User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Sep

Senkaku
Please ask this question again in different words:
 * I do not understand specifically what you are driving at with this proposal. Please explain in a bit more detail (but only a bit more, please).

Were you asking about
 * (a) the marriage of "content" and "conduct"?
 * (b) Information asymmetry (ja:情報の非対称性) and Moral hazard (zh:道德风险)?
 * (c) both?

I am somewhat hesitant, in part because I'm uncertain about how to interpret "a bit more detail (but only a 'bit' more, please)." --Tenmei (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Your comments elsewhere on the workshop have provided me with enough input to address my questions, so I don't need anything else at this time. Please note that my arbitrator colleague John Vandenberg will be preparing the initial draft of the proposed decision in this case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Joe, Chill"?
I wasn't even stressed about it. I actually just found out recently about admins having the ability to delete edit summaries and I didn't know if fuck was something that couldn't be in an edit summary in that instance. For the last time that people told me to chill out - in real life, saying fuck off to someone is not accepted like it is here. Joe Chill (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I was mostly just punning on your username. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Newyorkbrad, regarding your comment here, the calculations at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision appear to still be off. There are multiple points listed as passing, that have less than the requisite number of votes. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think everything has been updated again, but if there are any remaining discrepancies, the proposed decision talkpage is probably the best place to catch the case clerks' attention, as you have seen. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

too broad a proposal

 * - Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision

Hi, do you still intend to offer a new proposal or a change of wording? note - as he also commented along similar lines, I have asked the same question of David Fuchs. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still considering all the input on this question, and will decide by the morning, unless one of my colleagues beats me to it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I appreciate your commenting - there does seem to be some dispute about this among arbiters about an acceptable restrictive proposal on this issue - my desire is not to see that dispute result in a void of an acceptable beneficial proposal. Off2riorob (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the proposed decision page for my current thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your proposals there. Although I have no vote I see 2.2 as being not overly restrictive and by steering him away from controversial additions, beneficial to User:Cirt especially with the one year option to relax the restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Availability note
I'll be traveling with limited online time and availability for an end-of-summer trip, from mid-afternoon Friday until late Tuesday evening. I expect to complete my input on the pending arbitration decisions and anything else pressing before my departure, and I will try to pop on occasionally over the weekend in case there is anything new and urgent to address. Everything else will probably have to wait until Wednesday, with apologies for anyone to whom a response is delayed. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Input needed
Please look at the interim proposal here, WP:ALTRFA and provide your valuable input. If you have time, we are at the grassroots of development and you could be an advocating mentor if you like. But your input will be invaluable. Also be bold if you want to change any thing. Thanks - My76Strat (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll be traveling for the next few days (see paragraph just above) but will take a look at the page after that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposals
How would this impact About the author sections, in articles about books? Or biographical background on lawyers and justices, in articles about court cases? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the articles themselves aren't BLPs, such edits would be acceptable provided that they complied with the BLP policy and weren't controversial on their face. I think the proposals are reasonably clear in that regard, but if you disagree or can suggest better wording, please feel free to speak up. To make sure that all the arbitrators see the discussion, particularly while I'm traveling this holiday weekend (see above), the best place for it would be on the proposed decision talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Request
I'm asking for a one-time only exception to my restrictions, defined here Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change. To rectify a BLP violation. (blatant imho).

The edit i want to make, is to remove the entry of Petr Chylek from List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (which is under BLP) to the talk-page with a description of the problem which is:
 * The quote for him is a piecemeal cherry-pick from this document..
 * We are quoting him as saying:
 *  "Carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain" 
 * Whereas what he really says is (i've highlighted what was picked) - in two different paragraphs, with another paragraph interspaced:
 * First para:
 *  "If we admit both sets of data as correct, then carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming . Natural climate variability, changes in land use and the variability of solar radiation are a few factors that can affect the climate." 
 * Second para:
 *  We are living in a rare period when the earth’s temperature is pleasantly warm. Only 16 percent of the last 420,000 years had a climate as pleasant as it is today. Instrumental measurements suggest that the global average temperature increased by about 0.5 degree C over approximately the last 120 years. Some of this increase was very probably caused by increased atmospheric concentration of CO2. However, how much of the increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain . The fact that the temperature started to go up around 1890, when man-made production of CO2 was negligible, indicates clearly that forces other than increasing CO2 were responsible for the heating that occurred during the first half of the twentieth century. The fact that currently the surface air is warming faster than the atmosphere suggests that even in the post-1970 warming period, forces other than greenhouse gases are responsible for at least a considerable fraction of the observed warming. Thus, it is highly probable that global average temperature will go up and down in the coming years, decades, and centuries regardless of what we do. 

I'm not asking for admission into a subsequent discussion - but merely to remove the entry from the list, and address the problem with a text much like this, on the talk-page of the article. With a caution that there may have accumulated other BLP violations during the changes. The list is a highly contentious collection of scientists, where the quotes are used as evidence for the scepticism of the scientist, this kind of exposure can be problematic for a the scientists, and thus need to be monitored for BLP violations - something which i did before the Arbcom case. [which is why i noticed this now] Thank you for your time and consideration :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, Wikipedia is based on the premise that it is not up to "one person" to right all the wrongs in articles. KDP should not get a "free kick". I would also note that the evidence presented is quite adequate to show the doubts the person has on AGW, which is what that article appears to be about - to give an apparent imprimatur to a statement that the person should not be included might inject you into this morass. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to get a "free kick" - i'm not even trying to influence the discussion. All i'm trying to do is to rectify a BLP violation, and it is.... The list is not based upon our thinking that there is doubts - but evidence that there is significant doubt. Editors can restore the scientist afterwards, based upon correct quoting. But if that is the resolution - then so be it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked for an "exception." Forgive the football analogy. Collect (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we really want a blatantly cherry-picked quote on a BLP article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we wish to assert that an editor under specific restrictions is the only person in all of Wikipedia who can recognize a BLP violation? . Collect (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually i'm wondering why you haven't fixed the problem. Do you consider that a fair quote? In my book that quote is a school example of cherry-picking - and you are willingly leaving it on a BLP. Go figure.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please pardon the delay in my responding to this.

On the substance of the request, I have only a layman's knowledge of global warming controversies, but on the face of things I see some merit to KimDabelsteinPetersen's point that the source may not support Chylek's inclusion in this listing. I considered whether to make the edit suggested above, but your suggestion also contained the very valid suggestion that the deletion be discussed on the article talkpage, and I'm really not the right person to initiate or lead that discussion.

I don't see any reason to believe that by making this particular edit (or pair of edits), KimDabelsteinPetersen would be seeking to infringe the spirit of the restrictions voted in the Climate change case, or to resume regular participation in the climate change topic area. If it were up to me to authorize this edit on my own, I would do so.

For better or worse, though, I don't really have the authority to override an ArbCom restriction unilaterally. As a practical matter, I could probably do it&mdash;if I posted here "as one of the authors of the Climate change decision, I authorize you to make this edit," and you linked to that in your edit summary, and you stuck to making only the specific edit you discuss above, I doubt that any action would be taken against you. However, I can't guarantee that, and in any event, I would be breaching the principle that "one arbitrator on his or her own has no authority to speak for the Committee" and probably setting a bad precedent and all of that sort of thing.

So, my hope is that one of my talkpage watchers who is interested in, and more knowledgeable than I about, this topic area will pick up on KimDabelsteinPetersen's request and open the talkpage discussion she has suggested. At which point, hopefully a consensus can be reached. If, contrary to my hopes, nothing happens on this matter in a day or two (it is correct this is a BLP issue and shouldn't be allowed to linger indefinitely), then please return here and I will suggest some other possibilities.

I will add, again from a layman's perspective, that based on Collect's summary of what this article appears to be about, that the list inclusion criteria strike me as at best unclear in some circumstances. That is not necessarily a condemnation of the list's existence&mdash;lots of lists and categories necessarily have borderline-eligible members&mdash;but at a minimum it's something to be aware of. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, it is both well thought out, and fair. Hopefully someone will take you up on your suggestion. Sidenote: My restriction was semi-voluntary, and only covers BLP atm. CC restrictions are lifted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviving this - since nothing has happened on this. The quote is still there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you wil shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be reader by the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors, as well as refrain from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour within the comments section. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete old page?
Can you please delete or merge this old page?: Talk:Arthur Sullivan/Comments. It's several years out of date and just clutters up the talk page header. BTW, we're planning to take this to peer review and then FAC soon. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

List of memorable races at Talladega Superspeedway
I didn't think "lists" fit under "articles", but thanks for the insight. Now I know. :) It's now correctly listed at AFD.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "list" articles are in mainspace (you can tell that because they don't have a prefix in front of the title, such as "Wikipedia:" or "User:" or "Template:" or "Help:". More substantively, lists are considered articles because they are part of the encyclopedia, as opposed to the administrative or backroom apparatus that we have in order to maintain the encyclopedia. If you check any day's AfD discussions, you'll likely see a bunch of "List of ..." articles nominated for deletion along with other articles. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Query
As noted previously, prior to the recent arbcom case FA writer was helping me with a quality improvement project on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Time Inc. v. Hill. Going forward on Wikipedia, I'd very much like to continue improving the quality of articles on U.S. Supreme Court cases that are related to Freedom of the press, and also more generally write new articles on notable books about Freedom of speech. For example, I'd like to write a new article about the book by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Anthony Lewis, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate (I'd already used that book as a source in the article Time Inc. v. Hill, it's been a most useful reference.) Would this be alright under the terms of the conclusion of the arbcom case?? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see a problem with this, assuming the focus of the articles is primarily about the legal issues rather than biographical. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So now Cirt has to ask permission to edit an article? This will not work. The topic ban is too vague and broad, because too many articles are BLP related. Andries (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the scope of the topic ban is reasonably clear. (I thought an alternative wording I had proposed was marginally better&mdash;see the proposed decision page&mdash;but that is neither here nor there.) The Committee specifically voted down a proposal that would have required Cirt to seek preclearance for every BLP-related edit he made. The restrictions as imposed are to be interpreted reasonably, and if that is done by all concerned, I expect and hope that there should be no further problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx for your reply. I continue to have my concerns. Cirt made some excellement edits to the NRM article Sathya Sai Baba movement. He removed some incorrect unsourced information that remained there for years. I am concerned that nobody will do that after he and I have been topic banned from that article. (I was and still am the only major contributor to that article.) I will request a lift of my topic ban for that article (which was never controversial.) Andries (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is counseled to use the talkpage?
I have been told to "voluntarily to not agree any articles about Communism for three months." or get banned for disruption, even though Igny was being disruptive by edit warring on the Pike article, four reverts by my count, three by yours. I have used the article talk pages whenever I have reverted anyone and explained why I did the revert, do you think it fair that I be topic banned even though I not broken a single rule? How is it that Igny causes trouble and I am the one to be banned? So am I counseled to use the talk pages (which I have been) or am I to be banned or intimidated into a topic ban? The Last Angry Man (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In my comments on the edit-warring noticeboard, I was primarily addressing your 3RR report against Igny, which I found not to be a violation for the reasons I stated there. Instead of just saying "no violation" and closing the report and walking away, I thought I would give some general useful advice to both sides. I must admit that when I did so, I was not aware of the comments by EdJohnston on your talkpage, which I have just read, nor did I have in mind your whole editing history.
 * If you believe that EdJohnston is being unfair to you, you have the right to request that the issue be looked at on the incidents noticeboard where it would be subject to further discussion by uninvolved parties. You should feel free to refer on your talkpage to this suggestion. You probably should not edit the articles in dispute until that discussion takes place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall wait to see what Ed says in response to my last question and should he decide to continue with his threat of topic ban or else I shall ask at the board you have indicated, thank you The Last Angry Man (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Please bear in mind that if the issue is brought before a broader audience, you need to be fair in how you present the issues and to discuss your entire editing history surrounding the areas in controversy, even any aspects that might not reflect favorably. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, I hope you realize my history is not that long, and until my idiotic edit war with IGNY before I was blocked was actually quite uneventful? Apart from socking accusations of course. Personally I think I was doing ok until Igny kicked up a fuss again. Thanks for your advice. The Last Angry Man (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello NYB. Please see my further comments at User talk:The Last Angry Man, posted since the 3RR closed. He has been given a DIGWUREN notice. I have withdrawn my proposal for a restriction of TLAM from articles about Communism, but have advised him to use diplomacy for any disputes he may encounter on such articles for the next 90 days, rather than resorting to the admin noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Hopefully this will help defuse the situation, but if not, I will let this evolve per the regular processes. As noted above, I didn't realize that there was this much background to the situation when I decided to take a shift on the 3RR board and try to close out a couple of reports there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always fun to see members of Arbcom branching out into regular admin work such as the 3RR board. They even come to WP:AE sometimes. On another topic, what do you think about reducing the size of Arbcom? It seems to be a perennial issue, and MuZemike is preparing the annual RfC. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that comment. There have actually been proposals, on occasion, that arbitrators should not use act as "regular" administrators at all during their terms&mdash;partly because of a fear that arbs will "throw their weight around" too much, so to speak, and partly for fear of provoking recusal situations if our administrator actions wind up being appealed to the Committee. For me, it's a matter of balancing&mdash;I won't weigh in on something that is obviously is heading in our direction, unless it's a rare occasion where I think I have a unique insight or something, but I don't see any reason not to chime in sometimes on ANI or deal with an occasional MfD closure or speedy deletion or AIV or UAA block. (Addressing AN3 reports was a bit of a departure for me, actually; the sometime rigid rule-oriented nature of that board, while understandable in principle, is not to my taste.)
 * As for the size of the Committee, I think I've been on record for awhile as saying that 17 or 18 arbitrators is a bit unwieldy and makes it hard to get decisions made, because we are looking for input and consensus or votes from that many people, plus sometimes everyone assumes that someone else will pick up a task and no one does. This is particularly clear every January, when the newcomers to the Committee are all full of energy and ready to roll up their sleeves and help out everywhere. (The poster child for this is probably me; I wrote three decisions in my first ten days on the Committee, which certainly hasn't happened too often since.) But then by July or August, we have people taking summer vacations and people who are a bit worn down and so on, and we need a good sized Committee just to overcome inactive periods and attrition. The optimum size of the Committee would probably IMHO be something like nine or eleven&mdash;but that means nine active arbitrators all the time, and since activity all the time can't be assumed given the arbitrators' shameful tendency to keep having real lives and all of that, we need more than that number of people in order to keep the number we need fully engaged at any given moment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Email
-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 16:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

New York Times article
I am quoted in two sentences of this article in Monday's New York Times. The subject of the article is Wikipedia's coverage of the terrorist attacks on the United States that took place ten years ago this week.

Just in case it is not clear from the newspaper article, I would like to emphasize that I have not participated as an administrator or arbitrator in decisions relating to the September 11 articles, except for blocking one or two particularly obnoxious trolls, nor do I recall having ever edited these articles. In addition, as far as I know, the editorial decisions relating to whether the existence of "conspiracy theories" should be mentioned in the article have been made by consensus of editors on the articles, culminating in content RfCs, rather than by top-down fiat. Finally, when I was interviewed by the reporter, I was not aware of the current GAR on September 11 attacks, which I came across the following day.

The meta-issue of how Wikipedia should best act responsibly and maintain NPOV on this type of article is an interesting and complex one. I suppose I can comment here in more detail if people are curious regarding my own views on the matter, although as I have done in the past, I disclaim any ability to be entirely objective in discussing conspiracy theories positing U.S. government collaboration in the the attacks, "controlled demolition" theories, and similar nonsense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you just did make your view known with the term "similar nonsense", which is clearly not a neutrally loaded term. But I don't see anyone arguing for or against the veracity of any of the so-called conspiracy theories, simply that to ignore their existence when a substantial proportion of the world's population is reported to consider that one or other of them has some merit is improper. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you are eliding the two issues in precisely a way that I pointed out to the reporter is problematic, though of course not everything I said during a half-hour conversation could be summed up in a quotation of a couple of sentences. I have no hesitation in describing the conspiracy theories&mdash;that George W. Bush knew about the plans for the attacks in advance; that all the Jews who worked at the World Trade Center were told to stay home that day; that no planes flew into the towers at all; that the lobbies of the building were filled with explosives and detonated&mdash;certainly all of that is nonsense, and "nonsense" is frankly a very mild word for it. (And I am not suggesting that you, or anyone else participating in the GAR, believes any of these things.) To what extent we should report the existence of belief in those theories among some sector of the world population is a very different, and much more nuanced, question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not eliding anything, I'm simply of the opinion that to completely ignore the existence of alternative explanations, whether or not we give them any credence (and just to be clear I don't), is doing our readers a disservice. We're not talking about just a few people who have doubts about the official explanation, we're talking about hundreds of millions across the world. Added to which it hardly seems rational to have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories that's completely ignored by the main article, which doesn't even include it as a see also link. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Geometry guy 02:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict; to MF) I fully understand the arguments for (and against) that point of view. That's a debate I've stayed out of over the years, and I don't think I'll get involved in it right now. I do hope that given the sensitivity of these issues from a number of angles, the level of civility and decorum in discussions of this issue will be maintained at as high a level as possible. (That is absolutely not aimed at any one person or group of people in particular.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the sensitivity? I've seen it argued recently that conspiracy theories have become a part of American political life. But why ignore them just in this one case? Even the Holocaust article includes a link to Holocaust denial. Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reasons for sensitivity in editing on these topics: the strength of the feelings of people affected by the terrorist attacks is one issue; the extreme seriousness of the BLP problems involved in publicizing some of the conspiracists' allegations against several living people is another issue, and a massively underappreciated one. As for your last comment, a high degree of sensitivity should certainly apply to debating the content of articles about the Holocaust and Holocaust denial as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a lawyer's answer. I wasn't asking about the sensitivity of editing on these topics but about the sensitivity of this specific issue, the inclusion of at least some recognition that there are alternatives to the official explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I've told people several times, I was in the Pentagon during the attacks, tried to help out with some of the injured in the immediate aftermath, and, at the time, thought that I had actually seen some of the burning airplane wreckage in the rubble (with the passage of time, however, I'm not so sure that what I was looking at might not have been pieces of the building's structure). I'm not bothered, however, by having conspiracy theories mentioned in the 9/11 article.  I probably haven't been the epitome of this myself, but WP editors have got to be able to distance themselves from their feelings on topics in order to treat them in a neutral manner. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never edited the article or said anything on-wiki about it. I think that probably is adequate distancing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I stay away from the article on the Pentagon attack for what may be the same reason.  I also don't like going to 9/11 memorials.  My organization kind of forced me to go to one of the big memorials at the Pentagon shortly after the event.  I wasn't happy to be there.  This is probably an over-generalization, but it seems to me that memorials are often more important for the people who weren't physically present at the remembered tragedy, because the memorial allows them to vicariously connect to and mourn the event, which is, of course, important for them.  My memorial, because of what I experienced through my own senses at the scene, seem more adequately expressed internally. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I respect your feelings, though they're a little remote from the original point of the thread I started, and if it's all right I think I'm going to end this here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me share. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

GB fan's RfA
Thanks - these two had me scratching my head a bit! Two rather unhelpful Supports! Happy with a revert.  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 08:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland
Perhaps you could go ahead and check Berg's account and confirm whether or not he is or is not a sock of Mantanmoreland? If not, then it would be justified to freely protect him from harassment from proxy IP editors. Cla68 (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't just "go ahead and check" someone's account, by which I assume you mean checkuser it, on a whim. Moreover, the allegation that ScottyBerg is a sockpuppet of Mantanmoreland, who as you know was community-banned for persistent and significant misconduct, is a serious one. If you have meaningful evidence to support such an allegation, please bring it to my attention and that of the Arbitration Committee, either here, or via e-mail if non-public information is involved. If you do not have such evidence, it does not seem to me to appropriate to repeat such an allegation based upon an unsupported, unexplained allegation from a single-purpose drive-by account editing from behind a proxy wall. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (Update) My attention has now been drawn to the declined SSI report. Have you reviewed the evidence there? If so, please comment on whether you believe it is or is not sufficient to warrant follow-up. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is other circumstantial evidence, including that the account began a few months after Mantanmoreland's second extensive sock farm was exposed and blocked. His editing from the beginning shows apparent experience as an editor.  Also, Scotty has taken an interest in topic areas that I have been involved with, such as global warming and others.  If you remember, one of Mantanmoreland's socks (MajorStovall) pretended to be interested in one of my topic areas.  In addition, his response to the SSI request doesn't seem right.  Never heard of Mantanmoreland?  His responses to the BLP issues with the Gary Weiss article and comments to Christofurio appear to show that he is knowledgeable on the issues concerning the article.  The thing is, however, I don't like seeing people banned as socks based on behavioral evidence.  I've seen it used too many times by WP administrators with dishonest agendas to ban editors they didn't approve of.  Mantanmoreland was one of the editors who supported those kind of witchunts.  Thus, if there is no technical evidence to tie Berg to Mantanmoreland, I think Berg should be left alone if he isn't violating any editing rules.  Thank you for your help. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "other circumstantial evidence" that you cite is very weak, and I find it quite insufficient to support this sort of serious allegation. It does not surprise me in the least that an editor who started in 2010 would not have heard of Mantanmoreland, who was a cause celebre back two years earlier in 2008, and only among a relatively small group of editors at that (the blessed majority of editors do not spend the time on arbitration pages that you and I do). There is every indication that ScottyBerg is a good-faith editor with no history of problems, and I find his assertion that he came across Gary Weiss on recent-changes patrol to be completely plausible.
 * Cla68, given how right you turned out to be in the Mantanmoreland case (a fact that I recognized earlier than some of my colleagues, though not as early as some of our critics), I take your input on this type of issue seriously, and I believe others do as well. That confers on you a corresponding responsibility to make this type of allegation only when it is supported by a significant weight of probative evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, while I largely agree with Newyorkbrad, I believe that even the SPI was excessive and has a potentially chilling effect. The articles that were related to the Mantanmoreland case continue to seem to attract far too much suspicion aimed at anyone who makes even positive edits (including removal of poorly sourced material from a BLP, or addition/improvement of reference sources), and this is unhealthy for the encyclopedia. Simply editing that article is insufficient reason to initiate an SPI, in my books; that the edits were entirely within keeping of all policies, were in response to the addition of poorly sourced material, were edits that would easily have been seen on routine recent changes patrol....these are all reasons to believe that ScottyBerg was editing the project in good faith. Risker (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a bit strange SB has never heard of Mantanmoreland who is frequently mentioned at Talk:Gary Weiss where SB has also edited. I can get the last mention of MM on my screen at the same time as SB's first edit without using a small font And the ArbCom probation message at the top has a link to the ArbCom MM case (though only in the text directed to admins). The evidence I have glanced at seems very weak, though. But, but... the edit I made here still haunts me! Thincat (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thincat, I can't quite tell whether all of your comments are serious or not. As noted above, ScottyBerg says, quite credibly, that his edits to the Gary Weiss article were reverting vandalism and BLP violations he came across on recent-changes patrol. Doing that does not require much familiarity with the subject-matter of the article or its editing history.
 * It's been suggested to me that it may have been counterproductive for me to have encouraged this discussion, and I am closing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Wonton518
Thanks for the block on this one, he had been editing under that username and evading ip blocks the whole evening. It doesn't help that he showed up at the time of night when there are the fewest admins monitoring AIV. Trusilver 18:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark FAC
Hi. The FAC process for United States v. Wong Kim Ark may have stalled; and in part because this is my first FAC, I'd like to ask some advice. I've done a lot of work on the article in the past few days — enough to convince one of the two opposers (Jinnai) to change his position and (now) support promotion. I've also done a lot to address the objections raised by Calliopejen1, and at this point I think I've been able to do about as much as can be done with the best older secondary sources that seem to be available. Trouble is, Calliopejen1 hasn't come back to comment on whether she considers these changes to be enough to satisfy her concerns. Should we just continue to wait for Jen to reappear? Should this FAC process fail and be archived because there is an "oppose" on record that hasn't been withdrawn by the opposer? Should other people be asked to come and offer additional evaluations of the article? What would you believe would be most appropriate at this point? Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the detailed workings of the FAC process enough to advise how the process typically works. My personal preference would be for the review to stay open until all the issues are addressed and then end with a promotion, but a relevant question is also how much time is expected to elapse between the closing of one FAC nomination on an article and the opening of another? E.g., if we could polish the article and bring it back to FAC in a couple of weeks, that would make sense; if you're expected to wait six months, let's get it done now.
 * Incidentally, I hope to be able to look up more information about a couple of queries over the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I, too, would prefer to keep the current review open if possible, rather than archive and relist.  Hopefully, since one of the two original opposers has switched to support, there won't be the same kind of pressure to wrap this up quickly (as it looked like there might have been a few days ago).  Also, FWIW, I note that Calliopejen1 has reappeared and has been active today, so hopefully she'll have something to say as to what she thinks of the article now.  Even if she does say that she likes it now (and changes her opinion from "oppose" to "support"), I still wonder if two supports are considered enough to promote something to FA, or whether it'll be necessary to get even more people to chime in.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Rookie mistake
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. However, based on your recent contributions, please remember that Wikipedians should never, under any circumstances, make reference on Wikipedia to any actual real-life knowledge, expertise, or skill they may have acquired. There is no quicker way to provoke unreasoning hostility on this site than by mentioning one's specialized knowledge or training. If you try to correct another editor's ignorance or overconfidence, the response is likely to be a variant of: "What, you think that just because you devoted your entire professional life to mastering this subject, you know more about it than me?" If you have any questions, please leave me a note on my talk page. In the meantime, be careful what you pull out of your secret lawyer place, and happy editing! MastCell Talk 17:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Elective Governors Act
--Seablade (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded there. As a general practice, I automatically watchlist pages I edit, so talkback messages to me aren't needed unless there's reason to think I've missed a comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly reminder! --Seablade (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That;s it's still on my list. I hope to be at the law library either Friday or over the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

== Senkaku Marriage of "content" and "conduct" ==

This is a response to a question you asked. It took time for me to craft it. To add this at this time, do I need to ask permission from you and your co-author? If so, this is my request. If permissible, where do I add this? --Tenmei (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1 . Newyorkbrad asked a question:
 * I do not understand specifically what you are driving at with this proposal. Please explain in a bit more detail (but only a bit more, please). -- Newyorkbrad 00:44, 22 August 2011


 * 2. This was my initial, short response.
 * These concepts are illustrated in the diffs of Qwyrxian and Bobthefish2 in one short thread Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972. --Tenmei 19:49, 24 August 2011


 * 3. This is an untimely expanded analysis:
 * In this ArbCom case, "content" and "conduct" are sometimes married, not divorced. Synergies in the marriage of information asymmetry and delegitimisation is a significant factor which ArbCom may have overlooked.


 * According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku is all about...."].


 * In part, the case is about tit-for-tat diffs. Stepping back, the ArbCom case is also about Information asymmetry (ja:情報の非対称性) and Moral hazard (zh:道德风险)


 * Information asymmetry . Without using the term explicitly, Magog acknowledges the information asymmetry, e.g.,
 * "... it's just so difficult to read that page history and figure out what's gotten some people upset and what hasn't." -- Magog the Ogre 06:43, 13 August 2011


 * The term "information asymmetry" implicates the study of decision-making where one party has more or better information than the other. In effect, Magog acknowledges an imbalance which might cause decision-making and its consequences to go awry.


 * The genesis of this ArbCom case is distilled in one thread. At Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972, STSC and Bobthefish2 attempt (a) to modify an intransitive verb and (b) to add "by the Americans". Both the verb usage and the three words have significant ramifications which are recognized immediately by John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and me.  Qwyrxian doesn't "get it", and he marginalizes what he doesn't understand, e.g.,
 * Okay, you know what, it's not really that important to me (other editors may speak for themselves). I am still firmly convinced that the sentence with "by the Americans" is grammatically incorrect, and that, by definition, grammatically incorrect sentences cannot be "precise," but it really isn't important enough to fight about ...." -- Qwyrxian 09:44, 27 January 2011
 * In subsequent months, the significance of this diff is emphasized by Qwyrxian when he repeatedly points to arguing about three words as the proof that outside intervention by mediation or arbitration is needed. Characterising others as " pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is demonstrably a self-fulfilling prophesy.


 * Moral Hazard . Economists distinguish "moral hazard" involving hidden actions from "adverse selection" involving hidden information.  Both are special sub-sets of information asymmetry; and both exacerbated in Wikipedia by the unexamined consequences of the hortatory WP:Assume Good Faith.


 * Nobel laureate Paul Krugman explains moral hazard as "... any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly."


 * A. Bobthefish2 proposes contriving conditions which cause Senkaku articles to be locked, e.g.,
 * "Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on and go mess with better-monitored pages like 'Japan in World War II' and 'Nanjing Massacre'." -- Bobthefish2 08:45, 27 January 2011


 * B. The strategic thinking is underscored by repeating the proposal, e.g.,
 * "Anyhow, the lack of any constructive efforts on this page is evident. Perhaps locking this will allow some people to go off and contribute their time on something like Nanking_Massacre_denial." -- Bobthefish2 21:34, 27 January 2011


 * C. Locking an article stigmatizes everyone in the manner of Mercutio's "plague o' both your houses!" which overwhelms all else ... which is part of the objective the gambit was intended to achieve.


 * Qwyrxian was only partly correct in assessing the impact of Bobthefish2 and others, e.g.,
 * "Of course, the problem is that any comments I make like this are useless ... and really, even if you could be blocked (say, if this went to ArbCom), you have nothing to lose, since you're not really interesting in actually editing Wikipedia, anyway." -- Qwyrxian 00:20, 9 June 2011


 * Summary . In our collaborative editing context, "delegitimisation" refers to a process in which an editor or editors are strategically undermined. WP:Delegitimization as a tactic is about deflecting attention away from writing or content, focusing instead on the writer or writers. Information asymmetries exacerbated the short- and longer-term consequences.

I was asked the exact same question, as was John on his talkpage. I have replied on my talkpage. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sherman Minton
A dour personality. I did not write that section. User Charles Edward (who is the main impetus behind it) did. Whether or not i was true, the test is not WP:truth, but WP:verifiable. For what its worth, I am certain that if Charles Edward said the source said it, then the source did. I am not trying to get into an edit war here. Even though he is mainly withdrawn from Wikipedia, I know him to have been a scrupulous and painstaking editor. Happy editing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look up the books when I get to the law library, though I cannot do that tonight; but I am afraid that even before I am able to do so, the sentence in question will need to be reverted. The facts as I have set them forth on your talkpage, as confirmed at List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and even more specifically on the Supreme Court's own website here and here. Justice Minton never served with Justice Murphy, and Murphy's successor, Justice Clark, was appointed by President Truman, not President Eisenhower. I am sure that the editor or former editor you mention is entitled to great respect for accuracy and integrity, but there is no possible doubt that in this particular instance an inadvertent mistake has been made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Note: I see that Charles Edward is at least semi-active on this article; I have asked him to comment here, as he may have the references closer to hand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad, Just a well meaning word of advice, I think that the haphazard use of the word revert will get you into avoidable disputes. You are dealing with obviously good faith edits here, and what you are doing is "undo"ing them. Experience teaches that some editors are sensitive (perhaps overly so) to the difference, and there is no need to start disagreements about personalities, when all we are talking about is a good faith dispute as to content.  You know WP:civil.  I am not accusing you of being uncivil (and you weren't), just trying to point out a matter of etiquette.  Have at it.  Happy editing and best regards.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was using the word "revert" in its simple sense of "change back," rather than in any context implying that I was dealing with a vandalistic or bad-faith edit. I accept your suggestion that it would have been better if I'd used different terminology, and I will bear this in mind in the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew that, but it has an implication that calls into question the contributor's intent. 'nuf said.  If you could, please take a look at Frank Murphy. I had in days gone by contributed extensively to this article, and unfortunately other reviewers removed a lot of good and relevant content.  Also, if you are interested, I do have the full text of the University of Michigan article by Theodore St. Antoine, which I could e-mail to you as an attachment.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to look at the Murphy article. Could you point me with a little more specificity to the good, relevant content that's been deleted? I didn't notice anything specific that was deleted in the recent article history, but I may not have gone back as far as you are thinking of, or I may have overlooked something. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been a long time. Very long time for those edits. I think some of it had to do with his improvements to the probation department at the Detroit Recorder's Court. I try not to be proprietary about articles. I make my additions and then 'fade away' like Douglas MacArthur. I'll have to cull back through the article history to figure that out.| The details of the Ossian Sweet trial deserve amplification. I have just acquired the book that deals with that. In any event, there is a lot about Murphy (and particularly about his involvement with the labor movement) that is not mentioned. He was involved as a representative of the governor in the Calumet massacre/disaster. I just acquired a book that deals with that. This experience may have been part of the reason why he declined to send in and activate the National Guard when he was governor during he 1937 Flint Sit Down. He had important input on Supreme Court policy regarding the labor movement. St. Antoine's article deals with that. I think that they have excised the sections I put in which dealt with the extraordinary collection of Philipino artifacts that he amassed (one of the largest collections in the world) which are on display at his boyhood home/law office in Harbor Beach, Michigan. As I recall, his dissent on the Korematsu v. United States was in there and has been excised. This was one of his most memorable moments on the Supreme Court, and though he was in the minority, he had gotten it right. This deserves amplification. This is one of those ongoing 'wish list' projects that I long to get involved with, but have not completed. Interestingly, one of my professors, Harold Norris, wrote a little known book, "Justice Murphy and the Bill of Rights" that analyzes some of his important decisions. I note finally that we have down played Murphy's education. Although Sherman Minton had down post graduate work at the Sorbonne and Yale, as I recall Murphy had a stint at Oxford (sorry, but I'm doing this from memory, so I could be wrong in the details), so despite his mediocre academic record at Michigan, he was not an uneducated twit. I would also note that his involvement with Michigauma at the U of M was akin to being a member of Skull & Bones at Yale: whatever his academic shortcomings (as noted in St. Antoine's article), he had a level of charisma and commitment that set him apart, and this was recognized early on. His long term impact on the history of collective bargaining (both as governor and as a member of the Supreme Court) should not be underestimated. He settled the Flint Sit Down Strike with a one page agreement that became the underlying foundation for more than a half century of labor history. I would also recommend for your consideration the Hour Detroit article, which sets forth a lay viewpoint on him. Additionally, I know that I had run into (may not have added to the article) online citations about his extraordinary anticolonial positions when he served in the Philipines. He died with a net worth that was tiny. Frank Murphy was an extraordinary man, whose first and only instincts were for public service. He is somebody who deserves remembrance and recognition. He was not the finest "legal scholar", but he had an instinct for what is right. That is an overview of a complicated man with a complicated history and contribution. Hope that gives you some guidance and that it interests you in looking at him further. Best regards. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 01:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a general knowledge of Murphy's career (more specifically his Supreme Court tenure and to a lesser extent his service in the Philippines), and had spent some time going through his microfilmed papers (in the Bentley Library at the University of Michigan) for my work on the in-chambers opinions project. I agree with you that most, if not all, of the subjects you mention deserve inclusion in the article, although I don't personally enough about all of them to do the work myself. I suggest that you begin reinstating the content that you think should be in the article and that I will then be glad to tweak based on sources available to me. If anyone disagrees with inclusion of the content, we can see what the issues are at that point.
 * I'd also welcome someone's reworking the lead of the article, which reads right now a bit too much like a laundry list.
 * I will take a look and see if there is a good recent biography of Murphy. His Supreme Court contemporary, Wiley Rutledge, is the subject of a truly outstanding recently biography by John Ferren, which contains some good discussion of Murphy (and all the other Justices of the 1940s). You might want to take a look at that if you haven't already seen it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the original subject of this thread ... I have now had a chance to check the source for the original edit (the Gugin biography of Minton), and as I suspected, the edit contained a typographical or transcription error. The reference in the book is to the death of Justice Jackson (1954), rather than the death of Justice Murphy (1949); that makes total chronological sense. I have reinstated the original edit with this correction. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts! Fact checking and topical experts\semi-experts is exactly what Wikipedia needs more of. :) &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I came here to write and edit these sorts of articles, even though I've been pulled in other directions over the past few years. I've said this before, but I hope and expect to get back to contributing and editing more content. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Accurate and properly cited is better. Nice job! <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep
Hi. Since none of the 'speedy keep' criteria applied at your close of Articles for deletion/Copyright symbol, I'm sure you won't mind correcting it to 'SNOW keep' since that's what it really was? Thanks in advance, ╟─ Treasury Tag ► cabinet ─╢ 08:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the same applies to Articles for deletion/2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who). Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► directorate ─╢ 09:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my comment at the AFD in question - criteria #2 could be applied as there was a succession of obviously to be kept articles nominated. Agathoclea (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that an element of WP:AGF (as well as common sense) should play a role here. None of the articles I nominated cited (at the time, anyway) significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You are welcome to check the page histories to confirm the fact. Therefore there was a legitimate reason to nominate them, and it was clearly not an act of bad-faith disruption. I resent any suggestion of this. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Acting Returning Officer ─╢ 09:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles don't need to cite SIGCOV, it only has to exist. I can understand the nomination of the copyright symbol one (though doomed to fail obviously), but the Dr. Who one was more pointy than anything else. The only thing that benefits from such nominations are the opposers of the current system and the people believing that too much is deleted and nominations are too easy. Fram (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I understand that it just has to exist. But my brief searches revealed none for the copyright thing whatsoever, and nothing really substantial for the Doctor Who. Whether or not you agree with the nominations, I can assure you that they were not made in bad faith, and I would reiterate my belief that they were not disruptive. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Clerk of the Parliaments ─╢ 10:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, thank you for drawing my attention to the policy difference between a "Speedy Keep" and a "Snow Keep". I wasn't aware that a clear distinction has developed between these two types of early XfD closings; Speedy Keep seems to have been added since the last time I studied that page. Although I don't think it's a crucial distinction, I will keep it in mind from now on.

With regard to these particular closes, though, I still could argue that "Speedy" rather than "Snow" was the correct result. "Snow" does apply to both because the number and soundness of the Keep !votes was persuasive. But "Speedy" might apply too. Your AfD nomination of copyright symbol, even if in good faith, was pointless and frivolous; there was no way this article was going to be deleted, or deserved to be deleted, and nominating it was a waste of everyone's time. 2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who) was also sure to be kept based on the discussions last year and before that, so nominating it was also pointless, especially since even if we deleted the article now it would be back in a few weeks.

You should be thinking about something much more serious than whether your clearly failed AfDs should have been closed as Speedy Keeps or as Snow Keeps or even as both. The real question is why you continue to make this kind of nominations in the first place. None of the articles you nominated yesterday had the slightest chance of being deleted. Just as bad, after you nominate something for deletion, you continue with the awful habit of responding to virtually every Keep !vote or comment that everyone posts in the XfD discussion. I think dozens of people have asked you over the years to stop doing that.

As I have said on several occasions, the community's most precious resource is the time of its members, which should not be squandered on patently unnecessary deletion discussions. If you cannot get a much better handle on when articles should be nominated for deletion, you should stop participating in this aspect of the project.

Frankly, I also continue to have concerns about other aspects of your editing. For example, in preparing this response to your post, I checked through your contributions over the past couple of days, not to "wikistalk" or "wikihound" you but to see whether there were any other deletion nominations that I should mention here. Instead, I chanced across your edit to User talk:Moviegoblin, which was the first talkpage edit for this brand-new user. Moviegoblin's only edit so far was to correct a Doctor Who episode article by fixing a link to a BLP because he, rather than another person sharing the same name, directed the episode. This seems to have been an entirely correct, good-faith, and non-promotional, edit. Nonetheless, you greeted this brand-new editor with a templated, Twinkle-generated conflict of interest warning, even though there was no indication that he was going to engage in COI editing and in fact he had done nothing wrong at all. This warning was unwarranted, had the clear potential to drive away this new editor (see WP:BITE), and I am going to remove it. Please use much better judgment in the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Before I return to the AfD issue at hand, I'll respond to your persiflage regarding . I would ask you to note that uw-coi is not a warning as you seem to suppose, but a "notice": this is how it is classified by Twinkle and by its own documentation. It is simply a reminder that if somebody is going to edit articles about themselves (which Moviegoblin did, although as you say, constructively and in good faith) they need to exercise heightened caution. You'll notice that other templates considered to be notices include uw-tilde – in no way a warning, but simply a friendly reminder – and uw-agf-sock, which has the assumption of good faith as its main feature. For these reasons, I will be restoring my notice on Moviegoblin's talkpage, because it was designed to be delivered to people editing pages about themselves, and he fits that group perfectly. (Just a final note that if you feel the template language assumes bad faith, you should suggest some changes at Template talk:Uw-coi.) As for the AfD issue, I'm slightly unclear as to your position. SK2 applies only to nominations which were "unquestionably vandalism or disruption." I would massively take issue with your classifying my nominations under this heading, if that is what you are implying. None of the examples listed under SK2 apply in this case, and simply disagreeing with my philosophy regarding notability, deletionism etc. is not an acceptable reason to label my actions as disruption. I consider that to be a personal attack. (I notice you haven't explicitly used the word 'disruption' but that is the strong implication of your claim that a 'speedy keep' criterion applies.) I would ask you to reconsider your decision not to amend your closures to 'SNOW keep'. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► assemblyman ─╢ 15:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * TreasuryTag, you have missed the import of my comments above so completely that, especially given all of your prior disastrous misadventures, I don't think you have the minimal level of competence required to continue participating in Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That remark would be an almost crippling blow if it weren't for the fact that I don't give two pins for your views of my editing. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► collectorate ─╢ 16:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you give two pins for anyone's views of your editing? I am hardly the only person here who has raised concerns of this nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for writing something good
At Tenmei and disputes, thank you for writing "I think that Tenmei is clearly a good-faith, well-meaning editor ...."

I wish there was a transparent way to prove your belief is justified. Better yet, I would rather that there were no need for demonstrations; but here we are. For today, it is enough that I acknowledge the encouragement which your words bring to me. --Tenmei (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * At Tenmei baned for one year, you ask questions about my edit history outside the Senkaku topic.


 * Is it helpful to point to an "Edit count" pie chart here and "Articles created" list here.


 * As part of mentorship, I saved an inventory here which may be useful, especially the three bullets at the bottom.


 * Recent successes in dispute contexts informed my temerity in Senkaku-related issues. I used the same strategies, tactics and tools which were proven to be constructive in those venues, e.g.,


 * Talk:Unequal treaties#Japan-Korea relations in 1904-1905
 * Talk:Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905#Requested move (September 2010)
 * Talk:Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905#Move? (October 2010)
 * Cite does not verify asserted "facts"
 * Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Good step in process of collaborative editing


 * Is this appropriate? helpful? timely? --Tenmei (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

YGM

 * Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Keepscases
I saw your comment here and I have warned the user that they will be blocked if they continue to disrupt. I would post any such block for review of course. What do you think? --John (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been concerned and outspoken about Keepscases in the past, so I don't feel comfortable taking or joining in any administrator action against him, but I agree with you that today's comment and !vote is a bit too much. One of the main defenses against Keepscases' silly questions has been "they are just optional questions so they don't hurt anything."  If he's going to oppose anyone who sensibly ignores one of his sillier questions, that is really not good.  (Typically, he does support anyone who takes his question seriously and gives any sort of meaningful response&mdash;unless they have userboxes he doesn't like.)
 * In fairness, there have been one or two times that a Keepscases question has yielded a thought-provoking, informative response (I complimented him on an unusually good question once), and a couple of other times his questions have yielded an amusing deadpan answer (RfA/Fluffernutter is a good example there). I think Keepscases could find a niche around the project where he could add value, in addition to his mainspace editing (minimal lately, but what there has been has been good). But as indicated in the double dactyl I wrote about him on WT:RfA long ago, I am not convinced that that place is on the RfA pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just musing, rather than really criticizing anyone, but isn't the only reason for threats of topic banning Keepscases to protect us from ourselves? The oppose itself isn't really disruptive, it's that we can't seem to resist the urge to mention the fact that it's disruptive.  Over and over again. Personally, I sometimes find his questions (or the response he gets from the candidate) interesting and/or funny, so there is some small benefit to his participation. If we could just bring ourselves to ignore his opposes (which will have no effect on any 'crat worth his salt), then we'd have a modest benefit for a negligible cost. But I suppose the fact is that we can't restrain ourselves from reacting, and a topic ban may be in the cards to prevent something we feel we must react to.  We have met the enemy, and he is us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree with the above. I was drafting a (less-eloquent) reply which was along the same lines  Jebus989 ✰ 20:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking something rather similar too before reading this. --John (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I totally, wholeheartedly disagree with the above. There has become this tendency, and I've seen in grow over the last few years, to turn a blind eye to disruption in RfA that wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere. While I certainly do agree that we are our own worst enemies, it's more because we have not only come to tolerate the idea that everyone deserves their opinion, no matter how inane, but we take great strides to encourage it. Ever since Kurt Weber, it has become clear to me that chronic, intentional disruption of the RfA process is prima facie evidence of someone who wants attention and is no longer a net positive to the project. Trusilver  04:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To those tracking this, please see my most recent comment on Keepscases' oppose on Anomie's RfA; for those with too much free time, please see my comments in this earlier discussion of Keepcases' questions, in which the discussion really went from bad to verse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that really was poetry in motion. The questions he was asking back then about haikus were in my opinion less disruptive than the one about terminal illness he recently asked. I don't see anything witty or funny or relevant about this last one. Having said that, I had no idea that he has been doing this for four years. Wikipedia needs a few eccentrics to leaven the mix, but I felt like this last one kind of crossed a line for me. --John (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The ripples caused by the Keepscases effect have now developed into a tsunami with far more sinister consequences than a few users having a good laugh: whilst we are suffering from an extraordinary dearth of nominations, potential experienced users who we have been coaxing to run for office have now withdrawn their interest until something is finally done to turn the snake pit into a basket of kittens. If the users remain impotent to reach a consensus, the WMF will probably change the RfA process by fiat the way they appear to be slowly disenfranchising the community in general.

Talkback
Neutron (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Seen and responded there. As a general matter, I automatically watchlist any page I edit, so talkback notes to me are not necessary, unless perhaps an unusually long time has passed between my posting to a page and your response there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)