User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Apr

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

We've been discussing who is to close the current phase of the pending changes RFC, and I have suggested that we try to coax you into it. [1] Other than hating me forever for trying to drag you into this mess, would you be willing to consider it? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What Beeblebrox said. :) I've also talked to Risker about it before, so if you or her think that there's someone better suited (and not already involved) then shout it out. Steven Walling at work 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be glad to pitch in on this, but I have an arbitration decision to write this week as well as my real-time commitments, so I won't be able to get to it until the weekend. Do you think that would be all right? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the poll started on the 24th and we weren't going to close it until roughly 10-14 days had passed, so it doesn't need to be this week absolutely... Steven Walling at work 03:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven - I've not been able to persuade anyone else to work on this issue, and I'm not in a position to do so myself as I was heavily involved in almost all aspects of the initial trial. Here's hoping NYB is willing to take on this task. Risker (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Risker. NYB: if you end up getting totally swamped, just let me or Beeblebrox know and someone will be sure to ask in another venue. Steven Walling at work 08:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there are still some users commenting, I would lke to see the RFC stay open somewhere near the two week time suggestion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I am willing to close the current phase of the RfC and happy to do it jointly with NYB. Brad, should I email you some thoughts and we can see where we take it from there? WJBscribe (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That would work. I was thinking this might call for a small ad hoc committee or something, anyway. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. The RfC is 9.5 days old currently and I think that 10 days is sufficient. There hasn't been support on the talk page for anything longer and the number of new comments has dropped considerably. —UncleDouggie (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It has now been up for a full 10 days. There are 151 numbered comments, only one of which has come in during the 24 hours since the watchlist notice was removed. During the 48 hours before that, there were 12 new comments. While we probably could get a few more responses if we replaced the watchlist notice, this would be unlikely to change the outcome, whatever it may be. The ratio of support and oppose has remained fairly constant over the course of the RfC and the previous lively discussion has petered out. If the closers feel that more time would be useful in determining consensus, then by all means let's do that. If not, there's no need to drag this out given the number of users who want to see some progress. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

note - The watchlist notice has been removed - prematurely imo and with close to no discussion on an obscure page - users are still commenting - the discussion is set up as a WP:RFC and although I would not request 30 days - I don't think the wheels are dropping off and 14 days or if there are no comments for 48 hours is not excessive under the circumstances. This user User:MSGJ suggested himself to remove it, there were no other comments and he removed it himself nine hours later. No discussion at all, only with himself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If the standard timeframe is 30 days, I would argue against closing early if only for the same reasons that some opposers are against PC in the first place, feeling that process is not being followed. 30 days is process. (Sorry, I misread the comment above this, strike further up applies too.) Removal of the watchlist notice seems premature. I know this may start one or two visits to comment on my talk page, but keep in mind this is just my opinion. It's kinda funny to see opposers to PC complaining that Jimbo and others are not following process then request to close an RfC ~~that is only 10 days into a 30 day period,~~ after removing the most obvious way for people to find it. It may not change the outcome, but I find it an irony. CycloneGU (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Time frame was not set in stone at any point. This is merely the third phase of a very prolonged RFC that has been open for about fifty days already. There have been watchlist notices pointing at it from Feb. 19 through yesterday. I think we can proceed with the close of this portion without worrying about it, this phase was only to decide what to do in the short term and has no bearing on the future use of pc. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just doing a little more reading as well; it seems some were thinking of a 14 day period. The irony still exists in principle, however. Since the impending result appears to be removal of PC from all pages it is on (including those pages it is actually helping better than semi-protection ever could), I hope we can from here come to a quick agreement that the feature does have a rightful place here; at this rate, the way things have been these last eight months, we won't have PC fully implemented for another five years. By then, possibility exists that any one or more of us may be dead. CycloneGU (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I started this current RFC and have tried very hard to push it toward a conclusion. It has not been easy and at the moment we appear to be completely stalled out with too many mutually exclusive proposals on how to proceed. I very much welcome any input or action aimed at getting the process back on track. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same; we've pretty much been at a stalemate for a long time. I still am not confident removing PC from all articles will move discussion towards possible inclusion going forward; for all I know, the "process hounds" (as some have come to call them) will say, "Great, it's gone, now the next step is to abolish it and ensure it never returns." I hope this fear is not realized, because it is a useful tool in itself if used correctly - much like adminship (if I may make so bold a joke).

Heck, I wonder if anyone's made any comparison of the staunch objectors to ~~a terrorist group~~ a hostage situation. Think about it: "If you do not hand over 10 million dollars, this fella here bites the bullet." In this case, the captive is PC itself, and those in support of it are like the government agency receiving the threat. This is entirely extreme, but the debate over PC has been going almost like that: "turn it off or we won't talk". Again, this does not mean a certain view on my part, it's just an observation. CycloneGU (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have used the analogy of the RFC being held hostage or hijacked several times. I believe your accounting of what is being attempted is entirely accurate. I've just requested mediation in order to resolve the current impasse. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not only extreme, it is outrageous and utterly unfair. Please, there is zero evidence or reason to compare any group of users here to a terrorist organisation, this is absolutely ridiculous and should be withdrawn immediately. As for "turn it off or we won't talk", I personally feel it's been more like "it's on so there's nothing to talk about". Either way turning it off is the solution. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I will withdraw the "terrorist" comment as "hostage" is the word I was looking for. As for the analogy itself, I do not withdraw it in principle; you have to agree that a staunch group of users has constantly said, "The trial is over, turn if off now that the trial is over or there is nothing to talk about because we refuse to discuss future implementation until it's off now." I could go back to the old pages from October and pick out a wide variety of comments like this, and match them to comments from February and March. The users are acting as in WP:I don't like it. CycloneGU (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

And that makes those users terrorists... how exactly? All it means is there are some users who genuinely feel that implementing PC by indefinitely extending a trial will not work and will have a bad effect on the encyclopedia. They are not holding anyone or anything hostage, they are acting in good faith. Now plase cut out the nonsense analogies, they really do not help. Next time you come anywhere near comparing a user to a terrorist, I can guarantee you will be blocked for personal attacks. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My intention is not to compare any user to a terrorist; it is a mere observation of appearance and I apologize if I offended you in that observation. I am not one to try to start drama, which it appears I have herein. I'll cease my further comments in this discussion for the time being, particularly on that subject. CycloneGU (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone say that they actually want this RfC to run for 30 days. We have one user who is now worried that it would be a process violation not to do so, but there isn't any substantive reason for having it run that long. I know it might be hard to comprehend within the polarized atmosphere that has poisoned previous PC discussions, but there is such a thing as unanimous consent to move forward even among parties that vehemently disagree. I posted a proposed duration of 10 to 14 days only 2 days after the start of the RfC. The responses have been for a duration of 7 to 14 days. In other discussions, several have said that 10 days is sufficient. No one has even said that 14 days is their minimum, it was just the high end of their range. One user did recently request extra time, but a duration wasn't specified, which I interpret to be a request for as much time as it takes to get their way, even if that's forever. Unless someone has a massive sockpuppet/meatpuppet plan underway, I don't see how extra time is going to make any difference. I agree that an RfC for final approval of PC should run for 30 days. However, this is just a first step in that process. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If that "one user" is me, I should point out that I agree with a 10-14 day period; more than that shouldn't really be necessary. I just misread something that sounded like 30 days was previously agreed on and commented based on that. Having multiple fragmented conversations in multiple places gets confusing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Brad: Thanks for volunteering to help with this. I wish you the best of luck. As of right now I am not participating any further in this process. I sincerely hope some of the pther users who have become deeply invested in this situation will consider doing likewise and letting cooler heads steer the process to a conclusion. Again thanks for agreeing to help out. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC Archiving Note

I already created the redirect Wikilink at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3 which is used in the mediation page. When you close and archive the phase, if you like the idea, move it to Archive 4 (or just speedy kill) and then move the entire RfC page with its edit history to the Archive 3 location. I put it in early for the purpose of the mediation page so when the move does take place we don't have any broken or misdirected Wikilinks in the discussion to repair later, and doing the same with Archive 4 might not be a bad idea when the next phase begins. CycloneGU (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am drafting an arbitration decision tonight, so will begin to look closely at the RfC material tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please just close the RfC and we'll handle the archiving after a few days to give everyone a chance to see the result. It's not appropriate to move the page because this would redirect everyone's watchlist to the archive page. We want people to keep the main page watchlisted for future phases. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We need to retitle the page, also. It's not February any longer. CycloneGU (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We probably will for the next phase, but that's not a discussion for here. —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Newyorkbrad: Hi there! I'd like to let you know that in a Mediation Cabal mediation case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-04-03/Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

I've made the following changes:

A user has stated that you were selected by RfC consensus as a mediator prior to the Mediation Cabal request being filed. Can you please provide some input, if you wish, on whether this is true or not, and whether pre-arranged mediation is likely to proceed soon if so?

Please have a look at the mediation case page linked to above, and participate in the current stage of the mediation process if you wish. Of course, participation is completely optional, and if you don't want to take part in this mediation at any point, that's totally fine. If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute, the mediation, or the Mediation Cabal in general, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably don't have to go into this, but I think my comments above sparked Beeblebrox creating that case. ~~I don't know if he was aware you were selected to mediate.~~ I think the majority of participants (including myself) will wait for your input there before proceeding in any way. CycloneGU (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, although I think everybody is starting to get a bit restless - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur with that. CycloneGU (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not about mediating. Newyorkbrad has been asked to make a determination of consensus on a very narrow point, whether there is consensus for enacting this proposal. The future of the debate on PC is beyond that point. Cenarium (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the mediation request was - as I understand it - opened with the intention of resolving a dispute at "the [...] RFC and especially it's talk page", which is kind of what we're waiting on NYB to do (resolve and bring a conclusion to the dispute that is) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Well we should not, we can't resolve all at one time. NYB has been asked to consider the proposal on the current use of PC, not what to do next. There's been simply not enough discussion on what we should do next, there's not much that NYB could do. I've made a proposal for a way forward: drafting a proposal for a use of PC then submit it to the community (detailed here), others have made some, I ask that users consider and give their opinions on existing proposals before making new ones, so we know if one has consensus. Cenarium (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this conversation is getting replicated all over the place so I'll just repeat briefly here that Cenarium is quite correct, Brad was asked to determine what consensus exists in the current phase only and to make an appropriate close to that phase. Nothing has been decided about what was supposed to happen after that, which is what I am asking MEDCAB to assist with. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case your request for mediation make no sense, you said that the dispute which needed resolving was at the RfC, the only dispute at the RfC currently is the question of what to do about ending the trial. Which is what it is intended NYB deal with. There is no "dispute" about what to do next, and there is certainly no dispute about that at the RfC page. I believe you're jumping the gun here a bit, I know you may feel that there are too many proposals for what to do for the next phase, and that we're not getting anywhere on deciding which one to do. However, we haven't even finished phase 3 yet, I think we'll only earnestly start debating what to do next once that is over. In addition, the whole point of removing PC (proposed phase 3) is to allow it to be clearer what we're meant to do next, complaining that it is not clear while PC is still to be removed makes it rather clear what the issue is imo. And it simply requires us to remove PC, not to request mediation while we are still discussing removal of PC. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is safe to presume at this point that PC is going to start being removed from articles soon (and I already have the protection types page loaded to edit when that consensus is determined - or did, I'll get that back up). Of course, if after Brad reviews it he thinks there isn't that consensus, then we'll figure out the next step then. I'm going to start looking over all of the analysis and see where I think a good next step would be. I recall one of the big items was confusion about how it was worded and reviewers roles; I'll check into this in more detail for the exact wording. We might actually be able to rewrite policies in the next phase, something we should have been doing five months ago in my view, but better late than never. CycloneGU (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was initially asked, as an administrator who has not commented in the RfC, if I would review it at completion and assess the consensus. Later, WjbScribe was also asked to do much the same thing, and he and I agreed to collaborate on the closing (see thread above on this page). Is it now controversial that he and I should do so? What other path forward might be better? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't at all controversial that the two of you should do this. The issue was that a user had objected to the Mediation Cabal case proceeding on the grounds that you had already been elected mediator by consensus of the RfC in resolving the diaspora, but your response suggests this was a misunderstanding. Irrespective of whether the MedCab case gains consensus, or does not, your services (and those of WjbScribe) will still be vital in determining the final outcome of the RfC itself. Thanks for your input. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone has a problem with that. There is indeed the issue of what to do next regarding the debate on PC, but this is still under discussion and beyond what was asked of you. You just need to determine whether there is consensus to enact this specific proposal regarding the current use of PC. Cenarium (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle with the above statements (both). We just need a determination of whether the current discussion, considering the support and oppose opinions and the reasons given, altogether form a consensus either in support of removal of PC from all articles is it currently on (the general scope of this phase as I understand it). I misunderstood and thought from the objections on the mediation page that you were selected to mediate; this appears to be a misunderstanding on my part. CycloneGU (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Where things stand now?

I'm a little confused, and I think Brad is too. We're both still willing to close the discussion as uninvolved admins whenever this discussion should be closed. If we're to remain able to close this, it's important that we stay out of the dispute, so this talkpage isn't an ideal place to thrash it out... I'm not entirely sure what the MedCab mediation is about - is the idea that mediation might resolve the dispute to everyone's satisfaction without requiring an independent close?
Should Brad and I wait for the outcome of the MedCab mediation before doing anything? WJBscribe (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion. The mediation request was filed by Beeblebrox 14 hours ago concerning the direction of future RfC phases. He didn't intend for it interfere with you and Brad closing the current RfC phase, although it would have been clearer for everyone if he had just waited. Since then, Beeblebrox withdrew his mediation request 5 hours ago. I agree that discussion of the now defunct case is inappropriate for this page. Perhaps it should be removed or archived. Please go ahead and perform the close. Thank you! —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please disregard the mediation request and the discussion that is going on as to what should come next. We ask you only to determine whether consensus exists to enact this proposal. Cenarium (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say that (especially now that the Mediation request been withdrawn) please feel free to go ahead and close the discussion and then take some time describing the consensus if you want. Closing it sooner rather than later is preferable, from my perspective. Steven Walling at work 22:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I withdraw my request for a full 14 days and have no objections to immediate or impending closure. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

Sorry for bothering you with this, but I think it might be really helpful if you could leave a quick comment concerning this. Or maybe I should ask Geoff Brigham? I am not sure how well he understands the dynamics of this site, though. Hans Adler 16:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Too late now since the thread has been closed, but I am slightly hopeful that I got my point across anyway. Hans Adler 07:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the discussion; I didn't realize there was a time urgency, but I guess any AN or ANI thread carries the connotation that there's a discussion going on in real-time. For future reference, I agree with you that "verifiability, not truth" is sometimes interpreted in a simplistic manner. If anything, it's a guideline for what should be excluded, not for what should be included, particularly where BLP or similar material is concerned. Please let me know if you see this issue coming up again. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

[2] and [3] Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My view of the request remains as I've stated it. Other arbitrators have the opportunity to comment on the request for clarification, so we will see how they feel about the matter. I note that you have not addressed my comment that if the quotes attributed to you there are accurate, you should avoid that sort of commentary in the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!

At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Tholzel blocked indefinitely

Hi Brad. I noticed your comment here after I had blocked this user indefinitely. A review of their edits seemed to indicate that they were solely here to promote their minority views on ethnicity, and to try to boost the reputation of a prominent holocaust denier, and to argue with others towards that end. I therefore took it upon myself to block them. If you feel I was too harsh, please feel free to comment here. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I should comment directly on the merits of the block, because the block was not directly related to the arbitration case. If Tholzel does not request an unblock, the matter is closed; if he does, the block should be reviewed in the ordinary fashion.

That said, I'm sure you noted that when I voted to decline Tholzel's request for arbitration, I indicated I would consider a request to evaluate Tholzel's own editing, so you may reasonably infer from that that on a preliminary view of it, I considered that it seemed seriously problematic. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Update)I've now seen the unblock request and the responses on Tholzel's talkpage. The case may now come before the Arbitration Committee as a ban appeal at some point, so I won't say more than I already have. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response; I appreciate your position and the message was mainly intended as a heads-up that I had indef-blocked someone who was concurrently (however frivolously) undergoing an Arbcom procedure. I guess I thought of it like an obvious speedy delete in the course of an AfD, but on reflection I am not sure how sound that logic really was. So long as my action didn't inconvenience anyone. Next time I guess I would wait for the case to be closed. Thanks again for the work that you do. --John (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.
Message added 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Prompt comment on this idea is given The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello sir, i'd like to request for a review of my expulsion from this site. I have never been formally banished, but only restricted to no modifications for an indefinite period. What do i do? - Cap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Question for Bradley (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are a trollish troll who is trollishly trolling, go away. (I fear the username is not encouraging). If in spite of appearances you are a good-faith editor seeking a opportunity to return and contribute productively, see our page on unblock requests; as a last resort, you may send an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

I don't know where to leave this message, and you can certainly post it somewhere else if it raises ex parte problems. I deeply respect your views, but I am wondering why you proposed one year when the offer had come down to six months prior to starting the arbitration. I would accept six months coupled with moving the policy question of "GA criteria incorporating USRD/STDS" to an RFC conducted by WPGA. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Posting here is fine except that only I will necessarily see it; if you post in your section in the arbitration case, all the arbitrators and parties would see it, which is better. I suggested one year simply because it is something of a standard that is used in arbitration remedies; I don't claim there is anything scientific about it, but no one wants this dispute to flare up again anytime soon. My proposal wasn't meant to pick up on any previous offers or discussions, but simply to try to get this situation resolved without a case—or without our simply acting by motion to impose some sort of interaction ban, which I suppose could also be a possibility. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a response in my section of the arbitration page to report that we have an agreement between myself and the roads people. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to finalize the RFC/U settlement, but there is a bit of last minute wiggling. Certainly, I am in tune with the spirit of your suggestion. Racepacket (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it can be worked out. It's a big wiki with plenty of room for everybody. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

PC RfC

Hi, NYB. The natives are getting restless.

I know that ArbCom keeps you busy and that there's a lot of stuff to wade through here. I'm in no hurry myself but am concerned that an involved editor may attempt to close the RfC and spark unnecessary contention. To forestall this, I wonder if you'd be willing to confirm that you (with or without WJBscribe) are still planning to close it and, if so, provide some rough idea of the timeframe involved. Thanks very much. Rivertorch (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been starting to read through everything. Let me check in with WJBscribe and see where he stands, and then we can try to set a time-frame. Thanks for checking in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see thread below regarding timing of the closing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr Creosote

Hi - I was wondering why my changes to the Mr Creosote article were reverted. While it may not have been a perfect edit, I thought I left the article in better shape than I found it. Arthur Holland (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no memory of that edit and certainly did not intend it. The article is on my watchlist, and I must have hit the "rollback" button inadvertently. I apologize, and have restored your edits. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again -- thanks for the update and no probs on the accidental rollback -- I'm just impressed that an admin would have Mr Creosote on their watchlist :-) Arthur Holland (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to be indelicate, but the sentence "better get a bucket, I'm gonna throw up" can be applied in a wide variety of situations. More broadly, I'm a huge Python fan and have at least a dozen of their pages watched. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Noleander arb case

I am retired, and was considering a slow return, but when I recieved notice of this case against Noleander (which I support and feel is long over-due) I have decided to remain inactive for the time being. I would however like for those involved to become aware that more evidence regarding the actions and thoughts of Noleander and Silver seren can be found on Jimbo's talk page in which Silver's beliefs on Jews are unqualified to edit Jewish articles is stated and Jimbo's admonishing that it is not, along with another thread that exists in which Jimbo states that editing in a manner in which only adding negative information about a racial, ethnic, or religious group is not acceptable in order to "balance" an article (Noleander's admitted goal), and that those types of editors CAN and SHOULD be banned. I do not know where to add this in the evidence or workshop and therefore I present it to you to be done with as you choose.Camelbinky (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and input, which I have considered. Meanwhile, I don't see any reason that the arbitration case (which will close within the next few days anyway) should impede your coming back to editing if that is what you wish to do. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's ban

Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I considered your statement, and my view of the situation was as stated in the arbitration request (which has now been closed). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue people

Excellent thought experiment, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Arbitrator's Barnstar
		Awarded for thoughtful, open-minded, diligent and collegial handling of the Noleander case. --JN 466 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagging user pages

Regarding your statement at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Davetroll: If it is possible (although not likely) that someone could come across the user page and try to contact Davetroll, or perhaps complain about Davetroll, why would it be unnecessary to tag Davetroll's page showing that (s)he is blocked? I am just a little unclear on the policy at work here. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Davetroll made a grand total of three edits, which were vandalism, within a ten-minute period, on June 16, 2005. He was blocked indefinitely in November 2006 and never appealed the block. There is no significant chance that someone is going to suddenly come looking for him, so it would be a poor use of time and effort to start putting tags on his page five years after he was blocked. These types of questions should be dealt with in a simple and practical way, and there are plenty of times, like this one, where doing nothing is the only sensible answer. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so retroactively tagging that someone was blocked is generally for more proficient vandals and/or more famous (ab)users? Thanks, I think I understand. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Principle wanted

Could you localize the administrator finding? I would do it myself, but you would want to copyedit it, so it's more efficient to do this. Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Localize"? You mean propose an alternative wording? If that's what you suggest I'll be glad to. Feel free to propose some language right here, and I can play with it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean adapt the MZMcBride remedy to this case. I would have something like this:

1.2) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Administrators should exercise care and judgment when using their tools and when imposing sanctions delegated by the arbitration committee. Occasional mistakes by administrators are understandable, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea too. I'm not sure there is much to change with it, though. Will look some more as soon as I get home from work. Risker (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks fine to me. It's a little duplicative of some of one of the principles I added already, but that's not the end of the world. Either of you should feel free to post this version to the proposed decision, or if you prefer I can do it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

I asked you about this recently, and now it has come up again. Perhaps this is the occasion when we will finally produce a consensus that can be pointed to later? If you can find the time your comments would be very much appreciated. Hans Adler 07:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've located what I believe is the relevant discussion adn posted my thoughts there. I hope they will be helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooops. Obviously I meant to link to WT:V#Verifiability, NOT truth????. I didn't intend to send you on a paper chase! In any case thanks a lot for your comment. Hans Adler 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not an issue, I just checked your contributions and there it was. We'll see where the conversation goes from here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Datmax/Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act

Hi Newyorkbrad. What should be done with the content at User:Datmax/Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act? A speedy deletion by Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) was declined by Eagles247 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the first step is to ask Eagles247 why he declined the speedy. Beyond that, I would say that immediate deletion is needed if Datmax's identity is generally known, as the page would be a BLP violation insofar as it accuses identifiable people of crimes. If Datmax is anonymous the situation is more nuanced. I'll keep an eye on this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Eagles247 declined the speedy because propaganda, the given reason for speedy deletion, is not a criterion for speedy deletion. I will leave a note on Eagles247's talk page, asking him to comment here to keep the discussion in one place. I did a Google search with Datmax enclosed in quotes and have found other online handles of that name. While I have not delved into any of them, one may lead to Datmax's real life identity. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you believe there is a possibility that Datmax's real life identify could discover because of this, I will delete immediately. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, don't push too hard and go so far as unearthing information that is otherwise not widely known. Let's see what Eagles247 has to say. I am sure he thought more about the article content beyond just reacting to a specific label that was put on the deletion request. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the subpage. I declined the CSD because the reason did not apply and I did not look further into it, which I should have. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your attention to this. It might be in order to let Datmax know that this action is not meant to be unsympathetic, and that he would be well-advised to speak to appropriate professionals in his area. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Eagles247, for deleting the page. Newyorkbrad, I've left a message on Datmax's talk page, paraphrasing your suggestion above. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

AE case

Regarding your question w/r/t remedy 1, the simplest explanation is that Jclemens somehow managed to use the wrong edit summary (perhaps due to autocomplete in their browser, but only he knows exactly how). T. Canens (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You are probably right, and thanks for noticing the question. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Note

Please could I draw your attention to my reply and request to you here – thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 12:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the courtesy notification, but I am afraid I stand by my comment. I don't mean to sound unduly harsh, but my sincere suggestion is that some of your wikipriorities could use realignment. Your interest in Wikipedia's policies and procedures is obviously sincere and of long-standing, but the role of "ANI regular" and the ability to sense when to make an issue of something and when to let it rest, require a deft touch that (how do I put this as politely as possible) I do not think you always display. Please think about this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You can stand by the above perfectly well, that's a fair opinion of yours, although I would disagree. However, your allegation that I start ANI threads merely for my own personal enjoyment is unsubstantiated, false and verging on a personal attack, and I would ask that you withdraw that portion of your comment in the thread. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 12:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You may consider that portion of my statement withdrawn. Please continue considering the remainder of it. (I need to go into a meeting now and will be offline for several hours; if I am delayed in responding to anything further, this is not meant as discourteous.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Please could you mark it as withdrawn by striking it out from ANI as well? (Absence understood!) ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 12:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that you're back from your meeting, Newyorkbrad, please could you mark it as withdrawn by striking it out from ANI as well? ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 11:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Treasury Tag, almost none of us are paid to spend time here. Ergo, it is a leisure activity. I wouldn't edit if I didn't enjoy it (well most of it). Hence maybe it's time to have a rethink - you do spend alot of time on the noticeboard, so if it isn't something you enjoy...? If it were me and I didn't enjoy most of what I do, I guess I'd rethink what I was doing here. Do you really not enjoy the majority of how you spend your time here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are attempting to prove to me something about my own mind which I have denied, you must surely be aware that you're wasting your time? ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 11:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"the community is a cancer"

Thank you for putting an end to that thread. As to the comments directed at me:

"the community is a cancer" is something I do not feel is exagerated. If the community were working properly, it would do only it's stated function, which is to facilitate improvements to the encyclopedia. However right now, it does the opposite a sizable amount of the time, through gross incivility, racism, nationalism, classism, admin elitism, cliques, bathrobe cabals, and 37 other things that have no place in the community, we're bleeding off users by making Wikipedia an unpleasant place to be.

As to Panyd and Chase Me, I was filled in by another user who knew them well, and was given details I won't repeat here for privacy reasons. If that information is wrong, I'm sorry about that. I've emailed you details.

Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't really comment on the wider aspects of this, but I'm puzzled as to how the bathrobe cabal makes Wikipedia an unpleasant place to be, to such an extent that it drives off users?

I'm also puzzled as to where classism comes into it. (I'd add ageism, though.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Amateurs, badly misinformed amateurs. Giacomo Returned 19:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the essence of "anyone can edit". This idea of anyone editing without registering runs counter to every other worthwhile internet site that allows input and is worth anything... and is an albatross of its own making that the owners refuse to do anything about. So there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned the bathrobe cabal on account of a very specific incident, which I will not elaborate on, because it really isn't my place to do so. Ageism is another good one, as is gender based harassment, POV warriors, etc. There are a ton I didn't list off. The point is that we have a problem with our community being vicious, and it's on many fronts.

@Giacomo: I have no idea what you meant there. Was that directed at me, or at Demi, or at the community?

@Bugs: We have plenty enough issues between named users. Most IPs never get involved in the brawling, and the ones that do tend to be blocked quickly. I suppose 'discrimination against IPs and newly resisted users' could go up on the list of community ills too...

Sven Manguard Wha? 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Number 61 on this list is probably apposite here. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant people bring problems upon themselves by their own amateurish and frankly naive behaviour - it seems to come as a great shock to them to discover that like the world, Wikipeia can be a nasty place. They seem to come here imagining it will be some sort of retreat, haven and escape from the hardships of real life and relationships, and then lash out in self-righteous indignation when they discover that it's not. Wikipedia is as much real life as the big world we inhabit away from our computers - get real and get over it. Giacomo Returned 20:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to suggest that if Mr Manguard doesn't feel at home in the Wikipedia community, warts and all, he should find a new hobby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.71.101 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, ANYONE can edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sven - Mastcell's link has a message - spending alot of time in conflict areas will jade one very quickly. Time spent elsewhere on wiki more than makes up for the war zones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be forgetting how us peons find ourselves at ANI in the first place: By having to deal with trolls and vandals that attack an article you're trying to keep to encyclopedic standards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember to always try to find the core or fundamental causes for problems which may just be symptoms of those core issues. Are incivililty, stress from dealing with trolls, ageism, and biting newbies all core problems, or symptoms of something deeper that is wrong with the way Wikipedia is organized and/or structured? Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

They're all symptoms of the fact that we allow anyone to edit. Most reputable volunteer organizations have a screening process for potential volunteers. In many cases, the screening process is as stringent, if not more so, than that associated with paying jobs. Certainly, the moment that a volunteer gives off signals that they're using the organization to promote their own pet agenda, they're politely but firmly told to leave. Imagine if you volunteered to deliver food to the elderly, but every time you knocked on a door you went off on a tirade about how climate scientists are corrupt, or how HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Most reputable volunteer organizations take that shit pretty seriously. In contrast, we accept anyone with access to the Internet, and require formal mathematical proof that they're up to no good before we consider parting ways with a volunteer (often, portions of the community regard even such clear-cut housekeeping as an exercise in authoritarian arrogance). So yeah - if you run a highly visible top-ten website and your only criteria for membership is access to the Internet, you're going to end up with incivility, trolling, ageism, newbie-biting, and every other conceivable vice under the sun, multiplied exponentially by the power of anonymity. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia's administrative body adequately prepared to deal with the problems that such open access invites? If not, should they be, and how? Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an administrative body. The Arbitration Committee is not it, and there are no others at this time. The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees all WMF projects including Wikipedia, has declared open editing to be a founding principle. Risker (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

open editing could work *if* the ac would actually do their job and properly and expeditiously resolve disputes. hint: pillory the true problem editors, empower sincere admins to block miscreants for months, not hours; de-bit at least a hundred inappropriate admin, too. 7 years. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew, please log in. I note, of course, that you are taking advantage of this open editing to make political points here. Does that make you a "true problem editor"? Risker (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew says it's been scuttled; it's also blocked as "compromised" and sul:locked. It doesn't look like that account will ever edit again.

The last comment I saw about myself was that I'm one of the smartest people here.

This site, and your committee, endlessly enables problematic editors, prolongs disputes, and abets the toxicity of the editing environment. Defiantly ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Admins do have the discretion to ban for months, years or indef. Personally, apart from IPs which may be recycled ore represent institutions, I see only benefit it "cooling down" blocks and "indef" blocks. Anything in between sounds like a sentence based on the severalty of the transgression. "Blocking is not a punishment" is one of the most easily transgressed principles. Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

But they usually don't, and when they do it's usually undone (and before I'm trolled, no I don't count myself, here).

The problematic editors return time and again; the same issues recur over and over and over again. Over time, I've seen the calibre of editors who are active steadily decline. The near impossibility of desysoping has resulted in a steady decline in the 'admin corp' (not that it was ever that well-filled).

Try seeing the site without a watchlist; hit random page *a lot*. This project is not very impressive; mebbe 1% is really any good. Nothing done here lasts; it all erodes. One might as well build sandcastles on the beach. It's not a matter of AGF; most people may mean well, but half of them are of below average intelligence. Editors here contribute time and effort; for free. That's what we burn the most of: wiki is about wasted time and effort. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Open editing could also work *if* registration was required. There's nothing ArbCom can do about IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, then perhaps Wikipedia will never be able to overcome some of its fundamental, ongoing problems, meaning, in my opinion, that it will never really rise above being a social media experiment. Cla68 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You carry with you, around you, in you; the atmosphere created by your actions, and if what you do is beautiful, good and harmonious your atmosphere is beautiful, good and harmonious.

— The Mother, The Sunlit Path^cite

Wikipedia, as in life, is much about "what you make it". If one chooses to devote their time to strife, anger, and disenchantment, then they will be so colored by those things. If one chooses to indulge in the greater good, embrace the visions and enjoyment of building rather than the destruction, then they will find enjoyment and satisfaction by their efforts. — Ched : ? 16:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh Ched, that's just ...so zen. I was waiting for someone to say, "One sows what one reaps." or somesuch, though the sowers will strenuously deny the same. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I like to quote Tom Lehrer, who was actually quoting an alleged friend named "Hen3ry" (the "3" was silent), who said, "Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put into it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand "open editing could work" above. Whilst I agree that Wikipedia can sometimes be awful on the inside, that doesn't change the fact that we've produced the single best reference on the planet (by far). "[Wikipedia is] like a sausage: you might like the taste of it, but you don't necessarily want to see how it's made."^[Jimbo] Chzz ► 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

To organize Wikipedia so that open editing is still encouraged, but problem editors are more quickly and effectively dealt with, and admins are given appropriate guidance and support so that their admin actions are more consistent, standardized, effective, and backed-up, would take a tremendous amount of up-front work, but once in place, in the long-term should decrease the overall workload of its participants, such as the ArbCom members. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that no-one understands how Wikipedia works, in it's entirety, therefore people get very upset about things that don't matter, and possibly ignore stuff that does. This is compounded by mobbing behaviour, which is sensibly motivated, but counter productive. (The open access means anyone can chime in, and is empowered, seeing an apparent wrong and a chance to do something about it, a significant number do so.) When the mob contains admins, the result is not merely sound and fury, but unsound admin actions. The higher "levels" of oversight are less inclined to that particular vice, but (as history has shown) are as fallible as the rest of us. The result of these conflicts is people leaving the project, not necessarily the people we want to leave but often good contributing editors, mainly of their own accord (although duress may be involved), but also from blocks and threats of blocks (effectively blocks in some cases). It is a reasonable response to say (as Chzz does) that this doesn't matter because we still produce a good product - it is however a wrong response. Firstly this behaviour is ethically unacceptable. Secondly while Wikipedia is great it is still a bare shadow of what it could be - lacuna in both breadth and depth of coverage are surprisingly extensive, we throw away far more effort than we use, uncorrected vandalism abounds, grammar and style is poor, articles fail basic hurdles of readability, the WP 0.8 had some 30k spelling errors, most language versions are in far worse shape than en:, we do a lot of stuff for no really understood reason (metadata), etc. etc. All this requires more great, good and reasonable contributors, not less. Moreover even in cases where the editor is not a long standing contributor who has been driven off, but a new editor who wrote a self-promo who was annoyed when it was deleted, we still can get bad press from it. So I would urge people to consider three key factors when dealing with other Wikipedians (including one-edit IP's)

Kindness
Respect
Tolerance

Kindness, is I hope self explanatory. By respect I mean treating the other person as an equal, ideally working form the assumption that they may be right, or indeed are probably right, this is one step past AGF - carrying this off in text is much harder than in person, but it is worth the effort. Tolerance - as in life it is not really a virtue to be tolerant of those things you don't mind (like people having funny hats or eating funny food) the virtue comes with things you aren't particularly happy about (having a shark through the roof) but which actaully do little harm to the common good.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Why do you not list any points related to content? I don't buy the argument that accurate, well-sourced and clearly written articles will be the inevitable result if only we can all hold hands and sing "Kumbayah." Don't get me wrong, mutual respect and the other qualities you mention are things we should all try to hold, but they're not enough if we want to create an encyclopedia and not just a social organization. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an experiment, perhaps unintentionally, to see if a horde of anonymous users can build a useful database of information. As such, a general attitude of kindness, respect, and tolerance probably is appropriate for WP's editors. That's one of the reasons I get so angry when I see a regular on an article talk page tell a new user "You're an idiot. You don't understand the topic and all you're doing is screwing up this article." Cla68 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes new users are idiots who don't understand the topic at all and screw up articles. My observation is that some topics are more prone to draw such contributors than others. Although it's better to be more gentle and tactful when dealing with such editors, people don't always have infinite patience. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is council of perfection, and WP:COMPETENCE applies. And while there are documented cases of vandals-turned-contributors, I have no real problem with rapid indef blocking of persistent vandals. But I think it is fair to say (without putting numbers on it) that the community viewed as a filter, both rejects editors of the kind that it wants to keep, and keeps editors of the kind that it wants to reject. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

"Lacuna in both breadth and depth of coverage are surprisingly extensive, we throw away far more effort than we use, uncorrected vandalism abounds" - this is all content related. And lack of coverage in other languages, problems with readability and so forth are very close to content. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Double vote at Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

Hi Brad. On Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling, you've voted twice on proposed principle 1.2. Paul August ☎ 01:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Apparently former 1.1 was copyedited sufficiently to be renumbered 1.2, so I voted on 1.2, without noticing that the votes on 1.1 had been carried forward. Thanks for catching this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

no admin action

You said no admin action necessary but then Ceoil gets blocked and I get accused of lying. This is a very serious problem in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And now an admin, whom I've never met, accuses me again of lying based on my actions. On my first ever outing to AN/I. This is a very bad block and very bad admin behaviour. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I had to step away from the computer for a bit, but I see that a couple of my colleagues from the Arbitration Committee have commented on the ANI thread. Please take their advice and suggestions. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Now that you're back, please could you respond to the comment(s) I made above which you've not yet answered? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 22:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm supposed to edit a closed discussion. Have you thought about the substance of what I said? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that voluntarily retracting your own false/questionable allegation from a closed discussion is perfectly permissible, and I would appreciate it if you could do so. And yes. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 22:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that voluntarily retracting your own false/questionable allegation from a closed discussion is perfectly permissible, and I would appreciate it if you could do so. And yes. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Brad expressed his opinion. If you care about what he thinks, then work on proving him wrong. If you don't care about what he thinks, then ignore him and don't bother haranguing him on his talk page. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)