User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Nov

Re: Your status/Welcome back
Thank you for your kind words. Currently, I'm at a stage where I'm burnt out, though when I try to take a break, my Wikiholism takes over. I'm hoping that's temporary, however. Thanks again, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Another 4chan death hoax, and, despite the consensus previously reached on WP:AN, no one will block or even protect the damn page.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Kuban Kazak-Hillock arbcom case
Hi, you recently signalled your intent to accept a case on Kuban kazak. It is not my position to direct you to change your intent, however, I would like to ensure that you have read all the statements which were submitted to the case in question after you signalled your intent to take this case on board. In the event that you haven't kept up with developments on the case, could you please review the case again, and consider if it does in fact require arbcom intervention. Thanks. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 03:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

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.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

SA @ ArbCom
Regarding your comment on the aspartame RfArb, Twoggle is referring to the dispute now found at Administrators' noticeboard/Elonka, ScienceApologist, and Martinphi. Just thought I'd let you know if you wanted to check all that out... &mdash; Scientizzle 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Providence Meetup
The next meetup will be Dec. 13, 2008. Drop me a note if you need directions. --mikeu talk 02:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Old arbitration case comment
Was reading an old arbitration case page and noticed this. Did the idea of having time served be included in some cases (depending on the circumstances) ever gain traction or even be proposed? Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this idea was never picked up, although I might reintroduce it as a possibility in another case if an appropriate circumstance were to present itself. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship, Probation and Editing restrictions
I've just posted this section to WT:MENTOR, and I pointed out there that Probation got blanked in September 2007 (following a discussion started by you on the talk page pointing out that the list was out of date), though it later got redirected to Editing restrictions. Would you be able to clear up the history behind that and do you know what the current practice is with listing probations? Should they be listed at Editing restrictions or at Arbitration case pages, or both? I'm also trying to clear up where mentorships should be listed (the ArbCom-enforced ones anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The blanking of the list of users on probation was based on the discussion that you reference. As a newish ArbCom Clerk, I noticed that the list was out of date, and after Thatcher commented that no one seemed interested in maintaining the page (which suggested it wasn't particularly necessary), one of us checked with the arbitrators who concurred that no one particularly used it. Around roughly the same time, there was a change in the terminology used in most ArbCom decisions, based on a desire of some of the arbitrators to use "less legalistic" terms&mdash;so "editing restrictions" were substituted for "probation" and "paroles," although the meaning was approximately the same. To be candid, I wasn't aware until I read your message here that there was now a list of editors under the various types of restriction being maintained. I don't have a particular view as to whether or not it is useful&mdash;the administrators active at Arbitration enforcement would probably be the best people to answer that&mdash;but to my mind, the most important listing to keep complete and accurate is the listing of cases maintained at Requests for arbitration/Completed requests (WP:RfAr/C). The Arbitration Clerks might also have a view on whether they have been or should be asked to maintain the restrictions list; you can ask them at their noticeboard. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus RfA evidence page query
Greetings, I would like to respond to the recent post by Poeticbent on the Piotrus 2 Requests for arbitration evidence page, however I'd like some advice as to the appropriate forum. I wonder whether Poeticbent might have made an unintentional error in posting on the evidence page, rather than the associated discussion page. I say this as he now has two sections (my understanding is that each editor is to have one), the second of which (comprising his recent post) contains neither contains evidence, nor does it cite the evidence I've presented. As such, is it not inappropriate that I respond on the same page? Many thanks. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do might be to ask him if he made an error. If you can't do this or he doesn't respond, you can ask one of the Arbitration Clerks to take a look at this situation, by posting to their noticeboard here. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Many thanks for the advice. Victoriagirl (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom terms
Other than the discussion above (which seems to have slowed), is there any further discussion regarding term length? - jc37 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy proposed updating
 * FT2 has posted a subsequent version of the update, but I don't believe he addresses the term length issue in any more detail. I'm not aware of ongoing discussion of the issue on a policy page. However, I believe that someone has been posting a question on the issue to all of the current candidates, so we may get some interesting input from them. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking editors from editing their talkpages
If is correct, I am concerned that such blocks are being made too frequently. I'm wondering about renewing earlier calls for this option to be removed from the block screen. It might be worth getting someone to confirm those statistics and flesh them out a bit. I'd be interested to know of cases where such a block has been used on established users, for instance, and which admins have accrued the most of these blocks so far - if for no other reason than to ask questions to get a feel for when these blocks are seen as appropriate. Although users blocked in this way can still contact the unblock mailing list or the ArbCom mailing list, I'm worried that the community's ability to review blocks has been significantly reduced. WJBscribe (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that this feature causes far more problems than its benefits can offset. How many times is there actually a good reason to use this feature? IMHO, simply locking the page with  is easy enough, and it causes far less problems.  J.delanoy gabs adds  04:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * With MZMcBride's help, I put together a table of all blocks using the email block or user talk block feature. I'm hesitent to publish a list onwiki, but of the 22,000 blocks made since August 1, over 3,000 have had one or both of those features enabled.  Maybe I can screen out the names and publish something tomorrow.  MBisanz  talk 04:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So for the last 22,000 blocks, 640 blocked a user from editing their talk page, 2859 prevented them from sending email. Of those that blocked usertalk, the top 10 admins by number of usertalk blocks broke down as

Admin 1:	10

Admin 2:	11

Admin 3:	11

Admin 4:	12

Admin 5:	13

Admin 6:	15

Admin 7:	15

Admin 8:	33

Admin 9:	74

Admin 10:	193

I can do more detailed breakdown by block reason, etc.  MBisanz  talk 16:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of data
With MBisanz's help I have reviewed a good cross-section of these blocks, with especial focus on those admins who have been making most use of the ability to disable talkpage editing. I confess I am surprised by my findings. My conclusion is that the overwhelming proportion of these blocks were used in clearly appropriate circumstances - blocking sockpuppets making "Grawp-style" page moves. As these accounts are known to abuse talkpages once blocked, this seems the obvious case where such blocks were made. Of those blocks I found where this feature should not have been used, these tend to be reversed quickly. As MBisanz's figures about reveal, most admins have made very little use of blocks that disable talkpage editing. Those that have are actively involved in dealing with Grawp-related vandalism. I am relieved by what I have seen. I think extra codification of when such blocks should be used - especially emphasising for the avoidance of doubt that they are to be used only where abuse of the talkpage is expected, not where it is believed an appeal is bound to be successful - may be helpful. Any individual cases identified where talkpage disabling is used to stifle an opportunity for appeal (rather than prevent to abuse) should be treated as serious, and a pattern of such blocks would I hope lead to action against the admin concerned. I would be interested to hear of any such cases.

My only lingering concern is that, if the disabling of talkpage editing is now standard for Grawp-blocking scripts, good faith users may have trouble reporting if they are accidentally caught in such a block. However, in the only case where this happened the block was quickly reversed and further trials were done to modify the script to prevent the problem recurring. Whilst the disabling of talkpage editing remains a potentially dangerous new feature and should be monitored - an output containing only blocks that have used it could be useful - I do not think it is being abused at present based on my sampling of the data. WJBscribe (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a careful review of those scripts, along with a warning (to developers?) that the defaults should remain the most permissive, might be a very good thing. The base functionality should also remain defaulted to the most permissive... perhaps a word to the mediawiki developers as well? ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming I'm admin 8 in the list above and am happy to out myself (I'm already named in the WR thread WJB cites, anyway); in my case, I blocked a bunch of (uncontroversial) vandal-only accounts using Huggle, and when I realised Huggle was defaulting to check this box, unblocked the accounts and reblocked them correctly). I know of at least one other who's had the same issue; Gurch has now disabled the block button in Huggle until this is resolved. –  iride scent  17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of the issue is the fact that they're automated scripts - the default is for the box to be checked, for "allow" - this seems fine at first, but when something other than a browser submits the form without knowing about the checkbox, it doesn't send anything indicating that it's checked, which is indistinguishable from it being unchecked. To fix this, the sense of the box would have to be changed to "prevent user from editing their talk page" and default to unchecked. --Random832 (contribs) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My apology
Hi, Newyorkbrad, I saw this your comment. Let me assure that I consider work of ArbCom as absolutely vital and necessary for the existence of this entire project. Thank you and others for doing this unpleasant but necessary work! Under no circumstances this can be compared with "Stalinist trials". To the contrary, the process is as open and fair as it possibly can be. What I meant were specific statements made by Irpen. I am very sorry and will do my best to avoid that kinds of things in a future. I would highly appreciate if you or any other arbitrator just tell me: "hey, what you are doing is wrong" at any moment. Sincerely, Biophys (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Irpen asked you to remove a part of my evidence. If you wish, you are very welcome to do so. Any other arbitrator asked by Irpen is also welcome.Biophys (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional question for ArbCom candidates
Please review the evolution of the legal rule and analysis discussed in this article and compare with how Wikipedia policies are developed and applied in arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering. — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, is that a joke that lawyers e-mail to each other, Brad? I get "10 reasons you might be a redneck" sent to me and Brad gets that?  I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer. Tex (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've written a couple of "legal humor" pieces myself, and I don't claim that any of them will cause side-splitting laughter in the general population (or even among other lawyers, but that's a different discussion). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What? You mean people weren't laughing at that? Sheesh, some people have no appreciation for humour...    Risker (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was hilarious and also oh so accurate about how things happen on wiki and real life.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with you completely, Rlevse. I seem to recall a similar evolution of rules within my own family. Of course, I get to be Supreme Lawmaker there. Doesn't mean I am paid attention to, but the title's nice. ;-)   Risker (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Remedy optional question: 'Zilla take little Brad in through mouth as food, ingest, chew, and swallow him.   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC).

Russia
I'm very interested into things Russian at the moment, it seems your not. Just because I am busy at the moment does not mean I'm oblivious to the antics of the Arbcom, or not keeping an eye on them. Giano (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the basis for your view that I'm not interested in the pending cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I merely meant I find Russian matters very interesting, I also meant that perhaps you are not interested in Stalin-like trials that's all. I used to read a lot of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn fascinating man, fascinating life. I wonder how he would have faired as an editor here, probably told he was not meeting the MOS, not using enough footnotes, and forcing POV, I expect. Then again, perhaps he would have felt in familiar surroundings - Who knows? Nice talking to you Brad. Giano (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 8 propose change
Hi Newyorkbrad. I saw your post at DRV and thought that your opinion would benefit a discussion I started. Please consider commenting at NFCC 8 propose change. Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  17:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping
Hi Brad. I hate to pester you and I know you're busy, but I was wondering if you'd received my email. Best wishes. MastCell Talk 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did receive it. Travelling today, but will answer over the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No hurry. Sorry to bother you, and have a good trip. MastCell Talk 18:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

November Arb stuff - RFArb page
Request your votes on proposed motions - particularly the one(s) affecting Bharatveer case and Hoffman case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Still reviewing both. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bylaws process (ending December 1)
Per discussion at the November 16 New York City meetup, bylaws will be decided on-wiki with a deadline of 2 weeks to complete the process. Please read the proposed bylaws, and comment on them before the process ends on December 1. Thanks for participating!--Pharos (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Principle 6: Editorial disputes and "The Wrong Version" and Principle 3 in Piotrus 2
Hi Nyb. Based on your comments on PD page, I think we share the same views on these principles in Piotrus 2, but in line with the note I left for Kirill (on his talk page), I'd like to see more done - not merely a comment on PD page which won't appear on the main case page.

Time is really not on my side for the rest of this month or I'd have considered making a workshop proposal myself. But I was hoping Kirill, as well as yourself, would perhaps consider my request for you both to draft an alternative proposed principle (#6.1) - one that broadly touches on those caveats you mention (without being icky and excessively long like the motion on the RFArb page)? Would appreciate it, and sorry to bug you about this at this point instead of while it was at workshop. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Faulty RFCs
Seeing as the Slr_1 RFC MFD just closed as delete, I was wondering if you would be interested in deleting Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Requests for comment/John Kenney (also prior VFDs and from the same banned user as Theresa Knott and Slrubenstein), or should I file MFD again for each?  MBisanz  talk 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would delete these pages (or you could) if the subjects of the RfC's want them to be. Sometimes admins prefer for a dubious RfC about them to be kept rather than deleted so no one can later claim "cover-up," so it would probably be worthwhile to ask first. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Notified them, I'll delete next week unless they object.  MBisanz  talk 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Piotrus Arbcom comments on me
I'd actually thought the Boleslaw thing was over when I filed the arbcom. If you look at the history, you'll notice that after a week in peace Piotrus reverted back to the version he knew 4 other editors opposed, after the arbcom hearing was started. I reverted him a few times as has been said, he reverted me, and it went back and forth over a few days. Not to reveal too much about my overly-cynical brain, but when Piotrus started putting misleading summaries of what was happening in his evidence, my own stupidity dawned on me and I realised that this was probably the reason he started it back up again in the first place; and I haven't really been back to it since that realisation. I won't lie to you though and pretend I feel guilty about these reverts, I don't, arbcom FoF or not; Piotrus wasn't addressing the points on the talk, and so frankly what else was there to be done? It wasn't about nationalist POVs or something, it was about the scholarly credibility of various assertions. Although the revert could have been left a while, this would only have been for show so that future commentators would have been less likely to label it "edit-warring". The reverting did in any case have an effect, as Piotrus' reverts became less and less drastic, as did mine. Sometimes that's just the way it has to happen, and it does indeed work, despite the fact people are very vocal about disapproving of it. I wasn't blindly editing up to 3rr and waiting for my next chance [which is the edit-warring I'd start disapproving of]. The "reverts" were actually spaced out. You also sometimes need to be reverted a few times to accept that you're gonna have to work harder in editing the article, as you realise the other side is actually committed; something which sometimes has to be reaffirmed after a substantial post has been made to a talk page, either by oneself or another. This is part and parcel of the editing cycle for normal content editors. It's ok for some people to moralize about all reversions, but this is completely vacuous sentimentality and could only ever be convincing if a relevant alternative were offered, something I've yet to hear for such circumstances. I do however realise I was personally very stupid. Anyways, thought I should explain in more detail. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus arbcom and 25.6)
I believe this finding is very important, per my rationale here. If you think it is out of place as it has not been proposed for others, please, by all means, propose it for others. I am all for finding good things about many editors involved, but I think it is crucial that it is made clear some editors are not demons, despite their common portrayal as such :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Will review and respond tonight. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That said, I do also agree that "good" findings should not be overused, see my comment here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You asked for more more evidence against Lokyz. I presume you have seen my section of evidence; do note that many links are "hidden" in my links to post-amnesty AE requests derailed by Deacon: particularly here and to a lesser extent, here. It is true that since the send AE request in mid-August only two edits of his were offensive ( and ) but this can be explained due to his relative inactivity since August:. Recent inactivity should not translate to immunity from ArbCom - for example, both Alden and greg show a very similar pattern of recent inactivity but there are more concrete findings about them. Experience from years of past interaction (and stat data...) indicate that Lokyz incivility is proportional to his activity, and the cyclical nature of it indicates both are likely to rise in the future. Part of my argument and evidence in this arbcom is that Lokyz's behavior has significantly contributed to battleground creation on Polish-Lithuanian topics, yet attempts to prevent this at AE have been torpedoed by Deacon. I do believe that if this arbcom finds nothing to say about Lokyz, it will in effect define his past actions as acceptable. Are they? I think he has been much more disruptive than poeticbent or greg... PS. Could you tell me if this is a BLP violation or not? It's a bit old for BLPN, but I wonder if it shouldn't be oversighted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus 2'nd arbcom
Regarding your vote and comment at Piotrus 2.

1. I have explicitly asked Loksin to provide separate diffs for his proposal instead of just linking to Molobos evidence section. As he should be aware I linked to my response in his workshop proposal, where I also provided a link to a chronological listing with comments of the diffs. If you have not done so already, please review it.

2. I would also like to get a statement on what the AC position on double jeopardy is (see my reply to Loksin), could you please oblige?--Stor stark7 Speak 09:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will review and respond tonight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When you do, please also include a review this, and this too.--Stor stark7 Speak 16:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record - as I have also said on the workshop - I don't consider Stor stark7's actions disruptive enough to merit a ban. A restriction of some kind, likely yes, but a ban... I'd advise against it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan to propose alternative remedies of less than a ban for several users. I had hoped to get through the remedies part of the proposed decision last night, but something came up, so it will be tonight or over the weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think that only one user involved in that arbcom deserves a ban; quite a few others can be "salvaged" via restriction and mentorship. I tried mentoring greg and poeticbent over the past few weeks, although they could probably benefit from a more impartial mentor. I'd like to think that this indicates that greg is now taking BLP much more seriously. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In your opinion, Piotrus, is that one user Lokyz? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I believe that with proper restrictions and mentoring, he has potential to be a useful editor. PS. My comments on workshop make it clear where I support or oppose proposed bans, restrictions and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to the proposed decision talkpage so all the arbitrators can see it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am ok with reporting it anywhere.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey NewYorkBrad, since thou art conspicuously one of the better arbs, I really have no interest in getting on the wrong side of thee; nevertheless, would you mind telling me on that talk page where the name-calling took place? If you do I can score it out, as I wouldn't like to see mere childish name-calling on my part distract from the real issues I'm trying to complain about. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerard
Nice one Brad! Be careful one day that fence will fall down, and you will still be sitting on it. Giano (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I considered sitting on the fence, but thought it might be more worthwhile to smash through it as hard as I could. --Deskana (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No you didn't, you did nothing at all, just created a situation where Gerard will do it again. With luck, next time, the victim will be weaker than me and no-one will notice. So you can keep him blocked and all go off for a congratulatory backslapping drink with Gerard. You must all be very proud of yourselves. Giano (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Full reply on Giano's talk page. --Deskana (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano etc
You say it was common knowledge that this was G's sock- well no it was not to everybody. What if it was an editor whose only involvement in the politics of wikipedia was to vote at Arbcom or perhaps for some RfAs- I imagine quite a lot are like that? They would have had know way of knowing without having to dig around and make guesses, as they wouldn't make a habit of reading giano's talk page like a lot of us do.:) Even ncmvocalist said he didn't know. Sticky Parkin</b> 12:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If any editor thought that was a genuine run for Arbcom, then I would love to see the pages they write. Giano (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's sort of a crossover where people vote for joke candidates (they often get some votes, don't they?) because they like the joke or are agreeing with the person's views about arbcom in some way. Some of the candidates who are unlikely to get in (of which there are several) and sometimes know it, could also be seen as joke candidates.  People who are voting still deserve to know who they're voting for, don't they, even if they decide too vote for a less serious candidate, perhaps as well as some proper ones.  Anyway, you never know, they might get in.:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lady Catherine would not have won a place on the arbcom, she was sadly in the bracket of unwell sock about to be killed off and had Gerard and his friends not fabricated a reason to checkuser her (namely: that she was editing in the style of one of Jimbo's arch enemies - so ridiculous that Wikipedia would die laughing, WR orgasmic if it ever leaked) she was doomed to die the night before the polls opened - she was just sending up IRC and the Arbcom, and that is what one or the other of them could not stand and bear. The question is now, Gerard remains unfired, which suggests he was not the ringleader, so if not him - who? Giano (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I am the ringleader of the get-Giano cabal. What better proof do you need beside the fact that I am never in IRC when anything interesting happens? Gerard has been bugging me for months asking when can he block Giano again. He's like a puppy without his favorite bone, quite pathetic, really. Of course, I knew about Giano's sock account from my checkuser in June, because even though checkuser only returns 2 months of data for anyone else, it returns 4 months of data for me. My plan was to provoke Catherine de Burgh into doing something that would give David a pretext to block her. First I had to arrange cover. I needed to be able to send an email to an arbitrator (cc'd to David) who had an unimpeachable reputation for being fair and level-headed, and who knew about Giano's sock, so I could look like I was being appropriately cautious and fair. But, this Arbitrator had to be away from his email during the confrontation so that he would not interfere with Gerard's block. Then I realized that as yesterday was National Ammo Day, Newyorkbrad would be at the firing range all day sighting in his new Browning .50 caliber. But that left a timing problem, how to get Giano to do something silly with his sockpuppet on that exact day. Since November 17 was the day that all the general questions for Arbcom candidates would be copied to their candidacy pages, I decided to craft a set of questions so diabolically difficult that they would force Bishzilla to throw up her hands and withdraw. Naturally, Lady C would jump in to fill the void. Using an undisclosed sock to play games with the election was just enough pretext for a block. The only weak link in the plan was Giano himself. Obviously my post to Lady C's talk page was a smokescreen, but if Giano had answered (publicly or privately) that Lady C was an open secret and that he planned to kill her off before the start of voting, I would have been left with no cover. Fortunately Giano played his part perfectly, and the plan went off without a hitch. My only regret is driving Bishzilla off her candidacy, as I think she would make a fine arbitrator, but true men of vision let nothing stand in the way of their ultimate goal. Thatcher 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very amusing Thatcher, but hardly altering the fat it was an unacceptable way for checkusers to behave. When caught you people clearly on a fishing trip said you checkusered because you thought it was the evil and banned "Greg Kohs" - is the best lie they can come up with to justify an invasion of privacy is that you thought Alice Reighlly paid for a biography, then you do have some seriou problems. We can begin by firing you all. The refusal of those responsible for this disgraceful action to accept responsibility for their actions is almost as much a disgracte as their original crime. Giano (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * careful, thatch... well written satire can get you blocked! some folk might take you seriously.... ;-) (and wouldn't that be impressively unhelpful?) - Privatemusings (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment, regarding your suggestion that David Gerard either agree to not admin at Giano in the future or there be a motion to prevent that. I believe that's a mistake... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on WP:RfAr. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope that's enough - He needs to be fired. Nothing less will suffice. Brad know this, someone like Gerard has abused his wrongfully given powers once too often. Giano (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano, I have no idea what is going on here, but your comments are popping up all over my watchlist. What purpose does cross-posting this all over the place serve? I'm not sure I understand what your reasoning is. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good! because it seems Jimbo and his Arbcom are happy for one of their odd friends to be able to access all of our private information at whim, and for what purposes? It stinks! Giano (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Giano, but you are wrong on a number of levels, and once again you fail to accept any responsibility for your own conduct that contributed to the situation. "Fishing" is discouraged by the instructions at WP:RFCU because it is often more difficult to answer the question "Who is A?" than the question "Are A and B the same person?" That doesn't mean that "fishing" can't be appropriate in some circumstances. For example, many months ago I saw a noticeboard dispute between JzG and Archtransit (then a new admin) over Archtransit's unblocking of several vandal accounts that Guy had blocked. That dispute was not enough reason to checkuser Archtransit, but it was enough to checkuser the vandals, and sure enough, they were on a common IP with Archtransit (now banned as a sockpuppet of Dereks1x). Or for example you asking for a checkuser on a new account, that was "fishing" but it was justified by the account's behavior. In the case of Lady C we had a potential sockpuppet account that was messing around with the arbcom elections. Neither Avi nor I were in on the joke, so I checked the account. I asked nicely and as quietly as I could, given that the account did not have email enabled. You have my email, you could have guessed what the reason was, and if you had told me it was an open secret account who was going to "die" before voting started, I would have dropped the matter (as I have dealt quietly with many other minor indiscretions as checkuser). The fact that David overreacted (in my opinion) does not absolve you of your share of responsibility for this mess, but I don't expect you to ever acknowledge that. Thatcher 14:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are lying again Tatcher, having found it was me, you had no reson to even email Gerard; and of course the obvious you could have immediatly unblocked. You didn't. Stop lying Thatcher! The game is up. You were in this together and you will go together. Giano (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GIANO! :( Paul August &#9742; 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This problem with Gerard should have been handled long ago. In fact, I was going to use him as an example in a question to all candidates (but that page seems to be protected now). So, in the light of the current arbcom elections, let me ask it here;

Imagine a powerful administrator who wants to silence some political opposition. He enters into an edit war on a Wikipedia project page and censors all criticism of his pet cause. He then protects the page on his version and even threatens to move it to Meta where he can more effectively control the content. The criticism he removed was civil and came from administrators and long time contributors.

It goes to the arbcom and parties present their cases in the usual way, except for this admin who presents his case behind closed doors, in complete secrecy. None of the other parties can see or respond to what he says. Furthermore, he's on the arbcom mailing list by virtue of his previous arbitratorship, and is therefore 'in the room' as the arbitrators discuss and decide the case.

He walks away with no consequences for his behavior.

What do you all think about this? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC --Duk 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was one of the arbitrators who voted in that case, so what I thought of it can be found on the proposed decision page. (Although, it looks like some of the original proposed decision has been removed from the page for some reason, probably to avoid distraction from proposals that had been superseded, so one would need to check the page history to retrieve my full comments. I remember a much longer comment from me on a proposed finding re David Gerard that does not seem to be there any longer.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That case was a while ago. Here's one comment of yours, and I seem to remember another conversation where it comes out that David presented evidence privately, but I haven't found it yet. (note, he didn't present anything on the /Evidence page. --Duk 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to my comments on the proposed decision itself. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Brad. I've noticed in several places, including Flo's page and on the arbcom page, that you say you are awaiting a response from David Gerard before that request is deleted.  It took me quite a bit of looking to find anywhere that you asked him something.  Then I saw this asking him to respond to your suggestion in the arbitrator's comment section, so I went down there and re-read your comments and finally found you suggesting that he not take any more administrative actions against Giano.  Is that what you were referring to?  It literally took me 20 minutes of bumbling around to find that, so maybe your question to him is not quite as clear as it could be.  Do you think you could make it clearer somewhere instead of the last line in your third comment in that section? Tex (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Brad was referring to this proposed finding ("David Gerard"). That finding was later removed by Arbitrator FloNight not because it distracted from the other findings, but, it appears, because "Events have overtaken this remedy" (Flo's words: cf., her edit summary). Hope this helps, AGK 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To Tex: Yes, that is what I was referring to, and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I know via an e-mail that David Gerard has seen my question, and I expect him to respond on-wiki when he gets online.

To AGK: Actually, I was referring to my comments on the original proposed finding 7, which can be seen for example in this version. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, yes, I thought the link I had provided featured a comment that was a little too short to be the actual subject of your comment. :) AGK 20:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We contribute to a very sad encyclopeia where its leader and Arbcom value the likes of Gerard above content and its creation. One can speculate on the reasons for this, but it's best not to - too distasteful and sordid. Giano (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there we have it, thank you for the link NYB. Gerard presented zero evidence on the /evidence page. Instead he presented it in secret, to a group he belonged to and was on the mailing list of. He was 'in the room' as the case was discussed and decided, while the other parties were excluded. Nor was there opportunity for the other parties to see or comment on this evidence. Gerard blatantly abused his administrator privileges while editwarring, but worse, he did so to to censor political views and earnest criticism, and he walked away unsanctioned.

What do you think the consequences are for abominations like this? The arbcom is a laughing stock. --Duk 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that. Hundreds of us a have spent hours, weeks God knows how long contributing to something we felt worthwhile (Oh yeah, we have enjoyed doing it) but for what - to be kicked in the teeth by a leader who at the end of the day calls his selected and appointed Arbcom to heel and kicks his workers in the balls. Jimbo need to have a rethink, but he won't. He values the likes of Gerard higher than us. Why? I am totally perplexed - why? Giano (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brad. Thanks for making me look like an idiot on Giano's page by pointing out my womb/wound mistatement. It makes a nobody like me feel important being slapped down by an important arbitrator! :) Anyway, I hope you've seen the latest from Fred.  Whose authority is he acting upon with this one month block of Giano? Tex (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

passing the buck
Hi, I could use some help or advice.

I have also posted this on Morven's page but he has not edited the past couple of days.

User:Freddyboytoy made a series of frivolous edits such as this in which he added a link to an article not directly relevant to the specific topic, although of an importnt person who was already linked to the article.

There was a warning, then another then another and discussion on AN, and I blocked him for one Week. He reacted very badly and asked me to ban him for life (which I refrained from doing).

I went through his edit history; every edit had been reverted except one, which I reverted as it was unsourced.

Another editor just came to me concerned that Idiotsonwakipedia is a sock-puppet of Freddy.

Compare this edit with this edit

Now, I am loathe to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet without more evidence. But I also am opposed to using socks to evade blocks (which will end in a few days anyway!!). is this worth a checkuser? If not, what would you advise me? If you see a clearly appropriate course of action by all means just go ahead and do it.

Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has already blocked Idiotsonwackipedia as an unacceptable username, so it's probably not worth a lot of time analyzing whether it's a sock or not. If there are further disruptive accounts of a similar nature, let me know and I'll see if it seems to warrant a check. Hopefully this will be the end of it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And, user:Freddyboytoy? I hate blocking to begin with, and do not like extending a block without real evidence ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would wait for the week to end and see what happens next, although I know I have a reputation for being more lenient than many other admins. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus Arb 2 additional evidence
Directly overwhelmingly supporting the findings against Tymek. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice to meet you
Thanks for your "good cop" comments at ArbCom. I think you are way too kind to think I might change my mind over two months. It is absolutely the right "benefit of doubt" case to put forward to cover all POVs, though. So good for you.

You may have seen my PPS, added to my other comments. You guys are way too busy. That has changed my mind about one or two things. In particular, feel free to support the proposal to ban me, I love Wiki, but it would hurt my friends more than me.

Whatever you choose, I'm not going to voice criticism, because the ArbCom process is too burdened to cope with it. I am happy to suffer what I believe to be injustice so you have a tad more freedom to serve Wiki better (and have a life too).

I think I can work with friends to find creative ways to work with things the way they are anyway, rather than trouble you guys to rework things. For all I know that was the whole point of the restrictions anyway, they don't really touch me because they concern things that are rarely part of my editing.

I'm just repeating what I've said elsewhere, so I'll stop. I hope personalising my words encourages you in your other work. Best wishes, Alastair Haines (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your new motion
While less categorical, I feel that even your new motion is a creation of new policy with regards to AE that is outside the scope of the Arbitration Committee. There should be significant community discussion before such new policies are set, in my view. While I appreciate your attempt to find a middle ground, what portion of the ArbCom mandate are you relying upon for the authority to craft such sweeping changes in policy? S. D. D.J.Jameson 15:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that when the Arbitration Committee adopts a remedy, it has the authority to give reasonable ancillary instructions concerning how the remedy should be enforced. We are only addressing here how the committee's own decisions should be carried out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Should the Arbitration Committee not take more of a "go slow" approach when abridging what is allowable as regards the current block policy? Forcing unblocking admins to obtain some kind of written permission (that may have been from the first motion, and if so, I apologize) from Arbcom before unblocking lends undue weight to the decision of the initial blocking administrator. It also materially affects the current block policy and, if adopted, would certainly need to be noted at WP:BLOCK. Also, I hope that it doesn't appear as if I'm being antagonistic toward you. As I said before, I appreciate your attempt to find a middle ground. S. D. D.J.Jameson 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think your thoughts pertain at least as much, if not more, to the initial motion as to my proposed modification. In writing my motion, I was operating from the baseline that it appeared that something was going to pass. Don't worry, no perceived antagonism is involved; commentary on proposals is always welcome. I'd appreciate your posting these thoughts on WP:RfAr where the other arbitrators will also see them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted similar thoughts in my bulleted statement, but I wanted to approach you directly. It seems that the minds of several (if not most) of the arbitrators are made up on this matter. You seemed at least flexible on the issue. Also, I feel there's so much "noise" there right now that any comments I make there are simply lost. S. D. D.J.Jameson 17:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from with your alternate proposal 2A (Requests for arbitration). I'm not sure if it's entirely a good idea to try to carve out exceptions, though; even if SlimVirgin were to act with complete propriety I fear that the result would be unnecessary inflammation. Looking at Requests for arbitration (motion 1A(b)), I suspect that it would be unwise to allow SlimVirgin to make the call on what constitutes "...a consensus of involved administrators and editors...". (A similar problem exists with an exception based on motion 1.) An incorrect call would generate a firestorm, while even a technically-correct call would be met by claims of bias.
 * A quick question for you: would you have any problem with my posting the text of some of the various proposals to the VP? I really do think it would be best to gather community input before effectively changing the block policy. S. D. D.J.Jameson 19:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1A(a), generally, has the potential for trouble. The consent of the blocking admin may or may not reflect the status of an ongoing discussion, and may even contradict an evolving consensus. To put it bluntly, a single admin may be browbeaten into making a "Do what you want, I have to go to work and I'm washing my hands of this mess" type of statement. Unblocking under such circumstances may not be ideal, and again the situation would not be helped by SlimVirgin taking admin action.

For the other exceptions (approval by ArbCom; for Arbitration participation only) there's no need for SV to exercise her tools. Any of a thousand other admins could do it. Alternatively, a member of ArbCom could just as easily enact the decision &mdash; which might be preferable, and suppress any admin's inclination to wheel war. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus and BLP violations--what the evidence shows
Please see here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

AfD you may know more than a few about...
Hey Brad, is the SCOTUSblog notable? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thought you might (took a wild guess...) ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Piotrus 2

 * Note. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2 and David Gerard
Now that the Arbcom has almost finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly ), it will doubtless want to show the same speedy diligence in other worrying matters. Could you outline the time scale and agenda for the investigation of David Gerard's suspected misuse of oversight rights in regard to the election of FT2 to the Arbitration committee. Obviously FT2 will need to be suspended from the Arbcom and its list during this investigation, can you give the community an approximated date for the conclusion of the investigation and the names of those carrying it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My hat's off, to Adminstrators. It's a thankless position & consumes alot of a Wikipedian's time. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't get a cold head. Giano (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Smiling thinly and coldly. Giano (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dat's life. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I see here that one of your colleagues is reticent to comment, is this a view shared by the Arbcom? Giano (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad, could you also explain to us for how long Gerard's abuse of his powers and part in FT2's election campagne has been "old news" to the Arbcom? Giano (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts regarding the ongoing arbitration.
Hello Newyorkbrad, I have decided to write to you to share my thoughts regarding the ongoing arbitration where some users are facing long blocks. I'm recently coming back from one myself and I feel strongly for everybody facing the same. I noticed in one of your comments that you hate having to vote to ban anyone and would oppose blocking users who are expressing sorrow and commitement to improve his/hers behavior. One of the users has made a voluntary pledge already.[] Unfortunately most editors do make mistakes but much, much fewer are able to be honest about it and I think he is. What about if such users instead of block would have to place their clearly spelled pledge as a banner on their user page for a duration of one year and be blocked indefinitely for not fulfilling their commitments? It would be easy to monitor and any administrator would be able to execute the block if promise not kept. Just an idea …. Thank you for your time and best regards.--Jacurek (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Abstentions in Piotrus 2
You do realize abstaining only lowers the threshold of the number of votes required to pass? Even though 6 votes are required to pass a proposal, some proposals will pass with 5 or even 4 votes, because of the high number of abstentions. For example, some ArbCom members have followed your lead and abstained on many of the negative FoF (i.e. "no evidence X had done Y"), to the point that they will now pass anyway. If that was your intent, fair enough. Martintg (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As indicated on the proposed decision talkpage, I will be taking another look at the case in the next couple of days. I will bear your point in mind when I do. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A laugh when I needed it
Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Proposed decision
You said on my arbcom that and with an open mind if someone offers an alternative, so who can offer that alternative? Can you do that? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest you can do differently so that none of the problems that have been identified with your editing continue? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well on my reply and in my section of the workshop I have pointed out that from now on my userpage will be blanked, and if WP:BATTLE symptoms are acted upon correctly then all of the negative disruptions that come out of them can be avoided altogether. Of course it does take two to tango, but I accept its my responsibility to act correctly in preventing it from going out of control and avoiding adding fuel to it. My defence has always been where others have sought victory I've sought consensus stands, moreover the general problem with WP:DR, and in particular with WP:THIRD, is pointed out on my workshop comments with several examples. In the meantime though I oppose the eye-for-an-eye, I am stricken that despite the evidence for Hillock65, noone has even condemned him for breaking rules. As I said I don't want to see Hillock punished, but I want us both to walk away knowing that in case of a WP:COI on an article we can avoid an edit war and offensive exchanges of comments. Provided both can approach it with WP:FAITH well I am prepared to do that, are others too? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am travelling this weekend, but will give this some thought in the next couple of days. Of course, I was recently authoritatively declared to be "the worst member of ArbCom" because I sometimes consider ideas like this, so I have to be careful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "My defence has always been where others have sought victory I've sought consensus stands". Don't make me laugh. You are the one who reported me to ANI as an alleged "meat puppet" of Captain Obvious, tried to game the system with false references then threatened to beat me up in Russian. This about your constant violation of verifiability policies and turning Wikipedia into a war zone for your POV-pushing. --Folantin (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Folantin, that was not a promise to beat you up. KK said that they have beaten up you aready (meaning your block), so you are not a problem for them any more, just as many others whom they allegedly "disabled" earlier.Biophys (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Arbcom
In regards to user Matthead: Again, I am prepared to reconsider if additional diffs are cited. The previous activity has been restarted in the past few days. Example:  Starting with "The polish astronomer claim"-another series of incivil rants, nationalistic claims and opinions inflaming the discussion is started completely disconnected to the article discussed.--Molobo (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)