User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Nov

Update

I am just getting back onto Wikipedia after a couple of days when I was affected by the storm. I will address all the messages above and other pending matters during the course of the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, hope the storm did not affect you too much. I'd like to thank you for your wiseness about the WikiAfrica page. It is my understanding that en.wiki lately discussed the deletion of another major project, Gibraltarpedia. As a matter of fact, it is still here, and in good company. So I will be ok when there is a clear policy for each glam project to be moved away from here, but that did not really seem the place to discuss whether such a rule exists or should be implemented. :) --Elitre (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Question for my TPWs

Is there a way to quickly add to one's watchlist all the articles or pages in a category, as opposed to clicking "watch" on each article in the category? Thanks! Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You could copy and paste a list to a text editor, and then use the plain text list to add to your raw watchlist. --Rschen7754 00:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom time commitment?

Hi. About how much time (hours per week) do you or other arbs typically spend on ArbCom business? I've been thinking about running, but I'm a bit concerned about the time commitment and want to make sure I wouldn't be biting off more than I can chew. — Richwales 01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk page watcher response from another arbitrator: The amount of time spent by individual arbitrators varies quite widely from a couple of hours a week to 20+ hours a week. This is dependent on a lot of factors: the minimum is case requests/cases/clarifications and amendments; and additional tasks include ban/block reviews, Audit subcommittee, case drafting, management of advanced permission request cycles and monitoring of advanced permission usage, mailing list administration, observation of arbitration enforcement requests, special assignments, and just being generally available for advice. There is pretty much the expectation that everyone will take at least a turn at some of the 'additional' tasks. I'm probably at the high end of the spectrum because I pick up a lot of the additional tasks; others I know will average out to about 4-5 hours a week with some weeks much lower and other weeks higher depending on case load. I personally encourage anyone who believes they have something to contribute to dispute resolution to run. I wrote a little FAQ a couple of years ago, that I see could be updated a bit, that might give a bit of a taste. Risker (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Risker has given pretty much the same general response to this question that I would have. I also recommend this Signpost article and this one for some additional background. The bottom line is that it's a significant time commitment, but there is enough flexibility built into the system with 15 arbitrators such that it should be possible for most people to balance being an arbitrator with their other commitments both on- and off-wiki. Good luck if you decide to run! Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

RFAR response

I personally have been finding other things to do, but NuclearWarfare's conduct as a named party and WP:INVOLVED admin is way over the line, in my opinion, and left me feeling compelled to speak up. Do you honestly believe NW's conduct is appropriate?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to have any effect on the outcome of the request. Beyond that observation, I haven't analyzed his actions. I see that he is listed as an "involved party," but other than that, he wasn't mentioned anywhere on the case page until today, so he may not have considered himself meaningfully involved, and we have very few active clerks right now. Whether NuclearWarfare should recuse as a clerk in this case, as you suggest, will become a moot issue if the case is soon closed as declined. If the case is accepted, he (or if necessary we) can address the question at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

He was mentioned obliquely. NuclearWarfare had called for me to be blocked at the AE case that prompted the interaction ban and Cla68 already mentioned NW's suggestion of blocking me in his RFAR. I don't think NW could reasonably construe himself to not be meaningfully involved when it comes to administrative action against me arising out of that case. My comment at the case page explains the significance of the comment that was brought up at NW's talk. I could provide the evidence Zeromus provided as it directly concerned my prior interactions with Mathsci, but I would prefer if the diffs he provided would just be allowed to remain up.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I don't know what I'm supposed to do when I'm given contradictory instructions by two different admins. NuclearWarfare told me to ask the arbitration committee for permission to reply to Mathsci's accusations about me. I asked SilkTork, but he archived my question without answering it, so I assume the way to follow NW's instructions is to ask at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Now you've told me to go do something else, which contradicts the instructions I was given by NuclearWarfare. I can disregard your instructions to follow NuclearWarfare's instructions, or I can disregard NW's instructions to follow yours, but I think either way I'll be accused of disobeying the instructions I was given. Zeromus1 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything you might want to add is going to change the result of the request either. If it weren't for the possibility that an arbitrator may propose a motion (although I don't think a motion is needed), the request would have been archived a day ago, rendering moot the question of who should post what to it. Of course, if a motion is proposed, you will be free to comment on the motion if it impacts upon you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain your perspective that what I had to say is unimportant? I tried to bring up the fact that basically the same issue has been brought before ArbCom an average of once every four months for the past two years, and part of why it keeps coming back to ArbCom is because the committee has never tried to address the root problem with a big-picture perspective. I had hoped my pointing this out would make the committee less likely to just push the issue away again for another few months. Is your view that my bringing this up won't change anything because the committee will probably do that no matter what? Zeromus1 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No arbitrator, administrator or editor in good standing has ever suggested on an arbcom page that I have been the main person responsible for the site bans of Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, Ludwigs2, TrevelyanL85A2, etc. It is true that I have been one of the main users identifying sockpuppets of banned users that have subsequently been indefinitely blocked (e.g. Krod Mandoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Perhaps the confusion comes from there. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Zeromus1, fine, go ahead and post your comments and we will see whether they add anything. I had hoped that the point I was making would come through loud and clear, but it will be easier to read your comments and evaluate them on their merits rather than proceed in any other fashion. Mathsci, you do not need to feel compelled to respond to every comment that is posted, particularly when your points are largely duplicative of ones you have already made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement by Zeromus1—that I was responsible for driving various editors from wikipedia—was new (at least from him). It resulted in NW collapsing Zeromus1's statement and in Future Perfect at Sunrise issuing a warning. Following your advice (always welcome!) I will not respond to any similar statements from either Zeromus1 or The Devil's Advocate. I hope that like NW and FPaS, you will have the chance to look through the recent comments that Zeromus1 has now uncollapsed. Mathsci (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

For increased readability, I have replaced my comments on the RfAr page by a very brief summary of the main points that have emerged so far. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbradblog

The first few posts on my wiki-blog are going up tonight and tomorrow. All of you who are tired of my self-important yammerings should certainly avoid visiting User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog and reading my ruminations about:

• The future of the Arbitration Committee and its role in dispute resolution
• On having an article deleted
• Help pick Newyorkbrad's FA project

... and more to come

For those who have built up greater tolerance for Bradspeak, please read and feel free to comment on the posts. If there's any interest level at all, I will continue writing these mini-essays semi-sporadically. (For my less learned TPWs, that means twice every sporad.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"All of you are tired of my self-important yammerings should certainly avoid visiting User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog and reading my ruminations"

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.40.66.86 (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, I suppose. It called to my attention an annoying typo in my message above (the omission of "who"), which I have fixed. Beyond that, if we ever implement that suggestion someone made to repeal the civility policy, why don't you return to this page then and I'll share some thoughts with you about your message. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch on the typo. Here I was thinking all of Mikemikev's contributions were completely useless. Well, guess you know what they say about blind squirrels and nuts. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your FA project

My suggestion for a supreme judge to write about would be William J. Brennan, Jr., an important judge. The current article is somewhat short and probably lacking quite a lot. As long as you have several options I don´t think it would be the best idea to choose some of the least important judges on the court. It just seems logical for me that an important topic should be covered better than a less important one. The latter ones don´t really need more than good articles, imho. Good luck in your writing whatever you choose. Regards Iselilja (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be travelling with limited online time and availability until this Saturday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Trails! — Cirt (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Iantresman

I will note that Iantresman's first edit of a physics related talk page is to try and insert a fringe book on plasma universe into a general physics article here Talk:Dusty_plasma#Reference_restoration. This is why I think the topic ban removal was a bad idea. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As you know, I voted against lifting the topic-ban in toto, although I might have supported a narrower lifting or temporary suspension of the ban. Given that the motion passed, my hope is that Iantresman keep to his promise of editing within policy this time around. I'm not going to look at or comment on the specifics of the edit you cite at this time, to avoid seeming to have prejudged the situation if this issue were to come before the Arbitration Committee again. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Beatles ping

Hi Newyorkbrad. The poll at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles has finished, and despite the media coverage discussion has died down (or moved on to user talk pages). I understand that a few weeks ago you agreed to be the closer - would you mind taking a look at it when you next have a spare moment? Your help will be much appreciated. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've been reviewing the comments on the RfC/poll, and expect to post the close analysis and result within the next couple of days. Where would be the best place for me to post it to make sure everyone sees it? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Just post it right at the top of the poll page, and then move the {{archive top}} template so that everything is archived. You can replace Feezo's message at the top with your closing comments too, if you want. Don't worry too much about how it looks, though, as we can always fiddle with the formatting later. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I expect to post this close either tomorrow (Wednesday) night or Thursday night. My thanks to all those waiting patiently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Has the Rfc/poll close analysis and result been posted? Have I missed it? Regards, Mick gold (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I got waylaid for a day or two, and then I was offline a few days because of the storm in my area. I expect to deal with this tonight, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Priorities Brad - you take care of yourself and your friends and family first and foremost. This can wait. Hope you didn't get hit too hard - we're ok up here, but our house is not. Don't know if the rest of the country can really see how bad this storm was, but New York will come back. Tvoz/talk 17:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all aspects of your comment. But I was able to finish my analysis and drafting tonight, and the close is now posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done NYB! I am quite glad to know that you are well and I am also very glad that this mediation is now over. You did a really great job with your closure (big surprise ... lol), its balanced and focused, and it highlights the key points without getting bogged down in too much detail. Now that this embarrasing, and resource wasting chapter is behind us, I look forward to improving Beatles related articles without the hinderance of the dispute. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Actually, "not getting bogged down in too much detail" was one of the hard parts, especially for me. The first draft of the closure was three times as long as what wound up getting posted, and I delayed from last night to tonight in order to cut it to something of reasonable length. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the closure is succinct yet informative, which is not an easy accomplishment. I am particularly impressed with the way you were able to avoid, indeed you discredited the idea that one side was right while the other was wrong. A nicely delivered piece of diplomacy that will no doubt contribute to the speedy recovery of the community of Beatles editors stressed by the mediation, and in moving forward from this episode in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks again, I'm glad to know that you made it through Sandy; we are all "pulling for" your region. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There is some discussion at the mediation page about the intent of your caveats. I hope you can find the time to stop by and clarify your positon on a few key points. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I know you are busy, but we could use some clarification on your caveats before the 13 November deadline, the sooner the better. Thanks! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion. - Perhaps, if you are too busy this week due to RL and you cannot find the time to discuss the Beatles closure, you would consider extending the 13 November deadline for discussion until such date that you can explain and clarify a few key points with the parties to the mediation. Thanks! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll be home tomorrow and will take a look at the discussion over the weekend. If another couple of days for discussion are needed, that should not be an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Request

• WP:RRA

Hi. I'd like to ask your thoughts on WP:RRA. And I would look forward to discussing it with you. (I'm seriously considering starting this as an RfC in the near future, and am looking for others' thoughts before I go "live" with that.)

That said, if (for some reason) you think it would be inappropriate to discuss it as you're a sitting arb, just let me know. - jc37 20:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Will comment after I get home (see above). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, looking forward to it : ) - jc37 20:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

New article: Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

• Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

New article, created, at Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Newyorkbrad, I hope you're doing well! :) I'd love to hear your thoughts on this new article I've created? — Cirt (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well, no worries, either way. :) Feel free to let me know about that and/or if you choose to embark on quality improvement of the article Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., post to my user talk page and I'd love to help out. :) — Cirt (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look at this when I get home. My session in the hotel business center expires in 4 minutes.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay, whenever you get a chance just drop me a note at my user talk page if you're interested, by the way, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate has been successfully reviewed passed and promoted to WP:GA level of quality status. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a good article (no pun intended). I don't have any immediate thoughts on improving it, but I may do some copyediting.

Coincidentally, this weekend I was reading Minnesota Rag by Fred Friendly. I recommend the book to you and other freedom-of-speech project members, both as interesting reading and for potential use in your editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My comments on the Arbcom case

I noticed your comments and wanted to clarify. I agree that suggestion is outside the scope of Arbcom and unlikely to gain consensus (much like virtually any other change these days). I just generally think that case is blown out of proportion and is a waste of a lot of time. Kumioko (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Beatles "avoid-dance" question

A likely hypothetical: What would we do with this passage, from the Beatles:

From 1965 on, the Beatles produced what many critics consider their finest material.

... if say, two or three editors wanted "the Beatles" and two or three wanted "they"? Now multiply that by 4,000+, that's what the "avoid-dance" caveat will encourage, I know, that's why I'm having this discussion with you now. Shall we be expected to hold polls on the talk page per instance, or file 3RR reports weekly? I want to support your closure, but I'm not sure you understand the implications of those caveats, particularly the third, about which you cannot say there is a community consensus for at all. I'm confused why you would throw a bone to the smallest faction (3 editors) in the whole community? More people supported a context based "solution". Why endorse an option expressly dismissed by our mediators? Please explain. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• In case you missed it at the mediation page, I'm fine with the mediation ending on 13 November as you originally said in your closure. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The hidden context of incivility on Wikipedia and ARBMAC

Hi NYB. This is not forum-shopping. I am not expecting a better outcome by coming to your talkpage. The discussion at ANI is finished and I am done with it. Consider this my input regarding the civility debate on Wikipedia as well as on the competence of admins who handle hot-button issues like WP:ARBMAC. I will not bother you with a long diatribe on the details of the case but if you are interested you can look up the conversation that started it all on my talk. What concerns me is that Toddst1 admitted on my talk that he had performed many blocks regarding WP:ARBMAC. To my direct question, included in the link I gave you, he replied to me: Indeed. I've issued a large number of the blocks logged there. It appears your answer to my question is no. Toddst1 (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Yet he didn't know that FYROM has been disallowed from use on Wikipedia. I am asking you as an arb, to look into this because how can one issue blocks on an area they are not familiar with. As you know FYROM is the centrepiece and poster-child of ARBMAC and it chronically plagues Greece-related articles. What followed after this exchange was an experience best described as brutal. As bad, or perhaps worse, than any incivility I have suffered through my six and a half years on this project. Toddst1 revoked my rollback privilege and logged the revocation in the ARBMAC logs within minutes of our exchange, cutting the conversation short, and without enquiring about any further details from me about ARBMAC. He reversed his actions after an ANI report but not before scarring my rights log permanently by "cautioning" me, in the edit summary, not to use rollback in non-vandalism cases, although clear-cut cases, such as FYROM, are also exempted in rollback use. Characteristically, if you check the link I provided, Toddst1's replies to me are curt and unintelligible and come across, to me at least, as menacing. This is incivility at its worst. Coupled with a rude and unneeded message about edit-warring from a self-declared ARBMAC specialist for reverting FYROM and you get the picture of incompetence. Apart from the incivility and the incompetence what concerns me even more is that due to this incompetence my user rights log forever bears the scars of that incompetence. It appears that admins are like gods in this virtual world. Even when ignorant or incompetent they still can inflict permanent damage on the avatars of the mere plebs. This is the crux of the hidden context of incivility on Wikipedia. The power differential which can be abused to permanently and irreversibly scar the powerless. Thank you for your hospitality here. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted not to respond to this but saying I'm a "self-declared ARBMAC specialist" which you've said twice is really misstating things: To my enquiry about your edit warring on Greece you replied "Have you seen WP:ARBMAC?" My reply was "Indeed. I've issued a large number of the blocks logged there." That doesn't mean I'm a specialist. That doesn't mean I'm aware of every nuance of derivative pages such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). That means I've waded in to a septic area quite a few times and in good faith, put an end to quite a few messes.

No admin is perfect. In this case, I was unaware of the 1RR exemption to fixing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) and when someone else finally pointed me to that, I quickly fixed my mistake.

To say Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) is "the centrepiece and poster-child of ARBMAC" is again mischaracterizing the issue which is vastly broader and far more complex than that. Could I have known about that aspect of the naming convention? You bet. We make mistakes with the best of intent. Once someone finally pointed me to that, I quickly fixed the situation. Did you have the opportunity to point that out? Yes! And it would have prevented this entire fiasco. Instead, referring to ARBMAC in general, calling it an "elephant in the room" when I mentioned your edit war was exactly why I took the action I did. It looked like a classic ARBMAC edit war and all you did was confirm it.

Your continued refusal to accept any responsibility for better (more forthcoming and accurate) communication here is exactly why I left those comments.

Let's learn from this and move along. Toddst1 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And let's spare Brad the tap-dancing on his talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That is for him to decide not you. And admin competence issues relating to Arbcom enforcement is not tap dancing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

When you told me that you issued a large number of blocks relating to ARBMAC you will have to excuse me for thinking of you as an ARBMAC specialist. A non-specialist, not knowing the ARBMAC rulings, would not have the knowledge to issue them in the first place. Also, if as you say that ARBMAC is is vastly broader and far more complex than that and you admit that you did not know all of ARBMAC's aspects why did you undertake enforcement action against me if you were not in possession of all the facts? I called ARBMAC the "elephant in the room" because I knew that ARBMAC had explicitly disallowed the use of FYROM. Instead of asking me to clarify what I meant by the "elephant in the room" expression and assuming good-faith on my part you summarily proceeded to blemish my record by taking this ill-informed action against me. You acted at a great speed in an area where you admit was "complex and vast" and you turned your admin tools against me without giving me a second chance. Your replies to me were curt and menacing. I asked you on my talk, point-blank:

So you mean it is acceptable :#To use the name FYROM in articles despite the Arbcom decision to the contrary.#Issue warnings for performing arbcom-decision abiding edits to editors even after two reverts.

Indicating to you that my actions were compliant with Arbcom and giving you in vain hints that you could look up, knowing full well from the threatening tenor of your replies that my time was up and something bad was going to happen. You can imagine how unpleasant it felt at the time, but perhaps you cannot because you have all the guns and I only have my keyboard. Did you investigate further? Of course not. By that time your thumb was already on the trigger of your admin tools. And you gave me the curt response:

No, I don't. I mean what I said. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that reply of yours was communicative? That was the last communication from you before the hammer fell on me.

You also keep misrepresenting the fact that I did not remember the exact ARBCOM2 link as indicating poor communication on my part. I simply did not remember the correct link to show you but I quoted to you the right information. Wikipedia is not a cult. One should not have to give exactly the right incantation in order to survive. You also never gave me any time to go find the exact ARBMAC2 for you. Why did you not consider the possibility that like you, I did not recall the exact link? Is this how complex Arbcom decisions are going to be enforced going forward? By trigger-happy, ill-informed admins who give no second chances to the powerless editors? If you don't know FYROM, it is simple: Don't take admin action on FYROM-related matters or ask someone like Future Perfect at Sunrise, a specialist on ARBMAC-Greece. Don't use powerful tools like your admin tools on hapless editors and then blame the victim for being non-communicative. Especially since the victim was also defending Arbcom decisions and upholding them. The onus is upon you when you take administrative action on Arbcom-related matters to know all the facts before you shoot. I didn't know I had to tell you that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And when you say: No admin is perfect. In this case, I was unaware of the 1RR exemption to fixing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) and when someone else finally pointed me to that, I quickly fixed my mistake.; this is not completely true. You did not remove your caution from my rights log. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a quick look at the edits you both cite after I get home (see above). I'm not sure whether I'll be able to say or do anything helpful at that time, but at least I'll be able to see what is going on. Regards to both of you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you NYB. I also add here this ANI permalink Request for administrative review of Toddst1's actions toward user:Dr.K. which includes my reply to Ed Johnson. Subsequently I removed my reply to Ed because I had promised Lothar that I was not going to add anything more that night. I also added a link to my user rights log in my comment above. I leave the rest to you. Regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Try this permalink to the ANI discussion. It is more complete. Toddst1 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That is fine, but I want to clarify that my permalink includes my reply to Ed Johnson and that subsequent permalinks do not include it because I removed it due to a promise I had made to Lothar. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And I just saw this little gem: We make mistakes with the best of intent. Once someone finally pointed me to that, I quickly fixed the situation. Did you have the opportunity to point that out? Yes! Let's analyse this a little further: We make mistakes with the best of intent. What best intent? To sanction a senior editor with over 6.5 years of excellent Wikipedia service and record as soon as possible? Did you have the opportunity to point that out? Yes! I like the exclamation mark at the end of Yes. I guess you answered your rhetorical question for yourself. You did not even give me the chance to give my reply. Exactly the same way that you never gave me enough time to find the link to ARBMAC2: 30 minutes past the hour you come to my talkpage with your misguided warning of 3RR, eighteen minutes later you revoke my rollback. Counting the time I had to to formulate several replies on my talk and your talk (including the famous "elephant in the room" reply etc.), and given that I am not a fast typist, how much time left, from those eighteen minutes, did I have to research to find the correct ARBMAC2 link and provide the right incantation to appease the hungry "gods"? Zero, 0, Nada, Μηδέν. Sanctioning made as easy as shooting fish in barrel. During our limited discussion in those eighteen minutes and in your rush to judgement you miscounted the times I used my WP:ROLLBACK: makes 3, all using your rollback privilege.. What happened that night? You could not even differentiate between Rollback using TW and one, 1, only occurrence of WP:ROLLBACK? This edit accusing me falsely of using WP:ROLLBACK happened at :46 past the hour. At :48 past the hour, two minutes later, you revoked my rollback privilege. Did you act on the false information of the 3 WP:ROLLBACKs to revoke my privilege? If so your revocation of my rollback privilege based on your false assumption of 3 (three) instead of the single actual occurrence is even more gratuitous and galling. Yes you did! At :55 past the hour you tried to hide it, after I told you so on my talk at :52 past the hour, four minutes after you already had revoked my rollback privilege. Why did you never reveal this fact? At ANI Nobody Ent told you: Revoking of privileges should be for abusing them, not disagreeing with admin. Toddst1 warned Dr. K. at 19:30; Dr. K. made no further edits to Greece after the warning. While I concur with Toddst1 that Dr. K. was edit warring, the removal of rollback seems unreasonable. Nobody Ent 01:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Why did you not set the record straight after Nobody Ent's question at ANI? Why after removing my rollback privilege on the wrong information of three times of abuse, you did not correct your actions when I told you it was only one time? Obviously, just for one time, you cannot just remove the rollback privilege without warning and without threat of edit-warring imminent. There was no danger of further edit-warring on Greece. The FYROM-promoting user was already blocked by you since :24 past the hour, 6 minutes before you gave me the 3RR warning (at :30 minutes past the hour). This is of course not counting the fact that Arbcom decisions on FYROM are clear-cut cases and thus rollback is allowed. Of course having to reply to your false 3RR allegation I wasted more time from the eighteen-minutes countdown to my sanctions. And why did you rush to log me at ARBMAC logs at :53 past the hour when you already knew, (I had told you at :52 past the hour), that I only used one not three WP:ROLLBACKs? What makes all this feast of admin misconduct even worse is your disingenuous attempt to shift the blame on me and not wanting to repair the damage you made to my user-rights log or apologise. However I am not going to pass judgment on you as an admin or ask you to resign. I am not into power politics. I will let you be and I expect you do the same for me going forward. Brad, it is up to you if you don't want to comment on this prime example of utter discourtesy, incivility, ignorance, power abuse and incompetent Arbcom sanction enforcement but my duty as a Wikipedian is to point all this abuse to you. But whatever you choose to do please try to make Wikipedia's editing environment more predictable, humane and civil and less prone to capricious outbursts of admin power abuse. Also try to clean up the qualifications of admins involved in Arbcom enforcement. I know it is a tall order but you are a high official. :) I would also really appreciate if you could possibly arrange to mitigate the "caution" remark on my user rights log given that the original removal of the rollback privilege was based on wrong counting, as the evidence above shows. Why somehow do I trust that you know a bit how to handle evidence? Just a hunch, I guess. :) Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to read through this situation so I can offer some useful comments, but Dr. K, the way in which you have formatted what you've typed is unfortunately a little bit hard for me to follow. My apologies, but if this is still important to you (which I assume it is) would it be possible for you to re-state your specific concern in shorter paragraphs and with the chronology a little more clear (the order above seems to skip around a bit).

As a general statement, all editors should treat each other with courtesy. That applies to both non-admin editors and to administrators, even (to the extent possible) when they are giving warnings or applying sanctions. On the other hand, using phrases like "feast of admin misconduct" isn't especially helpful either, even when one feels that one has been mistreated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Brad, Let me try to summarize if you have the patience:

• Following this AIV report filed by Dr.K., I blocked Kupraios (talk · contribs) edit warring on Greece.
• A read through these brief sections, User_talk:Dr.K.#Edit_warring and the section that follows it User_talk:Dr.K.#Rollbacker_revoked gives you the rest of the background.
• As a result of me removing his rollback, Dr. K. opened a discussion on ANI, archived here where I was made aware of a naming convention related to ARBMAC and I restored rollback, with a caution.
• As I understand it, Dr.K. doesn't like the ANI closing summary or the caution in his/her permissions log.

That's really all there is. Toddst1 (talk)

Your statement: As I understand it, Dr.K. doesn't like the ANI closing summary is wrong. Nowhere did I mention anything about disliking the closing summary at ANI. As far as your comment about your "caution" on my rights log, out of respect for Brad, I will not respond to it. I am also certain that he can judge for himself. It is also curious you replied to Brad, although Brad was clearly asking me about putting my comments in chronological order. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@Brad: Thank you Brad for your comments. I know how busy you are and I appreciate your attention on this matter. I apologise for making my previous comments long and I hope my current ones are better in the length department. I accept your good-faith criticism of some of my stronger comments. It was simply the frustration of knowing that whatever happened to me could never have happened to a more privileged user with more userrights, but I do understand and value the spirit of your comments which I respect. For the sake of brevity I will not repeat my arguments about the behavioral and civility-related aspects of this case. Instead I will try to establish a chronology of events as succinctly as possible involving the main points of my rollback revocation, as this is the last remaining visible point of conflict, the ARBMAC2 component having been adequately clarified.

1. The admin involved miscounted the times I used my WP:ROLLBACK. Here is the diff and excerpt of his comment at :46 past the hour: makes 3, all using your rollback privilege.. I only used WP:ROLLBACK once. I first used TW AGF rollback, then WP:ROLLBACK and after that one more TW rollback with edit summary. But, for reasons unknown, the admin did not count correctly and as it is shown by the link above he accuses me of using my rollback privilege three times. (I submit also the link for the first of my reverts on Greece using the AGF rollback of TW, which I provide to you as a sample just in case you want to see my reverts first hand).
2. Two minutes later at :48 past the hour, he revoked my rollback privilege, based on his false assumption of 3 (three) instead of the single actual occurrence of WP:ROLLBACK. At :55 past the hour he tried to obscure the fact that he miscounted the number of rollbacks, after I told him on my talk at :52 past the hour, four minutes after he already had revoked my rollback privilege, that not all of my rollbacks were WP:ROLLBACKS.
3. Even though I had already told him about the number of rollbacks he logged me at ARBMAC logs at :53 past the hour when he already knew, (I had told him at :52 past the hour), that I only used one not three WP:ROLLBACKs.
4. After he understood from the feedback he got at ANI that I was acting properly under ARBMAC2 he altered the ARBMAC logs and restored my rollback but with a heavy-handed and unnecessary "caution" on my rights log not to use rollback for non-vandalism This "caution" was not necessary since by that time he knew that Arbcom cases like FYROM constitute clear-cut cases where WP:ROLLBACK is allowed and in any case he should not have revoked my rollback privilege in the first place for a single actual occurrence and without a warning.
5. I think it is a matter of record that I only used WP:ROLLBACK only once and in a clear-cut case allowed under WP:ROLLBACK. The admin in question made two errors: First he miscounted the times I used WP:ROLLBACK and sanctioned me based on that wrong information. Second, he sanctioned me also because of his lack of knowledge about ARBMAC2. Despite these mistakes he still refuses to undo his caution on my rights log. If this is rectified I will consider this matter closed. I am not one to pursue long conflicts. But, if his log entry is not rectified, this will serve as a permanent reminder to me that no matter how ill-informed and proven wrong an admin action may be, it can still sully the record of an editor. I am asking for your help in rectifying this. I think that the removal of my rollback was heavy-handed and unnecessary and also based on the wrong information due to wrong counting and lack of information about ARBMAC2. Let's forget about any other questions such as why did the admin miscount the number of WP:ROLLBACKS and what does that say about the skill of his investigation and actions etc., or why he rushed to log Arbcom-sanctions in an area where he did not have full knowledge of. Therefore, it is only fair, imho, that my rights log record be reverted to its state prior to the rollback revocation. That means removing the "caution". Thank you again for your time and hospitality here. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Narrow block (ban) rather than full site

I'm kinda intrigued by this idea, not that I haven't seen it before. (In short, so you don't have to read the link - blocked from the page or from the topic area rather than blocked outright.) As I understand it, this is a technical limitation, as the software doesn't allow such a block. We would have to get consensus and get a software change. It occurs to me that one crude, but possibly effective solution would be to use the category structure - if you are edit warring, and a block is warranted, the first block affects Article X and all articles in all the categories in Article X (subject to a size limitation, so for example you shouldn't be blocked from every article in Living People if Article X is about a living person). Use the categories at the time of the block (to avoid gaming system). I honestly don't know whether a person edit warring on Article X will contribute productively elsewhere if you know that are allowed to contribute elsewhere, but it is worth a try.

However, it is not fair to ask for a change to the software to implement an idea that might fail, so maybe, as an experiment, one could try a ban. While bans are usually a big deal, if presented as an alternative to a short block, imagine telling the editor they are not allowed to edit any article in any of the categories of Article X for n days. If they screw up, a block, which covers everything, will follow. That's an experiment that could be done without changing the software. Just to clarify, while bans usallly require community consensus, I'm proposing that a narrowly targeted, and short timed topic ban could be handed out in the sole discretion of an admin. It is less punishing than a block, so it shouldn't require more bureaucracy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noting my comment and sharing your thoughts. I agree with you that no technical change is necessary in order to implement this proposal. In the instances over the years in which I've said to an editor caught up in an edit-war "in lieu of my deciding whether to block you, will you agree not to edit Article X or Topic Y for 24-48-72 hours" and they've said yes, the editor has kept his or her promise. And if (for example) an AN3 report were closed with "Editor A instructed not to edit Article A for 24 hours" in lieu of "Editor A blocked for 24 hours, and then Editor A disgarded the instruction and edited A again, the other party to the AN3 report would be complaining about back on AN3 so quickly it would make one's head spin, and a block would follow. I think it's worth trying more widely, anyhow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Massive deletions and tagging

Dear Newyorkbrad, I have a devastating problem. An editor named Qworty is systematically deleting, merging, or challenging the notability of every article I have written or heavily edited over the past 6 years. Whole sections of references are being deleted, including bibliographies with publishers, publishing dates and ISBN numbers, as "unsourced". Then large portions, sometimes almost ALL the text is deleted as unsourced, then the article is deleted or marked for deletion as non-notable. Two articles were merged with less than half an hour posting of the proposal, eliminating an article about a 30 year old organization with 26 newspaper articles and book references supporting it's notability. Over thirty articles have been subjected to this treatment, with more to come. I have been told I can't edit these articles due to COI, even though an administrator told me the exact opposite. I have refrained from edit warring or doing anything but commenting on talk pages, but my attempts to get help or advice are being called canvassing, even though no votes have been called on any of this; in fact, Qworty has contacted no article creators or editors, or given anyone the chance to improve many of these articles. I don't want to enter into a conflict or war, but I also don't want to see all these articles about notable subjects and all this work by so many editors, not just me, discarded. Can you help me, or direct me to the right place for help?Rosencomet (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a note (from a page stalker), your comment lacks all specifics and you may wish to provide that. What is the COI you mentioned? Which news organization? Who told you that you can't edit topics because of a COI (provide a diff), where is the diff of an admin claiming otherwise. Where did you contact others (diff), and where was it called canvassing (diff)? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Self answer: the warning was from an admin: [1]. You've been given a formal warning about COI editing by another admin: [2]. Rosencomets name is actually the name of the Association for Consciousness Exploration website [3], Rosencomet was cautioned by arbcom itself for having a COI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Proposed_decision#Rosencomet_cautioned (also see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_20#Starwood Festival, Jeff Rosenbaum, et al). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That was in 2007. In 2008, I asked an administrator who was involved in the arbcom for a clarification, and this is what he told me:

"You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge. Fred Talk 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)"

Now article after article has been ripped apart in a span of two days, and the editor, Qworty, says I am not allowed to edit ANY of these articles in ANY way. Not add a reference, not add to a bibliography, not provide a citation to satisfy a fact tag... NOTHING. Meanwhile, he/she is deleting whole bibliographies with ISBN numbers as "unsourced" (what better source is there?), deleting sections of ten or twenty references, then claiming the article is unsourced, etc etc. To what extent are my hands really tied, or better still, is there some way to stop this wanton destruction WITHOUT engaging in conflict?Rosencomet (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Qworty's opinions on what you should and should not edit are not, of course binding. He has said on his talkpage that you should feel free to restore anything you feel belongs back in the article (as part of a BRD cycle). Of course, he thinks you should be circumspect about doing so to the extent you have a conflict-of-interest in a particular area, which is good advice in the abstract, although I have seen it delivered with a much less sharp edge to it than Qworty employed.

I suggest that you discuss the editing issues with another editor who cannot be accused of COI but has some subject-matter expertise in the topics under dispute. Unfortunately, I know virtually nothing about them, so I'm not really the right person to ask for that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me! My concern is this: I think Qworty is just trying to lure me into editing these articles so he can accuse me of violating the arbcom and get me blocked, indefinitely. As an example, look at Jay Stevens. I deleted a "citation needed" tag on the line describing him as "co-author of Drumming at the Edge of Magic with Grateful Dead percussionist Mickey Hart and ethnomusicologist Fredric Lieberman", pointing out that right in the Jay Stevens bibliography was the listing "* Drumming at the Edge of Magic (with Mickey Hart & Fredric Lieberman) (1990 Harper San Francisco) ISBN 1-888358-18-1". He immediately reverted it, with the message "Rosencoment is coi-warring despite an arbcom prohibition and multiple recent warnings". I do not think he is sincere when he says I should "feel free to restore anything you feel belongs back in the article". It is, IMO, more like "Go ahead; I dare you". If I felt I had support, if an administrator said doing so was not COI-warring or a violation of the 5 year old arbcom, I would (for instance) reinstate all the bibliographies Quorty deleted as "unsourced".Rosencomet (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You are making more claims and quotes but not providing diffs. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to excessively post on Newyorkbrad's talk page. There is a LOT of material. Please visit my talk page for a few examples at: [4].Rosencomet (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Look what you made me do

After reading your blog, I decided to try my hand at writing a Supreme Court justice. Ended up starting on Joseph Story only to realize he's a pretty significant guy to start with. If you want to help with that you or any tps are more than welcome to join in. :) Wizardman 03:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Still working on legislators who were Story's contemporaries. Could you be sure to alphabetize titles of books, Wiz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 November 2012‎

I could. FWIW many of the ones noted in the article are on Questia, if you have access to that. Wizardman 03:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Story is indeed a very significant Justice historically. He was the most important member of the Marshall Court after Chief Justice Marshall himself, and carried Marshall's philosophy forward for a decade after Marshall's death. He was also an important figure in the history of legal education, and through his Commentaries a notable contributor to American law in a variety of fields ranging from constitutional law to conflicts of law to bills of exchange. Please let me know if you need any help locating any sources or working on this article: unquestionably, the Story story should be told. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Patterson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Domi arigato, Mister Roboto. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yay!!!!!!

This is good news: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates#Newyorkbrad NE Ent 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RFAR request

I believe the matter that was mistakenly placed at RFAR would belong on ANI. One of the other editors involved appears to have taken the matter there already.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You are probably right. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of userspace

Hi, Newyorkbrad. Your "delete" recommendation for my user page was not at all what I expected. I was all happy that this drama would finally be over, and since the lock on my page had finally faded, I decided to go the extra mile and take several proactive steps to make sure this didn't happen again. I added a clarification statement to my notepad to more clearly explain its purpose, as was suggested I do by people at the delete discussion. I removed outdated items and added clearer annotation to still-current items so there would be no more misunderstndings, as was also suggested to me. I left a concillatory note to the only person mentioned on my notepad to express any concern outside of the deletion discussion.[5] Many suggested that I also move my notepad to a sub-page, and I was about to do that when I noticed the pink banner on my page said not to move it, so I informed you of my intent to do so once that banner was gone. I thought I was doing everything right to resolve this mess in the best way possible, and put it all behind us.

Then you posted your "Closer's Update" and I was stunned. "intended to close this discussion with a delete result", really? I've looked at your user page and seen the stuff about Administrator and Arbitrator and Board of Trustees, so believe me when I say that it isn't comfortable for me to overcome significant intimidation to step forward now and say that I think you must have overlooked something. That is the only explanation I can come up with as to how you and I can view the same situation so differently. Here is my Cliff Notes summary of what has transpired:

• 1- An MFD was filed alleging my notepad violated WP:POLEMIC.
• 2- That claim was quickly disproved when it was shown that no attacks or negative information existed.
• 3- The allegation then transformed into a charge that I must be keeping a list of people who reverted me, and thus was an "enemies list".
• 4- That claim was disproved when it was shown that half of the notes were about people who never reverted me, and some were actually supportive of me (Insomesia, Drmies, 112.133.198.141).
• 5- So then the claim morphed yet again, alleging that half of my notes were of editors who reverted me, and as for the other half I must have "deliberately added non-enemies to confuse people".
• 6- That ridiculous claim was disproved when it was shown that many editors had reverted me, while only a minority few appeared in my notes. Those few who appeared in my notes, it was shown, were not there because of reverts, but because they were involved in content and policy discussions with me. I also explained that I had no reason to keep track of people who reverted me, as I expected that to happen, and that none of these people did anything to deserve being called "enemies".
• 7- At this point in the discussions, I specifically requested that anyone who had any valid concerns or remaining arguments to the contrary to present them. I received no further arguments or accusations, and my requests for evidence or further charges were met with telling silence. Furthermore, individuals mentioned in my notes indicated they were satisfied, while others in the discussion indicated they were "backing down" until actual evidence of wrong-doing was produced, and still others like IRWolfie were walking back their calls for deletion and suggesting how I could handle my note-keeping better.

May I please ask where your interpretation of these events differs?

Graham87 provided a list of links to the Kelly Martin affairs, and I did a lot of reading. Very, very informative. When I read these words [6] my first reaction was, "OMG I so could have typed that!" The first few sentences anyway. After reading all those Kelly Martin links, I can better appreciate how some people might be rather skittish or sensitive when they see names present on a user page. However, I still do not see how that justifies how my page is being treated, it's like comparing apples with a rather large, lengthy and complicated composte heap. I did learn something else, too. Wiki processes like this deletion discussion are often used as precedent, and cited in future matters. For that reason, I am hoping I can convince you to reconsider your decision. By the by, deletion of the small handful of words on my page isn't what concerns me now, it's the record-keeping involved with it. My "permanent record", if you will. I'd like to see the page closed as "KEEP", obviously. If you feel it necessary to sacrafice a lamb and throw some red meat to whatever pitchfork-wavers may remain, then close the page as "no consensus", in the interest of squelching additional drama. I won't like it much, but at least we can all wash our hands of this and move on. If you still intend on closing and archiving the page with a "delete" decision, may I request that you clarify your closing statement on 3 points that are confusing to me?

1- Could you please clarify in your statement, "her userpage was being reasonably perceived by at least some editors as the type of list of users that, for good reason, we don't allow on-wiki", that this "reasonable perception" persisted after I gave my explanations during the discussion? I understand how there could be initial perceptions and concerns after only cursory review, but I do not believe any reasonable concerns remained after a week of discussions and explanations. You apparenly do, so it would be helpful if that was stated.

2- Could you please clarify your statement, "close this with a result of Delete (blank) in 49 hours", to indicate that you are doing so even after that page has undergone significant editing, and you still feel it is necessary. I read on the MfD Instruction page under "Alternatives to Deletion" that editing the discussed page to alleviate concerns is an option. I thought I had done so, but if that isn't the case, it would clarify things greatly if you could state so on the page.

3- I initially felt this caution of yours was quite clear, "Sally Season is cautioned not to create any form of list of users that can reasonably be perceived as an attack page or list of users with whom she has had unpleasant interactions", but there's a problem. I apparently have no clue what people around here consider "reasonable perception", as indicated by your decision to delete the innocent notes on my page. Tell me please, do you perceive the list of editors and unpleasant interactions on User:Baseball Bugs user page (click on the pink 'Letters from Fans' bar) to be not allowed? I would appreciate a little clearer direction, as I don't want my future notes to become an issue. Sincerely,Sally Season (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My comment at the MfD starts "The point of WP:BURO is that we don't agonize over whether a particular list of editor names with annotations satisfies WP:UP". That sums up the situation because everything here needs to help the encyclopedia, and user pages which foster collaboration do exactly that. User pages which do not do that are unhelpful. In the real world, a 500-page document would be required to specify exactly is allowed on a user page, with real-world penalties for noncompliance (fines backed by imprisonment). Here, things are simpler, although explaining that to everyone takes time. Consider the result of keeping a user page with annotated user names—that would establish a new "acceptable practice", which would be escalated by people keeping lists with annotations that become more and more pointed (I think there was a case where someone had "RIP" next to an editor's name). The names and annotations could easily be written on a sheet paper, and such a list is not needed here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you intended it that way, but the closing sentence The names and annotations could easily be written on a sheet paper, and such a list is not needed here is chilling. Are we really about to micromanage user pages, deciding what is and is not needed? I have a To-Do list on my user page. I could put it on another sheet of paper somewhere, so it isn't needed. It looks to me like an MfD was instituted with a plausible rationale; however, upon learning that the rationale was not in fact correct, instead of taking the proper course—never mind—and moving on, editors became ever more creative in potential objections. I see the not needed' argument as a Kafka-esque stretch, which if accepted, would allow an MfD on virtually anyone and anything. After all, we don't actually need an article on the President of the US, so we can now justify the removal of anything we don't like.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Johnuniq. I saw your comment at the deletion discussion, which ended with "a list of editor names with no satisfactory explanation is creepy and unhelpful to the community. Just delete it." Do you recall my response? Since satisfactory explanation had indeed already been given, and even the people mentioned in my user page to-do notes agreed that satisfactory explanation had been given, I concluded that your comment was just more uninformed bandwagoning.[7] I feel you are still speaking from an uninformed position, but since you took the time to chime in here, I'll make another attempt to see if we can at least achieve some level of understanding.

Your definition of "the point of WP:BURO" looks just a little off and selectively worded to me. Of course you can lawyer the meaning to suit your argument, but we shouldn't be doing that if we are sincerely looking for a solution. We can agree that we "shouldn't" agonize over whether a user page does or doesn't conform to WP:UP, but the fact is, a handful of people decided to agonize over it anyway, against my protestations. By the by, WP:UP recommends that I use my user page for "Current or planned articles, topic areas, to-do lists, reminders, articles worked on...", and that is exactly what I did and do. You are correct that I can use a sheet of paper instead of using a Wikipedia watchlist or a Wikipedia user page, but why do you tell me that? I can walk instead of use a car, I can mail a postcard instead of send an email, but why would you suggest such a thing? May I guess at how you will answer? You: "Because your page, even while 100% compliant with wiki policy, caused a lot of unnecessary drama, and therefore must go." No, it absolutely did not. Oh sure there was drama, obviously, but that was brought by the participants, not caused by my notes. My notes were fine, and drama-less. Generating that drama took a lot of effort! People had to suspend assuming good faith, then they had to ignore reasonable explanations, then they had to concoct really stupid and incredulous theories, and ignore all hard facts to the contrary. And it persists, even after I've bent over backward to appease even the most ridiculous conspiracy theorists in the "community".

Your slippery-slope argument doesn't wash either, by the by. As brought up at the delete discussion, pages with names already exist, so don't you dare imply that my page will somehow start a precedent for "more and more pointed" pages. Just look at this here: [8], oh look, even participants in my delete discussion are there. Look at the Bugs page I linked above.Sally Season (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sally Season, I sincerely think that you ought to find something else other than this to focus on. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have many things that I am focusing on, and wiki editing is just one (quite low) on a long list. I won't be adding more to my plate at this time, but thanks for the concern. As I noted above and on the deletion discussion page, I would like this matter to be properly concluded. I stress "properly". Your close result of "delete" does not represent consensus, and I have asked if you would please revisit your conclusion. In response, I get only that one sentence that someone of lesser good faith might interpret as "go away". Moving forward, I am hoping that you'll see your way to amending your decision to reflect the 'keep' consensus that exists on the discussion page. If not, I will be pursuing a deletion review when I have more free online time early Monday. While I am receiving a wonderful crash-course in wiki process and procedure through all of this, which is a net-positive for me, I would much rather learn this stuff voluntarily and on my own. I would really rather be improving or creating an article. Sincerely,Sally Season (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have considered your comments but I will stick with my decision. This entire situation has already been unnecessarily divisive and claimed far too much of the community's time. As for your pursuing a deletion review, in my opinion doing so would reflect poorly on your priorities and would unnecessarily compound the excessive diversion of effort and attention that has already occurred. But you are of course entitled to do so if you wish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I completely agree with you that this situation has been devisive and a waste of time, but I must remind you that the community decided to waste this time, not me. I did not file the report at the admin page, that was Baseball Bugs, whom I now note has a long talk page history and log showing disruption and editor harassment. My request of the 'community' at that admin board was: "I'd appreciate it if you all would busy your bodies elsewhere." Did they listen? No. I also did not start the interrogation about my innocent notes on my talk page, that was Devil's Advocate. My request of the 'community' at that page was, "Your best bet is to ignore it, it isn't your business anyway" and "If you want to play those games, do it out of my sight, please" and "you should probably drop this" and "The way to the end of this is to stop poking at me." Did they listen? No. I did not start the back and forth deleting and restoring of my user page, that was Viriditas, whom I note has a long talk page history and log of warring, incivility and accusations "without proof". I watched as more than a half dozen members of this 'community' warred with each other over the deletion and restoration of my page until an admin locked it, and the really absurd part is not one of these 'community members' has anything to do with my notes, or me, or my edits on articles.

My priorities? You have twice mentioned my priorities, once in the deletion discussion, and again just now. Also below, Viriditas "questions my purpose", which sounds related. It should be clear already, but I'll clarify again my "Priorities" and "Purpose", as it is really simple: When I come to Wikipedia, either directly or through a link off a search engine, it is to find information. That is my "purpose" 90% of the time. When I see something incorrect while using wiki, or if I notice a lack of information, and I have available time, I'll fix it or add the info. I'm not looking for a Facebook substitute, so all this "community" drama has been a little confusing and unwanted. I'll also say that I don't come here with the altruistic purpose of "creating an encyclopedia", because as a student who also works, I simply do not have the time to devote to that. I come here to get info for a class project, or learn about a book by a favorite author, or find out what band an obscure musician has joined. Editing is certainly interesting, and is often educational in itself, but is secondary. I've done my best to abide by the editing rules when I do edit, but I'm now learning that editing here also requires a certain cliquish involvement between editors. My top priority right now is to set this deletion discussion close status straight. Your close was incorrect, and when I asked if you could clear up (above) some confusing points, you chose not to. Delrev page says I must first try to discuss with you, because "Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision." So I will now ask for a review.Sally Season (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In your last comment to me above, you said my pursuing the correction of the deletion close decision "would reflect poorly" on me. I really wish you would have shown that level of concern for my image back when you were composing your close remarks. Instead, you recommended delete, even though there was no problematic material to delete. You do realize how poorly that reflects on me, right? You also remarked that material on my notepad "was being reasonably perceived by at least some editors" as unallowable, when the discussion shows that was not the case. Perhaps you confused the initial, uninformed perception by "some editors", with perception after discussion and explanations. Regardless, leaving that erroneous remark "reflects poorly" on me to anyone who reads that, as if I had done something wrong. You also added a warning to me to not create enemy lists, and stated that you reserve the right to delete any enemy lists I make, when I have NEVER done so, nor would I EVER do so, and after I had just explicitly stated exactly that. WTF? I refuse to believe you could be oblivious to how that might "reflect poorly on me" to a casual reader. So I have compared the "poor reflections" generated by letting the erroneous delete discussion stand in the archive versus following proper procedure to correct it.

Please see the talk tab associated with that discussion. Sincerely,Sally Season (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for personal attacks/distractions

For the record, this "Sally Season" user has not focused on the encyclopedia at all, and has continued to edit their so-called "notes" since the MfD. I've read through their comments on the subject and I find myself seriously questioning their purpose. The name "Sally Season", for example, is a reference to the term "silly season" that User:Collect uses quite a bit, and I believe the user created the account to troll Collect, which coincidentally was followed by the "notes" about Collect in its user space. The whole thing doesn't add up, and the wordy explanations make me wonder how long this trolling is going to be allowed to continue. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It pains me greatly to have to break this to you, but silly season isn't Collect's term. There is actually an article about it, and it certainly predates Collect or me, and the people I hang with use the term far more often than Collect could ever hope to. I'll give you props for the contortions and gymnastics you went through in concocting that self-refuting theory though; hope you didn't hurt yourself.Sally Season (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop stalking and harassing me with your false statements. I hope that isn't too wordy for you.Sally Season (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Contacting the closer of your MfD about your lack of edits to the encyclopedia isn't "stalking" or "harassing". Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was, which shows me you have completely missed the point. Your contacting anyone about me is disconcerting to me. What is YOUR purpose? I've never crossed paths with you before on this website, yet you showed up out of nowhere on my pages and and started deleting things, then you started name-calling and making false accusations about me on several more pages, and you come here over a month later to "question my purpose"? That's creepy. Your imaginative and ever changing "purposes" you try to ascribe to me, all completely without substantiation or reason, are not only annoying but disruptive. A quick search of Wikipedia for Viriditas+Troll is telling; I see "wikihounding" editors and calling editors "troll" is your thing, and I get that now, but that doesn't excuse it. Go stalk someone else now, please. And by the by, there has been no "lack of edits" from me recently, there has been the same amount, but I've been forced to use my limited editing time to address bureaucratic bullshit, and people like you, instead of wiki articles. I didn't see any policies when I signed up about how many articles per day I'm required to edit, so please go play "productivity police" with some other unfortunate target. Sincerely,Sally Season (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion has reached the end of its useful life. Thank you both for sharing your opinions with me. (To Sally Season, I received your e-mail and will respond to it probably tomorrow.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

please check my edit

At User:Collect/Collect's Law I reverted Paul Siebert's revert of your edit. He is, of course, accusing me of "false and misleading edit summaries" among other high crimes and misdemeanours <g>. Please revert me if you feel I overstepped reason in my edits on that essay, which I do not "own" any more than I "own" all essays which are being vandalised <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the dispute about "page ownership" or whatever, my personal opinion is that it's not immediately clear why the second prong or corollary of the "law" follows from the first. Perhaps a bit of the explanation here has gotten lost in all the back-and-forth editing of the page. In any event, it might be useful for you to add another sentence describing how the original law and the corollary are connected. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Note

• User talk:Ealdgyth/2012 Arb Election votes

Nothing you need to respond to, but just wanted to let you know I referred to you in the discussion. - jc37 19:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012. 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.

- P.S. I'd appreciate a ping on my talkpage when you reply. Agathoclea (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, your reasurance is appreciated. Agathoclea (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

spi case

can you take a look thx [9] Baboon43 (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I have the checkuser tool, I usually use it mostly for Arbitration Committee related checks and urgent matters, and I don't have the greatest of expertise in reading the results. I'd rather let one of members of the regular SSI team deal with your request there. I'm sure you will understand. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to encourage you...

1. ...to run for ArbCom again. It's a thankless job, and I'm certain it's a severe time sink, but I'd feel better if you were running again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
2. Me too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
3. I would be glad to see this, too. If you were to decide you really need a break from the madhouse, I'd totally understand, but I do hope you will run again. I'll be supporting if you do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
4. Me too! Me too! I've already got my comment on you ready for my voter guide, and it would be a shame if I didn't get to use it! :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
5. Plus me, and there are very few current Arbs who I'd support. ϢereSpielChequers 15:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
6. I would support you if you wanted a break or support you and be grateful and encouraged if you wanted to continue your role. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
7. Emerging from my cave to support, because this is important. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
8. There is a severe shortage of Watcher arch-mages on ArbCom! :D Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
9. Boris speaks for the cabal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
10. Duh. AutomaticStrikeout 18:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
11. My76Strat (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
12. Even in the rare cases we disagree, I have always trusted your sincerity and motivation, and been willing to defer to your judgement in the end. I don't blame anyone who tires of serving at Arb, but I do think the committee (and the community) benefits greatly with you there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
13. I second, I mean um 13th this : ) - jc37 18:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
14. Absolutely. The community needs you. Go Phightins! 04:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
15. There are few current arbs I would support, but you're one of the best we've got, and it would be a big loss if you did not run again. I might not always agree with you, but, well, what Dennis says -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
16. Definitely, though I can understand your apparent reluctance. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
17. Obviously, the best Arb in years, imo. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
18. One of the few people who is universally or near-universally respected on Wikipedia. Sorry, but you've been drafted. Again.  ;) – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Brad, I can't help but notice you haven't posted your candidacy yet. Perhaps it's worries about your ability to keep a statement under 400 words? Here's a hint: write a statement that reads, in toto, "I am Newyorkbrad". That should be more than sufficient for 80%+ support.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I second this as well : ) - jc37 18:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I am leaning toward running again at this point. If I do, I will post my statement and answers to the standard questions over the weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Very welcome news. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is. Newyorkbrad is probably a better candidate than most, but truth be told, more or less honest person cannot survive working in the current Committee without betraying his principles.67.169.11.52 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all very sincerely for your confidence. (My thanks extend to 67... for the first part of his comment, though I don't agree with the second part.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

precious

Thanks for the courage, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional question

I added another question since I'm curious about your thoughts on case acceptance; my guess is that it got lost in the mess of additional questions, and I wanted to make sure you noticed it. --Rschen7754 23:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't, actually, so thanks for the heads-up. I'll answer the new question tomorrow; I'm treating myself to a primarily mainspace day today, of all things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Now responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fourteenth Amendment and Jack Weinstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Domi arigato, Mister Roboto. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC). 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.

AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 00:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Received; will respond later today. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Okie dokie. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my response has been held up for a day or two. Darn that real world. But I will get back to you shortly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That is perfectly alright. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on the motion to suspend activity

I saw this comment from you, and thought it quite humorous!

There is an interesting aspect to this though. Someday, ArbCom will cease to exist. All things end. It is not a question of if, but of how. I don't think it is a good idea to immediately presume that the Wikipedia realizing it can run without ArbCom is a "bad outcome". The first ultimate solution to dispute resolution was Jimbo. The next was (and for now is) ArbCom. There will be another in the future.

ArbCom's role in the project has dramatically reduced over the last couple of years. Whether ArbCom likes it or not, or thinks it a bad idea or not, they are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The project is finding other means to resolve disputes. I think they are already realizing they can run without ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my comment (I see the motion has now been archived, so others may not see it). I'm keenly aware of the decreasing role that the ArbCom has had over the past few years in deciding cases and resolving disputes, as I discuss in the top thread on my embryonic wikiblog. I think we still need an Arbitration Committee, both to resolve the most intractible disputes and to perform other responsibilities that by their nature need to be handled by a handful of community-selected, trusted editors, but in some ways I think the Committee's importance at this stage of the project's development is often overstated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

just curious

Hi,

I tried to ask this question somewhere else, but the page disappeared before I could. Since in all the Election Guides you are highly recommended, I thought I'd ask you. If this is an inappropriate question, then please delete it, as it's not meant to harm. I'm trying to figure out how to vote.

About the email leak by one of the Arbs, Elen, she said in her defense:

What I did do is discuss it with a third party, in a private chat. I was worried that Malleus would react to the question with one of his anglo saxon epithets, and another request for a ban would ensue [10]

I'm wondering if it's the role of an Arb to protect an editor from using anglo saxon epithets such as Elen seems concerned about him doing, if the editor is so inclined. Especially since this editor has been before ArbCom for just this behavior. (In fact, I commented there regarding that editor's rude treatment of me and his obvious dislike of Americans, which I am.) I guess thought about ArbCom as being like the US Supreme Court and that I wouldn't expect a Supreme Court justice to be engaging in behind-the-scenes leaking of privileged email to protect a party that is likely to come before it again.

I would like it if ArbCom would be fair and a consider the effect of any behavior on the whole encyclopedia, and not be focused on protecting an individual editor from himself. I wish they would treat the behavior of all editors equally. The way it is now, from my experience, they step hard on mistakes of relatively new editors while old editors are allowed to personally attack and belittle whoever they choose with no repercussions.

Thanks for your consideration. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would be helpful for me to wade too deeply into the waters of the unpleasantness that occurred this week, in part because I'm a candidate in the same election as Elen of the Roads (and Jclemens), and in part because I haven't participated in some of the internal Arbitration Committee discussions that led up to it. Suffice it to say that I'm not sure I share every aspect of your characterization of what happened—but I do agree you've raised an important broader picture, which has also come up in some of the questions on my candidate page.

As a general statement, I feel that all editors should treat one another with courtesy and respect befitting the collegial nature of the project. Unnecessarily using "Anglo-Saxon epithets" as insults toward other editors is unhelpful in that regard. However, this it is far from the only type of uncivil behavior that should be avoided.

The Arbitration Committee should seek to benefit and serve the encyclopedia that is Wikipedia, the community of editors who create and maintain that encyclopedia, and ultimately the millions of readers who rely on its content. This is accomplished by creating an environment that promotes and encourage civil and responsible interaction, discourages all forms of gratuitous rudeness, and ultimately imposes sanctions against editors whose conduct is likely to drive other good-faith editors away. The most difficult user-conduct cases that come before the Arbitration Committee involve editors whose contributions and behavior are laudible in some fashions and problematic in others. The goal in such cases is to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, but some editors resolve to an indivisible package of their positives and their negatives, and how to deal with such editors can require judgment calls. Although recent developments are leading everyone to focus on how ArbCom addresses these situations, precisely the same considerations are present in ANI threads and community ban discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)