User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Nov

Arbitration committee voting

Will this be the page that voting will be for the arbitration committee? Can't wait to see you running, by the way! Looks like AnonEMouse has already began campaigning--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award "The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar" to Newyorkbrad for guiding me. Masterpiece2000 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Newyorkbrad. Today I have completed one month on Wikipedia. Thank you for helping me. Your suggestions were really helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 03:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. A little more than a year ago, I was a brand-new and somewhat clueless editor myself, asking for guidance on the help desk and from anyone else whose path I crossed. It is the duty of those who now have more experience to provide the same help to those who follow after us. Newyorkbrad 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

John Marshall Harlan II

Have you forgotten about this article? Ruslik 12:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I've been waiting for a book I've sent for to arrive, plus dealing with candidate questions, but I'm certainly going to be working on it soon. :) Newyorkbrad 12:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom election

Hey man, I saw that the ArbCom elections were coming up and thought of you. I don't think we've spoken before, but I see your contributions in many places and am frequently struck by your eloquence and level-headedness. I was going to ask you if you'd consider running, and I'm really glad to see that you already are! I wish you the very best of luck! GlassCobra 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious, if you become an arbitrator, will you still be a clerk on the committee?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I would not continue to hold the title of clerk if I were elected as an arbitrator (this is precisely as happened with FloNight last year). I would expect to continue working closely with the clerks, though, and probably would remain more attentive to the clerical aspects of the decision-making than some of the other arbitrators, just because it's in my nature. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I'm not a bit worried about your temperment, which is nothing short from calm, civil, friendly, and level-headed.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Assistance sought regarding article reversion

Dear Brad,

As the author of a Wikipedia article on Ostad Elahi (1895-1974), a contemporary Persian philosopher, jurist, and musician, I’d like to seek your advice on an ongoing situation involving a user who is only identified by an IP address. Since early 2007, this user has made three reversions to the article and the discussion page, without any supporting references, on the sole basis that the article should be identified under Ostad Elahi’s birth name of “Nur Ali Elahi” and not “Ostad Elahi” (incidentally, the birth name is listed in the first sentence of the article).

Each time such a reversion has occurred, I have sought to set forth the reasons why the article should be identified under the name “Ostad Elahi,” including the fact that he was referred to as Ostad Elahi both during his lifetime and posthumously, and have corroborated these reasons with numerous sources and references.

In response to the most recent reversion on October 12, 2007, I have just added a comprehensive response with references as to why the article is, and should remain, under the name of Ostad Elahi, and I have re-posted my deleted postings on the discussions page that address this same issue.

Assuming that this user decides to once again delete all of my comments on the discussion page and redirect/rename the article “Nur Ali Elahi”—which would delete all of the incorporated references in the process—what would you advise that I do?

Any guidance would be much appreciated.

Thank you, Global.wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global.wiki (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You could consider requesting a third opinion on the best article name from another editor and trying to build consensus that the article is at the correct location. At that point, you could request an administrator to move-protect the article, meaning that it could not be moved again without a consensus to do so. I hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But you are wrong. His name was Nur Ali Elahi, please don't try to chage history. Ostad means master in the Farsi language and you know that. There is nothing in print in the 1920s,30s,40s,50s,60s, and up to 1974 when he died with the name Ostad Elahi, but there are hundreds of pages printed in the 1920s-2007 with the name Nur Ali Elahi. ALL THE BOOKS HE WROTE IN FARSI ARE PUBLISHED WITH HIS NAME, NUR ALI ELAHI, NOT OSTAD ELAHI.--Persianhistory2008 14:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just answering a procedure question and have no expertise to offer concerning which name the article should be under. (Of course, there will be redirects either way, anyway.) Perhaps a request for comment or a discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves might garner more input on this issue. Newyorkbrad 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Global.wiki, I also see in the page history that you have deleted many other individuals write ups on the discussion board. That is strictly against Wikipedia policy.--Persianhistory2008 14:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan ^talk 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As you probably realize, I am not an arbitrator (active or otherwise), but a Clerk assisting the committee. On the merits of your suggestion, each arbitration case probably has more than enough pages associated with it already, so I would be reluctant to add another one. However, I do sympathize with your frustration at not knowing specifically where questions for the arbitrators should be posted to achieve visibility when the workshop and talkpages have become unwieldy, as I have had the same feeling myself on occasion. Perhaps a section of this nature could be added to an existing arbitration page template—but then I fear such sections would quickly be overrun with less-critical questions and speeches-in-the-guise-of-questions, and become as difficult to navigate as the set-up we already have. Hmmm. Will have to give this one some more thought. Incidentally, central discussion of a suggestion like this would probably be best at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy. Newyorkbrad 11:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What he said. Also, I can't see too many questions needing to be asked of arbitrators other than those of scope (which in any case is generally treated fairly informally), since the main information flow is generally from parties' statements and evidence sections to arbitrators, rather than vice versa. David Mestel^(Talk) 12:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey gents, thanks for your replies. Yes, I wanted to get the clerks involved immediately because this type of thing would add more burden for you so I wanted to get your feedback. Essentially this proposal stems from my two experiences in arbitration. In the first (Paranormal), Fred Bauder's talkpage became the de facto talk page where we could all get an arbitrator response: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] In the second (Science Apologist-Martinphi), Martinphi (and others) have begun asking Kirill questions directly on his talk page, and Kirill has changed a proposed decision based on that discussion: [19] [20] . I, too, have questions that I would like answered, but I don't think that messaging individual arbitrators is in the best interest of the encyclopedia.

When I proposed the Q&A page, I was thinking that each Case would have its own page. Kirill suggested, instead, to create just one Q&A page, and now I think that it makes sense - each Case just has its own section on that one page, not its own page. This way, the Arbitrators just have to watch one extra page total, and it really would reduce the cherrypicking and userspace decisionmaking that has occurred in the cases I've been involved with (and therefore, likely others). I will move this discussion to the Arb talk pages if you think it would be appropriate and useful. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 17:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made the proposal more broadly, here. Thanks Antelan ^talk 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Vk

Hello Brad. Any chance you could refactor this comment from an logged out editor? My nationality and identity is not publicly known, for the exact reason that it tends to draw those sort of ridiculous comments. In this case its not even a correct assumption. I would remove it myself, but can't be bothered with the inevitable fall out. Thanks. Rockpocket 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I went to Vintagekits' page to consider removing the comment, but I see that another administrator has already responded to it. I would feel a bit awkward removing the comment given that fact, at least without her consent. On a slightly different matter, you will have seen the note I left at the bottom of Vintagekits' page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I did, thank you. But with regards to Alison's reply, she is not the one who has received threats from Vk et al, and is open about her identity. I have, and would really rather an anonymous editor didn't discuss identifying details about me with the person who issued those threats previously. I'm kind of trying to avoid Vk's page as much as possible, as he requests, but if that means others are free to speculate about personal details about me there, I will not hestitate to remove them myself. I appreciate this is not your problem, but this is what will happen when those "involved" editors leave things to those "uninvolved". Rockpocket 03:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of a subsequent comment by an IP later in the same discussion, I now feel it appropriate to remove the thread in its entirety. I have done so with a edit summary indicating that the thread should not be restored. Newyorkbrad 03:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it (though currently it remains in place, the IP having reverted it for the 4th time). Rockpocket 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RE Tally updates

That's no excuse. Before the format change, I always voted on RfAs by pressing the edit button on the Discussion header, and subsequently made a second edit to update the tally. Failure to do so is simple laziness. :-) Walton^One 09:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tightrope Award for a sure-footed editor (don't look down)

Tightrope Award

You are hereby awarded the Blondin Trophy, otherwise the Tightrope Award, created by Bishonen for Wikipedia's Masters of Balance. The image represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

Request help to create Arbitration formal request

I am requesting help to fill out a formal arbitrition request in reference to 3rd US Infantry. The Request for mediation for this topic has been closed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry. -TabooTikiGod 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The instructions for filing an arbitration case are at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. After reviewing them, please open the new-case template, fill it out with all of the requested information, then paste it at the top and the new cases section and notify the other parties. I or another clerk will adjust any minor formatting problems, so don't worry about the fine details as long as all the required information is given. If you have any more specific questions, please let me know. (I may be offline in meetings most of the day, so if someone else sees a follow-up question here before I get back, please feel free to address it.) Newyorkbrad 12:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new request for arbitrtion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Article_Title_for_3rd_US_Infantry Please see if it's in an acceptable format and there's sufficient information for the case review. -TabooTikiGod 05:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The formatting looks okay. You failed to notify the other parties as you're supposed to, but one of them saw it anyway and to save time I went ahead and notified the other two.

Is this really necessary? After a month of mediation, nothing was resolved, and not even the WP Military History Admin was arguing against the name of the article? Ryecatcher773 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators will decide whether or not to accept the case. If they decline it, they may offer other suggestions for how to resolve the dispute. Newyorkbrad 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with popup's

I tried to get popup's set up in my monobook.js but no luck nothing showedup & i couldn't figure out where in the village pump to ask so i thought the next best thing is to ask you to help Richardson j 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad should be tucked up in bed now, so I've had a bash at sorting it for you - any problems then let one of us know. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. Richardson j, thanks for the compliment in thinking of me, but I would have been pretty useless at that sort of thing anyway, so I appreciate Ryan's stepping in. Regards to both of you. Newyorkbrad 15:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks .

Now i'm of to thank ryan himself Richardson j 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

I've responded to your email. Feel free to phone me when convenient to discuss things in more detail. --Gene_poole 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied. Based on the assurance and clarifications contained in your e-mail, hopefully the matter is resolved, and a telephone call from New York to Australia will not be needed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this by any chance be in regard to Gene Poole's post, violating policy of WP:No legal threats? On 21:57, 5 November 2007, Gene Poole posted here, which reads:

"Your activities are presently under forensic review by multiple external parties, and will be dealt with via the appropriate channels in due course."

According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, a standard of British English usage in Gene's country of Australia,

COED forensic "adjective 1 relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods to the investigation of crime. 2 of or relating to courts of law."

Since Gene previously stated his skill as a writer of the same article ("clear, unambiguous prose" - diff), it must be assumed that he meant exactly what he wrote on the talk page.

Note on 02:44, 26 June 2007, Gene's loathsome disease libel intended to be read by a third party (diff), progressed four months later to a legal threat against the same libeled user. This is a pattern described at WP:Harassment, as well as being two WP:OFFICE-level problems. WP:NLT reads:

"Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding."

(Please reply here if desired) Milo 22:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have corresponded with Gene Poole and at this time the matter has been addressed. Of course, all editors on these articles should do their best to remain civil and refrain from using unnecessary epithets or making personal attacks. Please feel free to let me know if any new issues or problems arise. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above interpolation, please note my public record comment here. AFAIC the matter is now at the point where an indefinite block should be applied to the offending account. --Gene_poole 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. As you know, the concerns I initially raised concerned a different user from Milomedes. Given my monitoring of that issue (which hopefully will no longer be an issue), I will leave it to someone else to evaluate Milomedes' contributions. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you haven't blocked Gene, I take it that the legal threat has been withdrawn, or was an intimidation fake all along. Currently it remains visible. When will it be removed? Milo 00:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Gene Poole has clarified to me that this was a reference to review by Wikipedia administrators, rather than to off-site legal action. Absent some further development, I accept this assurance, and this should resolve the matter. I agree with you, Milomedes, that the wording of the reference to "forensic evaluation" was ambiguous, and would welcome Gene Poole's removing or modifying it, but I would also prefer that you continue your own editing maintaining as much separation from Gene Poole as possible, and make no further reference to the matter. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Forensic" should indeed be removed or modified. But likewise the word "external" needs removal or modification, which in Gene's precision usage unambiguously refers to the world outside Wikimedia servers. 'Your activities are presently under review by multiple administrators, and will be dealt with via the appropriate channels in due course.' would be one minimally satisfactory delete-replace edit. The original version must not remain visible. Milo 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Brad, and thank you for taking this on. I appreciate the Arbitration committee asking for evidence and specifics, and I'm hoping I can have over the weekend to gather things -- from what I can see from looking at the linked pages and subpages, this is a pretty substantial undertaking, and I want to give it the time it needs. Again, and I know I speak on behalf of many, thank you. --Tenebrae 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators voted to take the case; I'm just the Clerk who set up the pages and notified the parties and such. Typically, the parties have at least a week or so to present their evidence and proposals before the arbitrators start voting, so over the weekend should certainly be all right. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While I realise that you're the clerk, and need to retain impartiality, I'd like to be able to ask you procedural questions (clarifications) throughout the process, if you wouldn't mind.

Ok, so anyway, I have a few questions : )

What happened to the statements by the other concerned editors? Will they be added "somewhere", or is everyone presumed to re-add them with more detail, or what?

Also, is it typical to provide the link in the talk page header? I vaguely remember reading "somewhere" that that's frowned upon because it may make some editors not be able to read it.

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 11:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please ask all the procedural questions you want to; the arbitration pages can be a little complicated to navigate and helping people do it is part of the Clerks' job. In answer to your first question, the statements by non-parties wind up on the case talkpage, so here that would be Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. You're not the first person to ask that question about where some of the statements go, so maybe we should add a cross-reference to the casepage to point that out. (If any arbitrators or other clerks are reading here, what do you think?)

For your second question, I don't really know if there's a policy on that that applies to talk pages. Maybe someone reading here will know. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian request for arbitration

Can you please open the case? It was supposed to be opened Friday, and the current arbitrator count is 5 accept votes, 0 recuse/reject/other. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's posted on our clerks' noticeboard and will open today. I opened the last two cases, so I don't want to be a hog by taking three in a row. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's being opened now. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You found it?!

		Wow, you're fast!
		I can't belive you found my hidden userpage #2! You can look back now, I've made it. MindstormsKid 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

		Well, you did do both
		Was that the Muppet show you were quoting? I might make a Hidden userpage #3! MindstormsKid 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstars! As for the quotation, it's an old TV cliche; by the time the Muppet Show picked it up in the late 1970s, it was alredy familiar from soap operas and the like. The hiddle userpages are fun, but I also look forward to seeing your work on an encyclopedia article sometime. From your userboxes, I think you and I have some interests in common, so we might be able to come up with some ideas if you want to think of a topic. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked my first contribs? They were on the article Power Puzzle, but they got deleted. I am usually on IRC, so if you want to make/edit an article with me, you can talk to me there or on my talk page. MindstormsKid 20:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, I didn't mean to say you'd never written anything. You're doing a good job on the anti-vandal stuff too, so keep up the good work. Not on IRC today, but I'll see you there tomorrow or during the week. Newyorkbrad 21:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RFAR removal

Hi. I was going through RFAR rejections and found this. Isn't it a bit odd for a non-initiating named party to be removing RFARs? Granted, it was about to be rejected anyway - and now I see the user has since been indefinitely blocked - but still... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your reactions are correct. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration for some discussion of this incident. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! I should have thought to look there. Sorry for the bother... —Wknight94 (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bumper sticker

This image is being used as a way of canvassing, on more than 20 pages. I dislike that, and am requesting that you request it be removed. You don't have to, it just might get you opposed for the ArbCom position. Dreamy ^§ 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the "bumper sticker" and find it enormously flattering, and thank the editors who are displaying it. For what it's worth, it appears that it's only actually appearing on about 3 or 4 live pages, the rest being archives and subpages and the like. I certainly had nothing to do with the creation of this image. Similar "bumper stickers" were displayed for a couple of candidates last year, and I don't believe caused a problem. I presume and expect that anyone choosing to vote for (or against) me would do so on the basis of my record as a Wikipedian plus my answers to the candidate questions, and not on the basis of an image, however flattering.

However, I certainly don't want to give an impression of canvassing; at the same time, I don't want to seem ungracious to editors who are being (overly) kind to me. Strong considerations on both sides: Just the sort of dilemma that an arbitrator should anticipate dealing with for the next three years, I suppose.

The bottom line is that if there is any substantial body of opinion holding that having this image around creates an appearance of canvassing or impropriety, I will suggest that it be curtailed. I would welcome anyone else's thoughts on this issue. Newyorkbrad 22:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dreamy ^§ 22:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had a bumper sticker... *Cremepuff222* 22:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First you need a car! :-P Newyorkbrad 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you remember our conversation on IRC? *Cremepuff222* 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but I don't know when they're delivering it. :) Newyorkbrad 00:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a large discussion about this a year ago with the last elections, with the consensus being that they are legitimate to be used. The discussion was at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive64#Arbcom_campaigning_images - will you be the puppy-eating candidate this election by any chance, Brad? Daniel 10:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I remembered that there had been some discussion, but not where it had taken place, nor that I had participated in it myself. Regards, Newyorkbrad 10:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Might as well add my link as well: User:Jc37/Userboxes/NYB4Arbcom : ) - jc37 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up

There have been users put on probation/blocked after the Troubles ArbCom ended, you may want to check the log of blocks/bans/probations :) SirFozzie 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes; I was referring only to that particular user's not being on any probation or restriction; sorry if that was not clear. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days... excessive and abusive?

Could you comment on justification of Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days..., please? Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I will comment after I see what the administrator who protected the page has to say. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Solved... and I won't bother you anymore; I've learnt to better understand the policies, their interpretations, where to post such questions, and, where to discuss the policies. Thanks again. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 05:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this is resolved to your and, hopefully, everyone's satisfaction. Happy editing, and perhaps you would want to register an account so that other users can communicate with you more easily. Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks, I like to remain anonymous and not to make communication easier; it was bothering me that Wikipedia does not protect inexperienced editors (potentially loosing valuable contributions; the best part of my contribution to Frida Kahlo is gone) the same way the US Constitution protects individuals (and minorities) against oppression by a majority (Bill of Rights, other Amendments). Instead of dealing with abuse by editors without high school diploma, I made a difficult contribution to the vandalism discussion, and this overprotection of Diego Rivera was a needed there example. My task is complete. I do not want to deal with such an abuse at the present cost, because the current vandalism policy does not make it easy. So, I will wait anonymous until something is changed for better. Hopefully, it will sooner or latter, but I have time, or Wikipedia is not for me, but I gave it my best shot. Thanks again. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 06:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

'hoy hoy

Hey Brad! Bit of an esoteric request on my part, but I'm wondering if you've any experience in Irish law. I'm trying to get started on a new project writing articles about recent important court decisions, but my knowledge of the finer points of law are wanting for a bit. I'd be more than happy to do the actual article writing, but I'm a bit hesitant to actually throw something up on Wikipedia before its reviewed first by someone with more experience than I. If you do, in fact, have some experience, would you mind terribly to review the content for factual accuracy? (I could send you e-mails or put it in userspace somewhere, if it's easier that way). Thanks a lot, mate and I hope all's well with you. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know very little about Irish law. I'll be glad to read anything you want to post, either before or after you post it, but it would probably be more for copyedits (if any were needed) rather than the finer points of the law. A post to the talkpage of either Wikiproject Law or Wikiproject Ireland would probably be more fruitful than anything I could contribute. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks mate! I actually posted on the Irish WikiProject just prior to contacting you. I wasn't sure if you had any direct experience with Irish law, but I figured I'd give it a shot, hehe. Good idea about posting on the Law WikiProject, I'll definitely do that. Thanks again gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow

Hello Newyorkbrad. Today I found out that before I became a part of the Wikipedia community, there was another remarkable Wikipedian - Rama's Arrow. He wrote 11 Featured articles. That's amazing. I also noticed that he lost his adminship and left Wikipedia. Can you tell me something about him? Why did he lost adminship? Please reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello!

On this article Users GiovanniGiove and Ghepeu are vandalizing the article

[21] [22] [23]

They simply delete the entire paragraph . I remind that Giovanni_Giove has a limit afor editing per week and I believe he broke it with this. [24] [25]

Regards! --Anto 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be primarily a content dispute, and I don't know enough about the subject-matter of the article to opine on whether the disputed paragraph belongs in the article or not. Please discuss on the talkpage. I know there is discussion of Giovanni Giove's editing on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, so you might want to add your thoughts there if you haven't already done so. Newyorkbrad 18:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

I am involved in another debate with David Shankbone. See this (and the following section). This was a stub article with no pro or con material. After NLC merged into AEI, David added an isolated quote from a 1990 Times article which implies that this organization has supported the activities of Dow Chemical, Amway, and Shell Oil. This is an isolated (and unelaborated) quote in a single article from 17 years ago - an article that appears to be an opinion piece (though not certain that it is). David's claims effectively doubled the length of this stub article, and I believe it is undue weight to include an isolated 17 year old claim as controversial as this, even if it is sourced to the Times. (That's not the only issue I have, but it's the main one).

I toned down the claim, but David reverted me, and we've reached an impasse on the talk page. He is now claiming I am unqualified to comment because I am not a lawyer, so I'm asking you (as a lawyer whose judgement I respect) to comment on this. I realize you are busy with your arbcom candidacy, so feel free to say no. :-) ATren 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad, User:Swatjester has agreed to review the article, although you are welcome to do so as well. And the main issue is that the organization was funded by corporations. I have provided four references to two New York Times articles, a Salon article and a UConn law journal, and I supplied the quote from the Times article. Everything is sourced and cited. --David Shankbone 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the main issue is the quote that it is "focused on the corporate sector" - being funded by corporate entities is not the same as saying they are "focused" on corporate issues - and the implication that it is sacrificing the public good to support Dow, Shell, and Amway. I removed those claims, David reverted me. David, reread my comments on the talk page. ATren 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am trying to stay away from disputes to which David Shankbone is a party, in view of some recent disagreements we have had. In general, I would say that this article contains nothing overtly unacceptable, although it can certainly stand to be further developed. I would point out, though, that David Margolick's "At the Bar" column in The New York Times was largely a human-interest and opinion column, rather than a news column, and that the sentence of the article quoted from Margolick was his personal opinion of the organization rather than a news report. Unless it is made clear that the quotation represents one individual's opinion, I am sure that a more reliable source can be found to summarize the organization's position on the ideological spectrum. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, understood. Thanks. ATren 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If the change I made suits you, ATren, I will tell Swatjester that he doesn't have to spend his time reviewing the Talk page. --David Shankbone 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's still problematic. See the talk page. ATren 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. We can wait for Swatjester. --David Shankbone 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Brad, sorry to disturb you, but User:ATren has really twisted what you wrote above into new directions. I'm sure you know David Margolick is one of the country's more acclaimed journalists and is seen as balanced in his reporting. ATren has taken your "Unless it is made clear that the quotation represents one individual's opinion, I am sure that a more reliable source can be found" quote and turned it into, "He specifically said a more reliable source of criticism would be better." He has turned "I am trying to stay away from disputes to which David Shankbone is a party" into "your insistence in trying to re-involve de him in this debate after he specifically asked you not to is starting to look like harassment" because I have cited you found "nothing overtly unacceptable." With your reasonable suggestion, I attributed the quote to Margolick and created a stub for him (which ATren has helpfully expanded). You don't have to involve yourself, but I want to point out that the short paragraph you wrote is being twisted into new directions over an innocuous quote by an acclaimed reporter, a dispute that so far two other people (User:Jeffpw and User:Swatjester, who said after I made the change that the page looked "remarkably neutral") have not seen what ATren sees. The dispute continues because ATren won't let it die.--David Shankbone 05:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I asked him half a dozen times to respect your wishes and leave you out of it, but he refuses. He keeps bringing you back into the debate on the talk page. I honestly don't know what to do. Feel free to ignore this and remove it from your talk page immediately. ATren (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel harassed, but I have no further comments. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Content Decisions

Hi Newyorkbrad. I'm wondering if you, as a clerk, have in mind a good example of an arbitration case with content findings aside from the Paranormal case? In that case, there were several findings of fact related to the status of different groups, objects, ideas, etc. I was looking over a handful of other arbitration cases to try to find a pattern that would help me better understand when and why the Arbitration Committee makes content decisions, and what impact those decisions are intended to have with regards to editing Wikipedia. Because I couldn't find any other cases after my cursory search, I decided I'd ask you since you'd probably seen some. Sorry to bug, and thanks for your help. Antelan ^talk 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Paranormal was, as you've found, something of an unusual case. The way the findings were written was partly a function of the subject-matter of the case, and partly a function of the writing style of the arbitrator who wrote up the decision (some arbs tend to write decisions that go into much more detail than others). I can't think off the top of my head of another case that contained similarly detailed findings that came so close to content rulings (which the arbitrators generally disclaim any interest in making), but I will look over the list of completed cases when I have a few minutes and see if any spring to mind. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your attention to detail. Antelan ^talk 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Newyorkbrad, this is of help (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA: RoyalBroil

You are out of line. I want to support this user, but first, you tell me why there is a problem with my asking my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs)

You continue to post increasingly odd questions to the RfA's of seemingly randomly selected candidates. The questions typically bear no relation to the candidates' qualifications and add in a wholly unnecessary way to the stress of the RfA process. The particular scenario you posit is not a reasonable question for a candidate, although I concede it is somewhat more plausible than your prior requests for haikus. Please stop this sort of nonsense at once. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I categorically deny your assertion. I am not the only Wikipedian who is sick of the same old questions. An administrator should be able to think outside the box. That's really important. Keepscases (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know something ... I still don't approve of your approach to these questions, but I have to admit that your question to Royalbroil elicited an unexpectedly relevant and interesting response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See, that's what happens. I assure you my questions have a purpose. Keepscases (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you look...

Can you look at John Peter Zenger, a biography primarily about a colonial era law case in New York. We've been playing rvv with IP edits all fall. I've seen this happen because old vandalism made it into the article, so I'd like it reviewed - or it could be driven by this Conservapedia page, item #66. I'd also like you to decide as an admin whether the article should be semi-protected; I'm too close to it to do so myself. In fact, I've looked at it too many times to tell what work the article needs GRBerry (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the area in which my legal history expertise is strongest, but I will go through it in the next day or two and try to do some copyediting as well as evaluate whether it needs semi'ing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I have a copy of "The Trial of John Peter Zenger" at my cottage, I'll try to dig it up next week. I believe that it was written by Zenger and Hamilton, a special edition reprint from an NRA series of books that I had a subscription to. I don't think I've even cracked the cover yet, but it may answer the "Philadelphia lawyer" question. - Crockspot (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/C 05:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Tezza1

Now that User:Tezza1 has been banned, can I remove the vexatious (and now discredited) sock allegations from his talk page or are you or another admin able to remove it permanently? Can Tempblockeduser be used in this case? Thin Arthur (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)\

Any uninvolved administrator may make such edits or deletions as are deemed appropriate. It would probably make sense for this to be done by someone with a little more background on the case than I have. I hope that the action the committee took helps resolve some of the problems with the Railpage Australia page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Parsnip!

Hate to bother you, but I remembered your name as one of the admins who was very helpful before in a similar matter. A user named User: The Parsnip! keeps slapping incorrect "fair use" tags on the image [Image:Varg_capbyal.JPG]. For some back story: basically this image is nonreplaceable; it's the one depiction of this time and moment in which this musician (Varg Vikernes) was convicted for murder and arson in the early 1990s, and was so bold as to smirk during his verdict. It's a pretty notorious image, and the only available of that time, referrenced heavily on the black metal page but also his personal page as well.

The Parsnip! keeps slapping incorrect "fair use" tags on the image, claiming there's no rationale for having the picture, or otherwise usefulness in the article; completely disregarding my clearly stated explanation of why it's a worthy image, especially for new comers unfamiliar with the content. Interestingly, in one of his user page edit summaries, he's a self-proclaimed "Anglo-Christian", which is fine, I would just appreciate that this obvious bias would not infiltrate Wikipedia's quality. Please examine the situation and hopefully help to resolve this manner; he simply labels me a "fanboy" (untrue, I'm a music enthusiast in general) and disregards my discussion. Logical Defense (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Unfortunately, all administrators tend to specialize in some activity or other, and image-licensing standards aren't really one of my stronger areas. The Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria page lists our standards and policies in this area and hopefully from its talkpage you can find the right person to talk to. If another admin who reads this page wants to follow up with Logical Defense, that would also be appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Contact?

I would appreciate a contact. hkhenson@rogers.com is probably best. Keith Henson (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If your concern is about an action that I took as an administrator or editor, or has to do with my role as an arbitration clerk, please feel free to e-mail me using the "E-mail this user" function on this page. If you concern relates to a mainspace article relating to yourself, please see the instructions on Wikipedia:Contact us to reach an appropriate person. I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion?

I made this edit to United States Senate, now under Featured Article review here. As you can see, I sourced it to ANB, but linked to our articles, since ANB is subscription only, and thus a less useful link. First of all, is this a reasonable idea?

Sandy Georgia has now twice[26][27] described this as "citing Wikipedia articles" on the FAR, despite my effort to explain which went so far as to spell out ANB in a later edit. I'm really tempted to say what I think of Sandy, which would not be civil.

Do you think you could have a word with her instead? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources for articles, especially FA's, really should be to external sources outside Wikipedia, although there is nothing to stop one from using a Wikipedia article as an additional reference. I would therefore include the ANB link as a source, even if it seems less useful. If an online subscription is not available to someone working on the article, there is always the old-fashioned option of citing a paper version. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brad

I'm back, although a bit tired - I see you were entirely accurate that the abscence was nothing to worry about.

I've popped several questions on the various talk pages of the arb case, and have had some useful responses, so I'm beginning to feel a bit more confident in the process, and how it works (I'd still appreciate a guiding hand if you ever feel I'm doing something wrong).

I had one quick question - I'd like to reiterate that my goal in this process is simply to be unblocked, and to be allowed to continue editing, and I'm nervous by murmurs such as at AN, directing people to discuss Guy's behaviour at my Arb case, rather than there.

Obviously if that were to be the case, then the matter may take rather a while to plow through, and I remain unable to edit in the ways I actually quite enjoy in the mean time.

I wonder if it might be possible to ask the Arb.s if I can resume editing immediately with any or all of the following caveats;

• Only with permission to edit Socrates (because I've got some notes, and suggestions that I had planned on submitting before the discussion moves on too far)
• Only in cleanup work - with the proviso that I'd immediately stop should any editor believe my work to require discussion (see my talk page for the examples)
• To not edit any 'BLP' related articles
• Any other caveat required by any Arb

My feeling is that this is a request for 'bail' - I hope the evidence submitted so far warrants such an application.

(i'm getting embarrassed to keep reiterating how much I appreciate your help, but there you go - I do.) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You may make this request to the arbitrators by posting it to the "Requests and motions by the parties" section on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop. You should explain in reasonable detail why you believe this relief is appropriate. If an arbitrator agrees, he or she will post a formal motion to the /Proposed decision page for voting.

To any administrator seeing this post, please note that Privatemusings is posting this question to me an Arbitration Committee Clerk, so this edit is permissible under the terms of the limited unblocking that was granted. Privatemusings, please be sure to limit your editing to the arbitration pages unless and until that restriction is lifted by the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on all fronts, Brad - and per the above - please also see my talk page for specific approval from the blocking admin. - thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been mentioned

I think this may need your attention: [28]. This sort of thing has no place on Wikipedia. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. For what it's worth, I had suspected, but did not know for sure, the former identity of User:!! When I saw the block posted on ANI, a check of the contributions revealed no bad edits of any nature or problems of any kind, and I posted my response on ANI stating that much more of an explanation for the block needed to be given. Durova then quickly e-mailed me the private evidence, which was consistent with my understanding of who !! probably was and which, more important, was in my view insufficient to warrant a block. I e-mailed back to Durova that I believed this was a former administrator in good standing, that the block was a bad misfire, and that I believed it should be lifted right away. At this point, I did not have 100% confirmation of the individual's former account name, though I was highly confident who it was, and more important I did not know whether this user would want the former account name divulged and I still hoped it would not have to be mentioned. I gather that Durova waited until getting confirmation of the person's identity from other sources before unblocking. I believe my views on the merits of this block were clear from the beginning both on- and off-wiki, but I was not the person who actually furnished Durova with !!'s former username, if that actually is material to anything. Regards to all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Majorly, if memory serves, offered to provide the information. I took him up on that offer, went to Durova a minute later, and she promptly unblocked. It seems like you and I were at opposite ends of that process. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Case on "COFS"

Hi, I don't know if I am right here. I expect to get blocked for arbitrary reasons very soon so I take a chance to write to you before. It's about the "Scientology case". You were the clerk there and I don't know how to go about it. Here is what happens: COFS/Shutterbug is accused of "edit warring" (which is a bogus claim, in my eyes) and gets banned from all Scn pages for another 30 days. That happened yesterday or so. I was not involved and had to find out about on my talk page. Means I was not "edit warring" or anything but spent my time on talk pages and minor edits. Below is a copy. Seems to me the ArbCom decision is taken in a way which is totally contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I disagree and that will not stop. So what can I do?

Copy of my talk page entry:

ArbCom ban has been reinstated

Good afternoon. I'm advising you that due to continued edit warring at Free Zone (Scientology), you are being banned from editing any Scientology-related articles for another 30 days. This ban will expire on December 13, 2007, at 0:00 UTC. Note that if you violate this ban by editing these articles, you will be blocked. Thanks, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not such ArbCom ban. Misou 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is the fact that of ArbCom placing all Scientology related articles on probation, with the option of blocking and even banning editors who make disruptive edits, as per here. John Carter 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That is always true, probation or not. But what "disruptive edits" are there? I am talking along with GDamon right now. Misou 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are still permitted to edit the article's talk page, so I suggest that you do that and help to resolve the dispute that way. -- ChrisO 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I want an answer, not covered restrictions. So what are you talking about? Misou 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here? Misou has hardly any edits in that page. I would get involved but I don't care about such a page. Bravehartbear 09:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Another user (formerly COFS) was topic-banned, and ArbCom noted that all sanctions that user also apply to this user. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, any further violations of this topic ban will result in a block for the remainder of the ban period. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ST47, I lived in Germany for some years in the 90s, working on a documentation but also researching the holocaust and how it came about. I went to talk to people on camera, freely. The mindset of quite some people I met there still is "all Jews are the same", and a "bad jew" or - usually - a jew with bad reputation is "evidence" that "all Jews are bad" and they should be ostracized, no matter what personality, character the specific individual has, no matter if they actually did something to criticize him or her. I found similar think with "all poles are thieves" and "turks are criminal" in other countries. It's prejudice, it's fanatic and ugly, and most of the time covered by some "good bureaucratic reasons". It's not a German thing, it's how much someone cares and actually looks at the circumstances. What you are doing right now - and I know you will yell "rude" and whatnot, but LOOK at it - is just the same, right here in public, for everyone to see, with Scientologists. It's not as big, it's not as deadly, it still can be fixed, but the intention counts. It's not your fault it came that way but I'm not impressed. Look at MY actions and judge me for that. Misou 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Misou 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I only find one edit by you on Free Zone (Scientology) so you are probably right that you can't be accused of edit-warring on the article. However, ST47's concern may be that you edited the article when a prior topic-ban that had been imposed on you in October had not yet expired. I will post to his talkpage and ask me to clarify the basis for his action so I can evaluate it. Newyorkbrad 18:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. What's happening is that ST47 is banning three Scientology editors at the same because he finds Shutterbug is doing something wrong, not because I or Makoshack have done something wrong (Makoshack did not edit at all on Scientology a month!). If Makoshack would come along and edit any article before checking his talk page, ST47 will block all three of us right there. You see the problem? Misou 18:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I have no idea why the other two need to be banned. ArbCom's principle 8, Multiple editors with a single voice, says so and Thatcher noted on the case page that this applied to these three. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that is so, why the heck did you do it then? Misou (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See here and here. Because we have three editors who claim to be different people, but who sometimes edit from a single IP (the firewall of the organization I believe) the only sensible way to enforce topic bans in this case is to apply them to all three editors. All three editors were notified on their talk pages as well. Whether these three editors have edited in a way to justify a topic ban is a judgement call that can be made by any admin (and can be overturned by any other admin after consultation, if that seems the best course) but clearly these editors need to be treated as a single entity for purposes of deciding whether edit warring or other disruptive behavior is going on. Thatcher131 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, may I point out to you that your Diffs could be mistaken as if there is a rule in Wikipedia that people using the same firewall (occasionally only, I must say) are to be treated as one person? There is no rule or "policy" in that regard. What you are quoting and what uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) misread as well are the principles defined in the COFS Arbitration case, namely Principle 8. If I remember correctly, though this might not be important right now, a ArbCom majority consists of seven (7) members and this principle was "passed" with six only. So it might not be valid at all.

In any case, Principle 8 reads as follows: "8) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood) Passed 6 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)" (emphasis added). Thus this principle exclusively appoints the Arbitration Committee to do decisions such as the one both of you are trying to do. Any threat or claim of yours in punishing editors for the actions of others editors are therefore nil. Further the Arbitration Committee lays out that "remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user" (emphasis added), i.e. decisions are based on individual actions of a user and not to be based on activities of other users. You might want to reconsider your statements.

The Arbitration Committee did well in leaving the question of "several individuals - one voice - punishment for all" up to them and any individiual case. Not only would a general rule violate basic rights of participants of this project but Wikipedia - in my opinion and without further research on the subject - would be liable to discrimination claims and have its non-profit status endangered. I am currently not in a position to regularly edit any articles but I will keep an eye on this page should you decide to answer. Makoshack 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• The majority required depends on the number of active arbitrators at any given time; in this case it was 6. When a pattern of disruptive (or at least questionable editing) turns up, and checkuser documents that the editors share an IP address (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS) it is routine for the editors to be blocked as sockpuppets. The "Multiple editors with a single voice" principle in your Arbitration case is nothing new or extraordinary, it is simply a restatement of what happens nearly every day. The claim that the other account is a boyfriend/roommate/spouse/neighbor/coworker is routine, and handled by looking at the accounts' edits. Two accounts that edit different topics are likely to be treated as different people. Two (or more) accounts that edit the same topics, and that support each other in disputes, and that edit for each other when one is blocked, are almost always treated as sockpuppets. This probably means that separate individuals have indeed been blocked from time to time, but until someone invents a away for us to look through the wire at who is typing, this is the best we can do. Beyond that, 3 accounts that edit from the same place, in the same manner, on the same topics, and that edit for each other when one is blocked, are sock puppets in behavior and may be treated as such by policy. It is rather unusual, in fact, for Misou, Shutterbug and Makoshack to be treated as individuals given the circumstances. I orginally blocked two of the accounts indefinitelyas sockpuppets, but upon being made aware that that there was a history of treating you as separate individuals, I decided that we could continue that practice, as long as any topic bans applied to one account applied to all. You are welcome to appeal to the Arbitration committee if you wish. Thatcher131 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't really like to be talked about in third person but I take it that you are answering to my statement above. There is nothing to appeal about. The Arbitration Committee Principle 8 is very clear and it does not state that "topic bans applied to one account apply to all". This would require approval of the Arbitration Committee, per Principle 8, and I have not seen them giving you or other Administrators approval of such treatment. But let's hear the Administrator who started this procedure, uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) or the Arbitration Committee's clerk on the matter, whose talk page we are currently abusing. Makoshack 00:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, ST47 is not an Arbitration committee clerk (although I actually was) and it was I that put into place the idea that the three of you are treated as one. He is simply enforcing it. Administrators are allowed reasonable latitude to enforce Arbitration decisions. If you don't think you are bound by the topic ban, try editing some COS-related articles and see what happens. I suggest that if you are convinced that my interpretation of the decision is wrong you should ask for clarification. Thatcher131 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, not to be mistaken. I am very much supporting responsible editors and I would vote for the registration of real names and some means of personal identification of Wikipedians and be it only for the eyes of an appointed Wikimedia employee. That would end the endless fiddling around and assumptions about lines, IP addresses and firewalls. I would rather have the individual in sight than his or her equipment. Makoshack 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Even if I had copies of your passports showing your real names and that you were different people, the fact that you edit from the same place, with the same goals, support each other when in disputes, and help each other out when one is blocked, means that you can be treated as sock or meat puppets under the sockpuppet policy. The reason for this is very simple. No one can know who is actually sitting in front of a computer typing at any given moment, and you could easily share each others's passwords. When User A is blocked for disruptive editing of some kind, and User B continues the pattern, it makes no difference if User B is the same person as User A, if Users A and B are different people but User A logs in as B, or if A and B are different people and B makes edits at A's request while A is blocked. All are prohibited. Thatcher131 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. And how do you separate those people who happen to have the same interest? I mean, just the same hobby or so? Fans, so to say? Getting shot for agreeing with someone sounds wild to me. Anyway, this is actually an exchange between ST47 and Makoshack, so we two chickens should see what the big ones have to say. Agreed? Shutterbug (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What's happening with this now. ST47? Newyorkbrad? Shutterbug? Mako? I'm done with turkey for today, how about you? Misou (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand now. You are part of this "club", aren't you?. Misou 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong's blocks

Brad, you can always be relied on for a neutral and even-handed opinion - would you please offer your point of view on some of Ryulong's recent blocks? The thread is here. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Commented there as requested. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have limited online time for the next day or two because of Thanksgiving, but I'll post responses to your talk tomorrow or over the weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Silence taken as agreement

In response to your question elsewhere - yes others responded (positively through enthusiastically). [29]Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you for the link. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Auschwitz (& in general) lengthily protection violates policy

Would you be interested to add your balanced and well regarded point of view to the heated debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Auschwitz (& in general) lengthily protection violates policy, please? Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A further note re my ArbCom case

Hi Brad,

earlier tonight I posted a few messages to the Arb Com mailing list - I really just wanted to ask you to confirm that I did this correctly, being a bit of a mailing list fool. If you could confirm receipt it would be appreciated.

Many thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We clerks are actually not on the mailing list. You will have to ask one of the arbitrators. (FYI, a list of the people on the list, which consists of the current and some former arbitrators plus Jimbo Wales, is at WP:AC.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah - cool, thanks Brad. Privatemusings (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Could you please offer a third opinion at User talk:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.#RfA. (What do you think the minimal experiance one should have for an RfA?)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, one's already been given.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that was easy. :) For what it's worth, I don't have a specific set of RfA standards, and like you I support far more candidates than I oppose; the edit count I look for is enough edits to lead me to believe that conferring adminship on this user at this time will be in the best interests of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I was recently thinking that I have never seen you oppose an RfA canadate. It caught my attention when you were neutral on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking. But we are both entitled to our votes(within reason), right?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever opposed a serious good-faith candidate. There have been times I've thought about doing so, but in those cases the RfA was already clearly failing so I decided there was no reason to pile on. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom process question

Hello Newyorkbrad:

I understand that if a case is send to ArbCom, there is a process to decide whether to consider the case.

If a case is "allegedly" sent to ArbCom, but does not appear in the ArbCom list, is there a way to find out the status?

I have in mind the case of Whig, who on his talk page notes that he has sent you an e-mail which you "may forward to the ArbCom".

I am interested in this matter, because I have followed Whig's problems in Homeopathy. Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Not knowing the ArbCom process but having worked in a bureaucracy, I realize that there may be a situation where you can answer my question, but cannot answer it "now".

Thank you for your post. Most arbitration cases cases are posted on a special page on the wiki itself, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. However, Whig was blocked from editing indefinitely, and therefore could not file the case on that page. Under these circumstances, there is provision for the user to file an appeal to the Arbitration Committee by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. As an Arbitration Committee Clerk, I can confirm that I received such a request from Whig and forwarded it to the committee for the arbitrators to consider. As yet, I have not been advised of any ruling on the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page disruption

It looks like this IP you blocked is now disrupting their talk page.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

But seeing that IP hasn't continued so far, I guess there wouldn't be any point in having the talk page protected. I guess the best thing to do at this point would be to apply WP:DENY.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am stunned...

...and don't know quite how to react. Is this serious? Can I possibly A enough GF to deny that I'm being maliciously misrepresented as a bigot, and with no notice to my talkpage, in a forum I cannot be assumed to have read? I know it's funny, but it's also serious. Appreciate your perspective, and thank you for what insanely appears to have been a necessary clarification. sNkrSnee | t.p. 02:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I am no longer stunned, and have responded here. sNkrSnee | t.p. 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

backwards

I've notified him. Sorry about that. It seems I was doing things backwards today for some reason. :) Mercury 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

I will!

L337p4wn (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bold idea

Mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan. :) -- Cat ^chi? 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I thank you kindly good sir. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: ANI question

I have responded to your question on WP:AN/I. Thank you, Tiptoety (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. Thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidentiary procedures

Hi, I have just posted to

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence

and given that you are an ArbCom clerk - but not on this case - I would appreciate any procedural advice you can offer. I am not sure how free the active clerk, Picaroon, is to do this. I'll drop him a note, too. Thanks, Jack Merridew 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. This took hours to put together! This alone is a great deterrent to getting anywhere near an Arbitration case. --Jack Merridew 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

On a quick review of your evidence presentation it appears to be in a reasonable form that should be accessible to the arbitrators, which is the primary goal, so I think you have done all right. My only advice at this point is to watchlist the case pages and, to the extent it becomes relevant, be prepared to respond to any evidence or proposals submitted by any of the other participants. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. I've got those pages on my watchlist now and will try and keep-up with things there. I looked at another case and it seems that things get very busy after a while. Best, Jack Merridew 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Some cases get far, far busier and more contentious than others. Good luck in yours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been an Arbitration Committee Clerk since February 2007, so that should probably be included. My other qualifications probably come through better in my candidate statements and answers to questions rather than as entries on a chart. Thanks for your work on the table. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I added the letter "A" to reflect that fact for both you and Raul654. You still can provide other links, though, as Raul654 did. — Sebastian 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just found this nice list in one of your answers, so that puts you on par with Raul.

In addition to my question Making ArbCom less complicated, I wanted to mention that I just talked with Shell Kinney about a summary table. It would be great if I could win your help for this, either in your function as a clerk or as an arbitrator. — Sebastian 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

Response to a question from Risker

Note: Risker asked me a question on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision#Protesting ban of Giano. My response to the question would be a long digression from that important thread, so I've elected to copy the question and response here on my talkpage.

Newyorkbrad, did you forward that email [from Durova concerning User:!!] to the Arbcom? I have a great deal of respect for you; if you elected not to forward it to Arbcom, I would very much like to know what your reasoning was. Risker (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not forward the e-mail to anyone. The chronology in brief, as I have explained elsewhere, is that when "Indefinite block of User:!!" came up on my watchlist, I posted on ANI asking for a further explanation of the block, because I had seen !! doing good work on WP:DYK and a quick scan of his contributions and talkpage reflected no problems. Durova then forwarded me the evidence e-mail. After a few minutes reviewing it, I wrote back to Durova stating that I believed the block was a serious misfire and should be reversed. (I reached this conclusion partly based on what I perceived as weakness of the evidence and reasoning, and partly based on speculation I had heard as to !!'s prior identity, although I could not be sure of that identity, had no confirmation of it, and certainly had no permission to disclose it.) Recall that Durova had posted that any appeal from the block must be considered only by the Arbitration Committee. I waited a few minutes for developments, and then posted on ANI that in lieu of my opening a formal arbitration case (a process that can take weeks), I would appreciate if one or more arbitrators could review the block and the evidence for it immediately. (There is related discussion of the reason I made this suggestion on my ArbCom candidate questions page.) My assumption was that this would happen and that in the course of that review, an arbitrator would request and obtain the evidence from Durova. This became moot when !!'s prior identity was confirmed a few minutes later and Durova reversed the block.

Once the block was lifted, I anticipated that further discussion would take place to address serious concerns that had been raised by the block and the blocking admin's declining to support it on-wiki (although I will confess that I did not anticipate the level of turmoil that this ill-founded block and related matters have caused). In the ensuing hours and days, a couple of people requested copies of the e-mail, but I replied that I did not have permission to forward the e-mail to anyone and that such requests should be directed to Durova as its author and sender. None of the requests for copies of the e-mail came from arbitrators, and I frankly would have assumed that by this point the arbitrators had a copy of what soon became known to have originated as a mailing list post by Durova, or at a minimum could obtain it from her upon request, given that Durova remained accessible and was responding in multiple forums to questions about the block and her activities and had offered to share the evidence with administrators.

I hope this is the information you were looking for. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Brad. It appears that just about everyone made the logical assumption that Arbcom was "in the loop" based on Durova's first two posts, and it was only with Paul August's post that it became clear that Arbcom had not been informed. Indeed, there is some question in my mind if Durova ever sent the post to them. Sorry not to have scrambled over here to post the question myself, I had been advised you were offline so thought there was no rush. Risker (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd thought I was going to sleep, but I figured I'd check my watch list one last time, and there your question was, begging for an answer.... Newyorkbrad (talk)

You've got company

Check out near the top of my talk page to see what I mean : ) - jc37 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi, I'd like to ask if you could step into a little situation I have here. It's been some months since I was last on Wikipedia and some things have changed around, so I don't know where and how to report this. I have a problem with a disruptive and uncivil editor who is harassing me with links to defamatory sites. After I removed a partisan and original research external link from the links section of Sathya Sai Baba, Kkrystian promptly began a mini-edit war which continued even after I explained to him on his talk page why said link was inadmissible. He continued to re-add this link but has stopped now as another editor has stepped in to seek consensus. If you ask me, there is no consensus to be sought since this issue was discussed at ArbCom and all editors agreed to leave it out do to its violation of WP:OR, WP:EL, and possibly more.

However, on a related article (Sai Baba of Shirdi, Kkrystian has been removing reliably sourced information because he does not agree with it, stating that the words "violent" and "uncouth" is the author's POV and thus inadmissible. You can familiarise yourself with that discussion here and here. As Kkrystian has declared on his userpage that he is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba (and by extension, Shirdi Sai Baba) in his real life, there may be conflict-of-interest issues here. Either way, it seems that editors generally agree that reliably-sourced references should not be removed. Kkrystian had been engaging in an edit war over that issue and was blocked for 24-hours over 3RR by yourself here. He refused to discuss the issue on his talk-page or on the article talk-page until after his block, preferring to explain his actions in edit summaries. But it appears that he hasn't learnt much from his 3RR block because he has begun indulging in personal attacks on me over at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba by way of posting URLS that happen to be defamatory against me and which include my surname in the URL title, as well as insinuating that I have ulterior motives for removing a link that is violating WP:EL and contributes nothing to the article.

After I informed Kkrystian on his talk page that he shouldn't be indulging in personal attacks here and that he shouldn't be revealing other people's personal information (even indirectly) here, he simply told me to "get lost". I even tried to refactor the discussion as per WP:RPA#External_links and WP:LINKLOVE here, but I noticed just now that he has restored this link here that is defamatory against me and which includes my surname in the URL title. He is clearly uncivil, personally attacking me in a hostile way, revealing my personal information, and harassing me without any provocation. Do you think that this issue could be treated with a block that I think, by all accounts, is well-deserved?

I left Wikipedia for several months because of all these harassment issues and, after feeling ready to return in the last few days or so, did not think I would have to face these types of unprovoked attacks so soon. Please help out, thanks. - Ekantik ^talk 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just by way of giving an update, it appears that after another editor tried to refactor the discussion whis displayed that defamatory link, Kkrystian reverted it back. I have also discovered that at Talk:Sai Baba of Shirdi he displays the same pattern of disruptive editing and removing reliably-sourced information simply because he does not like it. This is a clear case of tendentious editing I believe. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can try to take a look at this but due to real-life busy-ness cannot get to it right away. Please post to WP:ANI to request quicker attention to your concerns. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)