User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/May

Re Arb Case
The Arbitration Committee is considering whether to accept or reject the case that has been filed against you. If the case is accepted, an evidence page and workshop would be created and all parties (and other interested editors) would have the opportunity to be heard. The result of the case could be sanctions against you and/or against any of the other involved parties. At this point, you have a right to make a statement concerning whether the arbitrators should hear the case or not. If you do not believe that a full arbitration case is warranted, this is the time to explain why, especially since 2 arbitrators have already voted to accept the case, and opening the case takes 4 arbitrators' votes. If you have any questions, please let me know (I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks). Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I plan to make a statement regarding the filling later today or tomorrow. As I don't know enough about Arbitrations cases, I will just add some thoughts about what was said in the filling, and give no opinion on either the Arbitration Committee should take this case. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you put a note in your section on the arbitration page, indicating that a statement will be forthcoming. That may stop other arbitrators from voting on the case until your statement is posted. Newyorkbrad 20:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A#1
Sorry about not being able to reply over the past few days. Like I said on ANI, I'm right now in PBIA waiting for my flight to Islip MacArthur. I'll be out of commission again for another four hours, essentially.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I saw your post on ANI. Have a good flight. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun
You commented on Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Agreed on the unfortunate sequence of events. I'll comment on the DRV later or in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted List of Muslims involved in a crime
Hi Brad, I dont get it. When we have a List of Muslim writers and poets, I dont see why it would be wrong to have List of Muslims involved in a crime. Would you say its wrong to have an entire article on Criticism of Islam? If Muslim poets are being listed separately, clearly Mohamed Atta belongs in some list. Which list would that be then? Let me know and I'll create that classification. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should also have List of Jews involved in a crime, List of Roman Catholics involved in a crime, List of Episcopalians involved in a crime, List of Mennonites involved in a crime, List of Hindus involved in a crime, List of atheists involved in a crime, List of agnostics involved in a crime, List of pagans involved in a crime, and so on? Creating lists of this nature is an open-ended invitation to constant edit-warring and the expression of hatred. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt oppose the creation of those lists if they served as a research tool. Would you say then the person who created Criticism of Islam did so to create edit warring and express hatred for Islam? Thats not true. Again, when we have lists for Muslim poets, why cant we have a list for Muslims involved in a crime? There should be some list in which Mohamed Atta belongs, dont you agree? That was my main point. Some people suggested moving it to "List of Islamist terrorists". That would go parellel with Islamist terrorism. Anyone researching on that topic would find that collection of names invaluable. What do you think? Sorry, I guess I could have done a deletion review, but since you were the one to delete it speedy I thought I'd have your thoughts on it first.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I see a clear difference between Criticism of Islam and List of Muslims involved in a crime. I appreciate your having provided me an opportunity to expand on my thoughts on this, which was courteous. Deletion review is indeed the appropriate forum if you wish to pursue the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lists of this nature are blatantly "name and shame" rosters, and that's not a valid function, in fact clearly an abuse, of Wikipedia. Ref (chew) (do) 22:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Muslims involved in a crime. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi brad, I've done a deletion review. thanks, --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Will comment there. Newyorkbrad 23:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's blatant trolling. The correct action here was to speedy the article and indefinitely block the troll. --Tony Sidaway 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. Besides if we listed everybody every involved in a crime in some list, we'd have nothing else to do on Wiki but add to that list, would we?  --BenBurch 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

removed content from the reference desk
Greetings, some content you recently contributed to the reference desk was removed. The following explanation was given: "Note, the preceeding content was modified from its original version. Some unsubstantiated assertions were removed. Other correct statements were also removed so as to avoid discontinuities in the discussion." thanks for your contributions and clarifications. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to respond on my talk page. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 23:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the heads up. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RFARB/Abu badali
Newyorkbrad, I saw that you add someone content the the Abu badali RFARB workshop. I am not familiar with the arbitration process, but know that you are an ARB clerk, and have a question: I have a couple of suggestions for you regarding the proposed principles you wrote. Do I need to create my own sub-proposals (1a 2a, etc.) or can I comment under "Comment by others" and offer my suggestions? Thank you, Iamunknown 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way. If what you have are suggestions or comments on what I wrote, then you can add them in the "comments by others" section under the respective proposal. On the other hand, if it's a whole new proposal, go ahead and add it as your own.
 * Frankly, we really are still at the stage of the case where evidence is much more important than workshop proposals. The only reason I added proposals this soon was because (1) they are based on pretty non-controversial evidence (e.g., the fair use policy, the unanswered RfC, Abu badali's own userpage), and (2) I have learned that if I get some proposals down early, it makes it more likely they will be noticed, as sometimes by the end of the case the /Workshop page becomes a complete morass. (Unfortunately, I'm in no position to blame that on the ArbCom clerks!) Much of the final decision will and should depend on evidence yet to be added. I was careful to base what I wrote only on things that are unlikely to change as evidence is presented. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm unsure what to write in as evidence. I think Abu badali's work has been valuable but not without controversy.  And I am rather unfamiliar with current Arbitration process.  The whole Arbitration case currently seems to be floundering, as only two people commented, and I'm not sure what their issues are and what needs to be arbitrated.  Would you recommend I wait until others start adding evidence?  --Iamunknown 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, it's not floundering ... not yet, anyway. The case was just officially opened three hours ago. Give it some time, these things usually last for a few weeks. :) Newyorkbrad 01:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not familiar with these proceedings. Thank you anyways, Iamunknown 02:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just follow along and you will see how the process works. Read the instructions at the top of the evidence and workshop pages. If you want, pick an earlier case and skim through it. It's not as complicated as it looks (of course, my being a litigation attorney in real life might help me a bit in saying that :) ). Newyorkbrad 02:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
Perhaps this goes without saying, but thank you for reverting edits to my user talk page. I don't want people knowing that I suck (ahem) :) Grace notes T § 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, you would do the same for me. (Um, you would revert, that is.) Newyorkbrad 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another star for your collection

 * Thank you very much. I actually thought the right outcome was clear, but was given pause when so many admins and editors I respect disagreed with me. I hope my action resolves the matter. Newyorkbrad 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock for ArbCom
Hi Brad, I've just read your ArbCom statement and motion regarding Miskin, I actually put one up at AN/I a few hours ago, but no-ones commented on it, do you think it's best leaving this to the arbitrators?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a preference whether it's addressed by one or more arbitrators or by an administrator, but I didn't want to do anything myself since I seem to find me in a definite minority position vis-a-vis the ANI consensus in this case. If an admin who supported the block were willing to unblock because of the case, that would certainly work for me. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With the current backlog in arbitration cases, even if Miskin had to serve the remainder of his 6 day block before posting evidence, it would be unlikely to affect the consideration of the case. You could certainly also use you discretion and unblock, on condition that he only edits his case until the most recent 6 day block's expiry date. Thatcher131 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers guys for the comments, I've posted at AN/I as well, but I've proposed to Miskin that I am willing to unblock his account, but only if he restricts his editing to arbitration pages involving him for the remainder of the block.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Brad, he says he abides by my condition, now, I know your involved, but as you have great knowledge on arbitration matters - how shall I put it - if I unblock, am I up for a bollocking?! I've got an email prepared to send to the arbcom mailing list explaining things, have you got the mailing list address?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I Lost on Jeopardy
I know what the standard procedures are for DRV discussion, but as I indicated, I can't see the article's history to know whether or not to endorse the deletion. That's why I commented the way I did. Corvus cornix
 * Fair enough. I understand this is a frequent problem. For what it's worth, I can't guarantee this was the most recent version, but a copy of the article on a mirror site can be found here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Based on that, I reworded my comments.  Corvus cornix 19:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I see the article has been speedy undeleted. :) Newyorkbrad 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one bothered to let me know about the DRV. I deleted the article before being told that, for reasons that haven't been given, songs are immune to notability constraints. It seems from discussion at the relevant notability page that (depite what seems to have been pretty wide consensus) a set of notability conditions was abandoned. After I revived the discussion, we seem to be closer to instituting conditions; this would fail them, just as it fails the normal A7 condition.

Anyway, I've AfDed it. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk. Newyorkbrad 13:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A little guidance needed
Perhaps you can help me figure out how to proceed. This morning, a newly-created account was indef-blocked for a series of personal attacks against editors. This user's first edit was a disruptive edit to Talk:Free Republic, which is under ARB probation. User was blocked for the personal attacks in User talk, normally that would be it. However, there were several telltale signs that make me strongly believe that the blocked user is a sockpuppet of another user that I have had problems with in the past. Is there some way through an ARB enforcement request, or other method, to get a checkuser run, and if my suspicions are correct, call the "real" user on the carpet? What would be the best way to proceed, if I want to pursue this? I figured that since the first edit of the vandal account was a violation of ARB ruling, that would open the door to direct ARB involvement. - Crockspot 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please e-mail me a more detailed summary of what happened, with diffs, and I will forward it to the arbitrators, several of whom also have checkuser access. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll try to put something together this evening and get it off to you. Thanks. - Crockspot 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

kick into touch
Thanks for the inquiry -- I was wondering about that too. Though I think you mean to ask for a translation into American? -- Kendrick7talk 21:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that was what I wrote, but if I made an error, please feel free to fix it. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops you are correct. Mentally hiccupped there. So I will assume this is a rugby thing. Thanks. -- Kendrick7talk 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like we were all wondering. From a slang site: "Vrb phrs. To reject, discard or finish with someone/something. From the game of Rugby, whereby a ball kicked into touch is out of play. E.g.'I'm going to kick it into touch after today, and start again tomorrow morning.'" . Can we create a policy that bars arbitrators from using country specific slang? :) nadav 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay ... but who's going to enforce it? :) Newyorkbrad 02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
An arbitration case involving you has been filed. Feel free to comment there. Thank you. -- Cat chi? 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, you don't have to notify yourself. Although, since I'm here, one of your links is red and may need to be adjusted. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Formal mediation requests are deleted if they fail to start due to a lack of participation. -- Cat chi? 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you might want to say "I tried a formal mediation request but it was deleted because X declined to participate." Right now it just looks like a typo. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added something along that line to the rfar case. Btw, are you ever online, I'd like to discuss this issue with you since I feel ArbCom will decline this again. -- Cat chi? 22:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn the case. -- Cat chi? 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be glad to talk to you about this sometime, although tonight isn't going to work. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mail
You should have some mail :-)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First
I think I gave you your first barnstar. Here's another. Just for being a good guy around the wiki. Nice having people like you around. Cheers -- Samir 05:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. You did give me my first barnstar. It was for my attempts to mediate a quarrel between Giano and Tony Sidaway&mdash;in retrospect, not one of my great successes. I will add that you were missed when you were on wiki-break and it is very good to see you back around here as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There should be a "The Impossible Dream" barnstar for that... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Item for RFAr
Hello. I'm not sure of where in all the treads to place this at Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop, but it should be noted that has been blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threat of physical violence against Abu badali. Would you please note it there in whichever place you feel most appropriate? --After Midnight 0001 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already been discussed on the talk page for the Workshop. If it becomes relevant to a specific proposal, someone can add a mention there as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see it now. I guess there were too many pages there for me to find it there earlier. --After Midnight 0001 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
I may have overlooked this, but has the arb clarified "Kick them into touch"? Regards, Navou 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but there's a comment a little higher on this page that offers some explanation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
You know Brad, you could use MiszaBot III. You can set it to automatically go to a new archive number when an archive exceeds a certain size, so you don't have the huge ones. :) -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, and it sounds like a good idea ... but I wouldn't want to hurt Werdna and Shadow's feelings by changing bots. I remember when Thatcher131 signed up for Werdnabot instead of Essjaybot, and Essjay was disconsolate for days...... Newyorkbrad 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Werdna actually recommended MiszaBot when Werdnabot stopped. So, I switched. (Plus for me, it now puts things in the correct month. Previously, if a comment was left on let's say March 29, it would go into the April archive since the 7 days old was in April. now it still goes to the correct month even if it's the next month. [By the way, you should use month archives also. I think it would work better for you]) -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I need a clerk to help me with this stuff. :) Seriously, is there a link with Miszabot information I could look at? Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I could set it up, just tell me how you want it. (/Archive# or /Archive-monthyear). -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You know ... since you offered, I think I will take you up on that. :) Let's do it by month/year starting with May 2007 (we'll leave the old system ones alone). Thanks very much. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From what you've told me, I've used the same settings I use on my talk page, except that I set it to 5 days on your talk since that's what you had. It will now archive to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/Year/shortenedmonthname (such as Jan and Feb.). If you want it in a different format just tell me the exact path and I'll change it. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Once it starts working I should update the heading at the top of the page, too. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Miskin
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Gee
Thanks for speedy deleting the above article. The reason I did not tag it for speedy deletion myself is that there are plenty of things included on Wikipedia that I would suspect are hoaxes that on inspection/consultation are not. At least AfD gives me some confidence that I am not tagging for deletion some bizarre but true article. -- Mattinbgn/talk 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, you are right that the fact that an article is a suspected hoax is not a sufficient speedy deletion criterion. In fact, it has happened that I have seen an article on AfD as a suspected hoax and was able to show that at least part of it was actually true. It is only when the deleting administrator is 110% sure that there is no substance to the article at all that speedy deletion is justified. In this case, there was both intrinsic and off-wiki evidence that the article was pure nonsense, including the always suspicious fact that the dubious article was the creator's first and only contribution. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Headline text
I would hesitate to characterize the second link as "totally unrelated" without first examining the timestamps. Take it for what it's worth. I have no further comment. — freak([ talk]) 00:24, May. 17, 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted without action. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
About that userbox, I'm not really sure what it means. I assumed it was something about hard rock as that is what the person I made it for was interested in... The userbox was originally created by User:St.daniel. I merely formatted it. See this and this. I would never otherwise have created such a userbox. Sorry for all the trouble. YuanchosaanSalutations! 08:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing. I pretty much thought from your contribution history it didn't look like your style. If St.daniel has any questions about what happened to his box, you can tell him to leave me a note here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 08:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John Wilderspin
Hi, I notice you commented on the deletion review for John Wilderspin: Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_13. I have left very detailed comments regarding this deletion debate, particularly about the conduct of the main advocate of the article, which may alter your opinion of the matter, so please have a look if you can spare the time. Clavecin 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look, and the admin who closes the discussion will take your comments into account also. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

McCain Userbox
John McCain said before the 06 midterm elections that if the Democrats won the midterm elections then he would commit suicide. This was obvious ally said in jest. I asked User:Yuanchosaan to make this userbox because I thought it would be funny after the Democrats won to make a userbox asking for such. Obvious ally this was in jest not demanding him to commit suicide which would be ridiculous. I apologize for any misconceptions this may have given -- St.daniel Talk 18:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Frankly, until someone mentioned it, I wasn't sure this was a reference to Senator McCain; it could have been someone else you know by that name. I also either never heard or had forgotten about the quote you mentioned, so of course the userbox was out of context. In any event, I'd prefer not to have this userbax lying around because others might misunderstand it as I did, but you don't have to worry about the matter beyond that. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of Tomie16
Thanks for indef blocking User:Tomie16. User:Tomie16 has vandalized my talk page today as well as vandalizing my user page a few times on April 2. NHRHS2010 Talk  20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that, and are not going to tolerate that sort of thing. For future reference, it might be best not to show your irritation in edit summaries while reverting vandalism. If it's someone harassing you, that sort of thing may inadvertently encourage them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This user is repeatedly blanking his talk page. Could you please protect it?  Thanks. -- Finngall   talk  21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter of principle, he's entitled to have a previously uninvolved administrator review his unblock request, so I don't want to protect the page just yet. On the other hand, if he blanks his talkpage, the unblock request won't show up and he'll never be unblocked. So I don't really see this as a big problem unless I am missing something. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User talk:Tomie16 has been fully protected by User:WJBscribe. NHRHS2010  Talk  21:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. The last time I checked he hadn't started yet with all the other nonsense. Thanks to both of you. Newyorkbrad 21:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Fixed. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks again! If it works well for a couple of days I'll change the box at the top of this page to reflect the new set-up. Newyorkbrad 21:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hkelkar 2
Hi NYB - just wanted to give u a heads-up - sorry about delaying on the evidence report; I've been very busy and I will submit it 100% by Sunday, May 20th. It also seems some of the others have been inactive, but I promise there won't be any further delay from my side. Again, sorry for holding-up the case. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. You should probably make a note somewhere on the case talkpage as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Which I see you already did on /Evidence. Newyorkbrad 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate your and the other arbitrators' patience greatly Newyorkbrad. I won't return to full activity until November but I may edit in bits and pieces until then. After a few days I think I can sneak some time for the arbitration case :) GizzaChat  &#169; 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Please note though that I am not one of the arbitrators; rather, I am the Arbitration Committee Clerk helping with the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad 11:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:JamesF
Please see User talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration‎; I had not planned on automatically listing him as active on open cases without his say-so. Thatcher131 13:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but on WP:AC/CN he has said so. :) Newyorkbrad 13:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Hadn't made it that far down my watch list yet. Thatcher131 14:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom help
Hi brad. Having never been involved in an arbcom case before, I would like to request your help in setting one up. Can you help me? Viridae Talk 14:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The case you are wishing to set up, has already been opened.--Docg 14:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that the case you had in mind? If so, there it is and you can feel free to add a statement. If not, I'll be glad to help. Newyorkbrad 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * After his wheel warring, I've already added him to the case.--Docg 14:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the case I wished to set up. Thanks anyway. Viridae Talk 15:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bedford
Yes, that was me! I don't care if it is merged/redirected/deleted. I just saw no reason for two pages on the same person. As long as it is taken care of! Thanks! Postcard Cathy 22:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration Procedure (TingMing)
I think I posted this in Penwhale's talk page by mistake. Anyway, I don't think TingMing has picked up your message at all up to this point, since his threaded messages are still intact in its own place (even after I re-stressed the request twice). I hope it wouldn't be a trouble for you to refactor his comments into his own section. Thanks,  Vic  226說 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I prefer to allow editors to fix things up for themselves but you are right that in this case it wasn't happening. Another note left on TingMing's talk page. Newyorkbrad 21:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the trouble, but I don't think he really cares about the procedure as he reverted your and my removal of his threaded comments. Vic 226說 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Arb case talk page accusations
Hi, Newyorkbrad. One more question about Arb Cases. What's the role and height of the messages left on the arb case's talk page? I noticed some users posted accusations there, while others posted good points. Will these statements be taken into account? Should I care to reply to what I see as inaccurate accusations? Where?

Some of the users editing the talk page, specially those adding accusations, didn't seem so bored to provide diffs. I'm reluctant in taking part on that forum (the talk page) as I'm afraid it can take the same path as my RFC did.

Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't really predict what the arbitrators would find relevant or not. I would suggest that you provide your defense to the main allegations on the /Evidence page. Then on the talk you could say that your response is in the evidence, maybe with a link to the relevant section. If an allegation has no diffs or back-up to support it, you could point that out as well. Basically, try to imagine that you were an experienced editor but had no background on this particular dispute or set of disputes ... ask yourself what would be helpful in trying to figure it out. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail about editing of Shirdi Sai Baba
I wrote you an e-mail about complaints at

Could you please have a look?
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement

I admit that it may look confusing, but to summarize it, I think that Vassyana's complaint about my editing behavior on 6 May at Shirdi Sai Baba was based on the poorly sourced misinformation inserted later (17 May) by User:Kkrystian. Andries 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet received your e-mail but will take a look when I do. However, be aware that I have not really been following this case. Newyorkbrad 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the article Sathya Sai Baba is related to Shirdi Sai Baba and hence I think that I am still allowed to edit the latter. The only relationship is that Sathya Sai Baba claims to be the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba, but this claims is generally not accepted by the followers of Shirdi Sai Baba. Sathya Sai Baba also claims to be a reincarnation of several other Hindu deities and saints. Andries 21:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think familiarity with the Sathya Sai Baba case would be needed to have a good understanding of the editing restrictions that were imposed and the reasons for them, which would be relevant to defining their scope. Still, when I receive your e-mail I will take a look. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why I was banned from editing Sathya Sai Baba. No diffs were provided that showed that I made disruptive edits on Sathya Sai Baba, in spite of my repeated requests to provide them. I think the arbcom simply wanted to get rid of a never ending conflict. Please let me know if I am mistaken. The arbcom even stated that my edits to Sathya Sai Baba were "generally resonsible" Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2Andries 22:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not an arbitrator and have no authority to overrule the Arbitration Committee, even if I looked at the case and disagreed with the decision. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, but you may understand motivations of the arbcom and explain them to me. It will be clear that I find the ban without supporting diffs extremely strange and unfair. Andries 22:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The root cause of this latest dispute is Kkrystian's total inability to recognize reputable sources on this subject. It would be better for Wikipedia if he was topic-banned based because of his repeatedly proven incompetence, as also noticed by the arbcom here Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2. I have no intention any more to edit articles when Kkrystian is around and I will move to Citizendium. Andries 22:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Faheem Muhammed
Hi, since you Speedied this page that I tagged, I have a question I hope you can help with. When I initially placed the Speedy tag, I also blanked the page because the content was such a blatant BLP violation. Another editor then replaced the content and I didn't revert any further in order to avoid confusion. Was blanking the right thing to do under the circumstances, or was it ok to leave the content visible? I'd just like to clarify for future reference...Doc  Tropics  23:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I commented on this in the AfD when I closed it, but I guess it wasn't noticeable there in the middle of the page. In general, blanking an article that's on AfD is inappropriate, because in a way it's prejudging the outcome of the AfD, and also makes it harder for the editors commenting in the AfD to see what they are commenting on. However, there is a common-sense exception for blatant BLP violations and attack pages, so I don't think anyone could be too critical of what you did. Newyorkbrad 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I saw your comment, which I had overlooked previously. The fact that the article went to AfD when it really should have been Speedied the first time around caused a bit of confusion. Thanks a lot for both closing it out, and taking the time to explain things for me : ) Doc  Tropics  23:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No harm done. On balance, borderline cases should go to AfD rather than speedy, and when I read the day's AfDs I have no problem speedying anything that is truly inappropriate to remain included (as opposed to a borderline notability issue, etc.). Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Hi there NYB. Thanks for keeping an eye on me and of course on those rather amusing attack pages that were posted while I was away. You do a lot of good work here. Yes I will be reactivating myself as I work on the relevant cases, and I will be active on any new ones. Thanks again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signature
You think it's time to get rid of the "TeckWiz is now"? -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Remind me - how long has it been since you changed the name? Newyorkbrad 16:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * April 18th. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Time flies. :) I'd say a month is probably long enough, but it's up to you. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You know if you ever wanted to, you could usurp User:Brad. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this idea earlier at user talk:Daniel (who used to have a name we'd all recognize, but I forget what it was ;): We should auction out the popular first names and the single letter names, instead of allowing the first claimant to usurp the name. This could be a profitable fundraising method for wikipedia ;). NoSeptember  21:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, but I don't think that R could afford to stay R unless his parents raised his allowance, whereas (say) Jimbo Wales could become User:J pretty readily, so the idea would infringe the principle of the sovereign equality of editors. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can also become User:B. --R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Alright then. I'll put it in the next update. Aquarius &#149; talk 22:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I will also create a slightly revised version of the template to avoid any further potential confusion. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hkelkar
shouldn't User:Hkelkar be allowed to give evidence on Hkelkar2 Rfa? afterall, it's named after him.--D-Boy 05:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Previously banned users may not post evidence on-wiki, but if he has evidence he can e-mail it to any active arbitrator or clerk for circulation to the arbitrators' mailing list. Newyorkbrad 08:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsure on procedure
Namaste. I have posted my views on an Arb Com case that you are handling. I am unsure of procedures, so I put what may be some useful background information on the talk page, which may or may not have been appropriate: Can you you advise me if this submission is appropriate, and if so, where it should be posted? The evidence page said that rambling essays were not encouraged. :) Buddhipriya 08:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The location of your comments looks fine to me. Perhaps you would want to post a brief link to them from the main /Evidence page to make sure they aren't inadvertently overlooked. Since I am clerking I'd prefer not to comment on the substance of your statement. Regards, Newyorkbrad 08:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, I will place a brief link on the evidence page as you have suggested. Buddhipriya 09:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence issues on RfAR/Hkelkar 2
Hi - Blnguyen has oversighted my evidence because it contains relevant quotes of e-mail text. I disagree most strongly - there is no need. All of those e-mail conversations are vital to highlight at this stage of the case. Additionally, "privacy" has been respected as only relevant segments of conversations have been posted. I will restore the full version shortly.

Should I point out that Hkelkar and co. have relentlessly spammed other users about all this nonsense? Where is their sense of courtesy? I'm sorry but I have to insist on re-posting the specific lines of conversation that are most relevant and provide context. I already told you guys before I submitted my evidence that I would do it like this - why didn't you say anything then. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am simply one of the case clerks responsible for giving notifications and maintaining the case pages. I am not an arbitrator nor do I have access to any oversighted material. I believe that you should write directly to the arbitrators with your concerns. E-mail may be sent to any active arbitrator or to me for forwarding to the arbitrators' mailing list. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to throw heat at you. I honestly feel Blnguyen made a mistake - I did not reveal anything except relevant snippets of the conversations. I apologize for my erratic and incivil conduct over this case, but I hope you can understand how tumultous this case has become. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  16:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Diff at WP:RFAR appropriate?
Is this diff, by someone I don't recognize, removing a request for an ArbComm case appropriate. It had not yet been nominated for 24 hours not received 4 opinions by Arbitrators. GRBerry 01:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. It appears that User:White Cat is User:Cool Cat after a very recent username change. So it's the filing party withdrawing his own case before acceptance, which is okay. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for checking. GRBerry 15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring on RfAr/Hkelkar 2 evidence
Hi NYB - Konstable is edit-warring on the evidence page, removing a passage from my evidence statement. Please do something as I'm losing my temper fast. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't lose your temper. That hasn't helped in the past and it won't here. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Listen, he is 1 revert away from breaking 3RR and I am absolutely tempted to whack him with a block - I won't, but I'm tempted. Edit-warring is not acceptable, no matter what he thinks about the passage. I know his evidence is shit, but I don't go removing it. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  23:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I read the proposed decision that one arbitrator drafted. I don't know whether his thoughts speak for the other arbitrators, but it looks to me like he is recommending de-escalating this situation. Do you think that is do-able? Newyorkbrad 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I know I have been incivil but I didn't start this confrontation. Konstable is insisting on removing a passage from MY evidence statement. He has no right to do that, but he has revert-warred about it. What is his reason? - he doesn't agree with it. Funny, because I don't agree with any of his "evidence," but I didn't remove it. I just made one final attempt to make some peace but he reverted my message and began revert-warring on the evidence page. I'm not gonna accept criticism for something I did not do, which is escalate this situation. There is a limit to my patience. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  23:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked that no one touch anyone else's evidence, which is not to say that every word of what you wrote is critically necessary. To both of you, I don't think arbitrators are going to have much patience for much more of this sort of thing. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * NYB - what is "critically necessary" is my call, not yours; the arbs can decide what to do with it - don't involve yourself in this case apart from clerking. 4 weeks ago I asked Bauder and Lokshin what to do about this, but no-one replied. Now do you think any one of them has the bloody right to tell me what I did wrong??? I am just inches away from completely losing respect for the "arbitrators," let alone caring how much patience they have. And what is your problem - can't you see edit-warring when you see it? I don't care what Konstable's reason is, who has ever been justified in striking out somebody's evidence passage? Would you ask him what is "critically necessary" in his "evidence?"  Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)  23:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked him on the clerks page to leave your evidence as is, and he says he is unwatching the page, so I hope that resolves the matter. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't feel comfortable with the comment RA made at his evidence section: Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Evidence. I feel as though he will resort to violence of some sort.--D-Boy 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The comment you link to certainly wasn't an appropriate comment by any means, but let's not exaggerate either; I don't think there's any threat there to do anything off-wiki. I have to say though that frankly the level of anger and incivility on all sides in this case is really starting to bother me and that that sort of comments on the arbitration pages themselves in particular certainly cannot be helpful. Newyorkbrad 08:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Article for Removal (AfR)
Hi Brad. I read your post at RfC QZ and think you and I are on the same path. I have been working on drafting a proposal (here) to take into account a person's distress over having a Wikipedia article on them. It is for articles like QZ. I would appreciate receiving your comments on the approach (which is rough). I plan to figure out a working approack, then write it up formall. If interested, please post your comments/improvements on the bottom of the proposal. Thanks. -- Jreferee 22:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and I will certainly take a look at this proposal. However, the most useful input would probably come from editors who have participated in the OTRS process and have experience at dealing with these types of situations. You might want to post to a few of them, or on the mailing list. My sense is that these issues are sometimes better addressed privately than through a prolonged on-wiki discussion, despite the overall ethic (which I share) of transparency. Newyorkbrad 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'm still working on an approach to cover the various situations that may come up and the only way I can do that is on a case by case basis. I only know of three cases (QZ, Daniel Brandt, Rachel Marsden) that seem to bring up this distress issue in a public way. In addition to your review of what I have already developed, I would appreciate learning of any other articles where the subject of the article could be under some distress from having a Wikipedia article on them and which has received significant comment. -- Jreferee 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can think of a couple of others. I'll e-mail you on this tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My departure
Brad, I have responded to your comments on my talk page. Thank you. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed entry
An entry has been excised for its obvious factual incorrectness. A caution is added, here, by this author. Should Wikipedia engage in misrepresentation concerning the individuals affected, damages will be sought. It is suggested that Antandrus review very closely the original contents found here, for as it was subsequently discovered, the claims made by the author of this entry were false. 100 spam entries proved to not exist; only three entries were found, one by a third party.

Wikipedia went "off the air" for a few days recently. It was not newsworthy at the time, for some reason. Should Wikipedia disappear for ever, I'm sure that somebody will eventually notice.

x-star

Haha
For. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! Newyorkbrad 19:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes you do have a good sense of humor, and your conduct in face of screaming, badgering idiots like me has been impeccable. I am very sorry for my rudeness to you, and I hope you will accept my apology and this token of respect:

Thanks to you too ... although I definitely do not agree with the word "lone." Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for your time
Hi Brad, thanks very much for your first-support vote on my RfA. I'm here to request yet more of your time. If possible, please take a glance at Peer review/Report of 1800/archive1. I am trying to get this article through FAC before I go on vacation in mid-June, and your assistance would be useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at this over the weekend. It's definitely of interest to me, as I consider myself an American history and in particular a legal history buff, and have never heard of this document before. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Brad, I will hold you to that! Any input will be great. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The revert.
Thanks for the revert. I am sure I encountered that vandal a couple of months ago, except that they were using a different IP then. I recognize their editing pattern. Again, thank you. :) Acalamari 23:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I blocked the IP as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lee Nysted
You deleted this userpage with the reasoning it should only be undeleted if he makes further contributions. But he has: see User:WhispersofWisdom and a bunch of checkuser cases on him: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lee_Nysted. The Evil Spartan 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Please note that I deleted the talkpage and userpage at 1615 on Thursday, May 24 (UTC). The edits cited in your links are from before that time. Please let me know if there are any sock edits from after the deletion. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. I'm not out for blood or anything; it's just that I noted that this user has come back several times before, and that's probably why he was unblocked to begin with. Thanks for the prompt response. The Evil Spartan 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete AfD close
Thanks for closing Articles for deletion/List of prime numbers. List of prime numbers still has the AfD tag and the talk page does not mention the AfD. Regarding your amusing comment: PrimeGrid says they have 20 GB of files with prime numbers below 175,000,000,000 for download. Seems like a big waste of time, space and bandwidth considering several free programs can compute the 7,043,937,897 primes below that limit in less than a GHz hour. One project has computed all primes below 1018 but wisely chose not to store the 24,739,954,287,740,860 primes. Wikipedia may not be paper but that one would give us problems! PrimeHunter 00:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Brad, I've removed the AfD tag - you may want to add oldafdfull to the talk page but I'm not sure in this case.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I was interrupted by a real-world distraction just after I closed the AfD, and it slipped my mind that fixing the tags was my first order of business when I got back to the keyboard. I have tagged the talkpage as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * God damn real world distractions - they should be abolished If only there was MfD for them....  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te ''' 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the feedback on WP:AN. I appreciate your input. It seems implied from the "evidence" on the "ex-premie" site linked by the user that the affadavits were legitimate. They consider the statements to be coerced and something amiss in the court process. However, just the same, I would agree the presentation on the Elan Vital site is equally biased and defamatory. I don't think either should be linked or used as a source. Please also note the POV sites that the user provides as representative of his views. I have been involved actively with the Prem Rawat and Techniques of Knowledge articles as an outside opinion/informal mediator. I have previously noted and an admin removed WP:USER/WP:BLP issues from an opposing user on the pro-Rawat side. Some of the issues surrounding guru articles in general are founded in spillover from existing internet campaigns/grudges/conflicts. That may tie in to your concerns that there are potential BLP loopholes. As a thought, the issue might also be addressed appropriately via WP:EL and WP:NPA. Just some thoughts and observations. Be well. Vassyana 11:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to look things over? I was wondering what you think of the situation. Vassyana 09:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did take a look. I did not find any direct links from Wikipedia to the pages or sites that the user was specifically complaining about. Someone with more knowledge about the underlying subject-matter is probably needed to unravel the rest of the controversy. I am keeping my eye on the pages, however. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know quite a lot about it. Andries 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Check your e-mail. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: A small irony
True enough. ;-)

(But, to be fair, the other case actually had enough usable evidence to justify imposing something; that's not really the case here, unfortunately.) Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Another request to help with copyediting
Hi Brad, as you helped me in the past, could you please copyedit the article Little Russia that has been expanded greatly last week? Thanks a lot, --Irpen 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Brad. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. Max S em 21:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Congratulations, and welcome aboard. Newyorkbrad 21:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman back to disruption
Dear NYB, User:Bakasuprman is back to his trolling, disruption and edit war. See this comment on User:Rama's Arrow's talk page. It is racial in that it insults Dravidian people of Taml Nadu. Buffalo is a denigrating reference to dark skinned people in Taml Nadu. It is also an insult against Dbachmann. Time this fellow got a community ban. Also see new instances of edit/reversion war. ,. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.181.56.12 (talk • contribs).
 * I am travelling this weekend with limited Internet access and will not be able to look into this in detail for a couple of days. If there is an ongoing problem please ask another administrator or post to WP:ANI for assistance. Sorry I can't be more proactive right now. Newyorkbrad 11:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no issue. Rama called me a buffalo. Tamil Nadu is the state from where my ancestors originated. In fact I am Tamil and have never heard this complete bullshit about buffalo. I'm betting an old chum is behind the nonsense. Rama btw is Gujju not Tamil. Baka man  18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP. Looks like someone using a proxy as it traces to Iraq. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Articles for deletion/Estonia (1917-1918)
Thanks for being bold in closing this! -- Petri Krohn 03:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

arbitration
In regards to the Miskin arbitration:

Is there any remedy that can be taken then? The trolling is obscene. He's trolling me, he's trolling Mardavich, he's using the workshop to retaliate against me for making a proposed finding against him....when does it end? It's ridiculous, and it surely passes beyond the simple frustration of an arbitration case: this is moving into sheer animosity and disruptiveness. At what point does someone say "Stop, you're being a dick, and you need to stop?" &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Frankly, I've never had as low an opinion of this editor as you do, but I've now told him to cool off a number of times, and I may start to support action at some point if he doesn't. Much more important, I don't get a vote in the case; the arbitrators will come to the case, which they should reach in a few days, without preconceptions, and we'll see what they have to say. Truly, I wish with the one-week block expired Miskin had started to edit content again. That would help us see whether he was willing to work collaboratively or not in mainspace where it really counts, and the same for other editors of the same material as well. I have to tell you, though, and I'm sighing as I say this, that the level of animosity here is actually a little mild for an arbitration case. Hopefully the arbitrators can get this one wrapped up soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad 11:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mild? Hmm. My other experience with Arbcom was on Derek Smart. Maybe it was cause I had been mediating it, or been inured to it, but it wasn't too bad there. This one isn't THAT bad, it's just incessant, and IMHO hypocritical. Meh, I just with the arbitrators would get to this one, I know they're busy, but IMHO there's no new information coming out (except mardavich's claim of evidence of Miskin's incivility, which would essentially duplicate evidence already out there, so no real need). What exactly determines when an case moves from evidence to "voting"?  &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  01:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A case moves to from evidence to voting whenever an arbitrator writes up a set of proposals to be voted on. There's no real science to how quickly that happens. In the second half of last year, when one arbitrator was doing most (though not all) of the drafting, the cases typically were reached in roughly chronological order. This year, at least five arbitrators have written up decisions, so it's a little harder to know when to expect to see proposals. I understand your frustration, of course; everyone wants the arbitrators to take the time to thoroughly study the evidence and the arguments, but I know that when I submit evidence or workshop proposals I am always eager to see how the arbitrators will react to them, and I know that the anticipation or concern would be even far greater were I actually a party to a case. (On the other hand, the time periods involved in this case are as nothing compared to real world cases I deal with, and I'd give anything to watch as judges draft opinions and have an opportunity to comment on their first drafts point-by-point!) Newyorkbrad 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, yeah, as a law student I feel you. So it moves into voting when the first arbitrator drafts proposals? Does it help then, that we've written quite a few proposals already? It may have something to do with way more cases being in progress now than when I last remember it, but I could swear that I remember arbitrators commenting on the workshop page....I want to say that it happened in the evidence phase, but I can't be sure, it may have been already into voting. Anyway, arbitration is one of those processes that I learn something new every time that I go through it, which thankfully is not often at all. Thanks for teaching me about it. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  05:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators may place their own proposals or comment on other people's proposals on the /Workshop page, while still in the Evidence phase, or move directly to voting on /Proposed decision. Which they do, I suppose, depends on how sure they are of the proposals and whether they think they need more commentary first. I don't know how they will elect to proceed in this instance, although I agree that the time has come for some of them to wade into the morass. Newyorkbrad 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck, Ben Ownby
I realize that you raised the possibility of the deletion of these articles at Tony's talk page and that several other editors were apprised of (and ostensibly concurred in) your decision to speedy, and so I appreciate that you sought to gain some assurance that a consensus would exist for deletion here; anything more than summary, unilateral speedying of articles solely in view of BLP is surely, it is sad to say, to be applauded. Nevertheless, I'm a bit troubled. I can't conclude with any confidence that DRV would overturn the Ownby speedy, and so I'm hesitant to question your deletion here; even as I continue to believe that DRV ought to address procedural inaccuracies even where it is eminently likely that the results of those inaccuracies will be affirmed, I realize that we ought to avoid DRV drama wherever possible. Hornbeck, to be sure, is a different case, if only because he was so prominently interviewed/featured (e.g., on The Oprah Winfrey Show, Today, and Good Morning America, and in People) in the days and weeks subsequent to his "escape" as to make certain that Wikipedia will not be the only (or even most prominent) medium in which his name should appear in connection with his putative abduction in twenty years' time. I do not believe that the community would sanction deletion, especially without substantial discussion, here, but I am willing to abide the belief of others that deletion might be the ultimate disposition; I cannot imagine, though, that the community would disfavor the restoration of Shawn Hornbeck as a redirect to Michael J. Devlin or the readdition of the names of the kidnapees to the latter article (the redaction significantly compromised, I think&mdash;and this is something rather remarkable for me to say&mdash;the syntactic quality and general clarity of the article). If you are disinclined, then, to restore Hornbeck (at least) as a redirect (I suppose history undeletion would not be necessary)&mdash;as well and not unjustifiably you may be&mdash;I will take the issue to DRV in order that we might better appreciate where a consensus lies. On the issue of the names in the Devlin article, I see that Calwatch has returned them in view of their [having been] in the media. If you continue to believe their inclusion to be inappropriate, I hope and trust that, if only per BRD, you'll attempt first to establish a consensus for their removal at the the article talk page. Apologies for the length here, but I hope that we might avoid ten times these words at AN/I, RfAr, RfC, DRV, the mailing lists, WT:BLP, and WT:CSD, to name seven locales at which similar disputes have been situated of late. Please let me know at your leisure, then, whether you intend to oppose the restoration of Hornbeck (and perhaps Ownby) as a redirect to Devlin, and please weigh in relative to the naming issue at the Devlin talk. Cordially, Joe 04:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would oppose it and it has precedent to remain deleted and unredirected ala Lori Klausutis. The victims themselves are largely irrelevant to the historical event.  Maintaining detailed information on victims of crime for salacious, gratuitous or prurience is not acceptable.  They are not notable in and of themselves and therefore should nbot have details about their lives published.  If the victims names are replaced with "john doe", the reader isn't left with any less insight into the crime.  It is sufficient to know that that victims were abducted young boys.  Their identities are not relevant.  If they decide to share their biographical details in a manner and forum that makes it notable, then they can have an article or a redirect.  Until then, they are non-notable names.  --Tbeatty 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Articles for deletion/Estland
It may have been a good idea to close Articles for deletion/Estland early. The problem here is that some people do not think, that this decions is enforcable. Therefore this vandalism is still continuing rampant. (see, ) It seems like we may need administrator intervention. -- Petri Krohn 10:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Petri, please don't misrepresent this. See my reply here.. DLX 12:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point at least, I would prefer to assume good faith and consider this a content dispute to be addressed through the editorial process. I have limited Internet access over the next couple of days, so you can take the matter to ANI if problems continue and administrator intervention is essential. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fr0's edit
Hey Brad. Not a problem, I was being very sarcastic in tone on that page, as you can tell. ;) It's ok, I just that I didn't understand that if it was on a talk page, why revert. That topic was hot, so the opinions were mixed. Enjoy your holiday break. :) Fr0 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, but arguing about this article is just not a useful way to spend anyone's time at this point. If anything has ever been discussed to death in the history of Wikipedia, it's whether Brian Peppers should have a page or not, and the community's answer has been resoundingly negative. Frankly, it's enough already. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

James F. (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, some of the wording at the top of the template pages has been updated a little bit, but the section headings are the same as always. The line just got inadvertently dropped when another arbitrator was adding his proposals, so it was no big deal to put it back. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shawn Hornbeck. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Calwatch 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advisory. I will comment there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And Brad - I promise that I'm not purposefully getting up your ass on these. I have nothing but respect for how you've been handling this situation in comparison to some other people, and while I disagree, I think this is a good chance to see how these can be handled properly.  That's how I'm going into this right now, so I apologise in advance if I say something that rubs against you the wrong way - that's not my intent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So far the first commenter wants me desysopped for a week, which is not a good start, although it would give me a chance to catch up at the office.... Newyorkbrad 02:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Brad, I understand that you want this to be discussed civilly. I realize that the title I originally posted to ANI was certainly incivil and inflammatory; for that I apologize.  I left a note and have changed it.  --Iamunknown 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Regards, Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


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


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

Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff
Hello,

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

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


 * To answer your question, I'm not at all comfortable with allowing the situation to simply be glossed over as a "mistake" when it clearly was not. A simple discussion at AN/I is simply not a strong enough commentary in response to an unaccountable discussion where administrators who believe that users "should have been blocked months ago" can make some kid a patsy to get what they don't have the balls to do themselves accomplished.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretend I'm the arbitrator. I've reviewed all the evidence and I agree with you about every aspect of the situation. What do you want me to do? Newyorkbrad 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What do I want you to do? There are three people who are clearly not trustworthy enough to have the bit anymore, perhaps four.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, now switching back to the real world where the arbitrators are the arbitrators. No chance; none; zero; tilting at windmills; not going to happen; not even worth trying; don't squander credibility on a lost cause; forget about it. I hope I wasn't too subtle for you there. Newyorkbrad 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is that so absurd to consider? Serious question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they don't desysop people for one incident short of it's deleting the mainpage or something. My view is that they shouldn't, but even if I thought that they should, the fact is that they don't. And you probably deep-down realize that, but if not, take a look at NoSeptember's list of admins who've lost the bit and see if you can put one block, however bad and poorly reasoned, fits in with that catalog. Newyorkbrad 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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


 * The problem is we have some policies that are entirely reasonable in isolation but add up to unreasonable outcomes. It is reasonable to ignore one bad decision to block by an admin as long as it is not part of a pattern. It is reasonable to not base on-wiki sanctions on off-wiki behavior for various reasons, including reliability of evidence. However that means (hyopthetically) that a group of senior admins who should know better can persuade a new admin to take a bad decision today, and do it over and over again without penalty as long as the patsy is different. (that seems to be the allegation) It also makes it very hard to deal wih organized meatpuppetry, as shown in the Hkelkar 2 case. I agree with jeff that the matter is of deeper concern than just the block by Zsinj, but I'm not sure there is a practical solution. Thatcher131 02:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This might be the frustrating part - the lack of a practical solution. Once is a grave error (Giano).  Twice is beyond reasonable, especially when people reference the first situation while discussing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (responding to Thatcher - edit conflict) That would certainly be a nightmarish scenario, but I don't have any reason to believe it's what happened here. Make no mistake: I have no use for the block that Jeff received, and I previously opined that the block of Irpen a few months back was unjustified (as the ArbCom eventually unanimously agreed when the block was identified as part of a longer series of misjudgments). I don't want to say too much more that would rely on the off-wiki evidence, and it's a bit moot, because my level of influence over what badlydrawnjeff is going to do is, for better or worse, about the same as anyone else's. Newyorkbrad 02:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for better or for worse, I trust your judgement over most others regarding issues like this. I'll simply continue keeping a close eye - if they were dumb enough to do that, they'll certainly trip up again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about you trust my judgment on deletions, too, and then we can call it a night? :) Newyorkbrad 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if you buy me dinner first. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is by far not the first instance of the gullible newbie admin being talked into starting fire by more experienced ones. Past examples are well-known and don't need to be named. The best recommendation for newbie admins on what to do when approached on IRC with blocking suggestion was written not so long ago at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236. Problem is that there are always admins too new to realize that the block button is likely to be a "launch the new big mess" button. Primarily responsible are the figures behind this and they should be held accountable. It is also worth mentioning that for #en-admin fairies the adminship and the access to the channel are the most important perks as they, as a rule, don't make substantiative content edits for months. As per this, when ArbCom continues on its course of deadminning the abusers, the violence will be greatly curbed. --Irpen 02:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect that people who endorse bad decisions on IRC will eventually make bad decisions on wikipedia. Thatcher131 02:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may very well be right about that as several deadminnings by ArbCom showed but I would prefer not to bet that this would continue to happen. If there is evidence of unethical behavior, there is no need to wait for an instance when the user who often acts unethically also acts silly. --Irpen 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (resp to TT - edit conflict) Agreed. As for Zsinj, for what it is worth, he has actually been an administrator for close to a year now; but discussing the theoretical possibility of sanctions against him may be relatively unimportant at this point: see User:Zsinj and User:Zsinj/Army. Newyorkbrad 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Change your name
nyb, change your user name. Internal caps are the preferred way to go ;-). NoSeptember  19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I came up with this username when I thought I'd be writing one or two articles. If I'd known I'd be using it 12,000 times and counting, I certainly would have done better, as I realized when I took a look at User:Radiant!/Classification of admins and saw what a dull category I fall into. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A dull category to offset your shiny contributions :-). How quickly you've become the ultimate insider... I see you are running the board elections now. NoSeptember  20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm one of a committee, and at the periphery ... ultimate insider, no. On the other hand, it looks like an MfD closure of mine may be upheld, and I've gotten a few pages written this month, so to that extent things are going well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (Pardon the refactor, but it seemed out-of-place above, and I just had to comment : )


 * Let's see.. (thumbs around for some humourous comments) - How about:
 * Yes, do you know how many times I've misspelled your username? It's of course your fault for picking a spelling that I don't prefer...
 * Yes, change your username, so that your extensive block log will be unknown.
 * Yes, please change your username, I have a thing against New Yorkers.
 * Yes, change your username, I have a thing against Brads.
 * No, don't change your username, I only just got used to spelling it!
 * No, don't bow to oppression of the cabal and change your username.
 * Yes, please change your username so that I can edit war over whether your old user page should be deleted...
 * No, don't change your username, I get so confused when these new names pop up on my watchlist...
 * Yes, change your username (proper capitalisation)
 * And (finally for now):
 * Yes, change your user name, I keep confusing you with User:New York Jeweller, User:New york guy, User:NewBrandon, User:NewBard, User:New New York's Advocate, User:Newbie Brad, User:NewfoundlandLad, User:Newkad, User:Newlandconcertbrass, User:Newmarkj, User:Newsunfad, User:Newtownards, User:Newyorkcat, User:Newyorkman, and a myriad of names including NewYork. Not to mention your obvious sockpuppets: User:Newyorkbrad & Aecis are gay rentboys on wheels! and User:Newyorkbrad is a homosexual freak, (among others), and, the one you seem to feel is the most appropriate, per above:User:Newyorkbrad is really boring.


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

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