User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Jul

Questions about appealing my topic ban
Sometime in the next couple of weeks I’m hoping to ask ArbCom to review my topic ban from the race and intelligence arbitration case, but I have some questions related to how to go about doing that. Would you be able to give me some advice about this, or is ArbCom too busy at the moment dealing with the e-mail leak issue? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If the answer is that you're too busy to discuss this right now, could you please let me know that? That way I'll know that I should ask a different arbitrator about this, rather than waiting indefinitely for your response. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi; thanks for the prod here. I've been swamped with real-world work for the past few days. Beyond that, you are correct that the Arbitration Committee's time and attention has definitely been diverted for the last week or so by the archives hack situation. In the next few days, we have a holiday weekend coming up in the U.S. and Canada during which several of the arbitrators will be travelling or unavailable. I know that your editing status is important to you, but if you can delay raising this issue for a couple of weeks, I think that would be appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. I was intending to ask a different arbitrator about this if you were too busy to discuss it, but from your response it sounds like ArbCom as a whole is pretty busy at the moment.  Would you mind telling me more specifically when would be a better time to discuss this?  Maybe the week of the 10th, for example? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that might be better timing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat
Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will comment on this, but may not be able to focus on it until after the holiday weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Availability note
I will be mostly offline during the coming holiday weekend (from mid-afternoon today, Friday, through midday Tuesday). I will also be mostly offline during a trip I have planned from Thursday through Sunday of next week. After that, I should have significantly more wikitime than I have had the past few weeks.

I have fallen behind in responding to posts on this page, as well as e-mails, because of a very busy offline schedule in June. My apologies to anyone to whom I owe a response. If your issue is still current, please feel free to post or e-mail me again&mdash;but unless it is urgent, preferably not until after next week.

Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping arbitration
Hi, due to your comment on Case/Tree shaping/Proposed decision about Blackash COI, I have re-posted my original comments to the diffs that Elen of the Roads put up about my COI You may find it of interest. Blackash  have a chat 12:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. I'll be reviewing the case again this evening (US ET). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping proposed decision
All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash  have a chat 08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As above, I'll be taking another look at this case this evening (US ET). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

nick-d's motion
Good day,

Nick-d has filed a motion at the current request for Arbcom clarification page. I reject all his allegations contained in the motion, but before replying in detail, I first want confirmation that the motion has indeed been made in the correct format and at the correct place. Please confirm, or direct me to whichever clerk is the person to whom this query should be referred. It seems to me that the motion should be seen as a matter quite separate from my request for clarification, which clarification has not yet been made, and the motion should have been filed separately so as not to impede the current request for clarification. Please confirm. Thanking you in anticipation. Communikat (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned to Nick-D above, I probably will not be able to look at this in detail until after the holiday weekend. (I am going to be getting on a train soon, and past efforts to edit Wikipedia from a Blackberry have been disastrous.) In the meantime, several other arbitrators and clerks watchlist this page, and it is possible one of them can reply to you. Otherwise, we will pick this up on Tuesday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brad, Communicat's conduct has sharply deteriorated since you commented (diffs at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification). cheers, Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ebionites arbitration question
Subtitled, The Bozo Is Back. First, I really hate having to pester you about this. However, I do believe that there have been substantive questions about conduct, possibly including my own, I don't know, about the editors involved in this article, and I also beleive that, at least personally, the article will not be substantively improved until an arbitration is heard, although, honestly, it would be fairly easy to make it at least GA, maybe FA. If you could indicate to me at some point the outcome of the discussion about taking the case, when and if such a conclusion is reached, I would be very appreciative. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the discussion has receded a bit because of the arbcom-l hack situation plus the holiday weekend many of us just had. I'll raise this issue again today and commit to getting this resolved (or at least a case open) within the next week. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI. This comment by Nishidani (who is nominally on the opposite side of this dispute from me) is highly relevant to the edit conflict that took place on the Ebionites article, as well as other articles in the category of Jewish-Christianity.  In fact, this comment is what convinced me to step away from the article and find something else to do.  Ovadyah (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to say that reading your comments to the ArbCom mailing list during Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG made me feel just a little bit better about Wikipedia. So the leak has had some positive consequences. :) Thanks for consistently being a voice of reason, even behind the scenes. I wish I could say I was shocked to hear your former colleagues opine that Abd's only shortcoming was his "timidity" in pursuing dispute resolution, but I'd be lying. (Oops, that was churlish, wasn't it?) Let me close on a positive note: thanks. MastCell Talk 21:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * +1 And might I say that perhaps Wikipedia might be better served with discussions like the one you Arbitrators had about that case being onwiki. Sure, Arbitrators might not have been so blunt, which would be unfortunate. However, I think think that if some of your comments had been public back in 2007, administrative culture might have been changed for the better. NW ( Talk ) 23:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your notes. I think, however, that a fair amount of what I had to say in that case actually was posted on-wiki at the time. For starters, take a look (if you care to do so) at my proposals on the workshop, as well as my vote comments on the proposed decision page. The language is a bit more Bradspeak on-wiki than on the list, but the substance was much the same. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True, I think your views were clear from your on-wiki postings. And I recall being thankful for your proposals when you posted them here. I guess seeing the divisions in the Committee more clearly, and seeing your discussion behind the scenes with colleagues who held differing viewpoints, was refreshing nonetheless. Cheers. MastCell Talk 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My one regret is maybe that we didn't post more often onwiki than on the mailing list, but one is always trying to balance succinctness and avoid walls of text. OTOH I was hoping other folks would realise how hard it is to discuss damaging speculation openly at times when trying to balance Good Faith but yet openly ruminate about motives/identity/etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it. My acquaintances on the sharp end of the Climategate "scandal" would sympathize. Overwhelmingly, the leaked emails simply confirm the inferences one would draw about the committee, its members and other editors from their on-Wiki comments. I admit there are one or two things I'm still curious about from the first climate change case but overall my reaction to the emails is "so what?" More specifically, I want to second the comments by my esteemed fellow cabalists colleagues MastCell and NW. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Double vote at "Tree shaping"
Hi Brad, You've double voted on R2A. Regards, Paul August &#9742; 17:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the note. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom case scope question
I'm wondering if Arbitration talk is not the right place to discuss arbcom policies? (I picked you, not really at random, but because you expressed some concerns about how the Cults case would be scoped. I m specifically concerned about how that case will be scoped but also generally concerned that I don't understand the process for determining case scope. I don't think my questions properly belong as part of that case, so if there is a better place to as, please let me know.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Questions about a specific case should generally go on a case relating to that case. Questions relating to procedure in general probably belong on the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee or someplace similar.
 * The scope of cases has historically been decided on something of an ad hoc basis. This is not always fair to the participants, and one of the reasons for my hesitation in voting on whether to accept the current request for a case is precisely this concern that the scope is currently ill-defined and the case risks becoming a mess sprawling out in all directions. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Update on Supreme Court article collaboration with FA writer Wehwalt
Newyorkbrad, an update regarding Supreme Court article collaboration with FA writer Wehwalt. The two of us have decided to work on a Quality Improvement Drive of a different article first, and I've gone ahead and created it. (Interesting that Wikipedia previously didn't have an article on this Supreme Court case). The article is Time, Inc. v. Hill. It's interesting as the Hill position was argued before the Court by Richard Nixon. and I would appreciate it if you'd wish to help out in research, writing, copyediting, or another capacity. :) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

email
Hi Brad, hope you are well. I sent you an email, did you get it? Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I received your e-mail the other day, but didn't have a chance to look at it at the time (see comments about my limited availability last week, above). I've now raised your request with the other arbitrators and someone should get back to you soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say thanks for passing my email on and I received a reply, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Beta motion comment
Pardon my intrusion here, but would you kindly link to the Betacommand2 decision in your !vote so that I and other editors may reread it? Thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I'll go ahead and insert the link to Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. FYI, it's already linked in the motion itself and earlier in my comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was being dense. Thanks.  I'll reread the guidance there for sure  Wikidemon (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter
The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OUTing blocks
Hi Brad, I just want clarification here of the general point of OUTing blocks. Thsi came to my attention wrt to FightingMac's attempt at outing and the fact that he was not blocked - I'm not going anywhere near the specifics of that case, it's just what brought me here. I've never seen an account that breached WP:OUT left unblocked before - especially an unrepentent one. Is it the case that outing blocks are discretionary (ie that the revdel/oversight is more important)? Being that outing is classified harassment I don't see the point in leaving accounts with an ax to grind against other editors unblocked, or unblocking them, when they merely nod at WP:OUT. From my perspective there's no reason in policy to restore the editing privelages of account who's harrassed another user until they agree to abide by WP:DE/WP:POINT, WP:BATTLE and WP:CIVIL? In fact as I understand the harassment policy that's what's supposed to happen. I realize in the above instance that the incident of outing itself has at this point become stale-ish so again I'm not on about the specifics of that case. While I'm getting to the specifics of the case - this kind of reponse to half a days worth of warnings only serves to reinforce my views. I know this is probably a can of worms/grey area but as someone willing to deal with harassment of other editors (and who follows the Arb Com's notes & rulings on this) I'd love your 2c when you get a chance-- Cailil  talk 17:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's dead simple Cailil. 1 I'm not a sock 2 I didn't out anyone 3 It's not true I'm not repentant. It's just that in my view I have nothing to be repentantant about. What I am being very careful to do is not to repeat myself until such time as I have heard from the arbitration committee, even to the point of being ambiguous about the admin's gender when discussing the case. Of course outing is a terrible thing but I honestly don't believe I have done anything of the sort. I deal with WP:OUTING on my Talk page here. Have we had dealings before? I don't think I've seen you on my or other Talk pages before. Why are you so concerned? It's being dealt with by the arb committee. I'm content to await their judgement. Why are you trying to influence their decision like this? Is that Wikipedia policy to do that? What if everyone were to start posting on admin's pages like this? What makes you exceptional? Please leave this alone now. I answered your remarks patiently on the ANI up to the point, indeed beyond, they became circular and there was no point continuing. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (To Cailil) I warned rather than blocked in the hope that the violation was made based on unawareness of the policy, and that the problem would not recur. It would be in the interest of everyone to deescalate this episode. At this point, the situation is being reviewed by a couple of the other arbitrators, and it would be best for any outing-related issues in that context to be dealt with via e-mail to the mailing list. I will emphasize again that edits revealing or pointing attention to the offline identity of editors who choose to edit anonymously are not acceptable and that no such edits may be made at any time.
 * (To FightingMac) You may not be aware, but I am one of the arbitrators, as well as the person who posted my concerned note in the ANI discussion and on your talkpage, so there is nothing untoward with an editor's coming to me with a question about the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware, Brad. I will emphasize again that my edits did not reveal or point to the offline identity of the admin concerned. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response Brad - I wasn't criticizing you per se - I was more interested in how you were looking at this & I could see myself doing something similar in certain circumstances-- Cailil  talk 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Illicit Drug Interventions" Arbitration
Newyorkbrad, I have not been able to find instruction on how to provide feedback through the arbitration template so am communicating here. In the interests of clarification, which perhaps should have been more clearly stated in the "Illicit Drug Interventions" template, the issue is one of editor conduct ie that three editors claim that a consensus they have between them should overrule the third party input of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which on three of the four occasions has not supported them.

Of course I am all too happy to be directed to any alternate dispute resolution procedure or process that will resolve this dispute. Minphie (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response to my comment. You can post what you've written above as an addendum to your statement on the arbitration page, which will make sure that all the arbitrators see it, not just me.
 * For information on dispute-resolution methods short of arbitration, please see Dispute resolution. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)