This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Arbitration case pages (indeed, all pages) that you create are showing up in Special:NewPages as needing review and with red flags on Special:Watchlist. This clearly is not necessary, so…

Hi Bradv, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! AGK  ■ 21:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

AGK, notwithstanding the fact that Special:NewPages is default filtered for article-space (and unless you intentionally tweak with them, arbitration case pages showing up over there is a mystery), do you plan to add the autopatrolled bit to all those who create AfDs at some significant rate, since those remain as un-patrolled too?

NPRs review from Special:NewPagesFeed, which does not show any stuff outside of main-space, user-space and draft-space; so, you are not reducing their workload, either.

If you believe Bradv's article creations to be fine enough, grant it. But, your primary emphasis seems to lie on some other aspect, which ought not ever qualify as a minimal reason behind the grant of the bit. ∯WBG ^converse 06:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, I've never asked for autopatrolled as I always appreciate a second set of eyes on my AfC accepts and the articles I create, which I explained to AGK when he contacted me about this. He reviewed my contributions and determined this wasn't necessary, but the impetus for this change was the arbitration case I opened which showed up in Special:NewPages. (I guess there are people who review new pages outside of articlespace, which is probably a good thing.) Nevertheless, I hope you are not objecting to me actually having this right based on something I've done, in which case I am interested in your honest feedback. – bradv 🍁 13:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have seen a few of your AfC accepts and have not seen any red-flag. Whilst that's hardly a detailed review, the grant might be apt, indeed.

I am not disagreeing with yours' having the right but I am disagreeing with AGK's premises and the impetus (as mentioned by you); those stuff shall not be any considered when granting the auto-patrol bit. Getting bothered by red-flags over watchlist and yellow bars over a hardly-used special page (that too, after tweaking with filters) is scoping for ways, to be bothered about.

I hope that I am clear enough:-) ∯WBG ^converse 13:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, MediaWiki:Robots.txt, basically renders indexing/non-indexing actions over AfD/ArbCase pages, meaningless, to a large extent. ∯WBG ^converse 13:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Winged Blades of Godric. I see your point, but if having autopatrolled reduces the workload on others then I think it is still within the spirit of AUTOPATROLLED, if not the letter. As I said, it doesn't really matter to me either way, but I appreciate your comments and your feedback. Cheers. – bradv 🍁 14:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty well agreed that patrolling non-mainspace edits was pointless busy work? Regardless, bradv is a trustworthy editor and has created some good, well-sourced articles, and having this bit flipped helps the project, whether for AGK's watchlist or our expanding coverage of Canadian academics. I endorse the granting (although I'd rather a different bit be flipped) ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 14:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. I'd hope that renaming this to a neutral name could be done speedily and with little fuss. Cheers, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Piotrus: the title was given to me by the committee, presumably to encompass a slightly larger topic area than "Holocaust in Poland". I see the name as referring to the topic area of the dispute, and not as a characterization or pre-judgment of the editors involved. – bradv 🍁 12:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Per reasons given, I find this name not neutral and problematic. What is the procedure for renaming the case? I know it has been done in the past for some other cases. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, I just wanted to confirm that this was the case name as given to us by the arbitrators - and to let you know that the issue with the name has been raised on arbcom-clerks-l. SQL ^{Query me!} 17:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz moved my evidence on the page [1]. Is it possible to move it back, please? Thanks, My very best wishes ( talk) 13:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, it looks to me like you inserted your evidence above their placeholder, which is what they objected to. The order of the evidence doesn't matter in the slightest. – bradv 🍁 13:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

OK then. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"The order of the evidence doesn't matter in the slightest" - says you. Everyone knows that people read the beginning not the end. If it doesn't matter in the slightest why is he moving other people's evidence around? He did it to me too. If he has some problem with the order shouldn't he bring it up with you or SLQ? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

So how much time do we have exactly? Or at least approximately. I got to clean the litter box (sifting sand from cat poop is somehow a more appealing endeavor than dealing with this nonsense) and run errands and I don't want to get my evidence all chopped up. Assuming I have the word limit extension, I think I'm about 120 words over currently. Which I can trim, just... don't want my evidence to get all chopped up by clerks. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I have no intention of chopping up anyone's evidence without explicit direction from the arbs, although I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if you could find a way to shorten your submission (you're a little over 2000 words right now). Regarding timing, I think it would be fair to wait until the end of the day on the 23rd if things are still underway. Pinging SQL so he's aware of this conversation. – bradv 🍁 20:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I didn't mean to imply you had such intention, it's just what happens at WP:AE (sometimes in very bizarre ways), so I was concerned. End of the day on the 23rd would imply we have about 27.5 hours (currently it's 20:34 Wikipedia time), no? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, correct. Don't hold me to that though, the clerks could close it at any time on the 23rd. – bradv 🍁 20:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you check if I'm under 2k? By my count I got it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128 Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red... Virtual events: New topics: Sports / Education Geofocus: Microstates Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Initiatives we support: Atari Women University of Edinburgh 1000 Women in Religion Editor feedback: Check out the conversations regarding Sports, Sports, Sports! Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

I am sorry that you are no longer contributing to Wikipedia. I think that your body of work is exemplary, particularly within unseen behind-the-scenes processes that keep Wikipedia working. My sincere hope is that you find in the future that you are prepared to take down your retirement banner and return to the community. Should that not happen, you have my warmest wishes for wherever life takes you. AGK  ■ 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia. I agree with the hope expressed above that you will return. Donner60 ( talk) 05:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bradv,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹ Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

² Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration ( permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

Hi Bradv! I'm a bit unclear on procedure and was hoping I could ask you to clarify. As the vote currently stands, would the Signpost filing be heading towards a case? I would have thought five accept votes constituted "an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators" (five out of nine?) but I'm really a newbie at this so I may have got this wrong in any number of ways. Haukur ( talk) 21:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Haukurth, yes, it currently has enough votes to proceed. We're just waiting for go-ahead from the arbs to open the case. – bradv 🍁 21:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't mean to rush things and I know the arbs have plenty on their plate. Haukur ( talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The copied material is from uscg.mil , which I think is a US government site, so the article is PD-USGOV. If you disagree, let me know, and why. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@ DGG: yes, you are of course correct. I didn't realize that the Coast Guard was considered part of that, but the website clearly says the text is in the public domain. – bradv 🍁 04:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I look forward to your collaborative efforts on the lede of the Wikipedia article which is currently badly out of date. Let's try to be collaborative. I saw you are frustrated with the foundation & are an ArbCom clerk unless I'm mistaken. Is this a COI? Are you sure you are the best placed person to decide how to edit this page neutrally? A very recent edit summary on your userpage: "enough. Email me when the WMF takes steps to actually fix this place instead of destroy it." Best, 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, what would you have me do, put a userbox on my page declaring a COI with Wikipedia because I edit Wikipedia? I think we're all capable of following our policies and guidelines with respect to this article and holding each other to account when our edits are less than compliant. Let's do that. – bradv 🍁 15:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's start with your removal of the word "political" in the systemic problems. Also, insofar as you work for the sweet-13 mentioned in the article about the brutal petty wars on Wikipedia ^[1], I believe that's a pretty clear COI. Still, I'm willing to work with you on the talk page, but I do believe you should consider refraining from editing mainspace for this particular entry. Check out the quote field for futher discussion of the protection policy and an explicit statement that not everyone can edit (in 2019).

Similarly could you please explain why you removed the word toxic? Surely you know references establishing that are a dime a dozen...

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I reverted your edit because it was synthesis. If you think that some parts of that edit are policy-compliant and would enlighten the reader, and you think you can get consensus for them, make your proposals on the article talk page and I'll happily comment. My talk page is not the place for this however. – bradv 🍁 16:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, here I'd like a simple yes-or-no answer if possible: Do you accept that being an ArbCom clerk gives you a COI with regard to editing the entry Criticism of Wikipedia? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

No. – bradv 🍁 16:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

what's currently going on at Criticism of Wikipedia, I'm not getting any response from SashiRolls, thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Dodger67, I have no idea. Hopefully they'll come up for air soon. – bradv 🍁 17:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps I can demand an explanation via ANI... Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey - saw that Superlinks got several new links. Nice job, and they look very useful! Thank you again for making the script. Enterprisey ( talk!) 21:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, TV6 (France), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, was this a misclick? Or am I missing something? – bradv 🍁 14:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, although on my curate tool it said I was he person who originally reviewed, else, I would have left an apology here. So please accept this apology. And keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, no problem. Cheers. – bradv 🍁 14:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

When I checked her edit history. I noticed that your proposed delation tag was removed by Swii99.They also reverted an edit ever wikilnking to Doug Ford page.What should be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.69.110 ( talk) 21:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If I felt strongly about it I would take it to AFD, but I don't. The article is in better shape than it was when I proposed deletion, and I think notability is established. I restored the wikilink to Doug Ford as I presume that was removed in error. – bradv 🍁 21:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Mpmaniac ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MPmania ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Our page was put up for speedy deletion for "allegedly promoting" the company, and also we were told to make a curation around what the media and notable platforms say about our platform and we did just that, and mentioned nothing about services or anything advertorial or promotional, kindly check it out and see, kindly compare the content to activity and see what im saying, the platform in general is not a usual type and it is also pretty notable and of high trustworthiness in its industry and part of the world. We'd love to hear good news, thanks alot.

Mpmaniac ( talk) 04:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Mpmaniac, please don't use Wikipedia for advertising. If your company is truly notable, someone without a conflict of interest will eventually write about it. – bradv 🍁 04:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

how many people do that on this side of the world? rarely happens, its even seen as something you have to be given rights to do, so people hardly engage in it unless expressly given permission to and please dont get us wrong, we arent using Wiki for promotion, thats why there was no promotional context, we understand fully well the rules and implications -- Mpmaniac ( talk) 04:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bradv. Just a heads-up that for today's WP:ACN announcement, ArbClerkBot correctly added the talk page section's links but it didn't do the appropriate steps for the project page section. Regards, AGK  ■ 10:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

AGK, I'm not at my computer so I can't check what caused it to fail, but I triggered it to run again with a null edit to ACN, and it worked this time. – bradv 🍁 12:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131 Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red... Virtual events: New: Film+Stage / Indigenous women / Millennial countries Continuing: Sports (through August 31st) / Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

-- Rosiestep ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes RickinBaltimore Oversight changes Beeblebrox RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment ( permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{ Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Regards, AGK  ■ 08:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added my co-nomination statement. All that's left is for you to add your answers to the three standard RfA questions, sign the acceptance statement (usually with an acknowledgement of whether you have ever edited for pay), then take a deep breath and transclude! If you would like me to transclude it for you, just let me know and I would be happy to. Good luck!! Mz7 ( talk) 10:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You already have my support – not that you need it – but I thought I'd share with you a view on the relationship between subject-specific guidelines (SNGs) and WP:GNG.

It's a truism that some subjects, such as sportspeople or entertainers, attract a disproportionate share of attention in the media; while other subjects, such as academics, are underrepresented in our mainstream press.

If you then examine the reasons why we have SNGs, you find two extremes:

1. the subject is so likely to have press attention that we can assume that they meet GNG;
2. the subject is not likely to meet GNG, but that would lead to a bias in our coverage of the general area, so we allow other criteria to substitute for GNG when establishing notability.

SNGs like WP:NFOOTY are of the first type, but although they give a strong indication that the subject is notable, it is still possible to argue in an AfD that they do not meet GNG if no sources can be found. So NFOOTY is not a replacement for GNG. We have no need to increase the number of articles about footballers as we already have plenty of coverage.

SNGs like WP:NPROF are of the second type, and we allow a subject who meets one of the alternative criteria for academics to be presumed notable. In these cases, NPROF is a replacement for GNG because we want to counter the bias in our coverage caused by a lack of mainstream sources for these subjects. Of course, we still have to find sources to write the article, but we are freed from the burden of finding sufficient sources to satisfy GNG.

Now, that's just one take on the issue, but it has a logic behind it which allows it to be extended to other SNGs. I hope it helps you when considering how SNGs ought to relate to the GNG. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 18:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, thanks for your support, and for your message here. I think Q8 is mostly referring to subjects that meet the GNG but do not meet the applicable SNG, such as an associate professor who has attracted a lot of media attention but never won any awards. In this case some would argue that they're not entitled to an article as they don't meet NPROF, but I would suggest that BASIC is a suitable argument for inclusion. Is that not clear in my response? – bradv 🍁 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course in the case of NPROF this isn't terribly relevant as C7 would cover most situations, meaning that pretty much any academic who satisfies the GNG also satisfies NPROF. – bradv 🍁 18:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's perfectly true, but I was hoping to cast a little light on the reasons behind our policies. I would also hope it is abundantly clear that someone failing NPROF isn't automatically disqualified from notability – for example, both Roger Bannister and Rab Butler would arguably fail NPROF, but they are clearly notable via GNG. Your response in the RfA is perfectly fine; as you have observed, there's some lack of consensus among editors over what should really be very straightforward issues. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 20:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, yeah I'm with you. I've written a few articles about people who meet NPROF but probably don't pass the GNG, e.g. Beverley Pearson Murphy. I've accepted plenty more through AfC. – bradv 🍁 20:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"help improve the encyclopedia and achieve its vision"

Thank you for quality articles such as Derrick Barnes and Blanket exercise, for dealing with articles for creation and deletion, for "indispensable" clerk services, for strike as protest against destruction but getting back to work, for "help improve the encyclopedia and achieve its vision", - Brad, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2263 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations Bradv! Your RfA was successful. You are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I hope you have just as happy a time editing in the future as you did before your RfA. You may want to look at the admin guide to read up on any tools you are unfamiliar with.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Congrats Bradv! Please remember not to mushroom. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, August 11, 2019

Thank you DeltaQuad! And thank you to all who participated in my RfA – the thoughtful encouragement and constructive criticism (in all sections) is very much appreciated. I will take all of your comments to heart, and I will not let you down. – bradv 🍁 16:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congrats on becoming an admin and thank you for blocking that IP @ Joseph Efford. JudeccaXIII ( talk) 19:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I see you are already making use of the tools at RFPP which does not hurt my feelings :). With that said, if I do anything questionable please let me know. Thanks!

S0091 ( talk) 22:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 14:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Congrats on receiving the mop, but don't forget to read the owner's manual. - ZLEA _T\ ^C 14:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Congrats! SQL ^{Query me!} 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Double sharp ( talk) 15:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Masum Reza ^📞 16:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations! SamHolt6 ( talk) 16:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Well deserved. Remember, it is only a big stick if the mophead is extra large! LessHeard vanU ( talk) 17:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Hi, Bradv! Congrats on your adminship and I look forward to seeing your mop at work. I see that you have already been doing some patrolling at WP:RFPP; that area can always use help. You might find my guidelines for new admins at User:MelanieN/Page protection to be helpful. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations, Bradv! Mz7 ( talk) 20:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Felicitations! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations and best wishes. (I am sorry I was offline and missed the RFA but I have seen your work and would have supported. At least I can add my congratulations! Donner60 ( talk) 04:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Congratulations!! Linguist111 ^{my talk page} 16:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, I really think you've been deceived by the way James Martin (priest, born 1960) is written. The article purports to present a balanced view of fair criticisms, but if you read the underlying sources, you'll see right away that Thucyd has simply quote-mined them to find snippets that seem to be providing fair criticism of Father Martin, when in context they are part of articles that are actually about a campaign by extremist anti-LGBT organizations to discredit Father Martin.

Consider this example. Thucyd cites a NYT article for the following proposition: "According to journalist Frank Bruni, Martin did not "explicitly reject Church teaching" but question the language of the doctrine describing homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered"." Now look at what the article actually says:

Check out the websites and Twitter accounts of far-right Catholic groups and you’ll see why. To them Father Martin is “sick,” “wicked,” “a filthy liar,” “the smoke of Satan” and a “heretic” on a fast track to “eternal damnation.” They obsessively stalk him and passionately exhort churchgoers to protest his public appearances or prevent them from happening altogether.

And they succeed. After the New Jersey parish in which his remarks were supposed to be delivered was inundated with angry phone calls, the event was moved off church grounds. Father Martin will give his spectacularly uncontroversial talk — “Jesus Christ: Fully Human, Fully Divine” — at a secular conference center in a nearby town. Why all this drama? What’s Father Martin’s unconscionable sin? In his most recent book, “Building a Bridge,” which was published in June, he calls on Catholics to show L.G.B.T. people more respect and compassion than many of them have demonstrated in the past.

That’s all. That’s it. He doesn’t say that the church should bless gay marriage or gay adoption. He doesn’t explicitly reject church teaching, which prescribes chastity for gay men and lesbians, though he questions the language — “intrinsically disordered” — with which it describes homosexuality. But that hasn’t stopped his detractors from casting him as a terrifying enemy of the faith — Regan in “The Exorcist” and Damien in “The Omen” rolled together and grown up into a balding and bespectacled Jesuit — and silencing him whenever they can. A talk about Jesus that he was supposed to give in London last fall was canceled. So was a similar talk at the Theological College of the Catholic University of America.

And the vitriol to which he has been subjected is breathtaking, a reminder not just of how much homophobia is still out there but also of how presumptuous, overwrought, cruel and destructive discourse in this digital age can be. “Inexcusably ugly” was how the Roman Catholic archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, described the attacks on Father Martin in an essay for the Catholic journal First Things in September. Archbishop Chaput is no progressive, but still he was moved to write that “the bitterness directed at the person of Father Martin is not just unwarranted and unjust; it’s a destructive counter-witness to the Gospel.” He cited a recent article in a French publication with the headline “Catholic Cyber-Militias and the New Censorship,” observing, “We live at a time when civility is universally longed for and just as universally (and too often gleefully) violated.”

After Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego published a similar defense of Father Martin in the Jesuit magazine America, one of Father Martin’s devoted inquisitors tweeted: “If you think the anti-sodomite bigotry in the church is bad, you should see hell.”

Do you see how this article is actually about the homophobic bigots who are attacking Father Martin, but Thucyd has quote-mined it in a way that attempts to paint a critical view of Father Martin? Is this acceptable per WP:BLP? -- PluniaZ ( talk) 19:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. – bradv 🍁 22:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

What about the rest of my concerns? I have made a good-faith BLP objection to the entire section (as I have explained yet again in a new section on the Talk Page). WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is 100% clear that the burden is on Thucyd to gain consensus to restore the material. Until then, the material should be removed. -- PluniaZ ( talk) 22:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, I protected the article because of edit warring. Any changes made during full protection must be in accordance with the consensus on the talk page, or demonstrated to be blatant BLP violations which justify urgent removal. Removing all mention of the book does not fall into that category. – bradv 🍁 22:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy says that? I cited clear Wikipedia policy at WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Thucyd restored material without obtaining consensus, in clear violation of this policy and is refusing to engage at all on the Talk Page. Shouldn't that tell you something? -- PluniaZ ( talk) 00:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

For goodness sake, one of the sources Thucyd uses is titled "Cardinal Sarah Confutes the Pro-Gay Jesuit". You protected a page that relies on this bigoted garbage as a source, and are ignoring requests to remove it??? -- PluniaZ ( talk) 00:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, I've written a neutral description of the book here that describes the critical reception of the book by reputable institutions instead of homophobic bigots and requested an RfC on the change. Please change the section to this neutral version pending the outcome of the RfC. -- PluniaZ ( talk) 01:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, here's my advice:

• Drop the over-the-top language. Calling people "homophobic bigots" isn't exactly endearing nor does it further your point of view.
• Draw up a neutrally-worded version that actually covers the controversy (i.e. don't delete all mention of the book, don't just quote glowing reviews).
• Make an edit request. – bradv 🍁 01:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:William Barr. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- PluniaZ ( talk) 01:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• And ..... welcome to the admin. corps. :-) — Ched :  ?  — 08:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed I'm not the author however as explained in the edit summary A) the user is indeffed and B) this was the last edited version, I wondered if G6 would've been better but either way this still should've been deleted. – Davey2010 ^Talk 17:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, you're right - there is nothing useful in the history. I've deleted it as vandalism. – bradv 🍁 22:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry was meant to have got back to this earlier - Many thanks for deleting it it's much appreciated :) (and many thanks for blocking the edit warrer too again much appreciated too! :)), Thanks and Happy editing :), – Davey2010 ^Talk 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#James Martin (priest, born 1960) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

-- PluniaZ ( talk) 15:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Your recent removal of my edit on the Texans for Vaccine Choice [2] seems very one-sided, as the current descriptive summary is far from "neutral", not to mention far from true. Please replace my edit to this page as it literally came from the groups' web page.

Respectfully, TXTruthFinder TXTruthFinder ( talk) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)8/14/19

TXTruthFinder, Wikipedia articles are written based on what is said in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What the subject says about themselves is not appropriate, and in many cases can constitute a copyright violation. If you have concerns about the neutrality of the article, please present your ideas on the talk page. If you have any type of external relationship or conflict of interest, do not edit the article directly. I hope this helps. – bradv 🍁 16:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

bradv 🍁, Does that mean the sources that are cited within the page aren't already enough evidence that TFVC is a neutral group, not an "anti-vaccine" group? Most of the articles either show them defending liberties or are one-sided opinion articles aimed against the group. I hardly find that "neutral" opinion.

Furthermore, if a group or person does not have the right to define themselves, then who does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TXTruthFinder ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

TXTruthFinder The group can define itself however it likes on its own website. On Wikipedia, however, we follow reliable sources. I count at least six that support the "anti-vaccine" description in the article. – bradv 🍁 17:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

bradv 🍁, I hope you realize that those are likely the one-sided opinion article that I was referring to. Opinions are known to be un-factual from time to time. However, I can see how if someone with a peanut allergy was resisting eating peanut butter they might appear to be anti-peanut butter. No article infers that they want to take vaccines away, even remotely. That would definitely be anti-vaccine, but they don't. I hope you can be open-minded enough to at least see my point. TXTruthFinder ( talk) 18:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

TXTruthFinder, I see your point, but I disagree with it vehemently. "Anti-vaccine" is the description used by the sources. As an aside, anti-vaccine ideology (aka vaccine hesitancy) is one of the top 10 global health threats right now. Without vaccines, 2-3 million more people would die every year. If this is what you've joined Wikipedia to promote, I strongly urge you to reconsider. – bradv 🍁 19:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congratulations on setting the new record on the fastest a new admin was taken to ArbCom! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I'm sorry about this, it looks like another revdel will be needed after the ones you just did per my request on IRC. I'm not sure how I managed to botch the revert twice, but the last edit of mine still has the troublesome assertion in it. Drdpw has tidied up after me, their revision seems clean. GirthSummit _(blether) 03:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, done. Cheers. – bradv 🍁 03:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

In regard to this, I was in the process of indefinitely blocking them as a vandalism only account when your block kicked in. How generously optimistic of you! Also, welcome to the corps. N.J.A. | talk 15:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

NJA, optimistic or naive? On second thought, you're right. They don't want to chat anyway. – bradv 🍁 15:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I was similarly naively gracious with blocks, particularly at first. It's not that I am in any way less fair, but with experience (in the form of annoyance and regret) one learns to spot VOAs much more quickly. N.J.A. | talk 15:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brad, my belated congratulations/condolences on becoming an administrator. I noticed you've been acting as a patrolling administrator at SPI. It's much appreciated. One suggestion: when you block and tag a sock, you can also close the report (assuming there's nothing else to do). Patrolling admins are not allowed to archive reports, but they can close them. It's a small thing, but it saves someone else from having to do it. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again! -- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, thanks, I'll do that. I didn't know if I needed to let someone else look it over before closing, but that makes sense. – bradv 🍁 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A clerk will look it over before archiving it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bradv. Would you take a second look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer). The whole thing, to me, hinges on an understanding of WP:SOLDIER, as those advocating for keep are using that guideline as their main rationale. Would you glance back and see if you agree, at first, with that assessment. If you do, would you then take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People (WP:SOLDIER) and see if you agree that the criteria in that guideline indicates the possibility of someone being notable, and that the criteria needs to be read in conjunction with the supporting notes, particularly "those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article", and refer back to the RfD where both Icewhiz and myself raised awareness that WP:SOLDIER only indicates likely notability, and that "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" is still required. And would you then check the sources in the article, to see if any of them meet the requirement for "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources", and - if you wish, if you find none - do your own search for such sources. While it is assumed that someone who is a flag officer will have enough notability to generate general interest to provide "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" and so an article can be created and sources found later, in those cases where after the article has been created, sufficient sources are not found, and the article has been challenged, that on being challenged and still insufficient sources found, the article will be removed. I will watch your talkpage so you can respond here. And, congrats on being given the mop! SilkTork ( talk) 11:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Also note - WP:SOLDIER is an essay (a well regarded one, and often used at AfD, but never given formal status). I agree he should pass SOLDIER - though this has led to a lively debate at MilHist (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Commodores and brigadiers where we're having a !vote at present) - however SOLDIER never trumped GNG (besides being an essay, it states in its lead: "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline, although the following is provided to give a general understanding of who, or what, is likely to meet the site-wide notability requirements for creation as a stand-alone article."). When GNG is challenged on a SOLDIER-passing individual (or a NFOOTY-passing individual (an actual guideline, but also only a presumption of GNG)) - one still has to locate sources or at least indicate why sources are likely to be available (e.g. for non-English individual with hard to find online sources). In this case - there isn't a single source in the article that was reliable+secondary+indetph+independent (it's all connected organizations, and much of it is in passing - short blurbs in non-independent primary sources). Icewhiz ( talk) 11:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how being the recipient of a CBE is not a well-known and significant award or honor, per ANYBIO #1. The AfD did not reach consensus on this point. The lack of significant coverage is a concern, but the sources do appear to be sufficient to support the main claims of notability. Given the lack of clarity around whether a CBE qualifies for ANYBIO and the current discussion around whether a Commodore qualifies per SOLDIER, I don't see how this could be closed any other way. – bradv 🍁 12:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

In regards to CBE and ANYBIO - see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2019#ANYBIO#1 - "significant award or honor" instigated by a similar Polish award (instigated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zdzisław Zakrzewski - closed delete) - in which I think there was no consensus any way on what the threshold should be (particularly in these awards with multiple grades). While it is clear the Nobel Prize passes ANYBIO#1 - these mid-grade awards are not clearcut (and in some cases - they are awarded merely for long service and/or for donating enough to good causes). CBE is far from clearcut for ANYBIO#1 (if it passes - its right at the threshold of what passes). WP:ANYBIO states - "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." - so again likely notability - but it does not supersede WP:BASIC (was is essentially WP:GNG). Myself - if there was one or two decent RSes (independent, secondary, good reputation, in depth) - coupled with these likely indications - it possibly would've swung me to Keep. However - in this case this is a bio with zero decent sources for an English speaking subject during the internet age - and in a long AfD - no one was able to pony up sources (and I looked extensively myself as well). Icewhiz ( talk) 13:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus either way on whether CBE qualifies for a "significant award or honor", and there is no consensus in this AfD to overrule ANYBIO and delete the article in spite of that claim. So your point about ANYBIO not superseding BASIC is correct, but I don't see consensus for that here. – bradv 🍁 14:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

ANYBIO is merely a "likely" indication - it expressly states that it "does not guarantee that a subject should be included" - it is insufficient in and of itself (I'll note that ANYBIO#2 (enduring historical record) and ANYBIO#3 (DNB) basically guarantee several or one (DNB) RSes, ANYBIO#1 does not (in this case - off of a gazette notice)). Even if we were to accept that the borderline CBE passes ANYBIO#1 - that's not a sufficient argument for inclusion once BASIC/GNG has been challenged, as it merely states "likely". Icewhiz ( talk) 14:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking again Bradv. The ANYBIO point was brought up in the AfD discussion by myself and Icewhiz as signifying the same as SOLDIER - ie, that both of those guidelines indicate the possibility of notability, but that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", and so WP:GNG is required. The point here is that though ANYBIO and SOLDIER were invoked, the article when tested does not meet GNG. The ANYBIO and SOLDIER guidelines do stress, as has been pointed out, that they only indicate the likelihood of notability but do not guarantee it if significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is not found. Such significant coverage has not been found. Do you wish to look again or can I now go to DRV? SilkTork ( talk) 09:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, DRV is appropriate. This could benefit from a broader discussion. – bradv 🍁 12:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you know I won't be taking the close to DRV. Regards SilkTork ( talk) 02:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Brad, diff from 15 August is a personal attack by Volunteer Marek on the case page. VM has already been warned regaeding personal attacks on the case page. I request this personal attack be dealt with by the clerking team and/or ARBCOM. It would also be nice if the continued HOUNDing could be dealt with as well (more than half of VM's edits in the past few months are dedicated to following me) - but the personal attack and incivility here is very clear cut. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I will forward your request to the rest of the team. I understand these comments can be hurtful, but it's also sometimes important that they remain part of the record of the case. I'll see what they want to do. – bradv 🍁 04:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

A long block is a simple remedy here. An editor in this topic area was indef blocked for calling an edit "antisemitic vandalism" (when the edit, in fact, contained false information on Jews). Saying "your little anti-Polish crusade" is worse, and this is coupled with am accusation of "lying", "fucking", and "fuck". This is a straightforward personal attack, within a pattern of continuing harassment. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Icewhiz: I don't know much about this stuff. But this clearly looks like harrasment and personal attack. IMO, you should tell WMF T&S (Trust and Safety) team. They will deal with it very quickly. Masum Reza ^📞 05:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It is a T&S issue, but I am trying to put faith in the community. For context - "anti-Polish" is a label (long history here, which VM should be aware of) usually directed at Jews, and is the typical justification of anti-Jewish violence. Wikipedia has a policy against threats. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Just stop man. You are making more smears. I didn't direct anything "at Jews" or anything ridiculous like that. Stop lying. Stop smearing other editors. Stop making disgusting insinuations. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. And here is ample and exhaustive evidence of the nature of your edits. My comment about this nature of your edits merely summarizes this extensive evidence. ArbCom can look at it. But to take it and claim that I am making threats is just so insanely dishonest that you need to be indef banned immediately.

To be exactly, precisely, crystal clear here - the claim by Icewhiz that I made ANY kind of a "threat" is utter total absolute bullshit. He. Is. Lying. I made no threat. I cannot put it in another words, precisely because his lie is so disgusting.

And let's be clear about another thing: false accusations made about other editors ARE a personal attack.

Icewhiz needs to *immediately* provide evidence that I have made any threat anywhere, or even that I have said anything about "Jews" or anything like that, or he needs to be indef banned until he admits he has a problem here. These continuous smears and attacks need to stop. I'm getting really sick and tired of this. Diffs or ban. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No. This is beyond the pale. In this comment Icewhiz accused me of trying to "silence LGBT voices". That is a disgusting, false, uncalled for, low-down, and deeply upsetting accusation. And he made it without any basis. It's just horrible to say something like that about somebody. And no, I am not going to apologize for using strong language to emphasize that point. What the hell? Do you really expect me to sit there and let him say crap like that about me? Furthermore, this is par for the course for Icewhiz, who has also made disgusting insinuation in his request for the case about me (trying to associate me with Holcoaust denial) and who then even tried to sneak that kind of crap into his evidence (until I called him out on it and he redacted).

ANY person who pulls stuff like that should be indef banned from Wikipedia. Who does stuff like this? And who lets the get away with it? This is online bullying and harassment and you are facilitating and enabling it. And to make worse, Icewhiz, after making his provocative insults, comes running to clerks or admins and plays the victim and engages in obnoxious block shopping.

I am genuinely at a loss of how to explain that you guys (meaning the clerks, as well as the ArbCom members) have allowed him to get away with stuff like this. As far as the comment about his "crusade" there's like five gazzillion bytes of material in the evidence section, from both myself and other editors to support that. There's another couple gazzillion bytes in the Workshop section. Let ArbCom decide whether the charge has any merit. An ArbCom case is not an edit summary. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

And Bradv, I can't believe you actually wrote "I understand these comments can be hurtful" to ... Icewhiz. Wth? You know what's freakin' hurtful? Being accused of "silencing LGBT voices". Being associated wit Holocaust revisionism. Having someone blatantly lie about you over and over and over again. THAT is fucking hurtful. Not somebody replying to such smears with a couple angry words.

Get your fucking priorities straight!!! Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You are forgetting that civility is an important part of communication on Wikipedia. Some people including me, do not take the word fuck kindly. That's why it's hurtful. Banning and blocking on Wikipedia happens per policy. Keep those comments to yourself. You are clearly being incivil. I've nothing else to say to you. Masum Reza ^📞 07:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If you can’t understand the fact that making odious extreme false accusations and disgusting smears against another editor (for fig’s sake, he just falsely accused me of making violent threats!!! You can’t do that to people. An indef ban for doing that is just routine!) is something much much much worse than someone using an “adult word” in response then I’ve got nothing else to say to you either.

This. This right here is why the situation has gotten so out of hand. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek: I think both of you need to leave each other alone until the arbitration case is concluded. Yes, personal attacks are hurtful, and as a clerk it's not my role to choose sides. – bradv 🍁 14:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have left VM alone. He is following me to every single article I create. Blocking for personal attacks is a straightforward admin action, that should not be related to the case. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. You should leave him alone as you two don't seem to get along. If he continues to hound you, just report to T&S. Masum Reza ^📞 19:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100, please don't give this advice. The case is currently before Arbcom - it would be inappropriate to ask T&S to intervene. – bradv 🍁 19:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok fine. I was talking about his personal attacks, not Arbcom case. Masum Reza ^📞 19:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

And did you happen to notice which page these alleged personal attacks were on? – bradv 🍁 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I did. Personal attacks are personal attacks regardless of it's venue. Masum Reza ^📞 19:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The request for arbitration James Martin (priest, born 1960) has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I was browsing AIV when I saw Special:Diff/911178450. I definitely still have a lot to learn about AIV, so I was wondering why the account didn't get indeffed as a vandalism-only account? Thanks! Enterprisey ( talk!) 04:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Enterprisey! I declined that because they appear to have stopped vandalizing after the level 3 warning. Vandalism-only accounts are usually indeffed only after final warnings, and often even after multiple blocks. Incidentally, the level 3 warning is the first one that actually uses the word "block", so if someone stops after that warning it could be a sign that they have reconsidered their approach. – bradv 🍁 04:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)