User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Aug

Grumble

I'm sure you could come up with something a little bit more useful under 'Conduct of administrators' (so that it is more relevant to the amended heading, if it is going to stay amended). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Conduct of administrators" is what we've called that general paragraph in the past, and I don't see a need for a change, especially unless someone can think of something better. Of course, proposed principles 4 and 5 are not alternatives, and my expectation is that both will pass. In any event, though, Kirill Lokshin is the primary drafter on the case and he proposed 4, so you can ask him what he thinks if you really want to pursue this (which I don't think is really necessary). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if the relevant section of admin policy is anything to go by, there are other important and relevant parts which would make more sense in the principle (rather than requiring other arbs to mention it in passing in their votes). But as I indicated, it's just a grumble. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a better answer from me would be that I think this case is (hopefully) too close to closing to warrant tinkering with the principle now. But please feel free to suggest alternative wording the next time this item comes up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It could have fitted into proposal 5 (seeing that was the spirit of it anyway), but meh. A response to your better answer would probably suggest that this drama should end soon, if it did not end as soon as it should and could have. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's always good to end a conversation on a note of agreement. Fortunately, we can do so in this instance: I agree with you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions about appealing my topic ban

I asked you around two weeks ago if you could give me some advice about how to appeal my topic ban from the R&I case, and you suggested that I wait a couple of weeks before asking about this again. You also told me that asking about this the week of July 10th might be better timing. Is now an acceptable time for me to ask you the questions I have about this? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that now is as good a time as any. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. When you went idle for a few days after I first asked you this, I asked Cool Hand Luke if I could ask him my questions, and he offered me some general advice, but he doesn’t seem interested in answering the specific questions I have.

I have three questions, but I’ll start with the one that I think will be easiest to answer.

When you voted for my finding of fact in the R&I arbitration case, you suggested in your comment there that not every diff in my finding of fact demonstrated misconduct. This is something that I also feel is the case. For example, my finding of fact mentions this diff as an example of me falsely claiming the existence of a consensus where there isn’t one, but I don’t think I was claiming the existence of a consensus for anything in that comment. All I was saying there was that I thought the people I was debating with weren’t using a valid argument. I tried to ask during the case in what way this comment involved me falsely claiming the existence of a consensus, but none of the arbitrators answered my question about this.

What I’d like to know is, when I appeal my topic ban, should I be mentioning ways like this that I don’t consider my finding of fact completely accurate? On one hand, I know that when a person is appealing something like a block, and they feel that the justification for the block is incorrect, it’s normal for the appealing editor to mention that. But on the other hand, I’ve gotten a very strong impression that it isn’t looked on favorably when anyone disagrees with an ArbCom finding of fact about themselves. If I mention any way that I disagree with my finding of fact when I appeal my topic ban, I suspect that ArbCom is going to view it as indicating that I haven’t learned the lesson that I was supposed to learn from my sanction, and that therefore the sanction shouldn’t be modified.

As someone who appears to agree that not every diff in my finding of fact demonstrates misconduct, I hope you’ll have some useful advice about whether it’s appropriate to mention that when I appeal my topic ban, or whether doing so would be counterproductive. Thanks in advance. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Would this be easier if I were to ask about it via e-mail?

Something I think you should know is that my difficulty getting arbitrators to answer my questions about this is interfering with my ability to contribute to articles. I’ve been hoping to appeal my topic ban fairly soon, but I’m also predicting that doing so is going to be pretty difficult and demanding, so I keep avoiding getting involved in anything else that would demand a lot of time and attention from me. There’s a specific reason why my appeal is likely to be far more demanding than any other editor’s attempt to appeal an ArbCom sanction, even though that shouldn’t be the case, which is something else I wanted to discuss with you. Any indication about how to go about discussing this with arbitrators, or what sort of timeframe is necessary for that, would really be appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the best prelude to a successful appeal to terminate a topic-ban is a showing that the editor has edited well in areas other than the one from which he or she was banned. So part of me is thinking that every month that goes by with you working in areas other than "Race and intelligence (broadly construed)" is a good thing for the encyclopedia and a good thing for you. It might well be the case that you would have a happier overall Wikipedia experience, and spare other editors some tension, if you stayed with the other areas. But I can't tell you not to file an appeal you have a right to file, nor am I going to prejudge it.

With regard to my comment from the original arbitration case, while I did not agree that every diff of yours that was cited reflected misconduct, don't get the wrong idea: I did find that your editing in the topic-area was problematic, in a significant way. If the diffs I didn't think were that strong had been removed from the decision, they could have been replaced by others. More important, ArbCom decisions are made by a majority of the arbitrators, not by me, and the majority voted for the finding as written. So no, I don't think my observation on the proposed decision page would weigh significantly in your favor in the context of an appeal.

There really isn't a vehicle for discussing a potential appeal with the arbitrators collectively, other than filing it. If you like, I can send a heads-up note to the arbitrators' mailing list, suggesting that other arbs might wish to comment here. Whether they would choose to do so, of course, is up to them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don’t get me wrong: I’m definitely aware that my behavior prior to the case was problematic, I just think the selection of diffs in my finding of fact doesn’t describe the problems with it especially well. I wasn’t trying to imply that I thought you disagreed with the substance of my finding of fact, since if you had, you presumably wouldn’t have voted in favor of it. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough about what I was asking. Let me try to clarify it:

A few months ago, I talked to Roger Davies about the possibility of appealing my topic ban, and he told me that one of the things that would be expected of me is to address the reasons for my ban that were given in my finding of fact. That’s the source of my confusion about this. If I try to address the reasons for my ban given in my finding of fact exactly as it’s written, including all of the diffs that are given as examples, that’s going to involve several diffs that I don’t think actually demonstrate the misconduct in question. (And my finding of fact also doesn’t include several diffs that could have demonstrated the misconduct better than those that were included.) If I’m going to do exactly what Roger Davies seemed to be suggesting, all I could say about some of these diffs is that I think they’re bad examples, and explain why. What I’d like to know is whether I should try to specifically address my finding of fact in this manner, including the diffs that aren’t good examples, or whether I ought to just address what I understand as having been my actual misconduct prior to the case, regardless of whether or not the diffs in my finding of fact are a good demonstration of it.

From your comment above, I’m thinking now that I should probably go with the second option, and address my past misconduct as I understand it rather than focusing on the finding of fact itself. However, it would be helpful if you could confirm that that’s the best idea.

Also, I would appreciate you letting the other arbitrators know there are some questions I’d like to ask about this. As you might have gathered from my comment in Jcelemens’ user talk, I find it frustrating how difficult it often is to get a response from ArbCom about questions like these, and anything you can do to make it less difficult would be helpful. The question I’ve asked already isn’t my only question about this, and I would like to be able to get a quicker response to the other things I was hoping to ask. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Were you going to tell me when you’ve posted about this on the ArbCom mailing list? As I said, the question I asked you already wasn’t my only question. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrator behaviour

Hi. If you have the time, I wonder if you would be able to look at the proposition I put here, and tell me whether the committee will be able to examine the behaviour of the admin corps toward Cirt under the terms of the second "cult" case? (Sorry, I've forgotten the name of that case.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bespectacled baseball players

Hi! I was hoping you could show us some of the sources that you mentioned in the AfD linked above. There's quite a few of us who would be willing to change our !votes depending on what you come up with. Thanks so much!--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember where I read the articles I was thinking of (probably different places over a couple of years), and I have limited time tonight, but a quick Google search turns up this and this and this in the first thirty seconds. Probably none of them are would be considered "reliable sources" in and of themselves, but hopefully they can lead people in the correct direction. This would be an interesting research project for someone with access to both the medical and the sabermetric literature.

Based on the current !voting, the AfD is probably heading for a "no consensus, default to keep" closure, which will allow time for people with more expertise than I have to hunt down the best sources. Oh, and incidentally, given that baseball is American, we might want to find a more American wording than "bespectacled" for the title.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, now that the AfD is over someone will probably start a discussion to move the page name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Cirt

As per your comment can we have some kind of clear statement from the committee of the extension dates please - This is as a follow up request to my question here User_talk:Hersfold#standard_timetable - also I might as well ask now - if you are extending the standard timetable for User:Cirt that you allow a couple of days additional to allow interested users to respond to and and refute User:Cirt's evidence.Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding, which I have asked be confirmed and posted on-wiki, is that we'll allow Cirt until approximately August 15 to post his position and evidence. I'll make sure there is a reasonable time allowed for other editors to comment on what Cirt posts, before the case moves to the next phase. Thank you for your attention to keeping the case moving. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Addendum: See also here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail, appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

GLAM-Wiki Baltimore meetup

You are invited to the first Wikipedia Baltimore meetup on Saturday, July 23, 10:00am-12:30pm at the Walters Art Museum. Come meet Wikimedians, learn about GLAM-Wiki partnerships, get involved, and discuss future wiki outreach and activities in the Baltimore area!

There also is a Wikipedia & Cultural Heritage at the Young Preservationist Happy Hour on Friday, July 22, 6:30pm at the Midtown Yacht Club, an unpretentious neighborhood pub.

---

Note: You can remove your name from the Baltimore meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

A request regarding the Cirt case

Hi Brad, I have a concern about the length of time the dispute-resolution process has taken in this case, which I feel is unfair to Cirt. It's no-one's fault, and I do believe there's a case to answer, but it's stressful to be the focus of such protracted public discussion.

Dispute resolution was triggered by this thread on Cirt's talk page on May 26, which went to AN/I. Coren filed the (somewhat related) "political activism" RfAr on June 14, removed as declined on June 19. Because that was declined, Jayen opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt on June 27.

The RfC should have been allowed to conclude, and Cirt should have been given time to adjust his editing to avoid further dispute resolution. But for some reason on July 5, while the RfC was ongoing, Resident Anthropologist filed the "cults" RfAr, and ArbCom accepted it and opened the Cirt-Jayen side of it on July 24. The evidence phase has been extended to August 16, and it could take the committee weeks after that to conclude. So Cirt will have spent several months at the centre of this process without a break.

Not much can be done now about the timing, but would the committee consider closing the workshop and its talk page, along with a request that people stop discussing Cirt or Jayen on other pages unless it's to submit evidence? That would at least make the process less fraught. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concern. Cirt has indicated that he will submit his position and evidence within the next week. As indicated above, we will wait a couple of days after that to allow other editors to respond to what Cirt has to say, and then hopefully move forward toward a decision.

Good-faith input from editors is appreciated in every arbitration case, but we trust people to distinguish between providing additional valuable input and anything that might be considered as unnecessary or duplicative piling on. (This goes for all sides, of course.) I don't think it would be helpful to formally close the workshop for the next week and stop people from posting or responding to proposals, but I hope that any additional input will be of new and useful information or ideas.

Please note that I am not the drafter in this case (at least not as far as I know), and other arbitrators have differing views as to any aspect of the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I've never been a fan of these workshops. I always felt that the discipline of writing up evidence, but otherwise not commenting on a case except for procedural issues, created a helpful cooling-down period. But I accept I'm in a minority, and perhaps a minority of one, in thinking that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Request of Assistance

In some ways, I am a fairly new editor, although my start date was in 2006, I really didn't start messing with Wikipedia until late last year. The reason I mention this, is that getting to know the Wikipedia culture and jargon can be a bit of a task. Occasionally an editor can have negative interactions with admins, and often positive interactions with them as well.

The reason I write you today is regarding what I see as a fundamental issue in Wikipedia with Civility. I've seen your efforts (Casliber and Newyorkbrad) in Wikipedia and from what I can tell you are fair minded and rational when it comes to evaluating situations, so I thought I would bring this to you.

Editor A makes a user page that contains some degree of political statement and essay on politics, which admins discover and say it is WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:SOAPBOX and a violation of BLP. A discussion ensues in MfD which Admin A closes (with some discretion) in favor of deletion. A deletion review occurs, where again, it is closed by Admin B (with some discretion) in favor of continued deletion. A discussion is brought to AN/I regarding these events.

Editor B feels that these admins applied discretion inappropriately and creates a user page called "AdminWatch" listing 4 diffs with the heading "poor admin actions", along with an intro saying that admins need to be held accountable. Before 18 hours have passed, this user page is then speedily deleted without warning by an admin involved in the prior AN/I discussion.

So begins the drama, over whether Editor B created a "shitlist" or is simply documenting administrative actions with an eye toward accountability. The "AdminWatch" page is temporarily undeleted pending a deletion review, after some discussion, this is closed by an admin in favor of keep (because of the contentiousness), who then immediately puts it up for deletion via an MfD.

So essentially we have two camps. Those who unequivocally see this as a "shitlist" and those who feel that recording records of admin actions that we disagree with should be allowed in the spirit of permissible dissent. "AdminWatch" as it stood 18 hours after its creation ( here ) and "AdminWatch" now ( here ), slightly modified to try and excise any perception of personal attack.

Neither version strikes me as bad. But, the greater issue here, in my opinion, is whether an individual editor is allowed to record what they perceive as 'bad' actions done via the admin tools. Several editors say "we have forums and noticeboards for that, it should be enough. Other editors say, if you're recording an overall or chronic pattern, you can't always immediately bring it to those venues.

The editor that began the "AdminWatch" page has been in Wikipedia for 5 years, with a clean history and seems to be generally willing to compromise, so I'm personally puzzled by the hard-edged reactions I've seen, and I would like to find a way to accomodate realistic criticism in Wikipedia without it becoming so contentious. I almost feel that this rises to the level of needing ArbCom intervention. Any suggestions? -- Avanu (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC) (cc'd to Casliber)

But why does the editor want to make a public "AdminWatch" list (rather than keep a private copy of any wanted information)? The answer is obvious: they want to make a POINT. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration decisions often begin with the statement that "the purpose of Wikipedia is to write a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors." This sounds to some like a platitude, but I find it always helpful to remember why we are here.

Does creating a page about "administrator abuse" with a list of names help that mission? To the extent it is part of a recognized dispute-resolution process, or leading up to that, then it might, as dispute-resolution is necessary sometimes. To the extent it is simply venting, I'd say it's less helpful.

It's important to remember that one or a handful of decisions by an administrator that an editor disagrees with, hardly merit the categorization of abuse (a word often thrown around in these contexts) or a history of poor actions. By definition, a lot of decisions we make are going to be disagreed with by someone. So the page really resolves to "these people participated in a decision I disagreed with." If the page is appropriately cleaned up, that's hardly a huge threat to the wiki ... but I don't see it as doing anyone any especial good, either. Therefore, my preference would be if the user who created the page would voluntarily agree to live without it, especially given the level of contentiousness it is obviously causing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, er, yeah, that would be an ideal (Surturz removing it and everyone stepping back), but this is an interesting scenario, no doubt flavoured by one's bigger picture of admins and power differential on wikipedia really. This then gives weight onto the ideal levels of freedom and control for optimum morale. Where does one draw the line between honest criticism (and stifling of same), and polemics or shitlists (and their justifiable removal)? For mine, this version I think veers just just within the border of 'criticism' and away from 'shitlist'...in fact I might cut-and-paste this over there. The discussions with Timeshift are interesting reading too, and require yet more delving (groan) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate both of you taking time to consider this situation and looking beyond the immediate at the larger picture that several of the editors have been concerned about. Do you think there is a templated approach perhaps that would allow everyone to be clear "this isn't a shitlist" without overly influencing people to create lists or ignore other dispute resolution processes? It seems clear to me that there is far too much confusion about exactly where the line is between Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability and Wikipedia:User pages#POLEMIC. Very few times have I had an admin incense me to the point I would even remotely consider such a list, but I can imagine each editor has a different learning or coping style, and simply putting things down in print might help some editors move past it. So I can see the value in a carefully prescribed format for how one can legitimately keep a concern or complaint, where it is made clear to the community at large that this is not intended to be a polar schism, but simply a earnest attempt by the editor to document actions they disagree with. Any thoughts? I'm not certain what the best approach is, and perhaps you have some insight into these situations beyond what I can offer. -- Avanu (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Extraterritoriality

Hey, I was wondering if you could offer your opinion on how extraterritoriality applies to copyright at Commons Village Pump. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 06:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Barelinks}}

Not reasonable First off, thank you for your note--I appreciate your input, even if I disagree with your conclusions. {{Barelinks}} is a maintenance template: all of these go in the article namespace at the top of the page; that is their function. Placing it on talk is contrary to its stated purpose and the practice of all other maintenance templates. Furthermore, the consensus there is that my actions are entirely in line with practice and even helpful. Finally, link rot is not a trifling matter--it directly affects two core content policies (as I argued at length at ANI.) The claim that bare links as references are simply some minor aesthetic problem misses the entire point of WP:LINKROT. I hope I do not come across as too dismissive here, but I'm going to reject your suggestion for several reasons which I think are much more cogent than your argument. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping RfM

You may remember a recent Arbcom decision in which editors were requested to agree on an appropriate name for the article currently at Tree shaping. There has been a careful discussion on the subject, followed by an RfM which was hastily closed as 'No action' by involved administrator SilkTork. Was this what was envisaged by Arbcom? Perhaps you could take a look and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please give me more specific links to the pages you want me to look at, and I will do so in the next couple of days. You might also want to post this request to the arbitrators who wrote the decision, if you haven't already. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the issue is now resolved (although the underlying discussion about what name the Tree shaping article should have is ongoing). An admin closed the request for move, thinking that no RfC had taken place first. However, they then acknowledged the close was a mistake and opened it again. Nothing to see now, but Talk:Tree shaping#Closing admin asked for clarification is an outline. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to keep an eye open. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

evidence

I posted evidence in the BLP case wherein I hoped to establish that a real and substantial problem exists, giving examples of what I consider to be "scruplelessness" behaviour on BLPs and an indication that people were rewarded for such behaviour. One party, however, states that it contains no proof of "violations of policy." I am quite tempted to add material linking specific editors with specific actual violations of policy, but am faced with a dilemma - so doing would remove my general claim of a problem, and so doing would seem to run afoul of what I understood this case to be about - a general problem regarding BLPs. Am I correct that in the Workshop phase such additional limited material would not be weighed against my 500 word limit - that is, the additional material would simply be in the workshop phase? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a dilemma in deciding what evidence should be presented in this case—and it's similar to the dilemma that I am going to face in drafting a proposed decision for it. Frankly, as a number of the parties and commenters have observed since the outset, this case does not have as well-defined a scope as most other cases.

In that light, you should probably present whatever evidence you feel reasonably appropriate and relevant to the subject of the case, for the purpose of demonstrating the nature, extent, and severity of BLP problems relevant to the case. Having said that, it may turn out that the decision winds up being more about general principles than about specific violations. I don't want you to feel that you were misled or that you shouldn't have spent your time compiling and posting the evidence if that turns out to be the case.

To your last question, workshop proposals are not subject to the length limitations on the evidence page, although they should still be kept to a reasonable length.

I hope this is helpful, and am sorry it was not more so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your answer was quite akin to what my interpretation was (that is, it is more about principles than about individual violations). I, in fact, hope and trust that the committee understands that this is not a "content dispute" issue, but one of fundamental importance to Wikipedia, and that there it would be good if the committee strengthens and expands the scope of the principles used in the past (although I would likely suggest a series of brief principles to prevent the "on the other hand" type of reasoning). m Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

SPI & Falkland Islands discussion help request

Hi, thank you for your response in Iridescent's talk page. I'm reposting my request for assistance here.

The SPI page's content defending yourself suggests talking to an Arbitrator for help. The Falkland Islands talk page is out of control due to a group of editors whose failure to discuss and [WP:AGF] has apparently pushed several users completely out of the discussion or into anonymous IPs. I am suspected of being one of them and User Nightw started an SPI investigation against me. Clerk has declined CI request and yet this SPI remains opens, although nothing has been posted for three days.

Meanwhile, discussion at the page with end to make changes continues to be blocked, with all changes reverted. A [WP:ANI] request went nowhere because it was suspected to be from a sockpuppet. A previous WP:ANI incident went nowhere. I've also taken this to WP:WQA where an admin said a resolution there is not likely. On the issue of sources, WP:RSN goes nowhere either. The article has been to WP:MEDCAB a few years ago with no resolution then. And it's been to ARBCOM where it was declined in favor of RfC and lower forums. Always the same users, always the same antics.

It doesn't look like outside editors are responding to WP:RFC requests and no forum wants to touch this, everyone treats it like a hot potatoe. Personal attacks, violations of WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:GAMES, WP:IRS, etc all continue. Agreeing with another editor becomes WP:BEANS. Notifying editors of proceedings becomes WP:CANVASS, but if a notification is delayed they'll accuse you of not following procedure. This article needs admin involvement immediately and I and other editors who are screaming for it can't get it. In the meantime the ongoing and apparently stalled SPI against me seems to cast doubt on any dispute resolution measure.

Please help. Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my userpage?

What was on it, i forgot...Jarceus (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The better question is not "why did I delete your userpage," but "why didn't I block you indefinitely as a vandalism-only, troll account at the time I was deleting your userpage?" Since it appears that your plan is to pick up where you left off, I have rectified this omission.

For the benefit of any talkpage watchers who may be curious, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jarceus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 16:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Osbert─╢ 16:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Availability note

I'm on an out-of-town trip for the weekend and will have limited availability until Monday afternoon. At that time, I'll be giving priority attention to the BLP arbitration case, as well as responding to those who have posted above and I have not yet gotten back to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs/Workshop#General_comment.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if all the Arbs have taken August vacation? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple have, actually. No such luck here, though. I'm working through the case, finishing up my review of the evidence and proposals. More soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Manipulation of BLPs" proposed decision

The proposed decision is now posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Proposed decision. I refer anyone interested to my comments at the bottom of that page, in addition to the decision itself.

To the extent that editors may have comments on the proposed decision—and I'm sure many of you will—I ask that you post them on the talkpage of the decision rather than on this page, so that all the arbitrators and parties will have a chance to see them. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize for the comment on User:McAusten's talk page. I didn't mean to be a distraction. Cheers! 132.3.33.68 (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. What you wrote normally wouldn't have been a problem. Lightheartedness is a virtue around here sometimes (I've contributed more than my share of it, such as the month I posted all of my RfA supports in verse), and I appreciated your deadpan response to Avanu's comment. However, McAusten is probably on the cusp of an indefinite block if he does not address the concerns that have been raised, and I wanted to maximize the chances that he would respond to those concerns seriously. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)