User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/May

Working Group for Ethnic Wars
Now see, loyal minion that I am, I did not question the wisdom of setting up the working group. I figured it was all part of a deliberate strategy of the Ministry of Peace. In defense, before I'm declared an "unperson" over at the noticeboard, it was you who broke the silence and uttered such crimethink!! --JayHenry (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop
Sorry if I stepped on your toes. I reverted after your initial comment and asked that he just strike to keep the conversation readable. Your solution is probably best after looking further into the situation. KnightLago (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem whatsoever. Yours was absolutely the right reaction although I took a different action based only on a combination of circumstances. Please see my notes on the clerks' noticeboard and the workshop talkpage. regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Seems we are chasing each other all over the Wiki. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism
Thanks for reverting my first talk page vandalism. Cheers! Smallman12q (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I went to block too, but Andandrus beat me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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) 22:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for your input. Great idea on adding the hidden text to alert other editors - I've added it to the article. My apologies if I'm being overly sensitive to the issue; I can only say in my defense - I do take my reputation here very seriously. Not solely because I edit under my real-life name, but I suppose that does play a part in my desire to keep a good reputation as well. Thanks again for your input. ;) — Ched :  ? 04:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

An essay of yours gathering dust
This page has been gathering dust for almost five months now. Do you intend to blow that dust off in the foreseeable future? TML (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope to, and thanks for noticing. The delay stems from the fact that two major sections that were going to become part of that page have spun off in different directions. One was going to be some suggestions for improving our practice and performance in the area of BLP, which is certainly the major ethical and practical issue confronting the project today, as I have written about before in various places around the wiki. My thoughts there were sort of overtaken by the polls and RfC on flagged revisions and some other discussions, as well as by the fact that I lack a magic bullet or even a magic novel suggestion for addressing these issues. I've been refining my thoughts on these problems, in part through developing a talk I gave at a New York meet-up and hope to present in a revised form this summer at Wikimania, and will be addressing them further off-wiki through blogging within the next couple of weeks on an external site that attracts a group of contributors who are familiar with Wikipedia as readers but (as far as I know) don't edit here, aren't vested in our culture or the way we have historically looked at issues, and might be able to help me think through some of our issues and present thoughts for resolving them. So that piece of the puzzle is on hold for the moment, but I will return to it.
 * Another "suggestion for improving Wikipedia" that has spun off in a different direction was a desire to improve the information available about editing here provided to the younger group of editors. The policy at Wikipedia has always been that there is no minimum age for editing, or for becoming an administrator for that matter, and I strongly support the cultural norm here that editors are judged on the quality of their contributions rather than on their ages or other inherent characteristics. That being said, it struck me that there are certain things that the younger editors should be especially careful about, and there are a few types of mistakes that they make more often than some other editors and might benefit from being advised about. (This is not to suggest that all editors of a certain age make these errors, or for that matter that editors of other ages don't make these errors, but it is a generalization caveated as such, made without reference to any specific individual, and offered for what it's worth.) So my suggestion was going to be that someone draft a page captioned something like Wikipedia:Guide for younger editors. But in writing up what might be on such a page, the muse got away from me, and I wound up writing the page. I haven't posted it because my attention was drawn to the comments by one of our most respected administrators suggesting that there are reasons that minors (which includes a broader age spectrum than the group I am calling "younger editors") should not edit here at all. I don't agree with that, but I've taken some of the concerns expressed in that thread and worked them into the page. I expect to post that page on-wiki for comments.
 * Still, I need to write up my other suggestions and finish what I started (as well as the list project I was working on, which also has sat for a couple of months). Thanks for the push. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Recusal
Hi, Brad. A particular aspect of standards for recusal is addressed briefly here. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the link. Commented there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Matthew Hoffman case
I'm sorry, I've already reached my maximum level of tolerance for stupidity this month, and it's only the seventh. People arguing that images contemporary to the events should be immediately removed from Wikipedia articles because they use the styles of that period was quite enough to put me over.

The Matthew Hoffman case was a farce and everyone knows it. Please withdraw it, delete the damn pages, and replace it with an explanation of how the Arbcom fucked up big time.

And if you don't want to do that, please work with me to make agreed-upon wording for when I take my appeal to the community.

I'm sorry, I'm just not willing to deal with all this crap anymore. I WAS ATTACKED BY SITTING ARBITRATORS ABUSING THEIR POWER IN ORDER TO FUCK OVER SOMEONE WHO DID'T IMMEDIATELY DO WHAT THEY WANTED, BUT INSTEAD ASKED FOR MORE GENERAL ADVICE.

Everyone agrees that's what happensed, it's time the fdamn arbcom admit it and stop acting as if I wasn't the victim of some massive injustice and massive abuse by them, followed by them circling waggons to protect the Arboitrator who abused his power.

So, either do the ethical thing, or help me take my appeal to the community, but don't tell me "nothing can be done" when the Arbcom has only issued a not-pology and never accepted any blame for fucking me over. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll probably be calmer tomorrow. You may want to wait to reply until then. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of information
I got your message and I appreciate it, I can't reply easily due to issues with my ADSL connection and firewall changes at work. I'm typing this on the train on the way in for a very long weekend moving 200 people into my office.

Your comments are accurate and fair with one exception: unless I am going mad, I don't think I blacklisted anything on Meta. I requested blacklisting of one domain, this was reviewed and enacted by another meta admin - or that's my memory of it. The log pages are not easy to read always. Also I would note that I posted blacklisting and the topic ban for Jed Rothwell for review at the appropriate venues at the time; I do not really understand why Rothwell was not included in the original case, as he was always the major pro-CF advocate on that article. Subsequent debates endorsed these actions; Abd's main point appears to be that he wants some kind of "recusal" and he interprets that as taking no further action - as editor or as administrator - in respect of that article or dispute, as well as wanting those actions reversed. His main beef seems to me to be that every time he asks for the sites to be removed from the blacklist, I defend my judgment of their (lack of) merit and the problems around their past use. He appears to want this to stop, so that he can get the blacklisting rescinded without my input. All actions were posted for review, were reviewed (several times in several venues) and the conclusion seemed to be that the actions were right even if I was not the right person to take them - I accepted that at the time and have held to that, but that does not mean I am in some way bound to leave the article alone. I am still entitled to have and to express an opinion. I believe your comments make that point well. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 06:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * JzG did not blacklist lenr-canr.org on meta, he requested it, normally, and we can argue that it was granted due to his influence there, where he is an administrator, but he did follow process; the only thing I'd specifically fault about it would be that the arguments he presented were misleading and he did not notify them that his blacklisting on en.wikipedia was being disputed. None of which would be a big deal; shall we say, for Wikipedia, abuse as normal. (I do not mean to imply that abuse is the norm, but rather that, of the many administrative actions taken, a few are those of admins who are involved, and some of these do not represent what consensus would decide if it becomes aware, and the only problem is that of a certain inertia, where what was done may be presumed to be normal and proper; this assumption is usually correct, which makes it all the more difficult to deal with the few situations where it isn't.


 * JzG did post a post-facto note re the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org. Not for newenergytimes.com, except to say that NET seemed to be also a problem. He didn't say that he'd actually blacklisted it. What JzG has consistently not mentioned when bringing up Rothwell is that Rothwell is COI and only edits the Talk page. As a COI editor, he is expected to have a POV. He's an expert on the topic, having followed the field as a writer (and supporter of cold fusion research) for many years, he's known for it. There is nothing wrong with being an advocate; Rothwell did, I'd say, need some guidance with regard to good Wikipedia etiquette, but he had some very bad examples in front of him for a long time. He did not act in isolation, nobody did.


 * Recusal rules require abstaining from administrative action while involved. The best interpretations require recusal when the administrator can expect that an action can reasonably be seen as action while involved, but JzG had and expressed strong opinions about the content of the article, and displayed incivility toward those of different opinions, including Pcarbonn and Rothwell. I have no idea why he thinks I want him to take no further action as an editor.


 * JzG now has no current negative impact with respect to the blacklistings. I have no problem with his presenting his opinion, it is, of late, of little harm at most. The blacklistings are in process of being reversed: newenergytimes.com is delisted by consensus and administrative decision supporting that. For reasons that probably have to do with a certain inertia I've observed on the blacklist pages, it's not been possible yet to get lenr-canr.org whitelisted, more than the original link that is now used at Martin Fleischmann; Stifle just denied a general delisting request and declined to rule on a specific page whitelisting request, it's still pending. There is another pending request by Enric Naval (a "skeptical" editor) for a page at lenr-canr.org. [added in edit: both individual links have been whitelisted]. I.e., the normal process is working.


 * Blacklisting decisions are unlike any other similar decisions. Someone will request delisting, there may be no discussion, and an admin, one of a small handful of regulars, will usually decline. Or there is some discussion where someone will present long compilations of evidence that mean nothing to a non-specialist. The pages aren't widely watched except by blacklist volunteers, who tend to be somewhat prone toward exclusion and to confirmation of past actions even when there is no ongoing risk of linkspam. And general arguments like "it's a blog" are used, there was a big flap recently over the blacklisting of readwriteweb.com, and it was delisted after a decline to delist, because readwriteweb.com published a blog on it.... and comments poured in, and it was delisted with some admins grumbling about canvassing, but nobody to actually block for it. (Linkspamming? Probably not, probably the routine use of links to a highly notable site, with editorial management. Some "blogs" are reliable source. Blacklisting is done without regard to content, usually, it's done by noting how many links have been added and if there are lots of them, the ready assumption is "linkspamming." As Beetstra has acknowledged many times, good links, reliable source, meeting WP:EL, can result in blacklisting, and properly so, and he's correct. If there are many of them being added, and there is no specific guideline.)


 * My plan is to whitelist specific pages as needed -- that's what the blacklist admins say to do -- until such time as it's realized that there wasn't any reason for blacklisting lenr-canr.org in the first place. There was no linkspam, just an editor (JzG) deciding that the links weren't appropriate and then, initially, using his tools to make sure they stayed gone, since he'd taken them out many times and they just kept coming back. Big surprise: editors link to sources on the top two web sites on the topic of the article. (Sure, some of those links were inappropriate, some were debatable, and some were clearly acceptable. JzG's opinion, contrary to consensus, was that none were acceptable.)


 * As to review of the Rothwell blocking. You may have seen some of this. JzG blocked Rothwell IP Dec. 18, same time as he blacklisted Rothwell's web site. He then blocked, late in December, another IP that wasn't Rothwell's but he claimed it was Rothwell. The only similarity was POV. He did not notify anyone of these actions. I forget exactly when it was that he declared the topic ban on Rothwell. He did it by announcing it on Talk:Cold fusion. It was not the result of a normal discussion with close. There had been an earlier discussion, I think at AN/I or AN, where a skeptical editor requested a ban, there was very little discussion, and no close. JzG had commented in that discussion and would have been not the person to close it in any case. Rothwell, about a month after the 30-day block, started commenting again. (From later communication, I think that Rothwell had been entirely unaware of the block.) After some days, JzG blocked Rothwell again, asserting block and topic ban violation. At this point several editors questioned the ban. Where had the ban been determined? The question was raised at Talk:Cold fusion and on JzG talk. Jzg, in a move which, I must say, astonished me, went to ArbComm to request a confirmation of his block. He did not disclose his involvement, though, in my opinion, anyone sensitive would have suspected it, from his vehemence. He was asking ArbComm to confirm the ban of Rothwell under the theory that this was properly covered by the Pcarbonn topic ban. During the process another editor appeared who started adding Japanese sources on cold fusion, a fairly strange case. JzG wanted that included too; the upshot was that he wanted to be able to ban anyone with a pro-cold fusion POV, under the Cold fusion arbitration, and we saw the previous month that he had blocked an IP as Rothwell based on alleged similarity of POV. JzG was asking ArbComm to topic-ban anyone with a clear pro-cold fusion POV, based merely on the POV and not behavioral violations other than "POV-pushing." I.e., expressing a pro-cold fusion POV in Talk.


 * I saw this as extremely dangerous, so I posted a comment, noting what I'd seen about his involvement. I received a request from a reputable editor to provide evidence, so I did. That was the evidence file, presented before RfAr (linked from my comment), and it was effective, there were numerous comments referring to action while involved. The initial comment supportive of JzG's ban stopped, and, properly, the RfAr/Clarification was rejected as immature. JzG, however, took the sum of comments there as confirmation that he'd acted quite properly and, indeed, stated that support for his action had been unanimous, which it certainly was not.


 * My opinion is that Rothwell was treated very badly, over a long period of time. He's highly opinionated and has been working in a highly contentious and controversial field for many years, but what happened to him on Wikipedia has convinced him that Wikipedia is a total lost cause. Every few emails I get from him, he tells me I'm wasting my time. He doesn't need Wikipedia, his site is very high in Google returns on the topic, he's recommended as a place for further information in reliable source all over the place. I'd rather have had his advice on Talk, just as I prefer to have the advice of User:Kirk shanahan, one of the rare skeptics with recent publication in peer-reviewed RS. And I'd prefer to see experts in general be encouraged to help with articles. On Talk.


 * Experts almost always have a COI! And they are normally opinionated. How we treat experts is very important!


 * JzG is welcome to edit Cold fusion, and the only problem is that, as an editor, he's been quite willing to edit war and to argue tendentiously to justify the edit warring. But that's a problem that's not hard to deal with. It just takes patience and building consensus, it doesn't require ArbComm, or at least I doubt that it would. --Abd (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Truly trivial note
You recently asked about WP:TPG's "100 words" bit in the Abd/JzG case.

As the original author of the page, and, in particular, that bit of it, I can tell you right now what was meant: The dreaded WALL OF TEXT THAT NOBODY CAN READ BECAUSE ITS TOO LONG AND RAMBLING. I needed a guidepost for how long was "too long" when not doing things point by point, and 100 words was a crude estimate of when it was time to start thinking about trimming your text down. Note also that regular use of paragraph breaks helps alleviate the problem.

Just your bit of Wikihistory for the day. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information, which I was definitely not aware of, as well as for the confirmation that someone other than the parties reads what we write on the arbitration pages. However, your post contains 107 words. Please shorten it for greater conciseness. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but isn't "concision" more concise than "conciseness"? (Yes, I recognize that the use of "concision" to mean "the quality of being precise" is&mdash;or at least was&mdash;disputed, as in The King's English...). 69.212.64.32 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, from your friendly, neighborhood "Nazi"
If you don't find this interesting or funny, sorry to have bothered you. -- Noroton (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Return of Anonimu?
Hi,

from the range of edits and writing style of User:PasswordUsername, I get a nagging suspicion that he might be a reincarnation of User:Anonimu. Even the names have significant semantic field overlap. Also, for a new user (PasswordUsername has been rather eager, but his first known edit dates from late middle of April), would be somewhat unusual -- but very much in spirit of Anonimu's approach to his talk page.

Who should investigate such a case? Checkuser is obviously powerless, as many months have passed since last known Anonimu edit was made. I remember Moreschi was good at style analysis but he appears to have burnt out :-( ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never really knew much about Anonimu at all. Perhaps someone who watches this page will have a better sense of what to look for; if not, maybe a post to Arbitration enforcement or SSP would be the best thing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll take your advice in account when pondering what to do next. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've initiated a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Hopefully, some of the regulars will have useful suggestions on how to proceed. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protection for The Volokh Conspiracy
I saw you left the comment: and I read your piece, but I don't see any reason to be concerned about page moves. What's up? Protection is usually applied only after there's a problem, not preemptively.  Will Beback   talk    03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (potential prominence for inappropriate pagemoves while I am blogging)
 * Responding via e-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about the Abd / JzG case
Hi Newyorkbrad, I am hoping you will answer a quick question for me on the Abd / JzG case. Looking at your finding of fact on the nature of the dispute, you refer to three areas. Are these the only areas where the arbitrators will consider evidence? I ask because I think there are grounds for findings on Abd relating to disruption other than his zealous pursuit of DR. However, I have yet to see any post that really puts forward the evidence in a concise and coherent manner. I am willing to put in the effort to try and present such evidence, but only if there is any point in so doing. Obviously I am not asking for any sort of guarantee as to the weight that any such evidence might be given, nor as to whether any sanction might follow. But, if Abd's behaviour and editing in relation to cold fusion and the case more broadly - where JzG is uninvolved - is outside the scope of what the arbitrators will consider then there is no point in my putting in the effort to prepare the evidence. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be fascinated to see it. I don't think it's related to the JzG dispute at all, but, though I tried to ask ArbComm to keep the case very narrow, which would have saved a whole lot of fuss, my motion was ignored. Others, such as Mathsci, have asserted that I'm POV-pushing at Cold fusion, proxying, and generally writing too much, whatever they can think of, but you've been pretty cogent, maybe you see something the others have missed. --Abd (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, any chance of a response? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was off in the real world most of today (seeing 1776 with some family in New Jersey); I'll reply to this and other posts during the day tomorrow (Sunday). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding now. I'm not sure exactly what types of evidence about Abd you are referring to. We are pretty far along into the case, approaching the voting stage, so I don't know how receptive my colleagues might be to a whole new category of evidence. My own inclination is that the evidence might be useful if it relates to serious and recent misconduct, but not otherwise. However, despite my having put together some proposals on the workshop, Stephen Bain remains the designated drafting arbitrator in this case, and other arbs may have some thoughts as well. So my suggestion is that you post to the workshop talkpage (and maybe e-mail the committee mailing list drawing attention to your post) with a general idea of what you are referring to, so as to potentially draw some feedback. Sorry again for the delay in responding; real life does get in the way sometimes. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had already added evidence about Abd's editing on cold fusion in my 4th statement in the evidence section. Despite saying that he would withdraw from editing CF here - preferring so he said to write his own fork in his user space - he has continued to edit war about his self-written lengthy proposed content addition, which has been disputed by most other editors. Abd unfortunately now seems to have emerged as a fully fledged POV-pusher and edit warrior. I hope his disruptive pattern of editing is not ignored by ArbCom. On the other hand, I think his recent contentious editing behaviour, which has risen to a peak during the ArbCom case, possibly in a futile attempt to prove a point, could probably be more easily dealt with by the community than ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mathsci apparently supports the editing position of Hipocrite as expressed in recent days at Cold fusion, where an operating consensus previously existed. If not for Hipocrite's intervention, we'd be working on balancing a section on "Proposed explanations," i.e., of theories advanced to explain cold fusion results. Obviously, if one believes that there are no results, the only explanation one would support would be "experimental error," and that's the position Hipocrite is asserting. However, that position isn't supported, overall, in academic reliable sources, and what I've been "pushing" for is use of preponderance in academic reliable source to determine article balance; however, I've been pushing gently, not attempting to change the overall balance, which remains, at this time, that cold fusion is widely considered a rejected field. That view is supported ("widely considered disproven") in all pop sources. However, peer-reviewed sources, and neutral reviews (or at least reasonably neutral reviews) show a different picture: there is real research going on, interesting results are being found and published in peer-reviewed journals, and if we were to limit our "vertual survey" to those familiar with the literature, I strongly suspect that at this time the weight of opinion would favor CF as a real phenomenon, or, more accurately, that there is a set of unexplained phenomena, seen under certain conditions, that could possibly be explained by fusion. (The situation was almost there in 2004 with the Department of Energy review.) So how do we approach this situation? Media sources say one thing ("rejected"), though that is, in fact, changing slowly, and there is now ample recent media source saying this is active scientific research, and peer-reviewed reliable source says something quite different, supporting the reality of the effect (negative peer-reviewed source has practically disappeared, and there is continued positive publication outside the Walled Garden of supportive publications). In the presence of someone dedicated to promoting the idea that cold fusion is bogus, Bad Science, and vigorously opposing and removing any source that would ordinarily be considered reliable source (independent reputable publisher, for example) as "fringe," it's impossible to negotiate this, so I gave up until the smoke clears. Meanwhile, the article needs reorganization, so I may work on a fork as a draft of that, because reorganization is totally impossible in the presence of massive POV pushing, it's hard enough to change one sentence toward neutrality, much less the whole article. In the end, it will be editorial consensus that will determine the outcome. NYB, you know that consensus mechanisms are my special interest, that's why I'm interested in parliamentary procedure. In no case did I assert a possibly biased source (RS can be biased) in order to contradict stronger reliable source, less likely to be biased; rather, in the section where edit warring appeared, Storms, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, World Scientific, 2007, was used as a source for proposed explanations, and Storms does indeed verify that the explanations are proposed, and if they are included in Storms, they are notable within the field. No assertion was made or implied that these theories have been accepted, and, in fact, Storms was quoted as saying that no theory has received general acceptance (and he means not even within the field). This was all removed on the "fringe" argument. Which I think you will recognize is a violation of the arbitration on fringe science. This is exclusion, not balance. --Abd (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Instalanche
Cool. Thatcher 01:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK and the Bill of Federalism
Hey,

I read you blog posts on Volokh and figured you might be able to clear something up for me. I just recently joined Wikipedia after reading it without contribution for quite some time. The first article I wrote was about the Bill of Federalism recently proposed by Prof. Randy Barnett, since it was the first thing of any importance that I had looked up on wikipedia and not found an article existing for. After building it up (it is still not 100% complete; I am slowly adding explanation after the text of each amendment, in no particular order) I decided to submit it to Did You Know. You can read the complete discussion here.

I understand that I submitted it late, but I really don't understand GatoClass saying he (she?) would not run it because "Wikipedia does not exist as a free platform for the promotion of causes embraced by News Corp Inc." First of all, the WSJ did not promote the cause, it was merely an editorial. Second, even if you want to say that stuff from the WSJ counts as 'hearsay' of sorts, I was not citing it to prove anything of substance, but merely to provide a source for my assertion that the Bill was originally written up as an editorial in the WSJ. To be perfectly honest, that sounds more like a bias against having an article (or at least a DYK) about something he personally disagrees with.

As a new user, I feel that I don't really have any say against an Admin, but I would appreciate an explanation of what exactly is going on. If he admits that the consensus would probably be for keeping the article, then how can he refuse to run it. I really was hoping to see something I put work in on the homepage. If there is really a bias in my article then feel free to say so (I have shown the article to people of opposite political views for that reason), or else if it is somehow not notable. But otherwise is there any reason why my page should have been denied a DYK? TachyonJack (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. If you want to know what Gatoclass had in mind with his comment, your best course would be to ask him directly (perhaps you already have). My best understanding from having read the discussion is that Gatoclass means that a good DYK based on a current topic would be based on information from more than one reliable source, not just one&mdash;but that's subject to your asking him directly. Also, although I'm not saying it's true here, it's possible that an article can deserve to pass AfD but not to be featured on DYK. Hope this helps, and thank you for your contributions. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision
Hi Brad,

I'm finding this proposed decision quite upsetting. I hope that you will review the evidence and the comments at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision carefully. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I review all the submissions carefully before voting in any case and will certainly do so in this instance. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano issues case
I respect your decline, but I'd like to request reconsideration.

I believe that the issue of uncollegial administrator actions is ripe for arbcom intervention. I've put up a statement in the RfAR to this effect with more details.

I appreciate that the details of this sequence leave you wanting to leave it all for another day. But I think that the issue is fresh and appropriate. Yes, that it's Giano and that he's left (again, perhaps for good) complicates things - but WP:WHEEL is toothless as currently constituted, and that's not a good thing. People are getting away with blowing its intent off by doing so politely and with great depth of conviction. Its intent is to get people to talk first, click second - and that did not happen in 3 of the 4 admin actions under discussion here.

I respect all the administrators here - but I'd rather face down this problem now, and with people who I believe acted in good faith and who I respect, rather than in a case where admins may genuinely have had poor motivations.

It's up to you and the rest of Arbcom, but I think it's appropriate now.

Thanks for your attention, whichever way you ultimately decide. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Your concerns are certainly valid ones, whether or not they justify our taking up this particular case. As it happens, my ArbCom-related time for the rest of the evening is committed to drafting workshop proposals in two pending cases and to reviewing the evidence and voting on a third; but I'll return to the issues you raise tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NYB, with respect to your comment to leave it for another day... I haven't formed an opinion on the value of arbitration here, but it should be clear that any instance that prompts the committee to make a determination about wheel warring is going to come with some high passions and considerable controversy. It may be sensible, then, to deal with it now rather than wait. Nathan  T 00:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't ask for my 2 cents, but... the absolute worst time to try to settle an important issue is when everyone has their dander up. Right now, everyone is talking and no one is listening. If we want to address the issue of wheel-warring, or administrative standards, then let's do so in a calmer atmosphere. Trying to leverage this incident to address general concerns about the state of Wikipedia is doomed to fail, because passions are running too high about the particulars of this specific incident for people to objectively consider what would be best in the general. If this matter is taken up, then it might at least be worth considering a mandatory "cooling-off" period - it doesn't have to be long, but I don't think anything productive can be accomplished in the current mood. MastCell Talk 04:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The way I see it... significant progress on this sort of thing occurs only when spurred on by a clear need. What we've got here is a perfect example of wheel warring, in my opinion, and an opportunity to make a change at a time when a wide audience sees and understands that such a change is necessary. If the committee and the community decide to wait until tempers cool and passions fade, there is every reason to expect that inertia will take over and nothing meaningful will be accomplished before the next event. Rather than meet that next event with the same amorphous expectations for administrator behavior and cooperation, just clear things up now when everyone is paying attention. The details of this case lend themselves to this sort of review; none of the administrators who took action here were involved in the underlying dispute, none seemed to have a particular emotional stake in the outcome. They each described clear and valid reasoning for their decision, and consciously accepted that their action might have repercussions - none, then, can be described as having been overcome by temper or influenced by friendship or allegiance to some mysterious faction. It's unlikely that many future cases will have these advantages, so does it make sense to wait? Nathan  T 06:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should add, we're talking about an arbitration decision here anyway - fairly certain, then, that even if the case is accepted there will be more than enough time for people to cool down before a decision is issued. The slow grind of process has its benefits. Nathan  T 06:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy
I hope you don't take my statement of opposition to your proposed remedy personally. I just see the ramifications of such a measure as destructive to content editors as a whole. Mattisse's personality enters into a gray area, but not one that is egregious. When it results in edit warring, outing, legal problems, etc, sure, but words are words. How do you make amends for words? Well, you put forth words that have a positive effect. How can Mattisse accomplish this (i.e. working with others, building content, and seeking collaboration) if they are removed? This will just cause people to resent the system and feel as if their work here is meaningless. ArbCom can give out awards and stickers complimenting work, but this is like a simultaneous beating with a stick. It only corrupts the praise and instills bitterness. I feel strongly about this point, and I feel strongly about blocks as being the worse possible thing in these situations (be it my acts, Malleus's acts, Mattisse's acts, Ceoil's acts, Giano's acts, Bishonen's acts, or any other major content editor that comes under this same censure time after time). Yes, problematic behavior needs to be stopped, but it can only be stopped through understanding and collaboration. The problem is Wikipedia treated as a battleground, and this is eased when people learn to tolerate each other. I made my statement that I will leave while Mattisse is unable to edit because we need a system that will work, and I feel strongly that this wont be that system. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

External blog posts
Wikipedia editors may be interested in my blog posts (under my real name) at www.volokh.com. There are two so far and a few more will appear during the balance of the next week or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That was fun. I read Volokh a few days ago but didn't realize it was you, then read again today, saw your self-identification, and thought, "So that's Newyorkbrad!" The one thing that surprised me was I had thought that as an Arbitrator you had already identified yourself. Perhaps I'm thinking of candidates for the Board identifying themselves. Volokh.com is a good read even for non-lawyers. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a heads up... I'll be noting your series of posts in this week's Signpost. Nice job, by the way.  Really interesting.--ragesoss (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - very interesting read. For some reason I always pictured you as a young twenty-something with unusually well-developed mediation skills. However reading a bit of your professional background makes it a bit clearer where your knack for arbitration comes from. Well done on the articles. Ronnotel (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's funny - I always pictured Brad as Antonin Scalia's non-evil twin. :P MastCell Talk 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To Sbowers3: When I became an arbitrator and signed up for oversight (and later checkuser) access, I was required to identify myself to the Wikimedia Foundation office, but not to the general public. As far as I know, only Board candidates are required to publicly disclose their real identities. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed the blog posts too, you did a good job of explaining this weird world. Not that many people in the comments sections seemed to be listening ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Brad, the blog posts were excellent. I'm glad you did them.  Thanks.  - Philippe  17:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
I don not see how anything has changed since the mediation. I am currently in dispute with Collect on the Fascism article (since May 16). I see a continuing pattern. I complained that a lead sentence was ambiguous and not supported by the references. He ignores what I have stated, claims we have reached a compromise and then comes up with masses of references he obviously has not read, and do not back up the sentence. He did set up an RfC but threatened an editor who joined it with edit-warring (User_talk:Lapsed_Pacifist).

Here is the discussion:
 * Talk:Fascism
 * Talk:Fascism
 * Talk:Fascism
 * Talk:Fascism

That is anyhow I see it and perhaps reviewing this recent matter may help you in your decision. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I will certainly consider it in casting my final vote. It might be best if you added this information to the arbitration page as well so that all of the arbs will see it, not just me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You likely should read that editor's posts. At this point, he seems to think that he can overturn consensus by simply attacking me :)  The sentence deleted while the request for comment on it was pending had been in the article for a very extended period of time, and I somehow doubt any of this actually relates at all to edit warring which is what the discussion was about.  The issue traces back to 2001 in the article   By 2004, the article specifically mentioned the different views of historians.  In 2005 the article reflected basically the language now disputed 4 years later).   I trust this is of some value to you. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Typo
Thanks for your attention to the Mattisse RfArb. While I have some reservations about the direction you are taking, I think I understand it, and will comment later. Meanwhile, I wonder if "access of candor" in section 4 of proposed findings is a typo. Did you mean "excess of candor" or something else? Geometry guy 23:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant what I typed, although it's a pretty obscure (and maybe technical) meaning of "access". Meanwhile, thanks to you and everyone else who has commented on the draft. All comments will be useful in preparing the final decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Availability note
FYI, I'm travelling and will have limited online time and access this holiday weekend. (For the curious, I am spending a couple of days here.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured that you were flying to D.C. to be announced as the nominee to succeed Souter. 68.248.233.93 (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion of a details defense
Will Beback has been blocked by Sandstein for an arbitration enforcement violation. Sandstein has asked for a consensus discussion at ANI. Before the block, Will made a defense at Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat (24 May portion). I request that you examine the somewhat complicated details of Will's defense and offer an opinion at ANI, as to its merit along with any gray areas. Milo 20:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. However, please see my comment on ANI. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking question
I'm sorry to have gone on for five paragraphs, but I found, when I thought about it, that I had five things to say. Thank you for intervening. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of everyone on the wiki, I have pretty much the least standing to scold anyone for writing at too great a length. Thank you for posting your thoughts, which I will consider along with everyone else's. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

An arbitrator's question for all parties
So, are you writing a master's thesis in sociology, and collecting data? ;) If you're not, someone probably could use this as an enlightening case study on the organic development of heated and long-lasting conflict out of the primordial soup of the most mundane trivialities. Since it's a wiki, every step of its formation has been preserved. Could be a student's goldmine. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm just trying to decide how to vote on this case and whether to offer any alternate proposals. But I referenced this in one of my posts on Volokh a couple of weeks ago&mdash;we have our disputes based on the most bitter real-world feuds and enmities imaginable ... and then we have these other ones. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tang dynasty case
Hello. I saw that ArbCom had a target date for May 16th to complete the proposed decision, but as far as I'm aware no proposed decision or draft has yet been made. I think the evidence and workshop pages in said case are roughly completed. Can you take a look and have some comments? Thanks for your time, and sorry to bother you.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, if you don't mind, I would like to ask that if a user does not answer questions given to him(and instead responds with personal attacks), is that appropriate behavior on ArbCom, or should ArbCom clerks take action against said comment? In addition, I think WP:TLDR is becoming a problem.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another arbitrator was originally assigned to do a first draft on this case, but it appears that he is away. I have volunteered to step in if he doesn't return within the next day or two, and in that case will try to have something posted shortly. Thanks for the prompt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you mind taking a look at my evidence and see if it is too long by ArbCom standards. It would not exceed 1000 words if the quotes of wikipedia policy are not included, but I'm afraid it might be too long. Link:diffTeeninvestor (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. In any event, I hope to write up the case within a day or two, so there probably isn't the time or the need to do any cutting. Thanks for asking, though. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, can I ask you a policy question relating to this case. User:Tenmei seems to claim that citing your sources does not make you comply with WP:V, as shown here. diff. I couldn't make out any of his other claims because of WP:TLDR. Being confused, I'd like to ask: Does citing your sources make you comply with WP:V? I ask this question just to get a clear and official judgement from an experienced arbitrator, as this is more or less the entire dispute.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be posting a draft decision tomorrow on the workshop. (Sorry this has been held up; I had an out-of-town trip come up and I had to put some wiki-stuff on the back burner, but that is resolved now.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in editors' comments at Tenmei's remedies. The consensus is that they need to be expanded.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't want to harry you but the Tang Dynasty case is getting a little long in the tooth, so to speak. Can we get this case decided quickly? the basic premise is very simple and it shouldn't be hard for ArBCom to come to a decision.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point about the length of time the case has been pending, but I want to get some input from other arbitrators before we move to the proposed decision stage. Hopefully this comes shortly, but unfortunately, we have a number of very huge cases before us right now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that the Tang dynasty case is very simple/easy to resolve. It's more like something for ANI than ArbCom(Tenmei took it all the way here though). That's why I recommended this case not be accepted by ArbCOm in the first place.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh ya and while you are at it please consider expanding the scope to view Tenmei's behaviourial problems in other areas, which are also worthy of attention. Just this day he made another ranting attack against editor User:Nick-D whom he called a "problem".Teeninvestor (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen everything posted. A proposed decision will be posted for arbitrator voting tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! and sorry for hounding you, if my questions bothered you.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia finding
Hello, I saw you were "abstaining" and still considering on the FoF about my redirection of the Macedonians (Greeks) page. Not sure if you've seen it already, but you might be interested in the background information about this issue I've given here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been reading through all the evidence and statements again in the course of voting on everything. Thanks for the specific pointer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP opinions
Now that this can not be canvassing, I would like your opinion on User:Collect/BLP which demonstrates some of my concerns about that category of article. It is almost entirely the posts from one unnamed editor, and typifies what I find to be entirely too common on WP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't render a definitive opinion on the material without seeing it in its original context&mdash;which you have very properly redacted&mdash;but on skimming it over it appears to be pretty unimpressive stuff. Is any of this still in our articles? You can respond by e-mail if you'd prefer not to call attention to it on-wiki. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes -- it most certainly is. Try Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist).  I am perfectly willing to give the locus in a post, but I am a firm believer that nothing approaching an "attack page" in userspace is proper. I believe, though am not absolutely certain, that the two editors are one editor who changed his name. For the earlier posts you need to see Talk:Matt Drudge/Archive 1  etc.  The wording is certainly quite akin.  The editor is the same one who specifically called me a "nutcase" .  Is my opinion abot making sure BLPs have the highest standards too far afield from yours? Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullying tactics by two involved editors
Hi Neyyorkbrad. As requested by you, I added a response to the An arbitrator's question for all parties section. Right or wrong (and in good faith), I stated my beliefs. I don't expect my beliefs to be acted upon, but I also don't expect my beliefs to be vandalised—here (by ), and here and here (by ). Those users are free to add whatever they like to their section, and I would not even consider denigrating their view-points. Especially irksome is that the original response to my viewpoint did not address any points I made—rather, it simply attacked me. Such tactics add nothing to the debate or resolution. Such behaviour by two editors (who are named in the arbitration, and will receive bans and restrictions) is typical of the bullying tactics that have dragged us into the date-linking debacle. Could I request that you permit the removal of the vandalism to my view-points so that we can all make our points in peace? Thank you for any help you can provide in this matter. (I apologise if I should have gone to someone else with this—if so, to whom?). Cheers.  HWV258  22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the editor who separated out the responses in to sections for each editor. It was not my intent to stifle critique of those responses in doing so, only to make it simpler for the arbitrators to skip to individual responses if they desired. WP:TPG is clear as glass that your behavior, removal of another editors comments, is vandalism. You do not "own" any section on that page. If PMAnderson wishes to remove his comment he may do so, the arbitrators or clerks may also remove comments they consider unhelpful, but that's not for you to decide. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this situation in which editors can't even answer my questions without bickering about the formatting of the responses speaks for itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision
You used the word "good" twice in the clause about "Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good good faith of other users". John Carter (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
I wonder why you miss Tenmei's behavior during the ArbCom case? Several editors addressed the matter, and his incivility, but your final draft does not reflect the concerns.--Caspian blue 20:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposed finding 3 directly addresses this subject. If you believe it is not sufficient or does not contain enough detail, you should post to the talkpage of the proposed decision, where the other arbitrators will see your concerns. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe Tenemi's attacks and harassment to me and Teeninvestor, and Nick-D like these comment today is allowed to Wiki.
 * "Aside. Caspian blue's persisting cognitive dissonance is most harmful when it attempts to foster a perception of bad faith where none exists -- see"
 * 
 * "Garbage in Garbage out.....and others.
 * If ArbCom fails to guide the disruptive editor who has repeated his behavior, who can guide him?-Caspian blue 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Availability note
I'll be travelling with limited availability until Monday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written
In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:


 * A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:
 * "We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
 * 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
 * 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
 * 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
 * 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
 * "As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."


 * B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:
 * "This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)