User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Sep

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce spammer

I thought I was being gentle by using a softblock and the softerblock template message, rather than a spamusername block (which would have been technically justified IMO) on this COI s.p.a.! Almost all spammers for non-profits feel that they are not really promoting, just "educating the public". --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Arbiration

I would ask the committe to decide who was in the wrong for the naming policy changing and what should be done with it, AND if we should punish anyone for wp: beating a dead horse --Rockstone (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion

When weighing accuracy against its competition, I urge that you please not tilt against windmills to the exclusion of accuracy. You have a great opportunity to speak against exceptions to the rules,[1] including for some of the most controversial subjects. Wasn't that one of the things you were hoping for? Please think of what your heroes would do. 99.35.129.22 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

I think you said you were going to suggest some text at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. I'm sure your input would still be valued by everyone in the discussion.   Will Beback  talk  22:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still very much on my to-do list for soon. Real life, this week, has been unreal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm now reading up on the latest discussions and will try to get my proposal up soon, although I'm travelling for the holiday weekend so may have limited time for the next two days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

Brad, you wrote: "The request for arbitration, in addition to being excessively confrontational and containing far too much polemic" - How much "confrontational.. polemic" is too much, Brad? More importantly, how much is too little?

Brad: "[it] does not clearly define a specific arbitrable dispute." - I had thought this fairly clear in the timeline I gave. By the way, what do you think of the idea of having case parties collaborate and signing off on a single wikified timeline? I think there may be serious resolving benefits.

To recap, the dispute deals with the way a subpage of mine was put up as a speedy delete, then as an MFD, and was then speedy-closed by User:Spartaz while discussion was just getting started. Thus the first issue is the conflict that BLP creates between writer-editors like myself and process-functionaries like Spartaz - who had not read or even commented on the MFD page. If he had, he might have noticed that at least three of the "delete" votes claimed "attack page." Another user, Cameron, actually read the subpage draft and found it not to be an "attack page" at all - which I was in the process of corroborating when Spartaz first closed the MFD.

I then reopened it and a neutral admin restored it promptly. Mid-discussion, Spartaz soon closed again and deleted the subpage, denied my request to restore both, and after I filed an ANI, he said 'take to DRV.' Hence at that point it was no longer an editorial matter for editors and sanitation engineers (whose obnoxious place in our editorial process is rooted in Wiki tradition), but a matter of WP:DICK. DICK, used as a means to do one of several POV/subjective things like "enforce BLP" or else shut down discussion.

While I stated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Discussion page protocols that the topic of the draft page is not really relevant, its extremely relevant that people provably did not actually read it beyond the title, and thus based their delete votes in only an assumption of the subpage's meaning or intent rather than its substance. In symbolic form, it looks like

"DIDN'T READ," but "DELETE ANYWAY" per "WP:BLP"

So for Arbcom to say that the insults, the reverts, the misguided and improperactions, didn't rise to the level to get your lofty attentions, is not adequate. Its simply ignoring your job, which is not just to hand out obtuse punishments after the fact or to issue "let me remind you's" to people, but to remedy the flaws in the concepts/applications of both policy and process that contributed to the mess in the first place.

Respectfully, Stevertigo 02:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what the other arbitrators have to say. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be travelling with limited Internet time and access until Tuesday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon motion

[2] Were you intending to recuse? Nathan ^T 21:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad previously voted recuse, but later voted support. In both edits, "recuse" was used as Newyorkbrad's edit summary. I find it quite odd that an arbitrator would un-recuse from a case. But, I don't know why. I hope Newyorkbrad can clarify. If you see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop#Recusing Newyorkbrad?, a discussion I started during the case, you'll see an explanation regarding the recusal of Newyorkbrad. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion indicates he previously made a decision to recuse based on some minor involvement with Ryulong; given that such involvement would have no bearing on this motion, I personally see no reason for him to recuse. Moot, though, as the motion has a majority. Nathan ^T 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Did my comment accidentally clarify anything? Do you think the ban is warranted? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant to mark myself recused on this vote, and am not sure how I wound up voting support, but it was inadvertent. My apologies for any confusion caused.

It's true that my recusal stemmed originally from discussions I'd had with Ryulong, not with Mythdon, so I could ethically "un-recuse" if I chose to, but since there are plenty of other arbitrators focused on this matter there's no special reason for me to do so.

My personal opinion about the ban is that I'm very sad it's come to this, and that I wish Mythdon had paid more attention to feedeback he was getting from quite a number of people, including myself. I'm normally the last one to advocate banning just about anyone, and I wish I could find a basis to make a case for a less severe sanction, but the fact is that I see no evidence that Mythdon has any desire or interest to change his pattern of editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment

Hi, I just wanted to let you know how very disappointed I am at the arbitration process. The case here has brought me to realize a few things that I don't like about this project. I came to this case through an AN/I iVote about the ban of Abd. I ended up being accused of being on a cabal with a bunch of editors that I had never interacted with before. Since though I have of course checked out the editors that I am supposed to side with, or be in cahoots with or whatever the cabal accusations are supposed to do. The editors that are listed do wonderful things for this project, more than I myself could ever hope to achieve. There is no way my name should be listed with these other editors and so I think that the claims of cabal from the beginning should have been stopped for a breach of both No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL policies. Request were made multiple times and each time the answer was that it was in evidence and that proof of a cabal would be shown, well it never was as far as I'm concerned for many of us listed. Now that the cabal accusations have in some way been confirmed by the arbitrators with the #12 and also I believe it was #6 some of us who try to give neutral opinions now cannot do so. You and your collegues, whether this was your intentions or not, have damaged the good names of quite a few good faith editors who have not even a dinge on their block logs and have been held with high esteem. I would love to understand why this was allowed? This is the kind of behavior the arbs are supposed to stop. Arbitrators I thought were supposed to protect the good faith editors. I guess I came into this case naive thinking this but following my first case from beginning to end I am very sad at how things went here. I think you might understand which is why this is on your talk page because I know of no other way to communicate with the arbitrators. I can on the talk page and I have but no one, including you, responded to my concerns. I even asked you specifically in the linked page I attach. I hope what I have said has made some sense. I am going to be gone for a while due to RL and hopefully I will have spinal surgery this Friday. I had to say something though because I find the last few days comments very frustrating with the closing so close. Thank you for at least reading this. Take care, I wish things went better with this case. It was quite frustrating to watch in many ways. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I too am very frustrated with the way things played out in this case. I will add that I try as hard as anyone to respond to concerns and comments raised by parties and interested observers on case workshops and talkpages. I am sorry if for a number of reasons, including real-life constraints on my ability as well as the sheer number of comments that this particular case received, that I was not able to keep up with everything in this instance. I do not believe there was any endorsement intended in the decision of "cabal" allegations, certainly not by me. I will take a close look at the page you link, and I am going to draw your comments here to the attention of the other arbitrators. Most important, good luck with your real-life situation and best wishes for a speedy recovery. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it's very much appreciated. I'm sure that you are just as frustrated. You have a very thankless job here so I appreciate anything you can do or say that will at least show that the arbitrators are not endorsing the cabal claims. I know others would probably appreciate it too if they haven't said so yet. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A question

I have absolutely no desire to get involved in the arbcom case, and after I looked, I see that the editor I'm asking you about isn't involved in it either, so... I can't see how this is at all appropriate or relevant to a closed WP:RfC/U. Despite User:Viriditas not posting any other names besides User:Mosedschurte, whom I see was mentioned briefly on the arbcom page in question, it tends to appear like a sideways accusation about others concerned with the RfC, none of whom are mentioned or involved in any way with the current case. Should this be removed by someone (besides one of those involved) as inappropriate? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, User:Mosedschurte and Human rights in the United States were introduced as evidence into the case by User:PasswordUsername, and a large amount of the evidence in the RfC against me (that you participated in, Wildhartlivie) is based on this interaction, which I have maintained since the beginning, was coordinated using a back channel mailing list.(see archived ANI discussion featuring the same cast of characters from the current arbcom case and my comments here:"From what I can tell (although evidence is scanty at this point), Mosedschurte engaged in a backchannel canvassing campaign during an RFC on the talk page...I believe this clique is strongly organized and they have deliberately inserted themselves into Human rights in the United States, and it is not a coincidence.") Evidence on the RfC against me pertaining directly to Human rights in the United States is mentioned by name ~12 times, and much of the additional evidence in that case against me stems from my interaction with members of the Eastern European mailing list. Newyorkbrad should be aware of my concerns considering that I forwarded them to the arbcom mailing list. Furthermore, the lame attempt at the bogus RfC, which involved taking my edits out of context and trying to topic ban me for false civility violations, were the same tactics used against other editors by the same group of people who participated in not only the RfC, but several ANI and AN3 reports. My response including the link to the current arbcom case is directly relevant and addresses the evidence against me in the RfC that was recently introduced as evidence into the Eastern European mailing list case by PasswordUsername here:

...on May 26 [135], on just one occasion when the whole team showed up en masse to swamp a request for comment section for Human rights in the United States full of their own POV. Rather than actually do something about users who disrupt the productive lives of other editors, both the administrators at large and ArbCom (when prodded to take a closely resembling case back in June) preferred to ignore such warnings.

May 27 through June 3 - Digwuren and Biophys show up on the talk page for List of Eastern Bloc defectors to support User:Mosedschurte against myself and User:Yaan in a content dispute [141]. On June 5, Biophys and Martintg help Mosedschurte revert. [142], [143]. Neither of these edited List of Eastern Bloc defectors before.

I would also like to point out that after I tracked this group down to further content manipulation on Jonestown, I discovered that Wildhartlivie was connected to two accounts being used to revert her opponents, and I filed the appropriate SPI, which was disrupted by the same set of editors. The SPI was closed and archived, with the conclusion on the matter leaning towards believing Wildhartlivie's story about how her and her roommate share the same computer, with one admin opining, "Is it possible these are socks? Yes. But I adjudge it very unlikely." Perhaps it is just as unlikely as the existence of a secret back channel mailing list being used to coordinate edits and attack users who conflict with their agenda. Who knows for sure? Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that you are personally involved in the arbcom case, Viriditas, but if you want to insert yourself into it, fine, that's your business. The point of the matter is that I was inquiring about the appropriateness of your going into a closed WP:RfC/U to add more content after it was closed, in a way that could be construed as accusatory against everyone involved. And your comments here tend to support that insinuation. The issues surrounding the WP:RfC/U had to do with statements by you, the type of which you've managed to work into your unsolicited comment here about a case with which I have nothing to do. Please desist from trying to drag me into something that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that I edit on this encyclopedia. The WP:SPI was not supported, no one believed your allegations and I was as candid about my life situation as was necessary and the bottom line is that the case was closed as unsupported. Please stop trying to sully my life and do not take up misrepresenting and insinuating things about me again. There was no disruption at the SPI, there were, on the other hand, copious comments by a variety of people, aside from a couple first time IP posters whose comments were likely from something totally unrelated to anything which is your business and were disregarded, to support my statements. This is a valid question - is it appropriate to go in to a closed case of any sort and post new content unrelated to the specific case in question? I don't think so but I was asking a direct question about that only. Involve yourself in any arbcom disputes you like, however, do not trying to involve myself and those who truly do not care in any way whatsoever about it. And cease immediately with trying to again to disrepute me. Stay angry and confrontive, but don't do it to me, I have no patience with your confrontative manner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Wildhartlivie, but the RfC against me was opened by Mosedschurte not you, and the participants include User:Radeksz, User:Dc76, and User:Vecrumba, three editors of which are named as key participants in the EE case, and all four of which are part of introduced evidence, including evidence from the Human rights in the United States dispute. I am unclear why you feel you have anything to do with this situation. Is there something I'm missing? FYI... It isn't all about you. For what it is worth, I continue to stand by the SPI I submitted regarding your account, and I'm concerned that the User:LaVidaLoca account is still being used to support you in content disputes, such as on Talk:Jesse_James#Lead where both accounts were recently used to attack User:Kasaalan with extremely uncivil comments. I'm fairly certain WP:MEAT still applies. What is so interesting, is this is the same bad behavior I encountered from you on Talk:Jonestown, when I tried to improve the article, and yet I was the one who found himself the subject of an RfC. Meanwhile, with the help of the Eastern European mailing list group, you chased me from the page, and my efforts at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jonestown/archive1 go completely ignored. Please note the absence of anger in these comments. Can you say the same about yours? Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not chase you from anything and that other editors from something else pop in to comment on some given case has nothing to do with me being connected to any ongoing ArbCom case. You have a bit of a talent in wording things ambiguously enough to imply collusion without stating it and I can't believe you don't realize that. "Is there something I'm missing?", missrepresenting two small comments by another editor as attacking and calling it bad behavior, and "with the help of the Eastern European mailing list group" - wholesale implications that, in effect, are not quite opaque. There's no conspiracy here, though the absence of such never stopped conspiracy theorists from creating them. You will not find any connection between myself and the people in the ArbCom case, nor does it exist, beyond that they may or may not have commented at some other case. I have no interest or involvement in that case, or in that type of topic, and I would thank you to not start stalking my edits again. My sole concern is with your posting on the closed WP:RfC/U, which is clearly noted to say "The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page." The links are clearly available to you for use in anything you need to do. I will not dignify your new assertions that LaVidaLoca is the same person as I am, or is a meat puppet, that's been settled. In contrast, you've all but chased her from editing at all. She's made less than a couple dozen edits since the sock case. Rossrs and Pinkadelica have made more edits to identical pages as I have, including a recent dispute, than anyone else on Wikipedia. That the three of them are interested in the same articles and think similarly about issues is not an issue, that happens, as was noted in your failed sock puppet case. We've all discussed some issues on Wikipedia, it doesn't imply meat or sock puppetry. My only concern here was the inappropriateness of your making posts to the RfC after it being closed. Otherwise, I truly do not care what you're doing here and only ask that you do not start hounding me or my fellow editors again. On one or two occasions in the interim, I've actually refrained from making edits to one or two articles where you edited simply to not cross paths with you. That's all. Please leave me alone and don't edit closed cases and we have nothing to discuss. My apologies for it spilling onto your page, Newyorkbrad, when I was simply asking a question regarding appropriateness. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The only person who has posited a connection between yourself and the Eastern European mailing list arbcom case is yourself, not me. For the record, I've never "hounded" anyone on Wikipedia, and your repeated allegations that I've hounded you in any way are completely without merit, and are continually made by you to distract away from the content dispute on Jonestown and the SPI investigation you were involved in. I suggest you actually read the SPI case I filed; There was nothing "failed" about it and my concerns are still very much valid as can be seen by the continuing use of your two accounts in Talk:Jesse_James#Lead, as only one example. Per WP:SHARE:

When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.

The fact is, your two accounts continue to edit the same articles, engage in the same reverts, and use the same set of words and language, as if they were one account. I have taken no further action on this since the SPI, and I leave it up to the community at large to look into it further. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, Viriditas. That we know one another is known and was publicly published in the SPI. Common interests and seeing the same on some articles isn't against policy, any more than agreeing and supporting you on some points would be, as I recall was true on an article or two in the past. Does that make me you or you me as well? Could be. "Common language" - covered at SPI, though your comment about the "same set of words" must drive you crazy when you're reading them across Wikipedia. "Ah geez, is that Wildhartlivie too?" My health improved and she rarely stays with me anymore, but that too is none of your business. My issue here was only, and continues to be, that you edited a closed case that could potentially cast asperions on persons unrelated to a different dispute and ArbCom case elsewhere. For some reason beyond my understanding and beyond an immediate need to ask a single question, you felt the need to drag baggage along with it. Too bad. Until I noticed that edit on the RfC/U, I give you no notice or thought whatsoever. I truly wish you could manage the same. I leave whatever last word there is left to you. My question was answered. Just leave me alone and do not edit closed cases and we'll be fine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read both your comments. I agree that raising the issues related to the situation with the mailing list in unrelated contexts is not likely to be helpful. Given that I will be helping to draft, and voting on, the decision in the case, I probably shouldn't get into a deeper discussion of any other related issues right now, especially since I haven't finished reviewing the evidence. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Having had some time to think about this, I think it would be wise for me to self-revert until the case is actually concluded and we have more information. However, considering that a large part of the evidence presented against me comes from an incident directly connected to this case (including key players who commented on the RfC) I think I should be allowed to respond with a link to this case if and when the time comes, with a note saying it was added after it was closed. It is very unfortunate that the RfC closed on 27 August, a little more than a month before the case was opened. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've closed and manually archived this thread. Continuing this discussion appears unlikely to be helpful to either party. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine‎

Since two of the people described in this article say they intend on suing for defamation, could you look over this article and tell me if there is anything that needs better referencing or needs rewording? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, so now you want me to vouch for the article content. Seriously, I'll try to take a look, but per below, it won't be for a couple of days, so you should probably ask someone else also. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Not professional opinion of course! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've read it. Very fine article! Let 'em sue. Little Stupid splash! 10:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

Hi NYB, I've been reading about defamation law and had a general question. I haven't been able to work out what is the effect of attribution on potentially defamatory statements. If publication A were to say "Mr Doe does Y", this is a statement about Mr Doe and might be defamatory if false and unflattering. However, if publication B were to quote this statement and say "Publication A states that Mr Doe does Y", this appears to me to be a provable and entirely factual statement about the views of publication A. Could this attributed statement still form the basis of an action against publication B? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Diff, the IP traces to Chicago, which is where the A4A are based, but the editor did not respond to questions on their talkpage so I can't confirm any relationship. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

DeSysopping proposal

Howdy...I have a proposal about desyoppings...why don't we do more temporary desysoppings? By that I mean something more along the lines of a 90 day suspension, followed by a 90 parole/probation? I mean, I'm a pretty conservative guy and generally take a "throw the book at them" approach in real life, but this is but Wikipedia and we're not usually dealing with criminals, and oftentimes, we instead have people that just get overly passionate and perhaps too worked up. I know that in many cases where desyopping is proposed, temporary ideas are often floated out there, but seems more often than not that most admins under the microscope end up losing their bits altogether and indefinitely. In some cases, err, like mine...(maybe for all the right reasons, heh) getting reinstated is like trying to grab a fresh steak from the mouth of a pit bull. I dunno...am I still clueless or is this something arbcom might be more interested in pondering?--MONGO 02:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No one asked my opinion, but I think this is a great idea. 90 day suspension of admin status carried out in a quick, light weight process initiated by a motion presented to Arbcom. I'm not sure how many times it would be needed, are there recent cases where this would have been a better option than whatever really happened? RxS (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some that surely do deserve to lose the bit altogether, but I am thinking about especially long term admins that have thousands of admin actions, some egregious but the vast majority of actions are benign and beneficial. I think the chilling effect that results from being desysopped can really take the wind out of some folks...I liken it to how the criminal justice system in the U.S. sort of works...not that it is always still fair, but taken in a more utopian light...punishments are graduated with a relatively fair amount of opportunities to get second chances and to demonstrate improvements.--MONGO 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist 2 RFAR

Hi Brad,

I was wondering what the progress with this case is? I realise that Arbcom has a lot on their plate at the moment, with the Pastor Theo affair and now the European mailing list issue, but this case has been open a month, with little to no comment. What's going on? I also note there is no drafting arb assigned to the case. Can this be looked into? Thanks. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought we did have a drafter on this. I'll follow up forthwith. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman was the drafting arb, but he had to withdraw. So there is no currently assigned arb. :) Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded that Casliber has stepped in and should be authoring a draft within the next few days. Unfortunately, our arbitration-committee templates have become so complicated now that we haven't figured out how to list his name. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Purely a guess. Far too complicated. :) Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So you have lost touch with the common clerk? MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if the template syntax was simpler, commoners like Brad could edit the template? ^_^ Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ARBDATE MOS review?`

See [3] (I wasn't sure if any Arbs were watching). Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list

First of all, let me assure that I am not involved in any outside lobbing or influence groups. I was not recruited by anyone to contribute. And I was never a part of any plot to damage this project. There is nothing like "CAMERA" here.

I hate writing secret emails to ArbCom and would like to discuss on public some problems, especially if they are general, but not disclosing any private information of course. There are the following general questions.

1. What jurisdiction ArbCom can possibly have over something outside this project, like private emails?
2. Reading evidence apparently obtained by illegal means (hacking an account and sending out private information) is a highly questionable practice. I personally would excuse myself from reading personal correspondence that was sent to someone else.
3. If I am accused of something, I want such accusations to be openly posted (although any evidence can be kept private), and I want to openly answer these accusations.
4. What exactly WP rules did I violate? I had no idea that my private email communications can be a matter of inquiry here. Can they? What exactly rules tell about this? Can you give me any link to such rules?
5. If I am in violation of any rules, could someone please give me an explanation and appropriate warning. We warn even vandals prior to imposing sanctions.

Now let me admit my email "guilt". I discussed misbehavior of several users and my own problems with several WP administrators. No, their names are not in the list. Was it forbidden? On a number of occasions, I discussed with my friends, along with our personal issues and world politics, editing by certain WP users. I do not know who these users are in real life. I only discussed what they are doing in this project, often with supporting diffs. All my comments were meant to remain private. Was it forbidden? No, I never explicitly asked anyone to "attack" any WP users, although I found their behavior highly problematic. There could be no evidence of this, even if someone intercepted all my emails.

I also commented a little about ANI statement by Alex at my talk page. Sorry for the trouble and thank you for the consideration.Biophys (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The comments of an interested on-looker:

1) Off-wiki conduct is actionable when it leads to disruptive on-wiki behavior. For example, if there are emails saying "Smith is a jerk" there's not much that can be done about it. But if there are emails that say, "Let's coordinate our edits to Foo in such a way that we can control the content and provoke Smith into violating his revert parole", and on-wiki evidence confirms this, that is definitely subject to sanction.

2) This situation poses a rather difficult question; to ignore (alleged) coordinated and bad faith attacks on other editors and disruption of the project because the evidence was obtained through someone's unethical and possibly illegal actions, or to act on the evidence, giving some kind of tacit approval to the theft of the emails. I've seen lots of arguments from your group arguing against using these emails; I'd like to see your response to the concern that ignoring them (if they contain what they are claimed to contain) would be to ignore a mass campaign of bad faith actions and disruption and could lead to even more secret email lists and groups coordinating reverts, attacks and blocks on their pet issues. I also point out that rules of evidence vary between civil and criminal courts within and outside of the US, and that you are not in danger of having your property or liberty confiscated, just in danger of having the privilege of editing a web site restricted.

4 and 5) If you don't understand that using email to coordinate article editing and reverting so that your group can maintain control over an article (as alleged), or that coordinating attacks on another editor to provoke a blockable response (as alleged) is damn dirty pool, then you ought not to be editing, and certainly should not be an admin. (And of course you knew it was wrong (as alleged), or else you would have done it on-wiki.) Thatcher 13:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If I was reading someone's else email obtained by such means and that was related to my work, I would be guilty of a serious scientific misconduct and possibly a criminal prosecution. As I said, I never asked anyone to attack any editors, not here, not in any emails. However, the word "coordination" means that any comment made privately about any user is actionable. Of course I was not aware of it, and I am still not aware of it. Hence my questions. As you know, I am not an administrator.Biophys (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a reach and you should know better. It depends on what is in the emails and how they were obtained. If your colleague Dr. White shared with you an email from Dr. Black, indicating that Dr. Black had taken data from your grant application and has begun doing the experiments you proposed while at the same time giving your grant a low priority score, I'm sure you would view Dr. White as an heroic whistleblower, no matter how Dr. White obtained the email. Thatcher 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. That would be a blatant misconduct on the part of Dr. White because such information about scientific reviewing (e.g. the priority score Dr. Black personally gave) is strictly confidential. By the letter, I would have to report such incident to an ethics committee where Dr. White works and to the study section where Dr. Black works. But in real life I would do nothing beyond asking Dr. White never do such things again. And I would tell no one about this incident as to avoid publicity that would hurt me more than Dr. Black.Biophys (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You should probably read this. Thatcher 16:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And I can assure that no one was ever able to manipulate you, Sandstein or other serious administrators. Just like Sandstein said, you act on the existing evidence, and you do this by the rules.Biophys (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Although the claim that editors were trying to make friends with admins to avoid blocks or impose blocks on others is much less serious than some of the other claims, and probably not worth talking about much at all. Thatcher 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The arbitrators, certainly including myself, are aware of all of the issues you have raised. They are complex ones with all sorts of implications, and I am sure that some of them will be referred to in our final decision on how to address this entire situation. Further discussion would probably better occur on one of the case talkpages so that all the arbitrators, and other interested editors, will have the benefit of your views. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I made a suggestion here how to proceed. If there are any better suggestions or instructions, I am ready to follow them.Biophys (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point

When I Googled for the phrase nostra sponte the first (and essentially best in that it actually explains what it means) result is from Conservapedia. If you're bored sometime, maybe you could create an article on it here, so us non-Latin speakers can translate? =) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's really just the plural of sua sponte. Maybe a redirect.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

After a few minutes from now, I'll be offline until tomorrow (Monday) evening or Tuesday morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently not 100% offline, but not really here, either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

mea/tua/sua/nostra/vostra sponte

Just a pitnick [4]: isn't the difference between "sua sponte" and "nostra sponte" a difference of grammatical person rather than one of number? "Nostra sponte" is 1st person plural; its singular equivalent would be "mea sponte", which seems also to be attested in US legalese [5]; "sua sponte" is 3rd person but unspecified for number. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, at least as a technical matter. An individual judge speaking institutionally will often refer to himself or herself, or be referred to, in the third person, as "the Court." Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen/Jimbo Wales redux (what, not again?)

I have posted a question on Carcharoth's well-hidden page User:Carcharoth/Arbitration philosophy and pledges, in case you have time to comment. Bishonen | talk 14:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

I've read the discussion, but I'm not sure that the Arbitration Committee, as a committee, has a further role to play here. For better or worse, you've seen the motion that was adopted to address the matter of Jimbo's block of your account. Insofar as this incident might raise or implicate broader "constitutional" issues for En-Wiki, it's really the role of the community as a whole rather than the Arbitration Committee to address these kinds of issues. Of course, individual arbitrators might contribute to such a discussion, but the ArbCom qua ArbCom would not. Put differently, I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure what action the committee could take as a committee, even in theory, that might advance the ball materially in the direction you are suggesting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the underlying facts, it's clear that the Arbcom does have options in the matter. If they were to treat JimboWales as a common administrator, and desysop, his "God-King" status would be effectively neutered. Note that I'm not saying this should happen, just that, in theory at least, it could happen, were the Arbcom to feel it prudent. UnitAnode 02:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• It could, and I was told in no uncertain terms that the ArbCom would uh, take care of it--while I for my part ought to go away and stop bothering them in this important work.[6] Are you saying I was deceptively silenced, NYBrad? That's interesting. Can I have it under the hand of the committee qua committee? BTW, I think we should use the talkpage of User:Carcharoth/Arbitration philosophy and pledges for this. It's rather hard to find, as I said before, but at least it's not quite as ephemeral as your personal talkpage. Bishonen | talk 07:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

• Noting that I've seen your question, and will reply in detail. (The current reply written in my head is much overlong, and I am mentally editing it down.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's funny, at first I read that as "... is much overlong, and I am melting it down." :-) Bishonen | talk 08:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

With apologies for the delay, my thoughts on this:

• The unique role that Jimbo Wales plays in English Wikipedia has never been fully defined, but has to an extent evolved over time. It is a combination of the usual rights that he would have as an administrator, coupled with extra rights (and responsibilities) that he historically had as founder and project leader, such as the ability to ban users or desysop administrators unilaterally.
• In general, as you know, Jimbo has used his unique powers such as by banning or desysopping less and less over time, as the community has developed other decision-making processes. As you are also aware, Jimbo agreed two years ago that his actions in his special capacity are subject to ArbCom review. And more recently, Jimbo has foresworn use of his ability to block users, which should further reduce instances of controversy arising directly from his actions.
• Whether there should be further documentation of Jimbo's special role is a question that could be argued on both sides. Bedford's request for arbitration when he was desysopped presented an opportunity for the Arbitration Committee to consider doing that, but the case was declined.
• Jimbo's role in English Wikipedia is just one aspect of a more general community discussion that could be had of overall governance issues facing the project. I'm of two minds about whether we need to spend a lot of time on such a discussion: on the one hand, it really is unclear how certain types of fundamental decisions on this project should be made; but on the other hand, such a discussion could invite an awful lot of navel-gazing relative to the anticipated return on investment. For many institutions, of which Wikipedia is just one, the question of how much institutional organization should be documented in written rules and policies, versus being allowed to evolve over time, is a very deep question.
• The community has not signalled, in recent months, that it is looking to the Arbitration Committee to address fundamental governance questions. Our recent attempt to convene an advisory committee to discuss some of these issues was the subject of broad denunciation of the arbitrators who established the committee, to the point that our most active colleague resigned as an arbitrator (consummating the remarkable situation that of the group of five arbitrators elected for three-year terms in December 2006, none served his full term of office). In light of this experience, I am not sure that our taking action or trying to lead a discussion on any fundamental governance issue would be well-received or is the best manner of proceeding. (And I am concerned that since ArbCom makes some of the decisions formerly made by Jimbo, any ArbCom attempt to reduce Jimbo's authority would be mischaracterized by some as an attempt to enlarge our own.)
• Finally, I emphasize that in all of the above, I'm speaking for no one but myself, and other arbitrators might have radically different views. This would hardly be the first time in which I was out of step with my colleagues of the committee (the Geogre situation, with which I know you are familiar, being the most obvious recent example). Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to give me your opinion. I believe it was you who formulated the motion with which the ArbCom disappointingly fobbed off my request for arbitration. I'm also aware that the motion as originally written (and never seen by the community) "failed to gain traction"--a popular arbcom formula--with all of your colleagues. But I suppose that doesn't mean neither you, nor those colleagues, nor the committee as a whole are prepared to take responsibility for the state of the motion as voted on and approved? I won't repeat my criticism of the way that motion favors power, which I consider a disgrace; I suppose you've read my comments on it.[7]

Anyway. I believe the arbcom protection of Jimbo (against the big bad dangerous Bishonen...gee!) may turn out to be no favor to him. Some serious community discussions of the governance of Wikipedia, and ArbCom's and Jimbo's respective roles, is likely to appear soon, and I'd expect the Bishonen/Jimbo case to come up.

Finally, it was very interesting, in a kind of horrible way, to see how Jimbo comported himself on the relevant thread of the supersekrit ArbCom list. Thank you all for letting me in. [/me puts the e-mails tenderly away in the safe. ] Oh, and I notice there's been no comment from the ArbCom added to my block log. I didn't really expect it, I guess. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

• All due respect, Brad, but Jimbo's role is most certainly not "just one aspect of a more general community discussion that could be had of overall governance issues facing the project."His role is unique in the history of the project. No other user has held it, and no other user will ever hold it, once it is removed from Jimbo. Nor should any other user hold it, because at this stage of maturity, the project does not have any need for a person to hold such a role. UnitAnode 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(On a cellphone, on a train) To Bishonen: No, I did not propose the motion that was adopted, and I don't believe I voted for it. Further responses when I get home from my trip. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I must have misunderstood something I was told. No, you didn't vote for it. You also didn't oppose it. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC).

(Not on a cellphone, not on a train) ArbCom should read Green Eggs and Ham, especially the plot section. Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen as Sam-I-Am? I like it! UnitAnode 01:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I had promised to return to this thread; I'm sorry it's taken me this long; real-life and all that.

I have no objection to a discussion of Jimbo Wales' role on English Wikipedia for the purpose of assessing it from either a philosophical or practical standpoint, but I'm not convinced it should be a top priority either, and I certainly still don't believe it would be well-received if the Arbitration Committee took the initiative in convening such a discussion.

Basically, Jimbo's special powers on this project, at this point, are or were primarily three:

First, he can, or could, unilaterally ban users. Most bans now come from either the Arbitration Committee or community discussions, but Jimbo has occasionally imposed a ban (maybe two or three a year). However, recently, Jimbo has renounced any intention of ever blocking any users, which would seem to make this subissue moot. I suppose it is possible that Jimbo could announce that someone is banned without actually blocking him or her, relying on another administrator to perform the actual block, but I haven't seen any evidence that he actually intends to proceed in this manner.

Second, he has the ability to unilaterally decide to desysop an administrator. It is indeed debatable whether he should use this ability, at least in the absence of a genuine emergency; I could make an argument either way, but my perspective may be skewed (or be perceived as being skewed) by my membership on the ArbCom, which would gain both the power and the paperwork associated with any rare desysopping situations that Jimbo would no longer handle. In any event, though, this issue comes up once or twice a year (when was the last time Jimbo desysopped anyone? was it Bedford? that's over a year ago), so I don't see this as a matter of pressing practical importance.

And third, he appoints the members of the Arbitration Committee. From a philosophical standpoint, this may be the most controversial exercise of Jimbo's special responsibilities, although I understand the arguments for (and against) it also. This issue has been discussed before and I am sure it will be discussed again at some point. But I don't think the community would expect the sitting arbitrators, some of whom may (or may not) soon be running for reelection, to try to steer discussion on this issue.

So I stick with my view that while it might be best to have some more clearly defined governance mechanisms in place, defining Jimbo Wales' specific role need not be a top priority at the moment for the community, and that it is not at all clear to me that the Arbitration Committee has a useful role in doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am still of a mind that there is a dichotomy between the special role Jimbo Wales has taken for himself, and the other governance issues that face the project. I think that removing sysop/b'crat tools (which he rarely uses anyway, and which causes huge drama when he does) would be the least controversial of the changes. Especially with the willingness that the current iteration of the Arbitration Committee has displayed for taking emergency measures (see especially the Pastor Theo and Piotr situations), there's no real usefulness in his retaining this authority. I fail to see how removal of an unuseful set of tools would be a bad thing. UnitAnode 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Extension

Brad, what's the status of this extension request? I don't think one extra week is unreasonable given the unusual circumstances of this case, and I count at least four people requesting it. I don't see how an extension would disadvantage anyone. --Martintg (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are going to allow additional time, as we are still reviewing the evidence already submitted. Whether it's a full week or some other period, I'm not sure. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom case

You might want to nudge your fellow arbitrators into a swift decline, at the very least in the favour of the on-going WP:AN/I discussion. To those who are also CheckUsers, you might care to point out that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar is in need of attention. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like things are headed in the direction of a decline on the request for arbitration. You can also post a short statement on the request yourself if you like, drawing attention to the SSI page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A question

I've closed and manually archived this thread. Continuing this discussion here does not appear to be helpful to either party. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Southern right whale

I saw some mothers and calves this week, swimming 50-100m off the beach. Magic! Oh, and seals +++ billinghurst (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD Closure

Brad, I agree with most things you do but you closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sniper and Cranes incorrectly, with all due respect. It does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion, but does, however, meet the prod deletion criteria. Not being familiar with that area, I wanted to take it to AfD. Respond as soon as possible, ceranthor 10:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your reasoning here is that it would allow anyone, for whatever reason (intentionally or inadvertently), to create a page that clearly does not qualify and could never qualify as an encyclopedia article, but fell through the cracks of the speedy criteria. Such a page would then be part of Wikipedia for at least one week (the minimum time required for a PROD or an AfD) before being deleted, and during that time could not only be a poor reflection on the quality of the encyclopedia, but could also be picked up by the search engines and our multiple mirror sites, on which Wikipedia content often survives for months or even years long after it has been deleted from Wikipedia itself.

The criteria for speedy deletion are an important guidepost to what types of pages should be deleted summarily, but as I have written before (including in arbitration decisions), there is no restriction on administrators' deleting blatantly inappropriate content for which no reasonable argument in favor of retention could be made. Our policies and guidelines exist to serve the community and the encyclopedia and not as ends in themselves. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's more what I was feeling but you phrased it much better than I did! Thanks for correcting me. ceranthor 23:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Brad's reasoning here. On the other hand, I've seen extraordinary rigidity in applying these criteria, to the point where I won't speedy even the most obviously and hopelessly unencyclopedic material because of the anticipated backlash. Then again, I'm probably scarred by an episode very early in my adminship, in which my competence was questioned by a sitting Arbitrator whom I'd never previously met for speedying a clearly unencyclopedic and ridiculous article. That was right about the time I decided to abandon new page patrol. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also frequently frustrated by RfA opposes and comments based on a candidate's failure to properly categorize obvious speedies by the correct alphanumeric code numbers. In no other aspect of Wikipedia policy and administrator, with the possible exception of the NFCC, do we rigidify ourselves and cabin reasonable administrator discretion in this way. (The converse is that we should often be kinder in explaining our criteria to users whose pages are being deleted for other than fully obvious reasons, as I tried to do in this instance.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia

You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
October 4, 2009
Time: 12 pm
Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City, Philadelphia

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, October 4, 2009, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

Register your team here

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oversight request

Could you oversight one edit at Lusk, Wyoming? Tommboy1777 posted a personal phone number and email address for someone. I've deleted Tommboy1777's edit and the bot edit that reverted it. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this; hopefully it has been addressed by now. For future reference, WP:OVERSIGHT contains information on how to request oversight or edit-suppression. Posting these requests on-wiki just calls attention to the problematic material. (This page may seem like a backwater, but I'm told it's on the watchlists of at least 350 people.) regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

355 people, to be exact. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you are aware...

of this, based on this. Also, please assume that I'm wrote a similar message here, to that which I wrote on Vassyana's talk about tallies on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The correction is correct. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Linas case request

Hi. Re: Linas's case request, you said you might have handled the situation different. Can I ask how? Just curious. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 17:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note (and for your attention to the comments). I wasn't referring to anything you said or did; sorry if that wasn't clear. I find your handling of the situation quite reasonable. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I only asked because Vassyana also mentioned something one of us said was "less than optimal". I guess I'm not sure what s/he is referring to either but I got curious what seemed out of place to two Arbs. Thanks again. Wknight94 ^talk 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for discussion

Hey Brad, I'd like to invite your comment on an essay/discussion I just posted about the whole Law/Undertow etcetera thing User:SirFozzie/Alternate. I'd appreciate any input you have. SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)