User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Dec

Thank you for participating in my RfA
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Greg in Piotrus arbcom
Wouldn't some form of restriction/parole be enough? Greg did not have any history of blocks, bans or warnings before his interactions with Boodlesthecat, and even now his block record is clean. I'd think that a stern warning should be at least tried before a permban, and I also don't think he has been doing anything wrong in the past weeks - further, this post indicates he is now taking BLP into consideration and he has recently posted a pledge in the workshop (see discussion here). Perhaps an alternative, more merciful remedy could be proposed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Notice how Piotrus once again attemts to imply that Greg's egregious violations somehow stem from "his interactions with Boodlesthecat" rather than them being his own initiative, which were fully supprted/enabled/defended by Piotrus. Piotrus pleas for mercy would be more convincing if they were accompanied by an apology for his own overt support for Greg's reprehensible behavior (including a threat to use his admin authority in defense of Greg's violations) Refer to the link in the post above for detailed evidence. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note that the characterization of greg as a model editor prior to encountering articles on Polish Jewry (and me) is not quite accurate. And the of course there is Greg's block log on Polish Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg said some stupid things in the past. But one main difference between him and some other editors is that he at least realizes that he's screwed up and is trying to change. He's promising to avoid all articles on the topics that got him in trouble, among other things. Given that he's making what seems to me like an honest effort at reform, rather going around and seeking to start battles on other articles I think a banned is too harsh. Some kind of less severe punishment would probably be more appropriate. Anyway, that's my two cents on this and I say that as someone who initially did not like greg (and perhaps still don't - have not interacted with him in awhile) and found some of the things he said offensive.radek (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got to say that Greg said some rather appalling things, and I can't say that I have that much sympathy for his predicament. However, given that Greg has a clean block log, has apparently taken on board the criticisms and undertaken to reform as Piotrus has shown above, I don't think the ArbCom should take a punitive approach here. Perhaps you could draft a suspended ban dependent upon continued good behaviour as an alternative? Martintg (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto. It would be well if administrators could be invited to examine inappropriate editing and interactions among editors as they occur, rather than our all being confronted with periodic Armageddons. Nihil novi (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I made mistakes, I recognize them, pledge not to so again and I am ready to work with arbcoms regarding appopriate restrictions/mentorship that would allow me to continue to productively contribute to non-controversial aspects of this project. greg park avenue (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: . Brad, please. Ban me or mentor/restrict me, not both. It's even worse alternative than the original remedy. Like a double fine in 65 mph zone. Besides, I have never edit-warred; why should I be restricted to 1RR per week per page? You must have mistaken me for someone else. greg park avenue (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

SV motions
Should they be processed as a group, or should the three that pass already be enacted and then the other one separately /if/ it passes? Daniel (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong view on that. The best thing would probably be to consult with Kirill and FloNight, who drafted the motions. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta. Enjoy Thanksgiving :) Daniel (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to, but the last time I missed a day here, it turned out to be a Very Bad Thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a challenge! Daniel (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the page one more time, if motion 3A is passing, then 2 and 2A are probably moot and there wouldn't be a need to wait for them to be resolved (or even keep them open). But as indicated, the best guidance would come from the arbitrators who drafted the proposals that are passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, 3A make 2/2A rather moot.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 16:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Therefore, correction of this error does not necessarily undercut the subsequent action premised to some extent upon this finding..." No worries; it's not really an error if what the committee did would have been correct if the facts had been different. Tom Harrison Talk 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fear that your quotation of my comment may inadvertently be misleading; the balance of what I said should be consulted for contrast. In any event, as I also said, the members of the committee who voted for the subsequent action, rather than I who did not, are probably the best authorities on that aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I should preface this by saying I think you're the most effective arbitrator currently active. That said, any action taken based in whole or in part on the non-passed portion should be voided completely as fruit of the poisonous tree. SV has her troubles, but a deadmin (even a temporary one) should not be based wholly or partially on invalid reasoning. As an arbitrator, I feel you should pursue this with your colleagues. S. D. D.J.Jameson 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

PHG appeal
Do you want Evidence, Workshop and Proposed decision? Only E and PD? Daniel (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My recollection of the prior "review" procedure is that it created some uncertainty about what to put where. Even though it's arguably overkill, might be best to create the regular set of pages, even if some might be underused. You can give it a few more hours and see what the other arbs want to do, if any of them weigh in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * considering the likely length of evidence and so on here, I think treating this as a fresh case might be the best course.--Tznkai (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh, to be honest, the idea of a whole new full case fills me with despair, as I tend to regard these things as massive timesucks. :/ If it were up to me, I would just say "PHG's topic ban is extended to indefinite for now", and then maybe debate something new to do in regards to the image copyright problems. --Elonka 04:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because pages are opened for a case doesn't mean the review would take as long as the original case. Mostly, I want to see whether the editing problems identified in the original decision have persisted, and if so, whether this is in specific topic areas or more broadly. We may need to send a couple of arbitrators back to the library to hit the books again, though ... maybe we should hold the case until the election is over and give that assignment to the new arbitrators for a fresh perspective, although I guess a decision shouldn't really wait that long. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably soemthing that the filer would want to weigh in on?--Tznkai (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering his interests, could PHG not be aided in future by becoming part of WP:WPMH, possibly with a mentor from there? Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PHG has indicated that holding off for the new slate would be fine, possibly preferable, and in my opinion with the distraction that is the holiday season and the elections and the likely complexity, we should hold off.--Tznkai (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I recuse myself from this new case? I have more than enough on my plate at the moment and PHG dislikes me sufficiently that it would probably reduce the heat level if I were not involved. Jehochman Talk 06:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are free to participate as little or as much as you care to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Minibreak notice from Newyorkbrad
Limited wiki activity from me for the next few days; I'll be coordinating some Nero Wolfe-related activities here in New York (and unfortunately, therefore missing the Twisted Christmas concerts taking place at the same time). Responses to posts and e-mails, pending or new, may be held up until next week; my thanks for your understanding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass the saucisse minuit. Bishonen | talk 01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

PD
Hi Brad - the situation is indeed far from clear and needs some kind of interim measures in place to avoid the rapidly farcical situation worsening. I don't suppose either a brave Arb (you?) might say, "until the slow wheels of Arbcom stop grinding, Peter's given leeway to edit mainspace" - or alternatively, parole blocks should only be carried out by Arb members. Neither's perfect, but the situation is very confusing and there are dangers in letting it fester. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Parole blocks only by Arb members? Pull yourself together, Joopers. There's an arbitrator who is spectacularly unsuitable for doing such a thing, remember? Bishonen | talk 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Hmmm - quite right - are there any non-contentious Arbs left in the deck?? Perhaps we should invite the top 3 candidates to demonstrate their mettle. No no. Actually perhaps we should just hand the job to Bishonen. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see response to Rootology below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. I know you say "fully qualified candidate" often when you support, but it was still very much appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The PD question
Am I totally offbase here? If it's Jimmy/AC level, you guys decide to keep blocked or unblocked, if it's community side, then you all can unblock, or we can. Am I missing some fourth element of blocking somewhere? rootology ( C )( T ) 02:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for any more statements to come in in the next day or so and will then comment further and possibly offer a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brad, a much appreciated start. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from me
Can someone remind me what was the name of the story that Isaac Asimov wrote about 50 years ago predicting that advanced technology would lead to the loss of privacy? I believe the last line was "Arrest cancelled" or something similar. (I will cross-post this to the reference desk if I need to, but I suspect that someone will post the answer here by morning. I want to reread the story and probably cite it in the essay I'm writing on BLP and related issues.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are thinking of The Dead Past. IronDuke  04:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes! Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers... ping me when you write your essay. IronDuke  23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's largely written in my head; the problem is that if I put all my thoughts on the screen, the page will venture into tl;dr territory even for me, so I need to do some focusing. Should be soon, though; I've been promising it to people for weeks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Motion on PD
This might be one of those times where a proactive clarification of how "uninvolved" an uninvolved admin needs to be would be useful.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the developer's involvement in G's case was to remove his block log with the damning slur "blocked for hate speech". Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The decision also requested that "if developers cooperate," Giano II "be restored to the account Giano" as well as that the block log be cleared. (This was based on my proposals on the workshop, for what that might be worth.) I believe that after the decision was handed down, Giano stated that he did not want to be restored to the account containing that block, and therefore the issue of recovering the password was not pursued. (The deletion of the block from the block log came months later; originally the developers had flatly refused to do it, and then someone apparently told one of them that he should.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there will be discussion about whether Peter Damian should be allowed to edit in areas where FT2 is or has been active, and where FT2 felt he was being followed by Damian. It is some sexual topics, neurolinguistic programming and perhaps something more. Your motion mentions nothing about that. Perhaps you should also clarify if he is allowed to comment in the current ArbCom election. --Apoc2400 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My motion would lift all restrictions except for the one about commenting on FT2, so yes, he could vote in the election. I am not convinced at this time that there is a need for any other restrictions, but of course if I see further evidence I could modify the motion, or another arbitrator might propose an alternative. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Working on rejected proposals
G'day Bard (that's a typo, but I liked it, so it stays :-) - Your edit at the images of children proposal got me thinking a bit, because it relates directly to some editing I've been doing lately which unhappily seems to be generating some heat - at Sexual content. This proposal too was rejected in reasonably short order, and my current plan of action has been to continue to drop in some new ideas and information to the rejected proposal. I'm in complete agreement that the proposal is rejected, and feel that the banner (in this context) isn't exactly misleading, because the ideas I'm expressing are certainly not currently gaining any traction - though I believe there's something of merit and substance to work on here, so have continued. Here's where I ask for advice :-) Lar and Durova have already expressed the view that my work on this proposal may be disruptive - I (obviously) disagree. I'm all ears for advice on the merits of the proposal itself, your thoughts on the need for such a discussion, and in particular if you've got any hints for how to adopt a non-disruptive framework for continued work..... I'll add the usual disclaimer that if you're busy, or not inclined for any reason to get invovled, then no worries, and I trust you're well regardless. best, Privatemusings (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at this issue at some point, but right now I am focused on some proposals I am developing for BLP issues (what I wrote today was in a way an offshoot of that, made timely by the fact that the proposal was being discussed here and offsite). Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * hopefully semi-protection for all, non public-figure opt-out, and a strong request for flagged revisions? :-) There - now that's done, your time may be freed up a little! Privatemusings (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC) to be serious - I'm glad to hear there's work going on there, Brad - good on ya.....
 * That's a significant part of the ideas I am working with. In addition to trying to get the details right, I am trying to create a proposal that can attain consensus and actually be implemented, as opposed to triggering just another round of endless discussion. And of course, I am constantly drawn away by my duties of the day on the arbitration pages, as well as my real-world obligations (and someday I need to go back to mainspace, at least for a visit). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion proposal re-worded
I re-worded a proposal instead of writing a new one since we were the only two people to vote on it so far. Letting you know so that you can change your vote if needed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem; my vote stands unaffected. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

clerk trainee application
I see that two editors have been promoted to clerks. This leaves two trainee positions not filled. I am willing to fill it. There is a mention that clerks should not think that it is a springboard to becoming an arbitrator. I have no aspirations to become an arbitrator. In fact, I am willing to disqualify myself from being arbitrator for the next 3 years (3 picked at random, willing to say 5 years, which is an eternity on the internet).

What I am willing to do is to receive mail and organize wikipedia arbitration pages.

If you desire to fill these, let me know. If you decide to fill it but with someone else, kindly let me know what qualities you were looking for. I am willing to do the job but I would not be disappointed if somebody else was chosen. Chergles (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My strengths are I have been here since early 2007, no conflicts or disagreements, just editing. One article is being considered for FA. Very reliable personality. Fame or name recognition not desired. Chergles (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your interest in the arbitration process and in clerking. At this point, we will probably hold off on considering any more clerk/trainee appointments at least until the new arbitrators took office in January. In the meantime, feel free to assist informally as discussed on Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick question
regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin motion 4. Am I misinterpreting this, or does it mean that an uninvolved administrator who wants to enforce Giano's civility parole must first seek the explicit permission of the Committee before doing so? If that's the case, doesn't that essentially negate the parole? The explicit prior written permission of the committee would be essentially an new arbitration request. I realize I'm a little late to this party, but I was curious as to that particular motion. Wish me luck on my Evidence final tomorrow. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck on your Evidence final tomorrow. As for your question, that's my best understanding, but you might prefer to speak with one of the arbitrators who voted for the motion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lostpedia & Wookieepedia
How the hell are either of these "inherently" notable? You're nuts. Your argument is weak too; sure, these wikis exist, but do we need an article on them for people to say "Delete, belongs on ____"? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of thousands of articles we don't "need"; that has never been the test. And don't call me names. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that was a little snappish. Seriously, though, that's not the main focus. I don't see how they meet WP:WEB with a boatload of primary sources and trivial mentions. That still doesn't answer "inherent notability" either; almost nothing is inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with Newyorkbrad's opinion on the article, and I disagree that he is "nuts". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  03:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Donofrio v. Wells
Thanks for your help with this. I think it's notable, if only for the freak factor. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ignoring myself
On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a bit of time to spare...
Brad, I seek your objective opinion in helping quell a (fairly civil) dispute at an article I've been watching. The essence of the dispute is this: the article describes an event in a religious organization's history (mid-1800s) that involved questions of law. The article cites a law professor's 1965 analysis of the legal questions, published in a state law review journal. Some years after that analysis was published, the professor was appointed to a high-level position in the same religious organization that was involved in the event. The question at the heart of the dispute is what degree of mention should be made of that professor's later position in the organization. As you are familiar with legal scholarship, I hope you can provide some insight into how one might balance the professor's affiliations with his publishing in that particular journal, in terms of appropriate disclosure (per NPOV) and credibility (per RS).

I've tried to characterize this as neutrally as possible; if you are interested and can spare the time, I cordially invite you to Talk:Nauvoo Expositor (look for sections mentioning Oaks, the professor in question). If you can't oblige, just let me know and I'll cheerfully seek another constructive way to resolve the dispute. Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ping
Fun and colourful chart on its way to you via email, detailing which proposals pass with 11 and 12 active arbitrators. Risker (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I hope you have been well. Glad you're still around. Yanksox (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A present
Hope you don't mind. :p  Maxim (talk)  01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Unclean block log
Eh, join the club! :D  Majorly  talk  01:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about your block log no longer being clean. Hope this makes you feel better! X clamation point  01:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)



X clamation point  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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Whoah
Aren't these multiple successive posts annoying? ;-)  Maxim (talk)  01:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Join the club
;) Durova Charge! 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when arbitrators try to enforce their own remedies. ;-) Risker (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Providence meetup
The Providence meetup is today. The plan is to try to meet between about 4-6pm and we'll be ordering pizza around 5pm. Note, that I will be there during the entire 1-8pm, and anyone is welcome to stop by, but I thought a more specific time might make it easier for people to plan attending. See the talk page for more info and discussion. --mikeu talk 12:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys at Piotrus arbcom
At the Piotrus ARBCOM, you have opposed or abstained on a finding that Biophys has engaged in unhelpful speculation and fear-mongering (I call it nuttery). It has also been mentioned that he has said he will not do it again. If you refer to User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_19, it is plain to see that he has gone against this, and had openly accused myself of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. This accusation was raised after he and User:Grey_Fox-9589 gamed the system, and reported me for violating WP:3RR. Whilst I admitted that I breached 3RR, I also raised further information at the [3RR report, in particular that I would not sit by and allow BLP information to be introduced into the article; note it is Biophys who has accused me of doing so (it is a laughable claim); additionally he somehow managed to worm his way out of getting a block also for breaching 3RR, something that I quite clearly pointed out to the THREE admins. Due these repeated accusations on Tiptoey's talk page, whilst I was blocked (how convenient for Biophys that I couldn't respond), I demanded that a check user be done in order to stop these outrageous accusations. [[User_talk:Russavia/Archive_6#Want_to_run_a_checkuser_on_me.3F_Well_read_on......|It was confirmed that I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet (for the second time mind you)]], and as you can see from that link, even afterwards Biophys continued to harrass and engage in speculative nuttery; it was even mentioned by 2 other editors. I have written to the Arbcom privately on 8 November with information pertaining to myself, and how such accusations can be possibly damaging, but I didn't get a response to that one either.

Also possibly not looked at on the Piotrus arbcom is Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence. In particular the BLP violations committed by Biophys. I addressed this at the 3RR report, in which THREE admins saw what I posted, but refused to do anything about.

Is this Arbcom responsible for this particular case?


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision

Why after pointing this out on several occasions has not a single word about BLP been said to Biophys?

Or is it acceptable to have:

In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile.[44] He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,[45].

in articles, which are sourced to Chechen terrorist websites?

Would it be acceptable to have a similar sourced claim about Gandhi in an article? Or what if it were on the Jimbo Wales article?

Compare that to the NPOV version which I inserted into the article:

In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile,[49] and compared Putin to Andrei Chikatilo.[50] Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia.[50] The claims have been called "wild",[51] and "sensational and unsubstantiated"[52] in the British media. Litvinenko made the allegation after Putin kissed a boy on his belly whilst stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds on 28 June 2006.[52] The incident was recalled in a webcast organised by the BBC and Yandex, in which over 11,000 people asked Putin to explain the act, to which he responded, "He seemed very independent and serious... I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice...There is nothing behind it."[53] It has been suggested that the incident was a "clumsy attempt" to soften Putin's image in the lead-up the 32nd G8 Summit which was held in Saint Petersburg in July 2006.[52]

Which was removed several times by Biophys and replaced with the statement of fact that Putin is a paedophile.

Why has this not been addressed by the Arbcom, after being presented into evidence? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor Newyorkbrad :)
Newyorkbrad, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). RockManQ (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We went to such effort to get you back and they're already trying to delete you. Tsk, tsk.  Enigma  message 05:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Question on appointment process
I was just wondering if you had any opinion on the debate about whether Carcharoth (who was well ahead in 2 or the 3 metrics available) should be appointed to the committee? Do you have any idea why %support has come to be the preferred metric? SDJ 04:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration committee
Dear Brad,

I respectfully request that you resign your seat on the arbitration committee. Your continued association with these clowns gives them an appearance of credibility they so clearly do not deserve.

Best, Hi DrNick ! 19:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't even know what to say
. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "To the barricades!" --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting
On your promised review and reply at User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Nov (the first part, regarding 25.6, is my primary concern). See also here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ten suggestions for the improvement of Wikipedia"
Coming soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would one be "remove all committees"? Removal of the arbcom would be a good start (no offence to you of course, but members of your team have, as I'm sure you're aware, been badly letting you down).  Majorly  talk  01:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not an issue I was planning to address, but perhaps I should propose that we create a committee to look into your idea. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There's been a lot to read today and when I got to the above draft, I felt better; terima kasih. Watchlisted and looking forward to eight more sections. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to more. — Rlevse • Talk  • 10:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On my comment
Two huge problems here is that bad admins aren't held accountable unless they burn the pedia down, and arbcom members aren't held accountable even if they burn the pedia down. I'm sorry if I didn't find "screw the community I have two years left" funny.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious that the attempt at humor there was primarily self-deprecating. I haven't had a "screw the community" mentality for my two-and-a-half-years here and I wouldn't start now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Crappy day
I thoroughly regret that you've had to have a horrid day because of all this mess going on. I disagree with you on some things, but still, I see that you're trying to keep the ArbCom working and to keep it working for the community. If the world and Wikipedia were fairer, there'd be a way you'd be exempt from most of this wading through the rubbish. Thank you for your work in trying to be fair a Wikipedia that isn't. We need people like that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it made me smile
Ever thought of visiting Torbay? DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here ya Go


SirFozzie (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Yeah, the last few days have pretty much sucked. Keep the faith though, it'll get better. SirFozzie (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

gnats and camels
I'm really not sure whether you are becoming a parody of yourself, or you really do believe that you can send out messages to the community using a tickle stick. At the risk of quoting a second Bible text, there is a certain straining of gnats and swallowing camels here. When do you begin to look at the bigger pictures. When the regular vested users are out of control, well meaning legalese is seldom the answer (and has never worked so far), try firing some rounds above their heads. --Scott Mac (Doc) 00:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my motion is stronger than FloNight's was. Go write an essay about her for a change. :-P More seriously, I consider that yesterday's fiasco resulted from a confluence of unusual events that, I hope, are highly unlikely to be repeated in the same fashion. There are (at the moment) a dozen other arbitrators who are free to take stronger action against Moreschi if they believe it appropriate. There have also been, by the way, a number of situations in which some "well meaning legalese" actually resolved a dispute. Because the disputes were resolved, no one remembers them, but they do exist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just read Misza13‎'s statement in that case. He/she said in a paragraph what I attempted to say in an essay. This stew is of arbcom's own making. (And I'm only picking on you because I know you think)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine; I'll think some more. The only other comment I'll add for now is that if you go back and look at RfAr and RfAr talk and Giano's userpage (or whatever subpage the brouhaha is on now), you'll find a number of people opposed to harsh action against Moreschi, who do not have reputations or histories suggesting that they favor leniency toward poor administrator conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And they are wrong. I have no quarrel with Moreschi, who simply acted like an idiot for a few moments. But his action is symptomatic of a contempt for the authority of arbcom. Now, it is fine for people to have contempt for a decision of arbcom, but when people are allowed to treat arbcom as simply another player and not as the final authority, then we are really into anarchy. Arbcom must reassert its authority, or it is lost. You have the general community mandate, but you seem to live in fear of a few dozen vested players who focus on the personalities, back their friends, hold their grudges, and constantly claim that their contempt is that of the "community". Do you really think it can go on like this? Lead. Whichever direction you lead in, people will follow.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more complicated than that. I tried to lead my colleagues away from the block extension yesterday that triggered much of this, and they outvoted me. That goes with the job, too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Article requests
I was making a list of some articles I'd like to see created, and I had a couple that I thought would be right up your alley. Would it be possible for you to create articles for: Thanks :) Raul654 (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clayton motion
 * People v. Clayton 342 NYS2d 106 {41 AD2d 204} [App. Div., 2nd Dept. 1973]

Thank you
<font color=#f7458c>The Barnstar | <font color=#f7458c>My RFA  | Design by <font color=#f7458c>L'Aquatique

Two issues
Hi, do you think you can pass two messages to rest of arbcom for me?


 * 1) I think the RFAR WP:RFAR/Scientology should be broken into two. It seems like there are two independent disputes. One concerning Scientology related articles and another concerning User:Jossi, User:Cirt and User:Durova. The second dispute does have ties to the Scientology one but has deep roots that should be handled separately.
 * 2) I'd like to discuss this one in private as it is sensitive in nature. I'd like to point out a technical mean that may interest arbcom. Catch me on IRC concerning this, please.

Thanks.

-- Cat chi? 05:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) If an issue arises in a pending case and requires a remedy, the committee can address it. It really doesn't matter much whether it's handled in the same case or in another case. The important thing is that the editors involved have fair notice that their conduct is being reviewed, and an opportunity to submit statements and evidence. However, you can post this note on the case talkpage or a suggestion on the workshop if you like. (2) I haven't been on IRC much lately, but will be glad to discuss this with you the next time we are both on, or you can e-mail me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts about current BLP initiatives
Posted at Wikipedia talk:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

An anecdote
An editor voted "no confidence" in me today on the arbitrator input page, in part because I am someone "who frequently utilizes Wikipedia Review." Given my role there sometimes, this reminded me of the old joke about the man who goes to counterprotest against a Communist Party rally, and he's seen there, and a crowd of superpatriot types gathers around him and starts to beat him up. He tries to convince them that he is a victim of mistaken identity: "Stop! I'm an anti-Communist!" And the ringleader shouts back as he punches him again, "We don't care what kind of Communist you are!" Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it make you feel better if we beat you up, Newyorkbrad :P <font color=#808080; span style="font-family:Calibri, Myriad, Trebuchet MS, sans serif;font-size:100%;">VX! 23:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if he repeats this story in poem form. ;-) Risker (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I know I've been editing too long when ...
I'm a Slade fan and have been re-listening to one of their late, underappreciated albums, You Boyz Make Big Noize. It contains the song "Ooh La La in LA", which seems to be about a West-Coast-of-the-US tour the band made in the 1980s, including complaints about everyday aspects of touring life (a similar theme to "Danny Says" on End of the Century by the Ramones). Anyway, one of the gripes in the song is about the singer's having been served a mediocre sandwich: "BLT and there ain't no sauce." I just realized that for the past week I've been humming that to myself as "BLP and there ain't no source." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ;-) Paul August &#9742; 23:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, those were the days... Dear Noddy, what great hair and hats he had.   I remember going to see Slade In Flame; how amateurish and naive it all was compared to the videos of today. --Slp1 (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings
M E  R  R  Y  C  H  R  I  S  T  M  A  S  (or other winter holiday) AND A  H  A  P  P  Y  G  A  M  E  D  A  Y --B (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I shall look forward to working with you on the Arbitration Committee in the coming year. Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Blanked Arbitrarion Case
Hey Newyorkbrad, this arbitration case is linked to from the sockpuppet policy page, but the former has been blanked by you. An (admittedly very cursory) glance at the history seems to show Vanished user's name as having already been redacted in the last non-blanked revision of the page; are you sure blanking the case is necessary? If so, would it be possible to unblank just the Principles, since they are referred to on the policy page and do not mention the Vanished user? Thanks TotientDragooned (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Newyorkbrad, I have cross-posted the question to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration; I posted here first since yours was the signature on the info box. I apologize if this page was not the appropriate venue, TotientDragooned (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey NYB
How do you think you would do if Requests for bureaucratship/Newyorkbrad were to happen today? Just asking, because I personally think you'd make a great crat. -- Dylan 620  Contribs Sign! 12:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your confidence. I've thought about this occasionally, and one or two people have asked me before, but in general, there is a reluctance to concentrate too much power in any one person, and since I'm already an arbitrator (and have checkuser and oversight, though I don't use them much) there would be some resistance to giving me another senior-level position. (There have been people who were both bureaucrats and arbitrators, but I believe they all passed their RfB first and then were elected to the ArbCom second, rather than the other way around.) But thanks for asking! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually UninvitedCompany was on ArbCom before he became a bcrat. But yes, the general trend is that it goes RFB first, then ArbCom.  Majorly  talk  20:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Help wanted
User:Newyorkbrad/List of locations of manuscript collections for members of the U.S. President's Cabinet

See the introduction atop the page. Is this a silly idea that will never make it to prime time mainspace, or is it a future featured list? Time will tell. It started out as some notes to myself for research on a (real-world) article I am writing and metastasized from there.

Input from anyone with information to fill in the gaps, fix the links (e.g., I can't get links to the FJC database to work), create a decent format, etc., would definitely be most welcome.

A scary sidenote is that this userspace page is already on Google&mdash;to the point that as I poked around today looking for information to fill in, it was constantly showing up as a search result for many of the people mentioned in it! Although I should have realized this would happen, it still was jarring to keep coming across it, inasmuch as I created the page yesterday. (No need to "NOINDEX" it, though&mdash;it's harmless, I think.)

Thanks to anyone who feels like pitching in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (Wikipedia has a direct feed to Google. New content here appears there within hours.  Google somtetimes boosts the rankings of new pages as users often want the latest info, or something new. Google "query demands freshness" or "Google QDF" for more info on that algorithm. You can add -Wikipedia to your search to filter out the page.) Jehochman Talk 03:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Availability note
I'll be travelling some for the next week or so&mdash;I'll have some access, but let's say limited availability from now until approximately January 7th. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The thread I deleted last week
Hi Brad,

Got your message on my talk page from last week. Thanks, I assumed you were too busy (or uncomfortable getting involved). By "moot point" I just meant that it would no longer affect lustiger_seth's RFA (it was about to close), so there was no need for you to deal with it. In retrospect, deleting the thread was probably a bit too snippy; sorry 'bout that.

If/when I ever ramp my activity back up, I'm thinking of looking for a more concrete opinion anyway, in case this question comes up again; something "official", that people can hang their hats on, rather than your personal opinion. I'm thinking at this point I might wade through the RFAR instructions and find out how to get an ArbCom declaration if there's no actual "case". Or start a thread at WP:VPP. Or WT:RFA. Or something.

Hope you had/are having/will have a pleasant holiday. --barneca (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees
Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)