This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user is an Arbitration clerk on the English Wikipedia.
This user is a member of the Wikimedia volunteer response team.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least ten years.
This user is proudly Canadian.

User talk:Bradv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • Please help keep discussions together.
  • If I left you a message on your talk page, please reply there (and ping me}.
  • If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will answer here.
  • If you have already started a conversation on this page, please reply there.
Click here to begin a new topic
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • View or search the archives for old messages.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Need Help?

Policies and Guidelines


this requested by the arbitrators? WBGconverse 15:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, is there a problem with it? – bradv🍁 15:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
How on Earth, is that an answer to my query? WBGconverse 15:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there's a problem with posting messages like that. Was it your own folly or were you ordered to post it. Whoever's idea this was, they should be proud of their work and claim it. Jehochman Talk 02:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman, yes, I wrote it. What's the problem? – bradv🍁 02:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It is perhaps a bit undiplomatic. In the present circumstances where people are really upset about a perceived abuse of power, threatening them with arbitrary sanction if they speak out too much doesn't look good. Maybe you could edit the message to emphasize the need to be patient, civil and kind. If people don't get it then they can be given personal warnings. I'm not a fan of "cooling off" blocks. If somebody is upset it's better to ask why and listen than to block them and say they can come out of the naughty corner after they cool down. Jehochman Talk 02:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman, it's not about suppressing dissent, it's about enforcing our civility and anti-harassment policies. It is within the clerks' remit to maintain order on arbitration pages, and this notice is in line with what we already post on arbitration case pages. I'm glad people have noticed what I added, and I hope it has the desired effect. – bradv🍁 03:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not going to cause a problem for me. I can be irritating in the extreme, but thankfully that's not sanctionable. Thank you for answering so nicely. I really appreciate it. Jehochman Talk 03:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Depends what your desired effect was. In my case, it has made me even more concerned that the current ArbCom is an incompetent kangaroo court with Stalinist tendencies. And the clerks are not much better - the original removal of my comment was (it turns out) a clerk action but the clerk didn't actually say so, their user pages doesn't mention them being a clerk etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, I'm fully aware that there exists a small group of vocal editors who are convinced that ArbCom can't do anything right and this group of arbitrators is The Worst, and there is no end to the hyperbole they are willing to use to make that point. They're entitled to their opinion, but WT:ACN needs to be a place where the committee's announcements can be discussed productively and in compliance with our civility and anti-harassment policies. That is the desired effect of the talk page notice. – bradv🍁 13:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
So why was Sandstein allowed to gravedance at ACN? It is that to which I was responding in the thread and L235 has acknowledged on their talk page that Sandstein's comment was in poor taste. It is clear from what I said on Cthomas's talk page, when I first reverted their (Cthomas's) removal, that I was unaware of Cthomas even being an ArbCom clerk, let alone doing what they did as a clerk action. - I did look at the edit summary and their user page beforehand but could see nothing. The whole thing is nonsensical and it is these sort of confusing signals from the committee and the clerks that are causing a lot of the angst. Just like they screwed up the 2FA announcment. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, I apologize for the angst caused on my part. I did not mark it as a clerk action and should have, and other than checking the actual clerk page there would be no way for you to know that. In the future I will be clearly identifying any clerk actions as well as identifying myself as such on my user page. Apologies again. CThomas3 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I had not noticed the message before. Now that I see it, I believe it could end right after "hostile", and should be signed. When people come grieving, the last thing they'd need is the threat of sanctions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


Howdy hello Bradv! I see that you have been around WP:3O from time to time, and I have much respect for your opinion, and thus would like to ask for some advice. I recently responded to a third opinion request on Talk:Walter_Russell#Third_opinion. From what I could see, the debate concerned WP:PSCI, and made some exceptional claims which weren't well backed up. One of the two editors in the original debate (User:WikipediansSweep) then responded by wall of texting me, and being pretty obstinate. So that's my question: how do I respond? Should I respond and keep trying to mediate the debate? Or have I said my piece and should simply leave? I don't want to waste my time arguing with a brick wall, but also don't want to abandon the discussion. Any advice would be much appreciated. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello fren, read the reply which dismantles your apt judgements and do full research rather than start with a conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talkcontribs) 04:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

WikipediansSweep, your hostility toward people who are trying to help improve the article is unappreciated. Please stop the battleground mentality, and comment on content, not contributors. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, which you have yet to provide. – bradv🍁 04:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You never read his first response which spurred all of this. Maybe you should tell him to investigate rather than have a preordained conclusion at the ready to sling with no foresight. Also the degradation in using terms like kook or quack so liberally and carelessly, calling for major overhauls on a page with sources calling this man the "modern Leonardo". If "edits ho!" is not a form of naive ignorance rampaging on a false campaign of their beliefs or battleground mentality then I am sad to logically conclude a double standard is being applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talkcontribs) 07:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

For the Beauty of the Earth (BarlowGirl cover)[edit]

Hi. I saw the edit you did that removed BarlowGirl information from the hymn article. The song was featured in an "inspired by" album for The Nativity Story. It was also used for A Very Special Christmas: Bringing Peace on Earth (a fundraiser for the Special Olympics) and charted in the top 20 on Christian AC radio. For all of these reasons, I believe it is a notable cover. Why did you remove the information, and what do you believe is necessary to restore the information? Thank you for your time. --LABcrabs (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It looked to me like an article on a non-notable subject shoehorned into an article where it doesn't belong. Why is this particular cover more notable than all the other times people have sung this song? How does this information help the reader's understanding of the subject of the article? Also, it would be best if we were to discuss this at Talk:For the Beauty of the Earth where others can weigh in – feel free to start a section there and ping me. – bradv🍁 14:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Bradv,


Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.


A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Protect page[edit]

Please protect 2019 Hong Kong protests, it has been attacked relentlessly by pro-Chinese bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA notice on Israeli–Lebanese conflict[edit]

You recently closed my 1RR report regarding Israeli–Lebanese conflict claiming "no violation", because the page was supposedly not tagged with the template indicating it is subject to such a restriction. That is incorrect, as you can verify for your self here Here come the Suns (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, I applied that edit notice 20 minutes ago. – bradv🍁 21:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
No, you applied it to the talk page of the article The article itself carries a notice of the restriction. Click the link I provided, above. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, come on. You'd think I'd remember. I literally created that page a few minutes ago. – bradv🍁 21:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Which page ddi you literally create a few minutes ago? The talk page for that article exists since 2006. You tagged the talk page a few minutes ago, yes, but you did not edit the article page. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Here come the Suns, I linked it above, and at WP:ANEW. But since you still don't believe me, here's the page creation log. – bradv🍁 21:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boris Johnson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boris Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj[edit]

Thank you for fully protecting Nicki Minaj for now. Is there a way to make sure semi-protection automatically returns when it’s over? Otherwise the disruption and vandalism will get exponentially worse if the page is completely unprotected automatically (I saw it first hand with Drake, that’s why I’m taking caution). Trillfendi (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Trillfendi, there's no way to do this automatically. We'll have to just keep an eye on it when the protection expires. – bradv🍁 12:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ghyuw5 back at it again[edit]

User:Ghyuw5 is again spamming talk pages. I noticed that you were the admin that previously blocked him so I figured I would let you know. Thanks and have a wonderful day. Casseb (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Casseb, thanks for letting me know. – bradv🍁 02:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Message removed[edit]

Hello Bradv, I just got a message that you removed a message from my talk page ("rv disruption"). I'm just curious as to why. Thanks. Al Leluia81 (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Al Leluia81, see Special:Contributions/Ghyuw5. – bradv🍁 02:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Okay - thank you. Al Leluia81 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed[edit]

Hi Brad. Sorry for the trouble, but I'm not sure if you noticed this report at AIV about me by AlbusTheWhite, copying and pasting, (including non-working links for the article of Greece), the same comments I had made at 3RRN about him five minutes earlier. Not sure, if this is CIR, BATTLE, or all of the above, but this doesn't look good, at least to me. By the way, over the past year and a half, many of this account's edits concern edit-warring the dumping of large-scale image changes in articles. Dr. K. 22:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Dr.K., I did see that retaliatory filing, but it looks like it's been removed from the page now. I'm really hoping that their willingness to work with other editors will improve after this block expires. – bradv🍁 23:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I actually saw the report at AIV yesterday, but I didn't check it because I assumed it was a regular report. Only when I double-checked it today I saw what transpired. Good work, however. I think you caught the report earlier than I did. Dr. K. 00:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj[edit]

Hey Bradv, hope all is well. Would it be possible to re-instate the indef semi-protection on Nicki Minaj? Looks like it was protected indefinitely due to BLP violations before your full protection. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

LuK3, done. – bradv🍁 22:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Truth hurts...[edit]

...doesn't it. CassiantoTalk 16:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Cassianto, if it's worth saying it's worth saying nicely. But regardless, clerk actions may be appealed to Arbcom, but they may not be reverted. – bradv🍁 17:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, sometimes the truth hurts. Allow ArbCom to go and suckle on their comfort blankets in their safe spaces if you wish, but do not suppress people's views as it comes across as rather dictatorial. But then this current useless committee are just that. CassiantoTalk 17:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, so here's a good example. Surely you could find a polite way of criticizing the committee's decisions. – bradv🍁 17:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
No, as they'll be some snowflake who'll take offence to it. Sometimes, a spade needs to be called a spade. CassiantoTalk 17:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, By "snowflake", do you mean people who care about our civility policy? – bradv🍁 17:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Not all, just those who melt when the truth is told, and then cite your guideline to justify their view that the truth was "uncivil". I'm sure you know the kind. CassiantoTalk 17:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, not at all. I know there are a number of people who push the limits of incivility at every opportunity, including insulting those who stand up for other people. I try very hard not to be one of those people, and I will stand up to them every chance I get. My mother taught me that if I didn't have anything nice to say I shouldn't say anything at all, and I think the reverse is also true - if something does need to be said, it must be said kindly. – bradv🍁 17:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Would calling a 30 stone person "fat" be uncivil? CassiantoTalk 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, does it need to be said? If so, you could say it nicely. Are you seriously struggling with this concept, or are you just trolling me? – bradv🍁 17:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Surely there's a nice way of calling me a troll? Maybe I'm discussing some truths with you (that you don't like)? CassiantoTalk 17:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Bradv, regarding an appeal. Where is that best done and in what format? Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Carcharoth, Typically by emailing arbcom. See: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Contacting_the_Committee. SQLQuery me! 17:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer to have this discussed on-wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Our esteemed clerk rambled about what all her mother said but is yet to clarify, as to how clerk-actions might be challenged in an on-wiki format. WBGconverse 18:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, That was my bad. I'm new at clerking, and didn't think about opening a thread at the clerks noticeboard as an on-wiki option. I apologize for that oversight - the only appeal avenue I've seen thusfar was via email. SQLQuery me! 03:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Carcharoth, appealing a clerk action may be done by email to ArbCom, or you may request an opinion from other clerks at the clerks noticeboard. – bradv🍁 19:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I have raised a new section at the clerks' noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For your great contribution to civility on Wikipedia, which was much improved by your actions. Jehochman Talk 02:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
lol CassiantoTalk 12:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your actions[edit]

Your actions with regards to the Fram affair—whether you're deleting people's perfectly fair comments or censoring the name of Laura Hale—have only served to inflame the situation.—Chowbok 02:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you warning me that people are going to be even more uncivil and that they're going to blame me? If so, thanks for the heads-up. – bradv🍁 02:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Weird how incivility seems to be certain people's only concern around here. Personally, I think we should be focusing more on abuse of power. But yes, by your rather eccentric definition of "uncivil", there probably is going to be more of it.—Chowbok 12:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Exposing the abuse of power is a good thing. Please do it civilly to be most effective. The clerks have a hard job and they do it methodically without regard to ideology. This is proper. Jehochman Talk 12:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Four reverts in four hours wasn't proper, it was an explicit violation of our Edit Warring Policy (WP:3RR)- [1], [2], [3], [4]. Thankfully you stopped after your fourth revert, only one revert too late ("just following orders" "acting as a clerk" is not one of the seven allowed exceptions to 3RR.)--Noren (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Super Audio CD Dispute[edit]

Can you please either weigh in with a third opinion on the dispute at the Super Audio CD page and/or extend the edit lock for another week until we can get more comments on it? Thanks. Dharmabumstead (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Assange page[edit]

Hi Brad, is this Julian Assange page the subject of any type of discretionary sanctions, such as 1RR? Seems a lot of edit warring going on today by Jack. Please ping me in your response, since I dont follow you talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)