Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:00, 15 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)

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)

Feh. The root of all this has still not been delt with (irc admins). And with the major irritants regarding dealing with it now leaving the project (appearantly), it seems the drive to deal with it will get swept under the rug. messy irc kill, but a kill none-the-less, with 'acceptable collateral damage'. good luck. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the list of involved parties, and of those listed, only two have not logged in and edited Misplaced Pages today. Irpen, who last edited on December 28, and Phil Sandifer, who last edited yesterday. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true, Tony. Giano has just finished clearing out his user space, and Bishonen has indicated up above that Brad need not worry about her returning to his page anymore. Risker (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, bishonen has deleted her alternate humor account's userpages. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned that it is alleged by User:Rocksanddirt that the arbitration committee has collaborated in a messy IRC kill, and unless I'm mistaken in my interpretation the "kill" in question is the projected voluntary departure from Misplaced Pages of those two editors. Haven't we all been working to heal those wounds over the past month? --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You understood my not very clear comment well! I think that you have done quite a bit to make it better, once you understood your role in the problem. You (tony) seem to be a bit of the exception in this case. Also, most of the arbcom (via their comments) have been helpful. Many other involved and uninvolved folks have not been very helpful in resolving the problems, and there have been several comments of the variety that "the sooner they go the better". --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I understood everything up to the last sentence, which appeared to reverse the meaning in the manner of a satire. Could you explain what you're referring to there? --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for being nice and making good arguments

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		First thing we do, is pat a lawyer on the back! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dissent and the ArbCom Process

Hi, Newyorkbrad. I know from above (and from the postings on the decision page) that you chose not to post your alternative remedies only to see them voted down. I ask that you now reconsider this decision. I expect that Adam will (anonymously) watch to see what happens. Please, take the small window that remains to show Adam and the community that the entire Committee is not trying to destroy him. Show the community that someone has seen the RfC, and is willing to exercise their judgement and advocate a position that is just. As far as I can see, you are the only one who has any chance to salvage anything positive out of this debacle. Please, let us see what was proposed and voted down, and allow the community to form its own views of ArbCom. Maybe if we could see why ArbCom is acting the way it is, some community members might adopt a less jaundiced view. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was travelling over the weekend and did not have a chance to respond here earlier. Over the past week I considered further whether to re-post alternative proposals, in part for the reason you suggested. I concluded that the consensus within the committee remained in favor of the proposed remedy that was ultimately adopted, despite my own disagreement with it. I have commented extensively on the proposed decision page and its talkpage, and there has also been some offline correspondence. I am confident that the individual who was a subject of this case is fully aware that I was not in agreement with the majority determination. Thanks for your comments and concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RfAr/JzG

The diffs being gathered are actually for a RfC, though considering how RfCs involving people like JzG have typically gone, they may end up being RfArb evidence. Viridae 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, being on the committee I won't comment further, except to say that I hope that an arbitration case will prove not to be necessary. Of course I will evaluate any request with an open mind if one is filed. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brad, I always hope it won't come to an arbitration case too, not my cup of tea. Viridae 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that an ArbCom case won't be necessary either. Cla68 (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some what related, see User talk:Allstarecho#Just a hobby. And in the famous words of The Mentors, My erection is over, my erection is over. ;) - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not the song I had in mind, but I don't propose to identify on-wiki the one that I did. I just hope I responded adequately to your allegation of a missing sense of humor. There's a time and a place for everything. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

lol I know which one. Actually, I thought it was the appropriate time and place.. everyone so up tight and an RFA that I didn't even request.. just lightened the mood a bit and let people know it really isn't that serious. My apologies if you were offended. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Solumeiras

A little while back at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Feb#Page protection request you discussed my sockpuppetry allegations with Solumeiras. I still believe this sockpuppetry is ongoing and invite comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry of Solumeiras.3F. Thanks, Metros (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the discussion but don't have much to add to what the checkusers have indicated. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Google and project space

I have no objection to courtesy-blanking this talkpage, but I was under the impression that steps had been taken so that arbitration pages and other project-space pages would no longer show up in Google searches. Is that not the case? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish they would make this so, Brad. Recently I asked another admin to blank (and move from Sarah Ewart to Sarah) Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-11 Litch-Sarah because it was the very first hit in a google search of my full name . Unfortunately it's still showing up on Google but I guess it will eventually drop down the page. I wish the devs would make it so that project pages didn't show up. I find it really upsetting that the first hit for my full real name is a page that calls me "abrasive" etc. Sarah 05:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I really was under the impression that this had been done ... and I know I've seen comments made along the lines of "we don't need to blank this AfD about a living person because Misplaced Pages space pages no longer show up in searches, and even "darn, I was looking for a comment someone made about X issue, but I can't find it because project space isn't searchable any more." Can someone reading here perhaps clear up where we stand on this? If not I will investigate further on the mailing list or ANI. FYI, if you hadn't already had that page blanked and name-changed, I would have done it myself. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that project space is searchable, and indeed I have managed to track down obscure comments by using Google. Losing that function would be annoying. I think blanking pages is best. One possibility is that people are mirroring projectspace (don't think they should be), and thus hits are showing up that way? It could also just be a delay. I once followed a page on Google and mirrors after it had been deleted. It took months for some of the mirrors to update. Can't remember how long Google took. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing cases

BTW, I've noticed the tailspin taking place at the end of the MatthewHoffman arbitration case, including the comments on Jimbo's talk page. Closing the case quickly is probably a good idea, but are there other (off-wiki) reasons why a motion has been made to close the case ASAP/instanter? The appearance is that this is being done in great haste, despite the case having been open for... <checks> ...over 2 months now. This is a general principle I am concerned about, and which I commented on here. The full quote of the relevant bit is:

"What is the normal procedure when voting on closing has started ? Are there checks and balances in place to prevent single arbitrators, or groups of arbitrators chosing the right moment to vote a proposed section through and then vote to close? "24 hours from the first motion" doesn't seem to apply here. Is it also a convention to wait for all voting arbitrators to vote in the closing motion, or can a closing motion pass before all arbitrators have had a chance to vote?"

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The 24-hour waiting period is designed for the exact purpose you cite, which is why it is normally observed, and normally can only be overridden by motion (and I made the motion in this case, although another arbitrator suggested that the Clerks could just go ahead and do it). In this case, there were specific reasons for my having concluded last night that the case needed to be closed immediately. I would prefer not to discuss all of them on-wiki, but one of them was that a user involved in the case was requesting a rename away from his real-world name, as a matter of urgency as part of a right-to-vanish request, and the bureaucrats were reluctant to act on the rename request while the user was involved in a pending arbitration case. Also relevant was the fact that the issue on which arbitrators had been closely divided—and which was the reason that I had opposed closure until it was resolved—was adopting proposed finding of fact 9.1 instead of 9, and that change has now been made.

Thank you for your continuing and knowledgeable comments and questions concerning the arbitration process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And thank-you for your answers! Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Samiharris

Of course. I was looking to work out a solution that wouldn't require arbitration, but if it's expected that step can't be avoided, then I'm happy to defer. --Michael Snow (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

As I stated on User:DGG's talkpage, there is something wrong with my e-mail and I cannot use it. I would, however, still like to proceed with the RFAR, or some other sort of dispute resolution process. Thank's for your concern. I'm 14 and I'm proud! (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of anyone being able to edit WP but not able to start an email account somewhere. I'm letting you handle this, of course. that's what we elected you for. DGG (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this user. Naturally you can converse with them on their talk page. In addition to the sock puppetry, I am extremely concerned about the username, and think it would be a good idea to protect or delete their talk page when this is done. Jehochman 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tidy up of fallout from ArbCom case

Newyorkbrad, there have been developments on the user sanctioned in the insta-closed ArbCom case. If you look at that user's talk page, you will find that a diff showing a link to RL information has been posted. A block has also been instituted, which I have questioned at the talk page of the blocking admin. I suggest that the post with the diff be oversighted so that the connection to the information be removed. I also wonder whether posting such a diff constitutes a violation of any policy. Best, EdChem (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on that page. I don't see a need for oversight, but making connections back to the user's real name should be avoided. The user in question really shouldn't edit as "User:Vanished user", so the block that was imposed is probably valid as a username block, but I see no reason that he can't start making content contributions with a fresh account so long as he doesn't seek administrator or other privileges with it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the discussion in question and hopefully it will not be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I have responded to your response at that talk page. I don't agree with your view on not oversighting the link, and very strongly believe that the post in question should be deleted. I would act to remove it, but failing a request to do so from the relevant user, feel it is not appropriate to do so. I also believe a warning to the user is warranted, but that also is not my call to make. If the block is to be mainted due to WP:U concerns, then I suggest a post to that effect. Perhaps something like: "This user name was adopted as part of a departure; it would not ordinarily be an acceptable user name, and so has been blocked from editing to maintain consistency with the spirit of that policy." Such a statement would explicitly show that the block is not about protecting the encyclopedia (as would be the usual rationale), nor about the edits - which, whilst questionable and unwise, are arguably permissable under policy - see here. It allows the block to stay without anyone being seen to have taken a parting shot, and it maintains the dignity of the departing user. I hope you will seriously consider my suggestion. Best, EdChem (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having already acted to remove the discussion. EdChem (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, partially moot, but here it is) I understand your position and will consider taking further pro-active action if User:Vanished user wishes to do so. I'd rather not issue a warning to the user who posted the offending link because it's well known he was in conflict with Vanished user and that would just draw additional attention to the connection which is the last thing either of us wants. I think the discussion that remains on Talk:Vanished user now makes clear that the block that remains is in the nature of a username block and is not a reflection on the editor concerned. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Newyorkbrad, it is, of course, your call. I understand the rationale about the warning, and agree that low profile is good - I may be letting my views here cloud my judgement. In the low profile approach, any suggestions about this collection of links? Can it be removed, or should I ask, or ...? As for the remaining discussion on the user's talk page, I think the comment from the blocking admin is ambiguous. It can be read as referring to WP:U, but it can also be read as 'you said you were going, so go' - which is how I read it the first time I saw it. Best, EdChem (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You can go ahead and ask the user whose page the links are on to remove or edit them. I'd rather not do anything unilateral there without at least asking first, and they are reasonably inconspicuous anyway. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on this at the user talk pages here and here, including pointing out the similar name that I think was a precedent here - that is, a precedent in terms of being a rather odd name. Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism question

Hello. My brother uses this site, but I don't know what he does on it. I happened to see the message on his login about vandalizing. If he does it again, will I still be able to contribute my information? I don't vandalize. Will my whole IP address be blocked? Or, just my brother's account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob barker rox my sox (talk • contribs)

Although we understand that new users sometimes make test edits, your brother's contributions under his current account have not been very impressive thus far. If he continues as he has, his account is likely to be blocked indefinitely, which could have the side-effect of blocking your IP as well (typically for 24 hours). Please do your best to persuade your brother against committing any further vandalism—and if you are an established good-faith user or would like to become one, please do your editing, including any further comments on this page, from your own account rather than your naughty brother's. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk

Threaded discussion on the WP:RFAR page? Jehochman 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a Clerk will clean up the mess and scold the offender. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted you this time, but you should be aware that parties' statements on WP:RFARB must not be used for threaded discussion. You should also be aware that the committee tends to take a dim view of misconduct on arbitration pages. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC) :-P

I am glad as ever to see that irony is not lost on the younger generation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to abide by Misplaced Pages:No grouchy rants about young people these days or what it was like when you were young. :-) David Mestel 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking appeal

I'd like some clarification on the Everyking appeal on the requests for arbitration page. I noticed a subsection called Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Statement by other user 2. Is this subsection intended for one user to make a statement, or for allowing statements for anyone who wishes to participate in the appeal? I don't participate at requests for arbitration much, which is why I'm asking. Thanks. Acalamari 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The format of the page was actually changed around today, so I'm not sure exactly what is intended by the heading, but the general rule is that any user can comment on any of the appeals or requests for clarification, so please feel free to do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response: much appreciated. Acalamari 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone

Regarding your comments on User talk:David Shankbone. I see your point. I wouldn't mind seeing the block overturned but I'm concerned about two things. First, Shankbone seems to think it's perfectly justifiable for him to not only change the section heading another user created, but to do so repeatedly when reverted. In my view that's editing someone else's comments, and I think that's clearly how Yorkshirian viewed it. Whether you agree or not I'd appreciate if you could give Shankbone your opinion on that point. Second, what about Yorkshirian's block? GWH blocked them both over the same incident -- if one block goes should they both go? Mangojuice 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would unblock them both with the stricture that they remain off that talkpage for a couple of days, but that's just a personal view. (Also, this will sound ultra lame, but I find the typeface on Yorkshirian's talkpage unreadable, which is handicapping my ability to analyze his thoughts on the matter.). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration procedure

I did not know that. Thanks. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The procedure is complicated sometimes, unfortunately. It took me a couple of months of clerking to get the hang of some of it. But the basic rule is just to try to be fair to everyone and seek out a fair, well-informed, and expeditious ruling in each case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Morven recusal from Mantanmoreland case

Based on his comments here I requested Morven to recuse himself from the case and he has refused. Rlevse tells me that the next step is to take it to another ArbCom member. Thus, I'm posting my request here. I believe Morven, based on his comments, has already and prejudicially determined the scope of the case and has a conflict of interest based on prior interaction with at least one of the named parties. Therefore, I'm formally requesting that he be recused. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)