User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/May

Bradspeak

Hurry up and read this new essay before it gets deleted! Please help Wikipedia by expanding it! Bishonen | talk 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the link; I've read the essay with bemusement. I think I will leave it to others to expand it if they wish. I see no reason to delete it (though some would say it should be userfied rather than stay in WP space).

As I pointed out on Iridescent's page, the description of Bradspeak raises a point of causation—but I will leave it to others to comment on that as well, at least for the moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Guidance for young editors

Hi Brad. I've had a go at adjusting the tone of of your essay, and changed the content slightly to make it appeal to 10 - 14 year olds. I think this is the target group we're aiming at. I hope I've kept the essentials, but I've also reduced the possible WP:BEANS, and tried to base it on my many years of working with young and very young people. If you have a moment, please let me know what you think. It's here . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I like your changes; I knew when I wrote the page that I wasn't doing a great job of targeting the reading level to the audience, though I did my best. A philosophical/readability question on which I'd welcome your input is whether the current format (sections consisting of bullet-pointed short paragraphs reading as lists) is more or less readable than the original format (more conventional narrative paragraphs). A practical question is how we might better publicize the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding as a trained educator and linguist is that a bulleted list is more likely to appeal to the eyes and attention span of young readers than paragraphs of prose. Of course, there are certainly other educators among the Wikipedia community who may well have other, or more modern approaches. I'm fully open to other suggestions. There are several possible ways of publicising the essay. It could be included as a link in the standard welcome template, on other help pages, and the RfA guidance pages, and on the project pages for WP:NPP and WP:RCP. A significant element of the discussions at [[WP:RFA2011 is on how to reduce the number of WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW RfAs in the friendliest possible manner. User:Snottywong and I have been doing extensive research into new page patrolling over the last 5 months and have found that a significant number of new pages that get slated for deletion are created by young and very young editors, mainly articles about nn teen-idol bands, and elementary and middle schools. I would also include a link to it on the music and school project pages, and on the WP:WIZARD instruction pages. We could also have a link to it on the bottom of the editing window along with the other instructions: (If you are a young user, do consider reading this before you press 'save page'). I always try to avoid instruction creep wherever possible, but sometimes it does help. I work a lot with some very sensible young users on Wikipedia, perhaps I could enlist their comments on it, although they are more in the 15 - 18 age group. We have some admins in that age group too. They might remember what it was like for them when they first started editing at 10 or 11. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that you obviously are better attuned at drafting prose adapted for this age group than I am, I will defer to your edits. I agree with your comment about NOTNOW RfAs; in the first draft of the page, the section about adminship was longer than in the current version; a number of people thought it was a disproportionate emphasis, but you've put your finger on why the section was there. I think your comments about possible publicity methods are good ones as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Brad. I've tried to do your essay the best possible service, because I'm convinced it's an important guideline. There has been a link to it on the essay talk page for a week and in spite of having 47 watchers, there has only been one short comment, so I'll go ahead and paste it in. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, may we talk for a minute?

Explain to me how current policies are appropriate with dealing with an optimal return of previously not wanted users. How come cases of people coming back here into the community are rare? I only remember Mike Garcia (which later failed), Rootology (he got upset and left) and Thekohser (which later failed as well) as the sole cases where the committee bothered to read appeals. Why is that, sir? Cconcern (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are actually several editors who were indefblocked or banned for awhile but have now returned to editing and to the best of my knowledge are doing so satisfactorily. I actually think that on the whole, this community is relatively forgiving of users who have made mistakes but have learned from them and are now ready to edit in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I am sure we have any number of blocked or banned users who have returned to editing under new usernames, and are not detected because they refrain from engaging in the negative behavior that would lead to them being recognized. Of course, some banned editors are not able to return successfully—typically because they find themselves returning to the same behavior that led to them being blocked or banned to begin with. Assuredly, mistakes are sometimes made—but most indefblocked or banned users have been blocked or banned for a good reason, and if they come back and start acting the same way that led to their being blocked or banned originally, their returns are not going to succeed.

Your implication that the Arbitration Committee usually does not "bother to read appeals" is not accurate. If a specific case has been overlooked, please e-mail the ban appeals subcommittee or post here and bring it to my attention. Also, please tell me, what specific improvements in our current policies and procedures would you suggest? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the structure of the site might be a little unbalanced, with certain people behaving like pre-adolescent kids who control parts of the system, and implicitly try to bore people to the point that they go away looking for other hobbies.

Are you saying that it's ok for people who are not welcome here, to continue participating with a cloaking mask, in order that they can't be detected? That doesn't look in line with current policy about reincarnations. Cconcern (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously what you are describing is not allowed by policy. On the other hand, it's well understood and supposedly accepted on wikipedia that policy doesn't always describe reality. That disconnect is considered a feature, not a bug. WP is an encyclopedia, not a nation-state, and building the encyclopedia has priority over following policy. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, it's then ok to create accounts, and when they get bashed after they're accidentally found, even when they were producing good content, that means it's ok for the person behind them to create a new one every time they're found, or even not create any account but just edit as an anonymous IP address, as the "Ignore all rules" essay comes into play. Is that correct? Tasksstocklol (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No it's not ok. It's just consistent with WP practices that some of the time, depending on the situation, some not-ok things are allowed to happen through editors' judgment, regardless of what policy says. What are you getting at? Is there a particular user you are concerned about? The type of wikilawyering you're engaging in suggests you're thinking of someone who should really stay gone. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of people who feel a need to participate because of pages showing incorrect facts (Peter Damian is a recent example). They also feel a need to comment on things which in their opinion aren't right. Maybe when they operate on the content nobody notices, but people start noticing and bashing them when they raise concerns over possible operations not in line with site policy, which are carried out by some highly ranked people around here. Tasksstocklol (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If PD wants to discuss stuff being in or out of line with site policy, he should first bring himself into line with site policy by getting unbanned. He knows where to apply for that. I couldn't predict success in such an effort, of course. If his approach to site policy was anywhere near acceptable, he wouldn't have gotten banned in the first place. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He appealed, like many others before, but he received no response at all. So how can one be back in line with policy? Tasksstocklol (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Shrug. Maybe he should just give up and go away. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange, i could imagine there could be a way to get back into the game (especially if the contestant is an actual verified expert of certain subjects) and not simply take the most sane and obvious route... note that just powering down the modem/router, in most cases, would allow him to be back. But if he has a static IP address, he's out of luck. Tasksstocklol (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Bah. PD's socks are generally recognizable after a while without reference to IP addresses, if you get my drift. He could consider WP:OFFER and quit socking for a while, but he seems to want the limelight too much for that. Most of all, though, IMHO, for an unban to make sense, he should have to show a complete change attitude from before. But his desire to return seems to be a matter of wanting to keep pursuing the same agendas that got him banned in the first place. So unbanning sounds like a poor idea. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...

Are you still going to actively support principle 5 with the 3 opposes? If you see the way that is written compared to principle 9 (with 0 opposes and 1 abstain), don't you think the latter principle leaves room to include the nuances from the rest of the decision (and thereby, to address some of the things said in the oppose section of p5)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just taken another look and I do believe the principle is correct as stated, so I will leave my support in place. I agree that there's some duplication between this principle and a couple of the others, but that's a sometimes unavoidable byproduct of "drafting by committee," which is what's occurred to this case in a very literal sense. Thanks for the query. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes wikiwar

You probably noticed that it has become a regular (if not daily) occurrence at ANI to have threads about hyphen or dash usage. These usually pit editors from some field where hyphens or dashes are not used for common terms (jargon) of the field vs. MOS-focused editors. Conflict arrises when MOS-focused editors copyedit various technical articles to replace the common spelling in that field with the MOS-mandated one, e.g. high dynamic range imaging vs high-dynamic-range imaging or non-small-cell lung carcinoma vs non-small cell lung carcinoma. Probably the silliest variation on this is the hyphen vs en dash war where a hyphen is replaced with an en dash, like the current one on Mexican-American War vs Mexican–American War. If you have trouble locating the ANI threads, let me know, and I'll provide some links, although searching "kwami" in the ANI archives will find most of them. (Just an aid in finding them, not implying there's any fault of that user.)

Perhaps some insight from the date delinking case (another giant MOS-related battle) can be applied here. Frankly, the page of that case is so huge that it's probably easier if someone with prior knowledge of it, like you, gives us a nutshell at ANI. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

tidal wave a comin' – iridescent 22:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that new hyphens thread has just opened on ANI, I'm filing an official arbitration request, hopefully to be dealt with by motion. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My emails

Hello - Edward here. I would appreciate a reply, if only to say 'we are looking at it and will be back to you'. And as I said 'no' is perfectly acceptable, so long as in writing. In summary:

• yes
• no
• we'll get back to you.

At the moment, I don't know whether the emails are skulking in some gigantic hopper awaiting someone's attention, or got eaten by a spam detector, or lost in the ether. Thanks, Edward B. 109.145.251.47 (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• "We'll get back to you." Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Er, any sort of time scale? 109.145.251.47 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Please sir, can you give an appropriate response to the above question? Tasksstocklol (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• While we're at it, the White House doesn't return my phone calls. Can you do something about that too? Oh wait, never mind. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • • That't not really an appropriate response. Tasksstocklol (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your ArbCom comments on hyphens/dashes

I'm not sure if it's kosher to ask a question in an ArbCom request so I'm asking it here instead. Can you clarify the scenario you laid out regarding a possible justifiable for edits that result in conflicts between an article title and content? I'm not sure I fully understood it. Also note that I added a follow-up to my comments that tone down the first point a bit. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. It appears that my information is outdated. I recall that when I started editing, a redirect directly to a page subsection did not work; in other words, a link to a subsection of a page that was redirected went only to the top of the page, not to the specific section. However, it appears that this was changed some time ago, and I didn't realize it. That being said, for relevant caveats, see Wikipedia:Redirect#Targeted and untargeted redirects. I'll redact the portion of my comment on the case that appears to be currently incorrect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought what you said was accurate as well. That's the behavior that I remember too, at least. Someone, somewhere along the way, must have fixed the way redirects behave, which is cool. I wanted to point out WT:MOS#Avoiding redirects though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember it as well. I think it was fixed a few years ago. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oversighting

Hi. This is a request to remove the revisions for Special:Contributions/115.78.208.65 on Profanity, for obvious reasons. --43?9enter ^★_☭ 01:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

Hi Brad,

I understand from this archived conversation that you were going to close the RfC at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. Are you still up for it? I could make a request at WP:AN if you prefer.

I think the RFC needs to be closed now. There aren't many new commenters coming in. Some people are trying to lay down the law on how consensus should be interpreted so I think it would help if someone came in and just did the interpreting.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see threads above. I was tasked and agreed to close this jointly with WJBscribe, and he had offered to prepare some initial reactions; but he seems to have been pulled away for the past few days. I am looking at the RfC now—as you know, there are quite a number of comments, so it's taking a little while—and will do the close within the next couple of days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I can see you have a lot to work through. Good luck! Yaris678 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an understatement. The question is whether it will close as Motion Carried or as No Consensus. We'll stand by. CycloneGU (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• - update - About this closure - we are currently at approx 21 days and we are all busy and the wheels are not quite dropping of yet - MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Watchlist notice for the pending protection RFC - I requested the watchlist notice was replaced for the next nine days, which has been done, bringing us up to the usual WP:RFC 30 day limit. If NYB is still willing to close around the 23rd April then that would be appreciated by all - this way, anyone can close the discussion at that time and request you to assess the consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, now I'm a bit confused. I was planning to review everything and try to close the RfC this weekend, but now it sounds like you think I ought to wait another week. Is it now contemplated that I should wait awhile longer? I'm happy to do so, but it sounds like there may be some procedural disagreement about how this is supposed to work, which I'd hate to have distract attention from the actual focus of the discussion. I'd appreciate any further thoughts on this point, and will also check out the discussion of scheduling on the RfC itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You waited too long and the RfC is now attracting the full spectrum of long-term PC discussion that has nothing to do with the proposal at hand. It's ironic that those who attacked the proposal off the bat as a distraction now seem to want it to run for 30 days. Oh well, we might as well wait at this point. Let's shut it down hard on 24 April so you can perform the evaluation. —UncleDouggie (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brad, yes, as Douggie says, there is minimal objection to this extension so its going to be closed now next Friday 23/24, hopefully you will be free at some point after that closure to assess the main points. The extension arose out of what I perceived as the early undiscussed removal of the edit notice and the length of time without closure after that removal. Since the replacement of the edit notice there seems renewed interest in users adding their points, the 30 days open limit will also give the outcome of current yes/no discussion indisputable validation. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm back - sorry for being MIA so long. I should be around this weekend, so happy to close with Brad on Fri/Sat if that's still what everyone wants to happen. WJBscribe (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Yes, full support for that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• update - Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#Proposal - closed awaiting administrative assessment at your convenience. Off2riorob (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm travelling this weekend with limited access; will be home late tomorrow night, and will evaluate this as my top wiki-priority then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Great, no hurry no worry, all is waiting there tranquilly for assessment. Happy travels - Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've been reading the various input, and from that and the discussion above, it's not perfectly unclear to me exactly which aspect is considered ready to close at this time. I've asked for some input on that question, within 24 hours, on the talkpage of the RfC. I think I am ready to close the aspect(s) that it is decided that are ready to close, but I don't want to create unnecessary controversy by closing either more broadly or more narrowly than the participants wish and expect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

An update would be welcome. Whilst patience is, indeed, a virtue, this is day 322 of the two month trial, and the RfC has been open for 76 days.  Chzz  ►  21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• How is it going Brad, I know your busy... do you still want to or are you able to close this? Time is dragging on and closure is needed to progress with polling for accepted general usage. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Brad, just wondering when you can have the PC RfC closed...? The 2-month PC is now in its 325th day. I understand that you are busy. Maybe you can get someone else to help you out with this? Bejinhan talks 03:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I felt compelled to post Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Pending_changes.  Chzz  ►  03:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You know what, people? Look at NYB's contributions over the past 2–3 days. Maybe he's really busy with figuring out the RfC. At any rate, we've waited this long; surely we can give it another couple of days before we lose patience. Rivertorch (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my post to AN was impatient of me; I'm honestly just frustrated; I've been waiting 'just another couple of days' since about March.  Chzz  ►  13:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be closing the RfC tonight (New York time). Thanks to everyone for your patience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Great; I should have been more patient; I'm sorry.  Chzz  ►  10:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for evaluating and closing; please see Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Comments_from_Chzz - there's a bit of tidying up to do here, I think.  Chzz  ►  16:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And whenever you do take a look at my comments there, could you let me know? It's sometimes so busy over there, things get lost. I think they're really important points. I'm quite concerned about this idea of 'exceptions', and about user-rights - and keen to start something re. removing PC - quicker this gets sorted out, the more chance there is of ultimately forming an appropriate proposal.  Chzz  ►  13:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm monitoring the discussion closely, don't worry. All comments received will be taken into account when I post there again on Friday night or Saturday morning.

If anyone else wants to post here on this topic, please start a new section at the bottom of the talkpage. Posts in an old thread up here are easy to inadvertently overlook. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Focusing on the impoliteness ...

"Focusing on the impoliteness of the victim or of someone apparently close to or sympathetic with the victim is certainly not going to help." Thank you very much for this, it was a kindness in the middle of a barbaric experience I shall never forget. I am sorry for losing my patience. Good night. 86.176.94.123 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

clarification

We can take this to email if you like.

My objection is to *being* restricted, or having any sort of signing statement tagging along (I consider signing statements to be entirely illegitimate, btw). It *is* my intention to contribute in a positive manner and to not be disruptive and/or pointy. However, I take specific exception to your restriction *requiring* me to abide by all guidelines when WP:GUIDELINES says:

• Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
  (I've added the bold;)

You would remove the option of exceptions. There are many "guidelines" that really are worse that worthless. Any damned WikiProject tags their WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as their guideline. I've had a hand in changing some of this and expect to fix more bad guidance *if* unrestricted. If not, I'm outta here and this place can continue to seek a mediocre level.

-- Barong (David) 13:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. Would your objection be satisfied if I removed "and guidelines" from the motion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I like Kirill's motion; please shift to that. I'm fine with offering you my personal assurance that I'll be a good and productive editor, working for the good of the wiki, defending the core values, &c. That's what I've been doing all along. Really. I will not be a neutered editor damned to uncontroversial obscurity. I will not stay with a chain around my leg. This is why I'm asking for all the blocks to be lifted, all the accounts returned to me; they're all me, and I don't want a huge array of blocks and sock-boxes surrounding me forever. Vicious detractors use these as weapons. I want a full return. The issues with WC were not about picking on him, they were about defending this project against him. This was before your time, and the wiki is a better place for many of my efforts. There are good reasons many support me. I know full-well that if I mess-up, I, like any other editor, can be removed. That's enough. Support me for adminship if you really want me held to a higher standard. It's late here and this is my last post for 12ish hours. See my commons and meta edits, too. G'night, Barong (David) 15:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone along with Kirill's motion as a potential way of resolving this impasse, largely per some of the other arbitrators' comments on it. I flatly reject, however, your contention that your issues involving Cool Cat/White Cat were the result of your attempts to defend the project against him, rather than picking on him. Whatever issues that user might have had, your harassment of him over a period of years was indefensible and created the strong impression, at least in my mind, that you were intentionally targeting someone you had identified as an emotionally vulnerable user. I will be very disappointed if you make any attempt to defend the most recent of these incidents, which was not before my time at all. In it, you repeatedly denied that a new account that was harassing Cool Cat (White Cat) was you, in the face of what turned out to be Cool Cat's well-founded suspicion that it actually was you—leading at least two other editors to taunt him and accuse him of being paranoid, only to have to withdraw that accusation when it turned out he'd been right all along. The only mitigating factor in that regard is the time that has elapsed since that incident and the incidents that preceded it, and I was prepared not to mention it again, but let's not hear "I never picked on White Cat" any more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I had not seen your second-choice support when I posted the above. I'd also like to clarify that my signing statement comment was in reference to prior comments in ac-votes, not the second sentence of Motion 1.

My comment about WC is about 2005 and the borked case. That is what originally drove me off and led to my returning as Moby Dick. I was defending the project against his poor editing. *That's* my issue with him. Your view that I saw him as an emotionally vulnerable victim is exactly what he and Tony sought to portray him as. Are you really familiar with the old case? Have you read my many comments about what I feel was wrong with his editing? It amounts to a moral outrage at an editor seeking to remove all mentions of the Armenian Genocide and Kurdistan from this project. These are rather less known than The Holocaust and the various Israel/Palestine disputes, but at a morel level it's the same issue. See also: Great Fire of Smyrna.

You are familiar with the 2007–2008 interactions, which were mostly re the Belldandy stuff and the E/C cases. Please consider this; My views re the appropriateness of inclusion of pop-culture dreck are well known and go back to before I even met White Cat. When I re-encountered him on that issue, it was a case of simply disagreeing with him, again. Some editors are wrong a lot of the time. Did I know that those articles were his? Sure; that's obvious. Were they appropriate as articles? No; they've mostly been redirected to more appropriate levels of coverage, and I'll note that he did nothing to improve those episode and character articles; he wanted them in their in-universe plot-only form. I *have* admitted to, and apologized for, the deception of friends, the AC, and "The Community", and to violating prior AC remedies and the socking policy. Did I know that those articles were dear to him? Ya, I know that. Were the lives of the victims of the Armenian Genocide dear to them, and theirs?

The whole notion of "wikistalking" originates with that old case. I know you left for a bit over real-world stuff originating on-wiki; don't know any details and am not asking. In 2005, a new wiki-weapon was devised; a way of deflecting apt criticism by changing the subject to "he's criticizing me too much". This is really no different than trolls and established miscreants playing the AGF-card. One of the project's core problems is that too many are here for the game-play, to fuck with real-people for the lulz. You seem to believe that, at least in part, I'm one of them. I simply don't see that, and a fair number of serious people don't see it either. The truth is, I'm one of the most harassed editors on this project, and this has been facilitated by generations of your committee not getting things right. I've been called a 'stalker' in all the real-world sense (Dream Focus), a paedophile (Grawp et al), "worse than Sauron" (Milowent, just the other day), accused of torching A Nobody's car when I was 10,000 miles away. It goes on and on and on.

Consider who is supporting me: a lot of editors with a lot of clue. Who's cheering on maintaining restrictions, seeking a community ban? A lot of really long-term opponents and remaining friends of problematic editors. I'm aware that some experienced editors are seriously re-considering their continued participation in this project over the current handling of my case. This project has lost a lot of good contributors to a lot of bullshite and it really can't afford to do so. I've been here a long time and believe I have a really good understanding of the state of the wiki and the arc of "development" (open to other terms) it has gone through. It's not pretty; things are going down the tubes. The quantity of articles and editors keeps going up, but the quality of articles and editors keeps going down. This is, simply, not sustainable. It is driven by too much emphasis on wikt:anyone and too little actual problem solving. If I've "painted outside the lines" it's because I care, because we have ignore all rules for good reason. If I go, it will be because I've stopped caring. Be careful, because that's contagious.

Barong (David) 05:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Serious question for Barong, do you consider me one of the editors you need to protect the project against with your comment "A lot of really long-term opponents and remaining friends of problematic editors." I mean I did side with an editor that I still feel you harassed and followed until she retired, WHL. You have left edit summaries like this where you say wp:competence is required which is just an example. Are you going to still go after me and others (like Doc9871) that you feel you need to protect Wikipedia from? And finally, do you think I should just leave the project because you don't feel I do good or care about this project? I'm sorry but I'm trying to understand what you will do to what you say are your many enemies if your sanctions are removed. Thank you in advance. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC) I have to admit to all that if you do plan to try to get me removed from the project, that I would have to retire. I can't handle stress, like what this would do to me, since my last 2 recent hospital stays (my last hospital stay I almost didn't survive), so I really do need to know if you have any plans for me. Ty. I have a Dr. appt in an hour so I don't know if or when I will be returning today. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

please do not intrude into this discussion. Barong 11:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is Brad's talk page and it should be him asking me this. But I will honor your request but I have to say I'm tired of your comments like above and I quote "The quantity of articles and editors keeps going up, but the quality of articles and editors keeps going down." I know, as do others, who you are talking about when you say this and we don't care for it and my comment above shows why. Sorry Brad, done, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC) If you want me to leave the project than come out and say it instead of checking my contributions Barong.

Anyone is welcome to post on my talkpage. Barong, I suggest that you do your best to stay away from CrohnieGal and vice versa, since it doesn't appear that the two of you are getting along very well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll stay away from him. That being said, I left the above message so you can see what has been happening with all of this. Sorry for commenting. I'll leave now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pending Changes - next phase

You mentioned the next phase of broad community discussion for Pending Changes. Is that at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Review Recommend phase? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's an older proposed phase which failed to gain traction, and was given up on in favour of the phase we just went through. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Last Friday, I'd requested comments on a narrow follow-up issue as well as suggestions for how the discussion should proceed from here. This Friday, based on the input I get, I'll post my thoughts about how we move forward from here. You can comment under my closure as the most logical place for now. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Need more checkusers, or active ones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Giovanni33#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments says it all. Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I myself use the checkuser tool sparingly, and only for relatively simple inquiries, as I don't have the detailed technical knowledge to evaluate some of the more complicated disputes. However, I'll bear this in mind the next time we are discussing whether it's time for a next round of appointments and how many there should be. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Received, thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion 6?

re this, would it not be worth either amending Motion 1 or proposing Motion 1 minus the words 'and guidelines' as a new motion 6? (I don't know which of these would be appropriate as I have no idea what the process is re amending motions, but presumably you do!) pablo 13:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I would do this if I thought it would change any votes, but at the moment I'm not sure that it would. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My RFA

I've withdrawn my current RFA. Could you elaborate on your issue with my response to question 7? I haven't had anyone mention a problem with it. N419BH 04:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC) And Q7?

Hi, I think you were posting on my page at the same time I was posting on your page. Please see my comment there.

Regarding question 7, see Wikipedia:Username#Confusing usernames. The purpose of a username is to identify the person who posts something, and to help one user find another quickly if there is a question or a comment. If an editor's username is a random 30-character string, no one is going to be able to remember it, which will make communicating with that user much more difficult. Therefore, my opinion would be that the editor should be asked to choose a different username. (Also, as a matter of experience, I can tell you that users with that type of username are almost invariably vandals or trolls, though that wouldn't warrant a block by itself.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well-noted, thanks. See you at RFA in August/September, and I'm sure we'll run into each other fairly frequently in the interim. N419BH 04:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would just add to Brad's comments, that also user names that contain only pictographic glyphs or non Roman scripts are also extremely unhelpful. So they can write Chinese - so what? Most of us have no means of attaching a pronunciation to them and therefore can neither write them or retain them in memory. There currently seems to be an unfortunate slackening of guidelines in this respect. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-Roman usernames are tolerated because, since the advent of SUL, users from the other Wikipedias automatically have their account here created with the name from their home wiki. It's easy enough to imagine someone in Singapore, for instance, who's trilingual in English, Chinese and Malay and edits on all three wikipedias; because of the way the software works, their username is inevitably going to be in an incomprehensible script to readers on two of the three. – iridescent 15:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Re: [1] – a particularly lame storm in a teacup, not withstanding my weak moral fibre. Medeis (talk · contribs) seems to think that because he edits a lot of Doctor Who articles, and I edit a lot of Doctor Who articles, the only possible explanation for this correlation is stalking. It might help if you explained to him that the reason I saw his change to Fourth Doctor was not because I was keeping tabs on his contributions but because I have the page on my watchlist, having first edited it years ago.
His ravings about, "I don't edit at your pleasure, so your invitation in your edit summary for me to submit my proposals to some committee for prior approval are contrary to WP:OWN," seems to be in response to my perfectly polite and constructive suggestion that if he had a new idea for the way in which Doctor Who articles are structured, WT:WHO might be a good place to get input. Admittedly it was foolish of me to try to help somebody quite so far gone into the realms of fantasy...
Thanks for popping over, anyway. I've removed both his and your comments, but no hard feelings towards you of course. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

VM and Skapperod

We need to be wary of sanctioned users trying to gag their opponents over former user names. Transparency is important in itself, especially for making sure previously uninvolved admins know everything they need to know. And I think I remember this very thing being discussed as a strategy in the EEML; indeed many of them changed their name after the case (including also Martin and Biophys). I understand you yourself have had problems similar to what VM is claiming to have had, and it's something that needs to be taken seriously if true. But, to clarify, has VM given actual evidence to ArbCom for his r/l claims and, if so, are they convincing? Or have you made the comment simply by taking VM's claims at face value? Thanks in advance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have accepted Volunteer Marek's claims on a good-faith basis. I see no reason to believe he would have made up a concern of this nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

NYB, just out of curiosity, I know you are a busy man but to what extent did you ever familiarize yourself with the EEML case and archive? If you're telling me you thought about it and genuinely couldn't see any reason, you're gonna make me a worried wee soul. You genuinely can't see any reason? Well, anyway, bear in mind that the EEML opponents are a bit more cynical about the renamings than yourself, and have reason. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I participated fully in the case and read through the evidence, although I am quite prepared to accept that I missed various nuances, plus it is almost two years ago now so I am sure I have forgotten some aspects. Given the remedies imposed and the time that has elapsed, I am hopeful that editors on all sides of that dispute have learned valuable lessons about improving their behavior.

Note that Volunteer Marek is simply asking that his old username not be referenced, at least not unless there is a necessary and specific reason to do so. It is not as if he is starting an RfA or something while denying a link to the old username. I think this is a courtesy that could be adhered to without causing many problems, so I don't see why there is resistence to the request. I would take this position if a similar request were being made by any party to the dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Put briefly, Skapperod is almost certainly worried that it will be easier to fool less experienced admins into doing things EEML editors want, against him. Every admin who ever gets involved will have more obstacles to reconstructing each editor's editing history, and is more likely to mistake a group of partisans attacking him as "the good men of the shire" (if you know what I mean) offering sage advice. You must remember the dynamic of the archive in this respect. If you look at AN/I, Molobo and Volunteer Marek appear to have been after Skapperod's blood today (two posts, including one about edits made nearly 2 weeks ago); it might really help reconcile him to your chosen path if you gave him some reason to believe the name gagging doesn't make him more vulnerable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has agreed to this proposal by Deacon of Pndapetzim [2], which is ok for me, too [3]. Since this also means editing arbitration pages, a comment of yours would be appreciated on how to implement this change, and you may want to approach VM to work out the details. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, I would actually prefer to have the replacement made (the less of my former name is out there the better). But this is really independent of Skapperod's actions here. I don't know what the procedural details are, though it sounds sort of complicated, but really this is beside the point. Just in case the change is not made, Skapperod STILL needs to observe WP:OUTING and refrain from my using my former username. How hard is it to get someone to just follow WP:OUTING?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is as response to this going to be forthcoming? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Observation, editors on the "other" side have changed user names too, and I for one have endeavored to strictly observe those choices and not refer to their former edits under former identities. You, apparently, do not. Regarding: "Put briefly, Skapperod is almost certainly worried that it will be easier to fool less experienced admins into doing things EEML editors want, against him," that is a personal attack against all editors accused in the EEML case. If you find yourself agreeing with such a contention I would respectfully suggest you recuse yourself from the EE topic area. And don't suggest people read absconded Email archives again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Will you stop dragging out this drama for far longer than is necessary? Look, it's simple. Don't use my former username again. End of story. Anything else is beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

VM, why don't you let NYB respond to Skapperod instead of saying the same thing. Incidentally, why do you still use your old name on Wikipedia Review if anonymity is such a big concern? Just curious. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Deacon. I officially asked my account to be renamed/moved back, precisely for the reason of transparency. But Xeno said this is difficult for technical reasons, so I do not really care. No, I do not remember discussing that kind of things with anyone.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@NYB: I suppose you have been in contact with VM regarding his agreement with DoP, and told him that "it seems such a change is not in the cards". Can you please clarify this here, especially since logging username changes to prior cases (DIGWUREN) has not been a problem in the past. Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

NYB? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm ... Skäpperöd, I think you'll have to assume that, for reasons best known to himself, he isn't gonna bother getting around to responding to you. @NYB, you should get a public sector job in Scotland. You'd fit right in! ;) @ Hodja, good to know. It's a credit that you admit there are real transparency issues here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been travelling for the past few days with limited access, as noted various places around the wiki, and I've been using that time handling an RfC closing that a number of people had specifically asked me to handle (not that it's worked out that brilliantly so far, but I'm doing my best). With regard to the suggestion of a change to the username in the ArbCom decision, I don't believe this should really be necessary. If it is desired to pursue this approach, the committee as a whole would have to be consulted, so someone should e-mail the mailing list. Beyond that, is there some specific reason why the users involved in this situation can't deescalate and edit in good faith without constantly getting into arguments with each other, just as we expect all users to do? The fact that the topic area is a contentious one does not, without more, justify or explain months and years of constant quarrelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Research Project

Hi,

I am currently doing privacy-related research on Wikipedia. Given your important role in BLP related articles, it would be great if you could help me further. Please check my user-page for more info. Thank you so much! —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

If this is still of relevance, please feel free to get in touch with me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles

Hi Newyorkbrad. I was impressed by your closure of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. An RfC of similar complexity is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles. I asked on the administrators' noticeboard for an admin to close and summarize the discussion. However, after a week, no one has stepped forward to close this difficult discussion. There is a request on the talk page for an admin to close it. If you have the time and patience to close and summarize the RfC, would you do it? Cunard (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: There are discussions on the talk page here and here about how to close the RfC. The lack of a closure has led to an indefinite delay in moving on to the next step, which editors discussed as being a trial proposal. Cunard (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And which editors also discussed as not being a trial proposal. Anyway, here's another relevant link. Rivertorch (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You're asking NYB to stick it to the WMF, again?! I'm starting to fear for him. ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I still owe some additional input on the first closing (which I'll have to get to in the morning; I just got home from being away for the weekend and it's almost midnight here). Let me get that out of the way first and then I'll take a look at this one and see if I think I can manage it, and if not, try to figure out someone else who might be good. Thanks for your confidence in me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Take your time on the pending changes RfC. The RfC about requiring autoconfirmation to create articles can be closed later. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, given the way my last attempt at closing an RfC has spun ridiculously out of control and led to an arbitration request, I think I'll suggest that someone else handle the next one. Thanks anyway for suggesting me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Do you have any suggestions about who would be willing to take on an RfC of this scope? Cunard (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

After the way I've been strung up from a lamppost for how I handled the last one, probably no one with any sense.Perhaps one of my talkpage watchers will step up to the plate here; if not, I suggest that you post at AN or ANI. Sorry I can't be more helpful right now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what's happened after your pending changes RfC closure, but it's unfortunate you are getting "strung up from a lamppost" after you spent a considerable amount of time reading the RfC and writing a good faith closure. I posted at AN on 4 May but no one has volunteered to close the RfC. I hope one of your talk page watchers will be able to close it. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What happened is that when the time came to update the closure, I tried to focus some further attention on the need to take BLP issues into account in dealing with the elimination of PC in its current form. This was taken by a few commenters as a bullheaded attempt on my part to override the consensus. I'm probably being too sensitive in that regard. A more cogent concern is that to the extent I might have been viewed a couple of weeks ago as someone whose decision on an issue would be accepted by pretty much everyone because of the role I've historically played on the project, I suspect that may not be true any more. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I believe you were correct and responsible in urging everyone to take a slower, more careful approach to eliminating PC in its current form. I hope you won't let this incident negatively affect you. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do echo what Cunard said about any potential effects on you. Your time hasn't come (yet anyway). It was going to be spun out of control no matter how you wrote it and even if someone else took the reins. Still, whether or not you thought about this before hand (and that you were busy), you agreed to make the close. Followup work was immediately required yet sorely lacking from what I could see, and that may have minimized the escalation. I expected 3 users to end up having the limelight shifted to them if there was inadequate follow up work, but it was limited to 2 admins in the end; the trainwreck is not quite as bad as it could have been. The signs were obvious long ago, but on your part, whether it was wishful thinking or not paying enough regard to what might result in the short/long term, you should have realized that there was no way this would not have required AC to step in. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't bring myself to log out without saying something here. Brad, there was nothing about your RfC closure to warrant your being "strung up". While I disagreed with some of what you wrote on Friday night, I don't think that any of it was unreasonable. I feared ArbCom involvement at some stage, regardless of who closed it, since emotions have been running so high since even before the RfC began. I hope you won't confuse the negativity expressed about your decision as negativity about you personally; I can well imagine another closer shutting down PC more quickly and thoroughly and getting lambasted for it by a different cohort. In other words, it would have happened to anyone. And for what it's worth, I think you're very wise to avoid taking on the autoconfirmation RfC—not because you wouldn't close it competently but because it's another one with the potential to blow up in any closer's face. Rivertorch (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mafia

I would also accept a cartel, but I'm afraid we don't have market power. Cool Hand Luke 18:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: RfA opposes

This is an example. And besides, one !oppose isn't going to knock over the RfA. --Σ _☭^★ 02:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the whole discussion you link to, you'll also see that the joke oppose !vote there produced unhappiness and controversy, and ultimately was struck out. Why would you want to damage a well-regarded user's RfA in this manner? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(adding) Thank you for the withdrawing the !vote. I appreciate it. Please also note that there is a time and a place for humor on Wikipedia—I've perpetrated more than my share of bad puns and bad poetry—it's just that the oppose section of an RfA usually isn't it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have withdrawn my !oppose, but it was meant as a joke. --Σ _☭^★ 02:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that completely; see my comments above. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers). Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! I generally don't template the regulars on the basis that experienced editors are familiar enough with Wikipedia policies not to need such basic, boiler-plate reminders. However, that unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As you know, I've long been concerned about trends in your participation on Wikipedia, both on noticeboards and in deletion discussions. Since I may not be an impartial judge at this point, why don't you ask some editing colleagues whose judgment you trust whether they think any adjustments to your approach would be in your own best interest, not to mention everyone else's. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be doing what you sometimes suggest I am, which is questioning someone else's conduct to avoid confronting your own. Your comment just above does not mention the fact that you unquestionably flouted WP:VOTE in a particularly brazen way, therefore it is not really a 'reply' or a 'response' to my note, which was solely concerned with that issue. In my opinion, this would be an excellent opportunity for you to practice what you preach, for want of a better cliche, and examine my complaints about your activity rather than simply complaining right back about mine. But the choice is yours. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

TT, here's some advice from a neutral party: step away from the computer. Go outside. Go for a walk. Breathe many times. Then come back tonight or tomorrow and step away from the horse carcass. I don't know if you're in the 'right' here or not; frankly, I don't care. The point is that what you are doing looks very wrong, and you are going to lose respect from many people very quickly if you keep up these seemingly-petty actions. Kind regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I don't think I have anything further to add to the discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Newyorkbrad, I would like to thank you for this comment! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please review...

Hi Newyorkbrad, if you have a moment, can you please review the discussion here[4] and provide your input on any of the interpretations given by those in the discussion. Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't know that I'm the most qualified person to opine on this issue; I have at best a layman's background knowledge of fields such as the philosophy of science and critiques of the scientific method. But since you've had the confidence enough to ask me, I'll contribute what I can.

Candidly, I don't know just how I would classify this particular article, because it strikes me as more than a little bit of a hodgepodge, containing some elements of criticism of "science" in the abstract, some criticism of what is perceived or described as overreliance or excessive faith in science, and some criticisms of particular instances or applications of science.

Nor do I know exactly what "anti-intellectualism" is supposed to mean, whether it's a technical term or is simply used in its everyday sense. If the former, I really don't have much to add to the discussion, at least until I know what the definition is (and whether it's an agreed-upon definition or a disputed one). If it's the latter, i.e. if "anti-intellectual" has its everyday meaning, then again, the lack of clarity to what the article is about makes it difficult to say that "anti-intellectual" is a valid description of "criticism of science." There are some criticisms of science that one might imagine are legitimately anti-intellectual, but there are others that are reasonably "intellectual" and just come from different points of view; and as for particular criticisms of particular sciences or scientific conclusions within the article, there are some criticisms that could be considered "intellectual" and others that could be considered anything but. (This is a problem with our categorization system, which requires that an article be either in or out of the category, with no nuances or borderlines or shades of gray.)

I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. Perhaps a reader here can suggest a wikiproject whose members might have more useful input. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brad, thanks. I think we've agreed on the applicability of the anti-intellectualism part (and we also know the article needs work). That brought us to lobotomizing the article into an entirely different topic because of editor dislike of the term. I didnt state it before, as I thought it'd imply trying to create bias, but mostly I wanted to ensure that my interpretations of policies/guidelines are correct. I think we're beyond the point of deciding on whether the term is applicable. I suspect perhaps if I remind the other editor(s) that there are numerous spiritual and non-spiritual groups who also fit this category, that they may be more receptive... but regardless, I am hoping I properly explained how the policies and guidelines apply to or are against POV forking because he simply doesnt like linking the term with the subject of the article, even though he's now seen the link fits it. Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

fyi... it closed

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 16#User:Colonel Warden/RIP

125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is now truly an absurd situation, even apart from the silliness of the whole discussion, because the closing administrator has declined to overturn the deletion, but in the meantime the deleting administrator reluctantly undeleted the page. I think I would be within my rights to redelete, but there seems to be a consensus in the DRV discussion that it would reflect badly on me if I did so. I don't agree with that—I think it would reflect more assertiveness on my part than I've shown in years, which some people would say is a good thing in a Newyorkbrad—but I think I may let this one go for awhile. Or maybe I'll redelete it last thing Friday afternoon before I disappear for the holiday weekend ... no promises. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I undeleted it in frustration for the silly rule-mongering, and because it looked like my deletion would be overturned. I guess I could now reverse my undeletion (or someone else could since it was out of process undeletion and I give them permission), but I also see it has been renamed. The whole thing is now too confusing - so I'm just going to give it a wide berth. --Scott Mac 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm not listed. The real value of this (ya, it has some) is as a view into the ambient toxicity of debate on the project. To too many, the war is their purpose here. Note the talk of sides, the grappling for the mantle of 'good-faith editor', and the oh-so-personal nature of it all. Enjoy your weekend, 125.162.150.88 (talk) David 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

G'afternoon. We need more assertiveness from people like you, Brad. The game-players endlessly take advantage of the good faith users such as yourself offer. The wiki is awash in such low calibre editors and they are making the wiki suck. If nothing is done about this core failure of 'community' then nothing can save this project. Things won't turn on this specific trolling page, or on the AC getting off my back, but the vehemence shown in this series of time-sucking dramas illustrates that they want it kept because *I* nominated it. Review the split votes, then review the weight of the editors: it's quite clear that the serious are mostly for endorsing the deletion.

What? "Weight?" Yup, some people have more; the true divide on this project is between the serious people, who are intelligent, clueful, skilled, and who genuinely care, and the undisciplined rabble, who often are not so bright, want things like endless coverage of dreck, have no idea what the capital of Zimbabwe is, and get off on all the drama. Many of these people are no more than in-house trolls.

You know what is right, a lot of the time. Most serious people here do. But "the rules" are what prevent many appropriate actions. That's why we have IAR. The project needs more assertiveness in the face of mere rules.

125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(Now showing: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Warder renamed the page, removing the claimed cause of action from the title. It survived the drama of the 2nd MfD and a DRV, albeit through a unusual path. It was like watching a two or three week long episode of Law and Order. Deleting it after all that could result in yet another DRV, and even more drama. Can't we all just say that this is a compromise that works, more or less, and leave it at that, which I suggest is actually in the best interests of WP. — Becksguy (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The best interests of WP would have been served, and still can be served, by CW saying "heck, this seems to be annoying some folk, and I can equally keep this thing on my desktop, so {{Db-author}}". All the other stuff (people going to MFD, and people defending it, people running to DRV) is the fractiousness caused partly by a loss of sense of proportion all round, and CW's trolling disruption by maintaining it. A compromise discussion wouldn't be necessary if CW wasn't intent on disruption by being passive-aggressive. But, as I say, I'm not about to pour parifin on this by doing anything.--Scott Mac 16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Brad, I wouldn't say I'm encouraging you to go rogue, but... if you do, I will win a small but not entirely trivial sum of money. You see, I've had a longstanding wager with another editor. My position is that the absurdity of this site and its social dynamics will break anyone, given enough time. (It's certainly broken me, and I have a reasonable if not superhuman amount of patience for idiocy). You're the main counterexample, since you've survived years of exposure to this site's underbelly without losing your composure.

  Anyhow, I've got a few dollars riding on the proposition that Wikipedia is absurd enough that even you will reach your breaking point, given sufficient exposure. My counterpart, on the other hand, has faith that your supply of patience is effectively limitless, or at least that it exceeds Wikipedia's supply of maddening nonsense. At the risk of affecting the outcome, I just thought I'd let you know about the wager, because I can almost taste victory... :P MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• FYI - I attempted to hide the content so that it was only visible to Colonel Warden, but my efforts were inexplicably reverted by CW, citing that he's "not seeing the point". So, to sum up, so far we've had two MfD's, a speedy deletion, a DRV, and an undeletion. And despite all this, CW still doesn't accept that this page is offensive to many users, to the point that he will not even allow it to be hidden from view for all editors except himself. If this doesn't prove that the page exists solely as a battleground memorial site, then I don't know what will prove it. The DRV closed as no consensus, and so the page should technically still be deleted. I say delete it, email the content to CW so he can save it offline for himself, and be done with it. —SW— ^speak 20:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Talking to those people yesterday was exhausting. Snottywong, I think you are right; "No consensus" means the status quo prevails. Ergo, the page should be deleted. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• The article had been restored, therefore no consensus in the DRV defaults to status quo of Keep, just like an AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have to ask...

Have you seen this? Wikipedia:Bradspeak. I just came across it, and almost nominated it for WP:MFD as a personal attack on you; but on closer inspection I realised it's not meant critically, it's just an objective description of a Wikipedia phenomenon, particularly common at Arbitration and on Jimbo's talk page. Nonetheless, I'm curious what you think of it. Robofish (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The page's existence is not issue, at least not as far as I'm concerned. I understand what Iridescent meant when he coined the term, and I understand the spirit in which Bishonen created the page. I don't agree with every word of it, and maybe I'll explain why on the talkpage someday, but I don't take the page personally or anything like that. Thanks for your concern, though. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Pending Changes

I'm awaiting your clarifications with interest, and as much patience as possible - I hope that, soon, you will clarify whether or not PC will be removed by Friday, or if there are further complications. Best,  Chzz  ►  15:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to pester, etc - but this is a bit critical. It'd be nice if you could answer my email of 09/05/2011 too. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Posting to that page right now. Please see my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've responded over there. I'm really, really not very happy.  Chzz  ►  02:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm travelling with limited online time this weekend, but will respond to you and others on that page tomorrow night. Additional input there is welcome as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've now posted there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying there, that that one admin (such as Scott MacDonald) can disregard the decision of the community, ie that there is no consensus to use PC?

And you're saying the deadline could extend again? Is there ever any chance of ending this farce? It'll be a year into the 2-month trial on 15 June; maybe we should have a party for it.

there is strong opposition to even a limited BLP exception to ending the trial - no. Just...there is no consensus for it. Please could you answer my comment, that you, or anyone else, who thinks PC should be used should propose it, and seek consensus. Do you consider this is an acceptable case of ignoring consensus? Are you claiming this is a valid case of WP:IAR?

I'm sure my frustration is clear, and as I said 'over there', this really is now beyond a joke [5]. Since I wrote that, one admin was blocked for removing PC, and there was a wheel-war, and now an arb case. This desperately needs to be resolved. Consensus - to remove PC from all articles - simply could not be clearer. I didn't mind waiting extra-time on the 95-day-long [6] RfA [7], I didn't mind taking 2 weeks to remove PC. Another week - well, I have no choice. But still with conditions? And then what?  Chzz  ►  00:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer

An additional question, to perhaps emphasize the inherent problem: if you decide PC can remain in accord with your "narrow exception", who is allowed to 'review' the edits?

I hope you take my point.

There is no consensus on who can, and cannot, review articles. There is no consensus regarding what a reviewer must, or must not, do.  Chzz  ►  02:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Between my nine numbered paragraphs on the RfC talkpage and my statement on the arbitration request, I've already written more than I should have on this topic for one night. I will, however, return to this soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to your earliest response, as always.  Chzz  ►  06:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just posted the final closing statement. Consensus was pretty clearly in your favor. The issues you raise, if they remain relevant, can be addressed in the next phase of the discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep; I hope you do realise that I'm not "anti PC" - I have concerns about the many and varied possible implementations, and my hesitation in supporting any form of PC has been greatly magnified by the apparent 'abuse of due process' (for wont of a better term) regarding the 'trial'.

Your comment re. potential exceptional cases, not sure why this proposal was as controversial as it seems to be...I'm not at all suprised that so many people screamed about an 'exception' - it's gone on for so, so long, that everyone was in despair (including myself), wondering if we'd ever draw a line under the mess.

In considering the future, please glance at a very rough-draft I wrote on 3rd March [8]. My opinion is that enough debate has already occurred, and future proposals that might have some sort of chance of consensus could be constructed through analysis of the previous debate.

I personally doubt very much that it will be possible to gain a convincing level of support for any such proposal for several months (at least), due to the current ill-feeling over the previous trial - but I don't discount the possibility entirely.

You indicated you'd consider a next phase RfC in a couple of weeks - please let me know if/when you decide to do that. Personally, I don't think a fresh RfC (or 'phase') is appropriate until some analysis has been done, ie reading the copious prior discussions to try and form a way ahead. I believe that further 'open discussion' will descend into copious argument with little productive benefit (re-hashing of previous arguments) - and that the better way ahead would be a very carefully-worded proposal for implementation. I don't think that a discussion would lead to such a proposal, but would consume a huge amount of time. If a further RfC discussion is to occur, however, I'd suggest it'd be best starting afresh, and not as a 'phase' added to the Feb debate.

Anyway...it will be a relief to not think about PC for a few weeks, at least. Best,  Chzz  ►  23:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mad! Mad! Hihihi!

Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 20:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for your note, and for your avoidance of Bradspeak in the caption. One of us talking that way is enough, if not already excessive.

Substantively, the request for arbitration looks like it's being declined, in which case it will probably be archived soon by reason of time, so your concern about the length of statements in it will probably be moot before anyone would be able to address it. (Plus, gosh only knows how long my statement was.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(And I see that one of the Clerks has just gotten to it anyway. No further comment, I suppose, as I'm recused in this case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC))

Availability note

I'll be travelling over the holiday weekend and will have limited wiki time and access until Tuesday. As Paul August used to say, please try not to trash the place while I'm gone. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)