User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Jul

Request for notification

Newyorkbrad, Would you please notify me with a link to the arbitration of User:COFS? I have some interest in this case and would like to provide some citations for evidence.--Fahrenheit451 17:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

At present, the case is still on the main requests for arbitration page, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#COFS. If you wish to make a statement at this time, you can do so there. The case presently has the required number of arbitrator votes to open and, unless something changes, will be opened tomorrow. At that time, the evidence page will be created and you will be able to post your evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 17:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SLG

There was HTML comment saying not to edit the page unless you have a single letter name. :) Could you delete your revision, and keep the other non-single letter ones deleted also? I don't own it, but I just want to keep it looking nice :)--(Review Me) R ^{you talking to me?}Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The HTML comment doesn't come up when you edit a section, but I removed my revision. Newyorkbrad 01:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh...yes...that section was just added today. Thanks for doing that so quick :) --(Review Me) R ^{you talking to me?}Contribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Board elections

I went to that link - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/en - and can't find anything on that page to take me to the voting. I already voted and "dismissed" the notice, so am having trouble finding the vote page again (should I want to change my vote). After a bit of trouble, I did find it but newer (but eligible users) may just give up and not bother to vote. That page says "Only members of Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee may edit this (English) page on meta ." so I can't fix that. I also don't want to mess with meta:Template:Board elections 2007 but the link to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/jump might belong in that template, in bold.

On the enwiki listserv, User:Gmaxwell says "As it stands right now substantially less than 16% of all eligible and recently active voters on English Wikipedia have participated in the election process. This is a lower turnout than previous years although enwiki has always had poor voter turnout." So anything we can do to make it more obvious where and how to vote would be helpful.

Greg also had some other concerns, expressed in this message [1] If you can take a look at this and pass along to other election committee folks, that would be a big help. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm forwarding this to all the members of the Elections Committee and we will see what we can do to improve the publicity (although I had thought that Enwiki's turnout is actually pretty high compared to most other projects). Thanks for sharing your concerns. Newyorkbrad 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Old situation, new twist

You were a voice of wisdom in the past (as was Thatcher131, but he seems to be on WikiBreak), so I was hoping you could peek in on this lest it spiral out of control. In hindsight, I think Deathphoenix was very wise, and we need some of that kind of sage advice again. I'm not sure if he's still mentoring ?? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. The ANI thread is marked "resolved" at this time, and I see that one of the affected users is blocked, so I shall monitor the situation to see whether it now stabilizes or becomes even more problematic. There also appear to be potential off-wiki aspects of the matter that I do not fully appreciate. I have also considered, but decided against, deleting the "problem user" page summarily as unlikely to advance the constructive resolution of this or any dispute. I shall be keeping an eye on that aspect of the situation as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... just hoping to avoid any trigger-happy solutions to this issue, as it seems to be complex. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

Hi. Just to mention that I am going on vacation day after tomorrow (Wed 4 July) for one week. I will not have computer access (I hope). I will be available tomorrow and then not until on Wed 11 July and thereafter. --Justanother 01:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Arbitration cases, unfortunately, move slowly; I don't think your break will raise any problems. Have a good week. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not suppose it would be a problem. I doubt that I will comment before I leave and, except for the arb, I have cleared my watchlist and I am going to post a wikibreak notice now. Take care. --Justanother 02:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick Q

Do you have a moment? If possible, I'd like to talk to you on IRC. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't right now, but look for me between about 9:30 and noon if you are around then. (Right now I'm editing on a handheld.) Congrats btw on the "official" clerkship. Newyorkbrad 10:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I might be asleep at that time. :P... If I'm awake I'll make sure. :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If not, you can try after lunch. Newyorkbrad 10:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cases

Hi Brad. Thanks again for helping me with the clerk appointment. I'm back from my break, and have reassigned myself to Abu badali and Piotrus, so you can dewatchlist the latter if you would like. (I left David with Zacheus-jkb, see his talkpage for my reasoning.) Happy editing, Picaroon (Talk) 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back and that sounds fine. And congratulations on becoming "official" in your absence. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice

You asked me to check in with you for potential COI issues, so I want to direct your attention to competition law; I find the article one-sided, Eurocentric, and poorly written, but my edits are regularly reverted, and my comments are subject to personal attack because of my employer, and I've now been accused of "vandalism" twice. The other editor doesn't bother to respond to my comments or defend the article, just writes screeds complaining about my employer and claiming I'm biased. Can you weigh in on one side or the other? Am I making unreasonable critiques of the article, or is the other editor violating WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA? Thanks for your input. THF 10:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I see nothing problematic in your edits which I think are a good attempt to add an American perspective to the article. Probably having another editor or two with the relevant background also working on the article would round out some of the points; unfortunately, antitrust isn't one of my specialties. I have left a note asking all the editors to work together to bring this article to a superior level of quality. I don't think that administrator intervention is needed at this time but am watchlisting the page to keep an eye on. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on this. I have also posted a notice on the talk page of the TTD list at WP:LAW to get more hands on board to fix the problem. Bearian 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your judgment, I'm being attacked on the WP:COI/N page. I strenuously object to the personal attacks, which also violate WP:BLP. THF 17:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, BLP isn't invoked when the issue is the neutrality of a Wikipedia user's edits (even though all Wikipedia editors are obviously living people). Civility and the avoidance of personal attacks, of course, are required, but the person you are concerned about has acknowledged he may have stepped over the line in a couple of cases, so hopefully that will no longer be an issue. The most important policy of issue regarding the substantive editing is WP:NPOV. Every effort should be made to ensure that the article reflects all the significant points of view on the issues raised. Perhaps Bearian's post to the law project will get more eyes on this article, and attention from editors with an economics background would also be welcome. I'll post to WP:COI/N as well. Newyorkbrad 18:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He stepped over the line on the COI/N page, accusing me and my employer of a violation of federal law (it's illegal for AEI to lobby). I'm not going to be able to edit on Wikipedia if I get personally attacked by name every time I point out a problem with a Wikipedia page. THF 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that when he wrote that your employer "lobbies for the viewpoints of certain economists," he meant "lobby" as in "publicly advocates" rather than "contacts members of Congress with the intent to advance particular legislation" or whatever the legally applicable definition of "lobby" is. If this is a serious concern I'm sure the user would be glad to substitute a different verb. Newyorkbrad 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Xr 1

Xr 1 has raised a minor conflict on my talk page twice now, calling me "stupid" the second time around. I am requesting (if not just a temporary ban), a barring from this individual coming back to pester my talk page further. He seems to have the highly exclusive opinion that a certain band should not be considered a certain genre because of his own personal perception (which is trivial really, it's the personal offense from my reversion that I am concerned about). I would appreciate whatever you can do. Thanks. Logical Defense 21:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note left on the user user's talkpage. You really have met an interesting cross-section of Wikipedians in your time here so far. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, this is true. But then again, the grounds I frequent most are bound to draw many "interesting" individuals. Thanks for your action, much appreciated. Logical Defense 22:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for calling him stupid.I shouldn't have done this.There will not be any more name-calling. And about the band's genre - it's not just me to think like that.However, sorry again.Xr 1 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy editing! Newyorkbrad 22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No Problem

Thanks for that, Regards --Domer48 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Compilation of principles

You sounded like you were interested in this. An incomplete page has already been started here. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --MichaelLinnear 01:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've actually seen that page before, but as you're aware, it hasn't been kept up to date for what looks like years. Historically, pages summarizing all cases have been very difficult to get enough editors interested in maintaining, but I am willing to try to enlist the Arbitration Committee Clerks in reviving this one if (but only if) there is a consensus that the task would be useful enough to warrant the significant effort that would be required. Newyorkbrad 01:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note

Hallo, I accidentally learned about an ongoing arbitration about myself which supposedly started weeks ago. I am not able to go online regularly before 14 July 07 nor to deal with this issue with appropriate attention. I however will submit a statement and evidence about the issue and related evidence after the above date. Thanks. COFS 12:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a note of it on the case page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My (Kwsn's) RfA

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed. I still plan to continue to edit however. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do stay involved, and I look forward working with you as an editor and seeing a more successful RfA outcome in due course. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism help!

Can you block this user: 209.247.22.164? He/she has been rapidly vandalizing musical theatre articles: Here is his talk page. Thanks!! -- Ssilvers 16:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry NYB for barging in, but from what I saw, it doesn't look like the anon. user was vandalizing, just editing as he sees fit. His contributions don't look like they could harm the community. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 16:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm on a train with very limited internet access until about 5 p.m. EDT today, so I am afraid that someone else will need to evaluate this unless it can wait until tonight. Sorry I can't be helpful right now. Newyorkbrad 18:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Having now taken a look, these edits don't look like simple vandalism, although I probably disagree with them. I may be confusing this with another issue, but I was under the impression that there was a discussion about these type of edits on one of the noticeboards, though I'm very sorry I can't recall specifically which one. In any event, hopefully a consensus can be reached on whether to retain the information in the musical articles in this format. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that the edits were made by a sockpuppet for the now-banned User:SFTVLGUY2. They're definitely bad-faith edits. There's a clear consensus at WP:MUSICALS. -- Ssilvers 13:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Can you give me a link to the ban or sock discussion so I can have them handy if this comes up again? Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

arbcom

Arbcom on Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 workshop page became also flooded by accusation from user:Hajji Piruz. We all involved submitted our evidences on Evidence page. Should we go now at workshop page and start put our claims there? I would prefer if Arbcom members will do it - otherwise this page became another channel for attacks from some users. Besides, I would like to draw your attention to user:Mackensen who listed my and user:Atabek violation of parole but missed that of user:Hajji Piruz.--Dacy69 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen is one of the arbitrators, so if you believe he has made a mistake or omission, you should definitely (but concisely) let him know. Whether to put your claims on the workshop is up to you; I don't believe the arbitrators will focus any less on your evidence if you haven't joined the workshop, but a couple of short proposed findings might be helpful to them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

M.K

That one was simple: M.K. (talk · contribs) has a single edit. The discussed one was M.K (talk · contribs). Not your fault: it originated in the arb page (I've already fixed in the "proposed remedies" place). Fortunately there is no M. K (talk · contribs) yet :-) I am wondering how many accounts like Jimbo WaIes (talk · contribs) Jіmbo Wales (talk · contribs), ... may exist. Doppelgangers' fantasy didn't reach over a dozen.

As for "don't make it again in the future", the only 100% remedy I know is to cut and paste names from a reliable source. (As a programmer, I know this from long experience: variables with nearly identical names is a source of bugs difficult to detect.) `'Miikka 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, no final period in "M.K" - got it. I'll make sure to mention it to whatever clerk winds up closing the case when the voting is finalized. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your participation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hi Newyorkbrad,

I appreciated your input at the Father Goetz School deletion review, but I think I need to warn you that your !vote will be discounted by the closing admin if you don't tie in your comment with either a procedural violation or new information. If you have the interest, please take a look at the comment I posted immediately after yours. I think it gives a good rationale for overturning the previous result. I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Candidly, I don't think I have any additional points to make in this discussion; I just find the endless repetition in these schools debates to be a poor use of everyone's time, and therefore have advocated that we simply declare all high schools above a certain reasonable size to be per se notable and be done with it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: State terrorism by the United States

The anon that made the report has nothing but disruptive towards that article. Also, here's the reverts he mentions:

• [2] - obviously not a revert
• [3] - not a revert, this is the first edit of its kind by anyone
• [4] - first revert
• [5] - self-reverted my previous revert after another editor requested
• [6] - obviously not a revert
• [7] - first revert

Thank you for the reminder and kind words though. Please reply on my talk page if you have any other issues. east.718 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think we are okay. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this okay?

I hope this is allowed. When I saw that those 3RR reports had been made by someone who wasn't logged in, I changed the "Reported by" to reflect how their identity appeared in the page's history. It just seemed like there wasn't any way to know that it was user, "Anon", if they weren't logged in. (Please just revert my changes if they were wrong) Bladestorm 18:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I had already spotted that the reports were actually by an anon, but your edits were fine. Thanks for your attentiveness. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jocker City

How can I look at the Jocker City article (now at DRV) without actually restoring it? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are logged in as an admin, at the top of the article page, you will see the heading "view or restore 15 deleted edits." Click on the words "deleted edits," and that will bring you to a screen which shows the various now-deleted revisions. Clicking on the date and time of one of those revisions will bring up the deleted revision in an edit window. As long as you don't actually click "restore," the deletion will remain in effect. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. After following your instructions, I modified them a little and am using them here. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Undo option ?

Lately i noticed when i check the history of the articles i noticed the undo bit at the end of each revision summary and i was wandering if it's something i need to know about thanks Richardson j 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Help:Reverting#Undo will give you the explanation you are looking for. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richardson j 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion/reality check, please

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive_sockpuppetry_by_The_Cunctator. Thatcher131 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that some more people have been commenting in the thread and I think the consensus is about right. This isn't a situation a la Runcorn or Henrygb where there have been (e.g.) multiple !votes in the same RfA or XfD, so I don't know if the line was crossed into truly abusive sockpuppetry. Nonetheless, this is far from an optimal use of multiple accounts by an admin, and I think The Cunctator has started to figure out that there is some disapproval of what he has done. Given his extreme seniority here, hopefully the problem will not recur at any time in the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A question for you

We have never interacted (one of the reasons I chose you) and you have a reputation for being level-headed and reasonable (the other reason I chose you), so my question is this: Do you see anything inappropriate about one or more userboxes on this page: User:Robmiller? I ran across that page almost at random, and in addition to the bizarre (and conflicting) userboxes, I saw a couple that were patently offensive (one in particular, and another that is somewhat less so.) Would you be willing to take a look at that page, and tell me if you think that I am over-reacting, or if I am on-target? I generally don't like the idea of policing user pages, but I really question the appropriateness of a couple of the items on that page, and want a second, unbiased opinion. Thank you. Horologium t-c 22:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

... I don't think I've ever "shouted" before in wikipedia, but...

WHAT THE *BLEEP*?!?

"This user believes in traditional rape"?!?

"This user believes in drugging as an alternative to romantic sexual intercourse"?!?

I notice that an IP added those boxes to his userpage... question is, what's to be done about it? Bladestorm 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Horologium, thanks for the kind words. I've reverted the page to the last version created by the user, since there is no evidence that he was editing from that IP. I agree that several of these userboxes are patently unacceptable, and should be tagged for speedy-deletion or submitted for deletion at MfD. Newyorkbrad 23:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed that they were not templates; they were "locally produced" on his userpage, but I missed that they were inserted by an IP editor. (I would have reverted them myself if I had noticed that). Since they are not templated, there is nothing to submit for MFD, which is a good thing, although it might be necessary to go through all of the contributions of that IP, and see if he did the same thing to other users. That's a pretty slimy thing to do. Horologium t-c 23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked the IP after Bladestorm pointed it out. There are no similar edits from that IP anywhere else. Newyorkbrad 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

TREYWiki

I left a reply at my talk page. The cliff notes of it is that for right now, let's leave it the way it is. If the ArbCom said he can vanish, then we will let ArbCom do it. Apparently, I found out that the page was deleted, then restored, then blanked by TREYWiki, but reverted back to me by another user and relocked until ArbCom is done talking with the admin. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For removing this nonsense. I would have done so if not for having just username blocked the nominee.--Chaser - T 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

--Ideogram 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ttkrevenge

I noticed you blocked the creator of Red ambulance for the attack page and the username. May I ask why the username? I can't see anything wrong with it and would want to know if ever I should need to report something similar. -WarthogDemon 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In the context of an account whose only edits were creating and re-creation a particularly nasty attack page, the word "revenge" in the username strongly suggested to me that the editor was here to harass someone rather than to make any good-faith contributions. Newyorkbrad 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Good work on not overlooking the obvious. I'll try to keep an eye out like that as well. -WarthogDemon 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the election

Thanks for all your efforts there. Georgewilliamherbert 01:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

*Reply

&reply = User:Jouster/open/VPP#Purpose_of_this_page.3F; // Jouster  (whisper) 20:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded there (and I have it watchlisted, so no need to cross-post here again, but thanks for the precaution). Newyorkbrad 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But you have to admit, at least the format is novel.  ;) Jouster  (whisper) 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about ArbCom case

An editor who has cited "right to vanish" would like to submit some evidence for the Great Irish Famine case. Does he need to log back in to submit it, or can he email it to ArbCom, or send it to someone else to add? SirFozzie 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He can log back in to add the evidence, or edit as an IP or under a new account with a clear indication that he is the same person who was formerly User:X. Or, if he prefers, he can send an e-mail to any active arbitrator (list at WP:AC) or Arbitration Committee clerk (such as me), requesting that it be forwarded to the arbitrators' mailing list. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA

The page is transcluded, and thank you! - Philippe | Talk 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

I was surprised to see that Bogdanov Affair is not listed on Wikipedia:Article probation. Is the Bogdanov affair that special? It has its own class of...whatever that might be? hbdragon88 00:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there has ever been an arbitration case on this article, which is the only way it could formally be placed on probation. I know there are a number of administrators who keep an eye on it, however. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair closed in 2005. How long has the formal "article probation" procedure been in place? hbdragon88 01:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I missed that case, which was long before I started editing Wikipedia. From the history of Wikipedia:Probation, it looks like the policy was drafted between July and September 2005, so I don't know why no one proposed that it be applied in the case of this article. You could try asking one of the arbitrators at the time or someone who participated in the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitation evidence being vandalised

I have a right to post my evidence before the arbitation closed which I did it is being removed by a accused editor.Please help.It is for the panel to accept or reject my evidence. [8]Adyarboy 12:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you reverted it. No one should be editing the evidence page in a closed case. If there is a serious problem with the page as it stands, users should let an arbitrator or clerk know; we have the option of "courtesy blanking" the page (the information remains fully available in the history, however), if appropriate. Newyorkbrad 13:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While I treat Adyarboy's accusations/evidence with the contempt I reserve for obvious and disruptive sockpuppets, I realise that reverting him was not really the right thing to do. For some reason(probably because it was really really late at night) I saw his edit and thought that he had added it after the case was closed and that is why I reverted him. My apologies for the same. Thanks. Sarvagnya 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Flaunting of arbcom

This is not in relation to the Hkelkar or 2 cases, but I have a hunch at least one editor on wikipedia right now is a sock of a user punished as a result of the India-Pakistan rfa. What is the proper method of getting to the bottom of this? Bakaman 18:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have reliable evidence that someone is editing in violation of an ArbCom ban, and especially if the person's editing is disruptive, you can post your concern to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you believe that checkuser evidence would be helpful, you can visit requests for checkuser and follow the instructions there. If your evidence is of a nature that should not be made public on-wiki, you can e-mail it to me using the "e-mail this user" feature for forwarding to the Arbitration Committee mailing list (several of the arbitrators are also checkusers). Hope this helps. Incidentally, I think you mean "flouting." Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK

Fair enough. I'll take that advice. Andre (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Warnings on userpages

Hi. Please do not edit-war to remove warnings on user talkpages. This practice has been found to breed unnecessary controversy and ill-will, particularly where, as with the sockpuppetry allegations against Ghirlandajo, the warning has been investigated and found to be unfounded. Happy editing! Regards, Newyorkbrad 11:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for noticing the issue so fast. By the way, he also removed the warning I left on his talk page, that's why I reverted him. Please take a look at the entry at WP:ANI and comment there. Thanks. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but once the warned user has seen the warning, if he or she then removes it there is also no reason to restore the warning. It is obvious that the user has seen it by then. As I say, this is especially so when the violation turns out not to exist, as with the SSP allegation here. Take your concerns to an appropriate place if you feel you need to but don't edit-war to keep the message on the user's talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Your staying here

Glad to be back :-) --Eddie 17:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Eddie has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Arbit

Thanks for your response. It's not about this case per se, but it seems to me that here and in some other cases, one arbiter has drawn up a statement like "principle A, and fact B, and therefore remedy C", and after voting only A and C passed, leaving us with the non sequitur of "principle A, and no relevant related evidence, and ?therefore? remedy C". It would seem to me that this is a flaw in the arbitration process, but more importantly that it (potentially) leads to unwarranted conclusions. >Radiant< 09:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and have occasionally pointed out to the arbitrators that this seemed to be happening in a given case. Sometimes when (in your example), it becomes clear that finding of fact B isn't passing, an arbitrator will propose B.1 in its place. Other times that doesn't happen, and I agree with you the result can be a structurally flawed decision (although sometimes I'm surprised that no one seems to notice). All I can suggest is that you either keep an eye on the cases that interest you and point these things out as they evolve ... or run for arbitrator again. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that reactions to me repeatedly pointing such out would not be positive, to say the least, so I doubt I'll be doing that. I'm actually surprised that nobody seems to mind unwarranted conclusions, but I'm not sure if there exists a useful way of bringing it up anywhere. >Radiant< 12:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the gap is less apparent than in the case you cited, and would only be noticed by aficionados. Other times, the case has been pending long enough that everyone is ready to move on already rather than quibble with the wording. The arbitrators and clerks do try to keep an eye on these things, and in particular we've managed to avoid a repeat of a situation last year where a detailed enforcement provision passed (and administrators started issuing blocks to enforce it) even though no remedy to enforce had been passed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not intended as a quibble over semantics. Rather, I should hope that if an uninvolved user a month later decides to check out the arbitration page to figure out what the dispute was about, they should be able to without missing essential points, and without having to read through the frequently all too verbose and irrelevant evidence and workshop pages. >Radiant< 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Newyorkbrad 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

After the Hkelkar 2 case closed, User:Dangerous-Boy updated his page with this [9]. He uses the Roman empire analogy once again, which I find quite depressing since it reminds me of the personal attacks he launched at me previously [10] Also while it is only indirect, I interpret the message as WP:BATTLE since Caesar "won." I would've posted this message on his talk page except lately he has been accusing me of trolling and stalking him which is why I ask you to discuss this issue with him. Unfortunately, most of the parties involved in the case can't avoid each other completely because of our similar editing areas, which is why I wish for everyone to move on at least for now. Thanks! Gizza^{Discuss ©} 05:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this material from Dangerous-Boy's userpage and admonished him not to do anything like this ever again in the future. *sigh* Have I mentioned that I hate this case? Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Brad, but you might want to look at this too: [11] and ensuing comments on Dbachmann's and Bakasuprman's talk pages. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that piece is under control; at least, I don't feel moved to take any action. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So by that logic I can never put anything related to Rome on my userpage? That is unacceptable. Rome is my hobby. I do not edit in the same areas of dagizza. I do not even initiate contact with him. If Dagizza has problem, he can just simply unwatch me on his watchlist. it's a simple solution. I have no contact with him what so ever.--D-Boy 18:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The comments that you re-inserted on your userpage, despite my request, were with obvious mocking reference to your adversaries in the recently concluded arbitration case. Both in view of the "on notice" admonition by unanimous vote of the Arbitration Committee and based on my own familiarity with the history of the matter, there is no reason that this type of behavior should be tolerated any longer. Please see the final warning I have placed on your userpage in which I have warned you that if you do anything similar to this again, I will block your account indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I'm afraid you might want to look at this, in particular its edit summary. JFD 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Need some assistance on Arbitration

Hello:

I am writing to you in your capacity as Arb Clerk to get some guidance regarding a dispute I've recently submitted for Arbitration. (Swami Ramdev)

OBJECTIVE
My primary objective in submitting this case is to present arguments to a body that "specialzes" in interpreting Wikipedia Policy as opposed to say just getting a third opinion. I believe the Arb Committee is such a body.

ISSUE
In relation to the dispute mentioned above, I would like an opportunity to present my case regarding sourcing of content vis-a-vis interpretation of WP Policy in regards to the articles of

Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia: RS, and Wikipedia:Attribution

My belief is that eliminating content on the basis of statements such as:

Per WP Policy - " The citation should be from a book published by a major publisher, a reputable news organisation or a scholarly source." and "Per basic WP policy, WP itself is not a reference"

is very narrow interpretation and not faithful to the comprehensive guidance provided in the WP Policy articles mentioned above

Additionally, I hope to establish a general clarification of what constitutes acceptable sourcing. A ruling that can serve, perhaps, as a general precedent rather than be limited to resolving a content dispute on this specific case.

REQUEST
As this is the first time I've entered dispute resolution, please help clarify:

• Does this matter qualify for Arb Committee review or am I required to go the third opinion route ?
• Your suggestions for next steps

Thanks!
Wikipost 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Typically, the Arbitration Committee resolves disputes concerning user conduct, based on established norms of behavior and existing policies and guidelines. There have been instances where the ArbCom has expanded policy, but this takes place only in unusual situations. Based on what you have described, I am not clear whether what you have is a dispute over particular user conduct, or a desire to modify or change existing policy. If what you are raising is really a desire to change or clarify Wikipedia policy regarding sources, then the best place is probably neither an arbitration case not dispute resolution in general, but to start a discussion of your proposed changes on the talk page(s) of the policy or policies in question. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello:

Thank You for your prompt response.

To begin with - My goal is most certainly not to expand or change exising WP policy

Rather, I'm looking for a way to resolve a dispute over how existing policy is applied vis-s-vis different interpretation by two users

With reference to the Swami Ramdev dispute, here's a specific example

• The base material is largely compiled for the article from info on the institution's website

Then, in accordance with the undermentioned guidelines from Wikipedia:External links a link is provided to the official website. This is provided as a link to the home page placed at the end of the article. In concert with item no 3 of the guidelines below, I avoided placing a large no of links to various pages within the site for content within the various paragraphs

---

WP: EL

Important points to remember 1.Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. 2.External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end. 3.Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site.

What should be linked

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any......

---

• Along comes another edtor and tags some of the content within the article with a need for citation.

In response to the request, I provided links to specific pages within the website and the reference is denied by the other editor. First, on the basis of calling the reference asbeing advertising. Later, it is deemed as not being a reliable source asserting that per WP Policy - " The citation should be from a book published by a major publisher, a reputable news organisation or a scholarly source. "

My position is that the reference I provided is valid. This being an article about a person, under the aforementioned WP:EL their official website is a reliable source.

So is the Arb Committe not an appropriate forum to turn to to help resolve these differing perspectives on the definition of a reliable source within existing Policy and Guidelines ?

Thanks !
wikipost
24.116.139.52 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the nature of your dispute. Although I cannot speak for the arbitrators, I believe they would opine that arbitration is very premature at this time and that the earlier steps of dispute resolution should be followed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the prompt response.

I did make a request to the opposing user for involving the Mediation Cabal prior to submitting for ARB as per steps suggested in WP:DR. However, I received no response (as mentioned in the Request for Arb)

I would still be interested in trying Mediation. But my understanding from reading the related policy (WP: Request for Med) is that:

• Mediation Cabal is to be tried prior to formal Mediation and
• Mediation requires voluntary acceptance of the process by both (all) parties

So how do I proceed if, as stated above, I have not received from the opposing party a response to the Mediation Cabal request  ?

Best Regards

Wikipost 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is to seek a third opinion. Another is to post a request for comment asking for comments and suggestions to be placed on the article talkpage. The arbitrators and other editors who comment on your request for arbitration might also have some suggestions. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Have posted on user Sanchom (volunteer 3rd party) Talk page to investigate your suggestions. One concern I had was that there is currently only one user in 3rd party category. This brngs the probability of an outcome to 50%. No different from saying lets flip a coin to decide. So have asked him to see if he can lineup maybe 3 uninvolved as 3rd party. As before, appreciate your consistently prompt and helpful response Wikipost 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

TREYWiki

I would like to know why ArbCom didn't take up the Trey's appeal to overturn his block and why several admins have been allowed to use a block as a precaution and left the block in place while he asked for ArbCom's opinion. Several admins acted in bad faith and indef blocking someone who had one other blemish on their record stinks to high heavens. I, again, ask that the block be lifted solely because, as far as I know, admins can't block someone as a precaution. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It was decided that this matter would be handled off-wiki. The arbitrator who advised me of the committee's decision did not provide me with a detailed explanation. If you have any concerns, you may put them in an e-mail addressed to the arbitrators, send it to me using the "e-mail this user" function, and I will forward it to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. Given that this was an ArbCom decision, I am not in a position to overrule it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tedious editing

That made me laugh a bit. I made a page to disambiguate the two: User:Sanchom/Tedious editing. Sancho 18:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

PostScript (info/talk/contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--PostScript (info/talk/contribs) 19:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Thank you for re-deleting, and, for your short-lived, but well written comment.  :) I think, hope it's up from here.   j    talk   06:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope so. See my comment on Daniel's talk, and I'll comment on the MfD in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad 06:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, L has readded his comment despite considerable opposition, claming it's not offensive at all to him, which is all that matters. And they wonder why I get pissed off... Daniel 11:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear ... but do bear in mind L isn't the whole group. Regards, Newyorkbrad 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm now on good terms with at least two of that group (there's still a couple whose behaviour I find on the not-so-great side). Daniel 11:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the SLG talk page which I hope will put this matter in perspective for User:L. Frankly, my biggest concern is that this harmless attempt at humor is going to start being thrown in people's faces when they attempt to advance within Wikipedia. I really don't understand how this became such a big deal so quickly. Regards, Newyorkbrad 11:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm to blame for most of it, probably :| Daniel 12:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I take one night off editing and the whole place goes to heck. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi Brad :) I noticed you sometimes block users for inappropriate usernames and leave a quick note on the talk page informing them they have been blocked, well just so you know you can use {{subst:uw-ublock}} or {{subst:UsernameHardBlocked}}. Thanks – Rlest 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have used these templates sometimes, but at other times I find them not fully applicable. For example, the uw-ublock template encourages the user to go to WP:RCU for a change of username, but most username blocks occur on the date the account is created and the appropriate thing to do if the user wants to edit in good faith is create a new account, not bother with a name-change request. Still, I'll bear their availability in mind where they do fit, and thanks for the reminder! Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Improper ArbCom actions

As a matter of record concerning my ex-Pending ArbCom case "FeloniousMonk"[12], I just wanted to note that I consider it improper that you removed my entire ArbCom request,[13] before reaching the necessary number of votes. Whilst it seems likely that it would have been rejected, due process was not seen to have been done, and your decision as someone who was involved with my banning, I believe, shows a conflict of interest, and hence your impartiality. User:iantresman --84.9.191.165 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove it. WP:BAN is quite clear on what to do with banned users' edits. Daniel 10:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman, you should not be posting on-wiki at this time, but in view of the nature of your post I will respond in this instance. As you know, I am a clerk for the Arbitration Committee and am not a participant in the decision-making process. Also, I believe you are remembering incorrectly, as I took no part at all in the community ban discussion concerning you at WP:CN and had nothing to do with that decision. I removed your request from WP:RfAr because the arbitrators, who govern the page and the process, have specifically instructed the clerks to remove any cases posted by banned users. However, you may challenge my action, or otherwise seek to pursue your case, by sending an e-mail to any active arbitrator (list at WP:AC) or clerk for forwarding to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Newyorkbrad 11:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct in that I have confused your name with User:Tom_harrison, and my accusation of conflict of interest was wrong, and I apologise. I have ignored your request to email this, as I believe that Wikipedia should be open, and the apology should be public.
• Just so that there is no suggestion that I am "groveling" in some way to make amends for the Community Ban, while I regret the ban, I do not apologise for persistently asking for some accountability and equality.
• I would like to briefly comment to Daniel above, who is right to say that a banned user's comments may be removed, but my ArmCom request, and a number of my comments were made before the ban.
• I placed a similar message on the talk page of Clerk User:Thatcher131 which I intend to amend as a result of my mistake, and I also intend to place a note on my User page notifying others of my ban. --84.9.191.165 16:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice from Newyorkbrad

Dear Friends,

I am located in the section of Manhattan affected by the explosion today. I am absolutely fine, as is everyone I know, but I may have limited Internet access for a day or two. Newyorkbrad 05:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I'm glad you're fine. We're thinking of you. Hope that all is okay for you and yours. - Philippe | Talk 05:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

d-boy

Hello.
This may sound a bit harsh or confrontational. That isn't my intent, but I'm just going to say how things appear to me, and trust that you've been around here long enough to look at my intent, rather than the crappy way I phrase things.
I seriously think you're watching this d-boy thing too critically. And I really don't think you need to watch for anything that could be intepreted as hostile.
I won't get into the fact that the arbcom ruling doesn't appear to cover the quote thing, since I already mentioned that on the ANI page (or AN, I forget which it was).
But I will point something out: Arbcom did not say that "all quotes are permanently forbidden on the userpages of all editors involved", buuut... that's, effectively, what you've done.
Just, for example, look at today's wikiquote:

Maintain a constant watch at all times against a dogmatical spirit: fix not your assent to any proposition in a firm and unalterable manner, till you have some firm and unalterable ground for it, and till you have arrived at some clear and sure evidence. ~ Isaac Watts

Now, I chose that solely because it was the first quote I saw when going to wikiquote.org. No other reason. (Since it's the "Quote of the Day", that made it the first I saw)
However, if he'd chosen to put that on his userpage, that would have been a far more direct "personal attack" on Rama's Arrow.
The fact is, the human mind naturally looks for connections, whether they're there or not. D-Boy claims that he took your advice and stopped trying to gloat via quotes, and then chose a nice MacBeth quote instead. You were able to still find a hidden attack in that. But that's the problem. You can find a hidden attack in any quote if you look hard enough.
Which brings us back to the quote of the day. Certainly is not at all related to Rama's Arrow, but, if it had been chosen, it would have been taken that way. Any and all good quotes can be applied to most situations of interest. If you're saying that he can never use any quote ever again that could be applied to his ordeal, then you're saying he can never have any quotes, ever again. If that's your intention, then you need to file to have the arbcom ammended.
If that isn't your intention, then you need to consider the possibility that you're watching this way too closely.
Uncivil behaviour during the arbcom aside, d-boy was victimized by rama's arrow. It was clear and irrefutable. (I didn't follow closely enough to tell if gizza ever did the slightest thing wrong, or if any of the other blocked editors were or weren't being meat puppets, etc) I can understand your wanting it to be over. However, stalking his userpage, getting into conflicts with him, and then using your admin powers during those conflicts? (you seriously should have asked someone else to handle it once he switched to the shakespeare quote and stopped the obvious edit summaries) By your own rulings, you, at the very least, should have been more careful to use your admin tools. But stretching the ruling beyond what it actually said, stalking one of the members to try to find anything that could be interpreted as hostile, and then indefinitely blocking until he effectively agreed to never again use another quote in any context?
I'm not asking you for direct action. I'm just asking you to go back and look at this again. Just... look.
And read that quote I posted here. Tell me if you would have taken that as a personal attack against Rama as well, even though I just yoinked it straight off the wikiquote front page. Bladestorm 15:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your good-faith concern over this issue and will respond to your comments in the spirit in which you have placed them here, but I believe you have overlooked a couple of aspects.

First, you are right that I wouldn't normally consider it as a personal attack on other editors if a user posted a classical quotation on his or her userpage, in and of itself. But I think I would treat it as a personal attack if you had (1) actually linked from the words "send word to Rome ... Caesar has won" to the text of the arbitration decision, as Dangerous-Boy did here, and (2) posted another quotation about prevailing in battle with the edit summary "[name of another editor who was a party to the case] do you see me." Under these circumstances, as other admins have commented, it was not a large leap to see this context as intended to mock, tease, or troll other parties to the decision and to continue the ongoing hostilities.

I think you may also have your chronology slightly confused, in that the Shakespeare (Macbeth) quotation was the one with the objectionable edit summary.

I was not and am not in any underlying dispute with Dangerous-Boy or any of the other editors in the arbitration case. I am, however, the most active clerk for the Arbitration Committee and one of the admins who has taken a role in enforcing its decisions. I don't see any conflict of interest in the action I have taken. I also did not say that to be unblocked, Dangerous-Boy must never utilize a quotation again, although it will be in both his and the project's interests to use far more discretion in the future if he wishes to edit harmoniously.

Frankly, I am not relishing the position of having had to block a contributor, even one with some well-known rough edges. I regard blocks of contributors as truly a last resort and in fact have often been teased by other admins for my reluctance to use that particular button. I hope that Dangerous-Boy can realize soon that his conduct was unhelpful and promise to stop it, so that I can press the "unblock" button, which I enjoy doing far more. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well now, that was just downright friendly, especially considering I got the edit summary stuff wrong. :)

I do tend to believe d-boy when he says the shakespeare quote isn't intended as an attack (well, let me rephrase, I tend to not disbelieve it?). The rome stuff was definitely a jab (I wouldn't call it an attack, because it neither directly insulted, nor made any spurious accusations), but I don't see the shakespeare quote that way, in spite of the edit summary. My point about getting someone else involved is that, regardless of whether it was or wasn't a jab, the shakespeare quote was definitely different from the rome stuff. One was obvious, the other wasn't. And, honestly, I don't see a need to be patrolling his page.

I realize that it wasn't your intention to ban the use of all quotes on his userpage. My point is that it's effectively what you're doing. Again, read that quote I posted here (by Isaac Watts). If he'd used that instead of the shakespeare one, wouldn't you have taken that as a "personal attack" against Rama's Arrow? Even though I just took it right off the front page of wikiquote? (and thus didn't choose it specifically because of any connection to RA)

Can you see the problem? Even quotes that definitely aren't related to that debacle can still look like it if you're trying to make a connection. And that's the problem.

So, tell me, if you'd seen that quote by Isaac Watts, instead of the shakespeare quote, would you have taken it as an attack? Bladestorm 16:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, if you'd linked from it directly to the text of the arbitration decision, I would have.... Newyorkbrad 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh... that doesn't answer the question?

The shakespeare quote didn't link to that. d-boy claims he only added the shakespeare quote because he "was looking for a cool quote from wikiquote." To investigate this claim, and the possibility that any quote could look like an attack if one chose to interpret it that way, I went to wikiquote and took the "quote of the day" that was right on the front page.

So, if he had used that Isaac Watts quote instead of the shakespeare quote (which did not link to the arbcom decision), would you have taken it as an attack? Bladestorm 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Shakespeare quote was the one with the edit summary mentioning a specific editor. It continued the motif of vanquishing opponents in battle, in the immediate wake of the ArbCom decision. Would I have reacted the same way if he had posted a different quote but neither linked to the decision nor mocked another editor in the edit summary? Honest answer, I don't know. I had to enforce the ArbCom decision based on the behavior that did take place, rather than on some hypothetical circumstance that didn't. Newyorkbrad 17:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. You're talking about a general motif here. The quote I linked to could be interpreted as very astutely describing RA's actions. The edit summary was (supposedly) just an acknowledgement that he was being stalked. It wasn't actually mocking him, because he only said "do u see me?" That's not mocking. The text itself isn't any more an attack than any other wikiquote, and certainly no more than the random quote I just pulled from the wikiquote site.

Since, at the very least, you can't say you wouldn't take a random quote as an attack, you've revealed that there is an inherent problem here.

If faced with a random quote, with absolutely zero actual connection to that arbcom, you can't say that you wouldn't have interpreted it as an attack and blocked him anyways. That means that he can't have even legitimate quotes on his user page, because you just said that you might have blocked him for that anyways. Even a quote which absolutely and irrefutably had no connection still could've resulted in the same block. What option does that leave him beyond making sure that he doesn't use any quotes at all? Do you see the problem now?

By your own admission, any quote that conceivably could be perceived as having any connection at all to the arbcom very well might be interpreted that way, and lead to an immediate indefinite block. The arbcom ruling was intended to make all the bickering stop. And I see the value in that. But being that paranoid about perceived indirect references? That's not going to stop anything. Please tell me you see the problem here. You were unable to say that an entirely unrelated quote, used entirely in good faith, simply because it was interesting and the wikiquote of the day, would not have gotten d-boy blocked. Please tell me that you see a huge problem with that. (incidentally, I'm sorry if this seems redundant. It's just a really important issue that I need you to address. Your block was based on the assumption that d-boy was still being disruptive, but you then acknowledged that you could've taken any quote as being proof of that disruption) Bladestorm 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving from the theoretical to the practical, though, and based on my overall conduct as an editor and as an administrator, do you really think I would have blocked this or any other user unless I considered that he was being deliberately provocative after a series of warnings? The only "huge problem" is created by the conduct of this and some other editors over the past three months coupled with Dangerous-Boy's continued taunting after the case was closed and his not having promised yet that he will not resume doing so if the block is lifted. The idea that I go around watching editors' pages looking for excuses to block them based on ambiguous quotations borders on farcical. To the contrary, I have been looking carefully for the slightest sign of recognition of the problem that he has created from Dangerous-Boy so that I could unblock him and put this matter to rest. Newyorkbrad 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Dangerous-Boy is acting like a dick and needs to knock it off. You're also twisting Brad's words in an intriguing and unhelpful way. Given a hypothetical, viz a quote with no context, would Brad make the same interpretation? Brad says he doesn't know. However, the quote presented with the edit summary "dagizza do u see me?" is emphatically problematic, for reasons that Brad has underlined. Context is king. Let me repeat--it is with great difficulty that the committee did not start banning editors left and right. Disgust is not too strong a word. We relented because of the difficulties with the evidence, but left in place a set of remedies that made two things clear: (1) the past behavior was completely, absolutely, and irretrievably unacceptable; (2) anyone who continued said behavior would find themselves on the wrong end of a block. If it isn't clear to parties concerned why Dangerous-Boy's actions aren't acceptable then I'm afraid there's no hope for the situation. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mack, it's a bit hard to follow two threads of conversation at once. I'll reply here, but I'd appreciate if future discussion (if any) could be done on the ANI page, or on my own talk page, just so I can keep your discussion and brad's discussion separate.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't condone d-boy's behaviour during that arbcom. But, if you wanted to punish him for it, then would have been the time. Now's too late. Now you need to deal with his current actions, and the actual arbcom rulings. The arbcom rulings say to cut it out (paraphrased slightly). (The final decision actually didn't say they'd get blocked, but I don't consider blocks to be entirely out of the question, given the circumstances; just 'indefinite blocks' over poorly-explained questionable situations) Saying, "do u see me" is not an attack. What's more, my quote is relevant for a very simple reason.

Jumping to conclusions is always a bad idea. Supposedly d-boy took the hint and decided to stop using quotes to take jabs related to the arbcom. He (supposedly) then decided to just browse wikiquote for a "cool" quote, and chose one from macbeth. The quote he chose is not offensive when taken at face value. The only way to take it as being a jab in the slightest is if one assumes that it is one, and tries to read it that way. That's why I chose a quote right off the front page. If one assumes it's a jab, it becomes one. However, beyond any dispute, it actually isn't. I wanted to ask brad about that because I wanted to know what he would have done if d-boy actually wasn't trying to cause problems anymore. The response was, essentially, that brad wasn't confident that a good-faith edit on d-boy's userpage even could have been treated as good-faith.

That is, yes, we know that, if one assumes that he was still trying to cause problems, then that quote was the way to do it. But, if one doesn't assume he was trying to cause problems, could have possibly have avoided a block? Apparently, any quote could have gotten him blocked, even if he wasn't trying to be disruptive. Not that he definitely would have gotten blocked anyways, but that brad couldn't say that he would not. That's a problem. (but, again, please discuss on AN/I or my own talk page if you wish to talk about this further) Bladestorm 18:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) (outdent) Let me make something veeery clear. I don't think (for even a second) that you want to block d-boy, or anyone else, just for kicks. I don't think there's any doubt at all that you thought it was necessary. My concern isn't so much with what you did when you thought it was necessary, but rather how you came to the conclusion that it was necessary.
The fact is, you admitted that you didn't know whether or not you would've treated my quote the same way as the MacBeth quote. The problem with that is that my quote was absolutely, irrefutably, not an attack, or in any way related to RA, even though it could easily look that way.
The significance is that you're talking about d-boy's bad behaviour, including the macbeth quote, even though the macbeth quote might not have been connected at all. That is the problem. You want d-boy to recognize "the problem that he has created". But, what if he really didn't mean that quote as an attack?
What would you expect him to do? Lie? Agree to never repeat whatever behaviour it was that he wasn't doing in the first place?
I realize that we aren't required to assume good faith even in the face of evidence that people clearly aren't acting in good faith, but, well, sometimes, a cigar's just a cigar.
A shakespeare quote very easily could be a shakespeare quote. If it was, then your action was wrong. Since we don't know if it was or not, that still means your action was wrong. Entirely with the best intent, but still wrong.
What's more, you're saying that he needs to stop this behaviour, but that he isn't banned from having quotes.
Except... you also acknowledge that random quotes could still get him blocked anyways, regardless of whether or not he intended them to have any connection with the arbcom.
There are two fundamental problems here:

1. You're using circular reasoning. D-boy put up the macbeth quote as a continuation of the personal attacks. He's continuing the personal attacks, as evidenced by the fact that he put up the macbeth quote. What do you mean that wasn't intended as an attack? If it wasn't an attack, then it wouldn't have been a continuation of the personal attacks, which makes it an attack! (Yes, I know. I'm bad at illustrating circular reasoning. Use your uber-admin-y skills to parse it into something sensical)
2. You're saying that he isn't banned from including quotes, so long as they aren't disruptive, but also admit that outright random quotes might still be considered disruptive and still get him blocked. Which, in effect, bans him from using any quotes at all.

I sooo hope you understand what I'm trying to say here. His past conduct colours his current conduct, which then reinforces his continuing conduct. If it isn't circular, then it's some sort of screwy polygon I've never seen before. Bladestorm 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Final addendum:

You know, I've been looking at what I've been saying, and I do still believe it. But this is still a bit more than you should have to deal with, especially when dealing with a (relatively) uninvolved third party. Read what I have to say, but I don't need an answer. (Not telling you to not answer; if you see something you don't like, I wouldn't try to stop you from having your say)

If d-boy wants to pursue this, he (of course) can, but you don't owe me anything, and in that respect you've been pretty good-humoured about all of this. So I guess I should drop it. (This applies to my last post on the AN/I page as well) Bladestorm 18:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your addendum; frankly, I was running out of things to say, anyway. I'll add only this. Wikipedia has a very strong and well-regarded community of editors who self-identify as of Indian origin and/or who edit on India-related topics. The events of the past few months have disrupted and damaged the harmony of that community. To move on, it seems to me that the absolutely necessary minimum is that the involved editors stop trolling one another, such as by analogizing each other to historical characters killed in war. If you don't see that, then we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

File:IndiaFA.JPG

I've unblocked him based on his undertaking to stop putting quotes on his userpage for the next two months. Hopefully this meets with your approval? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm disappointed that he still doesn't seem to understand that his actions were a problem, but I'm not going to hold out for magic words. Thanks for your attention to this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank all of you for providing a good solution to this issue.Bakaman 22:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Linking

ForestFires are bad, and my response is important for Magnus to see, too, so I have replied over on his page, despite your request that I reply here, instead. Hope that's OK. Jouster  (whisper) 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've responded there too, since Animum already had, but I'd really, really appreciate it if you'd back off from your interactions with him. Newyorkbrad 23:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop acting as an intermediary between myself and Magnus, as you do here. It's frankly insulting to me, and it should probably be insulting to Magnus, as well. He is not a small child; don't treat him like one. He asked me to back off, and I could have done so just as easily without your comment, linked above. Jouster  (whisper) 00:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I was "acting as an intermediary" as a polite way of trying to defuse the situation, rather than just come flat out and tell you, not for the first time, to stop monitoring this user's edits for trivialities and harassing him. If I recall correctly he, and several other people, first asked you to back off several days ago. Newyorkbrad 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. As I have now mentioned a half-dozen times, I do not "monitor his contributions". Everyone keeps accusing me of stalking his contributions, because he's bitching about it on IRC. Nobody bothers to read what I write in response on the 'pedia. It's getting very annoying not being listened to because I'm replying on the apparently-wrong channels. Jouster  (whisper) 03:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Jouster, there was on-wiki reason for me to have concerns. I never take on-wiki actions, except in a true emergency situation, unless there is on-wiki reason to support it. I thought some of your comments toward Magnus animum (I don't think it would be useful to reprise them) were excessive and strident. However, other comments toward him were more reasonable, as have been your other contributions. I have respect for your dedication to the goals of the project and for your technical knowledge in several different areas. I consider this matter to be closed and wish you well in using these for the betterment of Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Happy editing. Newyorkbrad 04:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Brad, I very much appreciate your strong support and wonderful co-nom on my RfA. As you know by now, I'm sure, the RfA closed successfully a few hours ago. There's no doubt in my mind that having your name right up near the top of the page contributed greatly to that. I'll do my best to live up to the trust that you and the community have placed in me. - Philippe | Talk 03:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for the kind words. I look forward to further opportunities to work with you. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ispy1981

Brad,

A bogus user, claiming to be me, has asked that my account be removed. I'd like a checkuser done to prove who is who in this case.--Royameht 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm travelling with limited access today and I can't ping a checkuser (I'm not one myself), but I'm posting to the ANI thread to urge that this be looked into carefully. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Brad,

We've worked together on several edits and harassing users over the last year on Wikipedia and I have to tell you, this is getting as bad as it can be. Recently I decided to retire from Wikipedia to persue my goal as a published author and with great support from the Wikipedia community I had my name taken off the Wikipedia roster as an editor. Though I'm sad to go and I enjoyed Wikipedia, it seems now that someone, an anon author perhaps, has decided to try and bs his way into my account. He has posted on multiple places with different ip addresses in an attempt to gain entry into my account. Please disregard above, if you need to you can reach me at swwriter@hotmail.com, the same email address that has been on my account since 7/14/2007 and as well you can see I asked for a new password on 7/15/2007 and made many constructive edits to Wikipedia as well. Just an angry anon editor perhaps Ispy1981 15:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow

I request you to consider removing the Arbcom notice from Rama's Arrow's talk page. It looks like a bloat on that user's talk page who underwent much victimisation and left.

I posted the notice as the clerk for that ArbCom case. I was hoping that Rama's Arrow would be back by now to have archived it himself. Hopefully he will return soon, as his writing was highly valued. Newyorkbrad 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Thanks; wilco, to-morrow morning; why aren't you on IRC or Gtalk? David Mestel^(Talk) 21:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm on a train, returning from Washington, D.C., where in addition to meeting some other friends and doing some research at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, I attended the Wikipedia D.C. meet-up last night. I should be online later or tomorrow, but please note that my access from work may be limited this week (see "notice" thread above). Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Explosion? What explosion? David Mestel^(Talk) 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

See 2007 New York City steam explosion. Newyorkbrad 21:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yikes - incredibly lucky only one person was killed. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking the anon user who was putting insulting images on my talk page, the UK page and probably others too.

Regards,

Dewarw 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

any user may remove material from his or her talkpage

Thanks for this information!!! Have a great day!!! Linkboyz 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To amplify, in general, users are best served by leaving comments on their pages unless they are vandalistic or blatantly harassing, as this enables people to keep track of what is going on. However, within reason and subject to complying with our other policies, users have latitude as to what they want to display on their own userpages and talkpages, and certainly other users should not edit-war to keep material there that the user whose page it is wants removed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Inappropriate comments

Im really sorry if my comments were harassing. I thought of it once, but couldnt withhold my happiness. That user(admin) used to act negligently and had too may haters including me, you can notice it in his talk page history. I try my max to assume good faith in all users but could no longer do that in many negligent actions of perticular admin User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. I think my expression of joy was at the right place and user could have deleted messages after reading, i feel your revert was not called for, as this does not fall under wikipedia:harassment. Hope that user will find my comments in history, Thank you. Never bdsd 05:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, negligence is the worst thing that an administrator can display. Never bdsd 05:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you had a negative experience with this or any administrator, but the types of comments you made were extremely inappropriate. I am sorry that even now you do not realize that. The Arbitration Committee has strongly urged that the community put the issues involving the various users involved in this case behind us so that we can edit as harmoniously as possible. Comments like the one you left for Sir Nicholas are not at all helpful toward this goal. Newyorkbrad 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Harmony needs cooperation from both sides, thanks. $nevesso$ 08:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

preliminary

• Never bdsd is blocked, so using another account.
• I need help from an admin, seeking it from you.
• Issue is: puppetmaster User:Vinay412 and his socks(Greg dn, Racky pt, Never bdsd) and puppetmaster User:Kuntan and his socks(there exists category) are seperate, it is very obvious(i can give you 100 evidences if you are still in doubt).
• See section User_talk:Vinay412#Unblock.
• all saga happened because new user User:Vinay412 was not given proper direction. "power hates defiance" so "admins hate sockpuppets(be it is disruptive or not)" ---> I used sockpuppets(non-disruptive) to evade block, so nobody was ready to talk to me.
• why unblock declined: they have no reason to block user:vinay412, but they wish to block him under theory "power hates defiance".
• user talk page protected because of this:4 edit diff. this you need not bother much.

technical breaches

• user:kinu blocked user:vinay412 without a single warning. and later inserted 2 more reasons inside to justify, he should have writen that below and signed again.
• user:vinay412 with 5 month contributions was blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet of unconnected user user:kuntan without sockpuppetry case nor a checkuser case. This was done by Sir Nicholas without.

now what is the problem

• user:andyjsmith harassing me, in all forms mentioned in wikipedia:harassment, he knows user:vinay412 and user:kuntan are different, otherwise he would have posted user:never bdsd as kuntan, see sockpuppetry case history [14].
• See this clear vandalism of same user to support his case [15], could you revert this edit and leave warning on his user talk page? Here user:kuntan himself is disowning user:vinay412(and socks), read conversation there, conversation is wiped by user:andyjsmith, clear vandalism.
• Kindly seperate user:vinay412(and socks) and user:kuntan(and socks), see evidence in User_talk:Vinay412#Unblock. User:vinay412, that is me, is ready to face block for any inappropriate deeds done by him, not by user:kuntan.

Thanking you $nevesso$ 08:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC) See also, 2 sections below in your userpage, where user:kuntan disowns user:never bdsd. $nevesso$ 08:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth

Hi Brad, CyberAnth (talk · contribs) has been systematically restoring unwelcome comments and misguided warnings on my talk page, despite the finding of other admins at ANI that nothing I did in the content dispute he feels so strongly about was wrong or actionable. Sure, we get interesting comments from editors who disagree with admin actions all the time and I was really hoping the whole thing would blow over, but as he insists on restoring these unwelcome, unconstructive comments (the entire scope of his editing in the past few days has been doing so) and given some of the things he wrote at ANI and Talk:Saipan, I wonder if you could take a look at the situation here? Thanks, Deiz talk 07:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Daniel has reverted CyberAnth with comments similar to the ones I would have left. Let's see if this helps with the problem. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

question about RfAr for Jeffrey

I noticed you notified Jeffrey there is a RfAr about him (at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey). It seems Thatcher is doing a lot putting together a report about his recent behavior. I am wondering if a statement/evidence from me would be useful, and if there is anything in particular I should try to bring to the discussion? I've decided to write up a draft of what such a statement would look like, but I'd like to make sure that I'm doing the right thing before bringing anything there. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Any editor is invited to present a statement or evidence, especially if it presents new information that is not already contained in other presentations. Of course, the evidence should consist of verifiable facts, supported by diffs or links. See the instructions on the top of the evidence page for further guidance, and feel free to ask if you have any more specific questions. Newyorkbrad 04:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

All of my interactions with Jeffrey have been discussions, but particular diffs are requested. With what I have in mind, should I avoid links to discussions, such as Talk:Cherokee_Freedmen_Controversy#slow_down_with_reversions, or are these ok? Also, I feel like if I comment, claims made against me will become part of the discussion (such as that I am a sock or have COI, or whatever other issues may be suspected of me). Should I address these in my statement, or should I wait until they come up? I think those are my questions. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In terms of what links, diffs, you should include in your evidence, the basic purpose of the process is to assist the arbitrator in deciding the case. Put yourself in the place of an editor who is very familiar with Wikipedia but may not have a lot of information about the specific dispute, and ask yourself whether what you are writing would be helpful. As for your other point, the Arbitration Committee can look at the conduct of anyone involved in the dispute, whether or not he or she is named as a party at the outset of the case (although the clerks would make sure that any parties implicated by potential remedies who were not already aware of the matter are notified). I think it is fair to say that presenting evidence might increase the chances that your own conduct in the matter would be reviewed, but there is no guarantee this wouldn't happen anyway. You are in a better position than anyone else to know whether you have done anything in relation to these disputes that might lead the arbitrators to criticize or impose sanctions regarding your behavior. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, now that I see how the evidence page and workshop work together, I kinda get how it works. Looks like Thatcher has reviewed most of the edits, but perhaps my side of the disputes might be useful. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How can I get my user page locked?

Beacause an unregistered user with two IPs 87.122.36.133 and 87.122.36.159 \i guess it's the same person, because we have argued in blaqk audio's talk page\ is constantly vandalizing it. Xr 1 10:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected (IPs can't edit it) for a few days. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

When I saw this I ask about protection in the list-I thought I should ask there.Then I was told you protected my article.So thank you very much! :) Xr 1 18:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Never bdsd

Hi Brad, the account that commented on Dick's talk page (which you reverted) has been added to Kuntan's sock list. This is part of a shitty drama planned and enacted by Dick &co. Can you ask for a check user on that account? I mean, in private. I was the party who requested you to remove the Arbcom notice on RA's talk page. Regards 59.91.253.161 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am not able to keep track of who is socking whom with respect to some aspects of this matter. If possible, an editor with more knowledge of the people involved should take charge of this investigation. Or better still, if people would stop doing these things, that would also be quite acceptable. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Socks are inherent in wiki system, and admins dont tolerate socks, even this is inherent. All who know this are prejudiced, if you refuse to interfere i will have to aproach another admin but to an admin who is new and neutral. Why every admin evading including you is because i evaded block on user:Vinay412 using user:Racky pt in face of all admins, as they could not tolerate their helplessness here [16] , where they saw an obvious sockpuppet(but non-disruptive) and could not block him. $nevesso$ 03:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Lemme mind you that socks are not bad, only disruptive socks are bad. This is in reply to your words "stop doing these things" $nevesso$ 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Hi Newyorkbrad, you OK?? Haven't spoke to you in ages on here!! Is it OK if I list a brief overview of the situation on the evidence page of the above Arbitration case, with diff links etc.

Also, what articles are you working on at the moment?? --SunStar Net ^talk 13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi and hope you are well also. Regarding the arbitration case, any editor is free to present evidence on the evidence page or proposals on the workshop page. However, if you want to participate in this case, you should do so pretty quickly, as the arbitrators are already voting. You probably should only post if you have something to add to the evidence that other editors have already presented.

My mainspace editing has been pretty quiet lately, partly because my neighborhood was affected by the 2007 New York City steam explosion and the building where my office was located, which contains many of the books I use for references, was closed. Fortunately, we are getting back in now, so I should be able to resume work on articles such as Samuel Leibowitz and Irving Younger when I have a few minutes. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Merkey case

Thanks for that; completely inadvertent miss. Good that you caught it. Much appreciated, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, thanks for adding Kebron as a party and notifying him. Take care, FloNight 11:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

help a newbie out?

I am kind of new and couldn't figure out what to do in this case. Could you take a look at Pcg13 (talk · contribs)? He spent some time yesterday adding reviews from Rolling Stone to a bunch of articles. Would that be considered spam? I'm not sure if it is or not, but he has some spam warnings, all from the same user, on his talk page from a couple of weeks ago. After I saw that, I reverted all of his edits to the articles that I watch. (Some of them were ridiculous anyway, they were mostly to the same review, which covered some of the albums in one sentence each.) Did I do the right thing? Should I go through all of his other edits and revert them too? Thanks for any help that you can provide. MookieZ 04:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding a link of reviews of an album to an article about that album can be a legitimate edit, but I'd be curious why he's adding all the reviews from a single source. I'd suggest asking him on his talkpage and seeing what he says. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FightingforJustice

Responded with my comments on her talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Appealed/Appealled

Hi, NYB. I don't like to mess with arbitration pages, as I'm not a clerk, but unless Americans spell appealed with two Ls (I suppose anything is possible!), perhaps you could fix the word here. Thanks. :) ElinorD (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 22:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom & Adoption

Hello there. WP:ADOPT and Wikipedia:Mentorship are currently undergoing a rehaul, and Mentorship is going to be split into the voluntary and disciplinary procedures. As it is the domain of ArbCom, the latter, we need an actual name for the process. Is there a way one could poll members of ArbCom or find a basic name for the procedure? Thanks. (Please do reply on my talk page, thanks).

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded on The Rhymesmith's talk, as requested. Newyorkbrad 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

E-mail to Arbitration Committee

Newyorkbrad, how may I best get the attention of the Arbitration Committee? Post on the talk page of a proposed decision of an almost-completed case, or e-mail, or both? (And to which address would I send my e-mail?) Thank you, --Iamunknown 07:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In an almost-completed case, the talkpage of /proposed decision would probably get the most traffic, or if your concern is addressed to a specific arbitrator, you can always use his or her own talkpage. E-mails can be sent to any active arbitrator (list on WP:AC) or clerk (such as me) with the request that they be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 13:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does help. Thank you, Iamunknown 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Added both versions of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" article

Thanks for the suggestion. Help us to form a True consensus.--Amadscientist 02:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the information is provided in either version, so I don't feel all that strongly about this, but if the poll continues I'll probably voice an opinion. In the meantime, both of you are at (or over) 3RR on this, so please don't risk getting blocked over what is really, to be honest, a less-than-earth-shattering matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask you, as you seem to be more than level headed and civil, but a particularly accomplished editor, would you advise just stepping completly away and letting him do as he wishes. For one thing, you are right about it being a less-than-earth-shattering matter.--Amadscientist 04:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'll take a look at this tomorrow when I'm more awake, will also be interested in what any other editors who comment on the talkpage have to say. Newyorkbrad 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear NY Brad

I apologize sincerely for the fact that things seem out of hand. Honestly, I wanted to be done with that board, but Durova continued to engage me today - most of my writing there today was answering her false accusations. I am not a sockpuppet, and I didn't contribute to any earlier meeting about Alkivar. I was somehow forced to answer her, or allow the accusations to stand. Then she moved it over to the ANI board, where it was the same situation. I dont see myself as being the instigator, if you will. She was leveling accusations at me, and I responded. Then she claims I'm writing all over the place. Tactics, tactics, tactics. If only it were about writing articles, and not all of this.

As I said, I returned to the RFC on the request of VO. I'll discontinue editing the AN, as soon as Durova stops making up new accusations about me. She needs to accept that I didn't agree with her, and that doesn't mean that I'm some kind of criminal. It seems that she's upset that I've provided the information I did, which highlighted the bigger picture around Alkivars case. Those guys, VO and AB, have been attacking a famous journalist and director, James Renner, and another article. That's how I got involved in Alkivar's case. I was looking up why this VO was instigating with Renner, and then I found the Alkivar thing, then I found the other cases. Durova needs to not make up wild ideas, and she needs to stop putting them on my. Thanks. BlueSapphires 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am making strikeouts for Videmus Omnia on ANI

Videmus Omnia (per my talk page) wants me to make some erasures on the ANI (not the RFC, at least I think I covered that), so I will do that. Please forfend any accusations from Durova about this. Thanks. BlueSapphires 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom-related bans

Is it standard to post a ban notice on the talk page (i.e. {{Banned user arbcom}})? —Kurykh 19:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the usual practice but there was good reason to depart from it in today's case. Please leave these users' pages as is until further notice. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott

White Cat has filed the above RfC over longstanding and unresolved issues with Ned's conduct. --Tony Sidaway 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)