User talk:Newyorkbrad: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Regarding this, you wrote than an editor should not feel any "fear of retaliation" for expressing his or her opinion. Can you see why many Wikipedians nevertheless feel this kind of fear is very real and valid? Do you think it is a problem that people feel that way? Do you think anything should be done about it? Everyking (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of my edit there was to allow the IP to continue participating on that page, rather than have him or her keep being reverted, which is what otherwise was going to happen. I did this even though I disagreed with what the IP wrote, and even though the letter of policy would support reverting that edit (under the "participate in project-space discussions through your main account" principle). It is frustrating that efforts to bend over backwards to allow dissenting voices to participate are cited as attempts to stifle criticism. The old saying that "no good deed goes unpunished" comes to mind and I not for the first time wonder whether such efforts on my part are worthless, if not actually counterproductive.

(Sometimes I feel that if I write on Wikipedia that "the sky is blue," someone on Wikipediocracy is going to say "that idiot Newyorkbrad denies the existence of nighttime"; and if I write "the sky is blue except at night," someone is going to say "Newyorkbrad's artificially cheerful approach is to pretend there are no clouds"; and if I write "the sky is blue except at night if it's a clear day," someone is going to say "Newyorkbrad is a scientific illiterate as he's obviously never heard of solar eclipses"; and if I write "the sky is blue on a clear day except at night or when there is a total eclipse of the sun," someone is going to say "look at that longwinded, pompous ass Newyorkbrad who can overcomplicate and wikilawyer even the color of the sky, and he's probably a lousy lawyer anyway, and anyway let's make rude comments about him for no reason six more times in this thread just to piss him off." I vent, but I digress.)

I do not agree that editors who criticize administrators, arbitrators, Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, or all of the above, are in legitimate fear of retaliation such that they need to post via anonymous IPs rather than their registered accounts—even though I catered to the IP's stated concern in this specific instance. Several editors, including both administrators and non-administrators, posted in the thread you cite as well as the related thread on Jimbo Wales' talkpage without being retaliated against or expressing fear of such retaliation. It is absurd to suggest that editors aren't free to criticize one or more arbitrators, or the Arbitration Committee as a whole. As I've said before, I think that among the long-term editors on this project, there are only about four who haven't strongly criticized ArbCom at some point or another, and three of those are probably bots. If we spent our time retaliating against anyone who's said a harsh word about us we'd do very little else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I applaud you for making an effort to preserve that IP's comment. I'm not criticizing you for that at all.

You say that posting critical or dissenting views is safe, but I and many others certainly do not agree with you. My questions to you were not so much asking you whether you thought the fear is valid (I already knew the answer to that); they were asking if you can see that the perception exists, if you can see why, if you think it's a problem, and if you think something should be done about it. Everyking (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see that perception as widely existing. But then again, if it did I might be the last to know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have that perception, and there's that IP also, so that's two of us. Maybe it's just the two of us? But there's also the legions of people who have been banned or otherwise sanctioned over the years—perhaps they might also have some concerns? Everyking (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is a very small segment of the community that does fear posting dissenting views, or feels they must temper them. Some time ago, I was privately warned by someone with more bits than I had against speaking out, so it may not be completely unfounded. I think that most of the time, the fear is unwarranted, but it still exists. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you can clearly define the size of the segment that fears to post dissenting views (and I think that the use of the term 'dissent' is telling in and of itself), especially if you're part of the established crowd. I tend to lurk in the background, but when you see things like the flap over Kumioko (who can be annoying) possibly using a DoD ISP one does wonder. There are a number of other editors (and at least one Admin) who do the same thing, and it excites little comment (even when their contributions may be marginal). Considering that discussion on Wales' talk page tends to be heavily policed by self-appointed watchers it's also easy to get the impression that contrary or different opinions about Wikipedia's functions are not welcome. It is also disturbingly easy to clamp down on contrary opinions by using the "no polemics" stuff...although I do note a number of blog-like postings and pages being maintained by those who have opinions more in line with the establishment. Intothatdarkness 15:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I can only guess as to the number of people who are afraid to speak out, and as such I would err on the conservative side. While I am part of the "establishment", it isn't a secret that I empathize with those that feel powerless, and have talked with a number privately. I certainly can't speak for those that feel disenfranchised, but I try to speak out for them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases all it takes is the perception that there will be retaliation to silence some people. And how many others just give up and walk away? When the culture becomes closed, it becomes easier to close off discussion. And the real lack of transparency and accountability at the upper levels (at least as they're seen from the regular user's vantage point) does nothing to counter that perception. Intothatdarkness 15:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a perception, especially on some external sites, that arbs use the checkuser function against people they perceive to be their enemies, without bothering about diffs or SPI reports. —Neotarf (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I became more active on offline Wikipedia criticism sites when I received a intended-to-be-chilling visit on my talk page by Drmies and Kim Dent-Brown after critically discussing goings-on at AN/I. diff It wasn't the only such incident to sway my opinion. →StaniStani  01:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at that with interest, although those two admins don't in my experience have terribly fearsome reputations. (I'm not sure whether that's a compliment for them or not.) Do you have a permalink to the ANI thread, by the way? It will take me a little time otherwise to fish it out of the archives. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link is included at the end of the diff. The diff only covers a handful of sentences, and then you will see, Link to AN/I slapfight. It was connected to a sockmaster, PaoloNapolitano, who was trying to get me blocked. →StaniStani  03:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to say explicitly that I did not intend to chill anyone? Maybe it depends on what one calls "chilling", but I'm having a hard enough time to detect my own intentions, let alone someone else's. Newyorkbrad, you'll be pleased to know that at this very moment in time the sky over Alabama reflects light onto my very eyeballs and the surrounding environment in the frequencies humans usually associate with "blue". It's a real pretty day, and if I didn't have to take my car to the shop today I'd invite you over for coffee. No, let me correct myself: you're always welcome. And you can stay the night if you like; there's grits for first breakfast, often.^{[citation needed]} Drmies (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanistani, thanks for the reference. I've read through the thread as best I can (it's hard to glean the full context of a discussion from two years ago). I don't think Drmies or Kim Dent-Brown were intimidating you or trying to. I think what they were saying was nothing more nor less than "we disagree with the person who complained about you, as you haven't actually done anything wrong, but you might possibly be a little more polite next time." If that is what drove you to the Dark Side becoming more active on the critic sites, I would say that it might have been the last straw in your mind, but I suspect you must have been pretty well disaffected even before that.

By coincidence, in looking at that same ANI archive page, I came across a certain lengthy unblock discussion that seems have been going on around the same time. Not to mention any names, but you'll be familiar with the one. Geez, what a fustercluck that turned out to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I don't hold grudges. I didn't even complain except on my own talk page, and later I archived that. I'm not here to battle. I simply moved the energy from that weird little incident (and other intimidation, including the Santorum debacle and 'cooperating' with a few notoriously uncooperative editors now banned) into reform, over on a site I helped get started, where hundreds of people work to promote a better Wikipedia, and thousands more come every month to read and think. I like Alabama, I have friends in Huntsville. Perhaps someday I can break bread with you. →StaniStani  01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanistani, you're always welcome here, and if you're lucky I will have baked that bread myself. And I'll make some hummus to put on it. I have little affiliation with Huntsville, though I seem to work for Jimbo and I drink the beer from that place; I'm a little bit further south, for better or for worse. I'm still hoping we'll have a wiki meet-up here, and Jimbo, LadyofShalott, NYB, Malik, and other cool cats will attend. Not everyone avoids Montgomery, fortunately: I got to attend a lecture by Jim Zwerg a year or two ago, another sort of homecoming. I'm not familiar with the details of the Santorum debacle, or even which debacle you're referring to--I was sideways involved with some renaming dispute, and even thinking about that makes me want to brush my teeth. At any rate, I don't hold grudges, and I know you are a net positive, and you got a pretty cool user name. Call me when you're in the neighborhood. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all (I hope) support you in allowing that editor to contribute.

There is, however, fear of retaliation. I have received a significant number of email and face-to-face confirmations of that. And it is not unfounded, though it may be exaggerated. It is basic psychology to classify other editors as "good" or "bad" actors. That is why criminal law has so many protections for defendants. We should not be surprised to see this mechanism operating on Wikipedia, even without taking into account our editor demographic. Fight or flight response does the rest.

Moreover to dispel this perception we need well-considered, evidence backed, responsible action when we are dealing with sanctions. Those relatively early Wikipedians who set up talk page warnings understood the value of this - engage in discussion, AGF, and sanction only to protect the encyclopaedia.

Blocking on a whim, not understanding policy, abusing checkuser status and so forth, all undermine the intended collegiate environment. There are other issues I won't expound on here, but the culture of fear, whilst maybe not universal is certainly real.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC).

At the core of Wikipedia is a culture of fear paired with a policy of denial. Admins systematically ignore legitimate criticism and pretend, with phrases like "water of a duck's back", that systemic problems aren't there. It is the bankrupt strategy of a system that has no reasonable ground for operating in the way it does. Generally, editors who actually look at what goes on here dare not speak out. Kumioko repeatedly pointed out core issues in straightforward and easy to understand ways. Eventually he went into meltdown trying to butt his head against a system set in concrete. The system is wholly under the control of admins and their drama board devotees. Change from within is just not going to happen. Instead, we get the demonisation of Kumioko. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins blocking on a whim has also been a big problem here, and another that NYB has chosen to ignore. Have I ever told you about the time I was blocked for using the word sycophantic? Eric Corbett 23:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sycophantic! Pah! Desysopped for tosh! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Loose cannon admins who block on personal whim is just one of the elephants in the room that admins pretend aren't here. Some admins seem to prefer partying. That would be great if admins were partying against a background of a fair and equitable system. But they aren't. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand partying in this context (WP:ENGVAR?) In the US partying generally means socializing with intoxicants. NE Ent 09:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another perspective

I've given this some more thought. As I said, I personally haven't experienced this or seen it as a problem. but then again, I'm not necessarily the person who would know. The person who might know better might be an inexperienced editor or one who's been around for a long while but isn't an admin.

I can't really step into the shoes of such a person today, but what I can do is think back to myself when I was a newbie, which was back in 2006. Granted that the English Wikipedia and its culture of 2006 are not the English Wikipedia and its culture of 2014—but I'm doing the best I can here.

I came to Wikipedia to work on some articles, and I got sucked into the backstage, administrative apparatus soon enough and started spending some wikitime there and commenting on different situations and issues. When I did, it wasn'twith any predisposition that the admins or the arbitrators or any other part of the wiki "establishment" was always right.

Granted, my starting premise was that the encyclopedia we were writing was a worthy project and that the community that was writing that encyclopedia was a well-meaning one. But I had no trouble, even in my first months here, speaking up when I thought a mistake was being made. I posted to workshops on arbitration pages, objecting to arbitrators' proposals that I disagreed with, sometimes in strong terms, and suggesting alternatives. When I saw bad blocks I brought them to the noticeboards and got them overturned. I know that I was considered a major pain in the neck by some of the senior functionaries at that time.

Yet throughout this period, I never felt that I was courting blocking, banning, or any form of wiki ostracism by speaking up, and indeed none of these things happened. What did happen was that I wound up with a successful RfA relatively early in my wikilife, and on the ArbCom. As I said, wiki 2006 isn't wiki 2014, but I happen to think that if someone like me came along now rather than then, he or she would feel the same freedom to say what was on his or her mind as a new editor that I did; I certainly don't see any greater tendency among administrators or functionaries to "circle the wagons" today than I did then.

I can speak only for myself, and I invite responses from those whose experiences have been different, but this is the additional perspective I promised to provide as to why I don't instinctively agree with what Everyking and Intothatdarkness suggested above. (Ping also: Stanistani, Neotarf, Drmies, Dennis Brown, Rich Farmbrough.) I'd welcome anyone's thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that my opinion hasn't been solicited and may not be wanted but I am going to make one anyway and if its not wanted then it can be reverted as any other unwanted editor. I think comparing the 2014 environment with the 2006 one is kinda like comparing Mcdonalds to Wallmart because they both sell french fries. Editing in 2006 was way different, there was a genuine desire back then to build an encyclopedia, problems were fewer and the editing environment was much more pleasant. The 2014 Wikipedia is a hostile place towards new editors and old non admin editors alike. Kumioko tried to fix this and they were ran out of the project and their employer contacted. Some agree and some don't with what happened but one thing is certain. A lot of people saw it and a lot of editors will think twice before questioning admins. Maybe that was the intent and maybe it wasn't, but that does not make this place better if editors feel they cannot speak their minds without fear of retaliation. In the early days of the project all one needed to do to be an admin (pre 2007) was to put in a little time and ask. Now they have to carefully manage their edits, participate in the right areas, don't bring too much attention to themselves and make sure their vote percentages are good in the stuff for deletion/discussion venues. Lapses in any of these areas will lead to a failed RFA, likely for the rest of the time they are on the project. I recently saw an editor apply for the tools and got declined because of an incident 4 years ago. If 4 year old stuff is still coming up, then that proves there is little hope for most editors to pass an RFA. 108.28.162.195 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shares your experience, largely, up to where I got proposed for admin, and passed. Shortly afterwards I left the "user behaviour" boards - not deliberately, but because I was busy with other things. I met some unpleasant people, and took what I believed the "Wiki way" - for example voluntarily surrendering my bot-flag and re-applying for it - having a bot that could be stopped by anyone, including IPs. This proved unsustainable when I was subject to a joint attack by several editors, mostly with some Wiki-Caste behind them - I don't believe it was co-ordinated for a moment, but I can see why others in a similar situation would think so.

Lets look at why people might think that - firstly off-wiki contacts abound

1. Direct email between admins
2. Many mailing lists, some of them private, some not even acknowledged (including ones run by very senior people in the past)
3. IRC channels including the sekrit/sooper sekrit ones
4. Face-to-face meetings, that are mostly admins

Example: I wandered into the en:wikipedia IRC channel a few times (no public logging allowed) and on one occasion found people were spreading rumours about me. It is safe to assume that this happens a lot, and (from other examples, such as leaked ArbcCom mailing list) that people feel even more free to say things against common decency and WP mores in "sekit/sooper sekrit" fora.

Secondly it is undoubtedly true that a significant number of editors (admin or not) bear grudges - even if they are not concious. I had the pleasure of meeting a widely respected author in Washington, his recollection of me was negative - pressed he pinned it down to marking and ISBN number as wrong. I could give several other examples.

Thirdly if you are an outsider, not a "policy wonk", or of a certain mindset, then the (even arguably correct) actions of teh establishment will look like cabalism.

Fourthly we treat fellow editors badly. I would insert an example I noted while I was blocked but my archives are not yet sorted out. But WereSpielCheckers * Co's test of new accounts showed that.

Fifthly, admins and arbs (and established policy using users, who (to the relatively new, or relatively shy, or "content only" editors) may amount to the same thing, flout the rules, whether through IAR, misunderstanding, mistake or (dare we utter it?) stupidity.

Sixthly the marginalisation of IPs and the arrogation of power to Arbs/CUs/Admins/Rollbackers/Established users etc etc. We have constructed a real caste system and should be ashamed of ourselves. We should promote 2000 new admins, abolish intermediate rights, separate Arb - CU - Audit functions, set up a temporary task force to reduce and simplify policy and guidelines.

Seventhly there is a history of "bad actors" in the admin (and indeed arb) corps. And a further history of us failing to deal with it in a good way - at least at first. From Mantemoreland, "Anvil" and Essjay, though to Jclemens and Rlevse. And of course the current case - where we have Arbs saying "Yes anyone issue an abuse report to an employer" and even "I would have sent it" - yet we do not see them publishing their real names, ISPs and employers? This makes their words unbelievable, and increases distrust of the "ruling elite" (Can you believe an arbitrator was recently foolish enough to make a revdel on a page where their behaviour was being discussed?)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC).

On the whole, I think your experience is consistent with many people's experience, in the broadest of ways. A bit Norman Rockwell-ish, and less bumpy than my own, but normal enough. Being an Arb, I can't help but to think you are a bit shielded from the trenches, most in authority are. Not your fault, but just as you know things we wouldn't know, we see things you may never see. Time is a fixed thing and we spend it differently. I tend to migrate towards those who question authority (sometimes to the chagrin of my peers), as I've always been one to question authority, even while respecting the role it plays in keeping order. I think we should be skeptical of those with power, but still polite and respectful for the office itself. I believe part of the problem is that Wikipedia is a huge place. There are plenty of corners to hide in and get your impression of the place. Not all those corners are so nice, and there is no way to effectively police the entire Wiki. There will be editors who edit in an area and whose only interactions with "authority" (admin or self appointed) comes in the way of warnings. threats and templates, perhaps unearned, all with little to no oversight. This paints a picture of Wikipedia that isn't the same as yours nor mine.

Most people loathe the idea of "reporting" someone and a few are simply afraid; it is their nature in the real world as well as here. Others, such as you and I, aren't afraid to stand up and give an opinion, our different careers demand it, as a matter of fact. Then there are simply those that are paranoid or very contrarian by nature and will always see the worst in any action or comment. Who will see a block of someone who was belligerent but correct on the edits, and see that as a means of censorship. Some people are simply that way, and they may drag easily impressionable editors along for the ride.

One of the things that I have learned by helping out at WP:WER is that often, fear isn't always reasonable but it is still real to that person. Or maybe the fear is blow out of proportion. Some admin will come on strong, perhaps too strong, and not every man or woman handles that well. Or it is just a strong personality conflict, with one or both parties sparing for who can be the most blunt. It happens, and the impression stays with the person with no power much longer than it does with the person with power (admin). It creates an unintentional but permanent impression. Other times, perfectly innocent and normal processes trigger a response from someone that is out of proportion to the real "threat", that there simply is nothing we can do. That is human nature, some people are just wired that way, there is no "fix". Wikipedia isn't therapy. We don't point at those people, but obviously they exist.

Admin aren't the biggest cause, but it does happen. You and I speaking out when an admin is too gruff, without undermining the authority in their action, can be helpful but is a thin line to walk. It doesn't win you friends but it should be done, and people without bits need to see that people WITH bits will speak out when it is needed. Not Arb action, just speaking out on style or conclusions when it is warranted. There is a stronger, wider ranging lack of trust in that area, the theoretical blue code, which may sound odd to you and I, as we couldn't get 5 admin to agree on pizza toppings, yet that fear exists and we have to be aware of it. I don't think it is our biggest problem here, but it does exist and I think awareness of the problem makes it easier to see and less likely to happen. And remember, people who fear are the least likely to ever speak up for you to read about. Sorry so long, I won't make a habit of it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing we need is another noticeboard or the like, but one way, admittedly probably silly, is to maybe create a page which could be prominently linked to in enough places to make it accessible, even to IPs (I have no idea how to do that, of course, but I'm the idea man - I don't deal with piddling things like details or problems) which might somehow allow quick e-mail to one (or more) experienced editors, in which an unidentified editor could suggest a change or indicate an area where they see problems? Honestly, I remember even getting fairly regular e-mails from registered users, not IPs, regarding the conduct of other editors on articles, because the senders were afraid of retaliation of some sort on that or other content. And I know that even my local police have a listed number at which individuals can leave anonymous messages regarding activities of others. The cops I've known hate having to deal with such calls, because many are cranks or general bitching or whatever, but there are also several from people afraid of retaliation. Maybe what we might be looking for is a sort of (maybe blank?) noticeboard with a link to sending a possibly preformatted anonymous message to editors who've signed up to receive them. Not being particularly attentive in that area, for all I know, we may already have one. If that's the case, of course, ignore this - it's just me being stupid again. And, NYB, I think you'll probably have to remember that some people will criticize you most strongly for being insensitive about the color-blind when referring to the color of the sky. Shameful. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I just want to make it clear that the comment above was clearly and I hope obviously intended as a joke, and in no way to be interpreted as being in any way anything like a legitimate basis for complaint. And I apologize if it seems that I was in any way indicating anything but contempt for the kind of smart-ass comments you indicate are made about you on other, um, revenge sites. Also, I have started a possible discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#noticeboard for anonymous complaints, particularly for cases of fear of retaliation about I guess what sort of structure such a possible noticeboard might have. I have a feeling someone with a law degree might know more than someone with a religion/cultural anthropology degree about basic legal matters, and would welcome your input or that of anyone else who might see this regarding whether such a proposal is potentially useful and/or workable. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think WRT groupthink, badsites, us vs them mentality and bullying and hypocritical behaviour were on the whole worse then than now. Can't be fucked giving examples right now as need to do some content editing to put myself in a better mood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkBrad....Casliber....Jimbo....Queen Elizabeth....are all Reptilians, so they are part of the galactic power structure that mere humans or subhumans are unknowingly subservient to....it is just the way things are.--MONGO 14:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You is "geographical"? WTF does that mean? You is like mebbe baby Cybertron or Mogo? John Carter (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows: May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Mr. 2001 in his various guises seems to be going on a rampage this week, see e.g. my user talk page. Is there away to prevent him from participating on Wikipedia and its events for at least a week? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this particular banned user. I'll take a look, but if someone reading has more background please feel free to jump in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was thinking of "Mr. 2001" as a registered-account username. I'll see what I can do about the person I now think you are referring to, but please note (see above) that I'll be away for the long weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones:  Ranges blocked. AGK [•] 14:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, AGK, how much collateral damage was done by the rangeblocks this time? 100,000 IP addresses? →StaniStani  02:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK ... that the hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? - in that hook I explained my first reaction to the closing of the arbcom case that had been called "Infoboxes" - I don't why, it had more to do with ownership. "Ich steh hier und singe" (I stand here and sing) is linked on top of my user page. Good news: I came to be really pleased by the restriction to only two comments in a discussion, then walk away and do something more productive, also: discussions have become quite nice, almost angelic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion was begun on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous in regards to debating and discussing the general subject of gun control and how such a ban in the US would work[1] in what appears to be using the reference desk to game the system around arbcom discretionary sanctions, or at the very least just ignoring them. My self and another editor have tried to collapse the discussion. I have suggested that the discussion is best taken to the Wikiprojects and warned the IP editor that they may be in breach of arb com sanctions as any edit on the topic must adhere to Wikipedia policy, guidelines and best practice. The discussion is beginning to attract the attention of editors that are expanding on the discussion that appears to violate the Reference desk guidelines as a debate. Could you check it out to make sure that everything is fine.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has again been collapsed, (hatted actually) by AlexTiefling. I support this hatting as this was an inappropriate venue to begin a political discussion, especially one that is under Arbcom sanctions. The editor was warned several times that the Reference desk is not a discussion board and that the tone of the question and wording was badly done and would only allow opinions and no real true referenced answers.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review [2] specifically such edits as [3], [4], [5] and note I not only listed all my watchlisted articles, and cited a handful which made clear my editing sans regarde to any political POV, and I also demurred strongly on the use of that noticeboard for specific and gratuitous direct personal attacks.

Note also in the past: [6], and innumerable similar edits. Each time he escalates his rhetoric, which I find a tad outre unless his goal is specifically harassment. [7] shows Lar using MzM's wikistalker tool -- which I then experimented with on a substantial number of editors chosen to have similar edit counts. The cavil came back: Who are you quoting? What is "random active editors?" What tool did you use to select them? Wait, don't answer, I've figured it out - this is pseudoscience, right - where you use the trappings of science, but then just say what you think is true? Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC) where the tool has first been used by Lar (later chased away). As soon as you selected by hand, you turned statistical analysis into pseudoscience. There are actual professional mathematicians and statisticians reading this. The way you do a study is to create a hypothesis, design a test, execute the test, report the results and draw conclusions. You didn't follow this model, but you did use the trappings of a study. Look, if you want to say "I futzed with a tool for a bit and it seems to me (conclusion)" go crazy, but please don't dress it up in the trappings of science. Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC) which was odd as I used 'editors in sequential number of edits which is a quite scientific methodology. I suppose this was my first truly "interesting interaction" with that editor, but he has decidedly kept up on my edits <g>. You have presented a hypothesis with a word that does not have meaning. What is "connectedness?" Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC) , ##This will be my final say here, as it's become clear that you're not listening. What you want to do is present your Hypothesis, then present a test of your Hypothesis, then report the results of that test, then draw conclusions. If you use words that are not clear and plain in meaning, you'll want to explain their meaning - typically accomnplished by saying "WordIMadeUp means (blah)." - you'll see how that's different than whatever you wrote directly above, which at no point defines "connectedness." Finally, after designing the test, you'll want to wait for comments from others, as they might help you see weakness in your test design. Now, I grant you the lastword. Hipocrite (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC),

[8] shows hi deep concern for WP:BLP. One may note the absence of his addition currently. [9] also shows his abiding concern for WP:BLP. Not in article for fairly obvious reasons. He monitored my user talk page [10] , [11] shows a "dismissive attitude" far beyond anything I ever posted on Wikipedia. And [12] has him "apologize" for using "YCSI" to me in a post while using it as a section title on my UT page! [13] is a splendid example of further harassment on my UT page. Not to mention [14].

The icing on the cake is [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] , [22] which was textbook harassment two years ago.

In short one editor has quite a fixation on me, me personally, and on my edits. I suspect strongly this dates back to Lar and WMC, but why he is fixated on me personally is outre. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I will need to spend my wikitime for the next couple of days finishing up preparing my talks for the wikiconference this weekend, but I'll take a look at this after that if the problem persists that long.

Incidentally, what is the status of the RfC on political succession boxes? I'm afraid I lost track of that one, and meant to get back to it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC has near unanimous approval -- especially since providing "absolutely correct information which is absolutely useless" (the anecdote about the helicopter lost in fog near Seattle comes to mind) is not a truly great encyclopedic usage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I know that one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Featuring quotes about you at the top of my page,[23] I thought I pinged for courtesy, but per this discussion, it looks like I didn't. ("you have to sign in the same edit you're adding the notification.") Sorry about that, consider this a belated ping. (Because, you know, what's the fun without pinging?) darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 08:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I indeed had missed these. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Brad,
Are you coming to the US Wikipedia conference this weekend? I was wondering if you were making any presentations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker). Apparently yes to both, see above. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, and I'll be leading two presentations, one on Wikipedia and the law tomorrow, and one on BLP on Saturday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'd probably be banned from attending or thrown out if I did somehow get in, do you know if these venues are taped and if so if they will be available to MONGOs such as I.--MONGO 02:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there will be taping, linked from the conference page. In the meantime, if you're interested, there's a link to a talk I gave a couple of years ago on my userpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans! Hope you all have a fun time! --MONGO 10:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be tempted to go as well if I lived closer to NY but given they tried to have me fired from my job for criticizing them they would probably accuse me of terrorism just because they can. The Arbs have proven they will use any tactic no matter how dirty or dishonest and violate any Wikipedia policy to get what they want. Which is no more criticism. Did anyone else notice that all of a sudden, no one has any criticism of Arbcom? Great Job Brad. The whole project is afraid of discussing issues with Arbcom. Kumioko Neversurrenderobullies (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newyorkbrad. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.