This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 [3]. 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 [4] RfA [5], 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)
- I've responded over there. I'm really, really not very happy. Chzz ► 02:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Posting to that page right now. Please see my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 20 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)
- I've just posted the final closing statement. Consensus was pretty clearly in your favor. The issues you raise, if they remain relevant, can be addressed in the next phase of the discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yep; I hope you do realise that I'm not "anti PC" - I have concerns about the many and varied possible implementations, and my hesitation in supporting any form of PC has been greatly magnified by the apparent 'abuse of due process' (for wont of a better term) regarding the 'trial'.
- Your comment re. potential exceptional cases, not sure why this proposal was as controversial as it seems to be...I'm not at all suprised that so many people screamed about an 'exception' - it's gone on for so, so long, that everyone was in despair (including myself), wondering if we'd ever draw a line under the mess.
- In considering the future, please glance at a very rough-draft I wrote on 3rd March [6]. My opinion is that enough debate has already occurred, and future proposals that might have some sort of chance of consensus could be constructed through analysis of the previous debate.
- I personally doubt very much that it will be possible to gain a convincing level of support for any such proposal for several months (at least), due to the current ill-feeling over the previous trial - but I don't discount the possibility entirely.
- You indicated you'd consider a next phase RfC in a couple of weeks - please let me know if/when you decide to do that. Personally, I don't think a fresh RfC (or 'phase') is appropriate until some analysis has been done, ie reading the copious prior discussions to try and form a way ahead. I believe that further 'open discussion' will descend into copious argument with little productive benefit (re-hashing of previous arguments) - and that the better way ahead would be a very carefully-worded proposal for implementation. I don't think that a discussion would lead to such a proposal, but would consume a huge amount of time. If a further RfC discussion is to occur, however, I'd suggest it'd be best starting afresh, and not as a 'phase' added to the Feb debate.
- Anyway...it will be a relief to not think about PC for a few weeks, at least. Best, Chzz ► 23:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've just posted the final closing statement. Consensus was pretty clearly in your favor. The issues you raise, if they remain relevant, can be addressed in the next phase of the discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 27 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)
- (edit conflict)I have withdrawn my !oppose, but it was meant as a joke. --Σ ☭★ 02:23, 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)
- As you know, I've long been concerned about trends in your participation on Wikipedia, both on noticeboards and in deletion discussions. Since I may not be an impartial judge at this point, why don't you ask some editing colleagues whose judgment you trust whether they think any adjustments to your approach would be in your own best interest, not to mention everyone else's. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think you may be doing what you sometimes suggest I am, which is questioning someone else's conduct to avoid confronting your own. Your comment just above does not mention the fact that you unquestionably flouted WP:VOTE in a particularly brazen way, therefore it is not really a 'reply' or a 'response' to my note, which was solely concerned with that issue. In my opinion, this would be an excellent opportunity for you to practice what you preach, for want of a better cliche, and examine my complaints about your activity rather than simply complaining right back about mine. But the choice is yours. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- TT, here's some advice from a neutral party: step away from the computer. Go outside. Go for a walk. Breathe many times. Then come back tonight or tomorrow and step away from the horse carcass. I don't know if you're in the 'right' here or not; frankly, I don't care. The point is that what you are doing looks very wrong, and you are going to lose respect from many people very quickly if you keep up these seemingly-petty actions. Kind regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think you may be doing what you sometimes suggest I am, which is questioning someone else's conduct to avoid confronting your own. Your comment just above does not mention the fact that you unquestionably flouted WP:VOTE in a particularly brazen way, therefore it is not really a 'reply' or a 'response' to my note, which was solely concerned with that issue. In my opinion, this would be an excellent opportunity for you to practice what you preach, for want of a better cliche, and examine my complaints about your activity rather than simply complaining right back about mine. But the choice is yours. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi Newyorkbrad, I would like to thank you for this comment! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
New resolution proposal
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification. I don't think I have anything further to add to the discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please review...
Hi Newyorkbrad, if you have a moment, can you please review the discussion here[7] and provide your input on any of the interpretations given by those in the discussion. Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I don't know that I'm the most qualified person to opine on this issue; I have at best a layman's background knowledge of fields such as the philosophy of science and critiques of the scientific method. But since you've had the confidence enough to ask me, I'll contribute what I can.
- Candidly, I don't know just how I would classify this particular article, because it strikes me as more than a little bit of a hodgepodge, containing some elements of criticism of "science" in the abstract, some criticism of what is perceived or described as overreliance or excessive faith in science, and some criticisms of particular instances or applications of science.
- Nor do I know exactly what "anti-intellectualism" is supposed to mean, whether it's a technical term or is simply used in its everyday sense. If the former, I really don't have much to add to the discussion, at least until I know what the definition is (and whether it's an agreed-upon definition or a disputed one). If it's the latter, i.e. if "anti-intellectual" has its everyday meaning, then again, the lack of clarity to what the article is about makes it difficult to say that "anti-intellectual" is a valid description of "criticism of science." There are some criticisms of science that one might imagine are legitimately anti-intellectual, but there are others that are reasonably "intellectual" and just come from different points of view; and as for particular criticisms of particular sciences or scientific conclusions within the article, there are some criticisms that could be considered "intellectual" and others that could be considered anything but. (This is a problem with our categorization system, which requires that an article be either in or out of the category, with no nuances or borderlines or shades of gray.)
- I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. Perhaps a reader here can suggest a wikiproject whose members might have more useful input. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Brad, thanks. I think we've agreed on the applicability of the anti-intellectualism part (and we also know the article needs work). That brought us to lobotomizing the article into an entirely different topic because of editor dislike of the term. I didnt state it before, as I thought it'd imply trying to create bias, but mostly I wanted to ensure that my interpretations of policies/guidelines are correct. I think we're beyond the point of deciding on whether the term is applicable. I suspect perhaps if I remind the other editor(s) that there are numerous spiritual and non-spiritual groups who also fit this category, that they may be more receptive... but regardless, I am hoping I properly explained how the policies and guidelines apply to or are against POV forking because he simply doesnt like linking the term with the subject of the article, even though he's now seen the link fits it. Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
fyi... it closed
125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This is now truly an absurd situation, even apart from the silliness of the whole discussion, because the closing administrator has declined to overturn the deletion, but in the meantime the deleting administrator reluctantly undeleted the page. I think I would be within my rights to redelete, but there seems to be a consensus in the DRV discussion that it would reflect badly on me if I did so. I don't agree with that—I think it would reflect more assertiveness on my part than I've shown in years, which some people would say is a good thing in a Newyorkbrad—but I think I may let this one go for awhile. Or maybe I'll redelete it last thing Friday afternoon before I disappear for the holiday weekend ... no promises. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I undeleted it in frustration for the silly rule-mongering, and because it looked like my deletion would be overturned. I guess I could now reverse my undeletion (or someone else could since it was out of process undeletion and I give them permission), but I also see it has been renamed. The whole thing is now too confusing - so I'm just going to give it a wide berth. --Scott Mac 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- At the moment, I'm not listed. The real value of this (ya, it has some) is as a view into the ambient toxicity of debate on the project. To too many, the war is their purpose here. Note the talk of sides, the grappling for the mantle of 'good-faith editor', and the oh-so-personal nature of it all. Enjoy your weekend, 125.162.150.88 (talk) David 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- G'afternoon. We need more assertiveness from people like you, Brad. The game-players endlessly take advantage of the good faith users such as yourself offer. The wiki is awash in such low calibre editors and they are making the wiki suck. If nothing is done about this core failure of 'community' then nothing can save this project. Things won't turn on this specific trolling page, or on the AC getting off my back, but the vehemence shown in this series of time-sucking dramas illustrates that they want it kept because *I* nominated it. Review the split votes, then review the weight of the editors: it's quite clear that the serious are mostly for endorsing the deletion.
- What? "Weight?" Yup, some people have more; the true divide on this project is between the serious people, who are intelligent, clueful, skilled, and who genuinely care, and the undisciplined rabble, who often are not so bright, want things like endless coverage of dreck, have no idea what the capital of Zimbabwe is, and get off on all the drama. Many of these people are no more than in-house trolls.
- You know what is right, a lot of the time. Most serious people here do. But "the rules" are what prevent many appropriate actions. That's why we have IAR. The project needs more assertiveness in the face of mere rules.
- 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- (Now showing: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Colonel Warder renamed the page, removing the claimed cause of action from the title. It survived the drama of the 2nd MfD and a DRV, albeit through a unusual path. It was like watching a two or three week long episode of Law and Order. Deleting it after all that could result in yet another DRV, and even more drama. Can't we all just say that this is a compromise that works, more or less, and leave it at that, which I suggest is actually in the best interests of WP. — Becksguy (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The best interests of WP would have been served, and still can be served, by CW saying "heck, this seems to be annoying some folk, and I can equally keep this thing on my desktop, so {{Db-author}}". All the other stuff (people going to MFD, and people defending it, people running to DRV) is the fractiousness caused partly by a loss of sense of proportion all round, and CW's trolling disruption by maintaining it. A compromise discussion wouldn't be necessary if CW wasn't intent on disruption by being passive-aggressive. But, as I say, I'm not about to pour parifin on this by doing anything.--Scott Mac 16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Brad, I wouldn't say I'm encouraging you to go rogue, but... if you do, I will win a small but not entirely trivial sum of money. You see, I've had a longstanding wager with another editor. My position is that the absurdity of this site and its social dynamics will break anyone, given enough time. (It's certainly broken me, and I have a reasonable if not superhuman amount of patience for idiocy). You're the main counterexample, since you've survived years of exposure to this site's underbelly without losing your composure.
Anyhow, I've got a few dollars riding on the proposition that Wikipedia is absurd enough that even you will reach your breaking point, given sufficient exposure. My counterpart, on the other hand, has faith that your supply of patience is effectively limitless, or at least that it exceeds Wikipedia's supply of maddening nonsense. At the risk of affecting the outcome, I just thought I'd let you know about the wager, because I can almost taste victory... :P MastCell Talk 16:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- FYI - I attempted to hide the content so that it was only visible to Colonel Warden, but my efforts were inexplicably reverted by CW, citing that he's "not seeing the point". So, to sum up, so far we've had two MfD's, a speedy deletion, a DRV, and an undeletion. And despite all this, CW still doesn't accept that this page is offensive to many users, to the point that he will not even allow it to be hidden from view for all editors except himself. If this doesn't prove that the page exists solely as a battleground memorial site, then I don't know what will prove it. The DRV closed as no consensus, and so the page should technically still be deleted. I say delete it, email the content to CW so he can save it offline for himself, and be done with it. —SW— speak 20:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Talking to those people yesterday was exhausting. Snottywong, I think you are right; "No consensus" means the status quo prevails. Ergo, the page should be deleted. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The article had been restored, therefore no consensus in the DRV defaults to status quo of Keep, just like an AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have to ask...
Have you seen this? Wikipedia:Bradspeak. I just came across it, and almost nominated it for WP:MFD as a personal attack on you; but on closer inspection I realised it's not meant critically, it's just an objective description of a Wikipedia phenomenon, particularly common at Arbitration and on Jimbo's talk page. Nonetheless, I'm curious what you think of it. Robofish (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. The page's existence is not issue, at least not as far as I'm concerned. I understand what Iridescent meant when he coined the term, and I understand the spirit in which Bishonen created the page. I don't agree with every word of it, and maybe I'll explain why on the talkpage someday, but I don't take the page personally or anything like that. Thanks for your concern, though. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Mad! Mad! Hihihi!
Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 20:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
- Thanks for your note, and for your avoidance of Bradspeak in the caption. One of us talking that way is enough, if not already excessive.
- Substantively, the request for arbitration looks like it's being declined, in which case it will probably be archived soon by reason of time, so your concern about the length of statements in it will probably be moot before anyone would be able to address it. (Plus, gosh only knows how long my statement was.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- (And I see that one of the Clerks has just gotten to it anyway. No further comment, I suppose, as I'm recused in this case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC))
Availability note
I'll be travelling over the holiday weekend and will have limited wiki time and access until Tuesday. As Paul August used to say, please try not to trash the place while I'm gone. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Word limit and BLP and flagged revisions
Hi Brad. This comment is made in my capacity as an arbitration clerk. The statement you have made at the BLP and flagged revisions arbitration request comprises of more than 500 words. I have deleted material from the statements of three other editors, but that material was simply the responses they had made to other participants. In your statement, the prose is one entry, and I cannot reduce the length without substantially altering the statement, or by deleting it entirely. Therefore, please reduce the length of your statement. Thank you. AGK [•] 21:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)