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.

I appreciate you being decisive [1] but you also just covered up a case of significant Admin incompetence. I'm considering taking this to dispute resolution and now the evidence is unavailble to non-admins. Legacypac (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, but we can't keep a draft that includes the "projected death date" of a 14-year-old online, on one of the most prominent websites in the world, because it might be useful for an internal administrative purpose. If you wish to pursue the issue, you can open a thread and ask that an administrator summarize the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is SoWhy refused to speedy the page and then defended that refusal. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that's the issue you are raising, but I can't restore this content. If you have another suggestion I am listening. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Where did you actually talk to SoWhy? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be a case for a new criterion or an expansion of G10 to cover all types of serious BLP violation? Adam9007 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I would have deleted this draft on sight. It can't be left anywhere on Wikipedia to serve as evidence for anything. That said, there are enough admins who can see it and who would vouch for the totally inappropriate content. Let's not mix the validity of the deletion up with any possible claims of admin excess. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I saw the new MfD and went investigating before voting. On the Draft talk several editors were discussing with Winged Blades being very frustrated. I posted asking for ADMINACCT but you deleted the page so if there was a response, I did not see it. I also posted in the MfD but that was closed of course. I've started an AN thread for my past experience suggests dealing directly will resolve nothing. If the material is so bad it can't be restored, that is a serious failure on SoWhy's part by refusing to delete it in the first place. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung - I 100% agree and I would have tagged it G3 on sight. I don't want it restored completely I want the Admin involved to be as accountable for declining a tag and arguing over it as they want to hold users to account for bad tagging. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This specific admin regularly calls out alleged inappropriate use of CSD at the CSD talk page. Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) is edit-warring to remove your thread on Talk:Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned him on his usertalk and he has deleted the warning: [2]. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated removal of a month-old section heading on a talkpage is petty stupidity. The longer-term hostility and conflict between Francis Schonken and Mathsci, however, is of serious concern. My mild suggestion that these two editors need to separate themselves from each other has been disregarded and stronger action may be needed. I will be offline at a meeting for several hours but it would be great if an uninvolved administrator with no prior history with either of these editors were to look into this whole mess. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brad. I stopped watchlisting that page on 8 March; after you commented on the talk page, I noticed your message and I commented on having stopped watchlisting. Some wikipedians know that I had a stroke on 29–30 December 2017. Apart from damage to the left hemisphere and carotid artery, it manifests itself in expressive dysphasia. It improves fairly quickly over a one month period but then more or less stabilises. I am able to edit in the usual way now, although it takes more time and I can become very tired. Editing in my usual area (Bach organ works) has now become fairly easy. The stroke has not affected my organ playing, except for problems of fatigue. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Newyorkbrad: I can report that, without consensus, User:Francis Schonken has been attempting to "dismember" other content created almost all by me. As in a previous report on January 2017 at WP:ANI (now archived), he has moved large sections of content so that it is almost impossible to find. The edit history is similarly hard to find. As a preliminary measure, please could Francis Schonken be prevented from move-warring and blanking content in this way? At the moment the main content created by me is still in tact, Concerto transcriptions for keyboards (Bach), but I have no idea how long that will last. (Postscript: It has now moved to Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach), but with Francis Schonken's blanking removed.) Normally I would make a report at WP:ANI, but Francis Schonken's edits have rendered that moot. Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest Mathsci stop following me around. Lately they have been following me to An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken), Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld (Stölzel) and List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach, thus prolonging a pattern which started many years ago, indeed also involving both Weimar concerto transcriptions (Bach) and Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach), on which articles Mathsci started to follow me around since December 2016.

The last few days I see hardly another edit by Mathsci than undoing my work, or delivering far-fetched criticisms on it. Mathsci please find something else to do. I usually enjoy working with you, almost always something good comes out of it. It is always better to put two minds together when tackling a complex topic, and you learnt me a lot of things. However, when the criticism has hardly anything to do with the work of other editors it becomes counterproductive. Could you at least consider to stop delivering hardly founded criticisms on, and deletions of, my work for the time being? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Newyorkbrad is aware of private communications concerning off-wiki problems caused by disruption on 13–16 April 2018. That is still under investigation: it involves IT administrators at the University of Cambridge. Mathsci (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed your similar(?), equally unfounded, WP:ASPERSIONS here – I suggest the last comment above by Mathsci be redacted too. Trying to threat me into submission by unfounded aspersions is not really the constructive response I was hoping for to my proposal above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This concerned WP:ARBR&I—something quite different. Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest you stop making allusions to WP:ARBR&I in article talk page discussions that are completely and utterly unrelated to WP:ARBR&I – not helpful in a content discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathsci, does your reference to "private communications concerning off-wiki problems caused by disruption" anything to do with Francis Schonken? Otherwise it seems very strange to bring this up in a section called "Francis Schonken is ..." as it strngly gives the impression that you mean to say that they are involved with those off-wiki problems.
• In general, this issue belongs at WP:AN or at WP:ARBCOM, as it is enduring, complicated, concerns two good-faith editors, with accusations back-and-forth which take considerable time to collect and investigate. It looks as if an interaction ban would be the best solution, but that would be hard on both editors as their interests are similar (the soothing world of classical music). But I doubt that discussion between the two editors would solve anything, I also doubt that one party is completely to blame (which doesn't mean that there necessarily is equal blame, but that's what needs to be investigated), so some topic ban and/or interaction ban is needed to acoid the prospect of simply losing either or both editors completely. Perhaps the two of you can, in Arbcom-style, each prepare a short (500 word max) statement about your view of the conflict, the origins behind it, and the most egregious problems you encounter with the other editor, and then both statements can be presented simultaneously at WP:AN to request uninvolved editors to look at it and try to find a solution? Fram (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Fram, my summary is here, that is, above, my first contribution to this section. I might add I possibly was not always on my best behaviour. Trying to collaborate with Mathsci might, in the long run, turn somewhat WP:IARish, that is, if one wants to see results, protect valid edits against unreasonable deletions and the like. But for now, it costs more than it delivers, see my comment above. I'd prefer not to put any more energy in this, that is as a ANI or whatever dispute. My objective is to contribute to sound encyclopedia content, not to have interminable disputes with apparently unwilling contributors who seem to have more agendas than just contribute constructively to this project. Please protect me from such editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, if you want to avoid interminable disputes, then it's important to recognize the role that your own behavior plays in them. Specifically, in the past couple of weeks, you've placed more than a dozen generic user-warning templates on Mathsci's talkpage, including 5 in one day:

• Edit-warring template, 28 March 2018
• Replacing edit-warring template after it was read and acknowledged by Mathsci, 28 March 2018
• Third edit-warring template, 8 April 2018
• Fourth edit-warring template, 10 April 2018
• Fifth edit-warring template, 10 April 2018
• Sixth edit-warring template, 10 April 2018
• Seventh edit-warring template, 10 April 2018
• Talk-page "hijacking" template, 10 April 2018
• Page-blanking template, 13 April 2018
• Two more hijacking templates, 14 April 2018
• WP:POINT template, 14 April 2018
• Vandalism level-1 template, 16 April 2018

Given that both you and Mathsci are experienced editors, there is no credible way to interpret this behavior other than as a childish provocation. It's a clear form of harassment, and well beneath the minimal expected standards of behavior here. Moreover, as you are (presumably) an adult, you should be ashamed of stooping to this level of pettiness. I don't doubt that Mathsci's behavior has also contributed to your ongoing dispute, and I don't have the wherewithal to wade deeper into it, but your behavior described above is unacceptable in any context.

Insofar as you're interested in unsolicited advice, I'd suggest that you take whatever time you're planning to spend pleading your case, and instead invest it in considering ways to improve your own conduct. In a best case, that will prompt a virtuous cycle which will lead to the constructive editing environment you ostensibly desire. In a worst case, if your behavior improves and Mathsci's doesn't, the dispute will be more clear-cut in terms of appropriate resolution. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell thanks for your message, but I must reject it:

• for tone while assuming I'd not be prepared to see my errors, posted just after a message where I said I would (did you even read that message?)
• on content for assuming that these warning messages would not have been justified, or inappropriate to address issues as they presented themselves. They helped containing Mathsci's disruptive behaviour which was far worse than these messages let assume.

Please don't post on my user talk page ever again. And unless you can't contain yourself or have an apology to offer, never again comment on me, that is: nor on-line nor off-site. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: Since you believe that the behavior outlined above was justifiable, and even helpful, I think I know everything I need to know about your level of insight and willingness to acknowledge errors. Per your request, I will not post on your talkpage unless required to do so (i.e. leaving a policy-mandated warning or notifying you of an administrative action). I reserve the options of discussing your behavior in the appropriate venues and of taking administrative action where you are concerned, if warranted. Brad, good luck. MastCell ^Talk 05:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I have had a private (one-way) discussion with Newyorkbrad involving my health concerns (e.g. CBG3, syncope, stroke) and the off-wiki disruption on 13–16 April. Fram was mentioned, but not as a potential party—quite the contrary. During the crucial first month of stroke recovery, I succeeded in updating a lengthy article, BWV 769. That is the standard way in which I edit and the usual stable content that I create. I found it therapeutic, even if on occasion my vocabulary went haywire. The use of the word "antics" to describe expressive dysphasia does not seem very helpful. On 2–8 February, two blackouts resulted in a spell at A&E/cardio with hypotension followed by extreme hypertension with multiple tests (echo, ct-scan, x-rays, etc). That also complicated matters; possibly they were ignored on wikipedia—apart from the 1912 Bach-Jahrbuch just borrowed from the University Library, I had nothing with me when the ambulance arrived, just before the second blackout when they checked the ECG monitor. There were 2 further incidents at A&E/cardio in the last week of February.

Perhaps there might be a possibility of some kind of limited or restricted arbcom case, not dissimilar to the WP:ARBR&I review, that might include some private discussions (health issues, disability, discrimination). The health concerns are still there: where I would have made contributions to all sorts of topics, that is now much harder because of fatigue, anxiety and frustration resulting from stroke. Aside from mathematics, history, art history, early saints, matters French and European (Aix, Marseille, Europe), etc, for a long period (2008 onwards) a substantial part of my own expertise and article edits has been on baroque organ and keyboard works, broadly construed. There are often large articles that can be extracted from subsections, e.g. BWV 621, BWV 612, BWV 622, BWV 529, BWV 105, BWV 39, BWV 1017, BWV 1019, BWV 680, BWV 682, BWV 686, etc, etc, etc. A solis ortus cardine is another example, involving an English translation from 5th century Latin. Mathsci (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mathsci: in February 2011 the {{No footnotes}} tag was added to Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach. In the mean while it was replaced by {{More footnotes}}, and I'm currently addressing the issues indicated by that tag. This is a complex operation due to many intermediate edits, thus I try to progress with small steps as much as possible. Please don't interrupt by wholesale reverts like you did here. You're welcome to assist, but if you're not interested in tackling that problem then please stay away from the page until the operation is over. Of course you're also welcome to post on the article's talk page if something untoward would have happened or if you have questions or suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was offline for most of the day and have just checked in to find multiple pings in the above thread. As it happens, I will also be mostly offline from tomorrow through Sunday (The Wolfe Pack trip to the Greenbrier). I received an e-mail from Mathsci regarding an issue that is concerning but which I cannot link to Frances Schonken and therefore is irrelevant to this discussion. I have also received e-mails concerning Mathsci's health, which is also a matter of concern although frankly I don't see that posting on-wiki concerning health issues in the level of detail contained above is going to be helpful.

At this point it is obviously necessary that Mathsci and Francis Schonken be separated in some fashion. I have a tentative view as to which of them is more at fault for their problematic interactions, but the case is not so clear that I would feel free to act unilaterally. Unless the two of them find some way to disengage voluntarily, I fear there is no alternative but an impose remedy, whether via an ANI discussion or arbitration or otherwise. I frankly fear that participating in such a process would be stressful for both of these editors and therefore would not want to suggest it, except that a continuation of the parties' recent behavior might be even more stressful. I appreciate that two uninvolved administrators have posted comments so far aimed at helping to unravel this mess and hope they will continue their efforts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might find this amusing. ;) -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 17:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you good at or know an admin who is good at closing large involved discussions? Right now we have Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals which pretty much covers every area of Wikipedia and are eventually in need of a closer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: Without suggesting specific admins by name, administrators who specialize at closing complicated discussions might include those who are active on deletion review and arbitration enforcement as well as the bureaucrats. However, I haven't checked how many of these admins might have participated in the discussion themselves and therefore aren't in a position to close it. At the top of WP:AN there is a section for requesting closers for discusssions, so you might want to post there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_9KAxe9OOmX29Bl3&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, in case you thought maybe nobody had appreciated this edit, I did notice it, and I found it reasonably amusing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A couple of others had noticed as well. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E-mails sent to me through the Wikipedia e-mail system have been taking some time to arrive. Anyone who needs to e-mail me about something time-sensitive can do so directly at Newyorkbrad -at- gmail dot com. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday April 25th, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly WikiWednesday evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda! After the main meeting, pizza and video games in the gallery. Wednesday April 25th WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 145 West 14th Street (note the new address, a couple of doors down from the former Babycastles location) We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our agenda, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Megs (talk)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

I agree with you. It is contrary to policy to discuss the upcoming weekend early on Tuesday. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on my talk page regarding the awareness of discretionary sanctions as described by current policy on AC/DS. I am inviting you to know your opinion there. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]