User talk:Newyorkbrad: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hey, Brad. I forgot to mention earlier, but thanks for removing those links from Beaver2000000(etc) earlier. The links raising the pagerank probably wouldn't have even occurred to me, so it's good you took care of that. Thanks again! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if it's good that I've been publicly branded a "stalker" going into the elections period, but thanks for the message. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a declaration? Have you filed with the Federal Elections Commission? (Speaking of talk page stalking... I probably have it watchlisted from the brief halcyon days of WP:WPPP.) Neutron (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should get going again, although a couple of the more active editors in the area are no longer available. :( Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that project accomplished quite a bit in its brief active existence -- although in reality it was just three or four editors besides me writing and expanding articles when we could, without nearly as much coordination as goes on in many other Wikiprojects. As I recall, part of the inspiration came from you, when you lamented the absence of articles on a couple of basic motions. I also recall (though this may have been before the Wikiproject was formally started) that as soon as the first few redlinks had been turned into stub articles, someone posted a mass AfD (for those and the few previously existing parliamentary procedure articles) on the grounds that the articles were little more than dictionary definitions -- which in some cases was true, as we hadn't finished expanding them beyond stubs yet! What we have at this point is pretty good, in my opinion. We probably have about 80 percent of the total coverage that we probably should have -- or, if you believe (as some did, but not me) that we should have detailed coverage of all of the minor parliamentary authorities, maybe more like 50 percent, but still pretty good. We have good (not perfect) coverage of Robert's Rules and The Standard Code, which I think together account for something like 75-85 of the non-legislative organizations in the United States. I am not sure how much more of what is in those books we could put in without getting into certain issues that are (ahem) currently being discussed at length on other pages in Wikipedia (well actually, this page too, indirectly). We have a little bit of coverage of parliamentary procedure in Canada but almost none for the UK or other countries, and I personally have no knowledge or materials on any of that, and there is very little online (for free, at least.) One thing that would greatly improve our coverage of U.S. parliamentary procedure, and would allow us to do some expansion into the corresponding motions and rules in other countries, would be if someone had access to the several magazines for professional parliamentarians, where they have articles that discuss some of the nuances of the motions, examples, etc. When I tried to find those online I found that most of the stuff that would count as reliable sources is either not there at all or requires membership and/or a fee, and I didn't want to go that far. There are some comments on web sites of various parliamentarians, but that gets into a grey area as far as RS is concerned. I still do some editing on the parliamentary procedure articles when I think of something or notice that something has gotten out of whack (I have them all watchlisted), but as I said in one of my last comments on the project's talk page (about a year ago), I do not need a Wikiproject to coordinate with myself.  :) But obviously if anybody wants to jump in and work on these articles, with or without the coordination of the Wikiproject, that would be great. A new edition of Robert's Rules is due sometime in 2011, so at that point we will need to update some of the articles. I might even spring for a copy, even though I currently don't really need it otherwise. Neutron (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse and ChrisO William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compared and contrasted. Next request? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the kids-glove approach that arbcomm members are taking to Rlevse (really, he is gone, we don't need to comment on his behaviour, do we?) as opposed to the screw-him-into-the-ground method used on ChrisO. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my votes on the ChrisO proposals on the proposed decision, and the extensive criticism I took for it on the talkpage. I believe you will find my approach generally consistent in the two instances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11.6 William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's unfair to point to that one paragraph without acknowledging everything else I said and voted in the case. But with respect to that paragraph:

I sometimes find that in the late stage of voting on a case, the majority of my colleagues are viewing an issue differently from how I am viewing it. That was the situation here. My view was that we need not necessarily take any action; among my colleagues, some wanted to take action A, and the others wanted to take more serious action B. At that point, my (more generally, the dissenter's) options are either to oppose both actions, which leaves me without any input in the choice between A and B, or to offer qualified support for the option I find more proportionate. Hence my comment in voting: "Since the majority believes that a sanction should be voted against ChrisO, and this one is proportionate with the sanctions against some other editors, I will support it." (Emphasis added.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds specious to me. If you'd wanted to vote against 11.6, you should have done so. On none of 11.1-11.6 would you switching your vote have affected the result, and since we know arbs don't make backroom deals over vote trading, your vote wouldn't have affected the other votes William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you disagree with my vote on that paragraph. All I can do is use my best judgment. I'm not quite clear why you have chosen to take this issue up with me, who probably agreed with your apparent view on the ChrisO matter more than any other arbitrator who sat on the case, as opposed to one of the many who disagreed with your views completely; but I also suppose it doesn't matter much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WMC, in what way are you not violating your topic ban right now in this conversation? It is most unhealthy to continue litigating this dispute. Your chance to litigate is concluded and now you need to live with the result, hopefully by honoring the letter and the spirit of your topic restriction. It's one thing to appeal your own restriction or ask for a clarification, and quite something else to carry on a climate change dispute on behalf of ChrisO. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly I'm not, because NYB would have refused to engage in discussion if I was. NYB doesn't need you to hold his hand, and it is rather bad faith for you to describe this as "litigating" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up on the Arb clarifications page [1] and none of the arbs deigned to provide an answer. It would seem pretty damn perverse for ArbCom to prevent editors from discussing ArbCom actions, no matter what restrictions are on editors about some topic. The focus of WMC's attention is on Newyorkbrad's actions, not the actions of someone else, but certainly WMC should be able to bring up ChrisO's actions if that helps to further discussion of Brad's. And with ArbCom elections coming up, it's important to air concerns about the actions of those running for election. In practical terms, it's better to allow WMC, me or anyone else involved in the case to bring up arbitrators' actions in this case: ArbCom would look horrible to everybody else if it isn't allowed, and real elections depend on freedom of speech, otherwise they won't be trusted. Will this extend the climate-change infighting a bit longer? Probably. But it's no big deal and that doesn't outweigh the greater good of open discussion about ArbCom. I'd be interested to hear from others on this, because if Jehochman's view is widely held, I or somebody else needs to go back to the ArbCom clarifications page and get this cleared up. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to block you or WMC if either of you persists in carrying on the climate change battle. It is transparently obvious what both of you are doing. It's called WP:BATTLE and WP:GAME. It's dull and unoriginal. Please, be creative, original or exciting, or productive. Jehochman ^Talk 23:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... for a refreshing change of pace we've got JWB and WMC agreeing with each other and now you're citing WP:BATTLE? That doesn't add up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of Jehochman's position, Boris. No doubt, after Jehochman reads this comment, I'll be blocked for "carrying on the climate change battle". I guess I need to get official ArbCom approval to criticise ArbCom. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. [2] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no authority to unilaterally define the scope of the topic bans, but I'd prefer that no one be sanctioned for comments made or questions asked on my talkpage, at least as long as the discussion doesn't veer utterly out of control. (Of course, what constitutes utterly out of control may be in the eye of the beholder.)

As for topic-banned editors' commenting on arbitrators or an arbitration decision in the context of the election, I will step aside and leave that for others to address, inasmuch as (I might as well come out and say it) I plan to be a candidate for reelection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really would be a lot more <sarcasm>fun</sarcasm> if I could find it within myself to oppose your re-election. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit at the ArbCom noticeboard talk page, is it appropriate for a discussion in which three Arbs commented to be removed, rather than allowing it to be archived in the normal way? I realise that the topic is a sensitive one, but surely that doesn't necessitate it not being preserved in the archives? I am not looking to add any comment to the discussion, but I was surprised by the removal of the thread and am concerned about its appropriateness. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had no role in having this thread removed. However, I believe the rationale for removing it had nothing to do with its sensivity, but that the thread was set up in the wrong place; the argument is that the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard talkpage is for discussion of announcements made on the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard, and here, there was no such corresponding announcement. As such, I presume that the thread may be moved or archived somewhere else. If you wish to pursue the matter, I suppose that you could ask the person who removed it where that might be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think you had organised the removal of the thread, but you were one of the arbitrators who had commented in the thread. I had thought that you might choose to simply restore the thread, or even manually archive it; archiving it somewhere else, where the original discussion was not held, seems absurd to me - it is a recipe for ensuring it cannot be found. Removal of a thread on the grounds that there was no corresponding ACN annoucement might be justifiable just after a thread starts, but invoking it as a reason after the discussion has come to an end strikes me as post hoc rationalisation. Only an arbitrator can reverse what has been done and make it stick; we are talking about a page under direct control of ArbCom. If you think the removal without archiving was inappropriate, then please reverse it. If you think it was appropriate, well, I disagree with you - but then, the world would be boring if everyone agreed all the time. EdChem (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been ... non-optimal. I believe it's being archived now to the appropriate talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: Yes, ArbCom does control that page, and this has been enshrined in practice for years now. More importantly, it was already archived well before you began this thread: [3] NW (Talk) 14:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it has been appropriately archived. That was not done at the time it was removed (I checked shortly after it was done), and I did not notice that AGK had since added it to the archive - otherwise I would not have posted here. I think the original removal made it clear that no archiving was intended, and I found that concerning and inappropriate, though I accept it was well-intentioned. Anyway, NYB, thanks for advising it was being archived; NW, thanks for providing the link. EdChem (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newyorkbrad

You mentioned a sincere request to developers as a means to regain an old account. Could you please give me the detials of who to approach? I find I cannot vote in the elections and all sorts of other hassles that I did not anticipate in my hasty scrambling of my password. Thanks Polargeo (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know just whom to approach (there's been some turnover) but I will try to find out. Alternatively, perhaps one of the readers here may know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in the past, Brion VIBBER or Tim Starling handled requests like these. I am not sure how active they are these days, so you might want to try asking Werdna, who is usually a bit more active onwiki. NW (Talk) 14:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so if you think that prudent Polargeo (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a logical starting point to me. You can point them to my comment on the BN thread if it would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is already a thread on his talkpage about his abusive behaviour started by iridescent see User talk:Matty the Damned, therefore he has already been warned. I will withdraw from this confrontation as requested. Polargeo (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You note that there are examples on the page, but would you please point to a few of them for clarity? Some denoted guidance on the "common sense" would be helpful here, I think. - jc37 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill's comment in the clarification about topic-banned editors' commenting on the candidates in the ArbCom election made a great deal of sense to me; although it doesn't directly apply to commenting in an RfA, its spirit of balancing is correct. There were some other comments that had been made along similar lines when I posted, but at this point I expect they are archives on various pages around the wiki. Most recently, Carcharoth has made a comment below mine which I generally agree with.

As one of the arbitrators who participated in the climate change case, I would not like to see anyone sanctioned for any comments they may make or questions they may ask regarding my comments and votes in that case (as long as things stay even remotely civilized, but as I said above, what constitutes remotely civilized may be in the eye of the beholder). However, as a candidate, I'm not going to be participating in discussions of what is or isn't allowed, so my comment here is really all the input I will be able to have. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Although this is an extremely minor matter, I would like to point out that, to my understanding, your recent comment on AE page is grammatically wrong. Specifically, the phrase As one of the arbitrators who participate in the Climate change decision, our expressed concern... is a classic case of a Dangling modifier. You may want to reword it. Also, you may wish to put the word participate in past tense (if I understand its meaning correctly). It is indeed a very minor matter (if not ridiculous) but I found it a bit odd considering your ArbCom status, and went on to read your essays that revealed you as an elloquent writer. Thus I think you might wish to correct. Sorry for bothering you on the matter. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, which I appreciated. I try to be eloquent, though sometimes I settle for tl;dr instead; and there are a few commenters here and on an external site who have suggested they become physically ill upon reading my posts, so yours is not a universal reaction. :)

"Participate" should indeed have been "participated". As for the dangling modifier, perhaps I can convince you that it was a zeugma, maybe a syllepsis? (Or perhaps "zeugma" and "syllepsis" just mean "distracting attention from bad sentence construction by giving it a Latin name.") In any case, I will rephrase my comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am not too well versed in these Latin terms, but something seemed not right (and not intentional. I am not a native speaker of English but I am usually able to spot an intentional pun unless it is based on cultural references I am ignorant about:). On the flipside, this triggerred my interest in your Voloch Conspiracy essays, which I have read in full and throughly enjoyed. I have also read Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 (7th Cir. 1993) which was eye opening on the subject I have been keen to learn about for a long time. So the side effect of a slight irregularity of your comment has had some unintended consequencies:) Thanks a lot. - BorisG (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop in and thank you for introducing me to the wonderful word zeugma. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a very cool word, although it could be mistaken for the name of a certain band.

While we're on the subject, we really do need to have clear and specific guidance on how to deal with Scibaby. I'm not going to bring it up now because I know the committee is sick to death of anything related to the case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'd welcome new ideas on the matter. My own suggestion at one point was that we find out who he is and ask the Foundation to get a court order enjoining him from posting on Wikipedia ever again, on pain of contempt of court and potential imprisonment. This did not go over well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a legal matter, is there any precedent for something like that? I'm genuinely curious. MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Gwen Gale's talk page.
Message added 16:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Where were you? lol YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked carefully at the situation and there wasn't anything more to be said that hadn't already been said. You may have noticed that things have unfolded so far exactly as I predicted they would. If the problem resumes later, please let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Newyorkbrad, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Sven Manguard _Talk 06:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2019 candidate: Newyorkbrad Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Thanks for nominating yourself again. That's very good news that I have been anxiously waiting for. Hans Adler 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, just a quick reminder about the instructions above; your nomination statement should include a categorical declaration about any other accounts you have edited with (i.e. either naming them or if there are privacy/security concerns stating that they have been disclosed to the Committee). I realise this might seem a little pedantic given that you have already been on ArbCom for quite a stretch, but it wouldn't be entirely fair on the other candidates or the voters not to comply. Cheers, Skomorokh 14:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the reminder. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, appreciate it. Skomorokh 15:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that I still haven't responded to your invitation about addressing the (procedure, red tape, peer pressure) issue I'd alluded to a while back, but I've put it on hold. In the meantime, you did welcome other questions/comments in your election statement, so I'll make a few in this section. If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)

OWC

Q1. The mailing list existed for arbitrators to discuss matters which are sensitive or private. For example, if an user had to say something which could not be revealed in public, the only way to convey it is through (what should be) private & secure off-wiki communication ('OWC'). However, there have been several occasions where there is no specific 'need' for arbs to use OWC to discuss comments/votes amongst each other (in fact, such comments/votes could have been made on-wiki). Which parts of this statement are incorrect (if any) and why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to questions here, although bear in mind that asking them on the official questions page will make the questions and answers more visible to the voters. (For once we can readily say "voters" instead of "!voters.") I'll answer this one later today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emulating SirFozzie, I think I will utilize the talkpage of my official questions page for any "unofficial" questions. This will keep discussion in one place, prevent it from being archived off this talkpage before the election is over, and make it possible for more voters to see the questions and answers. If you'd be kind enough to post this and your other questions over there, I'll be pleased to respond to them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please note that I will have follow up (and other) questions which I haven't put forward yet; I'll leave a note here when I have nothing further to add to my set. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!

1. What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
2. Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment to Ncmvocalist just above. I'll be pleased to answer your questions, but would prefer to do it where all the voters (not just my TPWs) can read them. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I see the above, but I prefer explicit permission before posting mine. :) I do applaud your decision though! ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As noted above, the talkpage of my "official" questions page is a sensible place for additional questions such as yours, so please feel free. I can't help noting that your question set includes quite a large number of questions (10 questions with a total of about 30 subparts), so please allow me and the other candidates some time to address everything. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. I'm not in a rush, they are not questions that should be given snap answers. But to your point about length, they've been used 3 years running now, with changes to suit circumstances and most candidates managed to get them all answered just fine in the past. SirFozzie already finished his answers. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer them soon as well, though not tonight. The point isn't, of course, simply that there are a fair number of questions; it is that you have posed a fair number of some of the deepest and most thought-provoking questions one could have, each calling not for a sentence or two of reply, but a fairly substantive analysis. (My position about BLP, for example, is best represented in the speech I gave at Wikiconference New York last year, which was almost an hour long.) So I look forward to giving your questions the time and effort they deserve, and I promise not to crib from SirFozzie's answers, even though many of them are very good. And I note with approval that unlike many other editors' question sets, Lar's questions go up to eleven. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If you have time, could you take a look at my proposal about Brews on the Amendment page. Brews has let me known that he is willing to be banned from anything other than his userspace. He can then edit on invitation by putting content on his userspace.

This restriction is unambiguous, you can't violate it and wikilawyer that you didn't. Also, it address the main problem about disputes about edits. You wrote that Wikipedia is not for everyone, but I think that we have to be pragmatic. Since all we're doing is building an encyclopedia, any arrangement that works for some editor should be ok. By only thinking in terms of what works for most, we may be excluding certain groups of talented people who can't be made to fit in using the standard remedies (think of e.g. people with autism; I'm not saying that Brews has autism, though), who would actually be able to make good contributions when subjected to remedies that would look unusual or bizarre from the POV of most other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a close look at this, although I can't promise to support it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]