User talk:Newyorkbrad

Archives

Index of archives

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

Dear Newyorkbrad, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Questions_for_the_committee_about_proposed_principles.2C_findings_of_fact.2C_and_remedies_for_Neotarf here. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I cannot understand why he is still prepared after all this time to engage in easily avoided conduct that upsets colleagues and massively distracts from the principal goal. I literally do not understand it, and in fact, as I approach the end of my seventh and final year on this Committee, I do not believe I have ever understood the reasons for any editor's behavior less well. Well I don't have answer for you, just idea to consider, that the way you express the enigma may contain small fallacies (that results in enigma), one namely, that "Eric's conduct", and "upsetness"/"distraction" from others, are one thing. They're separate, not joined as if mandated or necessity. People choose what they get upset over, or what they allow to distract themselves. (Eric doesn't decide for them.) I think that might be at the heart of your conundrum. (The way to "fix" the expression is to break the connection, replacing "that upsets" and "[that] massively distracts", with "that has a probability to upset" and "[that] has a probability to massively distract", given the environment on WP.)

p.s. That said, three additional:

1) I don't speak for Eric of course and the most accurate/best way to understand is simply to ask Eric! (Perhaps he is/has been sphinx-like on it though.)

2) Eric is quite brilliant, extremely talented with words, meanings, shades. Words are tools/medium to convey fact, fancy, idea, feeling. Although I think that Eric is scrupulously logical, he's really in the end an artist. So going back to your conumdrum, why he is still prepared after all this time to engage in easily avoided conduct, perhaps Eric is more complex than you allow for. (For e.g., perhaps Eric is not only keen observer but interested in human behavior [he did major in psychology, didn't he?]. Perhaps he says things that he knows has probability to incite, but for a careful reader, there's nothing personal existing, so many times, interpretation of personal insult, though common and popular to do, is really then a measure of the receiver's behavior -- nothing Eric made or created. [Think "science experiment", where there are controls, to allow results to surface. That's consistent with idea Eric is logical as part of everything else. {What else? Again, maybe Eric is simply curious about people, and the WP environment is a perfect "science lab" in a way. Perhaps when Eric says something objectively inert that has probability to incite, it is out of curiosity to "see what" individuals concerned are about -- what they're "made of" so to speak. In a way, with the vast collection of people here, with only typewritten words as interface unless attendees to Wiki conferences, seeing how people choose to respond to things is so revealing re the responders, it may be a temptation that a brilliant & curious mind like Eric's, likes not to resist when an opportunity arises in context.}])

Another possible small fallacy, is your use of word "colleagues" as though binary -- either colleague, or not. While in any large social environment there will be different relationships dependent on different levels of respect earned or shattered. IMO, Eric never prejudges and defaults as open to collaborating with any & all editors (the WP ideal; which explains why Eric is so positive with newbies and anyone asking sincerely for help) until having some reason why not (reasonable pragmatism for anyone to have; I've noticed even that Eric takes a huge measure of abuse from anyone before finally and rarely asking them to not post to his Talk). If any of this is true, what makes it all more complex and obscured is the fact that Eric has faced nearly a constant parade of antagonizers/attackers/baiters (for whatever their varied unclean reasons -- e.g. jealously, vanity, chance for personal infamy) whom nearly all other editors don't have to face. Yet Eric always quickly resumes his primary task of writing the encyclopedia.

3) I'm not a psychologist of course. Speaking of, however, one thing absolutely lacking on the WP, which IMO would help enormously re tolerance & understanding between editors, would be an awareness of Myers-Briggs personality types (especially the four temperaments NF, NT, SJ, SP). (All the personlaity types are valid -- none is inferior to another -- but understanding & appreciating a different type from one's own is challenging to do, sometimes seemingly impossible. But it is the only intelligent answer. ["Which rules you more: a) your head, b) your heart." There's no wrong answer. Each person will have a preference. IMO the T/F personality attribute is at the basis of the never-ending "What is more important? -- article quality or a civil environment" debate. Unless it will be clarified as defined WP objective, both answers are right, neither is wrong, the strife will be permanent -- that conflict will never find a consensus.])

Sincerely submitted, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting analysis (although some paragraph breaks would have made it easier to read). However, I think we may collectively be overintellectualizing something that is relatively simple. An earlier incarnation of ArbCom used to adopt this one-sentence principle: "Editors are expected to reasonably courteous to each other." As I wrote on the proposed decision talkpage, we can sometimes disagree about boundaries and also about consequences (cf. In re Snyder), but the basic idea is really quite clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK (I made some paragraph breaks). But, it seems clear now based on your response, I've misinterpreted your statement (green-quoted text). (I took it as genuine long-term puzzlement, but now I see it was rhetorical instead -- more of a frustrated command to Eric [e.g. "I just don't get it why he doesn't put his behavior in line, when the rules are simple enough, and consistent with his interest to help build the encyclopedia."]) Even so, I think the two fallacies I discussed above still apply. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1]... 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—and you've been as outstanding a model as anyone over the years—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—at least, not in response to a set of restrictions crafted by ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except that Eric Corbett has indicated at times over the past months that he is willing to change his approach—though at other times he's given contradictory signals—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)[reply]

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. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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—stellar research, massive amounts of grant funding, international prominence, department chairmanships at major academic medical centers, etc—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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

GoodDay, I once explained the retirement template here, if that helps any. —Neotarf (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wouldn't you say that for our readers, the encyclopedia is the product? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That too - but the unique selling point of 'this' encyclopedia is the way it is being built. pablo 12:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a selling point. Fortunately, it is not widely known. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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[2] 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)[reply]

It seems so cruel to ban Carol for feeling under siege [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I love that movie[4]. 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)[reply]

His edits are

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• and now [8]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Smallbones 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whilst we are here

Newyorkbrad, whilst all 3 of us are here in one place do you remember User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_169#Right_to_remember where Smallbones inserted an image into an article in order to punish the individual for daring to apply for the "right to be forgotten". Jimbo Wales 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just feel the love flowing in all directions these days.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of that love should be directed at an enforcement of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy#Smallbones warned. 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)[reply]

37 days left.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It seems logical to me that the two templates would follow the same standards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I thunk <g>. 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)[reply]

I absolutely love the wording of your Oppose for Eric's ban. Especially the My wikiheart says that there must be a way to save the participation of this editor part. We need more thinking like this in the community, not just from Arbs. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 [9]? 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)[reply]