Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MastCell (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 21 April 2011 (→"the community is a cancer": #61). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index of archives

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

Clarification

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

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

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

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

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

PC RfC

Hi, NYB. The natives are getting restless.

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

Hi Brad,

I understand from this archived conversation that you were going to close the RfC at Misplaced Pages: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)

Mr Creosote

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

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

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

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

Noleander arb case

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

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

Zuggernaut's ban

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

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

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

Blue people

Excellent thought experiment, thank you. SlimVirgin 02:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Barnstar

		The Arbitrator's Barnstar
		Awarded for thoughtful, open-minded, diligent and collegial handling of the Noleander case. --JN466 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Tagging user pages

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

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

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

Principle wanted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verifiability, not truth

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

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

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

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

User:Datmax/Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AE case

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

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

Note

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

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

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

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

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

"the community is a cancer"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I meant people bring problems upon themselves by their own amateurish and frankly naive behaviour - it seems to come as a great shock to them to discover that like the world, Wikipeia can be a nasty place. They seem to come here imagining it will be some sort of retreat, haven and escape from the hardships of real life and relationships, and then lash out in self-righteous indignation when they discover that it's not. Misplaced Pages is as much real life as the big world we inhabit away from our computers - get real and get over it. Giacomo Returned 20:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)