Spread the WikiLove; use {{ subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

2016

peace bell

Thank you for good comments last year, about justice and integrity. 2016 had a good start, with a Bach cantata (a day late) and an opera reflecting that we should take nothing to seriuz, - Verdi's wisdom, shown on New Year's Day, also as a tribute to Viva-Verdi. (Click on "bell" for more.) Miss Yunshui (among others) and his harmonious editing. We can only try to follow the models of those who left. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Responded there. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Posting here as my space on WP:RFAR is limited: re [1]: Nobody needs to be "au courant at any given moment with the antics of every banned troll". There is a simple rule instead: if an IP editor pops up out of nowhere on your talkpage posting accusations against a third party, without disclosing a plausible background of a legitimate dispute with them, then they are always a banned harassment sock. No exceptions. Any experienced Wikipedian who fails to understand this simple rule of common sense is either incompetent or being disingenious. I agree it would warrant patient explanation when it happens to a newbie, but with a fellow administrator it is inexcusable. (Plus, as you may have seen, in one of the cases at hand the IP had already been identified and blocked by some other admin by the time I reverted it, while in the other it was a stative IP with multiple relevant prior blocks in its history, so there couldn't possibly have been any doubt or disagreement about it at all.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

And it would have taken two seconds to tell the admin who you state has no "brain and a sense of human decency" who the IP was. You didn't, you just claimed I was acting as a banned IP proxy, which is a bad faith personal attack. You then used an involved block to get your way. Claiming that all admins know all IPs that are banned is hapless and without foundation of any kind. I wasn't even aware that you'd told people to fuck off. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I would prefer not to continue discussing this dispute at length here. However, for clarification @ Future Perfect at Sunrise: in my comment, I was addressing not so much your interaction with The Rambling Man as with QEDK, who as far as I can tell was sincerely confused and upset by your comments to him.

@ The Rambling Man: Only slightly related to this dispute, but a few months ago when your dispute with Kww was flaring, you solicited community input and based on it, made what I perceived as a very sincere effort to tone down some of the sharper edges of your rhetoric. More recently, on pages like ITN, I see some reescalation in you harsh comments toward fellow editors. I don't know if that is intentional but I'd welcome your making a renewed effort to moderate your tone again, especially since you are rightly being critical of the tone used by someone else.

And to Future Perfect at Sunrise, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the arbitration request at all, but since you are here: Can I respectfully ask that you replace the "monkey selfie" image on your userpage with something else, please. The Wikimedia community has deliberately disregarded the (equitable as well as disputed legal) intellectual property claims of the human photographer behind that image, in the context of at times almost taunting him about his powerlessness to control its use. This is something that we should not be proud of, as I've recently discussed in some detail on Commons here, and I'd prefer to see people I respect, such as yourself, distance themselves from this behavior. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Re-signing to fix ping. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I'll be happy to try to do that Brad. There has been a mild escalation of "new" accounts at ITN, for instance, who know their way around, towards whom I could be more civil, sure. But to the point, if I could receive an apology for the erroneous block and talk page revocation, that would complete the circle, and we could move on. The bad faith was entirely unnecessary, as, it would appear, was the 17-minute block. Either the block was bad or the unblock was bad. It's somewhat troubling that there's a tacit assumption that all editors (at least, all admins) can recognise banned users editing via IP addresses. I was provided with not one shred of evidence, no SPI link, nothing. Nothing other than bad faith accusations that I was acting as a proxy for a sockpuppet, and then I was blocked. Is that how we treat anyone here? The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Again, this isn't something I meant to get into the middle of, but maybe I can help a bit. TRM, are you telling FPAS that despite his assumption to the contrary, you weren't aware of who it appears made that posting or that it was (in FPAS's view) obviously a banned user? FPAS, if TRM is telling you that, do you accept it? (Also, everyone, please see the comment I just added to the RFAR page.} Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

That seems to be 100% crystal clear obvious to me. Just because I'm an admin, it doesn't mean to say I have the "WIkipedia's 10 Most Wanted using random IPs with random text additions" in the forefront of my mind. That I was immediately accused of being a sockpuppet proxy was utterly bad form, and then, to make matters worse, at this Arbcom case, I'm accused of having no brain, no sense of decency, and worse: I deliberately and belligerently "enabled" a banned user. Did FPAS ever tell me which "banned user" this was? Did he ever leave me a talkpage message pointing me to the SPI? No. Could he have asked someone else to step in? Has FPAS gone on to continue to assume bad faith by constructing an image of me at Arbcom that I'm some kind of enabler? Yes. In future, if nothing else, I would suggest that someone tells FPAS that he uses talkpage messages to impart his information, rather than bad faith edit summaries, that he allows all editors (admins included) some level of good faith by instructing them as to the nature of the of IP post and its history (e.g. banned account, reasoning etc) and not to block anyone with whom he is clearly involved, either directly or perceptually. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Three things: (1) When I made the revert, I did in fact assume that TRM must know who the sock was, given the fact that he had just recently been participating substantially in several discussion threads on WT:RD where that very same banned person and their disruption was discussed. It would also have been immediately clear to him if he had actually read the "information" about me that he still claims was so very "interesting", because the links in it all went to edits and threads that were obviously related to this banned person (and in one of which they were clearly identified). Plus, as I keep reminding TRM and he keeps conveniently ignoring, the IP was already blocked and had had all its other edits rolled back, so he'd only have to click on the IP to know what was going on. Other than that, I of course have no expectation that people would be immediately aware of which troll might be which. (2) But, as I said just above, in the end it doesn't matter whether he knew which banned troll it was. What matters is that he should have known that it was a banned troll. A single glance at the edit should have been sufficient to make that clear to any intelligent and experienced Wikipedian. (3) As for notifications, TRM keeps falsely trumpeting around I told him only via edit summaries; the truth is that I immediately told him also on my talkpage, in response to the thread he opened there himself [2]. His postings there did not sound as if he was at all willing to consider any information about what banned user it was; he was merely going on about it being his talkpage (which was quite irrelevant), so why would I have taken more time to fill him in on the details?

As for the monkey selfie, nobody has asked this of me before and I have hardly been following that debate myself. If I remember correctly I had the picture on my page long before the public controversy erupted. But I'll remove it out of respect for you, Brad; just give me a bit of time to find some nice replacement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

As for the interaction with that other guy, QEDK, in his case the banned user's posting contained things like the claim that I was blocked for "illegal activities in public lavatories" or something to that effect (the same banned person has repeatedly called me a self-declared "sex worker" elsewhere). QEDK, instead of immediately deleting it, actually went on to that posting and fixing mistakes in it, thus seemingly making it his own. He must have read that bit too, as he was fiddling with text both immediately before and immediately after it. This was entirely unforgivable. And now he has the cheek to claim on the Arb page that he remembers "nothing libellous" about it. Giving him the warning I gave him was treating him mildly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for trying Brad. It's clear from recent edits that this is going nowhere near resolution. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

This may be worth a try. Just a talk page stalker here, no one important.

1. We're all on the same side here. Really we are.
2. Everyone involved made mistakes, if nothing else forgetting point 1 above.
3. Arguing who made bigger mistakes is not productive.
4. No permanent damage was done.
5. Yes, you are both admins, so should have behaved better.
6. And, yes, your feelings were hurt.
7. But also you are both admins, so hopefully should have a bit of resistance to slings and arrows. It is a job requirement, right?
8. Finally ... as admins ... surely you recognize that even admins make mistakes? How about a handshake, apology, resolution to do better next time? -- GRuban ( talk) 00:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

FPAS made the same reverts and threats against me, but w/o any of his available excuses above, could you look at this (plus related reverts & restores & editsums): User talk:Ihardlythinkso#Final warning.

• He never answered any of my Qs, including why an uninvolved admin couldn't take care.
• He threatened to block me.
• He presumed I s/ know the IP was a sock of banned editor Vote (X) for Change (why or how would I know that then or even now? because he says so?).
• He called the IP's posts "abusive harassing lies" about him (FPAS), and somehow couldn't see his reverts were INVOLVED??
• And given that FPAS has had long-standing grudge against me including multiple blocks and most recently blocking me for 2 weeks w/ bogus rationale, who would I reasonably trust more -- an unknown IP who has criticisms re FPAS, or FPAS (about anything)? (Oh gee that's hard let me think.)
• He said I wouldn't be blocked re the reverted IP's posts as long as I "behaved reasonably". (FPAS was behaving reasonably??)

IHTS ( talk) 09:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Thoughts on the "monkey selfie" debacle. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I apologize if you felt my satirical comments regarding the prevalence of IDONTLIKEIT votes on a page that takes itself too seriously were disrespectful to the memory of Glenn Frey. I have long been a fan of his, ever since hearing his haunting "You Belong to the City" on the Miami Vice soundtrack in 1985 (and later hearing "Sexy Girl" on a compilation album in 1986 and being amazed that it was the same singer), and then, of course, delving into his work with The Eagles (I'm a sucker for "Peaceful Easy Feeling" and "Lyin' Eyes"). No disrespect meant to Mr. Frey, I assure you. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. Don't worry, I didn't take it as anything against Glenn Frey. I'd just like to see the whole level of animosity and bitterness on ITN/C turned down a couple of notches, because it deters people from participating in the discussions there. Your certainly are far from the only or the greatest person I can think of in that respect. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 08:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello,

You have helped me once before in attempting to update HeinOnline's Wikipedia page: /info/en/?search=HeinOnline.

As I have been unable to effect any changes, despite providing multiple sources that were not related to heinonline.org and following all recommendations on the COI board , I recently requested paid editor assistance here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editor_help#Help_Request

I have not received any type of reply. I'm sorry to bother you, but you were one of the only people who responded positively to my attempt to update this information on behalf of the Hein Company and HeinOnline, and the Company is willing to investigate paid assistance from the community, but at this point I'm at a loss as to how to obtain any type of assistance--paid or not.

Please let me know if there is any information that I can provide that would help, or anywhere I can turn for additional assistance.

Thank you in advance!

Tak1335 ( talk) 18:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Tak1335: I believe I had suggested that you prepare a draft of the information you suggest be included, in your userspace, and send me a link so I could take a look at it. I still think that's the best way to proceed. (If you already did that and I overlooked it, then my apologies, and please re-post the link; I had very limited wiki-time over the holidays.) Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Newyorkbrad:

Yes, I did, but I used my Sandbox--is that the same thing? Here is the link, and what I did is divide up the sources based on non-Hein related sources and then a few Hein-related sources that contain purely factual information.

Here is my Sandbox link: /info/en/?search=User:Tak1335/sandbox

If I should put this information elsewhere, please let me know. Thanks again for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tak1335 ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

I am contacting you because of your involvement in the topic ban that was placed against me. I would like to make the best of the next six months and am requesting your input on how best to do so.

What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule? My own take was to initiate no new threads or RfCs but participate in those started by others (which happens once or twice a year). This clearly was not something that you guys consider acceptable. What do you think I should do instead? Is it just that there was too much of it?

I notice that my offers to engage in a voluntary restriction were not accepted. What would you have seen as more suitable? Is it that I was asking you guys what you wanted me to do instead of making my own guesses?

What can I do over the next six months to give you guys confidence that I can be allowed to return to work?

I am understanding the topic ban to cover both MoS pages, articles concerning quotation marks, and their respective talk pages. Is this the case? Before I became involved, both Quotation marks in English and Full stop contained significant amounts of unsourced material and I am worried that that content will be returned. If I should happen to see such a case, am I allowed to notify someone else that the unsourced material is there?

I also feel that user SMcCandlish was not honest with you and should be treated as an outlier. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 14:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Addendum. Some other editors expressed confusion on this point. I am not talking about how to deal with WP:LQ now. I fully understand that I'm not allowed to discuss or deal with the matter while topic-banned. But whether in six months or later than that, it will eventually be lifted. That particular question refers to when the ban is over, and input on the past if you have any. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• See also: User_talk:KillerChihuahua § Regarding_topic_ban_of_Darkfrog24
• Killer Chihuahua 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hey NYB, other than a couple small userboxes about education and interest, I've tried to avoid mentioning on-wiki that I'm a lawyer IRL, but word is getting out (particularly ever since my RfA when I was "outed" off-wiki ... sigh). So, just some thoughts you might have for how you handle such matters? I have enough drama around here as it is, and I notice that some people react to lawyers in various odd and unpredictable ways. I'm mostly concerned about people either making an appeal to authority to me because I'm a lawyer; or people accusing me of being a dreaded wikilawyer simply because of my RL profession. I have zero interest in doing either, though another lawyer wikipedian once commented that it's really quite obvious I have legal training from the way I write and use language. (meh) Anyway, I'm feeling a bit ill at ease about being "out" as to my profession and thought I'd seek advice from those amongst my fellow JDs who are also "out" about how you handle it. Perhaps Dirtlawyer1 also has some insights. Nothing I do here has anything to do with my work, though I occasionally edit a few articles on case law or legislation. For the most part I am happier in my little horsey-and-history areas, but if you have any advice about those times when people notice the JD and change their behavior toward me because if it, I'm all ears ... Montanabw ^(talk) 17:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for thinking of me with your question. I don't think you actually have much to worry about. I don't recall the fact of my having been a lawyer having come up on-wiki at all, outside the context of my editing law-related articles and displaying some expertise (where it wasn't a bad thing and which in any event as you say you don't do much), or when I was asked about dispute-resolution experience in my RfA and during my ArbCom candidacies (where it wasn't a bad thing) or when I've occasionally felt compelled to make a disclaimer (such as in my "Signpost" piece this week). So fingers crossed but I don't think this will be big issue for you. Any other lawyers-on-wiki, as opposed to wikilawyers, who are willing to self-identify are cordially invited to comment here. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks, NYB. We all are "civilians" here, but I get a little jumpy about folks who think we have some sort of magic pixie dust and then are pissed (or only too happy to dive for the jugular) upon discovery that we are mere humans. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Archie would no doubt think of an elegant and subtle way to prod Wolfe into action. Maybe recruiting some orchid fanciers, or the Ten for Aristology. I, however, despite being a great fan of the books, am reduced to the plebeian wikilink: User:GRuban/Modest_Stein. If you have lost interest in the thing, just say, and I'll finish it up without you as best I can. Eventually. But if you are still interested, please do dive in, when and how you can. Lend a piquant phrase, paragraph, or even a complete rewrite, I'm open. I'm more or less going down the list of source links, and have just gotten to Sasha and Emma, which seems to be much meatier than the others, and thought I really should inquire as to your intentions. Here is what it looked like after I used what I could from the first source; the second source. I wouldn't have started this without your request for a collaborator, and wasn't planning for it to become a solo effort. -- GRuban ( talk) 04:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

GRuban ( talk · contribs) I remain quite interested, but have been inundated with Real Life recently. I will take a look at your draft and add to it this week, I promise. Regards, and thanks for the follow-up. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Just knowing you haven't forgotten makes me feel better. Best of luck with that "Real Life" thing; which is, of course, a nuisance, until you consider the alternative. -- GRuban ( talk) 16:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ GRuban: Nice job on the first draft. I've added a few snippets and will do more in the upcoming days. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

And it's live! Modest Stein!. I also nominated it for Did You Know, though I'm not sure I phrased the hook the best way. Please feel free to improve it! Template:Did you know nominations/Modest Stein -- GRuban ( talk) 18:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Approved for Did you know, in line for front page here. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ GRuban: Excellent. Congratulations. And thanks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply