User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Mar

Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration
Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had this on my "to-do" list today and now it is to-done. I've prodded the other arbitrators on our mailing list as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this case, I know a lot of discussion is floating around, but I really feel strongly about this and wanted to get more attention to this comment I made:

If any of the arbs are reading these messages, I beg of you to accept a proposal that limits TTN's actions only when challenged. Like the others, I'm still not convinced TTN has even done something grossly wrong, but it's far better than the current proposal, allows TTN to preform non-controversial actions, and addresses the core issue of force rather than content judgements.

TTN might have had a liberal interpretation of ArbCom's instructions from the last case, but something like this would be a lot more clear cut, and I have no doubt he would follow it. Perhaps this could be given a trial time of a week or two, and if not effective then simply default to the 1.1 proposal that you are supporting now. I really believe this issue comes down to when situations where forced when challenged, and not the initial editorial actions. He would learn a lot from that kind of six month (or whatever) probation, and still be able to be constructive on Wikipedia. I also believe it's something that both "sides" would be able to live with. -- Ned Scott 04:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Restricting TTN only when challenged makes a certain amount of sense, except I'm not sure how it would work. He can start an AfD, but if one person objects, he has to withdraw it? He can move a page, but if anyone objects he has to move it back again? Please describe in a little more detail how this would work&mdash;and you should probably do it on the proposed decision talkpage so everyone can read. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My first pass on it: Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, do you really think his AfD nominations were problematic? If anything, it was one of the things we were trying to get him to do more of before this went to arbcom. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take another look at this tomorrow. As you might imagine my wiki-time has been pretty much consumed for the past 24 hours by the Mantanmoreland firestorm. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, thank you. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom hates science?
In the ongoing Expert Withdrawal discussion, there is now a statement under the heading ArbCom hates science: A statement heartwarming to FRINGErs? I thought you might like to make a comment, or that some othe committee member might like to say something. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not going to comment at this particular moment, partly because I haven't yet participated in any of the so-called "science vs. paranormal" type cases, but I have watchlisted that page and will certainly be keeping an eye on the discussion. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do hope you look into this section This page is very well worth watching, as it makes very clear all the issues, and how they are [not being] dealt with.  Both sides of course have good points.  The above section, however, really sums up a lot.  Also see DGG's posts. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As promised I will take a look, although I am in the throes of being lynched for the proposed decision in Mantanmoreland at the moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm, sorry. I wonder if there has ever been a case where you guys don't get lynched? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some that are pretty straightforward, but of course no one remembers them. This one will linger. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aww, geez, and here I thought I was being polite and deferential for a change. ;) Risker (talk) 06:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the current claim on Arbitration Enforcement. A claim was made, and an "uninvolved" admin responded:

Seriously, the topic is obvious quackery, and the "AA-EVP" website is a sick joke [the claim was brought by the author of that site]. Seriously, calling a "spiritualist" to make a ghost go away? I fully agree with SA's evaluation - proponents who believe in this stuff are morons thoroughly uninformed and misguided persons, and proponents who don't are lying. This is covered under WP:SPADE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask you, NYB, no matter what people think of an editor or his subject, is there nowhere on Wikipedia where he can come and have a reasonable expectation of being treated with decency and fairness? —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I'd like to apologise - if I'd realised that letting editors know that you were having a look at the debate on Expert Withdrawal would result in 'playing to the crowd', I wouldn't have mentioned it. Sorry, I'll remember this one in future. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks. Much appreciated, especially at this particular time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
I really don't understand how one single 3RR incident in an otherwise peaceful area of Estonian related topics could be escalated into the the application of discretionary sanctions spanning the whole East European topic area. You objected to the application of discretionary sanctions in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu/Proposed_decision because it was not widely canvassed, yet here we have a "Request for clarification" transformed into a "Request to amend a prior case" without any real input from the wider community until I had notified a handful of editors who subsequently gave their views. What's changed? If this change is "so as to conform the rules for discretionary sanctions in this area to the ones we have developed in more recent cases", why is it being varied by the omission of Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles and omission of clear scope, which formed an integral part of the more recent cases? Martintg (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I think you are right, at least about the lack of clarity to the proposal which may bear on the need for it. I've withdrawn my support for now pending some further discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Neferka
Hi. I need your help. There re no ways I can reference the article above at this time, but it is a BLP. However, the person in question is an ancient Egyptian pharaoh. Should I add anyways? Valtoras (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question. "BLP" actually stands for "biographies of living persons", where our standards for accuracy and citation need to be extra careful because of what we write could affect the person's life. The BLP policy therefore would not apply to an ancient Egyptian pharoah, who would obviously no longer be alive. However, you can feel free to add an "unreferenced" or "stub" tag if you believe the article warrants it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. I forgot about the living part of BLP. :D Thanks, Brad! Valtoras (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Source followup
Hiya, regarding your request at Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop, I was wondering if you were able to successfully track down the sources that you wanted? I have one of them, Schein's article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos" available as a PDF, and if you would like, I would be happy to forward it to you. Or if there's any other information that I can provide, please let me know. I and many of the other individuals involved with this case are anxious to see it move forward, as we're getting pretty frustrated with edit-warring with PHG all over the place. :/ If there's anything else I can provide, to help move things along, please don't hesitate to ask. :) --Elonka 22:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. One of the other arbitrators was going to do some spot-checking of the sources this weekend, as my wiki-arb-time has been pretty much tied up in the Mantanmoreland case and its fallout, but I will probably do some follow-up checking during the week. The ball's in our court but I hope there will be a proposed decision posted shortly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and if the other arb would like the PDF, let me know. :) --Elonka 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to e-mail it to our mailing list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. :) --Elonka 23:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Neil will understand the reference
He did - it made me smile. Thanks Brad. Neıl ☎  18:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm disappointed I'm living down to your expectations. :( Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a pessimist, so am rarely disappointed. You should try it! Neıl ☎  09:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice Sought
Newyorkbrad, I'd like to ask a question about policy. Suppose that an article is under probation and an edit war breaks out, and an admin has made one of the reverts that is part of that edit war. Is there a prohibition on that admin ending the war with a revert to the version s/he preferred, and then adding full protection? I know that revert-and-protect is controversial and generally to be avoided - although it would be OK if the issue over which the war is being fought had BLP problems - but is there any actual prohibition, or does it always come down to a judgement call? Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Protection policy for the policy on this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, then I'd like to ask you to have a look at a revert-and-protect made by John Vandenberg on the Matt Sanchez page. There has been a discussion recently about which image to use with the lead - a head shot which has been extracted from a larger photo of him in camoflage fatigues sitting in a chopper, and his US Government produced Marine Dress Blue portrait. Those opposing the latter (who, in the interests of disclosure, include me) are objecting on POV grounds. Those opposing the former correctly note that the resolution is dreadful. The sequence of actions was:


 * 0354 28Feb, Benjiboi changed the full chopper picture to just the head shot
 * 0140 29Feb, Cholga changes the picture to the Dress Blues image
 * 0311 29Feb, Benjiboi changes the picture back to the head shot
 * 0342 29Feb, John Vandenberg changes the picture back to the Dress Blues image
 * 0347 29Feb, John Vandenberg initiated a talk page discussion
 * 0536 29Feb, AllstarEcho changes the picture back to the head shot
 * 0001 1Mar, Durova changes the picture back to the Dress Blues image
 * 0018 1Mar, Benjiboi changes the picture back to the head shot
 * 0028 1Mar, John Vandenberg changes the picture back to the Dress Blues image
 * 0029 1Mar, John Vandenberg fully protects the page for 1 month
 * 0037 1Mar, John Vandenberg posts in the the talk page thread he initiated about the revert and protect

Newyorkbrad, I am asking you to review this situation for two reasons. Firstly, because I want an unbiased outside view as to the policy issue here - is this revert-and-protect an acceptable application of policy. Secondly, I want a rapid resolution that will be accepted and respected - posting at AN/I will not help because it will either get admins circling the wagons or whole lot of opinions. John has acknowledged that way he has done is controversial, so I am not looking for some sort of nasty sanction - and some people are looking for that, with one having said "at least there's now a history of this abuse. That will be helpful down the line"; what I want is a resolution of whether this reversion should stand. John has expressed a clear view on the content at issue - and this is a content dispute - but the tool use can lead us in directions we don't want to go. I would appreciate any thoughts or actions you deem appropriate. I will notify John of this post in a minute or two. Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Mikkalai replied to you accepting the arbitration case. =/ Just letting you know since he's comment was directed towards you. Regards, — Save_Us  †  07:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

O Rly?
And just where did you get the idea you were allowed to have a real life? ;-) Risker (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Only kidding, indeed my RL today kept me from working on some of the info bainer asked for; I hope to have something for later tonight. - Risker

Vandalism trouble
Well Mcburney is doing malicious edits to Sarah Natochenny article & i need your help to sort out the trouble. And if i request of you to reply to my page please & thanks Richardson j (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk as requested. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well i notice on the latest edit summary Mcburney put there “The idiot richardson writes lies” which concerns me.

I also message him my concerns about it alongside a welcome message. Richardson j (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates. This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thrice
In a trice! That's nice! O-o --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

On pop culture
I just read your comment on the episodes thingie. Actually I've changed my thinking on this recently (not unusual--I tend to flop all over the place on deletion-inclusion):
 * Articles for deletion/List of Honorverse characters

I nominated it because it was the largest character list on the wiki (and actually, one of our largest articles) but comprised mostly minor characters.

I was impressed by the sheer intensity, which obviously wasn't manufactured, of the feeling that even a compendious list of characters in a relatively obscure story sequence had a place of Wikipedia. Since my notions of inclusion are pretty much compatible with that and my instincts for deletion are merely directed towards keeping the wiki from filling up with stuff that cannot be maintained, I was happy to see it kept. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Point-by-point voting
Yes, I'm in favor of having a vote now. I doubt that I'm going to get another chance at this any time soon, considering the new appeal limitation. Everyking (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt's oppose rationale
I'm pretty sure I would not give it any weight were I a 'crat. Cheers,  Dloh cierekim'''  03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the bureaucrats pretty much ignore opposes with grounds as weak as these. My greater concern is that they are pointlessly demoralizing to the candidates and future administrators. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am surprised at the dismisissiveness you adopted regarding Kurt's regular opposes. It seems out of character.  --Iamunknown 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision
Newyorkbrad, I see you are currently opposed to closing this case and I would appreciate it if the arbitrators could further examine the case. I do not believe the dispute concerns just television episodes and television characters, but also videogame characters and perhaps D&D characters. TTN has not many any edits since February 25. If TTN has "left the building", I think restricting TTN will do little to prevent edit-warring by other parties, one of whom has said they will act as a proxy for TTN. I urge the committee to examine the behavior of the other parties. If further edit-warring does occur, would it be appropriate to list it at AN/I or at WP:RFAR? I would appreciate it if the committee could designate an area for the parties to "develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." (perhaps WT:EPISODE, WT:FICT, WT:WAF or a separate case page), instead of splintered discussions taking place, like on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes for example. Thank you for your time. --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I echo Pixel's call that the committee point to a specific place to discuss these issues. I believe the most appropriate place is the newly created Fiction/Noticeboard.  I believe the time has come to close the case.  Perhaps you could just change your vote to support the closure and then point editors to the Noticeboard as an extremely appropriate place to enter centralized discussions and work these issues out.  Ursasapien (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your work on this problem has been quite good. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
Hey, NYB! I haven't seen you in a while... I hope you're doing well! &asymp; Mi nd st or ms Kid  19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine, thanks, although a little bit in the doghouse with some people at the moment because of a proposed decision I recently posted in an arbitration case. (I'll be posting some clarifications tonight.) It is good to see you back here; I hadn't seen you edit for awhile and was afraid we'd lost you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, I saw a reference to a Wikiproject that might interest you. Ask me about it on IRC when you next see me there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are in the dog house. The proposal was good in many ways.  With a few tweaks it can be acceptable.  You need to (1) make sure not to gut the duck test for sock puppetry, and (2) explain why ArbCom chooses not to make a finding with regard to sock puppetry. (I am confident the community will resolve that issue in short order.) Jehochman  Talk 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm here to say "hi" as well. :) *Cremepuff 222*  00:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The/Sandbox/Analysis/Naked short selling
I've decided that the only way to get to the bottom of the claims of tendentious editing on naked short selling is to laboriously examine every single edit ever made to the article, with occasional references to the comments on the talk page. The results of my plodding work may be seen at the link above, and I hope that it will be of some use to the committee in the Mantanmoreland case.

I don't know how it will work out yet (it's a bit like watching a very boring soap opera in which something significant might just happen at any moment. You might like to "tune in" and see how it's going.  So far I'm up to the immediate aftermath of the late January, 2006 rewrite of the article.  Splash has just semiprotected the article to stop persistent massive undiscussed changes by an an anon IP who won't discuss stuff on the talk page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well?
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The arbs have a lot to do and I'm sure are giving the case its fair share of attention. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for us to discuss the issue on IRC? Mediawiki is too restrictive. Do reply, a yes/no alone would suffice. -- Cat chi? 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've posted some thoughts on the proposed decision talkpage which might help you understand my overall views on the matter. You can respond there and other arbitrators will also see it. I'm afraid the committee doesn't see a sufficient basis for any action based on your evidence against Jack Merridew, but hopefully there will be no further problems in that regard. I'll be glad to chat sometime when we are both online. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mediawiki is too restrictive"? CABAL SPOTTED! Activate emergency procedures! Jouster  (  whisper  ) 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mediawiki software is not a real-time discussion environment unlike IRC. People have never been required to discuss everything on a publicly accessible venue either. Furthermore I could care less if the IRC logs are posted publicly. Your accusation of a cabal is ridiculous. -- Cat chi? 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not my intention to make arbcom make content related decisions. I'd like to discuss with you on measures to prevent further disruption in regards to episode and character related articles. The proposed remedies by arbcom have not succeeded in resolving everything. If my logic is logical/useful, you could perhaps filter it and relay it to the arbitration committee mailinglist or some other median. You could also disregard it all completely but if you do I would prefer to know why. -- Cat chi? 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

he he he
Yes, I did write that from the wrong account. Well, I'd told Dmcdevit but I guess the one or two people paying attention to the arbitration case will also figure it out. Oh well... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was just ironic in that context is all. Personally I don't see any issue at all. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Clinton or Obama?
Hello Newyorkbrad. How are you? Let me ask you a question: Are you supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? I am not an American. However, I am very interested in the 2008 presidential election. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * O_O LO. Who says he's even a Democrat? Even though many New Yorker's are and NY has not voted Republican since Reagon. By the way, I doubt NYB will comment on his political views. -- R Talk Contribs@ 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Clinton '08!
 * Brad, while you're at it, please also provide your views on abortion, capital punishment, stem cell research, gay marriage, the American troop presence in Iraq, firearm legislation, and government-funded vs. private health care. :) MastCell Talk 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Single sex education, autism and vaccines, type I diabetes research, gene therapy, extortionate legal fee arrangements, Big Oil, global warming, Gates Foundation vs. WHO in malaria research, and... (all from the last two weeks worth of news in your home paper of record, the NY Times!) Avruch  T 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This has turned into a Billy Joel song. Lawrence §  t / e  21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...we didn't start the fire....  Great.  Now I'll be singing that all day.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll answer all these questions sometime when there are no pending arbitration cases. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ". . .no pending arbitration cases." what a beautiful idea, I look forward to the day. . . R. Baley (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The caseload is actually low right now by historical standards, so it could happen, and I'll be taking a case or two into voting this weekend unless someone beats me. (I had resolved after last week not to write any more decisions for awhile, but that seems not to have stuck.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wish (at times) people would realize they were on the same side (the 'pedia) even though there are differences as to how they think it should look to the outside world. When animosity runs high, people make themselves more vulnerable to exploitation by outside influences.  But, perhaps my view is skewed at the moment, it's a big place and there are plenty of areas where editors get along just fine.  R. Baley (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. When you hang out near the fire, it feels hot and you might get burned. Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So stay cool, man! <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm fine. I read back over my comment and thought it might be construed as flippant, just wanted to make clear that I was sincere.  R. Baley (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I didn't read it as flippant. Stay cool was just a joking corollary to "If you hang near the fire, it gets hot!" which I meant to mean... If you involve yourself in areas and issues which are controversial and sometimes acrimonious, then that will be the flavor of your Wikisperience ;-) <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 22:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ED DRV
Well said. Will (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point nearly swayed me when I read this, despite the fact I try to be a stickler for NPOV, no matter how annoying it can be. I'm sorry. Lawrence §  t / e  22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad, I know you don't mean personally you. But the whole line of thinking is totally unsound and counterproductive. We're not taking a stand against the harassment by suppressing articles like ED. If anything, we're empowering them. The whole mighty Wikipedia community is tying itself into knots to try to find a principle under which webcruft by people we like (i.e. Uncyclopedia) gets articles, and comparably important webcruft from people we don't like doesn't. By electing to treat them differently than other stuff of the same kind, we're confirming that they're important (at least to us) and we're proving their point that the content of the encyclopedia is dependent on our emotions and biases. How this helps us is beyond me. Zocky | picture popups 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. As I said in my comment on the DRV, this is a rather extreme situation. Mine is one of many comments among dozens&mdash;perhaps hundreds, before the discussion is over&mdash;and we will see what others say and where the consensus winds up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, two things and I'm done. First, the Wikipedia vs. ED story isn't extreme. A million dead Iraqis is extreme. This is just another online spat in which one side has behaved somewhat more obnoxiously than is the norm, and it looks important to us only because we're involved. If anything, "extreme" would be a good argument for having an article about something. And second, you do realize that after the last ArbCom election, your voice is not just one among hundreds, right? Zocky | picture popups 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, teasing or harassment on a website does not have the same real-world importance as a war or anything else. My only point was that in deciding what content to include on Wikipedia, I think it's reasonable to give some, limited consideration to the effect of inclusion on Wikipedians qua Wikipedians. By that standard, the site in question is considered by some to be extreme.
 * To your last point, thanks, and yes, I'm aware that mine has become a prominent voice within the community. In many ways, the results of my RfA a year back and then my ArbCom bid are of course enormously gratifying and flattering, and I again thank each and every user who put me in these positions. But I don't purport to pretend that this entitles my comments anywhere to more consideration than any other user's. (As it happens, it doesn't entitle me to any special consideration even on the arbitration pages: since my term started on January 1, I've probably been outvoted more than any other arbitrator on the decisions on the various cases.) Nonetheless, I will bear your points in mind. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom
Hi. On the 2nd, you voted oppose to closing the Episode and Characters ArbCom case at Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision, saying you wanted to wait a day or two for comments to be considered. That time has now passed. Can you update your vote to note if say if you still oppose or if you now support? Collectonian (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have offered some thoughts since I wrote that, on the proposed decision talkpage. I will take a final look and then probably vote to close in the morning. Thanks for the reminder. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DC Meetup on May 17th
Your help is needed in planning Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for signing my autograph book! For that you get the following invitation :) <font face="Futura Lt BT" size="3"> Diligent Terrier and friends 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

IRC
Can we please talk on IRC? -- Cat chi? 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyking request for clarification
Hi Brad, just a reminder that the Everyking request for clarification awaits a motion or other dispensation (from your comment on March 5th I think). Thanks, <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 16:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Actually, I'm well aware this is still pending, but there are reasons I want to wait a couple more days, plus this afternoon/evening I have at least two decisions to draft. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary procedure
Your comment on my question at User_talk:Obuibo_Mbstpo would be welcome. We have a lot of issues to discuss, as mentioned on the AfD page, but we need to take it somewhere else, and I am not sure where, exactly. Neutron (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it tomorrow. I also signed on the Project Parliamentary Procedure page. This is good timing because, as I said, I was just remarking last week on WP:RfAr that we need to develop these articles. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Weber's RFA opposals
Hi Brad. I did a quick CTRL-F of the RFA page as well as those of the last couple of weeks and found your only recent RFA edits (as opposed to RFB) have been to say (something along the lines of) "Kurt's oppose rational is worthless and should be completely disregarded". Now, I appreciate you dislike Kurt's opposals, and believe them to have no substance. They do have substance, it's just a lot of people dislike the reasoning, even though such reasoning does exist, and Kurt's provided that to two RFCs on this topic in the past.

But whether or not Kurt's opposals have any merit is a judgement the closing bureaucrats have been deemed well-capable of making, and I think someone in your position should be setting an example and not solely contributing to RFAs in order to dismiss Kurt's opposes. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * His rationale for doing so was included in one of the more recent RfAs - that he thought candidates should be aware that Kurt's opposes were disregarded, so they didn't feel bad or take it too seriously. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, my concern is for the RfA candidates. As we all know, it's a stressful enough process without unnecessary opposition based on nothing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a "support" with a note that Kurt's oppose has no merit in your view would be more constructive? I realise we have standards on not biting newbies and all, but by the time an editor is at RFA they aren't newbies - they should be entirely capable of dealing with an apparently facetious oppose vote. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad shouldn't be supporting just because he disagrees with one of the opposes and wishes to counteract it (even if he tried, 1 oppose = 4 supports), he should be supporting because he believes the candidate would make a good administrator. GlassCobra 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Kurt's "prima facie" opposes are "facetious." I do believe they are destructive and damaging. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All opposes are damaging to some extent (even "constructive" ones). Perhaps facetious was the wrong word - you've used "worthless" and "groundless". <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "without substance" was supposed to be the basic formula. Perhaps I slipped up a couple of times. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking
This latest edit I think demonstrates the wiki-stalking tendency best. -- Cat chi? 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand that edit at all. Have you asked the user what it means? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I recently attempted moving the gallery at Depiction of Jesus to commons on 11:02, 10 March 2008. There was one image (Image:Divine_Mercy_%28Adolf_Hyla_painting%292007-08-16.jpg) licensed under fair-use in the gallery which was not commons compatible so I did not carry it to commons and removed it from the gallery of images. I further removed the fair use rationale from the image description page as it was no longer needed on 10:58, 10 March 2008.
 * Jack Merridew reported my edits to User:Johnbod on 11:32, 10 March 2008. That is 34 minutes after I edited the image and 30 minutes after I edited the article.
 * How did he know? Aside from him (Jack Merridew) stalking, I cannot think of a logical explanation.
 * -- Cat chi? 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mantanmoreland RfAr -- Thanks
I appreciate your posts about reading the comments, and I appreciated your earlier explanation of your thinking. Noroton (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your appreciation is ... appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail
Hi Newyorkbrad, I thought you may want to know that I've sent an E-mail. Thanks. Acalamari 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded. Thanks, Newyorkbrad. Acalamari 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez Image Issue
Hi, Newyorkbrad. You might be interested to learn that issue around which image to use with the lead of the MS article has been resolved. I am disappointed that you did not choose to respond to the question I asked about admin action here, as I thought that a revert-and-fully protect (for a month) by an (arguably) involved admin - and ArbCom Clerk-in-training - at least deserved some comment. As I respect your opinion, I would have been satisfied if you had said that the action did not cross the line, or that the action was fine, or that a warning 'that was unwise' - or if you had followed any other option that you believed was appropriate. I realise that MM has taken a lot of time, but I was disappointed to receive no response at all. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC) My original decision to post here was because I didn't want to case a big scene by raising it at AN/I, but I did want an outside perspective that I respected to help me to better understand what is acceptable administrative action. Whilst the issue that prompted the query has been resolved, my question has not. I wanted to know two things: (1) is my interpretation that John was 'involved' in the issue in which he acted to revert-and-protect reasonable? (2) was revert-and-protect (as opposed to protection on the wrong version) appropriate and acceptable in the circumstance described? I am not looking for some sort of sanction against John - although I am sure that others are, in light of the article talk page comment that as long as it's in the history that it was the wrong thing to do (having already described the actionas foul and [an] abuse of tools) - but I would like to know whether I have misunderstood where the line is in cases such as this. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I missed responding to your question on that matter. I do my best to respond to every question and comment posted on this page, so it is fairly uncharacteristic of me to miss one, and I am sorry it was yours.
 * For what it is worth, in addition to my activities on the Mantanmoreland case (including reading tens of thousands of words, writing my lengthy comments on proposed decision talk, studying new evidence some of which has affected my view of the case which I think is something you would agree is a high priority, and drafting some additions to the decision that you will have seen), I have also read up some of the original sources, studied the evidence and proposals, and drafted the proposed decision in in the Franco-Mongol Alliance case, I have studied whether to make additional proposals in the Episodes and Characters 2 case and the Highways 2 case, I have read and voted on (or am about to vote on) whether to accept new requests for arbitration such as Betacommandbot, I have made several comments in the "Requests for clarification" section on WP:RfAr, I have dealt with various issues arising on the ArbCom's mailing list, and I have done some ordinary administrator and editor actions as well such as trying to give some thoughts to a new wikiproject and copyediting an FAC candidate. So again, I really am sorry to have missed your question, but I'd hate for some passer-by on this page to think I'm some sort of a wiki-slacker or something. :)
 * Most important, I'm glad the problem you refer to has now been resolved. If it flares up again, please feel free to let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't for a moment believe you are any sort of wiki-slacker! In fact, it is evident that you devote an extremely large amout of time and effort to Wikipedia.  In the midst of all the criticism that inevitably comes with your position - and the inevitable fallout from any approach to defusing the ticking time-bomb that was and is the MM case - it is easy for editors to fail to register their appreciation for all your hard work.  I chose to leave the message until archiving, and to only send a reminder email, as I realise that my question was not nearly as urgent or important as some of the other work you describe.
 * It's late here and I need to go to bed, but I will respond to your question tomorrow. I really will this time, too. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and on reviewing your old post I now recall why I never answered it: You had indicated that you were letting John Vandenberg know that you are posting the inquiry, so I put the matter aside waiting for him to respond to the thread, and then he never did. With regard to the general issue, it generally is not appropriate for an administrator to revert to his own favored version of a page in a content dispute and later protect the page on that version. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, such as if the administrator was redressing a BLP violation, the same action might be acceptable and even praiseworthy. Therefore, I would want to obtain John's explanation of why he applied the protection as he did&mdash;I try not to guess at another editor's motivations without asking him or her first&mdash;except that since the matter occurred several days ago, it is likely moot. If you believe this administrator has a record of inappropriate protections in a series of incidents, I recommend that you raise the matter with him. Otherwise, it probably would best be dropped at this point. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir
Do you mind succinctly explaining to me why Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would, but I don't know anything more than I've read second-hand. If you are referring to his original ban, that resulted from an arbitration case that took place well before I started participating on Wikipedia. If you are referring to his being blocked again within the past few days, I have stayed away from the matter so I can review it impartially in case it comes before the Arbitration Committee, but I think you can get a sense of the concerns from reading through his last few contributions and the recent history of his talkpage. Hope this helps; sorry I can't be more informative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * NYB, you know you need a wiki-break when you take to sleep editing! :P Jay*Jay (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help. I am only interested in the current ban. Since you approved of it, I tough you knew the reason for it. Cheers--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your basis for saying that I approved of it? To the best of my recollection I had nothing to with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Trouble in paradise
would you please be so kind as to inform warn this editor that such comments are inflammatory, unnecessary, and very likely to cause trouble and resentment. Perhaps there needs to be a course to train Admins? Thank you. Giano (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could first have a word with Giano about the disruptive effects of sniping at admins who are trying to deal with a long-term disruptive editor who blew his unpteenth final chance and has now taken to socvkpuppetry, and how very likely to cause trouble and resentment. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS In the mist of Giano's trademark sarcasm, it can be hard to grasp precisely what his complaints are, but in this case it appears that Giano's substantive contribution to the discussion appears to be that the edits by the numerous sockpuppets of Vintagekits are being reverted per BAN. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As you very well know, your solution to this problem is going to escelate problems considerably. Pointing out this, is not trolling, but an attempt to avoid further disruption. Giano (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think that the response to a banned sockpuppeteer should be to allow them to continue to evade their ban, I suggest that you open an RfAR or try to get policy changed. You previously insisted at great length that if Vk was given a chance, he'd behave himself, yet he abused that chance by sockpuppeteering, including by multiple voting for you at the arbcom election.  If you do actually want to resolve problems rather than escalating them, it would be more persuasive if your response was not always to jump in to try to facilitate Vintagekits's evasion of the norms of conduct which apply on wikipedia.
 * I have yet to see any acknowledgement from you that Vk's sockpuppeteering has been disruptive and contrary to policy, and as long as you continue to remain silent on that point but quick to criticise the admins enforcing policy, then trolling seems to me like an appropriate description. I note, BTW, that it's not just the admins in this area who are wrong, but that ArbCom is also denounced by you for its "errors and stupidity". Very civil, indeed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad, would you please warn the above "admin" such comments as this on my page are completely inacceptable . I did warn that this was the sort of thing that would happen. I won't reply to her myself, for a while, to give you chance to sort it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, Giano, what's your complaint? You are of course quite entitled to disagree with an enforcement request, but if it's made, then Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement says "Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BrownHairedGirl, I think Giano is referring to the filing of the AE request, not to the notification - although I recognise that Giano's question is open to interpretation. As for the AE request, the response to it so far shows it is unlikely to go anywhere.  Personally, I would say it is more frivilous that some of the recent ScienceApologist requests, and I would suggest you consider withdrawing it. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting change from the times when I would approach Giano seeking to calm a situation and he would tell me that my meddlesomeness was unwelcome....

Use of terms like "trolling" has never helped resolve a problem in any situation that I can recall, and I doubt very much that this will be the first time. To be fair, Giano expects others to have a thick skin, and I suppose it may be tempting to suppose that he should be willing to take what he gives in the way of unvarnished language and characterizations&mdash;but this situation like many others calls for calm speech and moderation of tone, especially from administrators and other experienced users. I see no reason to believe that Giano is proceeding in anything other than good faith in asserting his personal view that administrators are mishandling the current situation.

Policy is that edits from sockpuppets of blocked or banned users may be reverted. "May" is not "must", and common sense should be used in this as in all other wiki-matters. I have not reviewed this particular series of edits but if, for example, a blocked user saw the spelling "teh" and changed it to "the", it would be foolish to revert it for the sake of reverting it. On the other hand, if an individual is rightfully banned, we do not want to encourage him or her to sneak around the ban, and allowing too many substantive edits to stand can have the effect of doing so. Although it is not written down anywhere, the reason for the ban and seriousness of the user's violations that led to it can also be relevant.

The real substance of the dispute, it seems to me, is whether Vintagekits should be allowed to edit (subject to appropriate restrictions), or whether his current indefinite block should remain in place given his admitted multiple sockpuppetry during and after the arbitration case. On this I express no present view because the matter may again come before the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Well, this is an interesting change from the times when I would approach Giano seeking to calm a situation and he would tell me that my meddlesomeness was unwelcome" Have no fear Brad, it won't happen again, I only asked you this time because of the intolerable position you and you colleagues have placed me in, but if that's how you and the admins want it so be it. This afternoon's disruption is only a hint of what is undoubtedly to come, and why I initially decided to stop editing. As I have said many time this situation is doubtless the Arbcom's intention. I see there are further comments about me on BHG's page (I don't use the term Troll) you may define that one as you wish. Not that I'm expecting a brave comment on that edit, I expect he is an admin. Having seem now from yourself and Flo that the Arbs do not intend to remedy this deplorable situation, I am left with no alternative but to address it myself. I shan't be bothering you again. Giano (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No no, you are free to approach me about any situation you wish and I will do my best to address it; forgive me a brief moment of reminiscence there. As for the "deplorable situation," if you are referring to the "civility restriction" I believe you are aware that I opposed it, which is not to say that I wouldn't appreciate greater civility from just about everyone as a general proposition. I should not speak for my other colleagues on the committee, but I am sure that their intention was not that you should stop editing, either. As for the matter of Vintagekits, perhaps the issue should be presented either to a noticeboard or to the committee directly, rather than being dealt with in the present manner. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests
Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Commenting there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck. You'll need it. As well as infinite patience, and probably a bunch of straitjackets, as well. If you look at the amount of work these editors have required (only in # of enforcements alone, never mind the # of clashes that don't get reported), you'll understand why most admins who've tried to keep these two factions from tearing each other's throats out are completely, totally, and utterly burned out. SirFozzie (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the only issue I was commenting on in this instance was whether there should be a separate enforcement page or not. I do appreciate how little fun the Arbitration Enforcement and related tasks can be, in the regional/nationalistic/ethnic dispute cases among others, and I appreciate the contributions of everyone who tries to help out in these difficult areas. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the squabbling on that page, there are only 10 logged enforcement requests in 4 months. Look in the WP:AE archives and count the Armenia-Azeri complaints or the ScienceApologist/Martinphi complaints. I'm sure there is anything all that unusual here. And of course any admin who wants to help out at AE once or routinely is welcome. Thatcher 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PHG
Hi Newyokbrad. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Arangar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis. Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as ). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses ). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards PHG (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Brad. I've just been reading through the discussion about this page and it seems to be a red herring to me. PHG created an article about a papal bull which he called Viam agnoscere veritatis. There seems to be a lack of sources that confirm that this particular document is know by this name although those words are included in its opening. In response, a disambiguation page was created (Viam agnoscere veritatis (disambiguation)) listing other letters that also contained those words in their opening. PHG disputes that these letter are known by that title. I think Adam Bishop's comments here are the most significant - he points out that this phrase is fairly commonly used in such correspondence and that he doesn't think any of the letters should be known by this title. I see little bad faith by anybody there- the only problems are some rather aggressive comments by PHG - bolding words like "untrue", "false statement" etc. and the problem that the original title may well be based on some fairly selective source citation and given the decision that is to pass, one must question PHG's reliability here. I will try and start a discussion about a better title for the article, but I don't think this has much bearing on the case. Regards, WjBscribe 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for an update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will review the discussion and comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If I May, Regarding Betacommand
Your statement was appreciated, but a bit mystifying as well. With all due respect, the community has tried, repeatedly, and completely without success, to deal with BC's chronic incivility. Unfortunately, there are several other editors that defend even the basest of this incivility, chalking it up to his responding to pressure and "trolling." At some point, at least this issue (if no other one) must be dealt with, and preferably sooner than later. How long is too long? How long until you and FT2 could be convinced that the time has come? Bellwether B  C  22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad, I hope you know the respect that I have for you, both personally for the work that you do here. It's not easy for me to tell you that I'm disappointed in your statement.  I truly feel that the time has passed for the Committee to deal with the Betacommand issues.  This is not going to get better with time.  In fact, it's only getting worse.  Tempers are flaring on all sides, and rather than dying down, these flames are getting whipped up.  We need a calming influence, and I'm afraid it's past the point where a single person can do it, and to the point where the committee needs to get involved.  Short of Jimmy or perhaps yourself, I don't see that any one person can calm this situation down.  I strongly urge you to reconsider and move toward accepting the arbitration case.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think his comments are spot on, and that the Betacommand element of this dispute is on a decline. As Betacommand and the other bot operators continue to make slow progress towards the steps that folks have requested - splitting the bot, allowing other operators to perform the 10c functions etc. - this will continue. By itself, the Betacommand civility issues simply do not require ArbCom intervention and as the other problems wend towards resolution ArbCom involvement becomes less and less useful. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom deals with civility issues from time to time. BC's are extensive enough, I feel they merit their attention. He has enough defenders in the community, that I don't think anything will be done about his incivility from just the community. I'm not angling to get him blocked, but I feel nothing less than an official arbcom sanction (basically, a resolution saying "Cut the crap!") will reach him. Bellwether B  C  01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I said I was holding off on voting to accept the case in the hope that the situation improved. I meant in the very near future. Requests stay pending for 10 days and I will take a close look at any progress or regress before that period expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said at the page (I think it was), I'm sure BC will "play nice" until this arbcom goes away. Bellwether B  C  01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If he plays nice indefinitely, that would be very satisfactory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the thing: I'm 100% sure he won't. And arbcom not dealing with it now will just give him more of feeling of invincibility. Bellwether B  C  01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

One point I would like to respond to: "[Betacommand] continues to take the lead in image patrolling work day-in and day-out". It should be noted that it is admins patrolling the image deletion categories that do the real work, and that Betacommand's bot is actually lining up a limited subset of the non-compliant images for review (his bot misses a huge number of non-compliant images - please ask if this is not clear to you). I would like to point out that others (notably Wikidemo at Non-free content criteria/legacy image proposal, CBM at Non-free content criteria/Proposal, and me at Non-free content criteria compliance) have tried to take a similar lead. There may also be others. The trouble tends to be that (a) it is difficult to change people once they are set on their course; and (b) that Betacommand (and others) use bots, and if you don't have the ear of a friendly bot programmer, it can be difficult to really make an impact in this area. Just something to bear in mind when considering why it looks like Betacommand does most of the work. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's an old saying that the referee or umpire at a sporting event does the best job when nobody notices that he is there. Perhaps the same is true of image patrollers as well: the ones who do the job unobtrusively and well and maintain good relations with contributors are less prominent than those who adopt a different style (or perhaps deal with a more high-profile aspect of the image work). I'm continuing to keep an eye on this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. BTW, is there a general expectation that Betacommand should maybe say more than he has so far? Currently just a response to one of the statements. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be pleased to see a statement from him acknowledging the issues, but he has made such statements before. The key is improved behavior, both in the near term and in the long term. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You!
You, sir, are a fantastic editor and administrator. Congratulations on your move to ArbCom. Keep doing what you're doing. - JNighthawk (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd situation
As an uninvolved administrator who is familiar with User:Abd and the peculiar Delegable proxy proposal, could you please look at User:Abd/Pre-arbitration/Whig and provide feedback on whether it is appropriate to conduct such experiments. This does not seem to be within the stated purposes of Wikipedia, and I am concerned that this may be creative disruption, a form of retaliation for my involvement in that prior matter. Jehochman Talk 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page several several times that the procedure may be used "as long as all the parties consent." Perhaps if you simply express the view that this is not a viable way to resolve this particular dispute, since it involves community sanctions rather than a dispute between particular editors or administrators, that might resolve the issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Close motion in MM
I just dropped by to mention to you one of the highs and lows of the MM case. I noticed that FT2 took some action following my first suggestion, and had also proposed a new version of the impact of dispute finding of fact (finding 3.2). I was really pleased - irrespective of his motivation, it was a positive move that seemed to respond to some of the community-raised concerns - and I went straight to his talk page to say 'thanks'. Then I went back to the case page, and found it now has four motions to close - two made after FT2's new finding was proposed. No one has made any comment on it. Just that fast, the 'high' crashed to the realisation that hoping any actual movement would occur was foolishly optimistic. I recognise that you may not have noticed the proposal, and that there is something slightly irrational in the fact that you being one of the additional closers makes me feel worse about it - but that is the situation. Maybe it is the fact that I want to have confidence in ArbCom, but am so doubtful about the judgment of some of its members - disappointment (even inadvertent) as a result of an action from one of the members who is so manifestly trying to act in the best interests of the community just hurts. I'm not really sure exactly what I am trying to say - maybe I am just disillusioned. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I intend to vote on FT2's new finding; I fit it a bit too melodramatic for my taste, and likely to stir up more disputes as to who or what precisely is being referred to in each of the clauses, but I will certainly attend to it.


 * I don't see the basis for your assertion that the decision has not evolved in response in part to community concerns expressed in the case. From my the framework of the original proposed decision that I posted two weeks ago today, we have added the topic ban for Mantanmoreland (proposed by FloNight), and we have added the single-account and no-proxies limitation on Mantanmoreland (proposed by me). The committee decides cases based on their merits and the best interests of the encyclopedia and its contributors, not based on the number of people who express disagreements with a proposal (as I know from personal experience long before I was an arbitrator)&mdash;but input from interested editors in nonetheless critical, and is carefully considered. This input after I posted the decision, not the volume of comments in itself but the substance of several of them, was one of the many things that I considered in deciding that FloNight's proposal to add the topic ban as remedy 4 was meritorious and that I should proposed remedy 5 to enforce the topic ban. These remedies are, as you have seen, passing unanimously or virtually so.


 * To an extent, the substance of your proposed changes consists more of "wordsmithing" the proposed decision rather than changing what could be described as the bottom-line result or outcome of the case. In any arbitration decision, as with the documents that I write for my work in the real world, there is always more wordsmithing and crafting and polishing that could be done. For this reason, in many cases there is a trade-off between taking the time to propose more alternative wordings and to do more copyediting versus getting the case closed and providing some finality (granted that in this case, finality may not be destined to be achieved when the case closes), but that is a different discussion.


 * I know that my and the committee's approach to this case has been subject to a great deal of criticism, which the new remedy proposals have mollified to only a slight extent, but I don't think that being unresponsive to concerns about the wording of the particular finding in question is really a significant criticism. After thinking about the matter, I concluded that our potentially closing the case in the next couple of days rather made more sense than spending several more days honing the wording of proposed finding 3 versus 3.1 versus 3.2, which can be considered as a matter not of such importance as to warrant keeping the case open just for that reason. That is a matter of arbitrator discretion and if even a single arbitrator disagreed, he or she could request a delay in the closing until there was further discussion of the matter and this would surely be granted. I hope this explains my thoughts. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I really did wonder whether I should click 'save page' when I wrote the post above. Your response shows that I wasn't clear in what I was saying.  I was trying to communicate the impact the sequence of events had on me, how I felt as I saw a positive development, and then a move to close.  That having been said, let me try to respond to the comments you have made:


 * Yes, the decision has evolved, but it seems to me that it has done so in only one significant way - the topic ban for MM and the subsequently proposed limitations on proxies, etc. The former addresses the concern raised by Thatcher (IIRC) about MM denying a COI.  The latter makes some progress on Lar's concern.  I accept that you have carefully considered other comments and suggestions, as have other ArbCom members.  There has likely been further private discussion. But, consider it from the editors' perspective - the only real movement in position seems to flow from the criticism from an ArbCom clerk and a senior CU.  Any perception that the rest of the community don't matter may not be warranted, but there is little tangible evidence that contradicts such a perception.  I recognise that this may be unfair from your perspective, but just look at the present WP:AN thread and you will see plenty of comments indicating editors feeling that they have been ignored / disrespected / ...  I don't know what ArbCom can do about this, but it is an issue requiring urgent consideration because it is unermining confidence in ArbCom as an institution.  The nomination of WP:AC at MfD was POINTy, but also illustrates this lack of confidence.


 * Regarding my suggestions and 'wordsmithing', I recognise that you can polish a text for an almost indefinite period. I would not have bothered to make the suggestion if such had been my intent.  To be honest, it is frustrating that I seem to have comprehensively failed to communicate why I see the difference between 3 and 3.1 as so important - and not just to you; I am not sure if anyone except FT2 sees the point I am trying to make.  Perhaps it is ironic that I am getting a tiny taste of how you likely felt when viewing the response to your proposed decision.  I will make one last attempt:  my reading of 3 is that it talks of the articles, and suggests MM and WB have disrupted the community.  This is fine, so far as it goes, but it doesn't cover the damage done to others by admins who helped protect MM, the damage done by Jimbo as a consequence of his 'shoot on sight' comment, and the overall damage to the community from what can be seen as the suppression of unwelcome views.  I am not suggesting this was orchestrated, or that there was some conspiracy.  I am not suggesting that Durova, or Jimbo, or anyone else (excepting MM and WB) have acted in bad faith.  But, these things did happen, and like the situation of the stolen generation in Australia, or apartheid in South Africa, or the evente preceding the independence of East Timor, moving on requires a symbolic gesture that explicitly recognises that wrong-doings have occurred.  To me, 3.1 does this (or at least, it tries to) in a way that 3 does not.  I offered an alternative form because I saw 3.1 was unlikely to pass, and I believe that a symbolic gesture is necessary - and ArbCom can easily make such a gesture, but it is really hard for the community to do so.  FT2's 3.2 is another approach to compromise that includes a gesture and might gain sufficient Committee support.  If it were just about wording, I would agree with you that it is a poor basis for criticism.  But, to me it isn't about wording.  It is about facilitating community healing by recognising that wrongs have occurred and implicitly undertaking not to repeat them.  Maybe others don't share my view on the importance of such a gesture for promoting healing.  Maybe I am completely wrong - I don't know.  As I look at the banning debate on WP:AN, I see a community in pain over a wound that won't heal until the irritant is removed.  I fear that the wound will fester until a ban of MM and SH is enacted.  But what happens then?  Would a gesture of recognition help prevent the community to pick at the wound and delve into aspects of the past?  I don't know - I recognise the decision is meant to help draw a line and stop such a focus on the past.  I think it would have had a better chance of succeeding with a general finding recognising the harms that clearly extend beyond MM and WB.  Does this make any more sense?  Jay*Jay (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I understand all of your points, even if I do not agree with all of them. All have been carefully considered as a result of the numerous posts that have been made. Although the input from Thatcher and Lar was extremely relevant and important, I have read and considered every word that has been written on the case pages, and some of the posts have indeed affected my thinking. For example, I think that the "jihad" discussion that G-Dett posted on proposed decision talk was an important contribution, as I acknowledged in that section several days ago.
 * I emphathize with your current feelings. For more than a year before I was elected to the committee, I actively participated in making proposals on the workshops. Sometimes Fred Bauder and Kirill Lokshin (who between them drafted maybe 80% of the decisions in 2007) would adopt my proposals and sometimes they wouldn't, and there were plenty of times when I wanted to scream, "Come on, guys, my draft decision on the workshop is demonstrably better written and more sensible than the decision that is actually being adopted." (Requests for arbitration/Konstable is the canonical example.) Now that I am on the other side of the fence, it turns out the job is a little bit harder than it looks. Sometimes I can craft consensus wording that can be adopted unanimously and that resolves a problem, and then I can feel that my being a member of the committee has made a contribution to Wikipedia. Then there are other times like this case....
 * The executive summary of my feelings, I suppose, is that I would ask you and other members of the community not to mistake my (or other arbitrators') not having implemented one or your proposals or commented directly upon it as meaning that I or we have not carefully consider the issues presented and the community's comments regarding them.
 * Finally, although I consider Wikipedia to be important, and the Arbitration Committee to be important to Wikipedia, and this case to be an important one for the Arbitration Committee ... I would respectfully prefer that comparisons of a Wikipedia sockpuppetry dispute to "the situation of the stolen generation in Australia, or apartheid in South Africa, or the evente preceding the independence of East Timor" in connection to this or any other matter should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For supporting my unblock in spite of the fact that my disruption pretty much directly insulted you. That was very ... kind? I don't know, I can't think of the word right now (one of those times where you have a word on the tip of your tongue, bleh). Thank you. -- <font face="verdana" color="hotpink">Naerii · <font face="verdana" color="purple">plz create stuff  20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The job of arbitrator, which I ran for knowing pretty much what I was getting into, requires a thick skin. I hope my performance will merit kinder reviews in other cases. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear you were looking for me
Email's good. (work for seven more hours) SirFozzie (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I got an answer to the specific question I had yesterday from someone else. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"wikiconstitutional conundrum"
I predicted this very situation here:

My wording was maybe a bit melodramatic, but here we are. :( Lawrence  §  t / e  16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, my expectation was that Mantanmoreland would quietly just stop editing (he hadn't edited for over a week until this morning), rendering the issue moot.
 * I'm caught between a rock and hard place here, as the primary draftsman of the original decision in which I sought consensus, and as a supporter of the additional remedies that I hoped would increase it. At this point, the fact that there is more opposition to an indefinite block or community ban of Mantanmoreland than I had envisioned suggests that there is more support for the committee's view of the case than I had feared might exist (i.e., more than virtually none). So in the sense of my thinking that maybe my original view of the case was a sensible one, that is to the good. But the lack of community clarity that might prevent consensus from crystalizing around a ban may preserve and prolong the dispute, is to the bad.
 * At this point the path of least resistance for me would be to shrug my shoulders and be a good sport and say "all judges get reversed sometimes, and in this case maybe deservedly so," and move on to the next case. But paths of least resistance are not always to be followed. I will go silent for awhile now, and watch, and wait. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a very specific notion of what went completely wrong here, and it's directly related to the open nature of the arbitration cases. I need to get my thoughts in order. However, after the series of these I've been pulled into from people I've worked with (Jehochman led to the Durova case, Durova case to the IRC; my own waterboarding mess which led to Bluemarine, and finally this Mantanmoreland one via about half my watchlist) I'm convinced that running AC cases like an open Senate investigation is the root of all the evil drama problems. The notion that "everything under the sun" comes under scrutiny is the same problem as RFCs-- it turns immediately into an informational and emotional arms race, to see who can convince the arbs first. I need to draft up these thoughts. Also, take a gander at this, if you get a chance? Your feedback on the structure of what I'm thinking about here could be valuable, on that link. I might end up just deleting it, but this is on my mind now, and I want to see if it has legs to see what community mandates may exist that the AC would need to adopt. Lawrence  §  t / e  17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting point, but in this case, I think that while in some respects the committee has been criticized for focusing too broadly (e.g. on focusing not only Mantanmoreland's status but taking a much broader view to address the future of the articles), in other respects we have been criticized for focusing too narrowly (e.g. not examining in detail and ruling on the original handling of the situation when it first arose in 2006, though I made some allusions to that in my long personal statement on the proposed decision talkpage a few days ago). I will take a close look at your userspace draft tonight when I have a bit more time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More MM fallout
Brad, I'm curious to know if you are aware of the other piece of fallout from MM today - the block on Mackan79 made by Georgewilliamherbert because he "sounded like" WordBomb? Random's comment after the end of the related AN/I thread is telling, and I am disturbed that Mackan felt compelled to disclose his identity to 'prove' his innocence. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That all unfolded while I was either offline or asleep, but yes I am aware of it. It appears to have been a very poor block, and properly overturned, and is one of the rare cases where I would support a request that a developer physically expunge the block log. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep watching - I think this one has more to happen. GWH has still yet to acknowledge that he was wrong or offer an apology.  At least four editors have wondered about recall.  The "private" checkuser issue could well come up.  G-Dett's comments to Mackan are also interesting, as they point to the admin behaviour issue around MM that we have discussed previously.  As for the block log, at least the later one second block records that Mackan is innocent. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye, but Georgewilliamherbert seems not to have edited for several hours, so I anticipate that he may say something helpful when he returns, and hopefully there will be no further blocks of this nature. As a matter of disclosure in case there are any further developments in this matter, I was one of the people who nominated Georgewilliamherbert for adminship (based in part, ironically enough, in good work he had done on the unblock request mailing list). As it happens, the other night, I had to counsel someone else whom I nominated that it was not permissible for him to be reviewing and denying unblock appeals from his own blocks. I seem to be jinxed lately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Geez Brad, and I was thinking of hitting you up for a nomination ;-). No worries, I've noticed that anyone who nominates more than a handful of candidates has at least one turn out unexpectedly, and even good admins can pick up a bad habit or two.  Risker (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping for a really decent apology and mea culpa from George, which would certainly help to reduce the temperature. It's sad you are feeling jinxed, because I don't doubt that you did what you thought was appropriate in the circumstances.  I guess we all have to wait and see where this particular rabbit hole ultimately leads.  Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I live in hope, I'm not holding my breath. It seems that those who have delt with a lot of wb's disruption (and gwh has done as much as anyone) see everything in terms of wb/not wb.  I'm not surprized at the resistance to a ban, I said on the prop decision talk page that there was easily enough opposition to withhold community sanctions.  My issue is still the double standards afforded to some users, and the lenghths that are pressed to keep them.  I do feel bad for nyb who has taken the brunt of everyones frustration with this dispute, and hope that it doesn't sour you on the project.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as I wrote elsewhere, Alison and an Arbcom person contacted me indicating that they had evidence (which they didn't share in detail due to privacy and CU concerns, but described the type and depth of) that was pretty darn unambiguous that Mackan79 was someone else and that I'd made a mistake. I accept that I goofed, and I've apologized on Mackan79's talk page and on ANI.
 * Regarding the WB/not WB viewpoint... I don't think I fall into that trap. Clearly, on the current arbcom case, a large segment of the community are upset and forming a consensus.  While Byrne has commented publically and I do believe Bagley's in the wings on this, both participating, I am and have been acutely aware that the groundswell of community interest was legitimate concerns by Wikipedians in good standing.  Without entirely agreeing with that group of people, which includes Mackan79, and being somewhat concerned by the ongoing participation of people I'd rather see far from Wikipedia...  It's unambiguously true that the overwhelming majority of people who are upset are Wikipedians and not involved on or off wiki with Overstock.com or its staff, and that there are legitimate reasons for them to be concerned and upset about the sockpuppetry addressed in the Arbcom case.  This is not an us versus them, and to the extent that this situation played into that way of seeing things, what I did very regrettably made it worse.
 * I support any expunging of the block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Brad. I would actually appreciate having it expunged, though maybe this should wait for GWH's response. Either way, advice on where to request would be appreciated. Mackan79 (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As followup, I'd like to ask a developer about the blocklog issue. Do you know who I should ask?  I see a list here, but am not familiar with how to make a request.  Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me consult within the committee about this. There is precedent for such a request (see e.g. Requests for arbitration/Giano) and I would support it in this circumstance, but there is always concern about "opening the floodgates." I'll get back to you here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand that concern. Of course, the main problem is that those looking in the future won't be able to tell why the accusation was made or how it was refuted.  In light of the many statements and wide perception that this user has engaged in outrageous behavior, I think the basis for the request should be considered strong. Mackan79 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

related SamiHarris question
Before I go to bed... is there a CU being performed on the addy from which SH edited? If so and it is found it is still a proxy then I suggest that it is noted to SH the unblock will not be considered unless it is from a tracable ip. If it is a traceable ip now, and especially if it does not relate to the MM one, perhaps you may ask why they have decided to edit from this new type? G'night... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought of the same sort of thing, but I'm not a checkuser. You might want to post to the RfAr or another page for a check. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have an appointment with a pillow - I hope someone else picks up on this... oh, I've tried to make my original comment more comprehensible. Zzzzzzzzzz... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad, I can state here that Samiharris is still using proxies for all of his edits, including the aforementioned unblock requests - A l is o n  ❤ 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's both cool it
Let's both cool it--whatever the intent it's beginning to look like a shouting match. I don't know now if Luke would have taken my comment in good part or (as you seemed to believe) would have been inflamed by it, and of course now the thread of the discussion has been lost. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the point: I do know (well, suspect) how Luke would have taken your comment, and it would not have been a good thing. The community is just at the point of calming about this matter (a bit sooner than I feared yesterday might be the case). Anything likely to unnecessarily fan the flames should be avoided.
 * By the way, didn't you used to dislike long signatures? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My signature is as short as it can be, I think. Well actually, I could shorten it by piping to my old username but that might be more confusing than it's worth.


 * I think you have to understand that Luke's announcement of intent to continue developing these ad hoc statistical methods is very worrying indeed, given the potential for abuse or inappropriate application, resulting in false positives. In effect, it would make every troll on the internet into an amateur Wikipedia checkuser.  An expression of that worry needn't inflame, but it should certainly communicate severe concern. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Overlong username --> overlong signature. :) How many characters did you used to use as your maximum before you started scolding people?
 * I think the community is sensitized to the danger of "false positives" after the User:!! block, so I am not so worried as you are about the risk of overuse of new methods. I do understand the concern you are expressing, and would have understood it better awhile back if you had done so in more moderate language. This is, I fear, not the first time we've had this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't use a character count. I went after unnecessarily long signatures (the ones that contain embedded HTML are the most intrusive because having a low information content they're difficult to read over). You'll recall that I didn't go out of my way to scold, I simply removed the offending clutter.  The language was raised by Luke himself, so I think it was fair comment to say: actually no, those words were precisely the right words for that occasion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Troubles Arbcom
I'am very disappointed that this report has been archived without as much as a comment from the arbcom adminstrators. This is giving this editor the green light to continue his disruptive behaviour on wikipedia.--Padraig (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly dumb question
What is "cabining"? Risker (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Limiting or restricting. There's a Wiktionary down the hall.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oi! It isn't in Wiktionary, the Gage Canadian or the desk OED, and my Blacks is at the office. Although if I am asking, perhaps others will as well?  Risker (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bleah. Someone tell the Wiktioneers they're short a word. I'll try to avoid using it in the future if it's unclear, though. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Where I come from, it has a very different meaning...a boy's weekend up in the wilderness, usually involving large quantities of fishing gear, smelly socks, and beer. ("We went cabining last weekend, caught four fish, and drank like them too...") It didn't really fit with my mental image of the private arbcom wiki. I could be wrong, of course. Risker (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming of case
As our fearless leader a former-clerk-and-now-arbitrator, I'd be very interested to get your opinion regarding the current discussion on clerks-l about the naming of the soon-to-be-opened case regarding Betacommand, if you have the time. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand 2 is fine with me and probably best; BetacommandBot would also be okay. Thanks for asking. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help
Dear Newyorkbrad,

I am hoping you can help me. It's the same old problem I've been experiencing with Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse. In particular, Kathryn has been claiming that I have no right to edit any article about anyone who at any time has appeared at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, or even any author who has ever been published by Llewellyn Worldwide. I have examired the COI guidelines, and do not believe that my edits are in violation of any rules.

I work with ACE, the people who run the two events, on a voluntary basis. I have no more vote than anyone else, and that's a group that has over thirty members, when they decide who will be booked or not. Most of those appearing do so for free. I receive no money from ACE for ANYTHING I do. I do not, as Kathryn keeps characterizing it, "hire" anyone. I also do not sell anything; ACE sells books, CDs, tapes and T-shirts, primarily at the events. My actual living is made in an entirely different way.

To say that I can't edit an article about an author like, say, Gavin Frost (who has never been paid to appear at Starwood) or a theatre group like ArcheDream (who has appeared twice in the 27-year history of the event), would be like saying that no one who works on a Star Trek convention can edit the articles of any cast member, author, etc who's ever appeared there. We're not talking about promotional edits or links to a commercial website; she objects to ANY editing.

Furthermore, because ACE was given permission to re-issue a few Llewellyn tapes in the eighties, she claims I have no right to edit ANY article by an author who has been published by Llewellyn Worldwide, the biggest occult publisher in the world! She characterizes the Lewellyn "stable" of authors as "basically the same crowd you hire for Starwood", which is absurd. First, I hire no one; submissions for these events are voted on by a committee which can consist of as many as 30 members, and I have no greater vote than any other. Second, Starwood has hosted a handful of Llewellyn authors (among over a hundred speakers and entertainers of all sorts); it would be difficult to run a Neopagan festival without booking authors who have at least one Llewellyn title. Third, there are hundreds of Llewellyn authors. Llewellyn is over 100 years old, with authors from around the world. Fourth, I have never had a financial relationship with Llewellyn, though that's what she keeps saying, nor have I ever worked for them or made a penny personally from them. ACE has sold some tapes and CDs reissued from old Llewellyn tapes, and ALL revenue that comes to ACE goes into ACE programs. ACE has no paid employees, nor stockholders. To bar me from editing any Llewellyn authors would not only be barring me from the majority of occult authors at all, but it would practically be like telling someone who helps organize a Star Trek convention that he can't edit anyone who appeared on NBC or a Paramount movie, or someone who organizes a comic book con that he can't edit any articles about Marvel comics, characters, films, etc since the con got permission to sell T-Shirts with Spider-Man on them, or had Stan Lee speak there.

This comes after Mattisse (I'm sure you remember her activities), Pigman and Kathryn went on a spree in January, tagging half of the articles I've written or worked on with citation requests (which is just how the whole problem I had a year ago began), and edited or rewrote much of my work. I feel that they were trying to instigate a revert war so they could entrap me into violations that would get me in trouble with the arbitrators I had previously been called before (including you), and this is supported by Pigman's conversations with Thatcher and on the COI noticeboard and the Enforcement noticeboard. Pigman maintains a watchlist solely made up of all the articles I have created or contributed to. Meanwhile, rather than fighting, I was pleading for help from Thatcher (which never came).

I desperately need to have an arbitrator, preferably from the cases I had against me, state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author.

I have not been editing in a promotional manner, nor edit-warring. I have been discussing my edits on the talk pages whenever they are in conflict with another editor. What I really want is for someone to get the tag-team of Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse to get off my case. It is causing me a great deal of anxiety, and interfering with editing which I believe has improved the articles I've worked on and made a contribution to Wikipedia.

I am hoping you can and will help me. I do not want to be dragged through another conflict with these editors, nor do I want to be driven from Wikipedia by their actions. Please reply on my talk page. (I also asked for help from Fred Bauder.)

Sincerely, Rosencomet (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. As you may know I was not yet an arbitrator when the prior cases were decided, so I am not really familiar with the background to the matter. Therefore, it might be best if Fred, who wrote the prior decisions, and who has now left the committee so he would not have the problem of prejudging a situation that might come before the committee again, or another arbitrator who was on the committee last year, were to look into the issue. If that does not happen let me know and I will either take a look or ask some uninvolved administrators to do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attention. Fred did respond, and said "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge." I will certainly avoid original research; I was getting flak even when I added a citation, or a fact accompanied by a citation, or even re-organized an article with new headings or corrected the way a citation was entered so it ended up in a "reference" section. These objections weren't based on the edits, but the fact that I was the one doing them. I think both Fred and Thatcher have been pretty clear in the past that there is no COI basis for blocking me from non-controversial edits. However, if someone objects to a specific edit I do where there IS a controversy, I should discuss it on the talk pages rather than engage in a revert war, and call for an RFC if the parties involved (including me) seem to have COI issues. That's what I've been doing since the arbitration. Rosencomet (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just thought I'd update you on this. I posted Fred Bauder's statement on my talk page as part of a response to Kathryn's latest accusation of me violating Wikipedia policies and my creation of an article about an event held in the 1970s by Llewellyn International, which she claimed I had a "past business arrangement" with (I did not) and that "whose stable of authors are basically the same crowd you hire for Starwood" (which is untrue). She also said that I was "editing WP:COI articles of people whom you have hired to perform at the Starwood Festival" (I do not hire people) and "I am stunned that you are back to violating these policies".


 * For some reason, Pigman was the one to respond. In part, he said:


 * "I would also hope that you have a better understanding of Wikipedia structure/process to know that the opinion of a single (former) Arbcom member is not some dispensation of approval from an on-high authority toward your actions and editing. I would also note that Fred's comments show he has not been particularly attentive in these matters, either during the Starwood Arbcom case or to your current activities. Fred is a longtime editor expressing his opinion to you and I would implore you to refrain from using his words as a justification or excuse for disregarding policy."


 * I must say, and have stated on my talk page (where all this is), that I found it appallingly disrespectful to shrug off Fred's statements this way and to imply that he made them without thought or consideration. I also told him that I had also requested comment from you, who specifically said "it might be best if Fred, who wrote the prior decisions, and who has now left the committee so he would not have the problem of prejudging a situation that might come before the committee again, or another arbitrator who was on the committee last year, were to look into the issue."


 * The full post by Pigman and my response can be viewed on my talk page. I hope this will not escalate, but I am afraid Pigman and Kathryn are not done making me a personal project. Rosencomet (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand case
Brad,

I was tacky enough to scold you (above) for not voting the way I thought you should... now that you have, in fact, voted to open arbitration, I thought it only right that I come back and thank you for the thoughtful manner in which you have engaged on that particular arbcomm case. - Philippe &#124; Talk 19:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy
Hello, I believe you have had previous involvement with the article Don Murphy. There is a request for more informed admins to review the present situation involving my expanded revision and the ensuing reverts. Please weigh in either at the talk page or the ANI report. RTFA (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had no previous involvement with the article on Don Murphy. I've had involvement with a user account associated with that individual, both onsite and offsite, as a result of which I consider myself conflicted out of having any non-emergency involvement with that article. Sorry. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Obuibo Mbstpo
Since you have a passing interest in this fellow, you might look at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Personally, I'd go with a namespace ban, he can edit articles, talk, user, user talk, but nothing else.  MBisanz  talk 07:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * *sigh* He appears to have been indefblocked again and now to have stormed off. I would welcome him back if he would focus primarily (I won't say exclusively; we don't disenfranchise contributors) on his parliamentary procedure and other articles, but he certainly needs to take a little time off first. Meanwhile, I hope that other editors (including myself) can make some time to work on that article set, which we definitely need. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been working on a few of the parliamentary procedure articles all along, independently of all of this. See especially Reconsider and The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure.  Over the next couple of days I hope to pull together some sort of brief "status report" to post on the talk page of the Wikiproject (which will include an invitation for anyone to help wikilink the additions that I made to the two above-mentioned articles.)  Thankfully, Obuibo appears to have finished writing (at least) stubs for all the links in List of motions, and I have been going through some of them and doing some editing and expanding.  There will be other aspects besides motions themselves that need to be addressed, but I think we are off to a good start, due primarily to Obuibo's efforts.  Neutron (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony's page
Tony publicly warned one user in a dispute, claiming he had also warned the other. He had not done so, at least not publicly, and when he finally revealed the tenor of his "warning" to SV, not really at all. He was incredibly uncivil to Achr about it, calling him a liar. I knew Tony would nuke the thread, as soon as it got close to the actual truth of his duplicity, but I was surprised you jumped in. Bellwether B  C  02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See the note that I just left for Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The. I am concerned that, presumably through inadvertence, the tone of his participation is precipitating unnecessary confrontations and firefights throughout the wiki. I would like to see him discontinue this sort of thing, and in the meantime, though I know the temptation is great as witness my own reactions, it would be best if other users would consider not responding to him. No disrespect to anyone participating in the thread nor comment on the underlying dispute was intended. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brad. As always, I appreciate the tone and the content of your reply. You are absolutely correct on all points regarding AoaNLA,T. Bellwether B  C  02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ED
"I am gravely troubled by allowing any linking to a site that contains overt and extreme harassment of editors here who are minors." - We link to Stormfront (website), we link to NAMBLA, if you can think of a notable website or organization worse than those that we have an article on, we probably link to that too. In light of that fact, not linking to a website we have an article on, or to the website of an organization we have an article on, is not an option. —Random832 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The site in question contains intentional and depraved harassment of Wikipedia editors for the purpose of causing emotional distress to these editors. Some of the editors who are viciously abused are minors. I think it is well within the realm of reasonableness to decide that in such exceptional circumstance, we are unwilling to provide readers with access to the site in question. I acknowledge the demands of NPOV and of intellectual freedom in general but my view is that they must be balanced against the basic well-being of our contributors in this extreme situation.
 * Note that this does not apply to sites that merely criticize Wikipedians, even if we feel that the criticism is unfair or uses methods that are inappopriate. This is something altogether different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um. If there is "intentional and depraved harassment of Wikipedia editors" (whether minor or not), then that should be taken seriously at a level of authority outside that of Wikipedia. We can't solve everything here, you know. Sometimes you have to say to people who are complaining about harassment: "we will do what we can on Wikipedia to prevent harassment, but ultimately you have to deal with the source of harassment yourself, up to and including contacting the appropriate authorities". Sometimes handling things that way is better than compromising the principles of Wikipedia. I hope that made some sort of sense. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right here - the issues of harassment should be resolved, but clearly WMF can't really help. Brad, I think there are reasons to keep this article deleted (indeed I voted this way) but we have links to criminals, criminal organizations, the Holocaust and Nazis, Khmer Rouge and other terrible people and regimes. Barring this one solely because it bears more directly on Wikipedia is the wrong move, and one that will likely be challenged again and again because it seems to conflict with a core policy. An extreme example, that I'm sure we can agree we all hope won't come to pass: If a prominent editor or Board member is attacked/killed/otherwise harmed by a criminal who then threatens other Wikipedia editors, and this individual is the subject of sustained and high profile coverage in reliable sources - do we have the article, or not? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we probably are repeating arguments that have been made plenty of times in the past, so we probably should stop now. The DRV is going on and the community will decide. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you're trying to make an end run around the community by saying we should have an arbcom-made policy that even if there is an article it should not provide a link. —Random832 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's an article then realistically there will almost certainly wind up being a link somewhere, whether I like it or not. The best comment on that motion was to the effect that there is probably no point in worrying about this until after the DRV is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Following up on Mantanmoreland decision
Just to let you know that I have recently received an expression of interest to work on the involved articles from Greg Comlish and have provided him with some background. I will also leave a message on FT2's talk page, as he was also quite active in developing this decision. Risker (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Following up on Whig decision
In light of the unanimous ArbCom rejection of Whig's appeal, might it be best that a statement to that effect be placed on Whig's talk page? I see this as important since he has previously attempted to deny that he was under sanctions and limitations. We don't need that happening again, so the decision needs to be posted so his status can't be denied. It might even be a good idea to require that it not be removed until the topic ban has expired. It needs to state clear start and stop dates, and include links to the ArbCom decision (above) and the community sanctions. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whig's editing restriction is already documented at Editing restrictions. Jehochman Talk 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Now how many users know it's there? (Rhetorical question....obviously close to 0%). The ones who need to know should be alerted to it when they visit his talk page. A copy of that notice wouldn't hurt. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 03:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Coding problem?
I don't know if you can solve this problem, but something is wrong with this page: Category:Opera articles by quality. The newly assessed opera articles are not being populated into the categories by quality, except for the stubs. Do you know how to fix it? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to try WP:VPT. The folks there are more likely to be able to help you out (not to imply NYB is technically inept). Risker (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad is technically inept. Sorry.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP applying "everywhere" - discussion on Jimbo's page
It might be useful for you or another Arbitration Committee member to pass on your thoughts about "BLP violations" on Arbcom pages, based on the events in the Mantanmoreland case. Sorry to be dumping this on you, but I can't do the arbcom email thing from work. Risker (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The biographies of living persons policy does apply everywhere in the sense that if it is unacceptable to add the unsourced allegation that "John Doe kicks puppies" in John Doe, it is equally unacceptable to add it to Talk:John Doe or even Talk:Newyorkbrad or Talk:Jimbo Wales. The comments in the discussion that has taken place in the thread you cite, at least so far, seem generally reasonable. I will keep an eye on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal opinion needed
A lot of images of dubiously copyrighted characters are being considered for deletion in the commons here. There seems to be a question about the real copyright status of many of these images. Being somewhat more familiar with the law than most of us, I think your input would be more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm actually not an intellectual property lawyer and don't know too much more about image copyright issues than anyone else. I will take a peek and see if I can add anything useful, but please note that I cannot provide "legal opinions" on Wikipedia as I'm sure you will understand. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

cmt
Brad with people who are block-evading with multiple accounts and trying to slip in guideline changes with those sockaccounts, I'm not sure it sends the right signal to revert back in those edits. -- Fredrick day 01:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand both your point and the policy issues involved. I reviewed 30 or so edits by this account and adopted only one of them, with the intent of signalling to the user that well-founded mainspace contributions are desirable and much of the other nonsense is not. I also noted that you had made a couple of exceptions in rolling back his edits, which I assumed was for the same reason, so I thought we were on the same page there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for appeal: /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek
To put it in few words, basically I want the remedy to expire as per my good conduct in the past three years. No worries I have no intention of mediating. But a ban on mediation would get in the way of say an RFA or even casual discussions. -- Cat chi? 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response here and on RfAr. I will follow the discussion for a couple more days and then consider posting a motion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the jack Merridew case will be accepted. With 4-2, I would need 6 additional support votes and no oppose votes to get 4 net votes. Thats 12 out of 15 arbitrators voting. -- Cat chi? 18:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I voted accept, but as indicated there are other options open, either now or if his editing continues to be a problem. Sometimes a person gets outvoted. I've been outvoted on several major cases and motions and my term is less than three months old. That's just how it works. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that. My frustration isn't with you. You are among the handful users that treats me with an actual level of dignity. Most people treat me like the scum of the earth. I was able to discuss things with you as I am doing now. My frustration is with a lack of resolution and that I have to deal with Davenbelle for even longer... All said processes are ongoing... I do not know how much the case is being discussed privately, but if it isn't maybe you can initiate such a discussion. -- Cat chi? 18:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Restriction violation
This user, broke this restriction  , here. Two reverts in one day. A second user is now arrived. Please have a look.217.202.102.156 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please report your concern to Arbitration enforcement. Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

New motions in EK case
In case you're not aware, Thatcher is preparing to archive the request for clarification in my case later today unless new motions are proposed. Everyking (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One of Thatcher's and the other Arbitration Clerks' main responsibilities is to prod the arbitrators to move ahead with matters that seem to have stalled for whatever reason. It's a thankless task, and one I am well familiar with from my year as a Clerk, so please don't be critical of him for that.
 * I do intend to offer a new set of motions in your matter. I have some concerns about the timing of when to do so. I fear that because the discussion in the past few weeks has been about the mechanics of the voting procedure and whether lifting the sanctions should have been considered collectively or individually, and I have proposed a revote on that basis (with the support of two arbitrators and a bureaucrat and two clerks, I hasten to add), there is some perception that I am being some sort of "rules lawyer" or "sore loser" by pursuing rather than dropping the matter. This is not your fault, and for that reason I do not want any potential feeling that we are re-voting too soon to work against you when the revotes are taken.
 * The one-year restriction against further appeals by you does not govern the arbitrators, and I could offer motions today or at any time, but my instinct is that they will be much better received if I were to wait awhile longer. This seemed to me sensible also because you have indicated that the current impact of the restrictions on you is mostly symbolic and that they do not really affect your day-to-day editing. However, I would welcome your thoughts on the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User Larry E. Jordan
I hope to engage with you, when the smoke clears, over what happened with this user. There is much to learn from it, and hope for the future. It is not as it appears; the behavior of Jordan is, for someone like him, very predictable and not hostile. Businesses which learn to harness the energy of this kind of person find themselves highly successful, businesses which fire them for inability to follow rules that do not consider their special needs fail, ultimately, when conditions are changing and require flexibility to meet competition, because they lack the vision that these artists bring. Bottom line, Jordan is a writer, not an editor. An encyclopedia with only writers would be unreliable and quirky, an encyclopedia with only editors will be boring as hell. Jordan needs an editor. He's also impulsive, and it is part of his neurological condition (read about it: ADHD) that he will have difficulty understanding unwritten and unspoken rules, he is just about guaranteed to stumble over them. And it all becomes complicated, in many, by resentment which builds up over the inability of others to understand him, which gets even worse if it turns into contempt. He doesn't generally channel that resentment into attacks, actual incivility is rare, but into japes. That tendency will pass with age, most likely. ADHD is a developmental disorder, people with it are, in some ways, literally "immature." People dealing with such as him will often, if they don't understand what is going on, find themselves disappointed, as you did. Anyone with this disorder is likely to have heard "What a waste of talent!" countless times. It's normal. In any case, how to harness this energy without causing disruption is the problem. I think it is soluble. And if we can find a solution, there are a lot more where he comes from, though he's a pretty strong case, a true genius. By the way, I know the condition because I have it, I take medication for it and see both benefit and harm in it. Ask any of my three wives on paper and three more not. Or, for that matter, my seven children (one mother was married to me for 10 years, producing five grown children with five grandchildren, and now a thirteen-year marriage, ending, two adopted girls ages 4 and 6). My life is full of blessings and grief and blessings and grief. It seems they come together.--Abd (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Hello Newyorkbrad. How are you? I am planning to run for adminship. Do you have any helpful suggestions? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

your input is requested
here:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 19. Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in IRC case
I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen the request for clarification and will post my thoughts. As a procedural matter, it was not necessary to name the 15 arbitrators as parties to the request. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Littleteddy
I've been watching since he was indefinitely blocked, after a CheckUser discovered that he was sockpuppeting. After a discussion, Thatcher blocked him indefinitely, and explained why on Littleteddy's talk page, and told him to appeal. Littleteddy has filed two unblock requests, both of which have been denied by two different administrators. Since Littleteddy still denies it is him, and wants to appeal the block, can you, as a member of the Arbitration Committee, please take a look at this? Thanks! <font face="Trebuchet MS">Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mail Now!
Giano (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seen and responded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this
This removal of NedScott's comments by Tony Sidaway with an edit summary of "more Nedspam" would seem to violate Tony's civility patrol. Equally, his flippant "perhaps I was mistaken" replies at his talkpage don't seem to show anything resembling an understanding of why such removals--especially combined with inflammatory edit summaries--is wrong. I'm stepping back now, as I don't feel like engaging in Tony's games tonight. Bellwether B  C  23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but because of recent events on Wikipedia Review I consider myself recused on any matters relating to Daniel Brandt. I'm also, quite frankly and perhaps more relevantly, perfectly useless at inducing any sort of improvement in Tony Sidaway's behavior. Please bring this matter to the attention of another administrator, and good luck. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can't handle Tony, no one can. I give up on him as well. Bellwether B  C  00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One last thing, Brad: does this mean Tony's no longer on civility parole (or whatever it was called)? Because it seems that he's not being held to the same standard as others in the case that led to that remedy are being held. Are you simply giving up on any hope of getting Tony to change his ways, thus allowing him free reign to continue his bad behavior at will? Bellwether B  C  14:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to butt in on Brad's page or anything, but you might bring this issue up with Flonight, who wrote Tony's civility restriction. Tex (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The restriction on Tony was never enacted by the committee, but (as Tex indicates) was something that was unilaterally worked out between him and FloNight. I am not quite sure whether and how it is enforceable but as indicated, FloNight might have a view on the issue. If problems continue, a request could be filed as a request for arbitration or request for clarification seeking a more clearly enforceable ArbCom remedy. Because the matter might come before the committee, I probably should not express a view right now as to how I would vote on such a request. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought TonySidaway had changed his name, I can't find it now, something like "Waiting for a bonk" or something like that? Giano (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The. Anti for short, I guess...or The...or AOANLAT...I believe there was a poll on Wikback over whether or not he should change it.  Risker (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh how wise you are Whisker, I just wish I could keep up with all these modern new names, let's just hope Brad never moves to Boston. Giano (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Flo has commented at Tony's (Anti, AONALLTYD, whatever) page. Tony then commented at my page, and I left a final response to him. I won't be dealing with his sophistry again. Bellwether B  C  02:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WikBack
No invitation necessary (or technically possible). You may sign up at http://www.wikback.com and I'll approve your account promptly. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

:O
''I have designs on an FA of my own if certain people can refrain from giving me too much other business over the next few weeks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)'' (from Lar's talk).

My fingers are crossed! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!
<div width="300px" style="float: left; clear: right; margin: 3px; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: #ffffff;"> You're invited to the

Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

April 5, 2008

Time: 5:00 PM

Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut RSVP (view/edit this template) This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being a beacon of wisdom
Bon Bini from a place where the water is blue, the air is warm, and the people are happy. Keep up the great works, counselor. :) 66.247.205.9 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand 2 arbitration case - response
Hi Brad. Some comments here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments on the proposed decision. I do expect to make a few of your suggested editorial changes. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyking
I realise this won't come as much of a surprise but I'm again really disappointed about the way Everyking has been treated by the Committee. The last comment on the request for clarification was yours that "I have concluded that it will be in the interest of actual and perceived fairness to offer new motions." But no new motions were added, and I've just seen that Thatcher archived the thread as "stale" a few days ago. I don't know what happened to actual and perceived fairness but, when editors in good standing bring up concerns about sanctions on longterm committed contributors, these threads being ignored until they become "stale" is a long way from how I would expect the Committee to behave. WjBscribe 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been in touch with Everyking regarding the timing of further discussion of his case, following my post now found at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Mar. I do intend to offer further motions when I think the time is right, despite anticipated disapprobation from other arbitrators about my keeping the issue alive, but there are valid reasons for allowing a little more time to pass between the prior round of voting and raising the issue again. In particular, I don't want any feeling that I am acting as a "sore loser" or "wikilawyer" by putting the issue up for a vote again, or suggestion that I am seeking a revote only because I didn't gain my preferred outcome the first time (rather than because of a procedural issue that is in no way Everyking's fault), to work to Everyking's detriment on the merits of the motions, as I am concerned will be the case if the revoting occurs too soon. In the meantime, I haven't checked whether you've posted similar messages to this one anywhere else, but I hope that you would share your concerns with arbitrators in addition to the one who has done his best to keep the issue alive. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I posted here because you were the one who had proposed new motions that hadn't appeared. There isn't much point in my commenting to those who trenchantly defended the lifting of only the lesser sanctions. If there were motions to come, surely it shouldn't have been archived? I realise there is some unfairness in hastling you when you were more supportive of review than others, but you were the one who proposed action which (to my eyes) had not materialised. If those motions come in the end, fair enough, but I am conscious that this is more time that Everyking is under sanctions which a majority of Arbs voted to remove (a position I continue to find absurd). I hope your concerns about being perceived as a "sore loser" or "wikilawyer" by other Arbs won't stop you from seeking the fairness you identified as lacking. WjBscribe 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also my comments in the now-archived thread, which can be found on the Everyking 3 case talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, How are you? I had a question. I noticed you blocked user:Anonimu for an indef. period of time. I do not know what he did, but despite any misbehaviour that might have been reported against him, I have to point out that he was extremely helpful in many Wikipedia projects as he edited several maps related to history, politics, geography, etc. Perhaps giving a strong warning without banning him forever - might ensure that he will behave but still continue to contribute on Wikipedia. Thanks and cheers. Dapiks (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)