Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 5 November 2012

Archives

Index of archives

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

Beatles ping

Hi Newyorkbrad. The poll at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles has finished, and despite the media coverage discussion has died down (or moved on to user talk pages). I understand that a few weeks ago you agreed to be the closer - would you mind taking a look at it when you next have a spare moment? Your help will be much appreciated. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 07:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've been reviewing the comments on the RfC/poll, and expect to post the close analysis and result within the next couple of days. Where would be the best place for me to post it to make sure everyone sees it? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Just post it right at the top of the poll page, and then move the {{archive top}} template so that everything is archived. You can replace Feezo's message at the top with your closing comments too, if you want. Don't worry too much about how it looks, though, as we can always fiddle with the formatting later. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius 01:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I expect to post this close either tomorrow (Wednesday) night or Thursday night. My thanks to all those waiting patiently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Has the Rfc/poll close analysis and result been posted? Have I missed it? Regards, Mick gold (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I got waylaid for a day or two, and then I was offline a few days because of the storm in my area. I expect to deal with this tonight, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Priorities Brad - you take care of yourself and your friends and family first and foremost. This can wait. Hope you didn't get hit too hard - we're ok up here, but our house is not. Don't know if the rest of the country can really see how bad this storm was, but New York will come back. Tvoz/talk 17:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all aspects of your comment. But I was able to finish my analysis and drafting tonight, and the close is now posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done NYB! I am quite glad to know that you are well and I am also very glad that this mediation is now over. You did a really great job with your closure (big surprise ... lol), its balanced and focused, and it highlights the key points without getting bogged down in too much detail. Now that this embarrasing, and resource wasting chapter is behind us, I look forward to improving Beatles related articles without the hinderance of the dispute. Cheers! ~ GabeMc 02:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Actually, "not getting bogged down in too much detail" was one of the hard parts, especially for me. The first draft of the closure was three times as long as what wound up getting posted, and I delayed from last night to tonight in order to cut it to something of reasonable length. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the closure is succinct yet informative, which is not an easy accomplishment. I am particularly impressed with the way you were able to avoid, indeed you discredited the idea that one side was right while the other was wrong. A nicely delivered piece of diplomacy that will no doubt contribute to the speedy recovery of the community of Beatles editors stressed by the mediation, and in moving forward from this episode in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks again, I'm glad to know that you made it through Sandy; we are all "pulling for" your region. ~ GabeMc 02:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Wording

How about "disclosing the identity of anonymous contributors" or "disclosing the identity of anonymous Wikipedians"? Shorter, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Whatever you call it, letting people decide his fate based on the claim, without being able to see what really happened, doesn't seem fair. Nor is 3RR on your own talk page. I have no idea if he should be banned or not, and not arguing one way or the other on that point. My concern is only that he gets the same treatment we would give you or I. A full case isn't needed, but Arb should look at the evidence (or a panel of oversighters) in a calm and deliberate manner, and be able to make a determination in a few days. If nothing else, it is important that the process looks and is fair, regardless of what your final decision is. Fair is always better than fast. I mean, he IS blocked, so he isn't going anywhere... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of My Name Is Not Merv Griffin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article My Name Is Not Merv Griffin is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/My Name Is Not Merv Griffin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ks0stm 03:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Update

I am just getting back onto Misplaced Pages after a couple of days when I was affected by the storm. I will address all the messages above and other pending matters during the course of the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, hope the storm did not affect you too much. I'd like to thank you for your wiseness about the WikiAfrica page. It is my understanding that en.wiki lately discussed the deletion of another major project, Gibraltarpedia. As a matter of fact, it is still here, and in good company. So I will be ok when there is a clear policy for each glam project to be moved away from here, but that did not really seem the place to discuss whether such a rule exists or should be implemented. :) --Elitre (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Question for my TPWs

Is there a way to quickly add to one's watchlist all the articles or pages in a category, as opposed to clicking "watch" on each article in the category? Thanks! Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You could copy and paste a list to a text editor, and then use the plain text list to add to your raw watchlist. --Rschen7754 00:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom time commitment?

Hi. About how much time (hours per week) do you or other arbs typically spend on ArbCom business? I've been thinking about running, but I'm a bit concerned about the time commitment and want to make sure I wouldn't be biting off more than I can chew. — Richwales 01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk page watcher response from another arbitrator: The amount of time spent by individual arbitrators varies quite widely from a couple of hours a week to 20+ hours a week. This is dependent on a lot of factors: the minimum is case requests/cases/clarifications and amendments; and additional tasks include ban/block reviews, Audit subcommittee, case drafting, management of advanced permission request cycles and monitoring of advanced permission usage, mailing list administration, observation of arbitration enforcement requests, special assignments, and just being generally available for advice. There is pretty much the expectation that everyone will take at least a turn at some of the 'additional' tasks. I'm probably at the high end of the spectrum because I pick up a lot of the additional tasks; others I know will average out to about 4-5 hours a week with some weeks much lower and other weeks higher depending on case load. I personally encourage anyone who believes they have something to contribute to dispute resolution to run. I wrote a little FAQ a couple of years ago, that I see could be updated a bit, that might give a bit of a taste. Risker (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Risker has given pretty much the same general response to this question that I would have. I also recommend this Signpost article and this one for some additional background. The bottom line is that it's a significant time commitment, but there is enough flexibility built into the system with 15 arbitrators such that it should be possible for most people to balance being an arbitrator with their other commitments both on- and off-wiki. Good luck if you decide to run! Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

RFAR response

I personally have been finding other things to do, but NuclearWarfare's conduct as a named party and WP:INVOLVED admin is way over the line, in my opinion, and left me feeling compelled to speak up. Do you honestly believe NW's conduct is appropriate?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to have any effect on the outcome of the request. Beyond that observation, I haven't analyzed his actions. I see that he is listed as an "involved party," but other than that, he wasn't mentioned anywhere on the case page until today, so he may not have considered himself meaningfully involved, and we have very few active clerks right now. Whether NuclearWarfare should recuse as a clerk in this case, as you suggest, will become a moot issue if the case is soon closed as declined. If the case is accepted, he (or if necessary we) can address the question at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

He was mentioned obliquely. NuclearWarfare had called for me to be blocked at the AE case that prompted the interaction ban and Cla68 already mentioned NW's suggestion of blocking me in his RFAR. I don't think NW could reasonably construe himself to not be meaningfully involved when it comes to administrative action against me arising out of that case. My comment at the case page explains the significance of the comment that was brought up at NW's talk. I could provide the evidence Zeromus provided as it directly concerned my prior interactions with Mathsci, but I would prefer if the diffs he provided would just be allowed to remain up.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I don't know what I'm supposed to do when I'm given contradictory instructions by two different admins. NuclearWarfare told me to ask the arbitration committee for permission to reply to Mathsci's accusations about me. I asked SilkTork, but he archived my question without answering it, so I assume the way to follow NW's instructions is to ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee. Now you've told me to go do something else, which contradicts the instructions I was given by NuclearWarfare. I can disregard your instructions to follow NuclearWarfare's instructions, or I can disregard NW's instructions to follow yours, but I think either way I'll be accused of disobeying the instructions I was given. Zeromus1 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything you might want to add is going to change the result of the request either. If it weren't for the possibility that an arbitrator may propose a motion (although I don't think a motion is needed), the request would have been archived a day ago, rendering moot the question of who should post what to it. Of course, if a motion is proposed, you will be free to comment on the motion if it impacts upon you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain your perspective that what I had to say is unimportant? I tried to bring up the fact that basically the same issue has been brought before ArbCom an average of once every four months for the past two years, and part of why it keeps coming back to ArbCom is because the committee has never tried to address the root problem with a big-picture perspective. I had hoped my pointing this out would make the committee less likely to just push the issue away again for another few months. Is your view that my bringing this up won't change anything because the committee will probably do that no matter what? Zeromus1 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No arbitrator, administrator or editor in good standing has ever suggested on an arbcom page that I have been the main person responsible for the site bans of Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, Ludwigs2, TrevelyanL85A2, etc. It is true that I have been one of the main users identifying sockpuppets of banned users that have subsequently been indefinitely blocked (e.g. Krod Mandoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Perhaps the confusion comes from there. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Zeromus1, fine, go ahead and post your comments and we will see whether they add anything. I had hoped that the point I was making would come through loud and clear, but it will be easier to read your comments and evaluate them on their merits rather than proceed in any other fashion. Mathsci, you do not need to feel compelled to respond to every comment that is posted, particularly when your points are largely duplicative of ones you have already made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement by Zeromus1—that I was responsible for driving various editors from wikipedia—was new (at least from him). It resulted in NW collapsing Zeromus1's statement and in Future Perfect at Sunrise issuing a warning. Following your advice (always welcome!) I will not respond to any similar statements from either Zeromus1 or The Devil's Advocate. I hope that like NW and FPaS, you will have the chance to look through the recent comments that Zeromus1 has now uncollapsed. Mathsci (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

For increased readability, I have replaced my comments on the RfAr page by a very brief summary of the main points that have emerged so far. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbradblog

The first few posts on my wiki-blog are going up tonight and tomorrow. All of you who are tired of my self-important yammerings should certainly avoid visiting User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog and reading my ruminations about:

• The future of the Arbitration Committee and its role in dispute resolution
• On having an article deleted
• Help pick Newyorkbrad's FA project

... and more to come

For those who have built up greater tolerance for Bradspeak, please read and feel free to comment on the posts. If there's any interest level at all, I will continue writing these mini-essays semi-sporadically. (For my less learned TPWs, that means twice every sporad.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"All of you are tired of my self-important yammerings should certainly avoid visiting User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog and reading my ruminations"

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.40.66.86 (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, I suppose. It called to my attention an annoying typo in my message above (the omission of "who"), which I have fixed. Beyond that, if we ever implement that suggestion someone made to repeal the civility policy, why don't you return to this page then and I'll share some thoughts with you about your message. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch on the typo. Here I was thinking all of Mikemikev's contributions were completely useless. Well, guess you know what they say about blind squirrels and nuts. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You omitted "I am a c*nt" also. Happy to be of service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.131.49.234 (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of userspace

Hi, Newyorkbrad. Your "delete" recommendation for my user page was not at all what I expected. I was all happy that this drama would finally be over, and since the lock on my page had finally faded, I decided to go the extra mile and take several proactive steps to make sure this didn't happen again. I added a clarification statement to my notepad to more clearly explain its purpose, as was suggested I do by people at the delete discussion. I removed outdated items and added clearer annotation to still-current items so there would be no more misunderstndings, as was also suggested to me. I left a concillatory note to the only person mentioned on my notepad to express any concern outside of the deletion discussion. Many suggested that I also move my notepad to a sub-page, and I was about to do that when I noticed the pink banner on my page said not to move it, so I informed you of my intent to do so once that banner was gone. I thought I was doing everything right to resolve this mess in the best way possible, and put it all behind us.

Then you posted your "Closer's Update" and I was stunned. "intended to close this discussion with a delete result", really? I've looked at your user page and seen the stuff about Administrator and Arbitrator and Board of Trustees, so believe me when I say that it isn't comfortable for me to overcome significant intimidation to step forward now and say that I think you must have overlooked something. That is the only explanation I can come up with as to how you and I can view the same situation so differently. Here is my Cliff Notes summary of what has transpired:

• 1- An MFD was filed alleging my notepad violated WP:POLEMIC.
• 2- That claim was quickly disproved when it was shown that no attacks or negative information existed.
• 3- The allegation then transformed into a charge that I must be keeping a list of people who reverted me, and thus was an "enemies list".
• 4- That claim was disproved when it was shown that half of the notes were about people who never reverted me, and some were actually supportive of me (Insomesia, Drmies, 112.133.198.141).
• 5- So then the claim morphed yet again, alleging that half of my notes were of editors who reverted me, and as for the other half I must have "deliberately added non-enemies to confuse people".
• 6- That ridiculous claim was disproved when it was shown that many editors had reverted me, while only a minority few appeared in my notes. Those few who appeared in my notes, it was shown, were not there because of reverts, but because they were involved in content and policy discussions with me. I also explained that I had no reason to keep track of people who reverted me, as I expected that to happen, and that none of these people did anything to deserve being called "enemies".
• 7- At this point in the discussions, I specifically requested that anyone who had any valid concerns or remaining arguments to the contrary to present them. I received no further arguments or accusations, and my requests for evidence or further charges were met with telling silence. Furthermore, individuals mentioned in my notes indicated they were satisfied, while others in the discussion indicated they were "backing down" until actual evidence of wrong-doing was produced, and still others like IRWolfie were walking back their calls for deletion and suggesting how I could handle my note-keeping better.

May I please ask where your interpretation of these events differs?

Graham87 provided a list of links to the Kelly Martin affairs, and I did a lot of reading. Very, very informative. When I read these words my first reaction was, "OMG I so could have typed that!" The first few sentences anyway. After reading all those Kelly Martin links, I can better appreciate how some people might be rather skittish or sensitive when they see names present on a user page. However, I still do not see how that justifies how my page is being treated, it's like comparing apples with a rather large, lengthy and complicated composte heap. I did learn something else, too. Wiki processes like this deletion discussion are often used as precedent, and cited in future matters. For that reason, I am hoping I can convince you to reconsider your decision. By the by, deletion of the small handful of words on my page isn't what concerns me now, it's the record-keeping involved with it. My "permanent record", if you will. I'd like to see the page closed as "KEEP", obviously. If you feel it necessary to sacrafice a lamb and throw some red meat to whatever pitchfork-wavers may remain, then close the page as "no consensus", in the interest of squelching additional drama. I won't like it much, but at least we can all wash our hands of this and move on. If you still intend on closing and archiving the page with a "delete" decision, may I request that you clarify your closing statement on 3 points that are confusing to me?

1- Could you please clarify in your statement, "her userpage was being reasonably perceived by at least some editors as the type of list of users that, for good reason, we don't allow on-wiki", that this "reasonable perception" persisted after I gave my explanations during the discussion? I understand how there could be initial perceptions and concerns after only cursory review, but I do not believe any reasonable concerns remained after a week of discussions and explanations. You apparenly do, so it would be helpful if that was stated.

2- Could you please clarify your statement, "close this with a result of Delete (blank) in 49 hours", to indicate that you are doing so even after that page has undergone significant editing, and you still feel it is necessary. I read on the MfD Instruction page under "Alternatives to Deletion" that editing the discussed page to alleviate concerns is an option. I thought I had done so, but if that isn't the case, it would clarify things greatly if you could state so on the page.

3- I initially felt this caution of yours was quite clear, "Sally Season is cautioned not to create any form of list of users that can reasonably be perceived as an attack page or list of users with whom she has had unpleasant interactions", but there's a problem. I apparently have no clue what people around here consider "reasonable perception", as indicated by your decision to delete the innocent notes on my page. Tell me please, do you perceive the list of editors and unpleasant interactions on User:Baseball Bugs user page (click on the pink 'Letters from Fans' bar) to be not allowed? I would appreciate a little clearer direction, as I don't want my future notes to become an issue. Sincerely,Sally Season (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment at the MfD starts "The point of WP:BURO is that we don't agonize over whether a particular list of editor names with annotations satisfies WP:UP". That sums up the situation because everything here needs to help the encyclopedia, and user pages which foster collaboration do exactly that. User pages which do not do that are unhelpful. In the real world, a 500-page document would be required to specify exactly is allowed on a user page, with real-world penalties for noncompliance (fines backed by imprisonment). Here, things are simpler, although explaining that to everyone takes time. Consider the result of keeping a user page with annotated user names—that would establish a new "acceptable practice", which would be escalated by people keeping lists with annotations that become more and more pointed (I think there was a case where someone had "RIP" next to an editor's name). The names and annotations could easily be written on a sheet paper, and such a list is not needed here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

New article: Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

• Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

New article, created, at Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Newyorkbrad, I hope you're doing well! :) I'd love to hear your thoughts on this new article I've created? — Cirt (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)