User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2015/May

Channeling community discussion
I noticed you're planning to write about Channeling community discussion and improving Wikipedia governance. There's an active new case you might want to look over. Spoiler alert, there has been zero improvement in WMF interaction. The WMF built a new project with zero community input. The WMF's new theme is finding ways to get non-editors to log into Wikipedia as a social networking site. (WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK.) Non-editors can now create and share content like "List of my Favorite Bands". The WMF wants us to do the work of reviewing them and dealing with legal violations and other abuses. A clear but informal consensus at AdminNoticeboard rejected the WMF's work-assignment to police this crap. The Project Manager himself accurately assessed consensus and edit-summary agreed to it, but is proceeding anyway. The Community Liaison is oblivious to all objections and just wants to talk about how we can work together to grow it. My main goal is to try and improve the dysfunctional WMF-Community relationship. I practically begged for the WMF&Community to work as partners to resolve this, and it's been repeatedly ignored. We're now up to five weeks of talking to a brick wall. The project says it's our "responsibility" to create moderation criteria. That obviously requires a Village Pump RFC. If that RFC goes anything like AdminNoticeboard consensus then the community might wind up assigning a bot to just nuke them all. I've held off on that RFC to make a last-ditch post to Lila. No response yet. I'll just post one link to my post on Lila's page. All of the other relevant links can be found there. Alsee (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how representative this example is. The core problem is that the main community-facing WMF staffer for that case is an astonishingly poor communicator, almost like a Dilbert caricature. This presumably is due to language or cultural differences rather than game-playing or deliberate indirection. The takeaway lesson is that WMF needs to ensure that staffers who engage with the community are good communicators as well as good programmers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The issues I have been thinking through and may propose some sort of mechanism to address deal primarily with internal En-WP decision-making and advancement, rather than community/Office relations per se. That said, improving those relations is obviously important and I hope that staff members would participate in what I have in mind if it ever happens. I am not familiar with the specific issue you are raising; I must have missed that discussion thus far. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Reversed burden of proof
Comments welcome Peter Damian (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, for stepping forward for what's right
  standing strong

Thank you for speaking up with decency and fairness, treating editors as living people: "there was and is a human being who contributed his time and efforts to the project", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (20 September 2007, 13 October 2008)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Three years ago, you were the 99th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, - what you said can't be repeated too often. When the human being was unblocked in 2012, joy was unlimited and will not be forgotten, "for stepping forward for what's right and for everyone!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you for reflecting the Gerechtigkeitsspirale!

Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?

The poem ends with "Praise the right thing (decency, integrity)". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You earned this, man. Bravo. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After more reflections with Iridescent, I added decency and integrity to the above. - You were the only arbitrator representing my view in the GGTF case. How can the spiral of baiting and accusing be ended? The easiest way would be arbcom apologizing to Eric and his restrictions lifted, everybody involved being told that they should only interact on article pages. Dreams? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind another former arb butting in, "everybody involved being told that they should only interact on article pages" has never worked and is never going to work. If people under this restriction have a disagreement about something, they would literally be unable to discuss it and try to come to an agreement—thus it would lock them into a cycle of reverting each other, each side acting in genuine good faith that they're doing the right thing, and every dispute either becomes a blinking contest of who gives up first, or ends abruptly when a third party gets fed up and either blocks those involved or locks the article in one particular state to shut everyone up. (What "no talkpage interaction" tends to do in practice is drive those involved to rally their friends off-wiki, where Arbcom's remit doesn't run, and ultimately end up with minor disagreements over style issues escalating into huge blocs of canvassed editors sniping at each other.) – iridescent  16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Understand. How about the other solution then, arbcom apologizing to Eric and his restrictions lifted? The whole case was the result of baiting, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I came attracted by a different header, and can't help mentioning that I enjoy irony: the infoboxes which I added allegedly "systematically" to operas have been added much more systematically by sadly missed Viva-Verdi to all operas by the master for whom he lived, and the infobox I had suggested for Beethoven in 2013 has been added now by a then arbitrator - I like Kafka ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My goodness, I can't believe I'm about to post this on Newyorkbrad's talk page, but...
At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop, comments are to be sectioned, not threaded. With the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section. Please move your comments to your own section. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the "rules are rules" attitude being taken in this case, but it's really not practicable or reasonable for me to set up an entire section for a one-word query about a word usage. If you find it necessary, you can just remove my comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I suppose can decide whether or not they want to remove the comment. --L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 21:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you prefer, I'll remove it myself. Just let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Aspersed is a rather obscure word, but reasonably transparent IMO, given the well-known cliché to cast aspersions. See OneLook: sources vary as to whether the literal “sprinkled” or the figurative “defamed” is the primary sense, but context makes which was intended clear enough.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  01:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Stephen was joining in threaded discussion, I've moved your comment into its own section. You are free to remove it, though for continuity's sake (since Stephen replied to you) it'd be preferred if you just kept it there. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 01:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just leave it then. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * only on Wikipedia. :/ — Ched : ?  02:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Observation.
Your post here invoked some sort of deja vu for some reason. It does make me think that such wise observations would also make you an excellent candidate for the position as well. Perhaps this is the first time it's been suggested to you, but hopefully you'll consider it over the coming summer months. — Ched : ?  02:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the same thing, actually. I wonder if Brad has ever given ArbCom membership any serious consideration. ;-) Kurtis (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you have done here, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at "arbitration" at the moment, especially its enforcement: you seem to be right. -, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)