information is totally useless and is not sourceable to anything other than Wikipedia itself - that the template requires we use the useless Wikipedia-derived claims. Has Wikipedia finally gone insane? Or am I correct that information not sourced to any non-Wikipedia source is a tad iffy? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems logical to me that the two templates would follow the same standards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is what I thunk . I find "Wikipedia is a valid source for Wikipedia" where templates are woven into daisy chains to be a quite interesting concept. Collect (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The POI posted at my UT page: '' I find it strange you suddenly took issue to it this year. Where were you all those years before? Right now, I am tempted to change the articles back to the way they were before until a real decision is made  and has, in fact done so saying You lost any credibility you had. Your opinions are not facts. I am also trying to fix a problem on Wikipedia. I tried for a week to explain it to you, but you kept ignoring the obvious problem I was trying to point out. By the way, the de facto consensus which has been in place from the start of Wikipedia, is currently what 99% of representatives pages are following right now, not some dubious discussion earlier this year. If you really want to change something that has been in place since the start of the entire project and would effect thousands of articles, then there needs to be a Major discussion about it. This is not something that can be changed in a few days''  - and ignoring the RfC at Infobox officeholder, and what appears to be a developing consensus at Succession box -   I dare not revert the Grimm etc. pages again to reflect the actual template documentation, but the fact is that I rather feel that one editor might not quite grasp why we abide by RfC results. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation -- please deal with it
Hi Newyorkbrad, given your demonstrated history of vigilence in dealing with copyright violations, can you please deal with File:CarlosRaulMorales01.jpg. It is an obvious copyright violation. I've taken the liberty of improving the encyclopaedia by putting a real freely licenced photo into the article here after I uploaded it to Commons. And I'm now bringing the copyright violation to your attention to deal with. Now, I know you will do the right thing here. Greetz from Guatemala. 190.106.210.10 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Drama much? OMG! It's a copyvio picture that's used in like zero articles!!!! And it's the only picture like that on Wikipedia (except the other five thousand in the category). Since you've already proven you can edit the file without anyone caring [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Raúl_Morales&diff=prev&oldid=635912406], just go tag it. Assuming, of course, the copyvio, rather than the drama, is what you actually care about. NE Ent 17:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * let's see what he has to say about it. Smallbones, will you revert my removal of the copyright violation from the article? Will you deal with the copyvio? After all, he said that I am welcome to advise of copyright violations by way of an external blog if I wish, just not here on project. Oh the dramuhs 186.151.61.71 (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about this. Maybe someone else will. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We need to coin a new term; Arbcomitis. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not it; I don't think I would have cared five years ago, either. It's not my area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks that went without action
Good evening Newyorkbrad, I am sure this will be deleted so you won't have to answer, because ignoring the real problems are certainly easier than dealing with them, but would you mind explaining why its ok for an Arbitrator and admin to make personal attacks such as the ones from Beeblebrox here and here. The one here from User:GoodDay here or the outburst by administrator HJ Mitchell |here? All three of these are examples of where the system is failing if the rules are enforced when you want them to apply and ignored when you don't. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I struck my 'personal attack' on Kumioko/Raguyla & apologized to him. BTW, who are you? GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , Yes you did, and I commend you for that at least, but you still made it and received not so much as a warning and neither did the others mentioned above. And its clear that Newyorkbrad doesn't really care since they haven't offered so much as a passing comment about it. The fact is, as long as the personal attack is done by an admin or target someone the admins don't like, its totally fine. Reguyla didn't even have to make a personal attack and was still blamed for it after you and others griefed their talk page with comments and lied at ANI to justify extending their block.108.28.162.100 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to tell you I just did a bunch of the edits that my talk page suggests. Since everyone on this project hates the air that I breathe, I wanted to let you know. As far as I am concerned, all the complaints about not being here to contribute to building an encyclopedia are hyperbole and excuses to justify a block that only serves to damage the project so I cannot criticise abuse and participate. Especially since personal attacks and disruption of the project are allowed by admins and arbs in order to keep me from contributing. So if you aren't here to build an encyclopedia, you can revert them. I can always put them back again later. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking just for myself, I don't care at all if you make legitimate mainspace edits, as long as you aren't obnoxious about it and you leave me alone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

More clerks needed?
'Zilla fix little user's count here. User welcome. Tempted also make style improvement: longevity —> shortevity here. Is acceptable? Considering applying for clerkship. (Just right; like be involved in arbitration, but old plans for arbhood too work-intensive.) Plan be proactive in stylistic improvements! How about special new title: "Style clerk"?  bishzilla    ROA R R! !    00:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC).
 * There will probably be a new round of clerk recruitment after the elections. We haven't had a 'zilla-clerk before, but I'd have to imagine she could do a good job dealing with disruption on the case pages. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see my reverts of Russavia
His edits are
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * and now

as usual he is completely defiant about breaking the rules and is attacking me personally (in his edit summaries). To me the issue is whether any rules on Wikipedia will be respected, i.e. can Wikipedians govern themselves.

I'll ask that some formal action be taken, e.g. blocking the anons as sockpuppets, to make sure that his arrogance in ignoring the rules is formally noted. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Smallbones, read my latest edit summary. You are removing my alert of a copyvio but not the copyvio. That is a grade-A twit in my book. 212.117.1.116 (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * you say you care a lot about this project, yet here you are perfectly happy to allow a copyright violation to sit in two very high profile articles which have plenty of eyes on them at the moment. Sorry buddy, but you are a pathetic individual who cares more about playing MMORPG than you do about the project. If the articles weren't semi-protected the copyvio would have been removed quietly by myself. Instead of being a fucking twit by removing my copyvio alert you could remove the copyvio itself. 78.60.251.89 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Russavia is a banned troll and vandal on this project, and the fact that he is allowed to be an administrator on another project is a sign of intercommunity dysfunctionality. I have nothing else to say about him at this time. I haven't investigated the copyright status of that photograph, and in general, file copyright issues have not been one of my focus areas on the project. If there is an issue, hopefully someone else who is not a banned troll and vandal will help address it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad, I have done some funny stuff with userpage userboxes and the like, but I don't vandalise articles. As to being a troll, I'll take your comment on board as I read that thread on wikimedia-l where I said that Wikipediots tend to attack those who paint them in a bad light, etc, etc. And you bitched about it on wikimedia-l and here on project, and then, surprise surprise I was proven right with the below, which you failed to act on. You sir, are an a-grade hypocrite too. 87.247.98.33 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I normally avoid these discussions, for obvious and less obvious reasons, however picking up on your phrase intercommunity dysfunctionality, since suffering long term and on occasion extremely nasty homophobic abuse on and off this project, with my complaints dismissed by some as "self-victimization", I have found Commons a far more collegiate, welcoming and restful place to contribute compared to en.wp. I prefer Sue's expression (I think she was the one who first coined it for our wider community, though I may just not have noticed it in use before) of a creative ecosystem of projects and organizations. Russavia's case I see a useful challenge to entrenched systems and arcane policies, of which en.wp is the prime example, and these differences a sign of positive creativity to be celebrated and learned from, rather than 'dysfunction' which must be cured or stamped out with hob-nail boots and bureaucracy. Russavia may be annoyed with this community and behave poorly, despite a long history of excellent contributions as a Wikipedian, but you know there are reasons for that, and his contributions to Commons remain impressive and without doubt extremely positive for open knowledge. Russavia is a person, casually dismissing him as a troll is unhelpful, especially as I have never seen him do anything that did not have long term good intentions, including acting as an agent of change, even when in many people's eyes he has been a supremely irritating one.

When I vanish for good, I will judge my time on these projects by the sustained outcomes I made to open knowledge and the benefit of public education. The wiki politics and procedures are transient fluff that we ought to minimize in order to get on with what matters, it is a shame that some of our most experienced and otherwise smart people spend so much of their free time in these murky areas, and I include myself as someone who has been guilty of the same but tries to do better now. --Fæ (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Whilst we are here
Newyorkbrad, whilst all 3 of us are here in one place do you remember User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_169 where inserted an image into an article in order to punish the individual for daring to apply for the "right to be forgotten". called his actions "POINT-y and cruel." I call it an egregious BLP violation and using the project to punish an individual. You said you were going to look at this situation but you never did. Can you tell us why you didn't take action against Smallbones and put him under a complete BLP topic ban? I'd be interested in your answer here, especially as I am talking to some media about this very situation, in addition to talking to the individual who was egregiously treated by the WMF, and then by Smallbones. 88.222.199.225 (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My recollection is that the issue of the photograph wound up being addressed by someone else while I was away for the weekend. In general, retaliatory use of mainspace is not permissible, as the Arbitration Committee is in the process of reaffirming in a pending case. That being said, any issue I may have had with Smallbones' actions was far less significant than the multiple issues I've had with yours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's bullshit and you know it. Smallbones did it to punish the guy. I got the Pricasso painting of Jimmy mainly because of his comments here:


 * "My hope is that Wikipedia can help to get the public interested in art appreciation and education. When someone reads an entry on Wikipedia about a famous artist, Picasso for example, it is my hope that they will be inspired to explore other artists who are not so famous, or to educate themselves about art criticism, or to read about painting techniques and other methods of artistic creation. My hope is that Wikipedia is a place that promotes exploration."


 * I wish for the day that you take your head out of your ass, but alas I don't think that will happen; you do have a very big head. 193.219.57.9 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I just feel the love flowing in all directions these days.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some of that love should be directed at an enforcement of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Given your (though it is noted that you didn't vote for it, yes) murky "any administrative noticeboards" ban, I'm not even sure if I could file an Arb Enforcement request, though it could be argued that Arbs are Arbs, not admins. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 37 days left.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh that's right, your term's done at the end of the year isn't it? There should be a special barnstar for making it this long with (most, hopefully) your sanity intact. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I have as much sanity now as I did when I started with. Granted that that's a low hoop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, with regard to this thread: never forget the Fourth Law of Human Stupidity. It should be displayed prominently in the edit-notice at the top of everything in projectspace. MastCell Talk 18:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I came here to leave a question for Newyorkbrad but saw this thread and thought I would chime in here too. Personally, if the edit is unambiguously beneficial, then it should remain. If the person is vandalizing or trolling it should be reverted. If we are here to build an encyclopedia, then we should stop finding excuses not to do that. The rules state that there is no "requirement" to delete the edits, it simply says they may be reverted. Lets not get wrapped up in symantics just because we don't like the individual making the change. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Russavia suppose to be site-banned from English Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you focus on your mainspace work and not worry about it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In agreement :) GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)