User talk:Newyorkbrad

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

Hi Brad,

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

• update - Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#Proposal - closed awaiting administrative assessment at your convenience. Off2riorob (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm travelling this weekend with limited access; will be home late tomorrow night, and will evaluate this as my top wiki-priority then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Great, no hurry no worry, all is waiting there tranquilly for assessment. Happy travels - Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've been reading the various input, and from that and the discussion above, it's not perfectly unclear to me exactly which aspect is considered ready to close at this time. I've asked for some input on that question, within 24 hours, on the talkpage of the RfC. I think I am ready to close the aspect(s) that it is decided that are ready to close, but I don't want to create unnecessary controversy by closing either more broadly or more narrowly than the participants wish and expect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

An update would be welcome. Whilst patience is, indeed, a virtue, this is day 322 of the two month trial, and the RfC has been open for 76 days.  Chzz  ►  21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• How is it going Brad, I know your busy... do you still want to or are you able to close this? Time is dragging on and closure is needed to progress with polling for accepted general usage. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Brad, just wondering when you can have the PC RfC closed...? The 2-month PC is now in its 325th day. I understand that you are busy. Maybe you can get someone else to help you out with this? Bejinhan talks 03:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I felt compelled to post Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Pending_changes.  Chzz  ►  03:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You know what, people? Look at NYB's contributions over the past 2–3 days. Maybe he's really busy with figuring out the RfC. At any rate, we've waited this long; surely we can give it another couple of days before we lose patience. Rivertorch (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my post to AN was impatient of me; I'm honestly just frustrated; I've been waiting 'just another couple of days' since about March.  Chzz  ►  13:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be closing the RfC tonight (New York time). Thanks to everyone for your patience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Great; I should have been more patient; I'm sorry.  Chzz  ►  10:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for evaluating and closing; please see Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Comments_from_Chzz - there's a bit of tidying up to do here, I think.  Chzz  ►  16:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And whenever you do take a look at my comments there, could you let me know? It's sometimes so busy over there, things get lost. I think they're really important points. I'm quite concerned about this idea of 'exceptions', and about user-rights - and keen to start something re. removing PC - quicker this gets sorted out, the more chance there is of ultimately forming an appropriate proposal.  Chzz  ►  13:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm monitoring the discussion closely, don't worry. All comments received will be taken into account when I post there again on Friday night or Saturday morning.

If anyone else wants to post here on this topic, please start a new section at the bottom of the talkpage. Posts in an old thread up here are easy to inadvertently overlook. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup: May 7 @ Tenleytown Library

The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.

---

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Guidance for young editors

Hi Brad. I've had a go at adjusting the tone of of your essay, and changed the content slightly to make it appeal to 10 - 14 year olds. I think this is the target group we're aiming at. I hope I've kept the essentials, but I've also reduced the possible WP:BEANS, and tried to base it on my many years of working with young and very young people. If you have a moment, please let me know what you think. It's here . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I like your changes; I knew when I wrote the page that I wasn't doing a great job of targeting the reading level to the audience, though I did my best. A philosophical/readability question on which I'd welcome your input is whether the current format (sections consisting of bullet-pointed short paragraphs reading as lists) is more or less readable than the original format (more conventional narrative paragraphs). A practical question is how we might better publicize the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding as a trained educator and linguist is that a bulleted list is more likely to appeal to the eyes and attention span of young readers than paragraphs of prose. Of course, there are certainly other educators among the Wikipedia community who may well have other, or more modern approaches. I'm fully open to other suggestions. There are several possible ways of publicising the essay. It could be included as a link in the standard welcome template, on other help pages, and the RfA guidance pages, and on the project pages for WP:NPP and WP:RCP. A significant element of the discussions at [[WP:RFA2011 is on how to reduce the number of WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW RfAs in the friendliest possible manner. User:Snottywong and I have been doing extensive research into new page patrolling over the last 5 months and have found that a significant number of new pages that get slated for deletion are created by young and very young editors, mainly articles about nn teen-idol bands, and elementary and middle schools. I would also include a link to it on the music and school project pages, and on the WP:WIZARD instruction pages. We could also have a link to it on the bottom of the editing window along with the other instructions: (If you are a young user, do consider reading this before you press 'save page'). I always try to avoid instruction creep wherever possible, but sometimes it does help. I work a lot with some very sensible young users on Wikipedia, perhaps I could enlist their comments on it, although they are more in the 15 - 18 age group. We have some admins in that age group too. They might remember what it was like for them when they first started editing at 10 or 11. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that you obviously are better attuned at drafting prose adapted for this age group than I am, I will defer to your edits. I agree with your comment about NOTNOW RfAs; in the first draft of the page, the section about adminship was longer than in the current version; a number of people thought it was a disproportionate emphasis, but you've put your finger on why the section was there. I think your comments about possible publicity methods are good ones as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Brad. I've tried to do your essay the best possible service, because I'm convinced it's an important guideline. There has been a link to it on the essay talk page for a week and in spite of having 47 watchers, there has only been one short comment, so I'll go ahead and paste it in. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, may we talk for a minute?

Explain to me how current policies are appropriate with dealing with an optimal return of previously not wanted users. How come cases of people coming back here into the community are rare? I only remember Mike Garcia (which later failed), Rootology (he got upset and left) and Thekohser (which later failed as well) as the sole cases where the committee bothered to read appeals. Why is that, sir? Cconcern (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are actually several editors who were indefblocked or banned for awhile but have now returned to editing and to the best of my knowledge are doing so satisfactorily. I actually think that on the whole, this community is relatively forgiving of users who have made mistakes but have learned from them and are now ready to edit in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I am sure we have any number of blocked or banned users who have returned to editing under new usernames, and are not detected because they refrain from engaging in the negative behavior that would lead to them being recognized. Of course, some banned editors are not able to return successfully—typically because they find themselves returning to the same behavior that led to them being blocked or banned to begin with. Assuredly, mistakes are sometimes made—but most indefblocked or banned users have been blocked or banned for a good reason, and if they come back and start acting the same way that led to their being blocked or banned originally, their returns are not going to succeed.

Your implication that the Arbitration Committee usually does not "bother to read appeals" is not accurate. If a specific case has been overlooked, please e-mail the ban appeals subcommittee or post here and bring it to my attention. Also, please tell me, what specific improvements in our current policies and procedures would you suggest? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the structure of the site might be a little unbalanced, with certain people behaving like pre-adolescent kids who control parts of the system, and implicitly try to bore people to the point that they go away looking for other hobbies.

Are you saying that it's ok for people who are not welcome here, to continue participating with a cloaking mask, in order that they can't be detected? That doesn't look in line with current policy about reincarnations. Cconcern (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously what you are describing is not allowed by policy. On the other hand, it's well understood and supposedly accepted on wikipedia that policy doesn't always describe reality. That disconnect is considered a feature, not a bug. WP is an encyclopedia, not a nation-state, and building the encyclopedia has priority over following policy. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, it's then ok to create accounts, and when they get bashed after they're accidentally found, even when they were producing good content, that means it's ok for the person behind them to create a new one every time they're found, or even not create any account but just edit as an anonymous IP address, as the "Ignore all rules" essay comes into play. Is that correct? Tasksstocklol (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No it's not ok. It's just consistent with WP practices that some of the time, depending on the situation, some not-ok things are allowed to happen through editors' judgment, regardless of what policy says. What are you getting at? Is there a particular user you are concerned about? The type of wikilawyering you're engaging in suggests you're thinking of someone who should really stay gone. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of people who feel a need to participate because of pages showing incorrect facts (Peter Damian is a recent example). They also feel a need to comment on things which in their opinion aren't right. Maybe when they operate on the content nobody notices, but people start noticing and bashing them when they raise concerns over possible operations not in line with site policy, which are carried out by some highly ranked people around here. Tasksstocklol (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If PD wants to discuss stuff being in or out of line with site policy, he should first bring himself into line with site policy by getting unbanned. He knows where to apply for that. I couldn't predict success in such an effort, of course. If his approach to site policy was anywhere near acceptable, he wouldn't have gotten banned in the first place. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He appealed, like many others before, but he received no response at all. So how can one be back in line with policy? Tasksstocklol (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Shrug. Maybe he should just give up and go away. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange, i could imagine there could be a way to get back into the game (especially if the contestant is an actual verified expert of certain subjects) and not simply take the most sane and obvious route... note that just powering down the modem/router, in most cases, would allow him to be back. But if he has a static IP address, he's out of luck. Tasksstocklol (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Bah. PD's socks are generally recognizable after a while without reference to IP addresses, if you get my drift. He could consider WP:OFFER and quit socking for a while, but he seems to want the limelight too much for that. Most of all, though, IMHO, for an unban to make sense, he should have to show a complete change attitude from before. But his desire to return seems to be a matter of wanting to keep pursuing the same agendas that got him banned in the first place. So unbanning sounds like a poor idea. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...

Are you still going to actively support principle 5 with the 3 opposes? If you see the way that is written compared to principle 9 (with 0 opposes and 1 abstain), don't you think the latter principle leaves room to include the nuances from the rest of the decision (and thereby, to address some of the things said in the oppose section of p5)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just taken another look and I do believe the principle is correct as stated, so I will leave my support in place. I agree that there's some duplication between this principle and a couple of the others, but that's a sometimes unavoidable byproduct of "drafting by committee," which is what's occurred to this case in a very literal sense. Thanks for the query. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My emails

Hello - Edward here. I would appreciate a reply, if only to say 'we are looking at it and will be back to you'. And as I said 'no' is perfectly acceptable, so long as in writing. In summary:

• yes
• no
• we'll get back to you.

At the moment, I don't know whether the emails are skulking in some gigantic hopper awaiting someone's attention, or got eaten by a spam detector, or lost in the ether. Thanks, Edward B. 109.145.251.47 (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• "We'll get back to you." Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Er, any sort of time scale? 109.145.251.47 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Please sir, can you give an appropriate response to the above question? Tasksstocklol (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• While we're at it, the White House doesn't return my phone calls. Can you do something about that too? Oh wait, never mind. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • • That't not really an appropriate response. Tasksstocklol (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes wikiwar

You probably noticed that it has become a regular (if not daily) occurrence at ANI to have threads about hyphen or dash usage. These usually pit editors from some field where hyphens or dashes are not used for common terms (jargon) of the field vs. MOS-focused editors. Conflict arrises when MOS-focused editors copyedit various technical articles to replace the common spelling in that field with the MOS-mandated one, e.g. high dynamic range imaging vs high-dynamic-range imaging or non-small-cell lung carcinoma vs non-small cell lung carcinoma. Probably the silliest variation on this is the hyphen vs en dash war where a hyphen is replaced with an en dash, like the current one on Mexican-American War vs Mexican–American War. If you have trouble locating the ANI threads, let me know, and I'll provide some links, although searching "kwami" in the ANI archives will find most of them. (Just an aid in finding them, not implying there's any fault of that user.)

Perhaps some insight from the date delinking case (another giant MOS-related battle) can be applied here. Frankly, the page of that case is so huge that it's probably easier if someone with prior knowledge of it, like you, gives us a nutshell at ANI. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

tidal wave a comin' – iridescent 22:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that new hyphens thread has just opened on ANI, I'm filing an official arbitration request, hopefully to be dealt with by motion. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your ArbCom comments on hyphens/dashes

I'm not sure if it's kosher to ask a question in an ArbCom request so I'm asking it here instead. Can you clarify the scenario you laid out regarding a possible justifiable for edits that result in conflicts between an article title and content? I'm not sure I fully understood it. Also note that I added a follow-up to my comments that tone down the first point a bit. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. It appears that my information is outdated. I recall that when I started editing, a redirect directly to a page subsection did not work; in other words, a link to a subsection of a page that was redirected went only to the top of the page, not to the specific section. However, it appears that this was changed some time ago, and I didn't realize it. That being said, for relevant caveats, see Wikipedia:Redirect#Targeted and untargeted redirects. I'll redact the portion of my comment on the case that appears to be currently incorrect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought what you said was accurate as well. That's the behavior that I remember too, at least. Someone, somewhere along the way, must have fixed the way redirects behave, which is cool. I wanted to point out WT:MOS#Avoiding redirects though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember it as well. I think it was fixed a few years ago. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oversighting

Hi. This is a request to remove the revisions for Special:Contributions/115.78.208.65 on Profanity, for obvious reasons. --43?9enter ^★_☭ 01:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Focusing on the impoliteness ...

"Focusing on the impoliteness of the victim or of someone apparently close to or sympathetic with the victim is certainly not going to help." Thank you very much for this, it was a kindness in the middle of a barbaric experience I shall never forget. I am sorry for losing my patience. Good night. 86.176.94.123 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

clarification

We can take this to email if you like.

My objection is to *being* restricted, or having any sort of signing statement tagging along (I consider signing statements to be entirely illegitimate, btw). It *is* my intention to contribute in a positive manner and to not be disruptive and/or pointy. However, I take specific exception to your restriction *requiring* me to abide by all guidelines when WP:GUIDELINES says:

• Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
  (I've added the bold;)

You would remove the option of exceptions. There are many "guidelines" that really are worse that worthless. Any damned WikiProject tags their WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as their guideline. I've had a hand in changing some of this and expect to fix more bad guidance *if* unrestricted. If not, I'm outta here and this place can continue to seek a mediocre level.

-- Barong (David) 13:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. Would your objection be satisfied if I removed "and guidelines" from the motion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I like Kirill's motion; please shift to that. I'm fine with offering you my personal assurance that I'll be a good and productive editor, working for the good of the wiki, defending the core values, &c. That's what I've been doing all along. Really. I will not be a neutered editor damned to uncontroversial obscurity. I will not stay with a chain around my leg. This is why I'm asking for all the blocks to be lifted, all the accounts returned to me; they're all me, and I don't want a huge array of blocks and sock-boxes surrounding me forever. Vicious detractors use these as weapons. I want a full return. The issues with WC were not about picking on him, they were about defending this project against him. This was before your time, and the wiki is a better place for many of my efforts. There are good reasons many support me. I know full-well that if I mess-up, I, like any other editor, can be removed. That's enough. Support me for adminship if you really want me held to a higher standard. It's late here and this is my last post for 12ish hours. See my commons and meta edits, too. G'night, Barong (David) 15:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone along with Kirill's motion as a potential way of resolving this impasse, largely per some of the other arbitrators' comments on it. I flatly reject, however, your contention that your issues involving Cool Cat/White Cat were the result of your attempts to defend the project against him, rather than picking on him. Whatever isues that user might have had, your harassment of him over a period of years was indefensible and created the strong impression, at least in my mind, that you were intentionally targeting someone you had identified as an emotionally vulnerable user. I will be very disappointed if you make any attempt to defend the most recent of these incidents, which was not before my time at all. In it, you repeatedly denied that a new account that was harassing Cool Cat (White Cat) was you, in the face of what turned out to be Cool Cat's well-founded suspicion that it actually was you—leading at least two other editors to taunt him and accuse him of being paranoid, only to have to withdraw that accusation when it turned out he'd been right all along. The only mitigating factor in that regard is the time that has elapsed since that incident and the incidents that preceded it, and I was prepared not to mention it again, but let's not hear "I never picked on White Cat" any more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

VM and Skapperod

We need to be wary of sanctioned users trying to gag their opponents over former user names. Transparency is important in itself, especially for making sure previously uninvolved admins know everything they need to know. And I think I remember this very thing being discussed as a strategy in the EEML; indeed many of them changed their name after the case (including also Martin and Biophys). I understand you yourself have had problems similar to what VM is claiming to have had, and it's something that needs to be taken seriously if true. But, to clarify, has VM given actual evidence to ArbCom for his r/l claims and, if so, are they convincing? Or have you made the comment simply by taking VM's claims at face value? Thanks in advance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have accepted Volunteer Marek's claims on a good-faith basis. I see no reason to believe he would have made up a concern of this nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Pending Changes - next phase

You mentioned the next phase of broad community discussion for Pending Changes. Is that at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Review Recommend phase? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's an older proposed phase which failed to gain traction, and was given up on in favour of the phase we just went through. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Last Friday, I'd requested comments on a narrow follow-up issue as well as suggestions for how the discussion should proceed from here. This Friday, based on the input I get, I'll post my thoughts about how we move forward from here. You can comment under my closure as the most logical place for now. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)