User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Feb

Message to arbcom

I sent a message to arbcom-l on Sunday, but it was apparently awaiting moderation. Did arbcom get my message? --Aude (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You should have gotten an acknowledgement from a mailing list coordinator by now. I'll follow up. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just sent a follow-up message to arbcom-l. How long does it take to get an acknowledgment? --Aude (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

a point of note

Piotrus' closure was actually reverted by M.K (hence it didn't resolve the matter).diff William Connelly then closed it 50 or so mins later with the same result. The warning Piotrus gave to M.K was removed by William Connelly on the basis that Piotrus was involved.diff Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. That was incorporated in my comment, though: Piotrus's substantive handling of the matter was acceptable, and consistent with how other admins might have handled it, though it would have been better for someone else to handle the formal administrator aspect (i.e., closing the 3RR report). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd never considered the possibility that a partizan admin intervening on AN/3 ad hoc to save a friend, while warning a long-term opponent, was acceptable. If it's something like "we can't prove why he did it", then that's fine I suppose if lame considering all this time. But otherwise I just can't see how it falls within our standards; I certainly will never act like that no matter who rubber stamps it. The key question is, if he does it again, what can anyone seeking to protect the area from vested admin abuse do without getting mud thrown? That would be good to know! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!

The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Question re possible legal ramifications of sighted revisions

At User talk:Jimbo Wales#Section 230, Chasingsol made an interesting point about flagged revisions. I know very little about law in general, and practically nothing about internet law. If you get a chance, do you think you would be able to give a more informed opinion on the subject? Thanks for your time, J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this later today. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the points I would have made in response to this thread have already been made by others. There's also a relevant thread on "Wikipedia Review" in which some people cite some caselaw, which may be of interest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brad. Wikipedia Review is primarily concerned with liabilities that may be attributed to the Foundation, there is little discussion in regards to a person who contributes to Wikipedia, although there is a comment stating that there may be liability to a contributor. The EFF clearly states on their Section 230 FAQ page that there may be liability for a person who posts defamatory content and may not covered by Section 230 immunity. The concern is whether any liability associated with the original creator of the content would be transferred to a person who approves it for widespread view, as would be the case for a person sighting revisions with the Flagged Revisions software change. Case law is extremely lacking in this particular point, there is plenty in regards to a content providers immunity under Section 230, but little in regards to a user of those content providers. The San Francisco Chronicle had an article a couple of days ago in regards to 'Web 2.0' defamation lawsuits, which are apparently on the rise. See: [1]. As I have previously stated, it may well be an "unknowable unknown", however it concerns me that volunteers may be under the false premise that because the Foundation is covered by Section 230 immunity that it automatically extends to users of the site. We have a moral and ethical obligation to notify the contributors to Wikipedia of liabilities associated with their activities, and particularly so should someone potentially be liable because of content created by another person. I hope I am completely wrong about this matter, but it should certainly not be ignored and swept under the rug, especially so as the software change is being marketed as a method to avoid defamation. The Wikipedia:General disclaimer states: None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages. I disagree, as does the EFF. Best regards. --Chasingsol^(talk) 08:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad

I have been working on two wiki essays that I've been trying to get finished for weeks now, as well as a couple of mainspace projects, and I'm not going to be able to make much progress if I keep getting distracted, so please excuse me if I put other business to the side for a few days until these items are done. Thanks everyone for understanding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading RFAs when it's late

I must be tired because when I read the first line of your discussion-comment on WP:Requests for adminship/astatine-210#Discussion my first thought was "respected editor vehemently opposes, better look into why" - it took me a minute to realize that first line was humor and you do not view this editor as "toxic, radioactive, reactive, and unstable." I really hope I was the only one who misread it that way. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Geez. I guess you're right ... I should clarify that! Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt

Could you (or perhaps someone who watches this page) take a look at this? Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tort reform and User:THF. I glanced over the personal attack the first time. Seems problematic to me. I have history with both Wikidea and THF, so I would not be credible in this dispute. Cool Hand Luke 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this when I have some time, but it may be another day or two. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's moved on to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal attacks, and might be moot in a few days. Thank you for your consideration though. Cool Hand Luke 03:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, I didn't take it wrong. It amused me! :D astatine-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Travel note

I'll be travelling until Tuesday with limited Internet access. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on date delinking injunction

Hi, I was wondering if year links were included in the date delinking injuction. User:Kendrick7 was relinking years with some regularity, although he/she has since stopped. Is this sort of activity allowed? The reason I am asking is because he was relinking years, and when reverted, he restored the links, claiming that they were "years, not dates". He had been asked not to by several users, including an admin. Even though this activity has not continued, I would appreciate clarification for future reference. I asked a clerk, and she told me to ask an arb who was active on the case. Since you proposed the injunction, I thought it would be appropriate to ask you. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. IMO, I think it would be more precise if "dates" was changed to to "chronological items" in the injunction: "all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates chronological items in existing..."—in which "chronological items" would be defined as "Items such as days, years, decades and centuries". Dabomb87 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am hoping that within the next few days, we will have a decision in the case, which will supersede the temporary injunction. I'm not doing the first draft of the decision, but at this point I think it's a better use of all the arbitrators' time to try to get the case resolved, rather than fine-tune the injunction. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that is good to hear. I didn't know the time frame of the case. Thanks for your quick response amid your travels. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

RfB

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Newyorkbrad. If you don't want to run, just deny the nomination. --  Punk Boi 8  talk  20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's polite to ask before writing the nomination, not after. Majorly talk 20:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at NYB and my inboxes. I asked him off wiki. --  Punk Boi 8  talk  20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In case you accept you'll have my strong support. :) — Aitias // discussion 21:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think Newyorkbrad has more sense than to accept an RfB nomination, where the credibility of the nominator is relatively crucial, from a recently-two-year-banned sockpuppeteer. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If it passed, I think he'd be the first user to be given bureaucrat rights after getting checkuser. I doubt it'd pass though, given he has no experience with bureaucrat related areas which seems to be a requirement nowadays. Oh, and what Daniel says too. --Deskana (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, Essjay was the first. He gained CU maybe less than two weeks before his RFB. Obviously, something inconceivable in today's RFXs. I would probably say while I think NYB would make an exceptionally fair and decent bcrat, I just don't think he's the right man for the job. He's more of an arbitrator kind of user - he should consider becoming one of them... oh wait... :) Majorly talk 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

While I'm confident that Punk Boi 8 can become a trustworthy user in time, and I agree with him that NYB would make an excellent bureaucrat, I would, for now, recommend that NYB declines the nomination. Unless Majorly or Deskana would be willing to co-nom... Dylan620 _{Hark unto me} 01:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Even without evaluating NYB on his merits, I have a concern with giving arbitrators additional non-arbitrator duties. They are busy enough as it is. I suspect many newly-elected arbitrators scale back their other duties out of necessity and to protect their sanity. If Newyorkbrad accepts, two of my questions are "Do you have the time to do 'crat duties?" and "are you sure?" If he says yes to both, my next question is "um, you are an arbitrator on en-wiki, right?" Now, maybe he's retired in real life and can give every waking hour to the project, or maybe he just has stellar time-management skills, but I'd need some convincing. Other than someone like that, about the only reason I'd give the 'crat bit to a sitting arb is if they were relinquishing one of their other duties to make time, or if they could make a convincing case that the 'crat bit was necessary for them to do their other duties. In the latter case, I'd be wondering why the other role doesn't have 'cratship as either a pre-requisite or as an ex-officio right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Several editors (including a sitting bureaucrat) have asked me during the past several months if I would be interested in having an RfB. At present, I will decline the kind offers of nomination from Punk Boi 8 and others for the following reasons:

(1) There is a strong sense among some editors that too many high-level permissions should not be concentrated in a single user. At present, I am an active arbitrator, and I also hold the oversight and checkuser permissions (although I rarely use them). An RfB by a sitting arbitrator would bring out concerns about "power hunger" and concentrations of authority in one person. I personally am not persuaded that there is anything wrong with a single user being both a bureaucrat and an arbitrator (it has caused no issues that I can think of for Rlevse or previously for Deskana, Raul654, or UninvitedCompany), but I would not want my role in the project to become a source of discomfort for others.

(2) As Davidwr points out, being an arbitrator is a major commitment of time, and I can understand that some members of the community would be reluctant to !vote that I should take on another such commitment. Personally, I am not sure that there is a conflict there; in many cases, performing bureaucrat tasks strikes me as involving the use of different "mental muscles" from arbitrator tasks. Nonetheless, I see the point that Davidwr is making above and that many others have made beforehand. And given that ArbCom is chronically behind in its work, despite the best efforts of everyone, it is hardly as if I could come to an RfB saying "please assign me more work because my current plate is clean."

(3) As Deskana notes, I do not have a lot of hands-on involvement with many of the current bureaucrat tasks. I !vote and comment frequently in RfAs, but (as would be noted very quickly if I ran an RfB), almost invariably on the positive side. I have not assigned myself the role of searching RfA candidates' edits for problems and skeletons, and in fact I don't recall having ever opposed a serious RfA. I don't think this would lead to my having any problems in judging consensus in close RfAs, but I wouldn't have much of an answer if anyone asked me in an RfB why I seem to look at RfA candidates through rose-colored glasses. As to other bureaucrat tasks, I've never had any involvement in the name-change or usurpation processes, and (despite having written the Rfar/Betacommand 2 case) I know as much about bots as I do about taking my own appendix out. I don't think I would have much trouble getting the hang of the required work associated with these tasks, but I can understand that there would be !voters wondering why they should be conferred upon someone who would require on-the-job training.

(4) My self-appointed wiki goals for the next few weeks months include substantially more mainspace work, coupled with getting a couple of essays polished and published on some topics important to me. I am reluctant to add to that the distraction of the RfB, while it is running, and the bureaucrat tasks if I were to be successful.

(5) Over the past three years, I have been the proud beneficiary of extraordinary kindness from this community: in my RfA result, in the 2007 ArbCom election result, and in the comments left on my talkpage when I had to leave the project for a time last year and later when I felt able to return. I want some other experienced administrator, respected by the community and trusted with greater responsibility and more buttons, to hear the accolades and feel the morale-boost that go with a successful RfB, rather than hog any more of such a thing for myself, even if I were to flatter myself (dubiously in light of the considerations above) that I would succeed if I ran myself.

(6) Finally, I anticipate some significant extra RL pressures for my time over the next couple of months, so even if I wanted to run at some point (and I never rule anything out forever), this would not be a good time for it.

Again, I would like to thank all the users who have asked me to consider bureaucratship, and especially Punk Boi 8 for going to the trouble of preparing a nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I know it's rather redundant at this point in time, but I would personally have the confidence in your judgment to support you as a bureaucrat (despite power concentration, which I personally feel does not hinder your judgment in the slightest). However, I feel that you are better suited for your current role as an arbitrator and administrator, as your talents and skills lie in mediating disputes. Not that this opinion really matters as you respectfully declined the nomination, but I wanted to reassure the level of confidence I have here. Best wishes and good luck with the mainspace contributions. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art: DC

See:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be having a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. (Note: The SAAM is located in between Metro Center and Gallery Place (closer to the Gallery Place/Chinatown metro), and is convenient to all 5 metro lines.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral Cheers! Nja247 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I am probably one of the few Americans who will understand that reference. :) Congratulations on your adminship! Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!

The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. →Dyl@n620 21:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fad diet

Can you give a link to your previous commentary you refer to here? I'm not sure where to look for it. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In the very next section on the Requests for arbitration page, there is another request for clarification also involving the Pseudoscience case. By the way, you might also want to ask Fred Bauder for his thoughts on your request for clarification. He was the arbitrator who wrote the original Pseudoscience arbitration decision, although he is not on the committee any more. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about Arbitration and requests for comments

Aloha NewYorkBrad! I had a question regarding arbitration and requests for comments (specifically regarding the MZMcBride situation currently being discussed): If a request for arbitration is made (done), and a good amount of responses have been made (as they have), but I think a request for comment would be a more appropriate venue (and has been discussed in the arbitration request), should I just go ahead and open a request for comment or should I wait for the arbitration committee to make that decision? Hopefully this makes sense. My concern is that if I open a request for comment, and the arbitration gets accepted, they would be running concurrently (which doesn't seem useful). But I wouldn't want to step on the arbitration committee's toes either, by sort of "forcing" them (you) into hearing out the request for comment. So I'm confused. I guess for the moment I'll just wait for the committee. I guess I sort of answered my own question, but I'd like your opinion anyway, if that's okay. Basically, is it too late to file a request for comment if a request for arbitration has been made? E kala mai, my apologies for my stammering and incoherence. :-) Answer here, if you don't mind. Mahalo and thank you. --Ali'i 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would probably be best for you to mention in your section that you are prepared to open an RfC and explain why you think that would be a better way to proceed than an arbitration, and then await developments. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

{{subst:ArbComSize}}

*runs*

Daniel (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your statement was below the minimum length, so I made up for it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Would adding pretentious coloured boxes and generic Latin help me recover my statement to a more acceptable length? :) Daniel (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Go search for my hidden secret page. Start now and keep looking until you find it, no matter how long it takes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Too long, but did read. Well-said. –xeno (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It took me too long to write; it would have taken even longer to shorten it. In general, I've been shorter-winded lately, but I have relapses. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Took me 'bout 20 minutes to read, but you raised some excellent points. Very well-said, as Xeno noted. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Though it was longer than many GAs are, it was still an excellent read. A very good rationale it was. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your ArbCom statement

Many parts of your statement at RFAR were inaccurate or misleading. (And while I realize I haven't always lived up to your standards, I had an enormous amount of respect for you until tonight.) Would you prefer I address its issues by e-mail, on-wiki, or not at all? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It was obviously in the least not my intent that any portion of my comments be inaccurate or misleading. You may respond to anything that I posted on-wiki or via e-mail, as you prefer. If you send an e-mail, please advise whether I should forward it to the other arbitrators as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've appended a note to my vote comments, noting your view that my comments contain errors and that I will correct or annotate anything that may turn out to have been misstated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to Prodego (and Risker, via e-mail) for catching the typo. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the moment, there are two issues that need to be addressed immediately:

1. "MZMcBride recently used his toolserver access (a user status or type of access with which, I must admit, I was until recently unfamiliar) to access a list of uses of the recently enabled revision-deletion-and-unviewable-except-by-oversighters capability."

   I informed both Tim and River of this unintended access as soon as (literally minutes after) I became aware of it. I have no idea if you were aware of this, but the way in which you commented about the affairs makes me presume that (a) you weren't; and (b) that you shouldn't have been commenting on affairs you have little knowledge of.

2. "Several weeks ago, MZMcBride created a particular page, whose contents are most troublesome. Its identity and nature are known to my fellow arbitrators."

   First, for context, you're referring to User:MZMcBride/Going rogue (now imported with full history at mw:User:MZMcBride/Going rogue).

   Both Tim and Brion were aware of this page's existence as were a number of other developers. They are also (undoubtedly) aware of its existence on the MediaWiki wiki.

Obviously name-dropping is not my intent here, and I'm rather upset that there was no other real way to address these issues. However, it is clear, to me at least, that the picture you have painted of me in your statement is a shallow, distorted one.

Further, after reading your statement, I find the decline vote to be utterly out of sync with the rest of your views. So I ask that you vote to accept the case. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As to (1), I made no allegation that your accessing the toolserver was improper. I was not aware that you had advised developers of the fact that the deleted-revisions information was visible, but I accept your statement that you did and find that laudible. The purpose of my referencing your toolserver access was simply to explain how you were able to determine the number of deleted revisions and what page they had been deleted from, since users without the toolserver access would, as I understand it, not have that information.

As to (2), I again appreciate that some developers had become aware of the page. I don't believe I suggested any knowledge on my part one way or the other as to whether the developers, or which developers, were aware of it and when.

I thought the rationale for my vote was clear, but I will take a look at it again in the morning. I will also consider recusal, as I hesitate to sit in judgment of someone who has lost respect for me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added two clauses to my comments to take your above comments into account. I'm signing off for the night shortly, and will respond to anything additional tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications. At least those two parts are now at least somewhat less skewed. I still urge you to consider accepting; I doubt it would impact the overall outcome, but it's quite clear from your writing that the decline is in name only. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment (manifesto?) about your statement

Wanted to thank you for your statement. You made a lot of good points. One thing I would advise you on within your statement is the idea of "morale". You rightfully note that users whose pages have been deleted may have their morale lowered, but you seem to neglect the transverse: those users whose morale is strengthened by the removal of them. For instance, I had lost a lot of confidence in Wikipedia which caused me to limit my contributions for a while (you can see my history). I felt (and still feel) that there was too much frivolity and "camaraderie" (to borrow a word), and not enough encyclopedia building. That many users were more interested in having a good time than furthering the project's goal of writing a free encyclopedia. (That's not to say a good time can't be had... obviously, or else there would be no community... but the priorities of many were skewed.) So actions like MZMcBride's which I view as eliminating excess waste, and in turn help focus the community's actions toward the encyclopedia, restore my confidence in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

A lot of criticism of Wikipedia stems from people viewing us as a MMPROG (or whatever that acronym is) or just another social networking site (rather than an encyclopedia). I think many disaffected users share this criticism. I was critical of Wikipedia for being a community building an encyclopedia rather than an encyclopedia being built by a community. And I think there is a difference. In my view, we shouldn't pussyfoot around and pander to people that want to social network. If their primary goal isn't to help write an encyclopedia, they should be on Facebook or MySpace, etc. I feel more compartmentalizing should really take place (Wikipedia.org for building an encyclopedia, some other site for lol-ing with friends). I understand that this makes me the grouch in the room, the old codger who shakes his fist at the young'ins, and probably out of the majority view here on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that I am more of a hardliner than most.

I just wanted to note that there are two sides to the coin. Some people get hurt, but some people are renewed. You mentioned the former but (seemingly) forgot the latter. Sorry for being (apparantly only slightly ;-) ) longwinded. Mahalo again for your detailed comments. You have provided great insight into the context of MZMcBride's situation. --Ali'i 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeking advice

After reading your full statement on RFAR regarding MZMcbride (very well written for such a long piece, by the way), I was curious about something. Just a few weeks ago, I began seeing statements in my watchlist like this:

(Deletion log); 05:52 . . Alison (Talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (hid content, edit summary for 1 revision: Removing threats of violence towards an editor)

To me, this sounds like what MZMcbride was describing about the revision deletion ability given to admins, and the unintended visibility. If I look at deletion logs, I can see that sort of thing all over. Now, I'm not an admin, and I don't have toolserver access. At least, I don't believe I do...unless using someone else's tools on toolserver could have created me an account through SUL. Anyhow, I'm just curious if I should see these statements, and if not, to whom should I speak? On my part, they're just annoying. I watch AN, and AN/I, and that tool gets brought out a lot. Thanks for your time. --InkSplotch (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can see these statements. The intention is to replace the oversight capability, which deletes an edit leaving no trace behind that the edit was over there, with a functionality where the edit is deleted but one can see that there used to be one—thereby supposedly adding transparency and allowing for the community to have at least a general sense of how often and how the revision-deletion function is being used. Deletion can now also be applied to log entries, which was not possible in the past short of developer intervention.

Most of the deletions we see everyday are of Grawp vandalisms and the like. Personally, I do not find it helpful to be reminded, or for everyone else to be reminded, of this ongoing situation, but again, if one were to propose that such entries not show up in watchlists, there would be shouts that something might be being covered up.

For further information on the new feature, see this page on Mediawiki. For ongoing discussion of how the feature should be used, in which I would welcome your input, see Wikipedia talk:Selective deletion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ann Arbor meetup

Hello Newyorkbrad. Thank-you for your response. I'll schedule another meet-up next in March. If you have a preference for date and time let me know. Sheshed (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at my calendar, I'm more likely to be in Michigan in April than in March. Let's touch base before then. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to a meetup in Ann Arbor, let me know. I've got an absurd gas-guzzling large car, but gas is cheap again, and Ann Arbor is under 4 hours. Cool Hand Luke 20:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good gosh! I had one of those in 1982, but I was living in a country where gasoline was 19 cents per gallon :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)