User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Jun

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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  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)

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.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  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, 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)

Need a clarification
Crotalus just posted a reply in my section on the evidence page, which is not supposed to be allowed. Should I remove his comments, and where should they be removed to? The way, the truth, and the light 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can move or remove it but it is less inflammatory if you let a clerk do it. I am recused as a clerk in this case, but will post to our clerks' noticeboard for someone to take a look. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, his comments were not hostile, and simply served to clarify his actions. I don't mind him giving that reply, I just know it's irregular to have it there. I posted a message on his talk, but he probably won't see it today. The way, the truth, and the light 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The rules aren't the be-all and end-all of the case. Someone impartial will take a look, move it if it might interfere with the arbitrators following the page easily, and leave it alone otherwise. Remember that the real purpose of all those pages is to help the arbitrators decide the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He moved it himself, which I think is a good thing: we really, really don't want to start getting into threaded comments, or this'll turn into a huge argument. David Mestel(Talk) 08:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Brad

 * Thank you very much for your kind sentiments. Thanks as well for your thoughtful e-mail a few days back, to which I am ashamed I haven't responded yet. Very best regards, Newyorkbrad 04:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck
Shawn Hornbeck is just as notable as Elizabeth Smart. Many people worked hard on the Hornbeck article and you completely disrespected them by removing all their work. This is wrong and the fact that you have gone unpunished for abusing your power as administrator has left me very disappointed with wikipedia. If you delete the Hornbeck article then delete the Smart one as well. Why does it get to stay? because she disappeared from the big city? because her family is affluent? because she's girl? Treat ALL crime victims the same, or don't treat them in any way. But, no, what you do is paint one red, the other green, and the other pink. That way is wrong. Fighting for Justice 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to fix the link but obviously I screwed something up. See AfD here. I don't know how to fix it. Wjhonson 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A big difference is that Smart is no longer a minor. That said, I doubt we need a biography article on her.  Rather the article should be focused on her abduction.  biographical information (place of birth, pictures, etc) are not necessary.  I don't believe she lives a public life.  --Tbeatty 07:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I indicated re Shawn, if we can write a more positive article based on his rescue, the Foundation, etc. without dwelling on the precise details of his mistreatment then I am not opposed to that, especially if it turns out that the family itself would support it. As I said in the DRV, in that respect I have become convinced that Shawn's situation is somewhat different from Ben's. There are nuances and competing ethical interests and shades of gray here. FFJ and WHJ, do you see any of that at all? Do you want to participate in the dialog on how we as a top ten website balance the need to inform with the privacy interests of innocent victims, or FFJ do you want to keep calling me to be "punished"? Would it really be better if none of the administrators cared about these things and we used User:John celona's standard (see near the bottom of the DRV)? Newyorkbrad 09:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

user Azerbaijani
I'd like to report about user:Azerbaijani. He makes false report on 3rr about me, 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:Azerbaijani continues to make false reports about me -. Could you advise me at least whom and where I can complain about this hararsment Thanks in advance.--Dacy69 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC).


 * I'd like to comment and suggest that you simply hold your head up high and don't bother; if it is a false report, the administrators who monitor the board will not block you, so there is no need to worry. Similarly, if they feel a user is disrupting the 3RR board by posting false reports, they will manage it.  Regards, Iamunknown 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Dacy69 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow is threatening me on my Talk page
User_talk:Dangerous-Boy

Could you tell him to stop? this is why I want him desyopped.--D-Boy 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And what (if anything) had you done or posted that he was responding to? Newyorkbrad 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * NYB, the issue here was that I took exception to D-Boy following me around and dropping insults against me. Take a look at user talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington - I was talking to NHN, not D-Boy, yet he comes along and drops an insult. Just a few posts above is yet another example. If confined to the case pages, I wouldn't mind. But this is getting to a point of harassment. I told him very clearly, that if he wants to speak to me, he should do so directly and not in this harassing and insulting manner, dat's all. He now accuses me of "threatening" him and is dropping slurs on my talkpage. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I'm through with all this nonsense. I notify you that I'm going on a prolonged wikibreak and I don't have any further comment to make on the case - the arbs can do as they please. I also don't wish to play these sick games with D-Boy and co. As you pointed out earlier, this is getting absolutely terrible. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think he got anal by calling him by his name, sexy boy, like it says in his sig.--D-Boy 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I instruct both of you to avoid each other from now on. Rama's arrow, a wikibreak is not necessary (although if you think it's in your best interests to take one you are probably right), but there is no need for you to be posting to the pages of Sir Nicholas, Dangerous-Boy, or any of the other editors in question. Dangerous-Boy, Rama's Arrow is a respected administrator and your taunting or teasing him will not be tolerated.
 * I do not want a response to this message. I want improved behavior. Regards to both of you. Newyorkbrad 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Help!
I tried doing what I did in the Sean Hornbeck case with Allison Stokke, and now there's a mob grabbing torches. Could you help explain and calm things down? (see my talk page, WP:DRV, and WP:ANI) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also now I'm desysopped for apparently threatening to reveal deleted content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been away from the computer for a little while dealing with the real world, but am taking a close look at the matter. Newyorkbrad 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've commented on ANI. I do not believe that you used the best judgment in this case, as the situation was significantly different from that of the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation, but I also believe that the entire matter needs to be taken in context and have commented extensively on ANI. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Needed someone with a cool head in there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's okay, but whatever happens, please do take to heart the multiple views expressed (including mine) that this was not a good move. At a minimum, seek a very strong consensus before proceeding with any plans like this again. Newyorkbrad 22:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision
NYB, your censorship was surely the right move, but I'm slightly disappointed that you eliminated my elevation to the Senate.

On a slightly different note, have you seen the new evidence that Swatjester has posted to Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence? It includes excerpts of email from an unnamed sender, and I thought this sort of thing was supposed to be avoided. I know that you're a party in that case, not a clerk, but maybe you could post to the Clerks' noticeboard if the email needs to be removed? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually had not taken a look at that case in a couple of days, but will take a look now. Thanks for the heads up and regards. Newyorkbrad 23:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, at least the first of these e-mails looks it may have been sent to Swatjester for the purpose of being posted on that very page. If that is the case then there wouldn't be an issue since the sender consented. Why don't you leave a note on his talk and ask him. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for looking at it. It wasn't clear to me whether the sender had granted permission or not, so I'll ask Swatjester. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Brad, if you feel you should remove it, I don't really mind. The Committee already has a record of all the emails (16 screenshots in all), including the one on the evidence page. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

O Wise AC Clerk
Please tell me what to do next regarding this. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Brad is apparently too busy trying to get his swelled head unstuck from his hat to answer. Thatcher131 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Another Wise Clerk to the rescue. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding this I have posted something more. Please look. Pwang 19:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. It is unusual for a new editor's first edit to be to an arbitration page. In any event, the arbitrators can investigate the information presented. Newyorkbrad 19:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Devlin
As someone who has contributed to this article I would like to know which of the following is going to be permitted and the rationale for such: 1. The names of the two victims are to be censored from the article and any links or references or 2. the names of the victims are not barred from the article or 3. The names are barred from the article but permitted (with photos) on all links and references.John celona 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a matter for consensus of the editors working on the article. I have expressed my opinion but it is not binding on anyone else. Newyorkbrad 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
Can you delete User talk:Richardson j/Reply Requestplease thanksRichardson j 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. If this comes up in the future on a page in your userspace you can just tag it and someone will take care of it. Not that I wasn't honored to be selected to perform this deletion.
 * ) Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway .:) User talk:Richardson j

Userpage revert
Treat 'em like water off a duck's back mate. If the ip's in question had any value to add to the encyclopedia, they'd be adding it. Keep it up :) -- Longhair\talk 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Banned user using sock puppet
Hi Newyorkbrad,

was banned by the arbitration committee for a perod of 1 year. Now he is back using many sock puppets one of which has been confirmed as. Please see the checkuser result:. Could you ban this user and the related ips? Thanks. Xylophonic 03:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the registered socks were already blocked when the checkuser was done. (You can check any editor's block status by clicking on "user contributions" and then clicking on "block log.") I don't see any recent activity by the IP's listed in the checkuser report. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Darwinek block
I saw your msg on his userpage. I support his unblock; he was adding fair use rationale and restoring images (ex. here he adds "No free equivalent available, low logo resolution."). The rationale may be disputed, but to block the 24 most active contributor to this project for reverting a bot is quite disruptive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been unblocked now, appears to be resolved. Thanks for the note. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Testing waters
I made a list of points at WP:RFAR/Bdj/Evidence that I sort of hope could be the start of a more specific policy as to deleting articles based on WP:BLP. I wonder if I can get your opinion on them, as a "moderate", before putting them where people like Doc Glasgow or Badlydrawnjeff who seem to be more "extreme" on the scale will take them apart, and all my female ancestors besides. Is this a useful start, at least? Anything we can do to make this end constructively, and not just with a "A cautioned, B blocked, everybody else keep fighting"? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I read your statement when you posted it and found it constructive, although I didn't agree with how you classified all of the specifics. I just reread it again and found some useful principles in there. My remarks (under the heading "Additional comments and introspection by the deleting admin" or something like that) in the Hornbeck/Ownby DRV, which you may have read, represent my own latest thinking on all of this. I will provide further input on some of these issues within the next few days, although of course all of this is treading close to either "content issue" or "policy issue" which the arbitrators might (or might not) choose to stay away from in any event. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am Newyorkbrad on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Newyorkbrad. Thanks. --Newyorkbrad 23:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A recently-discovered masterpiece!
Hi, I saw Jimbo's edit to Talk:Elizabeth Smart. That led me here and that led me here. I seem to have missed it at the time, but I just want to say I think it's absolutely spot on, and extremely well expressed. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

alternate
I proposed an alternate 18.1 to Nikosilver's rationale. It says the same thing, that it was overly harsh, but it takes out the statements that allege I claimed that he had been blocked 7 times for 3RR (which I simply did not say). I do not like being misquoted for the purpose of a finding of fact. Am I wrong here? &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't remember every word that was written on that Sunday afternoon almost a month ago, but have you considered posting to Nikosilver's talk and indicating that you believe the post contains an error and could he check his facts? Hopefully at that point either he would add a diff, or realize he can't find one and rephrase his proposal. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes story
Would "by the community" at the of the sentence be better? Also, you should give thanks to Ral315 for rewriting the story (this is my first story)! Sr13 03:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like "there was disagreement on how to proceed" or "there was disagreement on whether consensus for promotion had been reached"? (Yes, I recognize the irony of discussing whether there was a consensus on whether there was a consensus; compare infinite regress.) Newyorkbrad 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Koavf case
Hi NYB. Though i am neither for letting this user edit freely here nor leaving the community ban status-quo, i just want to inform you that i am a bit skeptical. I've just come accross the following edits today:
 * Listing WS as part of MENA, while the MENA website itself doesn't do that.
 * Most of the edits are OR ( Please not that many sources will use the term "Western Sahara" to refer to the government the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic", just as "France" refers to "French Republic".) --> No source is given while he talks about many.

Well, i am really busy and can't follow his edits w/ scrunity. I just don't see any change in his behaviour and going thru RfC and then ArbCom would be really a tiring process again. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The user is on a one-revert parole. If he violates the restrictions, he may be blocked, and after three blocks the block length can escalate to as much as one year. Hopefully this will not be necessary, but we will see. See Requests for arbitration/Koavf for more discussion, and please note that I was not one of the decision-makers in this matter, just clerk who notified the user of the decision. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RFAR Hkelkar—is there anybody there?
Hey, Brad, it looks like you're clerking the Hkelkar RFAR. One of the involved parties asked me to comment, so I put a note on the proposed decision talkpage, and a link to it on the Workshop, but it feels rather like I might have saved myself the trouble. Do you have any alternative page to suggest, that's not so much like shouting into a black hole? Bishonen | talk 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
 * There's no better place within the case pages, but I would not be surprised if the arbitrators who have voted have moved on by now. You may want to call attention to it on some arbitrators' talk pages or email one and ask that they send it to the list.  It looks like FloNight is about to rebel against the general amnesty, so she might be a good starting point. Thatcher131 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thatcher, your best bet at this point is probably an e-mail to the arbitrators' mailing list. You can send an e-mail to any active arb or to one of us clerks for forwarding. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bleh
I'm an idiot. orz Thanks for catching that. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 02:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the "l" in second position in both names that confused you. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your note, redacting etc
I'm not persuaded that persons having an official position are entitled to the kind of concealment you are promoting.

The Admin in question has made no effort to obscure their identity - at least not to me, and eMails FROM an official, in furtherance of the project, would not seem to be priviledged in any way.

Moreover, that Official CHANGED the name of a prior case from the article in question to MY REAL NAME. I took the same kind of offense which you are taking now - but was overruled etc... So I am taken now by the double standard - but I expect that. A Double Standard is human nature and would explain my experiences. I am prepared to be impressed by fairness and equality, and a single standard. I can't say I expect it. Benjamin Gatti 03:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish these materials to be considered by the Arbitration Committee, you may send an e-mail to any active arbitrator (list at WP:AC) or arbitration clerk who will forward it to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. You may indicate in your statement on WP:RfAr that you have sent such e-mail. I am not familiar with the prior incident you describe. Newyorkbrad 04:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any chance of citing a policy to substantiate the unilateral deletion of pertainent information? I have read that email were published in an Arbcom previously. But I think the onus is on the moving party to present a Policy. Benjamin Gatti 05:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Among other places, there was strong consensus among arbitrators and users in the pending Hkelkar 2 case that posting e-mails without the consent of the sender is inappropriate. (The only point of disagreement was whether posting should require consent of the sender and the recipient, or just the sender.) The impropriety of your action in posting the e-mails was compounded very seriously when you included the sender's real name, e-mail headers, and e-mail address in your posting, even after having already been reverted once by another administrator and admonished not to do this. I am a clerk of the Arbitration Committee responsible for keeping good order on the RfAr pages and these practices will not be tolerated. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice Seems to have involved at least some eMail - but I'm not sure of any policy either way. Benjamin Gatti 05:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an old issue. Ben titled it Price-Anderson. I switched it to his name because that is his user name and the case was about him, not the act itself. He attempted to change it back several times. But the ArbCom took it under his name. Because. It was about his behavior. Not about the article. Whether I changed it or not is really immaterial. If you look at his ArbCom case, Kelly Martin nominated it as being under his name and James F. seconded it. If they had decided that it was unfair or unjust to make it under his name, they wouldn't have changed it. And Ben made a motion on the workshop page and again, it was rejected. I'm tired of being "the bad guy" when the final call wasn't mine. I'm not a member of the ArbCom. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Heaping Praise
Hi,

Having just read through your remarks at the Hornbeck/Ownby DRV (I try to stay miles from BLP disputes for now), I must say they are thoughtful, convincing, and frankly brilliant. You epitomize the ideal dispassionate administrator, and I sincerely hope that we are all fortunate enough to have you settle every controversial question on the wiki henceforward. You might be able to bring peace to the Middle East, for heaven's sake! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that NYB has been a welcome voice of calm and reason in these debates. One item I must confess I don't understand, however: Why do some feel that, for a crime victim who has chosen to tell his story in numerous media outlets, set up a charitable foundation, etc., in order to help future victims in similar circumstances, the most sensitive option is to redirect his name to the article about his kidnapper?  I suppose it'll be interesting to hear the Foundation's stance on this issue.  For the time being, would it be appropriate to add  as an external link in the Devlin article? JavaTenor 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly have no objection, although ultimately that's a matter for the editors on that article. Note also the closing administrator's observation on the DRV that the DRV does not (nor did my deletion) forecloses our ever having an article on Shawn or his foundation, though we certainly shouldn't have one like we had before. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Ultimately, I think the best state of affairs would be to redirect Hornbeck's name to an article about the foundation, which appears to be a notable and worthwhile endeavor.  Such an article could contain information about his and his family's efforts to tell his story since his recovery, without providing a home for the inappropriate content which appears to have been in the previous article.  Once emotions have calmed a bit on this issue, I may be bold and work on that. JavaTenor 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh. Looks I can't claim I had the idea first! :-) Anyway, it's done now. See Shawn Hornbeck. Carcharoth 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

CC MfD
Would this be acceptable to you? -- Ned Scott 00:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would probably have been acceptable to avoid the extended argument at DRV, but now that the DRV is over, changing the MfD description would probably cause more fuss than just leaving it alone. Can't we just drop this already, there being 1,800,000 more important pages for you to worry about? I am sorry that I ever heard of the matter. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I asked you about it a few days back and you never responded. -- Ned Scott 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but it's noting what was discussed on the DRV, which would make sense for it to be added after the DRV was closed. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw your question to me but then I saw that in the MfD you had written that even if I agreed to make the change, others would still insist on a relisting anyway, so the solution wouldn't work. I still think changing the MfD would cause a new fuss now; however, you can make a note with a link to our discussion on the MfD talkpage if you wish. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Accurately reflecting what happened would be more important than any hissy fit that Cat might throw. I've moved the note out of the boxed area, and have dated it to avoid confusion. -- Ned Scott 00:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of principle, I've always been surprised that DRV results are not noted over on the preceding XfD debate. It can be confusing arriving at an old AfD debate, seeing a keep verdict, and seeing a red-link where the page was. Sometimes you go looking for a later XfD debate, before thinking to go looking for a DRV result, though the DRV should be mentioned in the deletion log if you are lucky. Anyway, I used to try adding little tips like that to various processes, but lots of helpful stuff gets removed as "instruction creep". Hmm. Carcharoth 21:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had the same thoughts, actually. Newyorkbrad 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck Foundation - reasonable article?
I've started following the BDJ arbitration case, and I've also read your mini-essays at various points on the issues, where you specifically mention the Hornbeck/Ownby case. I wondered what you think of my proposal (via an editprotect request) to redirect Shawn Hornbeck to the article Shawn Hornbeck Foundation that I created, and the article itself (a very modest start)? Carcharoth 14:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to give this some more thought, but am inclined to agree with your suggestion. I would have preferred to see Ben Ownby deleted outright, but perhaps that should link to Shawn Hornbeck Foundation as well. For my extensive thoughts on Hornbeck/Ownby, please see the Deletion review log for May 28, the entry for Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby, if you haven't already, especially my (over)long comments about halfway down the page (under the heading "further comments and introspection by the deleting administrator"). Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if there is enough independent information to write an encyclopedia article on the foundation (their budget, activities, etc) then it makes sense to briefly report its history as well. I'm not sure there is enough information at this point (I wonder if it will even exist in another year) but this seems a reasonable start for now. Thatcher131 14:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The foundation in and of itself would be of perhaps borderline notability, but we have editors strongly contending that the boys' names are staying in the article on the criminal, and the DRV was closed as redirect, so having a reasonable article on the Foundation may be the best outcome to this whole affair. Newyorkbrad 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

An update on this. See, which details an old plea from the police for not publishing leaked and incorrect information. Sub judice and all that. Carcharoth 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to reverse redaction
NYB, I have requested and received permission from WH for the emails to be posted. WH is willing to accept responsibility for his intemperance - just as he has been active is holding others responsible for theirs. I would ask you to confirm with WH this permission, and then to reverse your redaction. Much appreciated, Benjamin Gatti 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I had requested that the material be Oversighted, so I do not believe it is technically possible for me to reverse the redaction even if I wanted to. The best procedure is still to send the material to the arbitrators privately, as you have done.
 * Frankly, with 5 arbitrators opining that they do not wish to hear the case, I believe you should drop the matter and that you and WH should simply avoid each other in the future. Regards Newyorkbrad 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * unfortunately WH appears intent on being involved on any topic I edit regardless of topic. Benjamin Gatti 23:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um Ben. This discussion here is basically about me. So heck yes. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

CEP78
Please don't add crap to my talk page.CEP78 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Arb Trivia
Has it ever been that an arbitrator has proposed to desysop an admin he nominated for RfA? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I can think of, but you should ask Fred or James or Tony who were participating in RfAr long before I showed up. But it sounds like someone's in trouble now. :( Regards, Newyorkbrad 10:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't expect something similar to happen any time soon as well. Thank you Blnyguyen btw, for providing your opinion on the case. Your proposed findings of fact and remedies are very much appreciated. GizzaChat  &#169; 10:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)
Thank you. Support from an editor with +200 !votes on their own RfA is impressive to say the least (not that that should hold any special weight or anything...) Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent email
I'm sending you an urgent email. Please check your mailbox. --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Received and replied (albeit on the fly from the airport). Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)
I know that you're busy at the moment formulating guidelines under which to evaluate BoT chads, but I wonder if you might oblige me a minor request, the details of which I should like to incorporate by reference from my note to Xoloz. In short (relatively, anyway), it has been suggested at the AfD talk that a team closure of the Brandt AfD, perhaps after an admin chat, ultimately be undertaken, and although I am not particularly inclined to support such an idea and am not certain that the community will accede to such a proposal, I thought it useful to propose admins whom we might consider to compose such a team; because each of you is generally well-respected and tends (to paint things in an overbroad fashion) command the support of those on one side of the debate over how rigorously and consistent with what process we ought to apply BLP, I thought of Xoloz and you. If you're at all amenable to participating in such a venture (which, again, of course, may not be supported by the community at large or those partaking of the AfD), I would much appreciate your weighing in at the AfD talk to that effect. Cheers in any event, Joe 05:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent addition to Berstein2291's Autograph Page
First of all, there already was a MfD for all autograph pages, and the result was No Consensus. Do not say these things on an autograph page please. ANNAfoxlover 01:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but that whole comment was teasing. Don't you see that I said I would never sign an autograph page, and then I went ahead and signed it? See paradox or self-reference. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletions
I believe I was editing the speedy message for Image:Masonhitler.jpg when you deleted the image. So when I hit save page, it recreated the page without the image. I was wondering if you could delete it again (sorry about the edit conflict). Also, if you have a chance Image:Maona.jpg is an almost identical image that I have also tagged db. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both deleted. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Just to let you know, 12.207.12.28 is now threatening to take you to RfC too. Just thought you might want to know. mcr616 Speak! 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. To be sustained, an RfC requires certification that two users have made a good-faith attempt to resolve their dispute with the editor or administrator in question. That will not be possible in this instance. At all events, I welcome the community's scrutiny of my editing or administrator actions at any time. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A Word
I noticed that you were involved in the Ekajati / Khabs / Various other sock-puppets case. I have been somewhat displeased by attempts being made by numerous self-published authors and members of the occult fringe who are trying to co-opt Wikipedia for their own promotion. I figured you would be the best person to speak to about this as e-mails to the Wikipedia administrators are going unanswered. In short, a number of fringe personalities (self-published authors of occult texts) are using Wikipedia to promote themselves and sell their books. Ekajati was one of these individuals and there are others on Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia and hate to see it abused or turned into a forum for shameless self-promotion. Can you help? Eyes down, human. 05:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My involvement in this matter was very limited; I was simply the Arbitration Committee Clerk who handled the formalities of closing a related arbitration case and posted certain notices. Thus, I am no better a position to help you than any other administrator. With respect to problematic content, as an editor you are free to edit any article to remove material you consider inappropriate (see WP:NOT for some discussion of the types of content that should not be included in our encyclopedia). Any disputes concerning whether the material is appropriate or not can be discussed on the talk page or if necessary taken through the steps of dispute resolution. If you believe an entire article is not appropriate content for wikipedia, you can follow one of our deletion procedures, which can include tagging the article for speedy deletion if applicable or listing it on articles for deletion for discussion if the issues are more complex. In cases of extreme abuse, you can post to the administrators' noticeboard to call attention to the problem. I hope this information is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Arbcom
Here is one more proof that the ArbCom applicant is deliberately trying to use the ArbCom filing to lower the topic content dispute into personal level. As per your suggestion, if ArbCom, nevertheless, is to review this case in any form, I think more people should be added to the case in light of blind reverting and suspected meatpuppeting here and here. Quite a few users seem to be involved in just reverting without comment or even reading the content of changes, simply taking advantage of being unrestricted by the parole. I expect there might be a lengthy personal disputing thread by the other party following this posting, just wanted to note that I am not going to join that discussion, so feel free to remove my comment here. Thanks. Atabek 12:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As you know, I am simply an Arbitration Committee Clerk responsible for maintaining the case pages, giving notices, and the like. I am not one of the arbitrators who will be deciding whether to accept the new arbitration cases, or deciding it if it is accepted. Your comments about whether the case should be accepted or what its scope should be should be addressed to the arbitrators.
 * I would add a cautionary word, however. As I am sure you remember, you came very close to being banned from editing under the original proposed decision in Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, and both you and the editor filing the new arbitration case were sanctioned in the previous one. If I were either of you, I would be trying to edit as harmoniously as possible, rather than to bring attention to myself in any further arbitration proceedings. Take that completely unofficial observation for whatever it might be worth. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page protection
can you protect this usertalk page? User talk:164.47.99.61 He is vandalizing it after being blocked by you. thanks Momusufan 02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's already done. Thanks anyway  Momusufan 02:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Missed?
You didn't let CG know that the review of case that involved him is under way. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 02:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure I did. It's the last item on his talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RfAr (@ Digitaleon)
You're welcome :-) &mdash; digital eon  &bull; talk @ 03:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Question re user:Zeq
In the course of editing Battle for Gaza (2007), Zeq has now twice accused me of "borderline vandalism" on my talk page and on the article's talk page. That second edit also implies that I've written a misleading edit summary to hide my intentions.


 * 1) Is Zeq still subject to any ArbCom decision?
 * 2) I am very unhappy with the accusations of vandalism. What are the rules about redacting the accusation from my own talk page? From the article's talk page? And rules aside, may I ask what you would advise me to do (or not to do)?
 * 3) Should I ask Zeq to be careful with accusations of bad faith editing and vandalism, or should I ask someone else, or should I report it somewhere, or should I forget about it? (I do not think I would be happy forgetting about it, but if that is your best judgement, I certainly want to know).

Thank you. Jd2718 14:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that Zeq remains on probation from his earlier arbitration case, although no remedies were added in the more recent case. You are free to remove any comments you don't like from your own talkpage (as long as you don't make other comments look out of context), but should probably avoid it on an article talkpage unless it were a more direct personal attack. Per your last suggestion, I agree you should leave a note for Zeq and see if the two of you can collaborate more effectively, but if there is a further problem you can pursue further dispute resolution, or post to Arbitration enforcement if you think that there is disruptive editing in violation of the ruling. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I left him a note . I couldn't tell, btw, if the previous ArbCom decision remains in effect, but it didn't seem to cover civility in any case. For now I'd prefer not to even look in that direction. Jd2718 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that hopefully that looking in that direction will not be necessary. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not going to work, but thank you for the good advice. I'm going to sleep on what to do next, but there's no way I'm ok with him waltzing around saying I'm a vandal. Jd2718 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I tried two more go rounds, and finally it worked. I feel that I may have abused your talk page a bit over this, and I thank you for indulging me. Jd2718 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Your adminship

 * (comment was mistakenly posted on your user page). —freak(talk) 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks NYBrad! I'll be sure not to do anything with AWB again as I am not that good with it. :p  «  A NIMUM   »  20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that! But again, welcome to the ranks. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Spreading some Wikilove :D


Nat Tang talk to me! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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.
 * Thank you very much. Much appreciated. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

recusal proposal
I have asked Blnguyen to be immediately recused from this case -. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Of course as clerk I have no authority to rule on the motion, but I will continue to monitor for developments. Newyorkbrad 12:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup
Hi. I appreciate your comments but I really think this is a serious non-issue. Obviously I'm annoyed with being attacked out of the blue by Captain Wikify, but it's pretty clear that I find attacks of that nature, in general, more laughable than anything else, and I've made a point of noting that on both my talk page and on my personal webpage. In my opinion people really need to be a bit more relaxed around here and not see everything through the lens of some imagined evil bad faith conspiracy. --Gene_poole 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be a non-issue to you, but it's an issue to him, and therefore as an administrator who tries to promote a harmonious working environment it's an issue to me. By your own admission you posted the page, on-wiki and then by extension off-wiki, to ridicule other editors, and at least one of them is extremely upset about the situation, and it is not going to be allowed to continue. I recognize your exalted rank in your own nation :) but not here, and if you persist in this type of behavior either on- or off-wiki you are jeopardizing your editing privileges. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly limit your comments to the matter at hand. I don't give a flying fig about how "upset" Captain Wikify is. He acted like a pratt and needs to be made accountable for his actions, or else WP policies mean diddly squat; so perhaps you'd be best served by toddling off and instructing him in the fine art of the sincere apology and then pointing him at my talk page, onto which he can post it, rather than lecturing someone who's presence on WP is actually a credit to the project. --Gene_poole 03:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may not give a flying fig about how your remarks make another editor or editors feel, but as I said above, I do. The fact that another editor may have acted inappropriately provides no basis for you to do the same, particularly in view of your long experience on the project. Whatever he may have done wrong in the past, he has stopped making the comments you objected to and expressed an intention of disengaging, which should be reciprocated. You are instructed not to engage in any further personal attacks on this editor, including gratuituous quotation of his remarks for the admitted purpose of ridiculing him, either on or off Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad 03:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. The bottom line here is that I am the wronged party, and I have not received any indication that Doctor Wikify regrets his actions in attacking and threatening me. I refuse to accept that his sullen withdrawal, claiming that he was abused, constitutes anything even slightly resembling regret for his actions. 2. You seem to be under the impression that my edit history over the past three years involves the initiation of numerous disputes with other editors. While I have certainly been involved in aggressively rolling-back recurrent vandalism carried out by several editors hard-banned by the Arbcom, outside of this my editing activity is entirely uncontroversial - so I need to ask you to stop making statements that seem to imply otherwise. Thanks for your co-operation. --Gene_poole 03:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. You may have been the wronged party at an earlier stage of the dispute, but at this point I see you as the one aggressively pursuing a quarrel that the other party has long since attempted to walk away from. 2. I haven't delved into whether you "initiated" disputes with others, but you assuredly have a controversial history here, which makes it all the more important that you refrain from perpetuating disputes and incivilities that would otherwise fade into the past. 3. As a matter of good faith toward other Wikipedians, you should delete the objectionable page you have posted on your external site or at least the entry on it that has been objected to, without further discussion or delay. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I absolutely do not accept the contention that because some unspecified people have it in their head that I have a "controversial history", that I'm supposed to adhere to a more elevated set of behavioural standards than the rest of WP (although in effect that's pretty much what I do in any case). That, pardon my French, is absolute bullsh*t. WP policies and procedures apply to everyone equally - not just some people selectively. That is precisely the problem in this instance. Doctor Wikify clearly felt he had an open licence to waltz onto my talk page and post infantile threats there. He was clearly shocked when I didn't just fall on my face and quiver in terror in response, and he's spent the last 2 days whining and sulking about it - and you are implicitly encouraging that sort of behaviour by not applying WP:NPA equally by insisting he apologise to me for doing so. --Gene_poole 04:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Creating a page for the purpose of ridiculing other editors, and insisting on maintaining it even over strong objections, does not satisfy even minimal behavioral standards for Wikipedians, much less elevated ones. A voluntary apology by Captain Wikify to you would be welcome, but a coerced one would be meaningless, and I repeat that at this point you and not he are the one perpetuating the dispute and jeopardizing your editing privileges as a result. Newyorkbrad 04:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now implemented the removal of the "offending" list. Given that the removal was coerced, with the explicit threat of the loss of my editing priviledges being the consequence of failure to comply with your POV, I now accept that coercion is a legitimate and effective admin tool in dealing with disputes of this nature. As a consequence I'm now going to insist that you use coercion to extract an apology out of Captain Wikify. Obviously I don't expect it to be sincere, but at this point I'm more interested in observing the letter, rather than the spirit of the law. Accordingly I now eagerly await his apology. Thanks for helping to resolve this matter so quickly and adroitly. --Gene_poole 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is POINT if ever I saw it. Viridae Talk 05:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. That's logic. You can't have your cake and eat it too. What applies to one applies to all. Either accept that the list is not "offensive", but in fact quite amusing, in which case I'll re-post it and we can all get back to writing articles, or confirm that it is "offensive" - in which case by removing it I've also removed the only impediment Captain Wikify has to accepting responsibility for his actions. Which is it to be? --Gene_poole 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I can only say lol. Gene, you are my hero. This page delivers. Fr0 03:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

thank-you
and I shall look for my candidates elsewhere. Carptrash 13:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello Newyorkbrad. Thank you for removing inappropriate parts of my statement on the "request for arbritration" page. I was obviously way too angry when i wrote this. Thanks again. Med 13:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment
"Per recent precedent and statements by the arbitrators ..." As one of the people involved in that dispute, I'd like to see the policies or precedents. With thanks. --evrik (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This has come up in a number of places, but the most recent is probably the ongoing discussion at Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision, paragraph 2.1. I hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Further offenses
I hate to bother you with this, but the anonymous user causing all the trouble on the black metal page has returned as 86.154.174.199 (formerly 86.149.59.252 and 86.145.249.81, as evidence shows; he blatantly admits ‘’“i'll keep reverting until i am banned then change my IP and keep reverting”’’ in one edit summary). This time he has attacked Scskowron and others with a statement following other antagonizing comments: “you complete tits, you're all untermensch” on the discussion page Talk:Black_metal (I was uninvolved in this instance, but as you recall, he previously insulted me personally in a similar juvenile manner). Does this not merit an immediate ban, given his history of repeated edit abuse and persistent defamation? Is there no way to track this person to prevent further offenses? Thanks. Logical Defense 22:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the most recent IP from which this user has edited, and I see that another administrator has protected the article he has targeted from anonymous editing for now. Hopefully this will alleviate the problem. If the problem is persistent, we can consider a range-block across the affected IP range, but we try to avoid this when possible as it can also have the effect of blocking other, innocent users who edit from the same range. I have also watchlisted Black metal and its talkpage to keep an eye on developments. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your attention and response to this matter is much appreciated. Thank you! Logical Defense 06:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

what was wrong?
I was the problem this time? I was totally polite.--D-Boy 04:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you were totally polite, then I wasn't referring to you as tonight's problem. Newyorkbrad 04:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can dig it.--D-Boy 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Wall of China
I was kind of hoping he'd prove that he had started it off, some news that would have been... He seemed so certain! The Rambling Man 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to be a spoilsport, but ....... Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Evindence phase
Hi, Newyorkbrad. What triggers an arbcom case to move from the evidence phase? Thanks! --Abu badali (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The case moves into voting when an arbitrator writes up a set of proposals and places them on the "proposed decision" page. How long this takes varies from case to case, but unfortunately things seem to be a bit backlogged right at the moment. Speaking personally, I hope that you can take some of the input you have received into account going forward, no matter what the result of the case might be. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Requirements for your Board candidacy
✅ Thank you for alerting me that I had not yet enabled email functionality. As it turned out, my email host is experiencing some technical difficulties at the moment, so I had to change things over to my GMail account, anyway. I have emailed Cary. Jouster (  whisper  ) 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Zacheus-jkb request for arbitration
Hi, I've read Zacheus-jkb request for arbitration, and I think that some of claims Zacheus makes there deserve a bit of clarification and background. Unfortunately, as I don't have a regular account on en.wikipedia, I'm not able to add my statement to the page. Since you're listed among AC clerks, would you be able to move my statement at User:Cs_che/notes to the appropriate place? Thanks! --cs:che 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Normally that page is unprotected, so anyone can edit it, and I am sorry that a spam problem unrelated to the Zacheus-jkb case is temporarily requiring protection. Normally I would be glad to post a statement to the page for you. However, in reading what you prepared, I noticed that you linked to some of the information in dispute which identifies the real-life identity of a user. I would rather not post this information to the arbitration page and thereby publicize the matter. Instead, could you please send me an e-mail using the "E-mail this user" feature and I will forward it to the ArbCom mailing list. If you cannot use that feature (I am not sure whether unregistered users can), you can send the e-mail to any active arbitrator listed on WP:AC, again with the request of forwarding it to the list. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 02:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Newbie question
Hi, I see you're doing the heavy lifting on the Request for Arbitration page, and I wanted to ask you a question that I can't find the answer to in any help page. I'll check here on your page for an answer; feel free to ignore if you are too busy. My question is whether the Arbitration Committee can find against any editor not listed as an Involved Party, or whether they are limited to those listed? What about when an editor removes themselves from the list? Secondly, should the person filing the complaint list themselves? Thank you, Jgui 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I don't know that I do any "heavy lifting," but I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks who assist with maintaining the pages, giving notices, etc., so this is as good a place is any to come with procedural questions.
 * The Arbitration Committee can make findings as to any editor. However, as a matter of fairness, if a finding is proposed against someone who is not a party, he or she should be notified and given an opportunity to respond. If it appears this has been inadvertently overlooked, please let me or the clerk for that case know so that a notice can be given.
 * It is up to the arbitrators, not individual editors, who are the parties to a case. If an editor removes himself or herself from the list of parties, but the case is not accepted for consideration anyway, it doesn't matter very much. If an editor removes himself or herself from the list and then the case is accepted, or does so after the case is accepted, it would be up to the arbitrators how to proceed. Sometimes filing parties do include all sorts of peripheral people in cases and it is appropriate to slim down the list of parties so the case becomes manageable.
 * An editor filing a case should list himself or herself as a party. The list of editors in the "involved parties" list has useful links to each party's talkpage, contributions, etc., and it is helpful to have the filing party at the top of that list.
 * Please advise if there is anything else on which I can help. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the super-speedy reply. I added myself to the involved party list. I may well be bugging you with more questions; thanks for helping. Jgui 16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another question: is it appropriate for a user to edit their statement on the RfA page to clarify or improve arguments, or is that frowned upon? Thank you, Jgui 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no specific rule on this so I would say that users may change or update their statements at any time. However, if it's a major change that would be confusing to people reading the page (for example, completely changing an argument that other parties have already replied to), then it might be better to do the updating as an addition to the statement rather than by editing the one that's already there. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion reviews
Thanks, I saw the message about Cbrown1023 being on vacation, but I wasn't sure how long he would be gone. So I just put the DR notice on there anyways.--milk the cows (Talk) 16:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, but you should give the notice to the other admins I mentioned also. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

POTW
He doesn't seem to get it. One Night In Hackney 303  17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Brad, as an uninvolved admin, I implore you to consider blocking him, before you end up getting involved yourself. J Milburn 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right after the final warning.. . SirFozzie 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ANI thread ongoing so I've posted there for consensus. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: TingMing Ban
I have a question about the ban on TingMing: Is the ArbComm decision of the one-year ban effective immediately, as in the minimum of one-year starts when the decision was finalized, or does the one-year countdown begin whenever someone overturns the community ban? Nat Tang talk to me! 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The one year started when the decision was issued today and runs concurrently with the indefinite block/community ban. However, if the user is caught evading the ban by sockpuppeting, the timer would be reset and the year would start over again. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

RFAR/NYScholar
Rather than rail at Fred, want to endorse, or better yet, improve upon, my alternatives? I hereby give you full right to edit them to sound like they were written by a lawyer, rather than a mouse, should you so choose. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording of your proposals is fine (and I very much liked the "ears and whiskers" introduction). I haven't followed this particular case well enough to tailor the proposals to the specific facts, though, but I'll have another look in. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, took a look and offered my thoughts. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou
Hi, thanks for the ArbCom advice. It doesn't take a genius to see that I don't have enough experience to bring an ArbCom case correctly! Much appreciated. Doctor11 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The formatting of the case is fine (we clerks always wind up doing some minor clean-up, it's part of the job). The more fundamental question will be whether this dispute is sufficiently serious to require ArbCom to get involved, and whether you have made sufficient efforts to explore earlier stages of dispute resolution first. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing
Hello. This isn't really about Pigsonthewing per se, but his userpage is what got me wondering the question: Does 3RR actually apply to userpages? If a person has limited ownership of their user/talk pages (at least, relative article pages), could 3RR actually apply? For example, if someone posts on my talk page (even if it's just to say, "hello! welcome to wikipedia!"), I am allowed to remove it. If a person then decides to re-add it, am I not allowed to remove it as many times as I wish? (Similarly, even though removing, instead of archiving, warnings is frowned upon, I still can remove them. If a person erroneously believes that I'm not allowed to remove them, and re-adds them, can I really be blocked for 3RR if I keep removing it?) Bladestorm 21:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The "exceptions" section to WP:3RR provides that the rule does not apply to "reverts done by a user within his or her own user space, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere." As I read this, a user generally cannot commit a 3RR violation in his or her own userspace, unless there is an independent problem with the content of the edits. This is consistent with what I would consider to be common sense: a user has a greater degree of freedom on his or her userpage and talkpage than elsewhere, provided that he or she is not raising other problems such as by using the pages to perpetuate a dispute or engage in personal attacks. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "cannot commit a 3RR violation", in that he can't revert three times? Or in that it shouldn't be treated as a 3RR unless there's a special reason? Bladestorm 23:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear, but if you take a look at the page I cited, it is explained in more detail. Conduct on one's own userpage is generally exempt from 3RR, so cannot be a violation, unless it violates the policies in some other fashion. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Gangsta review
Hi, I was advised to restate my evidence from my statement in the Evidence section. Do you feel this is necessary? --Ideogram 09:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say this is not necessary, particularly because in a review case, the statements and the evidence are on the same page. If you wish, you can add a one-sentence section to evidence, indicating that your evidence is contained in your statement above. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 10:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I need a favour....
Hey Newyorkbrad, sorry to bug you, but I couldn't find User:Beestra cause he's on a Wikibreak, so I coming to you for advice/ your knowledge of Wikipedia Policies. I was wondering....is this article section a violation of Wikipedia policy? Nat Tang talk to me! 12:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * or is it just a case of edit dispute and censorship... Nat Tang talk to me! 12:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the background to this article, but the fact that a source in the form of the court document linked from the article is a good step toward complying with our policicies. However, this does not necessarily demonstrate that the incident in question is notable, so it might be desirable to add some secondary sources as well to suggest that the matter has been considered significant. Additionally, if a matter of this type is to be mentioned, it is important that it not be given undue weight relative to the subject's career taken as a whole. Editors on the BLP noticeboard who work with these issues frequently might be a good source for additional input, as well as of course discussion on the article talkpage. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom
This user (Zondi) has made several reverts in the course of his edits, exhibiting an identical POV as other users involved. This is why I added him. He has edit warred on several article, and made some interesting comments. He is very much a part of this case. Some of these articles include Church of Kish and Heroes of Azerbaijan. I'd appreciate it if you would re-add him. Thanks. Good night.Hajji Piruz 05:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have a good-faith belief that ArbCom action should be considered against this editor, then you can put him back as a party. Newyorkbrad 09:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking to me about this.Hajji Piruz 15:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Board Election
As I don't have an account over on meta, I thought I'd drop a note off here. I noticed that the endorsement period has closed, and I was wondering if there is a page where the overall success of the endorsements (ie. correct number) will be confirmed by the election committee. Or even just a notice somewhere saying when such a page would be expected to appear. At the moment, I'm shuttling between the candidates' presentation page and the endorsements page, and getting thoroughly confused. I presume when voting starts this will all be cleaned up, but I was hoping that there would be a simple "candidacy endorsement successful" notice somewhere, so that I could now just concentrate on those candidates and not the ones that weren't endorsed. Hope you can help! Thanks. Carcharoth 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of places you can find the final list of qualified candidates who will be voted on; one is here. By Thursday the official voting instructions page will be up which of course will also have the official list. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article needs protection
The article that i requesting protection is Sarah Natochenny because of the daily vandalism it's been receved latley and i was wandering if it is possible to if you can do it as if i understand right that only administrator's can only do it thanks Richardson j 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. Since there seems to be only one IP vandalizing the article, I think it would be better to block the IP if it keeps vandalizing, rather than protect the page. There had not been any warnings beyond test1, so I just issued a final warning, and you can report the IP to WP:AIV for blocking if it vandalizes again. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some user pages I am thinking of nominating for deletion
I'd appreciate your advice on some Crystal Gayle Mangum related user pages. User:Unlearned hand has a couple of different versions of this article in his user space; back at the end of May, I suggested he either edit them to try to meet BLP and other Wikipedia editing standards, or have them deleted. I also said that I wouldn't hesitate to take them to MfD if he didn't do anything with them. Here are the links: and.

Well, it's been nearly a month. Unlearned hand last edited on June 2, when he said he would sit on them for a week or two to decide his next steps. I don't want to kick up a sandstorm or fan any flames (to mix a few metaphors), but at the same time it's time these were gone. Any thoughts? Risker 02:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... you could try prodding them and see if anyone objects, as a first step? Newyorkbrad 02:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea; the last time I went through this, I knew the deletions would be controversial so went straight to MfD. Have put the prod tags on, and will see what happens.  Thanks.  Risker 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I go adios
Sorry but after 2 years, I'm voluntarily adios. The fact that you got involved in a conspiracy to place me under arbitration is the last straw. Therefore go to another editor if you want various articles to be edited. I don't have any time to waste with Wikipedia anymore. I leave Wikipedia with this one warning: there will be even more fragile editors like myself and soon there will be opposition to Wikipedia's oppresive rules that y'all will have to think things. I don't care about those articles anymore and nobody cared about my edits anyway. Sorry, but I'm voluntarily finished here. &mdash; Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. If you read this, please note that I am an Arbitration Committee Clerk and was (and am) in no way involved in any decision to bring you to arbitration or whether the arbitrators should accept the case. Newyorkbrad 14:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kamryn's link
Hi, NYB. As you seem to be online, I'm going to email to you the link that I removed and ask you to forward it to the committee. (Kamryn doesn't seem to have email enabled.) It's quicker than getting a bounce message that my email is awaiting moderation. Hope you don't mind. And while I'm here, thanks for supporting my RfA, and for all the good work you do around here. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll forward your e-mail to the ArbCom mailing list upon receipt. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sent. ElinorD (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Received and forwarded. Newyorkbrad 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Attachments
NYB, do you know if the Arbitration mailing list accepts attachments? I am trying to figure out how to present my evidence related to the CharlotteWebb Arbitration case, which I feel would be inappropriate to publicly display, and an HTML attachment would work best (at least as far as I've figured). --Iamunknown 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure. I think a couple of arbitrators have this page on their lists so maybe someone can comment. Otherwise I'll e-mail them with the question. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence
Hi. Could you please clarify if it is OK to post as an evidence to the current Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 the evidence from the previous arbcom, like User:Hajji Piruz did? He copied and pasted User:Fadix’s evidence from the old arbcom, please see: In my understanding any previous violations (if there actually were any) were dealt with during the respective arbcom case, and this one is to deal with what happened since the end of the first case. Is that correct? Thanks. Grandmaster 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For the most part, evidence of conduct since the prior case was closed will be the most relevant. I will not say that evidence of activity from prior to or during the earlier case could never be relevant, as it could be used to show (for example) that someone's bad behavior was a long-term problem rather than a one-off incident, or as background information. Wholesale copying of a section from the prior case is probably excessive and should be avoided.
 * Some of the evidence presentations in this type of case typically come in much too long. Everyone, including Hajji Piruz, should try to abide by the length limit suggestions contained in the header of the page. Newyorkbrad 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Grandmaster 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For future reference, please note that Penwhale is the primary clerk on this case. Newyorkbrad 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. Grandmaster 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia regarding trivia
I see that you're known as NYB. NYB, thanks for your hypothesis about Wolfe answering the door. Could well be right. I thought that I had not seen "trivium" before and I checked with my old Random House. It tells me that that "trivium" and "trivia" are not the same second declension neuter noun, singular and plural forms respectively, as I'd have thought. "Trivia," while construed as plural, appears to be back formation from "trivial." However, the SOED tells me that "trivia" is modern Latin, whatever that is, plural of "trivium," its earliest usage dating from the twentieth century. There is another Trivia, goddess of the crossroads. (Those wacky Romans.)

But both sources define "trivium" as the lower division of the seven liberal arts: specifically, grammar, rhetoric and logic.

I'm off to research "the grippe" and "catarrh" (the latter from Some Buried Caesar, I think). TurnerHodges 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people have coined "NYB" as a shorthand for my username, although I myself only use it on this template. I believe actually aware that "trivium" is poor Latin, though it seemed to fit in that particular edit summary, but will have to read up on the additional leads you have given me. I believe "the grippe" is more-or-less what we would call "the flu." I look forward to working with you on the Wolfe articles. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New policy?
Earlier ArbCom cases had statements from uninvolved editors moved to the talk page (e.g Abu badali). However, i've noticed that in newly opened cases, this does not seem to be the case (e.g CharlotteWebb and Armenia-Azerbaijan 2). Has the convention changed again? hbdragon88 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for the CharlotteWebb case as another clerk (Penwhale) has been handling Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. When I was opening CharlotteWebb, I found an unusual situation: The editor filing the case wrote just one paragraph, the two named parties (Jayjg and CharlotteWebb) submitted nothing at all, and then about 25 uninvolved editors made statements or comments. There was no basis on which I could have neutrally decided which non-party statements were more important than others, so basically my choices were either to move pretty much the whole case to the talkpage and leave the casepage practically empty, or to leave everything on the casepage, and I opted for the latter. It's not meant as a change of policy in more typical cases. Thanks again for your interest in these matters. Newyorkbrad 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks for lettign me know about the ANI thread in which my name was being mentioned. I have responded. DES (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WTC 9/11
OK. From your username I suspect that you are probably closely related to the city of New York. My understanding is that on 9/11 two planes flew into two buildings, these being the twin buildings of the World Trade Centre. So OK, where am I wrong?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right that two planes flew into two buildings, namely, the 110-story "Twin Towers" at 1 and 2 World Trade Center, causing both buildings to collapse. Later that day, a neighboring 47-story building known as 7 World Trade Center also collapsed, as a result of being struck by flaming debris from the two larger neighboring buildings which, among other things, ignited large fuel tanks within the building. Thus, the two planes indirectly caused the collapse of this third building as well as the two larger and more prominent ones. Newyorkbrad 00:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for clarifying that for me. I think that the media on this side of the Pond down-played the damage to WTC 7.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 14:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the BBC did a show dedicated to examining why WTC 7 collapsed: (5 & 1/2 min. excerpt viewable here) The BBC show concludes it could only have been demolished with pre-placed explosives. But of course, the relevant wikipedia articles currently do not mention that this has even been revealed on BBC, CBC (Canadian) etc.; apparently these are suddenly not valid sources as soon as they start talking about this stuff... 71.253.138.99 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the "controlled demolition" theories relating to destruction of any portion of the World Trade Center complex on September 11 to be unsupported, unreasonable, offensive, libellous, and I do not wish to further discuss the matter. Newyorkbrad 15:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: ABF's evidence
I did some cosmetic changes (removing awkward line breaks, adding block quote format), but can you double-check whether I changed anything he said? - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. I had tried to do some of that as well but am glad you finished the job. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your Sonic Images
I just did. --Hasek is the best 01:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)