User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2023/Jul

Hey Brad
Long time, no write. Hopefully all is good with you and yours. Had a question for you. I recently was informed that a user with a LTA page passed away a couple years ago, and he still has LTA pages, shortcuts etcetera. (he ended up growing a lot before their passing, I'm told). Do you know who I would talk to about quietly getting them removed? (Since the person is no longer with us, and never really interacted with Wiki in over a decade, I'm figuring that A) It's not needed, and B) Not something that should be really viewable outside of admin stuff etcetera. I believe the pages dealing with him are blanked but not deleted. Anyway, let me know! (oh, and funny moment, I opened my old Wiki email address, and to my shock, I'm still getting Clerks-L mailing list stuff. I thought about trying a joke like I did a few years ago, but jokes 2nd times around are not as funny. SirFozzie (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you, and sorry about my delay in spotting this and responding. I think the best place for your inquiry might be the Functionaries mailing list, as long as there's no CU data involved. If you don't have their e-mail address handy, please send the info to me and I can forward it. Thanks and best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey
Hey there, I noticed you on the page of a user (Bbb23) who is not responding to my requests. I wonder if you can help. The user said I had an agenda on attacking and that I'd be blocked. I asked them if this edit is part of my agenda. Maybe I should have provided a source for that being only one of many shows he has presented and doesn't now... but it definitely wasn't an attack.

The user also deleted an article I was working on (RTÉ secret payments scandal). I sourced everything I could. But it needed improveing and I thought others could row in and help too. I was trying to work on it some more when it was deleted outright instantly. It was deleted because of "A10: duplicates an existing topic"- but A10 says that's for an article that "does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material." By the way the title may be sounds not good. But I didn't make it up - it's used by independent sources "RTÉ payments scandal" "secret pay scandal" "scandal engulfs RTÉ" and I included those next to the title, so I thought it'd be fine. Like, if I'd really wanted to attack the guy I could've put his name in the title. But I knew that wouldn't be fair or accurate. The part that Bbb23 says it's supposed to duplicate is focused on the presenter but this goes wider than the presenter by now.

The user Bbb23 seems to think I was trying to attack the presenter by trying to put together a sourced page on some of the wider implications of the scandal. Instead of just his pay and the details of that weighing down the rest of his biography. It's been going for longer than a week now. It definitely involves more than one presenter's pay (and more than just presenters). I though that based on similar articles (it's way worse than The Russell Brand Show prank calls row to give one example) that it should have a seperate page.

What happened here makes no sense to me. I don't really know how this works but it's all very strange. Especially as I tried to source everything. Did I do it wrong? Or does it have to be perfect first time? Maybe it could be done better. I thought others could help but it's gone now. No chance to work on it at all. Just gone and threatened with being blocked. Then no response. --Dvin96 (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your trusting me enough to bring this issue here. However, the fact that I raised a concern about one thing Bbb23 did, which he addressed, does not mean I should be the ombudsman for everyone who has a disagreement with him about unrelated issues. On your talkpage, you asked Bbb23 what strike me as some reasonable questions about his comments and edits; but that was just a couple of hours ago, and he hasn't really had an opportunity to respond to you yet. I suggest you give it a little time to see when and how he does respond there, which hopefully he will do the next time he's online. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated. --Dvin96 (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This might be my last chance to say anything to you...
Like (and alongside) Jerome Frank Disciple, I've been in content disputes on WP:VPP; also (in my case) on Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, where I've contended that WP:BLP (specifically WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPUBLIC) discourages naming the accused (if a non-public figure), or asserting as a fact, prior to verdict, that he "killed" Neely, rather than was "alleged" to have done so (even if a public figure)... this contra many who insist that he definitely killed Neely and that we should name him as the killer in Wikipedia's voice. For this I too have been reported to AN/I as "bludgeoning" and was given a week's P-BAN from the latter talkpage, while the others continue to post comments declaring "killed Neely" as "undisputed fact". P-BAN expired, I resumed commenting there, including replying to comments pinging me, but those are now being described as "repeated bludgeoning" in a new AN/I report. One mildly ironic part of this is that included in the new charge is my replying on my own talkpage to nine other people (participants on the Neely talkpage) who came to my talkpage to continue arguing with me during that P-BAN; and my participating on AN/I itself in favor of two other people (Randy Kryn and Freoh, both now on WP:AN/IncidentArchive1131) both accused over content disputes (and given no sanctions at closure). It really is no surprise to me at this point to see this sort of lawfare aka WP:SANCTIONGAMING. I just have to wonder how often this occurs, because it seems to be a well-choreographed routine already. Or should I get a "sanity check" from an uninvolved party? Maybe. But I might be siteblocked soon, and unable to correspond with you at all, so I thought this was the time to let you know about it. – . Raven  .talk 23:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Will check the ANI, sometimes they just keep going after someone. Your comments have seemed fine, if a little too-many-too-handle for some people, so easing off at times helps the flow of conversation. I've read the Neely page and good points on both sides (although 'Killing' does give more of a direct accusation than 'Homicide' would) but I don't get involved in many highly political pages. It sure is better to have you on your side than against you, and it's nice you are more active on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This page?
I'm curious if the "/Jul}}" at the top of this page means anything or if it's some sort of error? My gut instinct is the latter but wikimarkup can be confusing at times and I don't want to break anything or edit someone else's talk page in a way that's not me leaving a message. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind, after some consideration it's obviously intentional. I apologize for the unnecessary question. I did notice that User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/Info doesn't contain your most recent talk page archives... so maybe that's useful information? Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like an error to me, performed on 24 July 2021 by . I removed the superfluous wikitext while adding this comment. I'll think about User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/Info in a moment but may have to leave it for others. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/Info shows it has been maintained manually. I just updated it with the archives since 2019. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for figuring all that out. I tend to doubt myself a lot so it's reassuring when people take a second look sometimes. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your attention and help. I had wondered myself about those stray characters at the top of the page.
 * My talkpage archiving was set up years ago when I was much more active on-wiki than I have been lately. Is there an easy way to tweak it from monthly archiving to something less frequent? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Switching from monthly archiving to something less frequent is a bit of a mess. Currently the bot is set to act every 7 days if there is something to archive. That could easily be changed to something longer, say 42 days. However, the clever bot would currently put every thread in the appropriate month. For example, if it were archiving a section dated June and another dated July, it would put some in the June archive and some in the July archive. That is, you would have less activity here but there would still be monthly archives if there was activity in each month. Or, if you want, I could manually move all the current 2023 archives into /Archive 1 and set the bot to fill that until it reaches, say 150K bytes, then move to Archive 2, etc. The drawback being that User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/Info has Archive1 to Archive5 and the monthly archives. Untidy, but not a big deal. If you want that change, say so and I'll try it. If wanted, it could start from /Archive 6 to sort-of continue the archive numbering. Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply. Sounds like it's best just to leave it as is. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yonker Donk
Hi Brad. I am IARing an alternate account to hopefully clear up issues with IP blocks. You are correct in assuming my edit as an IP to my talk page was inadvertent, I assume the global "LTA" lock by Vermont logged me out. I am not worried about privacy aspexr there, the ISP is dynamic and the software doesn't even seem to have the correct provider. Although it is as far as I knew standard practice to suppress such things.

Obviously I cannot now take Yamla's advice in their IP specific block message and log into the Yonker Donk account even though my IP has since been reassigned, but I am obviously concerned that this global lock of YonkerDonk is an extension of the extraordinary bad faith if not absolute paranoia that greeted my first edit here.

Vermont is not a name I recognize and so in the circumstances I am not sure talking to them would get me any further than asking Bbb23 to explain their block did. Perhaps you should become their (Bbb23's) unofficial ombudsman (or resume your role as their actual line manager of sorts, since your respective approaches to Administering is night and day.

I gather from the discussion at 331dot's talk page that Bbb23 did not get what he was pushing very hard for, a positive CheckUser finding. Another sign he was operating with extreme bad faith. That and his apparent reluctance to engage because DENY. My posts are ridiculous in what way, I wonder? I stood up for myself and knew my rights perhaps? I didn't wilt in the face of bad faith and hostility and just walk away?

I also find his distortion there of my freely given admission (an explanation arising from his block!) that I an experienced user on other projects as if it was some kind of admission of illegitimate behaviour, deceptive socking, to be deeply disturbing.

It reads as if he literally thought proving it would be a technicality (and subsequently that a failure to do so is obviously down to my use of proxies. My inadvertent edit as an IP hopefully shows I am not using a proxy. Not so much lack of good faith as no entertaining of the possibility he could be mistaken at all.

I have encountered Administrators like this before, ones who assume their judgement is perfect and every single block they make is sound. What is his proven error rate I wonder. Is anyone here keeping tabs? They care about these things at my home project, but obviously we don't have the luxury of this project's stream of replacement editors.

It was quite the insight, seeing his paranoia extend to thinking accidentally editing logged out is all part of my deliberate masterplan. My evil plot to regain access so I can massively disrupt Wikipedia by.....suggesting again that EEng be referred to ArbCom?

Or something similary so ludicrous and yet apparently capable of setting fire to entire ecosystems of otherwise happy peaceful editors? There is patently no peace surrounding EEng, only a palpable sense of enforced injustice by a policy lacking majority over a very well argued minority with the complicity of local Administrators who prefer peace over standards, or worse.

A situation tailor made for Arbitration, imho. Endorsing the peace by realigning policy to reality is a legitimate outcome of a case, assuming movement principles aren't being compromised. is certainly a victim and potential party, and EEng does not sound sincere in his apology at all. More importantly, he offers no reason to think he isn't capable of doing that again. Why would he need to?

He (Bbb23) clearly needs a wikibreak. EEng is most certainly heading for an enforced break of some kind if nothing is done. There is no evidence offered to the contrary. You might see that if you read the debate.

Assume good faith is surely not a factor for someone with sixteen blocks and yet is still edit warrimg with and personally attacking others. Second chances and leniency were surely foregone years ago. And I say that as someone who was offered neither. Do I genuinely sound like a hard liner or even an extremist given your far superior local knowledge? And disruptively so?

A global lock out of nowhere citing "long term abuse" is literally the only information I have to explain this new development, preventing me logging in as YonkerDonk. My other accounts are not locked, so clearly it is something I did here that brought this about.

I can only assume there is something about the concept of outsiders coming to this project with an interest in seeing minimum movement wide standards enforced (respect, assuming good faith) that triggers Bbb23. Not judging, that can be a good thing, if judgement is exercised.

That standard would also include access to dispute resolution by any user with good standing (and not placing bad faith blocks on faulty assumptions to engineer its transformation into bad standing as a matter of local expediency).

I guess I still have the option of revealing my other accounts to a third party to show I (the human behind YonkerDonk) is about as far from a long term abuser of Wikimedia projects as you could imagine. The behavior of Bbb23 however still gives me great pause this would be a wise exchange.

Giving away a vast and long collection of my personal information for the right to edit fluid dynamics topics here? Doesn't seem right at all. Does it feel right to you? As I tried to explain, if it had been you who responded to the "red flag" my first edit here raised, I would surely not be asked this question at all. Same concern, different action, vastly different potential consequences for me.

Although at least I might be safe due to the fact he is apparently completely and totally unaware of the "movement", even though quite obviously such knowledge is needed to prevent bad faith blocking of people in my situation. 331dot is willing to engage, but his mindset is surely identical.

Can you shed any light on or even remove this global lock, since you are best placed to see that it is in all likelihood based on nothing but a similarity between my concerns and presumably someone who had previously been blocked. A widely cast net, full of holes.

If you feel like your hands are tied and you can do nothing about what Bbb23 and Vermont may have come up with together to get the result they were after, I will understand. DonkerYonk (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the AlisonW case
The proposed decision for the AlisonW case has been posted. Statements regarding the proposed decision are welcome at the talk page. Please note that comments must be made in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

July 19 WikiWednesday + New York Botanical Garden Edit-a-thon (July 29)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW closed
The arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:


 * For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

stout
as a very long time lurker at Rex Stout page I too was interested to see the lack of interest by previous eds in the demise circumstances, I had also read (cannot find it now) that he was still writing until very close to his death. The raw url I know invokes issues, but about to jump off due to irl - JarrahTree 08:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The major source on Stout's life is the biography by John McAleer, which is quite compendious, and should be readily available if you are interested and don't yet have a copy. It confirms that Stout continued writing until his final illness; the last Nero Wolfe novel, A Family Affair, appeared just a few months before his death. Stout died in the house he has built at High Meadow, on the New York/Connecticut border, one month before his 89th birthday. Please let me know if you plan to do some more work on this section of the Stout article; if not, I will take care of it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply - please take care of it! Your description of the biog reminds me of other bios of writers - difficult to get the details out unless in easy reach...
 * Appreciate your effort
 * Best wishes and thanks 13:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC) JarrahTree 13:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

July music
Listening to Siegfried from the 2023 Bayreuth Festival, third act, Andreas Schager as Siegfried waking up Brünnhilde, reminded me of this discussion. Was there anything in it demanding arbitration? - A few weeks later, three participants were admonished, - for what still remains a mystery to me? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information and for leading me to think about music&mdash;but why are you resurrecting an embittered infobox disagreement from ten years ago? That can't possibly be helpful or healthy to do, and in any event, please don't do it here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am surprised why you would think that exchange of thoughts was "embittered". To me, it was a playful educated respectful discussion, and I still wonder how the arbs of ten years ago (and you were one of them) didn't see that, as a sign of hope. My new year's resolution was that the infobox wars - if they ever existed - should come to an end. I picked the flower image to express resilience, and the hope that it is not impossible. Where are we today, and what can we do?
 * The reason for the arbcase was resistance against the then new infobox opera, which was still questioned in the discussion, but resolved (not immediately but two years later). Today, 1,667 inclusions are counted, and recently, it has been questioned only sporadically. Composers were another topic. Bach, Beethoven, Chopin ... have an infobox, and as of 2023, also Mozart. Please see the discussion. Now: what can we do for even more peace? I don't believe that RfCs repeating more or less the same arguments for different biographies are a good idea - right now Richard Wagner. I left the topic in 2016, as you may remember, but am watching with interest - and hope. Any ideas? - My story today is Jahrhundertring, a 2013 article, and yes, written in defiance ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you think far too much about infoboxes. I don't want to hear about them any more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think much about infoboxes, but as you wish. What I think about are subjects who recently died, such as all weekend of Martin Walser, because his article was highlighting controversies instead of literature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)