Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gene Poole (talk | contribs) at 05:33, 17 June 2007 (→Storm in a teacup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please note

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)

Hey

Kevin mills has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You are so nice.

My RFA

You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Regards, WilyD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)

I know that you're busy at the moment formulating guidelines under which to evaluate BoT chads, but I wonder if you might oblige me a minor request, the details of which I should like to incorporate by reference from my note to Xoloz. In short (relatively, anyway), it has been suggested at the AfD talk that a team closure of the Brandt AfD, perhaps after an admin chat, ultimately be undertaken, and although I am not particularly inclined to support such an idea and am not certain that the community will accede to such a proposal, I thought it useful to propose admins whom we might consider to compose such a team; because each of you is generally well-respected and tends (to paint things in an overbroad fashion) command the support of those on one side of the debate over how rigorously and consistent with what process we ought to apply BLP, I thought of Xoloz and you. If you're at all amenable to participating in such a venture (which, again, of course, may not be supported by the community at large or those partaking of the AfD), I would much appreciate your weighing in at the AfD talk to that effect. Cheers in any event, Joe 05:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent addition to Berstein2291's Autograph Page

First of all, there already was a MfD for all autograph pages, and the result was No Consensus. Do not say these things on an autograph page please. ANNAfoxlover 01:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but that whole comment was teasing. Don't you see that I said I would never sign an autograph page, and then I went ahead and signed it? See paradox or self-reference. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions

I believe I was editing the speedy message for Image:Masonhitler.jpg when you deleted the image. So when I hit save page, it recreated the page without the image. I was wondering if you could delete it again (sorry about the edit conflict). Also, if you have a chance Image:Maona.jpg is an almost identical image that I have also tagged db. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Both deleted. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Just to let you know, 12.207.12.28 is now threatening to take you to RfC too. Just thought you might want to know. mcr616 _Speak! 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. To be sustained, an RfC requires certification that two users have made a good-faith attempt to resolve their dispute with the editor or administrator in question. That will not be possible in this instance. At all events, I welcome the community's scrutiny of my editing or administrator actions at any time. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A Word

I noticed that you were involved in the Ekajati / Khabs / Various other sock-puppets case. I have been somewhat displeased by attempts being made by numerous self-published authors and members of the occult fringe who are trying to co-opt Misplaced Pages for their own promotion. I figured you would be the best person to speak to about this as e-mails to the Misplaced Pages administrators are going unanswered. In short, a number of fringe personalities (self-published authors of occult texts) are using Misplaced Pages to promote themselves and sell their books. Ekajati was one of these individuals and there are others on Misplaced Pages. I like Misplaced Pages and hate to see it abused or turned into a forum for shameless self-promotion. Can you help? Eyes down, human. 05:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My involvement in this matter was very limited; I was simply the Arbitration Committee Clerk who handled the formalities of closing a related arbitration case and posted certain notices. Thus, I am no better a position to help you than any other administrator. With respect to problematic content, as an editor you are free to edit any article to remove material you consider inappropriate (see WP:NOT for some discussion of the types of content that should not be included in our encyclopedia). Any disputes concerning whether the material is appropriate or not can be discussed on the talk page or if necessary taken through the steps of dispute resolution. If you believe an entire article is not appropriate content for wikipedia, you can follow one of our deletion procedures, which can include tagging the article for speedy deletion if applicable or listing it on articles for deletion for discussion if the issues are more complex. In cases of extreme abuse, you can post to the administrators' noticeboard to call attention to the problem. I hope this information is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Arbcom

Here is one more proof that the ArbCom applicant is deliberately trying to use the ArbCom filing to lower the topic content dispute into personal level. As per your suggestion , if ArbCom, nevertheless, is to review this case in any form, I think more people should be added to the case in light of blind reverting and suspected meatpuppeting here and here . Quite a few users seem to be involved in just reverting without comment or even reading the content of changes , simply taking advantage of being unrestricted by the parole. I expect there might be a lengthy personal disputing thread by the other party following this posting, just wanted to note that I am not going to join that discussion, so feel free to remove my comment here. Thanks. Atabek 12:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I am simply an Arbitration Committee Clerk responsible for maintaining the case pages, giving notices, and the like. I am not one of the arbitrators who will be deciding whether to accept the new arbitration cases, or deciding it if it is accepted. Your comments about whether the case should be accepted or what its scope should be should be addressed to the arbitrators.

I would add a cautionary word, however. As I am sure you remember, you came very close to being banned from editing under the original proposed decision in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, and both you and the editor filing the new arbitration case were sanctioned in the previous one. If I were either of you, I would be trying to edit as harmoniously as possible, rather than to bring attention to myself in any further arbitration proceedings. Take that completely unofficial observation for whatever it might be worth. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Newbie question

Hi, I see you're doing the heavy lifting on the Request for Arbitration page, and I wanted to ask you a question that I can't find the answer to in any help page. I'll check here on your page for an answer; feel free to ignore if you are too busy. My question is whether the Arbitration Committee can find against any editor not listed as an Involved Party, or whether they are limited to those listed? What about when an editor removes themselves from the list? Secondly, should the person filing the complaint list themselves? Thank you, Jgui 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't know that I do any "heavy lifting," but I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks who assist with maintaining the pages, giving notices, etc., so this is as good a place is any to come with procedural questions.

The Arbitration Committee can make findings as to any editor. However, as a matter of fairness, if a finding is proposed against someone who is not a party, he or she should be notified and given an opportunity to respond. If it appears this has been inadvertently overlooked, please let me or the clerk for that case know so that a notice can be given.

It is up to the arbitrators, not individual editors, who are the parties to a case. If an editor removes himself or herself from the list of parties, but the case is not accepted for consideration anyway, it doesn't matter very much. If an editor removes himself or herself from the list and then the case is accepted, or does so after the case is accepted, it would be up to the arbitrators how to proceed. Sometimes filing parties do include all sorts of peripheral people in cases and it is appropriate to slim down the list of parties so the case becomes manageable.

An editor filing a case should list himself or herself as a party. The list of editors in the "involved parties" list has useful links to each party's talkpage, contributions, etc., and it is helpful to have the filing party at the top of that list.

Please advise if there is anything else on which I can help. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the super-speedy reply. I added myself to the involved party list. I may well be bugging you with more questions; thanks for helping. Jgui 16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page protection

can you protect this usertalk page? User talk:164.47.99.61 He is vandalizing it after being blocked by you. thanks Momusufan 02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it's already done. Thanks anyway Momusufan 02:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Question re user:Zeq

In the course of editing Battle for Gaza (2007), Zeq has now twice accused me of "borderline vandalism" on my talk page and on the article's talk page. That second edit also implies that I've written a misleading edit summary to hide my intentions.

1. Is Zeq still subject to any ArbCom decision?
2. I am very unhappy with the accusations of vandalism. What are the rules about redacting the accusation from my own talk page? From the article's talk page? And rules aside, may I ask what you would advise me to do (or not to do)?
3. Should I ask Zeq to be careful with accusations of bad faith editing and vandalism, or should I ask someone else, or should I report it somewhere, or should I forget about it? (I do not think I would be happy forgetting about it, but if that is your best judgement, I certainly want to know).

Thank you. Jd2718 14:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Zeq remains on probation from his earlier arbitration case, although no remedies were added in the more recent case. You are free to remove any comments you don't like from your own talkpage (as long as you don't make other comments look out of context), but should probably avoid it on an article talkpage unless it were a more direct personal attack. Per your last suggestion, I agree you should leave a note for Zeq and see if the two of you can collaborate more effectively, but if there is a further problem you can pursue further dispute resolution, or post to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement if you think that there is disruptive editing in violation of the ruling. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I left him a note . I couldn't tell, btw, if the previous ArbCom decision remains in effect, but it didn't seem to cover civility in any case. For now I'd prefer not to even look in that direction. Jd2718 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that hopefully that looking in that direction will not be necessary. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not going to work , but thank you for the good advice. I'm going to sleep on what to do next, but there's no way I'm ok with him waltzing around saying I'm a vandal. Jd2718 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Missed?

You didn't let CG know that the review of case that involved him is under way. - Penwhale | 02:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure I did. It's the last item on his talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup

Hi. I appreciate your comments but I really think this is a serious non-issue. Obviously I'm annoyed with being attacked out of the blue by Captain Wikify, but it's pretty clear that I find attacks of that nature, in general, more laughable than anything else, and I've made a point of noting that on both my talk page and on my personal webpage. In my opinion people really need to be a bit more relaxed around here and not see everything through the lens of some imagined evil bad faith conspiracy. --Gene_poole 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be a non-issue to you, but it's an issue to him, and therefore as an administrator who tries to promote a harmonious working environment it's an issue to me. By your own admission you posted the page, on-wiki and then by extension off-wiki, to ridicule other editors, and at least one of them is extremely upset about the situation, and it is not going to be allowed to continue. I recognize your exalted rank in your own nation :) but not here, and if you persist in this type of behavior either on- or off-wiki you are jeopardizing your editing privileges. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindly limit your comments to the matter at hand. I don't give a flying fig about how "upset" Captain Wikify is. He acted like a pratt and needs to be made accountable for his actions, or else WP policies mean diddly squat; so perhaps you'd be best served by toddling off and instructing him in the fine art of the sincere apology and then pointing him at my talk page, onto which he can post it, rather than lecturing someone who's presence on WP is actually a credit to the project. --Gene_poole 03:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You may not give a flying fig about how your remarks make another editor or editors feel, but as I said above, I do. The fact that another editor may have acted inappropriately provides no basis for you to do the same, particularly in view of your long experience on the project. Whatever he may have done wrong in the past, he has stopped making the comments you objected to and expressed an intention of disengaging, which should be reciprocated. You are instructed not to engage in any further personal attacks on this editor, including gratuituous quotation of his remarks for the admitted purpose of ridiculing him, either on or off Misplaced Pages. Newyorkbrad 03:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The bottom line here is that I am the wronged party, and I have not received any indication that Doctor Wikify regrets his actions in attacking and threatening me. I refuse to accept that his sullen withdrawal, claiming that he was abused, constitutes anything even slightly resembling regret for his actions. 2. You seem to be under the impression that my edit history over the past three years involves the initiation of numerous disputes with other editors. While I have certainly been involved in aggressively rolling-back recurrent vandalism carried out by several editors hard-banned by the Arbcom, outside of this my editing activity is entirely uncontroversial - so I need to ask you to stop making statements that seem to imply otherwise. Thanks for your co-operation. --Gene_poole 03:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1. You may have been the wronged party at an earlier stage of the dispute, but at this point I see you as the one aggressively pursuing a quarrel that the other party has long since attempted to walk away from. 2. I haven't delved into whether you "initiated" disputes with others, but you assuredly have a controversial history here, which makes it all the more important that you refrain from perpetuating disputes and incivilities that would otherwise fade into the past. 3. As a matter of good faith toward other Wikipedians, you should delete the objectionable page you have posted on your external site or at least the entry on it that has been objected to, without further discussion or delay. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely do not accept the contention that because some unspecified people have it in their head that I have a "controversial history", that I'm supposed to adhere to a more elevated set of behavioural standards than the rest of WP (although in effect that's pretty much what I do in any case). That, pardon my French, is absolute bullsh*t. WP policies and procedures apply to everyone equally - not just some people selectively. That is precisely the problem in this instance. Doctor Wikify clearly felt he had an open licence to waltz onto my talk page and post infantile threats there. He was clearly shocked when I didn't just fall on my face and quiver in terror in response, and he's spent the last 2 days whining and sulking about it - and you are implicitly encouraging that sort of behaviour by not applying WP:NPA equally by insisting he apologise to me for doing so. --Gene_poole 04:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Creating a page for the purpose of ridiculing other editors, and insisting on maintaining it even over strong objections, does not satisfy even minimal behavioral standards for Wikipedians, much less elevated ones. A voluntary apology by Captain Wikify to you would be welcome, but a coerced one would be meaningless, and I repeat that at this point you and not he are the one perpetuating the dispute and jeopardizing your editing privileges as a result. Newyorkbrad 04:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now implemented the removal of the "offending" list. Given that the removal was coerced, with the explicit threat of the loss of my editing priviledges being the consequence of failure to comply with your POV, I now accept that coercion is a legitimate and effective admin tool in dealing with disputes of this nature. As a consequence I'm now going to insist that you use coercion to extract an apology out of Captain Wikify. Obviously I don't expect it to be sincere, but at this point I'm more interested in observing the letter, rather than the spirit of the law. Accordingly I now eagerly await his apology. Thanks for helping to resolve this matter so quickly and adroitly. --Gene_poole 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That is POINT if ever I saw it. Viridae 05:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No. That's logic. You can't have your cake and eat it too. What applies to one applies to all. Either accept that the list is not "offensive", but in fact quite amusing, in which case I'll re-post it and we can all get back to writing articles, or confirm that it is "offensive" - in which case by removing it I've also removed the only impediment Captain Wikify has to accepting responsibility for his actions. Which is it to be? --Gene_poole 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RfAr (@ Digitaleon)

You're welcome :-) — digitaleon • talk @ 03:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)