User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Jul

Your opinion here.

Your opinion would be most welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Proposed renaming of List of judicial appointments made by Barack Obama. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this got settled while I was away. I agree with the renaming. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deadline

Hey could you possibly tell me when it would be like ethical/civil/advisable or such for me to respond to the Request for Arbitration many thanks.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The sooner the better, as arbitrators are in the final stages of voting on the request. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, BrownBot, it's nice to hear from you again. I'll be at the conference, and will be giving a talk. Hope to see you there! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: EFD/Anonymous Dissident

Yes, I'd seen your poem support at the RfB :) I was just wrapping up the EFD; it'll probably be on hiatus as my activity levels have been very low lately. However, if inspiration strikes you, you are of course free to write another poem, I'm sure Anonymous Dissident would not complain! Thanks for the note, GlassCobra 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way ... haikus don't rhyme! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Page deletion

Re this, I don't know if you saw my reply. As the Arbcom case which linked the page is now closed, please take this message as a {{db-u1}}, unless you know of any reason why not.  pablo_hablo. 11:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen your reply and meant to get back to it when the case closed, so thanks for the reminder. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's Fantasylaw team

Fantasylaw has been created by the editors of The Green Bag and is patterned after fantasy baseball and similar endeavors. See www.fantasylaw.org for the concepts, rules, and scoring methods. For anyone interested, I'm involved in a beta-test beginning today and continuing for the balance of this Congressional session. My team is as follows:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.)

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I./D.-Conn.)

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.)

Sen. Al Franken (D.-Minn.)

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D.-Md.)

Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.)

Rep. David Obey (D.-Wis.)

Rep. Ed Markey (D.-Mass.)

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D.-Md.)

Rep. Frank Kratovil (D.-Md.)

Please note that I chose team members in our "draft" based solely on who I thought might score lots of points based on the rules of the game while meeting the team selection requirements, and not based on any other criteria, ideological or otherwise.

If anyone is interested in participating in a fantasylaw league for the next congressional session, please send me an e-mail. (Non-U.S. residents are eligible to play but are unlikely to have a great deal of interest. U.S. residents are also unlikely to have a great deal of interest, but that is a different issue.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I plan to submit a team, but will need some time to prepare (still have free lexisnexis). Cool Hand Luke 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just beta-testing right now; I think the regular season draft will be in the fall, so you have some time, and I believe there is something else you're supposed to be concentrating on right now. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ricky28618

Good block. I was considering it, but may have been deemed to have been involved, so let it be and await developments. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I think someone else had blocked before I got to it, but I added an additional reason for the block. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, he created a new sock to nominate his fav article at DRV again. <sigh> At least he gives himself away easily. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk)

ADHD

Thanks for the support. At least the page will be quiet for a while. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost arbitration request

Hi there. You said on the 30th that you were awaiting further statements from named parties about whether there was another path forward: 4 out of 5 have chimed in at this point, and we're at net +2.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be taking another look this evening. Thanks for the reminder/update. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Voted now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:e-mail from ArbCom

Thanks for the message. I've let Carcharoth know where I can be reached. - SimonP (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Crossposted from WT:AC: the "Jimbo block" of Bishonen

Newyorkbrad, you have posted a question to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee that made me concerned for my own case [1].

Should there be a mechanism whereby if we see a dispute boiling over, the committee can reach out and request input on whether we should open a case on our own (nostra sponte, as it were), or should we be bound to wait for the happenstance of whether a user unaffiliated with the committee chooses to bring the case to arbitration? This is not, incidentally, a rhetorical question, but one I have been thinking about for some time, and I can see arguments on both sides. (On the one hand, an issue that not even one user feels the need to file a case on can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over; on the other hand, it is frustrating as heck to watch a situation bubble for days on a drama-filled noticeboard, while 15 of the most experienced administrators are contrained from commenting on it lest they be accused of bias should the case later come to arbitration after all.) Community input on this issue would be welcome, particularly since we're in the middle of updating the Arbitration Policy in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that the arbcom was so strictly enjoined from opening a case sua sponte. Of course the committee also deals with stuff that doesn't exactly amount to opening cases. I'd like to know if other similar matters must also be addressed by the "happenstance" of an unaffilated user bringing them to the committee, or else be ignored? To exemplify: if I want the arbcom to deal with the issue of Jimbo Wales's "Jimbo block" of myself on May 22 (which I do), would it be an advantage for me to file a case about it? If I don't file one, might I find it dismissed as something that "can probably be resolved without arbitration and is likely to blow over" ? It's a matter which it seems fair to characterize as "boiling over", after recently being subject to mediation. A pretty unique question, I realize—uncharted waters—but can the committee be relied on to deal with it as far as in them lies—somehow—I obviously don't know what, if anything, they might do—or is anything like that up to me? Ought I to bring it to the committee's attention if I want them to take notice of it? Does the involvement of a GodKing make it more, or perhaps less, necessary for me to act for myself? Bishonen | talk 18:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

Date delinking again

Ohconfucius objects, here, to my editing WP:Naming conventions, on the grounds that it is covered by my restriction. Could we have some Arbitrator feedback?

I regret asking you to dive into this mudbath again, but if I have misunderstood ArbCom's intentions, I'd like to know. This should not be left to fester, as the original case was; Ohconfucius is already bored enough to play games with my username.

This is, I think, intended to provoke; would ArbCom be open to a proposal to amend the decision to forbid this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

“may or may not apply more broadly”

Newyorkbrad,

Regarding this comment at Arbitrator views and discussion, where you wrote “may or may not apply more broadly”, I appeal to you to make it broad. I too am in the same situation as User:John (Talk:John): even though there were admins aplenty on WT:MOSNUM, some of whom were hip-deep in the date delinking debate, I was never once sanctioned for incivility or edit warring or sock puppetry or any other bit of malfeasance in relation to date delinking.

I ask that if there are sanctions on editors, that ArbCom look at the block record of the affected editor(s) and that sanctions, blocks, and restrictions be tailored to address how past blocks have proven to be ineffective and that the editor in question needs a restriction appropriate for the ongoing, chronic disruption.

In my particular case, I was never once blocked for incivility towards another editor or cheating or anything like that. The first block on my record, for “edit warring”, was for twice reverting (not three times) the very admin who blocked me with a three-hour “tap”. And that because he was deleting an entire section of an article he thought wasn't necessary. That was back in January. It’s noteworthy that he apparently thought about his “gentle tap” and must have realized I had a point about the section being valuable and encyclopedic because he let my last reversion stand and the section of that article is still in the article to this day. In fact, all my blocks were for lipping off to admins; not for incivility or edit warring with regular editors. Greg L (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this an appeal to let Greg L back into MOS, and keep Locke Cole out? No, let both sides in, if either.

For what it's worth, I can say more than this; I wasn't blocked during the controversy at all. The vague edit restriction in the section above could use clarification; Ohconfucius has now moved his appeal to WP:AE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Re:citation in Volokh blog posts

I know they've been up for a while, but just read your Volokh posts. Great read and thanks for the cite to my Wikimmunity article. - Ksm10 (talk) 11 July 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That thing ...

Have you thought more about that thing we were talking about yesterday on IRC? You can reply in an e-mail if you want. iMatthew ^talk at 16:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's table the subject for a few weeks, at least. See also "availability note" below. Thanks for thinking of me, though! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

a shiny

		The Admin's Barnstar
		There is no "Arbitrators' Barnstar", so going with the next best thing ;-) I think that you are doing an awesome job as an arbitrator, and I want you to know that. Too often, the only time people say something is to complain, and I want to try to change that. J.delanoygabsadds 02:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much; I appreciate this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

If WP:ARBDATE is going to be amended, I would suggest the narrow wording: the restricted editors are not to discuss the linking of dates or (perhaps, as another wording) the formatting of dates. As Ohconfucius' persistent question makes clear, the broader and vaguer language may not make this decision easier to enforce. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to all the Date Delinking-related comments, I'll consider these issues once all the input is in and I'm deciding what motions, if any, to offer. To the extent not already done, relevant input should be given on the requests for arbitration page so that all the arbitrators can see it; it's not good to assume that all the arbs will be following discussion on my talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

Just a note that I'll have somewhat limited availability for the next 10 days or so because I will be using much of my wiki-time to prepare the talk I'll be giving at Wikiconference New York and Wikimania. I look forward to seeing many of you at these events. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy

On the clarification page, you wrote, "What do people think is the most efficient, drama-free way to address this type of issue?" Is this question directed at other admins, or other users? I don't mean to be a pain in the ass but I have never followed a conflict down this partcular rabbit hole and so I really do not know the conventions. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey NYB, I was just coming by to reply to your statement: "I'm not sure whether this belongs here for review by the arbitrators, or in the enforcement section to seek a consensus of the admins who are active on AE. I'm not trying to be a procedural pain-in-the-neck here, but it's just happenstance that the sanction was levied by an administrator directly and review was sought here, rather than the issue having been raised through a request on AE, in which case comments would have gone there. What do people think is the most efficient, drama-free way to address this type of issue? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)"

Don't you think the banned editors have been through enough? Numberous editors have already made statements regarding the situation. Please deal with the problem try to fix it. Getting a fair hearing for these editors has already been enough of a trial and tribulation with their being shuffled from one place to another. Sending them off to another forum is a very bad idea at this point and unfair to those who have been very patient trying to get a review and response to their concerns for some time now. Don't make them jump through more bureaucratic hoops. It's already shameful enough that there hasn't been an appropriate and timely response to their requests for help in fixing this egregious situation. It's outrageous that an admin can ban them, refuse to provide diffs, and make them go through this long process just to get their side of the issue heard. It's totally unfair and it should never be acceptable to ban or block and then fail to provide proper explanation nad evidence. It shouldn't take this long to have a one-sided action of this sort evaluated. It's not right. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments. I'll address this on the arb page, if it's not picked up by other arbitrators first. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to thank you for being so fairminded on handling the issue. I would like to offer a suggestion. I was told to be more civil, and that I can understand. What I would like to know is this: Can you understand where the banned users are coming from, and that their issue seems to not be so thoroughly addressed? There is an underlining issue regarding race and fairness on some articles on wikipedia. For the most part, I think what would help is if the admins offer an alternative when contributors to articles about skin color, race, and issues like Ancient Egypt are given acknowledgement on how they are trying to contribute constructive and verifiable inforomation. When you see other contributors using tactics to undermine this, I and others would like some fairness in dealing with that. The ban itself to me is just a method to neutralize their contributions. As the article was unprotected after the ban with the logic that the contentiousness has passed. But the contentious nature of the issue comes from those with one POV who wish to silence another. And that it is silenced, now there is "peace". On articles regarding race, contributors should not, and never be banned so quickly, and certainly never outside the confines of the rules of enforcement. So removing Ice_Cold_Beer or at least stipulating to him that he can no longer ban people from that article. What do you think? --Panehesy (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The rule regarding the enforcement of Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy is as follows: Enforcement by block 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans. Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page, per [1], for a period of six months for POV-pushing, adding unsourced content, and personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note the time of the block. And please recognize that the individual administrator does not have the ability to violate the terms of enforcement. I am to be blocked for up to one week. Not six months. This is my first violation, of which itself I am still contesting without resolution. There is no doubt the enforcement code is clear. One week. --Panehesy (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Stupedia: The Most Useless Facts on Wikipedia

Last call on reviewing Stupedia: The Most Useless Facts on Wikipedia. Shoot me an email if you're interested.--ragesoss (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If it needs to be done in the next week, I can't do it because I'm using my spare wikitime to prepare for my talk at the conference (see just above). If it can wait until after next weekend, I can do it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the review could be done at your convenience; the US version may not even come out until September (I'm not sure). It just takes time to get the review copies requested and sent out, and then plenty of time for reviewers to read and write about the books.--ragesoss (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Be careful!

Don't run afoul of Title 35 of the Code of Federal Regulations!! —harej (talk) (cool!) 06:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Shoemaker.27s_Holiday

As I see it, this is simple: Mr. Bain is making false statements, perhaps originally unknowingly, but he has now said that he saw the oversighted diffs, and till refuses to retract them, even when pointed out that his position gives them an unwarranted patina of respectability, and that they're grossly misleading.

Arbcom have served me very badly - I will remind you that Arbcom never sanctioned the constantattacks made by a sitting arbitrator in the Matthew Hoffman case.

If Mr. Bain will not withdraw the accusations, then he is in violation of WP:NPA and WP:HARASS, and, after reviewing the evidence (which only oversighters can see), he should be given a public warning or block over this.

Ideally, I'd like him to simply admit he was wrong, of course, and then this can be dropped.

Unfortunately, arbcom has failed me very badly repeatedly, and it has routinely required extreme measures for any progress to be made. It took a year and a half for the injustices in the Matthew Hoffman case to be apologised for. In this case, the problem is not as extreme, but still damaging, and I would ask that this be handled a bit quicker.

The major problem with my interactions with Arbcom is that things tend to be delayed so long that they're much, much worse problems by the time they've been dealt with. What could be dropped instantly with a minor clarification or apology gets met with complete stonewalling, and by the time it's dealt with, a lot of damage has been done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

TPS comment: While I generally find Shoemaker to be someone who has increased drama and problems, He is 100% right that the committee has F*d him over, repeatedly. Anything that can be done to get stop this ongoing problem should be done, imo. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your question

See [2]. Paul August ☎ 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking for it on the talkpage of RfAr/Everything 3, where these things usually go. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it should be there, of course. However, I looked for it here. Paul August ☎ 00:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at what you just wrote, Newyorkbrad. A bit of unintentional humor. :) 129.49.7.125 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like the ear of an uninvolved administrator

Uncivil behaviour and personalizing the pages has continued since the clarification request [3] and I want it to stop. No one should have to put up with never ending abuse.--scuro (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is

I saw it coming. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

please make this stop - continued personalization going against Arb's principles

The principle of decorum[4] and personalizing disputes[5] repeatedly have been broken by Literaturegeek since arbitration's final decision. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] It's been going on for months. --scuro (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

D'oh!

Just letting you know that I still owe you $11 for blocking Jimbolunch. I'll probably be going to meetups from now on, so don't let me forget again. Thanks, Firestorm ^Talk 03:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If he's buying lunch for everybody, I'll be there too! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid it's unlikely that we share any culinary interests in light of your username. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Signpost arbitration report

Thanks for the clarification. I had not realized that a motion was not a case (confusing, perhaps, because cases do have motions). I have changed the article.

As for what is new and not new as of publication date, the problem is that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-13/Arbitration report is clearly wrong, so that isn't a good foundation to build an in/out count in the current article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

What statement by Geogre were you referring to? [11] Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, it's at the top of the motions section, though I don't know if the Clerks might move it to another location at some point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I've been looking at the /Case subpage, not the full requests page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Brad needs to work on his referential language. "down" doesn't work if the reference is not always below the statement being made. MBisanz ^talk 14:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh; okay, I see where the confusion came from. I still use WP:RfAr to bring me to the requests for arbitration page, which lays out all the pending items (cases, clarifications, amendments, motions) on one page in that order. (Personally, I think our new filing system has become too complicated, but this isn't the best time to discuss it.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this page and also for notifying me. I have watchlisted the page and will be keeping a close eye. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Arbcom request

Hello Newyorkbrad,

In previous RFAR's I have noted you say that in a close vote on whether to accept a case you would choose to accept, citing a desire not to be the one to get in the way of acceptance. As of this posting, it sits at 6-3 with you having a comment instead of a vote. This means that a vote of yay or nay from you can literally decide whether the case is heard. Assuming the side situations that would preclude a case fail (such as the idea of a motion or outside mediation) would this mean you would end up accepting? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try resolving this with a motion in the first instance. Based on the most recent posts, it appears this situation may actually be closer to resolution than it might otherwise look. (I'd hoped to have the motion posted by now, but the Geogre matter has taken up my arb time for the past couple of days.) I won't have to address your issue unless the motion solution doesn't pan out, and so I haven't really thought about it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Geogre Motion 4

Hi, would you please consider, provided you haven't already, my proposed motion 4? You seem anxious to get this case over with, that is understandable, but let's not allow the cost of haste to be injustice to one of Wikipedia's most venerable and best writers. Thank you,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. However, as you will have seen, a majority of the committee has already decided to proceed with the other motions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, justice delayed is injustice denied.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Limited availability note

I will have limited time availability for Wikipedia matters until the end of next week. This reflects some real-life work and family commitments and not any other considerations.

As a general matter, in the upcoming months I also hope to be spending a much greater percentage of my wiki-time working on content creation, although I will remain attentive to my arbitrator responsibilities. Last night I worked on my first article in far too many months, and it's about time, and I want to resume doing more of that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?

You have "removed the userbox" because it is "defamatory" and violates your "policy on living people"? I don't believe it does. It includes the word "believes". It is not put forwards as a fact. It is a statement of belief. If I had one saying "I believe x is not guilty", would that be defamatory? If the x in question was someone who was currently serving time for a crime? Or vice versa? What if I had a "I believe OJ Simpson did it"? It's a statement of belief, and I don't think that counts as being defamatory. I am going to replace the userbox. If you still have a problem with it, I would appreciate it if you would discuss it with me rather than just remove the box. Thank you. Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A statement of belief may be considered defamatory (in the layman's, not the lawyer's, sense) if there is no reasonable basis for the belief. Userspace on Wikipedia, including userboxes (whether created as linked templates or directly on a page via coding) are not the appropriate forum for posting novel, and in this case virtually delusional, allegations that an individual was involved in a shocking crime. Do not reinstate this or any similar material. If you have a problem with my action, you may raise it on the administrators' noticeboard so that other people's views can be sought; please provide me with a link here if you do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)