User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Oct

IRC
You're on IRC, but why aren't you talking? *Cremepuff 222*  01:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's idling; it's the newest thing. You've heard about it, haven't you? [[Image:SMirC-spent.svg|25px]] —Animum ''' | talk ]] 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was on a phone call and then had to deal with something for work. Sometimes I might forget to reset to /...away but never think that I'm ignoring you (or anyone) on purpose. (By the way, please don't ever forget that IRC is not the same as Wikipedia.) Newyorkbrad 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, not really sure what you mean on the comment about IRC, but I'll talk to you about it later. I'm in school! :D *Cremepuff  222*  13:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for welcoming me, Newyorkbrad! I am very new! I read about the rules and policies of Wikipedia. I know how to create articles. I also know about categorization. But, I still don't understand so many rules. Please answer some questions. What is 3RR? You are an administrator. What can you do? I am interested in Business and Social Sciences. I can make important contributions for Wikipedia. If I make any mistake or face any problem, can I contact you? You can reply on my talk page. Thank you! Masterpiece2000 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My User Page
Thanks. Spelling and grammar aren't exactly strong points for me. I'm just happy firefox has a spellcheck.  Sasha Callahan  20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was looking at your page because I've seen you around a lot in the past few days, and was asking myself "who is this impressive newcomer?" I look forward to your future contributions. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider myself a newcomer, I've been here since July. Thanks for saying I'm impressive though.   Sasha Callahan   21:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as a New Yorker, I wouldn't have noticed you editing those silly Red Sox articles that nobody reads. :-P Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Philly meetup #5
Please look at Meetup/Philadelphia 5 and give your input about the next meet-up. Thank you. This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot 21:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Few questions
Hello Newyorkbrad! I have few questions. Can you explain me about AfD and RfA? Who can take part in AfD and RfA? How many votes are need for an article to be deleted? How many voted are need for someone to become an administrator? You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 04:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway RfC
Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4 Please endorse the statement of dispute if you feel it is appropriate to do so. Viridae Talk 02:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The situation is indeed problematic, but I fear that creation of this page may create more tension than it will resolve. Will wait, while observing with interest, and concern. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a hell of a lot of faith in user conduct RfCs, but I am willing to give it a go if it helps resolve the situation. Viridae Talk 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that worked a little better than i had expected. Regardless of the outside views that seemed to think the whole issue was largely unimportant, in my book civility is something we cannot and should not do without. Viridae Talk 06:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

sock accusation
Yes, I did bring the matter up. Thanks for your comments. (Wikimachine 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Okay. The arbitrators, several of whom are checkusers as well, can address your report in the context of looking at the overall case. Newyorkbrad 15:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * regarding the sock accusations - i am one of the unfortunate accused - where do I respond to these accusations? thanks. Sennen goroshi 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Either on the suspected sockpuppet report page itself, or on Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bearian's RfA
I just want to thank you (a bit late) for supporting my RfA, which passed 63 to 1. Thanks again, and I hope to do my best. Bearian 01:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please answer!
Hello Newyorkbrad. I have few more questions. It seems to be that you are a star Wikipedian. You can guide me. Here are my questions:

1) What should I mention in my user page? What kind of information should be included?

2) When you were new to Wikipedia, what did you do? Did you studied all the rules? Did you talk with other users? Your answer will help me.

3) And, one more (slightly trivial) question: What is Barnstars? I saw lots of 'awards' in your user page!

I look at your Requests for adminship and someone said that you are an attorney in real life. I must say, it really feels good to know that I was welcomed by a brilliant guy like you. Please answer on my talk page. Your answers will help me. Regards, Masterpiece2000 05:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request on one of your blocks
Please provide input on the unblock request on one of your blocks, pending at User talk:Tbouricius. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Tariqabjotu. --  tariq abjotu  04:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response there. As mentioned elsewhere, per your suggestion, I have taken this to ANI. Newyorkbrad 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hey, I saw you at the top of my watchlist. just thought I'd say "hi". :) *Cremepuff  222*  14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, but shouldn't you be studying instead of editing? :) Newyorkbrad 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Baseball
Why is your name Newyorkbrad? If you live in New York, what do you like most about it. And, what is your favorite baseball team?

Sincerely GoaliesRUS 19:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - Respond to me on my talk page! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoaliesRUS (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is out of control
Bill Ayer made reasonable edits. AFTER Bill Ayer registered, a new RFA appeared. That is proof that it was not a SPA, an account created for the RFA.

Bill Ayer made a reasonable oppose comment on the bot RFA. He was blocked by supporters of this. This is highly unethical behavior. That's the kind of behavior that should be blocked and banned from WP. That kind of gang lynching is bad.

You gave Bill Ayer permission to re-register. AS 001 re-registered and even made it perfectly clear in his user page that he was a former user reregistering with permission of an administrator. Yet, he is banned for life by an admin.

These kind of unethical behavior harms wikipedia. What is the excuse for it. You should bring it up to ArbCom. I don't want to bring up such request. ArbCom could decide that: 1. It is ok to indefinately block anyone who opposes a RFA that you support and revert the comments that you oppose. 2. It is ok to indef. block someone on the excuse that they are a multiple account, even if permitted and the request reviewed by an administrator.

I am the same person as Bill Ayer and AS 001. The block of AS001 is improper and asking for unblock is useless because those that block will rule on the unblock request. AS 002 22:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been unblocked now. See your User talk:AS 001 page for additional comments. Newyorkbrad 22:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will cease using AS002. In fact, I don't care about the bot too much. I don't understand the fuss. AS 002 22:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article
As of 6 minutes ago, theres a new featured article on the Main Page. It may just relate to you :D. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your view
Hi Brad, I am not sure whether you were aware of this, but I'm sure your insightful views and wisdom on this topic would be a breath of fresh air, if you would care to comment. Regards, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that request : ) - jc37 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've commented on several proposals over the past year at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, so I am not sure I have anything really new to say, but since discussion seems to be centralizing on the RfC and since you ask so nicely, I will take another look at it over the weekend and try to post some thoughts. (As you might imagine, my view of the RfA process was more sangine when the first two people I nominated passed 98/0/0 and 233/3/3, as opposed to now that a nominee of mine was just rejected for the third time running, but I'll try not to let that color my views.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok then. Much appreciated. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: IRV
Per the consensus on ANI, including but not limited to the observations by Jpgordon who is a checkuser, I have unblocked both users. Based on something I noticed while doing the unblocks, I would also respectfully urge that the "block this user from sending e-mail feature" should not be activated while blocking as a matter of routine, but only when there is reason to anticipate abuse of the e-mail capability. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I know what the e-mail blocking feature is for. See also my latest comment on the ANI section. --  tariq abjotu  04:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; I'll respond on ANI in the morning. Newyorkbrad 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really expecting a reply (although you can reply if you want). It was more of a statement, and more of a statement for others (because I have a feeling that you have a bit of a better understanding of the circumstances regarding the IRV article than some of the other editors that commented). --  tariq abjotu  12:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Punkguy182
Thanks for intervening with User:Punkguy182 who is almost certainly not the newbie he claims to be. I am wondering if a block might be in order, given his penchant for repeated vandalising of the talk page both of myself and Jack. This constitutes almost the entirety of his contribs and I think this is a sock, especially given the activity on the article in question that triggered this. Eusebeus 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will keep an eye on things. For what it's worth, I also think the word "vandalism" is being overused throughout this situation. Hopefully the temporary page protection will allow the issues with the article to be sorted out. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tx. Petulance & childishness are perhaps more apt, labels that I concede extend to my own 3RR of the actual article. Waiting for Jack to pop back so we can review with another seasoned editor on the case. Alansohn has a major vendetta against me and I view his interest with considerable suspicion in this context. Eusebeus 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Brad. User:Punkguy182 is a rather obvious reincarnation of User:R:128.40.76.3. I have tagged his user page as such and will post a note to User:Phaedriel who blocked a number of accounts used by this editor. Note his parting comment on that account.

The issue on the Chris Conley page is really part of a broader problem that I'm not sure what to do about — so I'll tell you. This editor has made many edits to articles, primarily concerning living people, that I believe are patent nonsense or outright slander or hoaxes. I first noticed this user on the Bennelong page where he was adding bullshite. Bennelong, obviously, is not a living person; but Peter L. Hurd, Edward J. Steele, Chris Shiflett (see ) are. I believe that these articles either need to be deleted and built back up be knowledgeable editors or  gone through and cleaned-up. See also: Adam Greves, Articles for deletion/Adam Greves. The shite goes on and I can document more of this if need be. And just a maybe: User:Jack..Merridew who impersonated me by copying my user and talk pages, and vandalised my real user page — page now is tagged as part of another cloud of sockpuppets.

Please let me know what you think the appropriate course with this 'punk' is. --Jack Merridew 15:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is being looked into. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Newyorkbrad 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note prior to being User:R:128.40.76.3, this editor was known as User:A.J.1.5.2., User:Curious Gregor, and User:Mad kemist (see also an SSP case, and this wierdness, AN/I, AN/I). Pete.Hurd 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional links. As I said, this is being looked at. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

addendum: User:Punkguy182 has brought this up at Administrators' noticeboard; if you or others have found anything on this — or just feel like commenting... Thanks for your attentions. --Jack Merridew 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI: User:Punkguy182 is now claiming to be a photographer named Hal Horowitz; presumably this person: ; see: and . --Jack Merridew 11:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * and the second image is online here --Jack Merridew 11:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking of Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 2
This blanking has been reversed, re-blanked and reversed again. You might want to comment on the talk page to calm things down again. All the best Tim Vickers 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; I've posted there, and restored the blanking with an explanation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Newyorkbrad, just wanted to apologize for my unnecessary remark.Proabivouac 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and again.  Daniel  07:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the reply! Masterpiece2000 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
On 29 September 2007 at 01:32, Modernist changed the opening Diego Rivera sentence:
 *  Diego Rivera ([...]) was a world-famous Mexican painter influenced by Cézanne - and also a communist born in Guanajuato City - whose large wall works in fresco co-established the Mexican Mural Renaissance with those by Orozco, Siqueiros, etc.

to those still opening the article:
 *  Diego Rivera ([...] was a world-famous Mexican painter influenced by Cézanne - and also a communist. Born in Guanajuato City - and whose large wall works in fresco co-established the Mexican Mural Renaissance with those by Orozco, and Siqueiros.

The errors include: missing parenthesis, incorrect division into two (2) sentences, completely wrong structure of the second sentence, factual error that the Mexican Mural Renaissance was established by works of only 3 mentioned painters (there were more of them). Can such damage to article be considered as vandalism, please? -70.18.5.219 08:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much that these changes were meant as vandalism, which is defined as damaging the quality of the encyclopedia on purpose, but I agree that they need some fixing. Have you asked him why he made the changes and if the paragraph really came out the way he meant? That would be a good first step here. You can also edit the introduction further&mdash;in my opinion, neither version reads particularly smoothly. Newyorkbrad 12:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I had asked Modernist a similar question once at the bottom of Talk:Frida Kahlo about deleting my message there, and received a derogatory answer, which lead me to a conclusion that some go unpunished. Anyway, one editor can make quick mistakes, and another one needs to spend ten or hundred times more time to correct them, and to know the intricacies of Wikipedia procedures (not myself) in order to achieve a resolution not mentioning to bring the culprit to some kind of justice. For many, it is just easier to quit editing instead of going through all of that hassle.


 * Maybe Modernist had a good intention to break the long and complicated sentence, but did not know, how to do it, so left it for someone else to fix. It appears that such a tactics creates two classes of editors: those who do not like something, and those, who fix it for them..., like masters and slaves, seemingly in violation of WP:OWN, and employing the 'I do not like it (and you fix it)' judgment equal to the unacceptable "judgement 'I don't agree with you'" disallowed by WP:TROLL. His explanation in the aforementioned example may be an example of such arbitrary tendency, but it would be time consuming to prove it. Oh, well, c'est la vie!


 * I could not edit the introduction, because it has been (over)protected, as result of unrelated vandalism. So, how such protection works against vandalism, which acts seem to be singular and unrelated to each other, so one occurrence does not allow to predict the next one? In other words, if acts of vandalism are random and unpredictable, how the length of duration of protection against random occurrences can be calculated? Wouldn't be better just to block the vandals instead of disallowing editing for all anons, please?-70.18.5.219 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts here. I see that you have been continuing to discuss this issue with User:Anonymous Dissident who was the protecting admin, and that you will be able to edit the article again shortly. Hopefully a suitable rewriting of the introduction can be agreed upon. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion; I was seeking a deeper justification. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think you should be discussing the situation with Modernist as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Help!
Hi Newyorkbrad! I have a problem. I noted that Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. I have created seven articles including some biographies. I send e-mail to some of them and they provided me some important information. For example, I send e-mail to Claude S. Fischer and asked him to provide me some information about his early life. He told me that he came to the US in 1952 and he graduated from Fairfax High School. These are not published facts. Can I include such facts in the biographies?

And few more questions: What are 'Good article' and 'Featured article'? I have created seven articles. Do they meet Wikipedia standard? How can I improve them? Please look at them. You can find them on my user page. You can reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Exploratory thought

 * In seeing just some of the many things you do....
 * I was thinking that here is someone who could be trusted with more tools, and could probably use either set or both (Bureaucrat and/or checkuser).
 * You may already know, but RfB has been seen as a nearly impossible hill to climb these days. One of the most common comments is that "we don't need any more Bureaucrats". (Which I don't think is true, and I don't think has anything to do with whether we trust the cantidate, but I digress : )
 * Anyway. would this be something you might be interested in? - jc37 01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your kind remarks. I have thought about seeking bureaucratship, but many users have an expectation that a user have been administrator for at least one year before seeking that position, which I won't have attained for a few more months. Plus, although you are right that for a time RfB had become impossible to pass, we had two new 'crats promoted in July, which may have slaked the immediate crisis. As for checkuser, while I'd like to think I could be "trusted" with the tool, I probably don't know enough about the technical details of how IP's are assigned to be the best choice for that assignment.
 * If the community (and Jimbo Wales) choose to place me in an enhanced role, the position I expect to seek is membership on the Arbitration Committee. I've followed the committee's work for some time, including as an arbitration clerk since February, and think that the arbitrator position might be the best fit for me. But there will be time enough to discuss that when the election comes around in a few weeks.
 * Thanks again for writing. Newyorkbrad 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Awww. I was going to wait until election time to suggest that... (Though I kinda presumed it from everything I've seen so far...)
 * As for the rest, makes sense.. But you make have a similar message from in a few months time then : )
 * Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And he's modest, too. Next month, the arbcom election, I'm betting 99% support. Even without me threatening to block any opposers as blatant vandals. :-) Wouldn't be surprised at 100%. Next year: canonization... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Second that. If NYB doesn't run for arbcom I will go on a hunger strike! Viridae Talk 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a third -- Samir 00:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What are your favorite sports teams?
Newyorkbrad, what are your favorite sports teams? Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, DP1234 19:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Hi Newyorkbrad, how's things?? you OK?? I had a username change a few months ago... my old username wasn't very good, so I got a far better one (sounds less corporate than my old one, SunStar Net!)

I remember ages ago on here you were saying about AfDs and webcomics, where can I find the discussion relating to this??

In a similar vein, I'm putting articles on radio presenters at AfD, not as a WP:POINT but because I feel they may not meet notability standards.

I am planning to write a new notability guideline regarding radio presenters - would you be willing to help me with it??

Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 20:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC) --Solumeiras talk 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I was wondering what had happened to you as I hadn't seen you on-wiki in awhile.
 * Regarding AfD's and webcomics, I'm not an expert on webcomics, but I had some passing acquaintance on the issue after the fiasco concerning the deletion debate on webcomic writer/artist Kristopher Straub which it turned out he orchestrated himself. I think our notability guidelines may be applied a little too strictly in this area, but I am hardly an expert.
 * I'm not an expert on the notability of radio presenters, either, but would be glad to look at a draft policy if you write one and provide comments if any occur to me. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The draft is now up at Notability (radio presenters). Feel free to take a look. --Solumeiras talk 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the reply. I though that Wikipedia was quite complex. However, now I think it is not that complex. I think I need some experience. Anyway, thank you. Masterpiece2000 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Arb of the Liancourt Rocks
Hello Newyorkbrad. Thank you so much for your kindness. Please give me a advice about the arbitration of Liancourt Rocks. A RFCU report filed by Wikimachine was salvaged by a clerk, and displayed. In the past example, RFCU by involved parties was requested in workshop, and needs consensus. I understand this restriction, because the disorderly requests by involved parties will make a problem complicate more.

It is a rough report. But I think that profit of RFCU should not be accepted. Accepting such a precedent will become a burden in a future Arbitration. I think that this RFCU should be suspended, too. But I do not want to perform abuse of proposing a temporary injunction. Do you know a good idea? Sincerely yours, --Nightshadow28 15:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made a note on the checkuser request page that there is a related arbitration pending. This will most likely lead to the request being deferred to the arbitrators. I believe Wikimachine knows how to request a check via the workshop page if he cares to. I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thank you very much for your speedy action. I feel that your note is very helpful in this situation, and I hope that he does motions in workshop like Endroit... Thanks, again. --Nightshadow28 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup
The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope and expect to be there. Will sign up for the attendee list once I am 100% sure (rather than the current 90% sure) that a family event doesn't conflict. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFCU
Per Miranda's suggestion, may I ask you why the RFCU should be "deferred" to the arbitrators? Does that mean I should stop working on it or could I continue to work on it? (Wikimachine 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
 * The instructions at the top of Requests for checkuser state that where there is a "Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case," the user should "Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages." This is because the arbitrators will already be aware of the background to the situation from their work on the arbitration case. I am not sure if you are aware, but several of the arbitrators are checkusers themselves. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi(t 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thank you for recommending the block be lifted, I greatly appreciate it. Johntex\talk 17:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok
Thanks. It sounds like that someone got here password for that acount instead. I don't know, I guess I will just leave it all alone.--Playstationdude 00:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probably your best move. As I said, it's just a play/fun page, please don't take it seriously in any way. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

David Shear's daughter
I just wanted to make sure you saw this: Raul654 04:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I appreciate the follow-up. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: questionable edits and possible sockpuppets
Hi Newyorkbrad. I have already left a message on this with another admin, but I would appreciate your advice. Would you have a look at the editing here ? I suspect there are several sock puppets at work, reverting my reverts--all are IPs coming from the same area--making a number of questionable edits. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. JNW 17:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you post to the talkpage of the article explaining why you think your edits are good and the reversions shouldn't be made. Then, in your next edit summary, you can mention that you've started a discussion on talk. If the IP's get involved in the discussion, that may help bridge the issues. If they don't, that will be relevant information, too. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 17:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on THF's arbcom
I disagree with your point that special consideration should be taken to protect THF's off-wiki reputation, and I think that point actually dilutes the main issue: that THF acted in a good faith and attempted to adhere to COI. To ask for special consideration implies that special consideration is somehow necessary, and clearly that's not the case for anyone who has looked in detail at the sum of THF's edits. IMO, the only violations that are actionable in this case are the incredibly juvenile personal attacks that several editors hurled(repeatedly) at THF. The rest of it is just a way-overblown content dispute that arbcom really has no business getting involved in. If the committee could put aside their own prejudices and come to that conclusion, no special consideration is necessary and THF can go his own way. ATren 01:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I think both points are significant, and that the cumulative effect of the two is greater than of either standing alone. I also think that the second point may convince some arbitrators even if the first does not. But as you saw, I've tried to clarify on the page that there are (at least) two separate issues involved. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I sense the pragmatism in your approach; I guess I'm just more of an idealist and I'm hoping that the committee comes to the correct decision without special consideration. :-) ATren 02:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec - I had expanded my original comment as you were replying :-)) I'd also like to raise this point: vindicating THF is in the best interests of the project. If arbcom hands down a meaningless (and incorrect) sanction, that can only serve to agitate THF - who just happens to be a freelance writer and commentator. He can wear that sanction as a badge of honor as he portrays himself as the poster child for Wikipedia left-wing bias - and he has plenty of delicious sound bites to support his case (i.e. "A Wikipedia arbitrator called me a lobbyist. On what basis? Because Ralph Nader said so!"). Imagine how that would play in the conservative media. The point being, a sanction against THF may actually benefit him, by giving him both motive and means to make his case off wiki. ATren 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have much more to add to my earlier comments on the proposed decision talkpage, so let's see where things go from here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
oh my gosh, thank you you are the sweetest person in the world, I am so out of here! please delete this page as well, as only set up to get rid of other pages! thanks again you made my night! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurongirl (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WillC
yes, please protect my userpage. WillC 01:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected for awhile. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My accidental vandalism
I think what happened is: I am editing (reverting this vandalism). There had been two vandalisms on that page. I had just reverted one. Whoever vandalized it decided to check back and re-vandalized. I got the "someone else has edited this page since you started" message and simply clicked save thinking someone else had reverted it, so this user's vandalism gets logged to my name. Sorry if I caused any confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethiophile (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talkpage, these things happen once in awhile and we understand that. Thank you for your anti-vandalism efforts. Newyorkbrad 02:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall
I have nominated the article Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall which I created on October 16, 2007 to appear in the "Did you know" section. I may have made some mistake. Will it appear in the "Did you know" section? The memorial is very important. I want the Wikipedia community to know about the memorial. Regards, Masterpiece2000 12:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye on the "Did you know?" page where you listed the article to see if there are any questions or comments about your nomination. The admins who organize "Did you know?" will select from among the entries that meet the standards listed there. I think your article should have a good chance. Typically, the listings appear on the main page about 5 days after the article is created. Good luck! Newyorkbrad 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Andyr2
Please see my comment here. This user should be blocked with extreme prejudice. - Crockspot 17:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Deferred to EliminatorJR; see his talk. Newyorkbrad 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew
Hi, Brad. Thanks for attending to the vandalism to my user page.

Arbitration Committee? Where's the voting booth? Best wishes, Jack Merridew 09:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not open yet. Nominations in November, voting the first half of December. Watch for announcements in the next few weeks, read the candidates' statements and answers to questions, then make your choices. Regards, Newyorkbrad 10:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Arb of the Liancourt Rocks #2
Hello, Newyorkbrad. I am sorry to question you so often. Replayamong23 is running at Liancourt Rocks, but it seems that Replayamong31's block evasion. (The detail is here.) Does requesting into WP:AN/I to block them (ReplayamongXX) during the arbitration become a trouble?

Replayamong31 was in-def blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise on 21:32, 3 October 2007 UTC. --Nightshadow28 12:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I looks like Fut.Perf. just blocked the '23 account as well. Future problems can indeed be brought to ANI, as the arbitration is about to close, or if there is a violation of the ArbCom ruling itself they can go to Arbitration enforcement. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your kindness comment! --Nightshadow28 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Could you do me a favor? Next time you want to tell MONGO not to stalk me, could you do it on his talk page? I like to keep replies/reactions to his bogus warning messages to a minimum.

If you were warning me as well than it was not needed, as I have demonstrated time and time again at the various forums MONGO has shopped whilst trying to get me iced (i.e. ANI, AN, and even one arbcom case). Milto LOL pia 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the issue will not flare up again at any location, but I have taken note of your comments. I am glad to see you editing again. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very nice to hear :-D Milto LOL pia 18:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cases
Hey Brad. Two of your cases, Liancourt Rocks and Bharatveer, can close now. You closed Dalmatia for me, so I'll return the favor and take Liancourt. Picaroon (t) 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. But, Liancourt Rocks will close today, and under the rule of waiting 24 hours from the first motion to close, Bharatveer not until tomorrow. So, I can cover them both. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You did a favor for me, and I insist that it be repaid! I've closed Liancourt. :-) Picaroon (t) 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to close it at the same time you did, and got edit-conflicted, so I guess you win. :) Newyorkbrad 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Regarding the apartheid case, I've just added a new proposal. (So now yours isn't the most belated, sorry!) I'm thinking that it ain't over 'til it's over, and something might be salvaged so we're not simply back at square one (i.e., battle stations). Your comments would be welcome. Pls reply on my talk if you'd like. Thanks, HG | Talk 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

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.

Thanks very much for saving me! Come on IRC. :) *Cremepuff  222*  21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, of course. If this continues, let me know if you want your userpage semiprotected. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, I rather enjoy battle scars. Thanks for the offer though. *Cremepuff  222*  21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

John Marshall Harlan II
I am conducting reviews of Law articles listed as Good as a part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. A week ago I put John Marshall Harlan II on hold, but has not received any answer. I don't realy want to delist this article over several missing refs, so could you add them? Ruslik 06:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to do some work on this, but I probably won't be able to get to the books until this weekend. Hope that's okay. Newyorkbrad 06:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Ruslik 07:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Blanking as vandalism?
Would you comment on the subject at Talk:Frida Kahlo and Talk:Diego Rivera, please? It is essential to retain and protect casual editors, like myself, against - what seems to be - violations of the basic rule of Wikipedia serving its expansion. -70.18.5.219 10:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All editors making good-faith contributions, including "casual editors," are entitled to respectful consideration. I am afraid that I do not know enough about the subject-matter of these two articles to be the best person to judge whether the particular comments at issue were in the best place or not. I invite another administrator with more fine arts background to take a close look at this concern. You can also post to WP:ANI if what you perceive to be serious problems continue. Newyorkbrad 10:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tealeaf Follow-up
Thanks for the post on Doug's page and relaying the message. I'm shocked the page was pulled down... davidewart\talk 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Email?
Hi Brad - A quick question for you. Did you happen to get the email I sent you? If not, I can resend it, or post it here, if that's more convenient. Cheers Folic_Acid 12:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did receive it. I'm tied up in meetings in the real world for the next 24 hours or so but will respond soon after that. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Whenever you get a free moment is fine with me.  Thanks!  Folic_Acid 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Restriction breach
Hi, Newyorkbrad. Hereby I report you that user:Giovanni Giove has breached its one-year edit restriction, as decided by Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia. As you can see from the history of editing of article Jakov Mikalja [], Giovanni Giove  has not given  any explanation of his actions. All he did was moving of the talkpage to its version. His edit from 18 Oct 2007, in 13:12. On the article page, he did four edits on 18 Oct 2007 in 13:12 (moving),  on 13:15,  in 13:16,  in 13:24. He  again ignored other users' contributions, repeated his behaviour pattern shown in the Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence, for which he was "punished". I don't want to engage in the edit/revert war. I've given a bunch of material on the article talkpage. I don't know what to do anymore. Please act as Wikipedia policies say (remedies, enforcements and blocks). Sincerely, Kubura 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your e-mail. Unfortunately, I have been tied up in meetings in the real world which will continue for the next 24 hours or so. I can address this concern after that time or you can report the matter to Arbitration enforcement which is the place where allegations of violations of ArbCom remedies are reported for administrators to review. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAN
I've started a discussion about how to straighten out this policy, as you hinted in your comment, and proposed this revision. My sense is that Arbcom doesn't write policy, so we need to do that ourselves. - Jehochman Talk 16:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I just mentioned to others, I'm tied up in meetings in the real world for the next 24 hours or so. I'll try to provide some input after that. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have discussed this at length with a number of thoughtful editors. The consensus seems to be this version, thought that may not last.  The big idea is that WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN are two different things, and the banning policy shouldn't talk about blocking, except as a means of enforcement.  This idea of indefinite blocks magically turning into bans if not reverted should be marked historical, because this idea encourages untoward situations. Banning is serious.  If needed, it should be done overtly on a high traffic noticeboard, like WP:AN.  That's the feedback I've gotten from everybody. - Jehochman  Talk 22:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom process
I see that you are the clerk for an ArbCom proceeding. Do the members read the Talk pages for the arbitration pages, or should I try to structure my comments to fit into one of the Workshop sections? I am submitting comments to the Evidence and Workshop pages but I have some general comments that are harder to fit into one of the structured sections. I'm just wondering what is the best place to post them so that the Arbitrators will read them. Sbowers3 22:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope that the arbitrators read all of the input on all of the pages. In practicality, the evidence and workshop pages (and proposed decision talk once a decision is posted) are probably the most prominent. Perhaps you could post your evidence with a link to your longer statement on talk, which would be seen when the arbs review the evidence. I know the procedure can seem complicated; I've been giving a little thought to how the structure of the case pages could perhaps be simplified, though haven't come up with any real answers yet. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The procedure is a bit complicated but it is a very good thing that it has some structure - especially the evidence section, proposed principles and the admonition that conflicting views of the evidence should be in separate sections rather than degenerating into lengthy inline arguments. The one thing I think is missing is a statement of charges. There should be a list of policies that are alleged to have been broken, then specific evidence in support of each charge. As it is, one has to infer the policy violations by reading the confusing evidence. Sbowers3 01:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that the committee is not limited to reviewing "charges" against a particular user, but can review the conduct of any party to the case (or any user involved in the dispute or problem who is brought into the case). The statements on the case page identify the basic scope of the problem, at least as it is understood as of the time that the case is accepted. The process already takes far too long, and it would take even longer if a step of drawing up a formal "statement of charges" were added, to say nothing of the difficulty of deciding who would be responsible for agreeing upon and drafting them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I have a lot to learn. Sbowers3 02:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. It took me several months as an interested editor and a clerk there to figure out all the nuances. (And frankly, although I separate my real life from what I do on here, my real-world experience as a litigation attorney probably didn't hurt either.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

One more question: Is it permissible to adjust the indentation levels of other users' contributions in the Evidence, Workshop, or Talk areas? In some places it is incorrect. I would not change the substance in the least, just make it look a little better. One reason is that if I put my addition at the correct level, it will look like a reply to the (incorrectly outdented) item just above it. Sbowers3 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with that, the same as on any other page, as long as the changes are non-controversial and don't change the meaning or intent of anyone's comments. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge arbitration
Hi Brad - I notice that you left notifications of the Ferrylodge arbitration case on several users' pages, but not on mine. I was involved in the original CSN (and I believe I left a short clarifying comment on the request for arbitration). I don't know the etiquette of arbitration, so I don't know if it is appropriate for me to comment or not, so please clarify. Thanks Tvoz | talk 21:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The notifications were only given to people who were named as parties to the arbitration case itself at the time it was filed. However, any user with relevant perspective to add is welcome to submit evidence at Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence, a statement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge, and/or workshop proposals or comments at Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you - actually this was the notice I saw after someone else alerted me to the fact that the arbitration had gone forward, which is why I asked, since that editor and a number of others you notified were not named parties to the case, as I was not. But now I understand, and thank you for the clarification. Tvoz | talk 23:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brad. Now that B has unfortunately retired, what's the drill? Shall we delete all of B's material from the arbitration pages, or just some of it, or none of it? B has been subjected to some really disgusting comments here. Of course, there will be no block for those commenters, much less a ban, and they will continue to comment at my arbitration proceeding.Ferrylodge 00:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances, I think the best thing is to leave the pages as is and let the arbitrators decide how to proceed. Newyorkbrad 01:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If that behaviour is repeated there will be a block. There only wasn't in the first place because noone had to that point warned them not to behave in that manner and no matter how obvious it is, I feel the warning should be given. Viridae Talk 02:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Brad. I have added a couple new sections to the Evidence talk page. I plan to write similar sections corresponding to the various other accusations that people have made at the main Evidence page. Does that seem like an acceptable or good plan? Do you think that I should instead put those two new sections at the main Evidence page instead of at the Evidence talk page? Thanks in advance for any guidance on that.Ferrylodge 06:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way seems okay to me, subject to any comments the arbitrators may make. If you put information on the talk page, you might want to put a cross-reference with a link on the main evidence page so the arbitrators are sure to see it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 10:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you think I should make sure the arbitrators see it, I guess I'll move it to the main Evidence page.Ferrylodge 13:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Brad, would it be okay for me to forward emails to an arbitrator that KillerChihuahua sent me in September? See here. If so, how should I do it? Thanks.Ferrylodge 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee has opined that e-mails should not be posted on-wiki without the sender's consent. I do not know of any policy regarding forwarding such e-mails to the committee, but I know that this has been done before in cases where the e-mails were considered to be very necessary evidence. I see that you have asked Killer Chihuahua as the sender of the e-mails for permission to forward them. If she gives you that permission, then of course the concern is resolved. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have asked KillerChihuahua again.  We'll see what happens.  I hope that I'll have some forewarning before the arbitration closes, so that maybe I'll have a chance to forward the emails to the ARBCOM in the absence of approval or response from KC.Ferrylodge 22:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked to submit secret evidence to ARBCOM, here. May I please have an opportunity to see the evidence (or as much of it as possible), on condition that I keep it confidential? Thanks.Ferrylodge 13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be up to the arbitrators. If you wish, you can send an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list to follow up. The e-mail can be addressed to me for forwarding to the mailing list, or to any active arbitrator (listing at WP:AC). Newyorkbrad 15:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have sent you an email for forwarding. Thanks.Ferrylodge 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Brad, thanks for commenting on Betaccomand's "Vandalism warning". As per the message at the top on my talk page I removed his rude threats and since this would have left your comments in the thin air, I removed them along with the rest of the thread. I merely requested him, or anyone who questions image with the existing rationale, to explain at talk what exactly the problem is. His response in the form of Vandalism warning displays his known problem in communicating his thoughts to the Wikipedia. Thanks again for your attempt to calm down the situation. --Irpen 15:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How to remove ban?
Hi,

You were the clerk for my arbitration case Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter which resulted in me being banned from editing articles related to Robert Prechter. Subsequent events, in my opinion show, that the decision was wrong, and I'd like to get the ban removed - simply because it looks like a stain on my reputation.

What subsequent events? User:Rgfolsom quit editing in August after arousing the ire of multiple editors in his bid to stop the article Socionomics from being deleted for a second time (technically it was delete/merge then merged into Robert Prechter) and after failing in his bid to have well documented information removed from the Prechter article. The well documented information is that, if an investor followed Prechter's published advice, that he'd have had an annualized negative 25% return over the last 15 years. I was banned for putting in too much negative information into a WP:BLP. Nothing could be as negative as a -25% annual return, when writing about a professional investment advisor during the biggest bull market in history.

Please advise on how to get the ban removed.

Smallbones 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You may post a request for reconsideration or modification of the remedy against you in the "requests for clarification" section of WP:RfAr. (I realize that this would not really be a "clarification," but this section of the page is used for that purpose.) Alternatively, you can send an e-mail to the arbitrators for consideration on their mailing list. If you send the e-mail to me using the e-mail feature on this page, I will forward it to the arbitrators for their consideration. Please note that my position as clerk does not give me any role in making the decision. I hope this information is helpful. Newyorkbrad 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Smallbones 20:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
It has come to my attention that some editors on an external site are speculating about why I am intending to run for the Arbitration Committee, whether I recognize that there are various problems with the ArbCom and the arbitration process, and what alternatives should be considered to arbitration as it currently is conducted on en-wiki.

I disagree with many of the comments contained in this particular external thread, but I agree that the model of arbitration that Wikipedia uses and how it could be improved are very legitimate topics of discussion. I would be glad to discuss my views on these issues with concerned editors. Inasmuch as I do not participate in the external site in question, I invite editors there who are also in good standing on Wikipedia to raise their questions and concerns on my candidate question page, which will be created when the election process starts on or about November 1. Newyorkbrad 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He's running for arbcom because we'll track him down and set fire to his cat if he doesn't! :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now leave the cat out of it. I threatened to shake my fist at the sky and scream "BAH" really loudly if he didn't.  Truth is he's enormously qualified and almost universally admired.  What better reason is there to be an arbitrator?  - Philippe &#124; Talk 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much to both of you, although eliciting that sort of response is honestly not why I posted this here. (I suspect some people won't believe me. :) ) Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad wants his own cool bumpersticker...that's why he is going to run. ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kids now days - it used to be threats would be enough! All right then. That requirement won't stop us. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who complains about my artistic talent or lack thereof, is invited to stick it where the sun doesn't submit an improved version, in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, all he needs now is his campaign bus. I'm accepting donations in my paypal account for it. Please contribute early and often...all for the Good of Wikipedia, of course. ;-) --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We're on a budget, this one will have to do. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I loved the bumpersticker above : ) But as you mentioned something about another version, I went ahead and made a userbox version: Hope you like it : ) (Oh, I'm looking for suggestions for the bottom line (though in keeping with a positive campaign, obviously), I think it should change every week : ) - jc37 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nice! But you are right, the bottom line is probably the weakest part. "An excellent choice!" is what the snooty French waiter says when you have finally selected your overpriced wine from the illegible menu. :-) And, frankly, NYB is the best candidate I've seen, and I quizzed a large number of them in the last election. I can't imagine a more suitable arbitrator among the 1300 or so current admins. He's careful, polite, diligent, intelligent, energetic, proactive, and a lawyer. (OK, the last is a character flaw, but we can forgive him since he's so good in other ways. :-) He'll be the last one up against the wall when the revolution comes. :-) ) How about just saying, "The best possible choice!" --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm shying away from words like "best", and "no one better". While I think NYB is awesome, the ArbCom election isn't about only selecting one person, but several. So why should we slight anyone else whom we may also be selecting? - jc37 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with jc37. (and at the same time, could not imagine not supporting Brad for ArbCom. I do look forward to serious, thoughtful responses to what are likely to be some very hard questions.) Jd2718 21:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not go around calling people names like "lawyer". We have a no personal attacks policy here.  You're not a lawyer, Brad, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!! Friday (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy not to be a lawyer, if that is the community's wish, but please don't tell my partners or clients. Newyorkbrad's real-world self goes back to doing his timesheets.... Newyorkbrad 14:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We just want you to pick a profession that bears less of a social stigma. Something more respectable: multi-level marketer, or tax collector, or garbageman, for example. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw, come on. He's running for ArbCom. There are very few occupations for which ArbCom is an upwards social move. Let him have his promotion. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck, not that you'll need it.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WillC, again
please LOCK my user page. WillC 14:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected for much longer this time. Hopefully this will work. Newyorkbrad 18:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Thanks, this is a very useful page for people in my situation. To help others find it, could it not be added to the "please make sure you are in the right place" template(s) as the place to make complaints about user conduct? --Tom Edwards 20:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, I'll suggest it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

B's retirement
Hi Newyorkbrad. I was wondering, if an administrator retires, then do they still get to keep their sysop access, or does it get removed involuntary?(if the user doesn't request that their adminship be removed) I noticed that B has (apparently) left the project(he even protected his talk page), and still is a sysop.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An administrator who takes a wikibreak or announces he or she is retiring still remains an administrator, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise. Lots of admins have taken a break or said they were leaving and then came back sometime later, so the consensus has always been there's no reason to remove the tools. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for informing me. Best to just leave things be.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I noticed that the talk page of this banned user has been fully protected and (at the same time) email is disabled. In accordance with WP:BAN, I thought that even banned users could still appeal to an arbcom clerk or to Jimbo. How would he/she be able to appeal at all now, out of curiousity?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the specifics of the particular case, but if you believe the user is interested in an appeal, e-mail any active arbitrator and they can advise you if an appeal would be entertained and how it should be submitted. Newyorkbrad 22:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, nothing has shown me that this user wants to appeal.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bobabobabo has created well over 100 sockpuppets, through which she has harassed other users on user talk pages and via email (just ask Ryulong). Allowance to appeal a ban is a courtesy, not a right, in my opinion. Picaroon (t) 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the user can always email ArbCom directly. -- Flyguy649 talk 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (response to Picaroon)

I certainly respect your opinion. Please accept my apologies if you think it was unreasonable for me to request that he/she could still appeal. You do make a very good point that it's a privilage, not a right. I guess I acted as if it were a right. Sorry.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It generally is a right, if there is any reasonable chance at all that the block/ban might be changed. If I saw a situation where a blocked user's appeal wasn't being considered or there was no means for a reasonable appeal to be made, I would find a way of making sure it got done. Of course that doesn't guarantee what the outcome of it would be, in any case. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat/Instantnood
Hi Brad, you apparently have a history reviewing User:SchmuckyTheCat block and canceling a 3RR block of a suspected Instantnood suspect. Today, Schmucky massively depopulated some categories, blanked all complaints by User:Kowlooner (on both AN/I and user talk pages), and massively reverted all edits of Kowlooner. I warned him a few times to stop (the Kowloon reverts, not the category ones), and he stated his intention to continue, and then did. The proper move for him would have been to file a check user or AN/I or AIV complaint, not just revert all of the guy's edits without compelling evidence. I'd like to see if you'd review the block. Obviously if the user does turn out to be Instantnood, the block is unwarranted. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know Instantnood's editing. I believe he was banned around the time I was first becoming active, and we never interacted. In the prior instance, I was told it was definitely Instantnood who was provoking SchmuckyTheCat (I forget whether this was through a consensus on ANI and/or a checkuser). What I can say is that (1) in a couple of past situations where Schmucky claimed a new account was an Instantnood sock, he's been consistently right, and (2) I am 100% certain Schmucky believes in good faith that it's him. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 11:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to come by and tell you it's moot now. Checkuser never came up with anything, but it's dmcdevit and ryulong's belief that the guy was instanood, and was blocked. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  11:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now caught up with the discussion on SchmuckyTheCat's page and agree. Please see also my comment there re your blocking of his e-mail, which I assume was inadvertent. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Grrr. I keep forgetting that's there. Yeah, it's inadvertant. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender   —Preceding comment was added at 12:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot, again
As the threat of arbitration was lifting, Physchim62 posted two troubling comments at WT:BAN that he still supports reverting admin actions without discussion. On the basis that he still doesn't "get it", I've added to my Sadi Carnot statement suggesting that we might need to proceed. I didn't want you to miss this. Additionally, we all know that IRC logs are leaky. If an admin goes on IRC and canvasses for somebody to lift a block that he can't lift himself because that would be wheel warring, well, that's also wheel warring. This case may need to be explored fully. - Jehochman Talk 14:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Darn. In addition to your original update to your statement, I was relying on DragonflySixtyseven's account of the second unblock, which suggested that the admin actions involved were understandable, if not optimal. If it were my decision whether to take the case, I might ask Physchim62 has a record of undoing other admins' actions problematically, as opposed to a more philosophical type of disagreement. In any case, we'll see what the arbitrators decide to do now. Newyorkbrad 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted a quick update on RfAr and left notes for Kirill Lokshin and Jdforrester, the two arbitrators whom I had, apparently prematurely, persuaded. Newyorkbrad 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel(Talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Meetup/Philadelphia 5
<div width="300px" style="float: left; clear: right; margin: 3px; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: #55ffff;"> You're invited to the

Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

November 11, 2007

Time: 5:00 pm

Location: Buca Di Beppo, 258 South 15th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 'RSVP (view/edit this template'') You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA
Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. <font face="comic sans ms"> Kwsn  (Ni!)  01:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of quorum; thanks!
Thanks for the correction on the issues of lack of quorum in Supreme Court of the United States and Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. I confess to having been mildly confused by the wording in 28 USC 2109, not being a lawyer, and I clearly misunderstood it; I looked it up because of the case just decided in which seven of the justices recused themselves, where the order cited that section as authority. In any case, good catch and thanks for fixing my mistake! Magidin 17:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That statute actually has an interesting history. In the 1940's, there was a major government antitrust case against Alcoa. In those days, government antitrust cases were brought in the District Court and then appealable directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, but in this case four Justices recused themselves and the Court lacked a quorum. Everyone agreed it was unfair that there would be no opportunity for appellate review of any kind in such an important case, so the statute was amended to provide for the case to be remitted to the appropriate Court of Appeals, for decision either by the Court sitting en banc or by a panel consisting of the three most senior active judges. The Second Circuit in those days never sat en banc, so an all-star panel led by Circuit Judge Learned Hand was convened to decide the case. In federal cases where there has already been one opportunity for appellate review, as you know, lack of a quorum results in affirmance "with the same effect as affirmance by an equally divided court." And it is well recognized that no one knows what would happen if the Court lacked a quorum in an original jurisdiction matter; there are no cases on this issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Interesting. Thanks for the history background! Regards, Magidin 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)