User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/May

You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon!

Please join us for the second Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon! This event will focus on Smithsonian history including the history of the Institution's museums, archives, research centers and the people behind them. This will be a great opportunity to learn about the Archives, work within them & with staff, and learn more about the world's largest museum complex. We hope you'll join us on Friday, May 25. Please sign up here! Sarah (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Note: You received this message because you were listed here. If you no longer wish to receive messages of this nature, please remove yourself from that list.

Hi again!

I don't seem to have heard anything back from you (regarding our email), did it kinda slide off your to-do list? -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Legal question involved in request to edit protected page

I am not a lawyer, but there is a request to edit a protected page at Talk:Scientology#Edit request on 25 May 2012 which seems to at least my eyes to involve some details of legal phrasing. I think someone who might know the law a bit better than I do, like maybe you, might be in a better position to decide whether the material presented is sufficient to make the requested edit in the protected article.

Sorry for bothering you like this, but I do think this matter might involve some real expertise in the law. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Echigo mole again

A sockpuppet account Jello carotids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has already been blocked for trolling on the WP:AN thread that another user opened on Echigo mole has been blocked as "sock troll" by FPaS. He also opened a SPI report on me similar to that of a previously blocked sockpuppet of Echigo mole, having located legitimate alternative accounts, used either for collecting information on the use of vodafone IPs for socking or collecting large numbers of rough diffs as a preliminary to submitting evidence on arbcom pages. Jclemens has not run a checkuser on the blocked account Jello carotids. Instead he is suggesting that my collapsing on AN and reversion there and elsewhere, which are similar to those of mutliple other users, are a sign of battleground behaviour. He has restored the SPI report on me deleted by FPaS. On 29 March, Southend sofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a similar report which was dismissed by several administrators as without merit. Southend sofa, because of a set of anomolies in their editing related to other sockpuppet accounts of Echigo mole, was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole 2 weeks later by DeltaQuad. When the SPI report on me was listed, one of the alternative accounts in use for the arbcom review was listed and all the raw diff files were present. 3 days later, since the rough diffs were still needed, I coalesced the rough diffs into one file in a new account that was reported by Jello carotids, identically to Southend sofa. Jclemens seems to be militating to change the way serial wikihounders whose sockpuppetry shouts out through a megaphone are treated. He seems to be doing this in only one specific case, where he favours the sockpuppet, known for continued harrassment and wikihounding of an established user for 3 years, to the detriment of that established user. Please could you take a look at the SPI report on me (a declared account) and the two outstanding reports on Echigo mole. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tornadoisme

Thanks for taking the initiative and speedy deleting Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tornadoisme. I have often wished we had a speedy deletion criteria for sheer foolishness and stupidity. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the procedure here?

Hi Newyorkbrad, I'm somewhat unclear what the procedure is here[1]. As a named party, am I expected to make a statement now, or after the committee has decided on the merits of the case? And what nature of statements are recommended? Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 15:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You may submit a statement now (up to about 500 words) which should focus on whether it would be useful for the Arbitration Committee to open a case. If the case is accepted, you (and everyone else) would then have a more complete opportunity to submit relevant evidence and information on the case page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)