Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:07, 8 February 2008

Archives

Description of archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your gift

LOL! Newyorkbrad gave me a barnstar! :D I got a barnstar from arbitrator, admin, and junior godking (right behind teh Jimbo of course). Must add that to my Misplaced Pages transcript for when I apply for my higher role. Hmm....of all the people on WP...never would've thought one from you. Thanks :]. -- R Contribs_@ 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes, what, the 4 barnstar Newyorkbrad has ever given out? R must look a lot like this right now: —Animum (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Srsly! No wai! I never knew NYB has only given out 3 barnstars before O.o. I'll add that to my transcript to. Now I'll be sure to pass! I heard barnstars from NYB are an automatic pass and is the key to gaming the system. :D -- R Contribs_@ 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully request that I also receive a barnstar. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why Ryan? So it's on your transcript so that you'll pass Misplaced Pages:Requests for taking over Jimbo's place after the coup? That's a good reason :D. -- R Contribs_@ 03:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad will give this barnstar to someone deserving, AND I MEAN DESERVING! :-P Losing every trace of sanity he has left, —Animum (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Animum, you haven't even responded to the message I left on your talk today. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I put my name on that list? Otherwise NYB looks like he is supporting the single letter cabal... 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What, "Animum" is a single letter? —Animum (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protection request

Please can you fully-protect Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/TheM62Manchester and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sunfazer for me - I have also added a notice about the fact the accounts are self-admitted role accounts at the top of the RFA.

Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a major need to protect the RfA's to ensure that they are labelled with these particular templates. If you disagree, you can file a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection to get input from one or more other administrators. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I see. However, there's an admin who keeps assuming that I have something to do with these indefinitely-blocked users, despite the fact a checkuser about me said that I was Unrelated to them, which I am. It is causing me wikistress and I don't know how to handle it. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to hear that, but if that administrator doesn't believe you, then putting a template on top of their pages isn't going to make him change his mind, I don't think. You should call the attention of that admin to the checkuser result, but you've probably done that already. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The admin who accused me of being a sockpuppet was the same one who requested the checkuser as well. I don't want to reveal who he is because it might cause enmity on here. I didn't put those messages up with the intention of making him change his mind - but just as a watning. He still does not believe me despite me giving a full overview of my editing history on my userpage. I've just emailed Kirill asking him to pass on a message to Arbcom-l about this for me. But away from all that, how's things?? I'm on wikibreak from tomorrow, should be back on Thursday or Friday hopefully. Sorry for discussing this, it was probably a bad topic to mention on here. --Solumeiras (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC drama

Thanks, Brad, for saying this - that was long overdue. By the way, righteous indignation seems to be considered "the only form of anger which is not sinful", so you seem to be on the safe side in that respect ;-) Kosebamse (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Calmness in arbitration comments

Hi Brad. I've read the post that Kosebamse pointed out above, and I hope you don't mind me responding to it here? Your anger (or frustration) does come across clearly there and is rather uncharacteristic for you (which is why I came to your talk page to discuss it with you). I think that such frustration or anger can be problematic. I personally always try never to edit in anger, and I similarly think that arbitration comments that come across as angry or frustrated are not as effective as those that are unfailingly calm, but still come across as stern. I think what I am saying is that the same message could have been made without some of the more frustrated comments (eg. "sick, sick, sick to death of every aspect of this entire situation"). If you feel that things like that needed to be said, fair enough, but I can understand those who will react with a "they aren't listening" attitude. There have been some good points made, and constructive criticism made, and a generalised reaction like this is unhelpful.

You also used overstatements (eg. "umpteenth" and "now and forever"), which either exaggerate the situation or leave things hanging in the air until some future date when you retract the "forever" comment - there are good reasons why there are sunset clauses and clear endpoints for probations. I particularly dislike broad brushsweeps (generalisations) like the one you have made (eg. "every aspect"), because they inevitably lead to misunderstandings and editors (especially those who are less assured of themselves) being uncertain as to whether the comments apply to them. You even seem to say this yourself when you responded to Paul in a later proposed remedy: "I'm not sure that "all" editors in the edit-war deserve to be "admonished," as the participation of some was relatively slight." Compare this to the wording of proposed remedy 13: "All parties in this case are strongly cautioned..." You don't seem to have picked up on the "all" there. I've already pointed out to FloNight on the talk page that a broad term like "all parties" includes a lot of incidental people, including the bainer. I have similar problems with the non-naming that you use: "The party, who has, for the umpteenth time..."; "The editors who have been directing personal attacks..."; "The parties who are highly valued...". I realise that naming people can cause problems, but equally I hope you can see my point that not naming people can cause problems. Put it this way: in a year's time you may still be able to list who you were referring to here, but will others? And if you don't remember in a year's time who you were referring to, what is the point of avoiding names like that?

As I said, I realise your patience is not infinite, but I've always had a poor opinion of the various "exhausted the patience of" clauses (both in Arbcom and in Community Ban discussions). It is not the people whose patience has been exhausted that should be enacting remedies, but the people whose patience hasn't been exhausted. Otherwise you get the situation where someone may still, in good faith and with little thanks, be working to calm a situation, or guide or mentor an editor (sometimes with some degree of success), getting shouted down by those who have had their "patience exhausted". If those who shout loudest that their patience has been exhausted are listened to, doesn't that discourage the thankless task of those who are prepared to put time and effort into continuing to resolve a situation (I'm talking in general about community bans here)?

I've responded at some length here because I feel strongly about these issues. I hope you will be able to find the time to respond here or elsewhere to the points I've raised. Carcharoth (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts and the attention you've given to the comments I posted. I would prefer to let those comments speak for themselves, at least for awhile, but I will bear your reaction in mind as I continue to work on cases going forward. One thing to bear in mind, though, is that the language I used was in the context of one person's opinion—just my personal explanation for voting the way I did, and an articulation of my current thinking in relation to the case. I agree that open-ended language such as a request lasting "forever," or avoiding identifying parties by name in the interest of avoiding further divisiveness, might not be appropriate if what I had written was to be part of the actual decision of the case. Thanks again for your thoughtful response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for taking the (rather minor) criticism so well. I usually agree with Deskana below, with the caveat that sometimes shorter comments are better. I do feel rather strongly that those commenting help arbitrators keep some sense of proportion, but equally I realise it must be hard to arbitrate under such close scrutiny. Sometimes being all things to all people is not possible. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

I think were someone to analyse my most recent contributions, that "per Newyorkbrad" would show up in over half of them! I never seem to have anything to add once you've commented. I must try to make comments before you so I don't appear like a lemon ;-) --Deskana (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

What does "avoid discussing matters that have consistently proved divisive" mean? --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The most important part is to stop discussing the conversations in the channel that re-started all of the controversy. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I left the channel, permanently, before the arbitration case began. I no longer discuss the conduct of those involved in the case, on or off wiki. As I said earlier, others are perfectly capable of making the relevant comments, and have not been slow to do so. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That is helpful and I hope you can continue on the same path. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Injunction in MTC template

It can; however, I had to add another feature to the {{ACVoting}} template when there's both injunctions and motions active in voting. However, the motion is now moot to the Motion to Close, so I fixed it (the {{Motion to close}} doesn't have a switch for both injunctions and motions at the same time). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw what you did and I agree with it. There will always be some debatable cases about which category a case belongs in, but that's not the template's fault. By the way, I'm still waiting to hear from other arbitrators regarding the contradiction about measuring the 24-hour period for injunctions. If no one else cares, maybe we'll let you decide which rule is best. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Or option c) - Daniel choose which injunctions he wishes to pass and which he wishes to scrap entirely :) Daniel (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI Thread (SqueakBox)

Brad, you may want to weigh in on the closure of the thread at ANI. I attempted to close the thread and mark it 'resolved' in order to direct future comments and questions to ArbCom, but the archiving was reverted (and reimposed, and reverted?). Apparently your comment is not being seen as definitive that future questions regarding the userpage deletion should be routed through the Committee. 18:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, since you said that "Any further discussion SHOULD be brought to ArbCom privately and not MUST be brought to ArbCom privately, they can feel free to ignore it. (yes, there is an actual discussion on User talk:Ssbohio‎ about Should versus Must. As I said there, it all smacks of "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is". SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal information isn't being discussed at AN/I, so there's no need for the discussion to move off-wiki. SirFozzie (and others) believe that you were issuing an order as a member of ArbCom; I (and others) believe that you were making a statement of what you think should happen. I have confidence that if you wanted to instruct, rather than suggest, you would have, and if you wanted to speak for ArbCom, you would have done that, too. --SSBohio 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was offline most of the day, and will admit that I'm stunned by the amount of drama that has arisen concerning this particular matter. I don't have much time now and will post more about this tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

An update in case you haven't been following the noticeboards - Guettarda (who was offline during the previous thread) came back today and issued an NPA warning to Swatjester. Swatjester replied, and Guettarda blocked him (!) under NPA. Swatjester made an edit summary about leaving Misplaced Pages. This is like the drama spiral of death. 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hey NYBrad, I need to ask a favour. Can the article UN Security Council Resolutions Armenia-Azerbaijan be undeleted with the rest of what Ehud has created and which were later deleted? I need it for some of the evidence, it's important. Thanks - Fedayee (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please ask one of the current Arbitration Committee Clerks who is an adminstrator to go through the articles and temporarily restore as necessary. I know some of the Clerks have this page watchlisted and will be glad to take a look at this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC channel concerns

"I sense that concerns regarding the channel are rightly less than they were a year ago..." - I'm not sure if you are aware, but there have been several incidents in recent days that throw the channel in a poor light. Effectively, people are discussing things on IRC and then carrying out actions without first seeking input from the much wider community available on Misplaced Pages, and then trying to shrug off later concerns. See the talk page at the proposed decision page. These seem to be judgment issues about Misplaced Pages process and content (Main Page deletion and arbitration enforcement), rather than civility and personality issues. In other words, the IRC channel's use as a "sanity check" seems to not be foolproof, and sometimes a "sanity check" on Misplaced Pages gets better results. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We need a sense of proportion. IRC regularly functions as a sanity check, and I've often talked people, or been talked, out of rash action there. Does the opposite happen? Well maybe occasionally, although I've seen very little evidence. The mainpage deletion was just some gullible doofus, and totally incidental to which IRC channel it happened in. Unless you want freenode to shut down, that's not something we can remedy. Indeed if such idiotic conversations are going to happen, better they happen in a channel of clued users where someone will usually (although not in this case) shout halt. I tell you honestly the most vicious things I've witnessed in iRC have not been in #admins, but in small group channels where everyone assumes they are amongst friends - there I've seen bad blocks plotted, and little chance of an admin with a different perspective shouting halt, or leaking logs. Shut #admins down, and all you will do is increase irc cabals of the like-minded, and popular people starting channels from which they exclude those they dislike. Yes, IRC can at times be a real problem for wikipedia, but #admins usually serves to mitigate the worst abuses by having a fairly liberal access policy for admins.--Doc 12:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not suggesting any attempt be made to shut the channel down. Just manage it better and make it more transparent, and acknowledge that "I sense that concerns regarding the channel are rightly less than they were a year ago..." might not be quite true. Sensing should be deprecated in favour of scrutinising the evidence. The point remains that by its nature IRC needs to be self-regulating, and that self-regulation doesn't always work, so it seems some form on on-wiki stricture needs to encourage self-regulation (keeping people on their toes), with ArbCom making crystal clear that it will over-ride such self-regulation and review channel logs and take action if needed. Oh, and for all admins to have access and for arbcom to investigate if it seems any admins are being denied access or there is stonewalling or feet-dragging. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone make a good argument that the channel shouldn't be open-access, albeit moderated, with only administrators getting +v. Am I missing something fundamental? Jouster  (whisper) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite a lot really. If anyone can listen in (via access and/or logs) then trolls, problem users etc can too. If they are listening in, admins will simply take discussion elsewhere and the channel will die. You might as well shut it down (and drive the discussion into totally unmonitored fora.--Doc 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(To Carcharoth) In the Durova case, a group of people got on an email list and eventually one of them did something stupid. In the Bluemarine case, someone hacked into Bluemarine's Gmail account and posted Gchat logs allegedly showing improper communication (the communications were not improper, for the record). When Carnildo blocked Giano, he did it after an IRC session. Just today, Guetterda's block of SWATJester was widely seen as a bad idea and as far as I know, he talked to no one about it first. The point is that admins sometimes do stupid things and they have to be responsible for their actions. "IRC made me do it" and "IRC made him do it so ban IRC" are two sides of the same false argument.

(To Jouster) IRC channels can be created by any person for any reason, and as long as there is always at least one person in the channel it will stay active. If the admins channel is banned there is nothing to prevent a group of admins from creating #blue-harvest or #wikipedia-fuzzy-bunnies for private discussions. The difference would be that access to these hidden channels would be invite only, meaning that the participants would be likely be self-selected to think alike. The only IRC reform needed is to work on civility issues (including transparency in response to problems) in the current #admins channel so that more admins feel like participating, because with more participants you increase the likelihood of someone saying, "That's a stupid idea" before it becomes a stupid action. Thatcher 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And those who are civil but give bad advice or egg people on in a mob or groupthink mentality? On Misplaced Pages, such actions are transparent, and people can be identified as giving bad advice. On IRC, there is less "memory" and people may nor remember who it was that gave bad advice last time. It is a more transient medium, and takes more work to review and keep in check and self-regulate. If all the logs were kept and archived for a year, and arbcom could review any one particular person's contributions, then that might work. But that sounds like Big Brother to me. Where does the balance lie? Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The transparency we get from discussing things on the wiki is a benefit of the wiki, and it's one good reason why "somebody on IRC told me to make the block" is fatuous excuse for a bad administrative action.

But it isn't a feature of other forms of discussion about the wiki--if I discuss Misplaced Pages matters face-to-face with my wife, or an acquaintance who also happens to be involved in Misplaced Pages, or in private email or on a closed IRC channel or via instant messenger, telephone, skype, letter, fax, telegram, closed internet forum, or in a meeting of the Cabinet convened by the Prime Minister, the benefits of the wiki don't carry over, and trying to alter those mediums of communication so that they have the same features as a wiki is never going to work. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC Arbcom

You (and a couple of other arbitrators) specifically objected to warlike in principle 12.1. FT2 has suggested antagonistic. I'd like to suggest two additional alternatives—confrontational or provocative. I believe that both would accurately characterize the actions described, and eliminate the warrior imagery that has unsettled the ArbCom members. Horologium (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Instigative (I had to look it up, it is in fact a word) is another possibility. Horologium (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments#User:BQZip01.2FComments

If you remember, you weighed in on the use of user pages to draft a future RFC, and whether such use might count as an attack page if not promptly converted from a personal on-wiki collection of evidence about a person into an actual RFC or ArbCom case. The above is an ongoing discussion of one such user page; part of the question is what counts as a "reasonable" period of time to bring the RFC or delete the draft. (Opinions differ from "a few days" to "several months.") The discussion seems to be floundering a bit on what this policy means, so, if you're interested, I thought you might have input to add. (If not, sorry to bug you.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, but I think I am going to stay out of this one so that I can be open-minded if some aspect of this situation winds up before the Arbitration Committee someday (though I certainly hope it doesn't come to that!). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

ping. - Philippe | Talk 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Received; will respond tonight or tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 6 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herbert Jay Stern, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>° 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's February :-) Nag, nag, nag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. :) And I'm working on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Need some help Brad? I really want to help get an article featured and I'm happy to offer my services when you need it. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to help Ryan? Don't tell me you're trying to game RFA. O.o -- R Contribs_@ 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-sysopping

Newyorkbrad, I've been looking through the history of this talk page and I fail to understand why I didn't thank you for your comments over at the bureaucrat's noticeboard the other day. Your reasoned response and calm approach, combined with the will of some of the other community enabled me to be re-sysopped. I'm pulling out all the stops with internet privacy this time around. I would like to say thank you once again. Best regards, Rudget. 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope things go well for you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"None of our policies come with an 'except Giano' clause"

Come off it. Nobody who upholds the special but invisible "except important people like David Gerard and his friends" clause, or the "except arbitrators like Fred Bauder" clause—upholds them whether by politic silence or other means—has a moral right to be smug about "special clauses" for regular editors like Giano. Why Bishonen, I do believe you're in one of your cross moods. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

I find it useful, on Misplaced Pages as elsewhere, when I take a position that is at odds with that of most of my colleagues, to make it clear that I have considered and grappled with the arguments on the other side even if I wind up in disagreement with them. The substance of my post you are referring to (those interested can refer to the "enforcement" section of the IRC case proposed decision) was that I still did not support the remedy about to be imposed against Giano and that I very much regretted that he, and possibly others, are planning to leave the project over it. Given recent events, I considered that that position would have little credibility if I didn't acknowledge that there were arguments for a contrary view.

I fear that isolating on only one sentence from my comments, rather than taking them in their entirety, is a bit unfair. I also fear that I don't understand your reference to David Gerard, whose behavior I regretted though I did not believe it required an arbitration remedy; and I also don't understand how you could possibly believe I have been uncritical of Fred Bauder over the past 18 months.

But please continue bitterly sniping at the people who agree with you 90% of the time, because they don't agree with you 100% of the time. This is a very productive and collegial way to proceed, I don't think. No need to reply here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(Calm down, Brad. Take a deep breath.) If that's a warning to stay off your page, I will very soon. I just want to say that we seem to be speaking at cross-purposes: I was talking about the special policy exemptions as invisibly upheld on the Proposed Decision page; not about the past 18 months or whatever. I may have missed it, it's a long page, but I can't see any breath of criticism from you towards either Gerard or Bauder on the PD page, even though they've played important roles in the case. Negative roles, IMO. Sorry it wasn't clear. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

As far as I am concerned, you are welcome at all times on this page, or any page. As for the merits of the case, at this point I should probably let my (overly) lengthy comments all over the proposed decision and its talkpage speak for themselves. I am one member of a committee of 15, and doing the best that I can. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In a case in which the issue of how one handles oneself in heated disputes featured so prominently, that Fred's tone was unhelpful and unbecoming seems so obvious is hardly needs stated. An (ex)Arb should know better than to air his thoughts in such an unguarded and provocative manner. I think it unnecessary to chide Brad for a failure to state the obvious. However, I think it is also unfortunate that parties have gone into a righteous rage about the conduct of an arbitrator, when we would all do the project more good to self-reflect on how we handle our own civility and rhetorical invective in heated debates and at times of frustration (and I certainly include myself in that). Everyone should perhaps stop and look in the mirror.--Doc 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what policy is it that Giano is supposed to have violated specifically? What policy has he violated that Tony (not disruptive) and Gerard (not disruptive, despite insults on talk) and Sandifer did not? What policy and where is it that a supposed exception would be made? No one answers that. It's just, "Oh, for a long time (vague wave)." That inspires confidence. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)