User talk:Newyorkbrad

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2024/Jun. Archives prior to May 2007 were compiled by Werdnabot/Shadowbot3 and can be found at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive1 (prior to October 27, 2006); User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2 (from October 27 to December 19, 2006); User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive3 (from December 19, 2006 to January 29, 2007); User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive4 (from January 29 to February 27, 2006); and User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive5 (from February 28 to May 10, 2007). Sections without timestamps are not archived.

To keep conversations together, I will generally reply on this page to messages left here. If you would prefer that I reply on your talkpage or elsewhere, please feel free to let me know.

Please note

I am currently serving as a member of the committee supervising the voting procedures for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees election in July. This will consume a significant amount of my Wikitime and therefore I may be somewhat less active on the English Wikipedia for a few weeks until the election is over. Thank you to everyone for understanding.

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey

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

You are so nice.

User:Bakasuprman back to disruption

Dear NYB, User:Bakasuprman is back to his trolling, disruption and edit war. See this comment on User:Rama's Arrow's talk page. [1] It is racial in that it insults Dravidian people of Taml Nadu. Buffalo is a denigrating reference to dark skinned people in Taml Nadu. It is also an insult against Dbachmann. Time this fellow got a community ban. Also see new instances of edit/reversion war. [2], [3]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.181.56.12 (talk • contribs).

I am travelling this weekend with limited Internet access and will not be able to look into this in detail for a couple of days. If there is an ongoing problem please ask another administrator or post to WP:ANI for assistance. Sorry I can't be more proactive right now. Newyorkbrad 11:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no issue. Rama called me a buffalo. Tamil Nadu is the state from where my ancestors originated. In fact I am Tamil and have never heard this complete bullshit about buffalo. I'm betting an old chum is behind the nonsense. Rama btw is Gujju not Tamil.Bakaman 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. Looks like someone using a proxy as it traces to Iraq. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

arbitration

In regards to the Miskin arbitration:

Is there any remedy that can be taken then? The trolling is obscene. He's trolling me, he's trolling Mardavich, he's using the workshop to retaliate against me for making a proposed finding against him....when does it end? It's ridiculous, and it surely passes beyond the simple frustration of an arbitration case: this is moving into sheer animosity and disruptiveness. At what point does someone say "Stop, you're being a dick, and you need to stop?" ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Frankly, I've never had as low an opinion of this editor as you do, but I've now told him to cool off a number of times, and I may start to support action at some point if he doesn't. Much more important, I don't get a vote in the case; the arbitrators will come to the case, which they should reach in a few days, without preconceptions, and we'll see what they have to say. Truly, I wish with the one-week block expired Miskin had started to edit content again. That would help us see whether he was willing to work collaboratively or not in mainspace where it really counts, and the same for other editors of the same material as well. I have to tell you, though, and I'm sighing as I say this, that the level of animosity here is actually a little mild for an arbitration case. Hopefully the arbitrators can get this one wrapped up soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad 11:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mild? Hmm. My other experience with Arbcom was on Derek Smart. Maybe it was cause I had been mediating it, or been inured to it, but it wasn't too bad there. This one isn't THAT bad, it's just incessant, and IMHO hypocritical. Meh, I just with the arbitrators would get to this one, I know they're busy, but IMHO there's no new information coming out (except mardavich's claim of evidence of Miskin's incivility, which would essentially duplicate evidence already out there, so no real need). What exactly determines when an case moves from evidence to "voting"? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A case moves to from evidence to voting whenever an arbitrator writes up a set of proposals to be voted on. There's no real science to how quickly that happens. In the second half of last year, when one arbitrator was doing most (though not all) of the drafting, the cases typically were reached in roughly chronological order. This year, at least five arbitrators have written up decisions, so it's a little harder to know when to expect to see proposals. I understand your frustration, of course; everyone wants the arbitrators to take the time to thoroughly study the evidence and the arguments, but I know that when I submit evidence or workshop proposals I am always eager to see how the arbitrators will react to them, and I know that the anticipation or concern would be even far greater were I actually a party to a case. (On the other hand, the time periods involved in this case are as nothing compared to real world cases I deal with, and I'd give anything to watch as judges draft opinions and have an opportunity to comment on their first drafts point-by-point!) Newyorkbrad 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, as a law student I feel you. So it moves into voting when the first arbitrator drafts proposals? Does it help then, that we've written quite a few proposals already? It may have something to do with way more cases being in progress now than when I last remember it, but I could swear that I remember arbitrators commenting on the workshop page....I want to say that it happened in the evidence phase, but I can't be sure, it may have been already into voting. Anyway, arbitration is one of those processes that I learn something new every time that I go through it, which thankfully is not often at all. Thanks for teaching me about it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators may place their own proposals or comment on other people's proposals on the /Workshop page, while still in the Evidence phase, or move directly to voting on /Proposed decision. Which they do, I suppose, depends on how sure they are of the proposals and whether they think they need more commentary first. I don't know how they will elect to proceed in this instance, although I agree that the time has come for some of them to wade into the morass. Newyorkbrad 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

citation issue

Hi NYB - I respect your opinion, but its an obvious, well-known and universally accepted fact. You're like asking for a citation for stating that the Earth goes around the Sun, or asking God to give citation for each of his commandments, or.... well, you get the gist. Also, citations are not a requirement.... Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Please accept my most sincere apologies for that mistake. I also did not look at any of Ryulong's RfAs since after I came accross that.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia (1917-1918)

Thanks for being bold in closing this! -- Petri Krohn 03:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck, Ben Ownby

I realize that you raised the possibility of the deletion of these articles at Tony's talk page and that several other editors were apprised of (and ostensibly concurred in) your decision to speedy, and so I appreciate that you sought to gain some assurance that a consensus would exist for deletion here; anything more than summary, unilateral speedying of articles solely in view of BLP is surely, it is sad to say, to be applauded. Nevertheless, I'm a bit troubled. I can't conclude with any confidence that DRV would overturn the Ownby speedy, and so I'm hesitant to question your deletion here; even as I continue to believe that DRV ought to address procedural inaccuracies even where it is eminently likely that the results of those inaccuracies will be affirmed, I realize that we ought to avoid DRV drama wherever possible. Hornbeck, to be sure, is a different case, if only because he was so prominently interviewed/featured (e.g., on The Oprah Winfrey Show, Today, and Good Morning America, and in People) in the days and weeks subsequent to his "escape" as to make certain that Wikipedia will not be the only (or even most prominent) medium in which his name should appear in connection with his putative abduction in twenty years' time . I do not believe that the community would sanction deletion, especially without substantial discussion, here, but I am willing to abide the belief of others that deletion might be the ultimate disposition; I cannot imagine, though, that the community would disfavor the restoration of Shawn Hornbeck as a redirect to Michael J. Devlin or the readdition of the names of the kidnapees to the latter article (the redaction significantly compromised, I think—and this is something rather remarkable for me to say—the syntactic quality and general clarity of the article). If you are disinclined, then, to restore Hornbeck (at least) as a redirect (I suppose history undeletion would not be necessary)—as well and not unjustifiably you may be—I will take the issue to DRV in order that we might better appreciate where a consensus lies. On the issue of the names in the Devlin article, I see that Calwatch has returned them in view of their [having been] in the media. If you continue to believe their inclusion to be inappropriate, I hope and trust that, if only per BRD, you'll attempt first to establish a consensus for their removal at the the article talk page. Apologies for the length here, but I hope that we might avoid ten times these words at AN/I, RfAr, RfC, DRV, the mailing lists, WT:BLP, and WT:CSD, to name seven locales at which similar disputes have been situated of late. Please let me know at your leisure, then, whether you intend to oppose the restoration of Hornbeck (and perhaps Ownby) as a redirect to Devlin, and please weigh in relative to the naming issue at the Devlin talk. Cordially, Joe 04:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose it and it has precedent to remain deleted and unredirected ala Lori Klausutis. The victims themselves are largely irrelevant to the historical event. Maintaining detailed information on victims of crime for salacious, gratuitous or prurience is not acceptable. They are not notable in and of themselves and therefore should nbot have details about their lives published. If the victims names are replaced with "john doe", the reader isn't left with any less insight into the crime. It is sufficient to know that that victims were abducted young boys. Their identities are not relevant. If they decide to share their biographical details in a manner and forum that makes it notable, then they can have an article or a redirect. Until then, they are non-notable names. --Tbeatty 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your thoughtful posts. I've responded to similar concerns at Talk:Michael J. Devlin. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland

It may have been a good idea to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland early. The problem here is that some people do not think, that this decions is enforcable. Therefore this vandalism is still continuing rampant. (see [4], [5]) It seems like we may need administrator intervention. -- Petri Krohn 10:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri, please don't misrepresent this. See my reply here.. DLX 12:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point at least, I would prefer to assume good faith and consider this a content dispute to be addressed through the editorial process. I have limited Internet access over the next couple of days, so you can take the matter to ANI if problems continue and administrator intervention is essential. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Hello, Brad. I just wanted to drop by to thank you for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I hope to live up to your expectations. Oh, and feel completely free to yell at me if I ever screw things up =) Have a great Wikibreak! Yours truly, PeaceNT 12:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shawn Hornbeck. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Calwatch 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advisory. I will comment there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And Brad - I promise that I'm not purposefully getting up your ass on these. I have nothing but respect for how you've been handling this situation in comparison to some other people, and while I disagree, I think this is a good chance to see how these can be handled properly. That's how I'm going into this right now, so I apologise in advance if I say something that rubs against you the wrong way - that's not my intent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So far the first commenter wants me desysopped for a week, which is not a good start, although it would give me a chance to catch up at the office.... Newyorkbrad 02:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I understand that you want this to be discussed civilly. I realize that the title I originally posted to ANI was certainly incivil and inflammatory; for that I apologize. I left a note and have changed it. --Iamunknown 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the startling vitriol associated with some of the other comments, I just wanted to drop you a line regarding my commentary there. I'm rapidly becoming aware that this is part and parcel of a larger Wikiprocess nightmare regarding WP:BLP at the moment. I think that we're arguing toward the same motivations in respect to the outside world, but have different philosophies about how to get there. I'm not in any rush to get drawn into the larger conflict here (busy enough trying to broker discussion at WT:NPA!), but I wouldn't mind chatting about how you'd approach some of these issues ... in a forum with fewer calls for desysopping than that DRV seems to have.

Regards, Serpent's Choice 11:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in my WP:DRV request on WP:Administration Abuse. I was really hoping others would notice it and contribute so it could eventually become a more-well-referenced part of Wikipedia. As a long-time Wikipedian I've seen a lot of abuse, including out-of-process actions especially, as well as favoritism and gang attacks. People wonder why the drop-off rate is so high on Wikipedia among editors. One reason is the utter lack of control that Arbcom and other *higher-level entities* exert over admins and the ridiculously high bar that an editor has to meet to even *think* about going after one. I'm ranting. That must mean I need more sugar, or less sugar. Wjhonson 20:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think you're a moron. I'm fairly certain your IQ is at least 100, and quite possibly 180. Your rating on the empathy scale may be somewhere north of Mother Theresa, while my own hovers in the neighborhood of Carl Panzram. Not that I've ever been convicted of murder mind you. But I will strive to ensure that thought crimes are never actionable. (See also 1984, etc. thank you for your attention we now return you to your regular program.)Wjhonson 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fr0's edit

Hey Brad. Not a problem, I was being very sarcastic in tone on that page, as you can tell. ;) It's ok, I just that I didn't understand that if it was on a talk page, why revert. That topic was hot, so the opinions were mixed. Enjoy your holiday break. :) Fr0 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but arguing about this article is just not a useful way to spend anyone's time at this point. If anything has ever been discussed to death in the history of Wikipedia, it's whether Brian Peppers should have a page or not, and the community's answer has been resoundingly negative. Frankly, it's enough already. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for this edit - I didn't make it myself in case the templates/etc. had been changed whilst I was away, but I didn't actually mean to seem to demand that a Clerk come along and fix it. :-)

James F. (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some of the wording at the top of the template pages has been updated a little bit, but the section headings are the same as always. The line just got inadvertently dropped when another arbitrator was adding his proposals, so it was no big deal to put it back. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted from Template talk:Did you know

With regard to my self-nom of Robert Alexander Inch, I have to say that in a year now on Wikipedia, this is the first time I've ever been told that anything I wrote was too short. (Normally, I get the opposite complaint; I once asked a wiki-friend if he'd seen my !vote yet on Mackensen's RfB, and his response was "yes, I read your book.") Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I must be a really cranky guy these days....:(.....but these days we have a lot of supply and sometimes when there is one less update per day than we are, that buts us on the back foot...although....if things swap over real quick, we could catch it up....but 2100 chars is not so big....these days I don't self-nom anything less than 3k, and a lot of my recent ones User:Blnguyen/DYK....as well as that when I am not looking, some guys let through tautological hooks like "...that the Scientology Centre does research on Scientology" etc, etc..... But then I guess after the minor wheel war on January 15, we don't want to talk too much about subjective interestingness do we? Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Already responded on your talk (I was responding there while you were cross-posting here). Oh, and happy anniversary. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Violetriga wheel-warred his stuff onto T:DYK over the objections about his tautological hook...about bad safety -> deaths and injuries despite me dissenting on the suggestions page and two further admins ignoring it on earlier occasions. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 04:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga? Frankly, I didn't know there were active admins I've still never heard of! The only previous controversy I had seen about a DYK item that actually made the mainpage was when Essjay controversy was listed in March for I believe it was 9 minutes. Oh, and of course if you don't fit Robert A. Inch in I will have to reserve and pursue all of my rights and remedies ... as you know, I have connections on the Arbitration Committee ... wait, never mind.... :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Or you could stick the DYK clock on your page and update it when it goes red, and when it speeds up, there will be more opportunities for everyone. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we are...

On May 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Alexander Inch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for all your work Brad. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - and happy anniversary again! Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Merkey socks

Newyorkbrad, will someone not indef block these attack accounts: User:Kebron, User:Nyet, User:Poindexter Propellerhead, User:CatchFork? Whatever Merkey's shortcomings as an editor, it's just ridiculous that we've allowed this to continue. Ridiculous, and wrong.Proabivouac 07:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the most cynical abuse of WP:AGF I've ever seen. Perhaps it's not entirely civil for me to have replied, "bullshit",[6] - well, it's not - but as I said, these people know the rules, they know how to feign being regular users, and they are playing us like a cheap flute. Strong action is warranted to guarantee the integrity of the project.Proabivouac 08:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty tied up this morning, but will take a close look later in the day, unless someone else gets to it first. With Mr. Merkey now not editing, it should be easy enough to see if these accounts are going to go ahead and make other valid contributions or not. I certainly agree that creating an account for the purpose of harassing an editor is obnoxious and blockable regardless of the merits of that editor. Newyorkbrad 12:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Two of these accounts are already blocked for trolling. The others appear to be making some good-faith contributions, but I will keep an eye open. Newyorkbrad 15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look through. Kebron appears entirely sincere but pissed off with Jeff, which you must admit is hardly uncommon on the Internet. CatchFork is just trolling. Poindexter is the subject of ... discussion ... on WP:AN right now - David Gerard 17:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, and along with JzG helping maintain some sanity. Truthfully, this kind of thing upsets me too much to keep as cool a head as I'd like to.

Came across another one just now. How many are there? I can see why Duk started keeping a list. User:ChurchOfTheOtherGods starts on 25 April and makes two entirely innocuous edits to Talk:Meme. From then on, starting 6 May, it's all Merkey, first at ANI, then moving to Daniel Brandt and Cherokee and proceeding to the RfC.[7] Note the harmless tone: "Sorry for posting here, not sure exactly what to do:"[8] What's the chance that he was truly sorry for posting there, or wasn't sure exactly what to do?Proabivouac 06:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikithanks

I'd like to thank you for ending that particular [useless] flame war. -- Cat ^chi? 15:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; I hope it really is over. I have to add that you confused me last week too: White Cat removed an arbitration request that Cool Cat had filed, and I was wondering "who is this newbie who is tampering with the arbitration page?" until I checked it out. But that is water under the bridge by now. Happy editing. :) Newyorkbrad 15:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck brad. I tried closing that MfD in the same way yesterday, and got reverted and scolded.--Doc^g 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Ned Scott nicely to drop the issue at this point; maybe that will help. Newyorkbrad 16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

Hello! Could you please cite the policy on which you based the speedy closure of this MfD debate? Thanks. —David Levy 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia while making contributors feel welcome, rather than feud about matters of highly peripheral importance. If you want to engage today and give the community the benefit of your experience on a policy issue of paramount concern, I'd welcome your thoughts on the Hornbeck/Ownby DRV, rather than perpetuating MfD edit-warring about a userpage redirect. Newyorkbrad 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that your out-of-process closure made the participants whose concerns you deemed unimportant "feel welcome"?

The MfD debate was being conducted in precise accordance with the user page guideline. This is the exact procedure that is to be followed when the speedy deletion of a user page is contested. To what contrary "precedent" were you referring? —David Levy 18:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dozens of users have changed their usernames and either deleted or redirected their old userpages in their sole discretion. I don't recall it ever being an issue before and see no reason it should be; the idea that we should have a 5-day community discussion on this matter is inane. I again entreat you to contribute to a discussion that is of significance to the project rather than pursue this matter. Newyorkbrad 18:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Please cite a prior instance in which a user with a history of misconduct and past ArbCom sanctions apparently requested the deletion of such a redirect out of spite, acknowledged that it accomplished nothing other than to inconvenience the community, and declared that he/she didn't care because it wasn't his/her problem.

2. You certainly are entitled to your opinion that the redirect should have been deleted, but what gives you the right to impose said opinion on the community by halting an active (and far from one-sided) MfD debate in a manner contrary to policy? Why are you entitled to unilaterally determine which issues are "of significance to the project" and which ones aren't (thereby disregarding numerous editors' concerns)?

3. When, if not now, is the aforementioned guideline text applicable? Are you saying that it's never applicable? If so, shouldn't you propose that it be modified (instead of simply circumventing it because you don't like it)? —David Levy 18:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) Although User:Cool/White Cat has certainly had various issues from time to time in the past, I decline in the spirit of WP:AGF to credit your speculation that his wish not to redirect his old-name userpage to his new-name userpage arises "out of spite" or solely to inconvenience other users. (2) I adhere to my conclusion that the MfD debate was becoming a pointless time-sink, and am comforted to note that I am far from the only administrator to have reached that conclusion. (3) The guideline you rely upon so heavily deals with a situation in which someone believes that the userpage itself needs to be retained for some specific reason, not with retention vs. deletion of a redirect created and insisted upon by an editor other than the original user.

We can rules-lawyer this until the cows come home, but the real question is how much more of Wikipedians' time do you believe should be expended on this matter? My decision to close the MfD stands. I respectfully but strongly urge that the matter be allowed to drop here. Newyorkbrad 19:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Cool/White Cat didn't seek to have the redirect deleted until a dispute regarding his editing of archived signatures arose. He repeatedly stated (right on the MfD page) that he doesn't care about the community's inconvenience because it isn't his problem. He was asked (with the utmost sincerity) to cite any other reason why he wanted the redirect to be deleted, and he failed to do so.

2. The MfD debate (in which no one was required to participate) was only a pointless time-sink if the arguments contained therein are never weighed because a sysop unilaterally determined that his opinion was sacrosanct and no one else's was worthy of consideration. How would you feel if I were to declare that a discussion in which you participated in good faith was "pointless" and throw your opinions out the window? How would you have felt if I'd speedily closed this debate with an outcome of "keep"?

3. Indeed, you are rules-lawyering. In this context, I see no relevant distinction between an actual user page and a redirect or any evidence that the guideline was intended to apply solely to the former. If it was, however, it cannot be applied to the original speedy deletion.

4. I'm not a process wonk. On the contrary, I'm a firm supporter of WP:IAR. Guideline or no guideline, this is hardly an uncontroversial matter. Therefore, setting aside all rules, the discussion wasn't even ethically speediable (regardless of the outcome). No matter which side is right, prematurely halting this debate will not serve to improve or maintain the project. Someone probably will list this at WP:DRV, so the dispute will only be prolonged. And if that discussion is speedily closed, I don't even want to think about what sort of ugliness will arise. —David Levy 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If "ugliness" is capable of arising from this matter, the loss of perspective on the part those creating it would be even greater than I feared. I will add that I would have preferred that you had not impugned my ethics, as opposed to the soundness of my decision, and would urge that you rephrase your remark. Why, precisely, do you think that I, and other administrators, believe that this a suitable matter for early closure? Newyorkbrad 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to question your integrity. I'm certain that you honestly believe that your closure was correct.

By "ethically," I meant "as opposed to legally." Sysops (including me) often speedily close discussions even if doing so technically doesn't comply with the letter of policy. My point is that this isn't what I'm complaining about. I believe that your speedy closure was inappropriate not because it violated a rule, but because it prematurely halted an active, good-faith discussion pertaining to a controversial matter. I hope that this clarifies my position.

I honestly don't know why you (and others) feel this was warranted. I strongly believe that the redirect should have been kept, but I wouldn't have condoned a speedy closure with that outcome. —David Levy 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; I do follow your meaning, and the distinction you are drawing between "legally" and "ethically," more readily now. In the "ethical" sense, I didn't see that the controversy on this matter was worth sustaining for another 4 days, and my default position is to accommodate the requests of the user unless doing so would cause damage, as opposed to momentary inconvenience. I'm sorry to find myself in disagreement with you on this, and hope to collaborate with you at some point on some aspect of the project that might be a bit more rewarding. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the deletion does cause damage (albeit relatively minor damage) and in no way benefits the project. Had Cool/White Cat cited a logical reason (or any reason) why he wanted this, I would have reconsidered my stance. Instead, he openly acknowledged that he simply doesn't care about the harm (because it isn't his problem).

The above, however, pertains to my personal opinion regarding the matter of contention. As I said, I feel that any speedy closure would have been inappropriate (and more likely to prolong the controversy than to end it). Had you speedily closed the debate with a "keep" outcome, I still would have objected. The key problem isn't that the "wrong" decision was reached; it's that the entire ongoing discussion was negated.

On your last point, I agree. I'm sorry that we don't see eye-to-eye on this, and I certainly hope that our future interaction yields positive results. —David Levy 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

brad, you are being disruptive by prematurely closing the MFD. You are wrong, and we have the pages that say you are wrong. All that is left is how you feel about the matter, which you are free to express on the MFD. -- Ned Scott 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to revert and close it again, but will wait a short time to see how other editors react. If I do close it again and declare the close final, what will you do? Newyorkbrad 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert you for being incorrect. It's plain as day that it's inappropriate to speedy close the MFD. I understand how you feel, but by doing this you are making it even a bigger deal than it was. What gives? -- Ned Scott 22:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel so strongly about this matter. In fact, I don't really understand why you care at all about this matter. I have little more patience for dealing with it, although I note that now still another administrator has agreed with my view and reverted the close again. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to understand why I feel strongly about it, it's not for you to judge. That's not your role as an administrator, nor is it BigDT's. Our guidelines and policy have said to list it for MFD, and we have, and you have no justification whatsoever to close it. -- Ned Scott 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, understanding the reasons that parties wish to keep a controversy going is often quite relevant in deciding whether any useful purpose is served by allowing the discussion to go on rather than pretermit it. And at all events, by this point I'm quite curious, in case you'd care to humor me with an explanation. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

While Ned seems to feel more strongly about this than I do, I'll note that the above is based upon the false premise that it's possible to end a controversy by prematurely terminating a formal discussion and disregarding the good-faith arguments in favor of one's personal opinion. —David Levy 22:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is an accurate statement about 95% of the time. But sometimes the stakes in the "controversy" are sufficiently small that it is reasonable to expect the disputants to accept a neutral party's decision (or, as in this case, five neutral parties' decision) and move on with their lives. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not your call to make, brad. -- Ned Scott 22:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't perceive you as a neutral party (to any greater extent than I'm a neutral party). You didn't weigh the arguments and arrive at a consensus-based decision. You threw them out and substituted your own judgement for that of the community (instead of simply expressing your opinion in the discussion). —David Levy 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the civil and thoughtful argumentation. I agree that there's probably not enough material for a decent article on Ben Ownsby, and would have supported a redirect. Shawn Hornbeck is a much more covered case, and we probably can have a good article on him given the many surrounding events and foundation created. However, I still haven't seen an address of what I consider a criticial issue here: Why use speedy deletion instead of simply taking it to AFD?

Speedy deletion is only supposed to be for uncontroversial or urgent cases, and deletion policy explicitly states that if it's likely to be disputed, it should go to AFD instead. This never should have come to DRV, and DRV is the wrong venue for this sort of argumentation. it's just being forced into that role. You're a lawyer, I'm sure you can understand how it's our court of appeals - not supposed to make findings of fact, just judgments on process, and remand back to other venues for decisions on content of articles. At this point there's been too much discussion to force it back to AFD, but I'd rather see cases like this discussed there, with the content still visible, and with all options open, including improvement of the existing article, instead of in what's supposed to be the court of appeals for disputed procedure.

This was very much an out of process deletion, and I feel like we'd all be better off if you'd posted your excellent rationale at an AFD discussion, and let the article wait a week. We'd get the exact same outcome working within process, and it'd cause a lot less useless heat. I hope you understand that too, and will address the process issues raised by your action (the very issues DRV is supposed to deal with) in another post. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you've added recognition of that since, thanks. I just hope you can make a plea to other editors to stop this madness of rampant unnecessary speedy deletion that's encouraged so much conflict. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Thank you for your opening words. In retrospect, Shawn's article probably should have gone to AfD; I am much more confident Ben's probably was speedyable, but a bit of talkpage discussion wouldn't have hurt. The reason I didn't use AfD in the first instance is that in the past, concerns with some clearly inappropriate articles that clearly did warrant summary deletion were not taken as seriously by the AfD commenters as they should have been. Unlike DRV, which is regularly watched by many of our most experienced and policy-cognizant Wikipedians, the sheer volume of the AfD listings each day makes the universe of AfD !voters much more of a hit-or-miss crowd. What is more, any attempt to bring a particular deletion discussion to attention of the editors who would have the most valuable input to offer, is met with shouts that WP:CANVASS has been violated and those editors' contributions should be discounted. I will write more about this important process issue when I have an answer to it. I will add that I can only speak for myself, and feel that some of the other recent BLP-related speedy deletions and DRV closures were thoroughly justified, though others were not. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the CSD, though, and I think that's with good reason. These are pretty much guaranteed to be controversial. Plus, you don't have to convince everyone at AfD, and it's way less likely to lead straight to arbcom. You could try listing at the BLP noticeboard if you want more input without seeming like too much of a canvass. Experienced editors concerned with biographies should be watching that anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My contribution tonight was intended to add to the community dialog about process as well as about substance; I look forward to the thoughts of other editors on these issues. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hey Brad, I see you're rather in the thick of it at the moment in one area or another :-). I think I mostly agree (both re:Ownsby/Hornbeck and Cool Cat). I realise you're pretty busy but if you can spare a moment I'd like your advice about something unrelated. Can you be available for a quick chat on gmail? I can email you if not... Cheers, WjBscribe 02:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming on now. Newyorkbrad 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In Recognition

File:Resilient-silver.png		The Resilient Barnstar
		Awarded to Newyorkbrad in recognition of his being open to the ideas of others, and his continued growth as an administrator of the first order, in respect of the deletion of two highly sensitive biographical articles. Thank you for reminding us of how good Wikipedia - and Wikipedians - can be.

Risker 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My basic ideas on this overall subject are unchanged, but more information is always better than less, and engaging with other editors' ideas is always better than ignoring them. My hope is to promote continued discussion and consensus-building on the difficult issues these situations raise, and I'd welcome your further input. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of the notice. I still think this matter should have been quietly dropped awhile ago. I'll comment at the DRV. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'm not at all comfortable with allowing the situation to simply be glossed over as a "mistake" when it clearly was not. A simple discussion at AN/I is simply not a strong enough commentary in response to an unaccountable discussion where administrators who believe that users "should have been blocked months ago" can make some kid a patsy to get what they don't have the balls to do themselves accomplished. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretend I'm the arbitrator. I've reviewed all the evidence and I agree with you about every aspect of the situation. What do you want me to do? Newyorkbrad 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What do I want you to do? There are three people who are clearly not trustworthy enough to have the bit anymore, perhaps four. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now switching back to the real world where the arbitrators are the arbitrators. No chance; none; zero; tilting at windmills; not going to happen; not even worth trying; don't squander credibility on a lost cause; forget about it. I hope I wasn't too subtle for you there. Newyorkbrad 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is that so absurd to consider? Serious question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because they don't desysop people for one incident short of it's deleting the mainpage or something. My view is that they shouldn't, but even if I thought that they should, the fact is that they don't. And you probably deep-down realize that, but if not, take a look at NoSeptember's list of admins who've lost the bit and see if you can put one block, however bad and poorly reasoned, fits in with that catalog. Newyorkbrad 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to chime in. I agree that desysopping for a single judgment error is likely excessive. But single instance of a judgment error is not the same thing as a single known instance of unethical conduct for quite an obvious host of reasons. --Irpen 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is we have some policies that are entirely reasonable in isolation but add up to unreasonable outcomes. It is reasonable to ignore one bad decision to block by an admin as long as it is not part of a pattern. It is reasonable to not base on-wiki sanctions on off-wiki behavior for various reasons, including reliability of evidence. However that means (hyopthetically) that a group of senior admins who should know better can persuade a new admin to take a bad decision today, and do it over and over again without penalty as long as the patsy is different. (that seems to be the allegation) It also makes it very hard to deal wih organized meatpuppetry, as shown in the Hkelkar 2 case. I agree with jeff that the matter is of deeper concern than just the block by Zsinj, but I'm not sure there is a practical solution. Thatcher131 02:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This might be the frustrating part - the lack of a practical solution. Once is a grave error (Giano). Twice is beyond reasonable, especially when people reference the first situation while discussing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(responding to Thatcher - edit conflict) That would certainly be a nightmarish scenario, but I don't have any reason to believe it's what happened here. Make no mistake: I have no use for the block that Jeff received, and I previously opined that the block of Irpen a few months back was unjustified (as the ArbCom eventually unanimously agreed when the block was identified as part of a longer series of misjudgments). I don't want to say too much more that would rely on the off-wiki evidence, and it's a bit moot, because my level of influence over what badlydrawnjeff is going to do is, for better or worse, about the same as anyone else's. Newyorkbrad 02:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for better or for worse, I trust your judgement over most others regarding issues like this. I'll simply continue keeping a close eye - if they were dumb enough to do that, they'll certainly trip up again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How about you trust my judgment on deletions, too, and then we can call it a night? :) Newyorkbrad 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if you buy me dinner first. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is by far not the first instance of the gullible newbie admin being talked into starting fire by more experienced ones. Past examples are well-known and don't need to be named. The best recommendation for newbie admins on what to do when approached on IRC with blocking suggestion was written not so long ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#Bullies in a Barrel.2C or .22Delete.2FUndelete.2FCall Names.2FBlock.22. Problem is that there are always admins too new to realize that the block button is likely to be a "launch the new big mess" button. Primarily responsible are the figures behind this and they should be held accountable. It is also worth mentioning that for #en-admin fairies the adminship and the access to the channel are the most important perks as they, as a rule, don't make substantiative content edits for months. As per this, when ArbCom continues on its course of deadminning the abusers, the violence will be greatly curbed. --Irpen 02:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that people who endorse bad decisions on IRC will eventually make bad decisions on wikipedia. Thatcher131 02:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You may very well be right about that as several deadminnings by ArbCom showed but I would prefer not to bet that this would continue to happen. If there is evidence of unethical behavior, there is no need to wait for an instance when the user who often acts unethically also acts silly. --Irpen 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(resp to TT - edit conflict) Agreed. As for Zsinj, for what it is worth, he has actually been an administrator for close to a year now; but discussing the theoretical possibility of sanctions against him may be relatively unimportant at this point: see User:Zsinj and User:Zsinj/Army. Newyorkbrad 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any chance of the committee laying a sanction on Zsinj, they've made that clear. I do think that if as alleged certain admins habitually advocate unethical behavior in-channel, it presents a problem even though in principle and 99% of the time in practice, the "wall of separation" between wikipedia and IRC is a good thing. Thatcher131 02:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, there is no wall of such separation whatsoever. IRC-plotted decisions are implemented onwiki often enough, no good reasons for the very existence of that channel were ever brought up (unlike arbitrators' or checkuser IRC channel where the curtain is justified) and the channel did much harm and nothing good. This of course brings us back to basics and to the obvious best solution on how to end this mess. This solution of course is not going to be implemented since ArbCom is not uniform about this, for one, and even if it ever decides to make a drastic and long warranted step, Forrester and Gerard would simply (again) state they don't care a bit of what ArbCom or community is saying wrt "their" channel. But what ArbCom can and must do is to reign in on the perpetrators in those rare cases when the evidence spills out of the can. --Irpen 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Change your name

nyb, change your user name. Internal caps are the preferred way to go ;-). NoSeptember 19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I came up with this username when I thought I'd be writing one or two articles. If I'd known I'd be using it 12,000 times and counting, I certainly would have done better, as I realized when I took a look at User:Radiant!/Classification of admins and saw what a dull category I fall into. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A dull category to offset your shiny contributions :-). How quickly you've become the ultimate insider... I see you are running the board elections now. NoSeptember 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of a committee, and at the periphery ... ultimate insider, no. On the other hand, it looks like an MfD closure of mine may be upheld, and I've gotten a few pages written this month, so to that extent things are going well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(Pardon the refactor, but it seemed out-of-place above, and I just had to comment : )

Let's see.. (thumbs around for some humourous comments) - How about:

Yes, do you know how many times I've misspelled your username? It's of course your fault for picking a spelling that I don't prefer...

Yes, change your username, so that your extensive block log will be unknown.

Yes, please change your username, I have a thing against New Yorkers.

Yes, change your username, I have a thing against Brads.

No, don't change your username, I only just got used to spelling it!

No, don't bow to oppression of the cabal and change your username.

Yes, please change your username so that I can edit war over whether your old user page should be deleted...

No, don't change your username, I get so confused when these new names pop up on my watchlist...

Yes, change your username (proper capitalisation)

And (finally for now):

Yes, change your user name, I keep confusing you with User:New York Jeweller, User:New york guy, User:NewBrandon, User:NewBard, User:New New York's Advocate, User:Newbie Brad, User:NewfoundlandLad, User:Newkad, User:Newlandconcertbrass, User:Newmarkj, User:Newsunfad, User:Newtownards, User:Newyorkcat, User:Newyorkman, and a myriad of names including NewYork. Not to mention your obvious sockpuppets: User:Newyorkbrad & Aecis are gay rentboys on wheels! and User:Newyorkbrad is a homosexual freak, (among others), and, the one you seem to feel is the most appropriate, per above:User:Newyorkbrad is really boring.

(Hoping this finds you well, and received with the humour intended : ) - jc37 04:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

user Azerbaijani

I'd like to report about user:Azerbaijani. He makes false report on 3rr about me [9], accusing of insult, distorting my words on various talkpages. His continued allegations and reporting is not contributive to Wikipedia. It seems that his sole purpose is to follow any mentioning name "Azerbaijan" and removing it or arguing about it.--Dacy69 22:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately at this point I am involved in several other pressing matters both on Wikipedia and in my real life. Please refer this matter to the administrators' noticeboard or another administrator. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful to either of you at this time. Newyorkbrad 22:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is good. I need timeout from attacks. I am disengaging.--Dacy69 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A false 3rr report? LOL! Newyorkbrad, take a quick look at report, you'll see that once again Dacy thinks Wikipedia rules dont apply to him. No matter how many times I ask him, he has not reviewed Wikipedia's policies and I once again had to copy and paste the relevant sections to show him that my report was not "false".Azerbaijani 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I really had hoped that the Arbitration Committee decision would have led to improved working relationships among this group of editors. I am sad that it did not. An administrator on the 3RR noticeboard will review the report there. Newyorkbrad 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Dacey would stop continuously breaking his parole, read Wikipedia rules, and followed Wikipedia rules, theres no reason these things should be happening. Do you think I enjoy all of this? I dont, but at the same time, Dacy69 shouldnt be allowed to break Wikipedia rules and parole and get away with it, which is why I reported him.Azerbaijani 23:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Thewinchester

Is there any way to get this user unblocked before his unblock expires? You can read the discussion at AN/I and the user's talk page, he got blocked on a first (minor) offence without any warning whatsoever and a bunch of admins did a pile-on when he tried to get an unblock, which seems to be a highly inconsistent application of policy (especially since the letter of the policy forbids the kind of block he got) DanielT5 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may stop by, there was near unananamous consensus on AN/I to keep Thewinchester blocked. WJBscribes block was clearly endorsed - I see no new rationale for an unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't join that conversation, but if I had been the admin who dealt with the situation in the first instance, I would have warned rather than blocked. The editor's remarks were inappropriate but we are dealing with an experienced, good-faith contributor and giving a little more slack would have been in order. I have belatedly noted this reaction in the ANI thread. For better or worse, though, the issue will still be moot, as the block is going to expire soon by time. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Given the current backlogs at admin coaching, I was wondering if you'd take me under your wing? If you're not busy :p. I just think it's funny apparently it's easy to become a sysop...unless you're me and just manage to piss people off. -N 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad it turns out you think highly enough of me to ask, given the content of our last little discussion. I'm not really much use at "coaching" per se, and I don't think that what you need is coaching in the sense of an admin would do this, or prove that you know how to do function Z, or let me check over your edits, or the like. To be blunt, 90% of the issues raised in your RfA would be alleviated if you would pause for a minute before typing out messages and hitting the "send" button, and ask yourself whether whatever you are writing could be put in a more sensitive or tactful way. So in lieu of becoming a formal coach under some sort of arrangement, what I will do is promise to be here to answer any questions you may ever have about how to handle a situation, either as an editor or in the future as an admin candidate. Fair enough?

Incidentally, I don't know if you've returned to the DRV page since the "Anne Frank" dialog, but I've responded at length, indeed many would say at absurdly undue length, to your and a number of other editors' comments on the Hornbeck/Ownby deletions. Please take a look at my thoughts there if you haven't already and let me know what you think of them, either here or there. It was of concern to me that I apparently hadn't communicated my issues with the articles to a number of the commenters, including yourself, and I have tried to remedy that. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to refresh my memory...I don't recall the last time we had a discussion. Thanks for the offer, if I need advice I will solicit it. I could have avoided the embarassment over trying to "warn" admins for faulty deletions.

What you wrote about crime victims is very moving and well-written. I am taken aback that the article contained the number of times the kid was sodomized (I know you didn't write that but it was still moving) regardless of whether it was a sourced statement, it was definitely wrong to include that. You are right, of course, information may survive forever on the Internet but maybe we shouldn't have an accurate biography of someone that will never get updated because nothing they do again will be notable. I have recently gone through supervisor training at work and one part that really got to me was how little "process" matters if it's counterproductive (certain things like safety regulations being non-negotiable). -N 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No please tommorow

I mailed you now privately, please read and reconsider your decision and respond. --Aphaia 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I received your e-mail and am responding. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, it would be more than great if you haven't missed the latest one of mine, where I tried to summarize the recent discussion boosted with your input :) --Aphaia 00:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I am getting current now. If I have overlooked anything please let me know. Newyorkbrad 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

An update...

...regarding your ANI post earlier today, see WP:ANI#User:John celona. General nastiness around. Stay strong, Iamunknown 23:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

John celona (talk · contribs)

Just to let you know, I've blocked John celona for 24 hours as he's continued to troll ad make attacks despite a warning from me. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I wish this hadn't been necessary. :( Assuming good faith rather than trolling, I've posted some thoughts to his talk. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes

Hi Brad, I don't know whether I agree or disagree with your actions in the Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby deletetion debate; after reading all the comments I felt whatever policy eventually adopted would be the lessor of two evils. But I appreciate your obvious good faith, civility and willingness to endure such withering criticism so well. Best of luck! Lipsticked Pig 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I no longer know exactly how I feel about all of these issues either, at least in the marginal cases. The whole community is introspecting and agonizing over these types of problems. See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and frankly lots of other places too. Your own thoughts would be welcome in any of these forums, although quiet ambivalence is also understandable. Thanks for the kind words, which are sincerely appreciated. Newyorkbrad 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That AfD

Hi, :) While a beverage is normally an awesome idea, it is just possible that a productive discussion arose out of this. You might see Tony's talk, if you are interested... although, I slightly worry for your sanity if you are interested! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it can't be worse than the DRV on User:Cool Cat, although I won't say more in case you wind up being the closer there. Newyorkbrad 03:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)