User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Jan

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays Thedjatclubrock :) ''' (T/C)

A seasonal postcard comic






John Buscema
I think you forgot to vote on the enforcement provision. ;-) Kirill 01:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks. (Taste of my own medicine there....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about signature
I'm not sure about protocol regarding signatures. Is mine too long for acceptable standards? Bellwether B  C  03:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it, but I know there are some other editors who would prefer it a bit shorter. There has been discussion on this issue from time to time but I don't believe any official standards have ever developed. Sorry I can't be more definitive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw one user complain once that a signature was "three lines long" or something like that. I knew mine was shorter than that, but I wasn't sure of any standard protocol. Do you know of any, even unofficial standards mine might violate? I don't want to cause any trouble for people using talkpages I might participate in. Bellwether B  C  03:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See Signatures. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It looks like mine conforms fine with the standards there. Much obliged! Bellwether B  C  03:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Hello Newyorkbrad! Happy New Year! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bonne et heuruse année (or as a friend of mine texted me about 9 hours ago - Bon Natali e filici annu novu) indeed...shouldn't you be popping champagne corks instead of hanging out here on New Year's Eve? (Oh dear....what does that say about me?) Risker (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace
This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008. Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Newyorkbrad
Congratulations again on your successful ArbCom candidacy as well. Acalamari 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Making you aware
I semi'd the IRC ArbCom Workshop and its talk page for 72 hours, looks like an anon using a bunch of Tor proxies reaaaaaaaaaaallly wants to put forward a remedy to have Ryulong desysopped. If I overstepped my bounds or for what ever reason you think I stepped over the line in semi-protecting it, please feel free to undo it :) Congrats on the ArbCom btw. SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators active on Arbitration enforcement
Per I will notify them about the case. -- Cat chi? 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to see just how many admins have contributed there recently... Thatcher 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, 9 admins have posted within the last 500 edits, although only five have 6 or more edits. Thatcher 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:KrausCCA.jpg]]
Should this image be up for deletion? Hasn't it has been properly donated to the public domain by the uploader? Happy New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't really my area of wiki-expertise, but I gather the user questioning the image's status is asking for verification that the person who uploaded the photo is the person who owns it. You should verify with the user who listed the image that that is indeed his or her concern. It may be that a permission letter or e-mail submitted per the procedure in Copyrights would readily resolve this issue. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor point, but needs correcting
Actually, in the Zeraeph Arbitration, FayssalF is also recused. Could you correct that update you just made, and its implications for the majority needed? Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link, for me or the Clerk handling the case, where FayssalF indicated he was recusing? The list of arbitrators on the proposed decision talkpage currently shows him as participating. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. I think I am reading this correctly. My apologies if I have misunderstood. Jeffpw (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Whoever opened up the case pages (not me) missed it. I'll have it fixed and thanks for mentioning it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Skyelarke/Buscema
Hi, Brad. I need to ask you the best way to handle this. Johnn Buscema Arbitration party Skyelarke, who already inappropriately tried to edit John Buscema almost immediately after it was unprotected (another editor rv'd), is now archiving Talk:John Buscema even though the Arbitration is still active. (Another, different editor rv'd that here, and Skyelarke rv'd that!) I hate to contemplate that we may need to protect these pages again; what is the best way to have Skyelarke not attempt these end-runs around the Arbitration process while these pages are unprotected? Thank you for any advice. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The arbitration case is going through voting right now and I expect it to close within a couple of days. At time the remedies passed by a majority of the arbitrators (which are harsher that I proposed for both you and Skyelarke, but the majority rules) will take effect and hopefully they will help resolve the issues. Any problems after that can be taken to Arbitration enforcement but hopefully there will not be any. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wordsmith Award
You'll be (are) a great arbitrator. Keep up the great work! Sean William @ 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. This is greatly appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much. This is greatly appreciated. You are right, though, that I can't take sole credit for any improvements in efficiency that have occurred; Kirill Lokshin, for one, has doing his best to move the cases faster since well before I was appointed. I look forward to your continued input on cases of interest to you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch case
Hi,

I just just was looking over the case decision and saw something that you may want to address if it's relevant. Orangemarlin was added to the case, but I don't see his name anywhere on the proposed decsions, whether he is is impacted by these decisions or not. I think maybe a clarification on that point might be in order. wbfergus undefinedTalk 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. Orangemarlin would be among those covered in the "Other editors" finding as well as the "Editors reminded" remedy. Although all editors should abide by the principles set forth in this case, as a party Orangemarlin will receive specific notice of the decision and be expected to abide by its terms. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the clarification. My first arbitration case that I've participated in or even seen, so I wasn't sure how it was covered if not explicitly stated. wbfergus undefinedTalk 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I could help. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted something about this case here. Posting to bring it to your attention (and hopefully the other arbitrators), in case it is missed as the motion to close looks like it will pass. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw that post and responded to it. I hope the response is helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Formatting
You did some formatting on Requests for arbitration. See. However, the statement is not by Rikstar but by the initiating party, i.e. Steve Pastor. Now it looks as if user Rikstar made the statement, but he didn't. Just to let you know. Onefortyone (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I saw the name and timestamp at the end and assumed that was the person whose statement it was, which would normally be safe, but not this time. Thanks for the message and I have corrected the heading. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Warlike
I do think there is something to be said on that subject. Perhaps the correct word is "provocative". The essence of the thing seems to me to be a pattern of behavior, outside the normal pattern of dispute resolution but without good reason, that seeks to emphasize conflict without seeking resolution. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Provocative conduct, both on- and off-wiki, should be avoided. This applies to all editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant
I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Meetup/NYC. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I still don't know whether I will be travelling on business this upcoming weekend. I enjoy participating at meet-ups, but obviously will be unable to attend this one if I am abroad, and therefore will abstain from the restaurant selection process this time around. I'll know by tomorrow (Weds.) whether this trip will go ahead as scheduled or be postponed until spring, so possibly I will be able to make it after all. I'll post on the meetup page when I know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It now looks pretty definite that I will be out of the country on the date of this meet-up. I have enjoyed all the meet-ups I've attended, and look forward to the next one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Your comments with your votes during arbitration committee proceedings are very welcome. Viridae Talk 01:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch case
Hello Brad, thanks for dealing so efficiently with this case. May I suggest it might be a good idea to have a courtesy blanking on the evidence page (perhaps also the workshop, not sure). There seems to be a load of stuff on there that I at least wouldn't want to lie around forever, if I were in either VO's or Jim's place. Just a thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom works in mysterious ways...
Newyorkbrad;

Firstly, let me congratulate you on your recent apointment. A bit belated I know, but heartfelt.

Secondly, may I express approval of your longer-than-just-voting style of commenting on proposed decisions in which you have been participating.

Finally, a (few) question:


 * While I've been watching the IRC debate closely, and was briefly comforted by there being no outrageous or draconian outcomes proposed, I notice that proceedings have paused while awaiting further evidence.  Does this mean that it's pointless to continue on the workshop page with new suggestions?


 * Moot depending on the answer to the first question, but there's been two new proposed FoFs to the tune of "Tony Sidaway later apologised and played no further part in the dispute" and "Locus of the dispute." To date this arbitration's outcomes appear oddly silent in the role that Tony played, but a FoF that "washes his hands" seems more odd.  Playing devil's advocate to myself here, Bishonen suggested elsewhere that a seperate abritration be raised regarding Tony's long-term behavior?  I understand that you may be restricted in the manner you may respond to a "fishing" question, so any insight is appreciated.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note and for your comments. You should feel free to post proposals to the workshop, especially if they are not repetitive of ideas already suggested. The proposals on the proposed decision page are obviously not complete (this is a bit unusual, but any arbitrator had the right to put proposals on the page for voting), and I think you can anticipate more proposals being posted in the reasonably near future. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sadly, I only noticed that the pages were all semi-protected after I posted here.  I'd like for that semi-protection to be lifted, but in the interim I'm putting a rough FoF here.  (I'm hopeful that either someone watching your page or yourself will move it.)  If there is sufficient discussion on this finding when/if it gets to the workshop page, I'll make a proposed enforcement of standard civility parole + disruption parole.  Sorry if this is inappropiate.  - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Moved table to finding of fact proposal)


 * Thank you. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Email and box
I managed to get the box-at-the-bottom to work (I think) per your request, and I replied to your email. Sorry about all the new messages bars! Daniel (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another email sent. This one should be the clincher. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC?
Just for a sec? Thatcher 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Coming on (next week I won't be able to; today I can barely manage). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullying?
I was idly scanning over your talk page and noticed your barnstar above, so I started reading the proposaed decisions.

While I have no opinion on the case itself (haven't been following it much), the addition of the word "bullying" attached to threatening and harassing seems to be problematic in that it's woefully subjective.

All the user need do is stress their point in a discussion and be accused of "bullying".

Any chance someone could pull out a thesaurus and find a more precise word? : ) - jc37 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. All of these related concepts (harassment, bullying, etc.) are somewhat subjective and, like the policy at WP:HARASS, rely on editors and administrators to be able to distinguish trivia incidents from significant ones. Thus, I don't think "bullying" is too subjective a word to use in this context. I understand the nature of your concern, however, and you are welcome to post to the proposed decision talkpage to see if others share it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like it will close at this point. I just would rather not see an editor, debating passionately, being blocked for "bullying". I think that the other two terms are much clearer in usage. But I suppose it's moot at this point. Anyway, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, someonedid comment on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Proposed decision. But it's now closed, with that wording. I guess that best I can hope is that my suggestion for being proactive will prove unnecessary. - jc37 10:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

John Gohde 2 case
I see you moved yourself to away in this case, however you have voted in it. From my understanding this conflicts with the majority etc., although I'll defer to your knowledge if this was deliberate. I just thought it might have been an accident or something. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake; thanks for catching it, and please move me back to active. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, I had a few minutes online today so I've fixed it myself. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Parole
Hi again Brad. I thought I was losing it there as I was going to correct you, but you had corrected yourself first! Incidentally, just who is supervising Vintagekits' parole? Although he has definitely calmed down of late, he can still be pretty spiky from time to time. Clearly this would not be a proper place for me to use or threaten to use my admin tools; but it would be good to know where to post any further complaints against him. In this historically difficult area of Wikipedia it seems to me that only a close-to-zero tolerance of incivility, trolling and partisan editing will enable a proper encyclopedic atmosphere to pertain. It seems to me that this is not currently being achieved, as R fiend's case readily reveals. I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the subject. --John (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jesus you really are a nightmare - stop moaning and whining and get on with editing and added to wiki. I've been too busy adding to and creating new articles to get dragged into your games which are just a bloody headache. If you want to know what I have been up to recently all you have to do is look here - Kiko Martinez‎, Jose Legra‎, Oisin Fagan‎, List of All-Ireland Fleadh Champions‎, Paddy Barnes‎ and Michi Munoz‎ - yet you want to come here to try and stir something up because I have been "pretty spiky" - cop on, grow up and edit some articles instead of going around looking to be offended.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
I've posted the following response on the arbitration board and would like to know what you meant by "appropriate involvement of administrators". thanks Tkguy (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Newyorkbrad: I am confused by your suggestion can you please clarify what "appropriate involvement of administrators" means? I already noted that I went to 3 admins for help. One ignored my request for help. The second told me to look elsewhere. The third told me that the problem is with me telling others that I will initiate an arbitration. Also note that User:Cool Hand Luke is an admin and is an involved party. So 4 admins will not help me resolve this personal attack issue. And the last time we on the page did RfC User:Cool Hand Luke came to the page and user:Crotalus horridus came back after taking a long hiatus from editing this article.Tkguy (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

US Congress dates
As you may have noticed at WikiProject US Congress, I've given up on the March 3/4 discussion. I found the pro-March 3rd editors' views were unreasonable (thus it was best that I departed, as my patients were spent). Anyways, goodluck on the Congress articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Austrian economics
"There is no evidence of any attempts at even talkpage discussion of the content issues raised."

Have you read this? User:Zenwhat/Evidence. It's been updated substantially since you made your judgment, per criticisms made by Auburn (some that were correct) and also, diffs which establish the relevancy and discussion with East718 have now been included. Zenwhat (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was looking at Talk:Austrian School (Austrian School being redirected from Austrian economics. I see no edits on that page in over a month. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because editors are ignoring the D in WP:BRD. Look at my last edit in the recent history. I even started a specific section entitled, "Please discuss your edits," linking to it in my policy summary in a desperate hope that they'd follow WP:BRD. But then Tparameter reverted my edits twice without doing that. Zenwhat (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
How long do people usually have to wait for a response on RFAR Clarification? Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Days if you're lucky. Thatcher 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Esp if it requires arb involvement vice just clerk help. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, the individual at issue continues to be a contentious problem. See that article's Talk page and the most recent comment on my User Talk pages to confirm that I'm not the only editor who's noticing the contentious problem. More admins lurking there would be a good idea, at least until the clarification issues. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've commented on WP:RfAR. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Samurai Commuter is clearly User:BryanFromPalatine - User:DeanHinnen, picking up from where he left before his permaban. I will give you my evidence should it be required.  I think it's obvious. If there is a need to respond to his diatribe, I will do so.  I will clarify again one serious sounding misconception.

" bears the name of an editor banned by Free Republic whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site."'' If User:Eschoir is, or seeks to emulate, the individual covered by the court decision,

There was no "court decision," no hearings, no witnesses, no trials. Because I testified for the LATimes in the coppyright case, they sued me in state court for a million dollars. The wrong state court. I removed it to Federal Court for strategic reasons. They spent $110,000 pursuing me, then settled the case on my terms. Since they got no damages, they wanted at least an injunction, so I gave them one in the settlement papers. There was no wrongdoing alleged in the settlement and releases. Their lawyer, Bryan's mentor, was later disbarred.

Thannks again for the Heads-up. Eschoir (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia case
Brad, I would like to put up more evidence in the Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia case, though I probably won't be able to do it until tomorrow. There seems to be a sudden rush to close it. May I be given an extra couple of days? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been addressed already.  Please keep the discussion in one forum. Jehochman  Talk 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In any event, I am recused in this case. If there is an issue, it will have to be addressed by other arbitrators. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor at writing brief proposals...
Cheers. Thatcher 04:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can run on a "brevity" platform this December. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of your proposals, can you do the Ed Poor block log thing as mentioned in the R. fiend case which you authored? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think another arb was going to take care of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC Redux
Hello Newyorkbrad;
 * 1) Did you mean for your "mostly away" box to appear at the bottom of your talk page, not the top?
 * 2) On the topic at hand, as there any further movement at the station with regard to the IRC case?


 * The biggest problem with arbitration is often that those who want to participate are isolated from the actual process of the decision making. I'm not suggesting that the punters should have greater input into outcomes, but that they be better informed as to what's happening.  In this arbitration, for instance, there have been way-too-many words wasted and to date it appears that there will only result one finding of fact.  Considerable acrimony is often raised on workshops debating points that the Committee then simply ignores... this could be avoided by a higher level of input by the members as to what they are interested in.


 * Which leads me nicely to my actual questions: Should I waste any more of my time on this case? Is there any real chance that we'll see the root causes addressed here?


 * 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I meant for the box to appear on the bottom of the page so that it would be seen by people who came here to leave new messages. As for the IRC case, I think there will be some further proposals posted soon. In terms of spending more time, you might want to wait until arbitrators post proposals on the proposed decision page and then decide whether you wish to react to those, as I think most of the points that could be made on the workshop page probably have already been discussed there. In terms of your general comment about arbitrators trying to define what aspects of a case they are most interested in, I will try to bear it in mind going forward, as I had some of the same experience myself when I was providing input on workshops. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, please check your e-mail and forward as necessary. Samurai Commuter (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC "continued input"
You asked for my "continued input" at arbitration cases, I wonder if you'll regret that now. :-). I noticed RFAR/IRC has several Findings, but no Remedies, so suggested a couple. Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Workshop and the next one. Is it considered proper to propose remedies with "see above for whom this affects"? :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack! You opposed! That's it, impeachment proceedings underway... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It might have been a reasonable remedy as to some of the parties to the case, but not all. For example, at present, there's at least one party (an experienced and highly respected administrator) whom a majority of the participating arbitrators believe edited disruptively on-wiki to the point of warranting an ArbCom finding, and I am in dissent from that finding, so I cannot support a proposal that would impose a substantially restrictive remedy against that party. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you have noticed, but there is a non-negligible feeling that the interminable and silly "Geogre/Giano and co." vs "Tony Sidaway and co." political wars (1) can't be stopped, since there are unblocking admins on each side, and (2) are taking a non-negligible toll on the whole Wikipedia. It isn't even about a specific reason, they're like the Montagues and Capulets, just having them run across each other in any context leads to a knife fight. Just saying "you're all good well meaning editors, leave each other alone and WP:TROUT to all of you" has been done before. Do you have a better proposal for an actual remedy? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Actual remedies" are under discussion. My thinking on some aspects of this dispute may not be in line with the feelings of a majority of the other arbitrators, which is why I have not written up a proposed decision long ago. I too am heartily sick of the "political wars" you mention and want to see an end to them. It saddens me that some of the same people are still arguing about some of the same things as when I became active on the site 18 months ago, and I am sure that I have lost credibility after having urged the sort of general admonition you describe only to see the same feuding flare up again and again. I still think that putting a contributor on any sort of parole who I think engaged in no or minimal misconduct would not be right, so I still couldn't support that, but I wish very much we saw resolve from more of the parties concerned to discontinue the type of conduct that led to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that I have contributed much to end this silly feud, but I intend to continue to do all in my power and I'm open to suggestions. Before this arbitration case was accepted I asked to be removed from the access list at the admins channel, and I have stated publicly that I intend this to be permanent.  I have discussed the affair with Bishonen in private on IRC and have got the impression that I have mended my fences with her (if there's anything more I can do she only has to ask).  I have (after admittedly requiring some extremely heavy hints from Brad) stopped commenting in any way on Giano's conduct, and intend this, like my decision to leave the admins channel, to be permanent. Even supposing I am right in my assessment (and of course I retain my own opinion on this), no comment I could make on the matter could fail to be tainted by the history of bad blood between us, and indeed such comments coming from me rather than someone less involved are more than likely to prejudice any case that might exist.
 * Moreover the current state of what approximates to civil unrest on Wikipedia, and open distrust of the newly elected arbitration committee, which I know does an excellent job in difficult circumstances, worries me more than any other matter that has occurred on English Wikipedia since the Seigenthaler case.  What appeared to me to be a minor interpersonal spat has evidently taken on much greater dimensions, and makes me determined to at least try to mind my p's and q's in the context of Wikipedia, whether on wiki or off.   I think this is the best way forward, and hope that the other editors involved in this case, or merely observing it, will follow suit. --Tony Sidaway 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, thank you for your comments. If you can live up to the commitments you have made here and elsewhere, then progress has been made. One caveat is that I don't believe expressing "open distrust of the newly exected arbitration committee" is in any way actionable conduct. I think the "newly elected committee" is entitled to trust, but then again, I would, wouldn't I? :) I'm not going to base any form of decision-making on whether anyone expresses admiration or otherwise for the committee or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I raise the problem of "open distrust of the newly elected arbitration committee" not as a conduct issue but as an example of the unintended consequence of my failure to take the consequences of my own comments into account. If anyone is sanctionable for allowing that state of affairs to arise, it is me.  Had my manner of self-expression been less direct and more diplomatic, the bad feelings that are evident in this case, which I myself do not share or condone, would not have arisen. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Brad, you have to explain how you can get both sides in a range war to respect you this much. Can you bottle the stuff and sell it over the counter? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that situation is going to last much longer, unfortunately. :( Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you active?
ArbCom says you're "inactive," and will be until the 23rd. But over the past couple weeks, you've generally been the first arbitrator to respond and not just in cases you've been previously involved in. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been travelling on business, so less than fully active ... but I've had more time than I anticipated (or might have wanted) sitting around in airport lounges and hotel business centers ... so I've been pitching in when I could on a case-by-case basis. I'll be back to fully active around Tuesday. Warning: a couple more questions like that, and someone will nominate you to be an Arbitration Clerk. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Civility at fringe articles"
I posted the following in reply to your "decline" at RfA re SPOV and civility at fringe articles. I think there is a bigger deeper problem that will ultimately have to be addressed somehow.


 * The difficulty, IMO, is that the pattern of abuse is diffuse, and that no individual diff can be unambiguously construed as violation of any explicit policy, though the aggregrate effect does violate the spirit. I've tried to enunciate this at my RfC regarding Ronz, which is related to this RfA (starting as it did with the Quackwatch article). Pete St.John (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is very true: surely the committee can deal with things which are broad rather than deep and narrow. This is not about content but about user behavior and also specific refusal of established policy, and it is a broad pattern across several articles.  Why can't the committee tackle this? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the committee is on wikibreak? :-) Pete St.John (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh (-= —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Howdy.. noticed this topic was already being discussed here, so I wanted to throw in a couple cents worth. While I don't see that there's anything for arbcom to do on this at the moment, I do see this general issue as legitimate cause for concern. Many controversial topics have gone into a "dig in, man the guns, and kill everyone" mode. I can see how this happened, but I don't think it's the right approach. It's common to see hostile enough editing environments that many editors become reluctant to participate. In some cases, editors are even explicitly encouraged to stay out. I don't think this is good. I think a better way to deal with this is to have more reasonable editors helping out, not to have very small groups getting increasing bitey and fanatic. I don't doubt the good faith of the editors involved- they're defending the integrity of our articles, which is certainly a worthy cause. I do think it's time to find a way to review the tactics involved, tho. I think our standard wiki process can work to keep out propaganda, if only we'd start using it again. Friday (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. On whether there is anything for the ArbCom to do, I think there seems to be a problem with the ArbCom's ability to tackle complex and subtle issues- also, I'm aware that the ArbCom doesn't decide policy, but does that mean it can't enforce already decided policy?  I mean, SPOV was rejected by the community. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've considered your points. At present I still don't see that a new case would be helpful, but I will be keeping a close eye on the statements as they are posted and on the other arbitrators' comments as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you (-: I'll try to focus any future requests better.  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good thought
Hi,

"compliance with policies and standards by all sides should reduce interpersonal disputes." That's a good thought. It's what the case is about: 1. editors who make a explicit practice to subvert policy (and say as much), and 2. editors who are uncivil. These are editorial practices, and the committee does take these issues. I'll re-factor the case if necessary to bring out these features, but it will be the same case. You are correct that the debate reflects (a bit of) the real world, but WP is not the real world, it's NPOV and civil- and that's where the committee comes in.

The specific dispute: You don't want a content dispute, you want something to do with user behavior, and that is what we have: disruption, incivility, and POV pushing- hey, it has to be that on one side or the other (: —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See comment above. By the way, I don't see why your last comment ("it has to be that on one side or the other") is necessarily true. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you could be correct there. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard
You stated in your abstention to FoF on David Gerard that you haven't seen him misuse the tools in any other situation. I just wanted to point out that he was involved in blocking an entire town in Utah from editing with IPs. When asked about it, he lied and said that the local ISP was an open proxy in the Register article. It wasn't until a second newspaper called him on it that he finally unblocked the town. Cla68 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note and giving me a chance to clarify. I said (or certainly meant) that David Gerard hasn't been alleged previously to have misused administrator tools similarly to the behavior charged in this case, or in a way that would be relevant to this particular case. I wasn't saying that he has a perfect record in 3+ years as an administrator. I doubt that anyone has. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard&mdash;possible typo?
In your recent update to your vote on David Gerard (BTW, thanks!), you used the term "ranging" when referring to an edit war; is this a typo and you meant "wide-ranging" or "raging", or do I not know the use of the word "ranging" in this context? Jouster (  whisper  ) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good typo catch; I meant "raging" and have fixed it accordingly. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Something up with your page
I don't know if others notice this, but in Cologneblue skin it's pretty obvious that there's something up with your talk page. The problem seems to have something to do with your use of "div" tags near the top, and the effect is that your "away" notice is displayed floating at the bottom of the page where it tends to clash with navigation links. Thought you might like to know. --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm using the default (monobook skin) and I see the same thing. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I wanted the notice at the bottom of the page to be noticed by people leaving messages, and someone coded it so that it would stay there, and until now I didn't know it was causing any difficulties. I'm back home as of tonight, even though I'm not at all 100% of my usual editing time yet, so I will go ahead and remove the notice. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tireless...
I see you have done some tireless contributing also...
 * Thanks very much. I really appreciate this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

sections removal
He had already revealed the information on the RFA. Since you are removing sections, you may consider selective deletion on both the talks and the RFA. Mercury at 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. I missed this completely; I had no idea that an RfA was pending. I'm off to read it now. Please proceed as you think best. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser Request
First, the checkuser request was mine to start with. Someone has added my name. I feel suspicious enough of her to add her name. Take mine off and take hers off. Don't play favorites. Mike Bate (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments on your talkpage. It looks like the entire request should be deferred to the arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The checkuser request was made before the arbcomm request. Are you suggesting I/we just wipe out the RCU completely? Go for it. I need to go to bed, so I'll add the RCU to the arbcomm request tomorrow. Mike Bate (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just add a comment in the arbitration request to the effect that there is a checkuser request pending, to save you the trouble of copying the whole thing over again. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was my request in the first place. Why can't I withdraw it? Mike Bate (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, you can withdraw the current request, though you should be careful not to blank the prior ones as you did, probably inadvertently. If you note in the edit summary that it is your request that you are withdrawing, that may help. If someone reverts you, just make a note in the body of the request that as the filing party you have decided to withdraw it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your recent edits from R
Please see here for a reply. Thanks -- R Parlate Contribs@ 03:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again ^ -- R Parlate Contribs@ 03:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, I still watchlist pages that I edit. You don't have to keep cross-posting here. Unless you are just doing it for the edit count. :-P :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You know the drill ^  ....and no...just so you don't miss a post from R in your watchlist :].
 * Well, if you didn't have one of those easy-to-miss single-letter usernames.... :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you go IRC? -- R Parlate Contribs@ 04:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Prithee
What harassment? What disruption? Of course sock of the user you named. 59.91.253.123 (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read his edit summaries, among other things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Timing of discussions and future of page (WP:WEA)
Hi Brad. I wonder if you missed my post here? I know you've been busy lately, so no worries, but if you could say something, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. My personal view is that the importance of the page describing #admins is being drastically overblown on all sides. In terms of what the intent was when the page was created, input would probably be more useful from those who participated in deciding to create it, rather than from someone like me who first heard of it during a prior edit-war on its contents several weeks afterwards. In terms of the future of the page, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I expect that arbitrators with more knowledge or stronger views should respond to your talkpage post; if no one does in a day or two, I will try to nudge on the mailing list, as I suspect that after the latest rounds of name-calling, not everyone is following the talkpage closely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the reply. :-) I note you don't name "those who participated in deciding to create it", but really I think that sort of thing should be openly declared at the case. Especially if there are arbitrators voting who participated in the prior discussion that (seemingly) sanctioned David Gerard's creation and ownership of the page. They, as well as David, could have stepped in at any point over the past year and clearly said "the page is owned, stop this edit warring". If this was not clear up until now, then clearly those editing the page were labouring under false impressions. If the decision has only now been taken that the page is owned, then that is retrospective and similarly unfair. Does that make any sense? I know you are of the opinion that no sanctions are needed, but I'm just trying to sort through some thoughts here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help
Can someone please do something with this thing's posting? It is fucking harassing me at this point and doing nothing but sockpuppet and harass now. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

here going after this "archenemy" Eschoir. This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. Lawrence Cohen 14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Easy Lawrence. Don't canvass in too many places.  Take a break for 24 hours and we'll sort it out. Jehochman  Talk 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup/Philadelphia 6
 You're invited to the

Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

January 2008

Time: January 26th, 5:00 PM

Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut 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 (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC/Remedies
Just to clarify something that isn't clear - you are opposed to all or nearly all of the remedies in the IRC case, but haven't proposed any. Is this an indication that you believe no remedies are warranted in this case? I don't necessarily disagree with you, as I think the whole thing is the absolute example of a tempest in a teapot. I would expect, though, that if this is the case you would propose a "Parties are reminded" remedy of some sort (even though this type of wording has come under fire recently as a sort of cop-out). This may not be the place to start, but on these purely meta conflicts I think in the future the ArbCom should consider restricting editors to articlespace (or some variation) as a more routine remedy. Avruch talk 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect that on some issues I may be out of synch with a majority of the arbitrators on aspects of this case, so am not necessarily the best person to write up a proposed decision. (I'm also conscious of the fact that I'm a brand-new "rookie" arbitrator yet have already written three decisions in three weeks.) I had drafted an opinion in this case which I circulated to the arbitrators privately a couple of weeks back, only to find that my approach enjoyed basically no support at all. Further, I also have to confess that I have found myself discouraged by the tone of the discussion and at least one comment directed at me on the proposed decision talkpage. I am not going to change my views of the case or its proper outcome based on an uncivil comment directed at me, but I don't have to appreciate it, either.
 * I am going to wait a little bit longer to see what the other arbitrators have to say about either the remedies that have been proposed or alternatives that might be offered, and I may or may not post some proposals in the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I scanned through out of curiosity and didn't find any flames directed at you personally (I just wanted to see who would've done such a thing) but most of it was too irritating to actually read every word, so I probably missed it. You're doing fine so far, in my opinion, not that I'm an authority or anything ;-) I don't know what some of the main culprits thought they were achieving - it seems like they just argue with eachother to argue, and on whatever page happens to find them together at any given time. Avruch talk 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's buried and not receiving attention, that's fine with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about whether a proposed finding of fact has a chance
Is Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop a content decision, or does it have a chance of passing? If the former, is there a way I can reword it to make it acceptable? --NE2 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My first reaction is certainly that it sounds like a content decision, in that it is a decision that one phrasing should be used in articles rather than another. This is as opposed to a user conduct decision, such as that User:X has violated a policy or should be restricted in a certain way. However, if you can suggest any reason why this should not be regarded as presumptively a content ruling, I'm certainly willing to consider it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's essentially a counterexample to Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop; is it possible that that will pass? --NE2 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review a block
Dear NewYorkBrad,

I would like you to look into this, please. Recently a new editor logged in as User:Vittala. His first edits were to vote on two nominations for deletion, Jeff Rosenbaum and WinterStar Symposium. When he tried to edit some articles, he discovered that User:JzG Help! (AKA Guy) had blocked him just a few hours after his first edits, saying that he is "a sock-puppet or meat-puppet" of mine. It should be noted that Guy had voted the opposite way on these same two nominations, which were still open when he placed the block.

Vittala is not a sock-puppet of mine. Guy could easily have determined this by checking his IP address; he doesn't even live in the same state. I'm not sure what a "meat-puppet" is, but he did not edit or vote at my request. He contacted me after he was blocked, which was the first time I discovered who the person voting as "Vittala" was, and though he was aware of some of the things I've been going through lately on Wikipedia, I did not ask him to edit or coach him as to how to do it (if I had, he would have signed in correctly, rather than a bot being needed to fill in his name later). I have never used a sock-puppet, though I've certainly had problems with people who do.

Guy did not inquire or discuss this block first with me or Vittala. He obviously did not make his decision based on editing history, since there was none, or based on IP address. I believe that it is inappropriate for one person voting in a matter to block another while the dispute is still open, too. Guy has had a problem with my editing before, and has been IMO a bit uncivil concerning it. I challenged this block on his talk page, but he has not responded. The block he placed was indefinite.

I would request that you look this over, with hope that the block can be lifted. This is a new editor who honestly wanted to edit and create articles; he is his own individual, and no matter what Guy's motives are I think an indefinite block less than five hours later is draconian for the very first edit someone does. I am advocating for this since Vittala is totally inexperienced in such matters, and because I was accused of something of which I am innocent.Rosencomet (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. In view of my new position as an arbitrator, I am reluctant to look at the matter at this stage in case it winds up in arbitration later on. Also unfortunately, Guy may be unavailable to comment on this matter for awhile because of his personal situation per his talkpage. I suggest that you post to WP:ANI regarding this matter and see if a consensus of administrators can be arrived at. Please let me know if you try that and no resolution is reached within a reasonable period of time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. User:Vittala has been unblocked as a result of a discussion on WP:ANI, and the editor who did it has agreed to "keep an eye on him". The expressed feelings were that an indefinite instablock with no discussion was too harsh and quick a reaction under the circumstances, and that it was a case of "biting the newbie". Thanks again. Rosencomet (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on the IRC case
You write "If he can adhere to this promise over the long term, rather than just for a short while as in some past incidents, then progress will have been made." 

I have never made any such promise on Wikipedia before. To undertake to observe permanent purdah on a matter where one would normally expect to be able to make public comments is not something I do lightly. To resolve further to be extremely careful in making any comment on matters Wikipedia at all, which I have done, is a very large undertaking indeed, and probably unprecedented by any Wikipedian. I have observed a very large minefield, delineated its extent, and resolved to avoid it. That it took me so long is regrettable, but there we are. It is a most unexpected and perplexing situation. --Tony Sidaway 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that you have made your promise this time in a more public and formal way than in the past. That makes it all the more important that you hold to it, and I hope that you can. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet discussion
In this discussion, you are obviously aware of some sockpuppet of VivianDarkbloom, but do not mention it by name. Do you happen to remember? She's blocked right now, so I would like to make sure no block evasion is going on.Kww (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever knew. VivianDarkbloom had admitted that this was not her or his only account, but did not give any other account name and I did not follow up. While I don't condone block evasion, as and if the other account apparently is not causing any disruption I wouldn't make tracking it down a top priority. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Since she is making false accusations of vandalism directed at me, I have tracking it down a little higher on my personal "to-do" list, but I can see where it wouldn't be high on yours.Kww (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I hadn't seen that. In the past she's been threatened with blocks for generalized name-calling, typically on AfD's. I'm sorry if things have escalated to a new and more offensive level. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Communication restricted
You say "I will watch for comment from the potentially affected editors, on the talkpage, before weighing in more formally." 

For reasons you may appreciate quite well, I won't comment on this proposed remedy on that talk page, but I have already told Mackensen that I thought it might be a winner. 

A symmetrical and unambiguous "restraining order", as Mackensen has expressed it in his reply. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

*poke*
around by any chance? (with access to your emails) :) -- lucasbfr  talk 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken care of, sorry for the spam. -- lucasbfr  talk 09:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock clarification
Re:, do you want me to unblock now (so he can contribute to Requests for arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration only), or wait and see if a case is opened and then unblock (and limit editing to the six relevant subpages)? Daniel (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned he can be unblocked now. In fact, I'm not convinced that it needs to be a "limited" unblock as I don't see real potential for harm for this user, but I won't intervene directly since I'll be sitting on the arbitration case, if accepted. (Note: If unblocked, he should be asked to stay away from RfA. But I see now that he's been unblocked for the RfAr only, so we can leave it there for now.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

semi some pages?
Hi Brad/ I have a couple of outstanding requests at WP:RFPP that need semi-protecting; vandalism is quite persistent. Whole messy story is at Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man, a hundred socks; hundreds of IPs. The pages are: This is pure harassment of my edits (as promised by the bad boy). I have to go soon, and am dropping you this note as I know you have the button. See Senang Hati Foundation's history and logs for yesterday's shite. See also User talk:ClueBot Commons to see how sneaky this character is. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Smile Foundation of Bali and
 * Derro (Dungeons & Dragons)
 * Looks like someone else already got to this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, and quiet so far today. Please note that when I posted the above request, I was aware that you were not participating in the TV 2 case that I am a 'semi-involved' party to. I see that you've now signed-up; welcome to the pop-culture war . You'll see when you attend to the sprawling workshop page, that there is a proposal to formally add me to the case. For what it's worth, I'll add myself if any arbitrator suggests it (look for this to be quoted there). Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Parole, again
Hi again Brad. I left you a message concerning User:Vintagekits back on the 12th. It is now archived here, together with Vintagekits' response. I thought I would draw your attention to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles; Vk has been acting up again and as you have been involved previously with the user I thought I would ask (again) for your input as it appears to be deteriorating. Please give the situation whatever thought you can. Thank you, --John (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am concerned, but should probably stay away from the situation for the moment, in case it winds up back before the Arbitration Committee. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sinners and their repentances
Re: Tony's repentance: Given that there have been six elaborate RFC's regarding Tony, as well as numerous RfAr's around him, I can only say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me six times, and shame on Brad." Utgard Loki (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note on the numbers: Four RFC's plus being central to the "Giano RfAr," plus being central to this one. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to interest you in, Brad - KillerChihuahua?!? 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Apologies, that was non-productive and a bit bitchy. I withdraw my catty comment. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the first time he's said it to me, anyway. My goal at this point is to see if we can actually improve the situation. Either Tony will keep his very solemnly made promise, or he won't. If he does, that's good. If he doesn't, the committee will still be there.
 * Believe me, I've been on the wrong end of Tony Sidaway's remarks, both on-wiki and on IRC, more times than I care to recall. I know that there is a problem here. Either he will address it at long last, or someone else will. We shall see. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One question: How will we know? No: two questions: Wasn't that how things were before?  Wasn't there a change at IRC so that what happened before (same user, with another, same things) wouldn't happen again, and wasn't there an implication that, if it did, there would be all kinds of hell to pay for the people being coarse and vulgar and insulting on IRC?  So, is any of this going to result in a procedure being put in place, other than "See if you know who the big op is, tell the big op, and have people ask the culprit if he's a culprit, and then offer him ops after :30 away?"  Wouldn't such a procedure (or, maybe, heaven forbid, people not trashing users on IRC, or en.admins not being for non-administrators) have forestalled all of this stuff that keeps trying to get wrapped around Bishonen?  Geogre and Giano absolutely did edit David Gerard's page, but that was taken care of by normal means (a block for breaking 3RR, and no evidence of either being edit warriors in general).  Granted, there is still a massive hole in things by that page still being in Wikipedia's named space, when it isn't a Wikipedia policy and doesn't have evidence of consensus, but can't that be solved by deleting the thing?  I don't understand why it's either a) outrageous or b) "incivil" to suggest that the admins channel be for admins or that people with serial insults be blocked from it or c) that there is absolutely no regular process for dealing with abuse of IRC, and therefore it leaves dissatisfied users with only frontier justice.  Utgard Loki (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Sorry for that, incorrect revert, please ignore. -- The Helpful One (Talk)(Contribs) (Review) 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay. Lots of people say that most of my arbitration-related edits are unconstructive. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Taxing and Spending Clause
Do you have an opinion on what this article should be called (see the Move discussion)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for thinking of me, but I don't have a strong view one way or the other; I've heard the clause referred to under all of these different names. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well...
Thanks for trying. :) MastCell Talk 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One reason there's a committee of 15 people is so that a variety of views can be expressed. I'm not going to be in the majority every time there's a disagreement. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand; I just wanted to say that I appreciate your efforts here (particularly, I suppose, as I agree completely with your view of the case). MastCell Talk 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152
I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! -- omtay 38  02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The e-mail was received. As a new arbitrator, I am not familiar with any background of prior deliberations, but I will make sure that the matter is discussed by the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No voting?
"I will not formally post it here to see it voted down" "it is necessary to resolve the case, and this disposition is more reasonable than some other alternatives that have been proposed."

Should not editors know on which side of the fence arbitors are on for any future arbitration apointments? Should not editors know the other alternatives that have been proposed? This is why secret but official discussion is often wrong. See also User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. Why should a case be resolved "wrongly," as opposed to left open untill such a time that it will do less damage closed than open? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When to post a proposal knowing that it is unlikely to be adopted is a complicated judgment call. As you may have noted from my workshop participation before I became an arbitrator and in my case participation during my first month of service, I'm not shy about expressing my views, whether or not they appear to fall within the consensus of either the Arbitration Committee or the broader community. In this case&mdash;which opened before I became an arbitrator and in which I was previously inactive on-wiki until today&mdash;I have taken into consideration all of the evidence and history of the case, but there are also some off-wiki communications (primarily from the subject of the case) that needed to be taken into account as well. The situation is a little bit complicated, and the easier path would probably have been to say nothing at all; I wanted to express my views, and hope that they might turn the tide of the voting, but I concluded that it would not be useful (and would not help the subjects of the case) to make a proposal knowing it was unlikely to pass in this instance. As I said, there are difficult close questions in how to proceed sometimes, as one member of a 15-member body. Thanks for your input and I will give the matter some more thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all I can ask. I wonder, however - "off-wiki communications (primarily from the subject of the case) that needed to be taken into account as well," leads me to believe that possibly intemperate emails sent by the individual currently being maligned by the comittee for protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia is what led to his downfall. Is that accurate? If it is, I question why sending intemperate emails to a closed list is less appropriate than playing footsie with (and supporting the adjendas of) individuals whose stated purpose is the destruction of the encyclopedia as a source of valid knowledge? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the off-wiki communications relate to mitigating factors involving the subject of the case. FT2 has made some relevant comments about them on the proposed decision talkpage as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is decidely unclear from FT2's statement which states that he is being desysoped because of external stress on his life. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, a further point on which I'd welcome your (and anyone else's) input&mdash;and I mean this quite seriously (I know that someone has raised this issue in the IRC case as well). Sometimes in difficult cases, the arbitrators consult off-wiki about what findings and remedies might enjoy support, and try to come to a consensus before proposals are posted on /Proposed decision. When that occurs, the committee is criticized for engaging in secret, backroom deliberations. Other times, an arbitrator posts proposals to /Proposed decision or even to /Workshop, and other arbitrators disagree with the proposals and it is revealed that the committee is having difficulty in coming to agreement. When this happens, the committee is criticized for failing to present a united front and for victimizing the parties with negatively worded proposals that may never pass. As a new arbitrator, I am still in the process of deciding which of these situations is the lesser of two equals, or does it depend on circumstances, and if the latter, what circumstances should govern. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The comittee has chosen not to operate by consensus with a facilitator - this was a mistake made by the comittee (which is too large, and contains too many people who don't care anymore). A facilitated consensus process (see Consensus_decision-making) would both allow for open discussion and avoid that embarassment. The comittee has chosen to operate as a parliment - with minimal public debate, the creation of pre-arranged voting blocks, and then an attempt to minimize public dissent via ostracism (of arbitors, for dissenting and runing the "consensus"). This is functional for governing, but not for judging. If the comittee were to reform as a consensus body it could judge and govern. If it were to reform as an inquisitive body, it could judge. All it can do now is govern, as demonstrated by the terrible job it does actually solving disrete problems and the so-so job it does making new policy. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a fascinating critique of the arbcom process. I would recommend you (PouponOnToast - nice name!) raise this elsewhere (not sure where). BTW, Brad, I asked on that talk page about which of Adam's actions you considered borderline. If you are able, would you have time to answer that? Carcharoth (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nag on command
And I can recommend good peer review people, first. I'll wait a few weeks to escalate to shame :-) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do need to do more writing. I've been travelling and swamped in real life during January, but that ends next week. And no, writing arb decisions doesn't count, says I to myself, says I. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might browse WP:FFA to see if you can save one from there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or here and get a pretty award in the process...many are well developed, would need a brush up on comprehensiveness and then referencing to the hilt.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But if you want to work one up, this article might fit your interests. Regards,  Kablammo (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got a specific article in mind for February, but after that I'll look at some others. There is a great speech by Irving Younger of which I have a transcript that would be great to work into the Ulysses article sometime. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up
You ever get a chance to look into that issue I emailed you about a while back? Viridae Talk 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have raised it internally with the committee, and had started to dig through the history on the matter, but as you may have seen here I was travelling and inactive for a couple of weeks earlier this month (and am still a little buried in real life right at the moment). I expect to become fully active again at the end of next week and will be turning my attention back to this and some other open matters at that time. I've also let the committee know that I've heard from two administrators regarding this matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Brad, totally understand the other committments. Viridae Talk 02:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Question re ArbCom
Hi Newyorkbrad:

I know you recently switched from being the Committee Clerk to being a Committee Member. I'm asking you this as I don't know who the current Clerk is.

Please will you answer my question or pass it on to be answered?

Is it fair to ask ArbCom to review the validity of an RFC that is in progress? (not the content, but the "propriety".)

I think I know the answer to this question, but I'm not sure.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally the Arbitration Committee will accept a case for review where earlier dispute resolution (such as RfC) has failed to resolve. If there is a dispute as to the propriety of an RfC, generally this is resolved by discussion among administrators on ANI. If that does not occur and if the RfC involves a sufficiently serious matter, there is no reason it could not be submitted for arbitration. Off the top of my head, I don't recall any cases of that nature being accepted thus far, however.
 * For future reference, a list of Clerks can be found at Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

JOG
Could you add a qualifier to your remark, such as "when established users are involved"? It would be excessively burdensome for administrators to ask for or await responses from throw-away sock puppets in cases like Requests for checkuser/Case/Blodhol, to note a rather extreme example. Jehochman Talk 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC
I sincerely hope that your comments here are not referring to anything that I have said on-wiki about you or any other arbitrator. Please let me know (by email if you prefer) if I have caused you concern in this way; that has never been my intent. Risker (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't thinking of any comments made by you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify that if you weren't certain. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was hoping that you weren't thinking of me, but when your comment came only a few minutes after I had critiqued the manner in which another arbitrator had expressed his opinion, I was a little concerned. I am afraid this case has highlighted unexpected behaviours and interpretations from a lot of quarters; it is reassuring to know that at least one person has pretty well kept their eye on the ball. Risker (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry again for any misapprehension; that was just a coincidence of timing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Predictable, really
And here we go again, marching up, then down the hill. I've no idea about your experience of childrearing, but when a home contains ill-disciplined children who push and push, it is generally because no boundaries are ever set, or worse when parents threaten blue murder but back down when the offspring shout louder in response.--Docg 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I remain open, as I am sure does the committee as a whole, to suggestions for a more productive course of action. As it happens, despite my support, this motion is unlikely to pass in any event. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I am now of the opinion that the bed has been made (mainly by arbcom's weakness a couple of years ago). Now there is no productive solution. Whatever you do you lose. Arbcom's function is to avoid disruption (that's not a sin, it is the golden virtue by which you keep the wiki functioning). Any sanction now will cause incredible community disruption - but a failure to sanction only dooms us to endless repeats of the same disruptive behaviour that brought us here, with the fire increasingly stoked, until the thing inevitably explodes. It is Chamberlain's dilemma - whether you decide to be criticised as aggressive warmongers or wimpy appeasers, you'll get the conflagration (and blame) either way. Your choice is merely hell now or hell later - and the judgement as to which is marginally worse. I'll criticise no further, just sympathetically support whatever. Either way you didn't make this bed, but you get to lie in it.--Docg 23:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

re Requests_for_arbitration
Your reasoning here is impeccable. However, at the time that the "Oppose" vote by User:Edward Morgan Blake was lodged, my RfA was only a couple of days old, and if colleagues yet to vote had taken that opposition, and the way in which was framed, at face value, the RfA could well have snowballed into a more finely-balanced decision and even switched around altogether. As it happened, I seem to have gathered some support because of the way I handled the situation rather than suffer from it. In that respect, I am grateful for the reasonableness of my colleagues. I owe Jeffrey an apology for the incident in question, but you know his style as well as I do, so you will understand, I hope, my reticence; and I have no axe to grind against him. You did say that an explanation should be sought before blocking & adding sockpuppet tags to accounts; indeed it should. But neither Jeffrey nor Edward had edited recently (except for the latter's objection), and neither account had an email address attached, so there would seem to have been little scope for obtaining a timely explanation, given that an RfA lasts but one week. Meanwhile, of course, my RfA was proceeding and at that time the evidence, although only circumstantial, was all that was available. I'm quite happy if the ArbCom finds Jeffrey's explanatory email sufficient to decline the case, but the suggestion that accounts who share the same IP address display an explanatory notice seems worthy, and might prevent this sort of thing happening again. Meanwhile, there are vandals in them thar hills. Regards, --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said on WP:RfAr, that there was good faith on all sides here. I understand the reasoning that led to the conclusion that was reached, and my initial accept vote on the arbitration case reflected that there was an issue that needed to resolved, one way or the other. Meanwhile, congratulations on your adminship. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 11:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters injunction
Hello. I noticed you added into the injunction that it would apply to television episodes and characters to avoid being taken out of context. I'm wondering if it could be extended to video game characters as well, since many of the involved parties are "leaving their mark" there as well. Cheers, Wizardman  19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion on the proposed decision talkpage. I had thought the case really revolved around the TV episode and character articles, but if there is a broader problem that is developed in the evidence, that can be covered in the injunction or in the final decision. My concern was that there might be a wider group of editors involved in the other articles who would not be aware of or watching this case and would be taken by surprise if this injunction appeared from out of the blue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It really depends how broad or narrow the parameters to be considered are - notability of TV episodes is one, the speed with which TTN deletes/reverts is another. I raised a point about several accounts whose only actions revolve around deleting/merging and tagging articles and nothing else - TTN is not alone in this and others wioth a similar editing pattern are joining in the debate. The TV episode behaviour is echoed in RPG deletions, and Star Wars material, the difference there being the main antagonists are not quite so voluminous in nominations and sometimes more amenable to sourcing actually appearing.


 * My concern is restricting it to notability will not solve anything, and this could be mirrored with an RPG request for arbitration and a Star Wars one and so on. Anyway, all food for thought...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request
Hi Newyorkbrad, please can you delete the following revisions of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point for me:
 * 

I was accidentally logged-out by Firefox when I made one of the edits, and I don't really like having my IP revealed openly on a policy page.

It was a mistake which I would like fixing, if you can fix it.

Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)