User talk:Newyorkbrad

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)

NYB, just out of curiosity, I know you are a busy man but to what extent did you ever familiarize yourself with the EEML case and archive? If you're telling me you thought about it and genuinely couldn't see any reason, you're gonna make me a worried wee soul. You genuinely can't see any reason? Well, anyway, bear in mind that the EEML opponents are a bit more cynical about the renamings than yourself, and have reason. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I participated fully in the case and read through the evidence, although I am quite prepared to accept that I missed various nuances, plus it is almost two years ago now so I am sure I have forgotten some aspects. Given the remedies imposed and the time that has elapsed, I am hopeful that editors on all sides of that dispute have learned valuable lessons about improving their behavior.

Note that Volunteer Marek is simply asking that his old username not be referenced, at least not unless there is a necessary and specific reason to do so. It is not as if he is starting an RfA or something while denying a link to the old username. I think this is a courtesy that could be adhered to without causing many problems, so I don't see why there is resistence to the request. I would take this position if a similar request were being made by any party to the dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Put briefly, Skapperod is almost certainly worried that it will be easier to fool less experienced admins into doing things EEML editors want, against him. Every admin who ever gets involved will have more obstacles to reconstructing each editor's editing history, and is more likely to mistake a group of partisans attacking him as "the good men of the shire" (if you know what I mean) offering sage advice. You must remember the dynamic of the archive in this respect. If you look at AN/I, Molobo and Volunteer Marek appear to have been after Skapperod's blood today (two posts, including one about edits made nearly 2 weeks ago); it might really help reconcile him to your chosen path if you gave him some reason to believe the name gagging doesn't make him more vulnerable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has agreed to this proposal by Deacon of Pndapetzim [1], which is ok for me, too [2]. Since this also means editing arbitration pages, a comment of yours would be appreciated on how to implement this change, and you may want to approach VM to work out the details. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, I would actually prefer to have the replacement made (the less of my former name is out there the better). But this is really independent of Skapperod's actions here. I don't know what the procedural details are, though it sounds sort of complicated, but really this is beside the point. Just in case the change is not made, Skapperod STILL needs to observe WP:OUTING and refrain from my using my former username. How hard is it to get someone to just follow WP:OUTING?Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is as response to this going to be forthcoming? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Observation, editors on the "other" side have changed user names too, and I for one have endeavored to strictly observe those choices and not refer to their former edits under former identities. You, apparently, do not. Regarding: "Put briefly, Skapperod is almost certainly worried that it will be easier to fool less experienced admins into doing things EEML editors want, against him," that is a personal attack against all editors accused in the EEML case. If you find yourself agreeing with such a contention I would respectfully suggest you recuse yourself from the EE topic area. And don't suggest people read absconded Email archives again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Will you stop dragging out this drama for far longer than is necessary? Look, it's simple. Don't use my former username again. End of story. Anything else is beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

VM, why don't you let NYB respond to Skapperod instead of saying the same thing. Incidentally, why do you still use your old name on Wikipedia Review if anonymity is such a big concern? Just curious. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@Deacon. I officially asked my account to be renamed/moved back, precisely for the reason of transparency. But Xeno said this is difficult for technical reasons, so I do not really care. No, I do not remember discussing that kind of things with anyone.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@NYB: I suppose you have been in contact with VM regarding his agreement with DoP, and told him that "it seems such a change is not in the cards". Can you please clarify this here, especially since logging username changes to prior cases (DIGWUREN) has not been a problem in the past. Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

NYB? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm ... Skäpperöd, I think you'll have to assume that, for reasons best known to himself, he isn't gonna bother getting around to responding to you. @NYB, you should get a public sector job in Scotland. You'd fit right in! ;) @ Hodja, good to know. It's a credit that you admit there are real transparency issues here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been travelling for the past few days with limited access, as noted various places around the wiki, and I've been using that time handling an RfC closing that a number of people had specifically asked me to handle (not that it's worked out that brilliantly so far, but I'm doing my best). With regard to the suggestion of a change to the username in the ArbCom decision, I don't believe this should really be necessary. If it is desired to pursue this approach, the committee as a whole would have to be consulted, so someone should e-mail the mailing list. Beyond that, is there some specific reason why the users involved in this situation can't deescalate and edit in good faith without constantly getting into arguments with each other, just as we expect all users to do? The fact that the topic area is a contentious one does not, without more, justify or explain months and years of constant quarrelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Research Project

Hi,

I am currently doing privacy-related research on Wikipedia. Given your important role in BLP related articles, it would be great if you could help me further. Please check my user-page for more info. Thank you so much! —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

If this is still of relevance, please feel free to get in touch with me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles

Hi Newyorkbrad. I was impressed by your closure of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. An RfC of similar complexity is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles. I asked on the administrators' noticeboard for an admin to close and summarize the discussion. However, after a week, no one has stepped forward to close this difficult discussion. There is a request on the talk page for an admin to close it. If you have the time and patience to close and summarize the RfC, would you do it? Cunard (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: There are discussions on the talk page here and here about how to close the RfC. The lack of a closure has led to an indefinite delay in moving on to the next step, which editors discussed as being a trial proposal. Cunard (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And which editors also discussed as not being a trial proposal. Anyway, here's another relevant link. Rivertorch (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You're asking NYB to stick it to the WMF, again?! I'm starting to fear for him. ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I still owe some additional input on the first closing (which I'll have to get to in the morning; I just got home from being away for the weekend and it's almost midnight here). Let me get that out of the way first and then I'll take a look at this one and see if I think I can manage it, and if not, try to figure out someone else who might be good. Thanks for your confidence in me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Take your time on the pending changes RfC. The RfC about requiring autoconfirmation to create articles can be closed later. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, given the way my last attempt at closing an RfC has spun ridiculously out of control and led to an arbitration request, I think I'll suggest that someone else handle the next one. Thanks anyway for suggesting me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Do you have any suggestions about who would be willing to take on an RfC of this scope? Cunard (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

After the way I've been strung up from a lamppost for how I handled the last one, probably no one with any sense.Perhaps one of my talkpage watchers will step up to the plate here; if not, I suggest that you post at AN or ANI. Sorry I can't be more helpful right now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what's happened after your pending changes RfC closure, but it's unfortunate you are getting "strung up from a lamppost" after you spent a considerable amount of time reading the RfC and writing a good faith closure. I posted at AN on 4 May but no one has volunteered to close the RfC. I hope one of your talk page watchers will be able to close it. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What happened is that when the time came to update the closure, I tried to focus some further attention on the need to take BLP issues into account in dealing with the elimination of PC in its current form. This was taken by a few commenters as a bullheaded attempt on my part to override the consensus. I'm probably being too sensitive in that regard. A more cogent concern is that to the extent I might have been viewed a couple of weeks ago as someone whose decision on an issue would be accepted by pretty much everyone because of the role I've historically played on the project, I suspect that may not be true any more. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I believe you were correct and responsible in urging everyone to take a slower, more careful approach to eliminating PC in its current form. I hope you won't let this incident negatively affect you. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do echo what Cunard said about any potential effects on you. Your time hasn't come (yet anyway). It was going to be spun out of control no matter how you wrote it and even if someone else took the reins. Still, whether or not you thought about this before hand (and that you were busy), you agreed to make the close. Followup work was immediately required yet sorely lacking from what I could see, and that may have minimized the escalation. I expected 3 users to end up having the limelight shifted to them if there was inadequate follow up work, but it was limited to 2 admins in the end; the trainwreck is not quite as bad as it could have been. The signs were obvious long ago, but on your part, whether it was wishful thinking or not paying enough regard to what might result in the short/long term, you should have realized that there was no way this would not have required AC to step in. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't bring myself to log out without saying something here. Brad, there was nothing about your RfC closure to warrant your being "strung up". While I disagreed with some of what you wrote on Friday night, I don't think that any of it was unreasonable. I feared ArbCom involvement at some stage, regardless of who closed it, since emotions have been running so high since even before the RfC began. I hope you won't confuse the negativity expressed about your decision as negativity about you personally; I can well imagine another closer shutting down PC more quickly and thoroughly and getting lambasted for it by a different cohort. In other words, it would have happened to anyone. And for what it's worth, I think you're very wise to avoid taking on the autoconfirmation RfC—not because you wouldn't close it competently but because it's another one with the potential to blow up in any closer's face. Rivertorch (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My RFA

I've withdrawn my current RFA. Could you elaborate on your issue with my response to question 7? I haven't had anyone mention a problem with it. N419BH 04:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC) And Q7?

Hi, I think you were posting on my page at the same time I was posting on your page. Please see my comment there.

Regarding question 7, see Wikipedia:Username#Confusing usernames. The purpose of a username is to identify the person who posts something, and to help one user find another quickly if there is a question or a comment. If an editor's username is a random 30-character string, no one is going to be able to remember it, which will make communicating with that user much more difficult. Therefore, my opinion would be that the editor should be asked to choose a different username. (Also, as a matter of experience, I can tell you that users with that type of username are almost invariably vandals or trolls, though that wouldn't warrant a block by itself.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well-noted, thanks. See you at RFA in August/September, and I'm sure we'll run into each other fairly frequently in the interim. N419BH 04:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would just add to Brad's comments, that also user names that contain only pictographic glyphs or non Roman scripts are also extremely unhelpful. So they can write Chinese - so what? Most of us have no means of attaching a pronunciation to them and therefore can neither write them or retain them in memory. There currently seems to be an unfortunate slackening of guidelines in this respect. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-Roman usernames are tolerated because, since the advent of SUL, users from the other Wikipedias automatically have their account here created with the name from their home wiki. It's easy enough to imagine someone in Singapore, for instance, who's trilingual in English, Chinese and Malay and edits on all three wikipedias; because of the way the software works, their username is inevitably going to be in an incomprehensible script to readers on two of the three. – iridescent 15:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Re: [3] – a particularly lame storm in a teacup, not withstanding my weak moral fibre. Medeis (talk · contribs) seems to think that because he edits a lot of Doctor Who articles, and I edit a lot of Doctor Who articles, the only possible explanation for this correlation is stalking. It might help if you explained to him that the reason I saw his change to Fourth Doctor was not because I was keeping tabs on his contributions but because I have the page on my watchlist, having first edited it years ago.
His ravings about, "I don't edit at your pleasure, so your invitation in your edit summary for me to submit my proposals to some committee for prior approval are contrary to WP:OWN," seems to be in response to my perfectly polite and constructive suggestion that if he had a new idea for the way in which Doctor Who articles are structured, WT:WHO might be a good place to get input. Admittedly it was foolish of me to try to help somebody quite so far gone into the realms of fantasy...
Thanks for popping over, anyway. I've removed both his and your comments, but no hard feelings towards you of course. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Pending Changes

I'm awaiting your clarifications with interest, and as much patience as possible - I hope that, soon, you will clarify whether or not PC will be removed by Friday, or if there are further complications. Best,  Chzz  ►  15:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to pester, etc - but this is a bit critical. It'd be nice if you could answer my email of 09/05/2011 too. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Posting to that page right now. Please see my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've responded over there. I'm really, really not very happy.  Chzz  ►  02:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm travelling with limited online time this weekend, but will respond to you and others on that page tomorrow night. Additional input there is welcome as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've now posted there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying there, that that one admin (such as Scott MacDonald) can disregard the decision of the community, ie that there is no consensus to use PC?

And you're saying the deadline could extend again? Is there ever any chance of ending this farce? It'll be a year into the 2-month trial on 15 June; maybe we should have a party for it.

there is strong opposition to even a limited BLP exception to ending the trial - no. Just...there is no consensus for it. Please could you answer my comment, that you, or anyone else, who thinks PC should be used should propose it, and seek consensus. Do you consider this is an acceptable case of ignoring consensus? Are you claiming this is a valid case of WP:IAR?

I'm sure my frustration is clear, and as I said 'over there', this really is now beyond a joke [4]. Since I wrote that, one admin was blocked for removing PC, and there was a wheel-war, and now an arb case. This desperately needs to be resolved. Consensus - to remove PC from all articles - simply could not be clearer. I didn't mind waiting extra-time on the 95-day-long [5] RfA [6], I didn't mind taking 2 weeks to remove PC. Another week - well, I have no choice. But still with conditions? And then what?  Chzz  ►  00:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer

An additional question, to perhaps emphasize the inherent problem: if you decide PC can remain in accord with your "narrow exception", who is allowed to 'review' the edits?

I hope you take my point.

There is no consensus on who can, and cannot, review articles. There is no consensus regarding what a reviewer must, or must not, do.  Chzz  ►  02:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Between my nine numbered paragraphs on the RfC talkpage and my statement on the arbitration request, I've already written more than I should have on this topic for one night. I will, however, return to this soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to your earliest response, as always.  Chzz  ►  06:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mafia

I would also accept a cartel, but I'm afraid we don't have market power. Cool Hand Luke 18:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: RfA opposes

This is an example. And besides, one !oppose isn't going to knock over the RfA. --Σ _☭^★ 02:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the whole discussion you link to, you'll also see that the joke oppose !vote there produced unhappiness and controversy, and ultimately was struck out. Why would you want to damage a well-regarded user's RfA in this manner? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(adding) Thank you for the withdrawing the !vote. I appreciate it. Please also note that there is a time and a place for humor on Wikipedia—I've perpetrated more than my share of bad puns and bad poetry—it's just that the oppose section of an RfA usually isn't it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have withdrawn my !oppose, but it was meant as a joke. --Σ _☭^★ 02:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that completely; see my comments above. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers). Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! I generally don't template the regulars on the basis that experienced editors are familiar enough with Wikipedia policies not to need such basic, boiler-plate reminders. However, that unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)