User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive5

Archives from July 5 to October 26, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive1.

Archives from October 26 to December 19, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2.

Archives from December 19, 2006 to January 31, 2007 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive3.

Archives from January 31 to February 27, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive4.

Just a question...

Hi, Newyorkbrad.

I am one of the Users to make a statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#2004_Madrid_train_bombings.

I want to make a "diff intensive" statement, so I have to check hundreds of diffs to support my case.

How much time is reasonable to present your statement after being notified that you are cited at the ArbCom?. I was thinking in a week...

Thank you. Randroide 07:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration guidelines suggest that you should have at least seven days, and the committee has several cases ahead of yours, so if you get finished in one week I think you will be fine. I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to a case already accepted, not one still on the RfAr page. You should get a preliminary statement written within the next day or two. Please bear in mind that at this stage, the purpose of your statement is simply to present your position on whether the Arbitration Committee should decide the case presented. The relevant evidence is whether there is a serious dispute, whether prior dispute resolution has been attempted, etc. Your statement should not exceed approximately 500 words. Please bear in mind that if the case is accepted, you will have a complete opportunity to present evidence and proposals at that time. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, Newyorkbrad. I hurried up and I presented a cropped version of my statement, only with the essentials of the case. Randroide 20:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Someone already violated it, I added this, than he removed it, [1] [2] [3] when I moved the page he moved it back, any saying on this? thats 3 reverts on his part Artaxiad 10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am issuing him a warning note. All parties are admonished in the strongest terms to avoid any conduct that could be perceived as violating the temporary injunction. Any violations can be cause for blocking now and will also not favorably impress the arbitrators when they make their final decision. Proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Armenia-Azerbaijan evidence page needs refactoring

The evidence page for the Armenia-Azerbaijan case has become a 100-kilobyte mess, with several editors (AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad, and Atabek) freely editing the evidence sections of others in response to charges against them. Can you please refactor the page and/or remind the above editors about editing the sections of others? Scobell302 11:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I will follow up. Thanks for the reminder. Newyorkbrad 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

T.R.O.L.L.

To be honest, I'm having some trouble understanding exactly what you mean. Which case are you referring to? David Mestel^(Talk) 18:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal Free Republic - If you look at the page history of the workshop and read the section I deleted, you will see what I am referring to. If you have any questions after that please drop me an e-mail. Newyorkbrad 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail! David Mestel^(Talk) 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Seen and responded to - and see correction above. Newyorkbrad 18:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration

No, you got it all wrong, it's user:Atabek and user:AdilBaguirov that placed comments on my evidence to which i replied to them. I even told them this is not a forum and we're not suppost to discuss on the evidence! [4] - Fedayee 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you appear to be quite right. I will withdraw the notice I left on your page. Newyorkbrad 18:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow

For the record, I am disheartened by Doc's departure. I didn't want to run him off, even though he appears to have wanted to run me off. All I wanted - and all I want - is that WP:BLP be enforced as written, not as he (or any other individual admin) wanted to see it - and if the way it should be enforced is different from what's written, to have the written policy changed to match the practice.

I'm not going to post this to Doc's talk page, since I almost certainly am at least part of the reason he left. He wrote me off as a troll a few days ago. Any suggestions as to where I might say something along these lines? -- Jay Maynard 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RFARMENIA

Like my title? Anyways, I've got a question: is this the correct way to present evidence? Or should I be more wordy and less list-based? Also, I'm not sure where you want that clerk note you snuck in - at the bottom, or where you put it. Picaroon 00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The format of your evidence is fine. Basically, any format of evidence is acceptable as long as it communicates the information in a reasonably clear and succinct way. Just ask yourself, if I had to understand a problem in a part of Wikipedia that I didn't know anything about, would this information be useful to me?

The location of the clerk note doesn't really matter because tomorrow I will clean up the presentations of anyone who hasn't done it for him or herself, and at that point I will delete all those notes anyway. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan evidence page comments

I've removed all my supplementary comments from the Evidence page. Thanks for letting me know. In my defense though, I've started leaving my responses only after User:Artaxiad has left his comments in my statement. --AdilBaguirov 09:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart

I read that message on her talk page about her leaving, but I didn't really understand it. What happened to her? I find it a big shame that she seems to have left Wikipedia. I found Sarah Ewart to be a kind user, and she did give me both advice and constructive criticism. Acalamari 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read the dialog on her talkpage (maybe archived now), she says that she's on a break and she will be back—I hope soon! Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did read it. I too, hope she comes back soon. We actually first met each other on Ryulong's recent request for adminship when a user had tons of sockpuppets givng Ryulong support votes. In fact, I believe I encountered you there too. Acalamari 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW she's been active at Unblock-en-l. Dino 21:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further thoughts

The first time I posted to your talk page was over a week ago; it's now in the WP BLP and 3RR section in your talk Archive 4. I'm back because user MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently deleted content from another user's talk page:  first deletion • second deletion • third deletion.

I'm reluctant to restore the content myself, as any act of mine may invite further deletions, so I'm turning again to you as per your reply last week, "Let's see how this user's editing evolves from here, and let me know if you have any further thoughts."   I'll watch your page for a reply—thanks! — Athænara ✉ 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a note not to do this again. Removal of personal attacks is sometimes appropriate, but except in extreme circumstances this is better done by an uninvolved person. Newyorkbrad 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, thank you. — Æ. ✉ 07:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi NewYorkBrad:

A very kind editor, Athaenara helped me when a guy named MoeLarryJesus (who had written me personal, quite nasty emails) started vandalizing my personal page. a few people who have contributed to my entry, emailed me telling me what this guy was doing. Anyway, I guess you stepped in at some point and suspended him for 24 hours. Now, he's back and I think he's using an alias to try and delete the entire entry of me as a "Political Writer". I see that two wikipedians have already commented (in my favor) but I wanted to bring it to Athaenera's attention as she has been sympathetic to MoeLarryJesus's vandalism and everyday disruption. She said I should send you my note to her and her comments. Thanks NYB for taking your time on this --sorry it's so long:

"Hi Athaenara, remember me? Seth Swirsky -- Again, I don't know if this is the place to request you look at something --y ou were completely sympathetic to the vandalism being done to my page by MoeLarryJesus last week --well, he's at it again. This guy will not go away .Read his hateful comments on my discussion page. He now has deleted my "Political Writingz" section of my entry entirely. He's using a different name to do this. Do you know how many people write political articles for big-time blogs, as I do? Michaelle Malkin, Bill Maher, David Sirota, Cenk Uygur --and they have their writing archived and spoken about in their Wikipedia article. But, MoeLarryJesus is on a mission to get mine taken off. You got him suspended for a day -- but he seriously needs to be blocked from my page forever. A, can you re-visit this? This is insanity (and I'm sure he's loving every minute of it.) It was true what I told you: he did write a scary email to me personally. He claims he didn't but what a coincidence that the email address was from MoeLarryJesus@____.com! Help! Seth Swirsky---- 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)"

"Hi Seth—I remember when you posted on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#19 February 2007 (22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC) diff): "For the record, the date of last harrassing email from MoeLarryandJesus was February 9, 2007 12:49:30 AM PST." A few days ago, I asked Newyorkbrad (the admin who handled the 24 hour 3RR block) about the deletion of content from your userpage, on User talk:Newyorkbrad#Further thoughts. Please bring this to his attention there (you can quote this post if you want) and if you type five tildes 02:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC) after your name he will know what time you posted. OK? Good luck! — Athænara ✉ 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)" Seth Swirsky 02:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't follow that at all. Could you please try to present your problem more clearly. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

→ Seth was trying to quote my post from a brief discussion which can be seen with the links and such in full at User talk:Athaenara#Request. — Athænara ✉ 11:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've deciphered it. Sethswirsky has been receiving coaching from Athaenara in dealing with User page vandalism and unpleasant e-mail by a third user, MoeLarryAndJesus. Athænara has referred Seth to you for comment regarding User page vandalism and unpleasant e-mails. Seth wants Moe permanently blocked from his User page. Dino 11:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: It appears that Proto has already permablocked Moe for trolling. It's a moot point, but Seth might be able to use some coaching in the event that Moe comes wandering back. Dino 11:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration

I removed a part, please be more descriptive about this I do not know what to do, or when you guys are going to reply or you're opinions, most of us are good contributors and this is killing us, what if I miss a spot are you going to block me? you can remove my comments, because I might miss a few, Adil is bringing on false statements on how I use Ips I replied he changed the subject there making false statements, thats very frustrating. Artaxiad 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to block anyone.

Thank you for your help on the evidence page. I will take a look tomorrow and clean up anything else that shouldn't be there. Remember that the purpose of the evidence page is simply to help the arbitrators decide what is the fairest way to resolve this case. The best thing for you to do is to present your evidence, respond to any questions the arbitrators have, and stay away from anything that could be taken as edit-warring in any form. I hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but again editors are seeking to add more information is it only a 1000 limit? for the whole time or per one section. Artaxiad 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The usual rule is approximately 1000 words per person. But I see that it's been said some users have asked another user to put in evidence for them because they can't have time right now. I think that is a good-faith request but one can also see how conceivably it could be used, so for the time being I am monitoring the situation. The most important thing is that each party's evidence be concise, clear, and as easy as possible for the arbitrators to understand. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

About the case, two users have no time to provide their evidences, two who are implicated in this case, so some of the materials I have presented. I have asked them if they want I present evidences in their name. They will provide all they had the time to present and I will be working on them expend them and present them. Also, since the evidences I will be providing are extensive, I will be way over the 100 diff. I am already well over. Could there be anything on this? I haven't placed much text in my evidence about article content, or interpretation but sticked to things which could not much be interpreted, but as compressed as it could, presenting also two others provided evidence plus those I have gathered, it is very difficult for me to respect the limit. See my evidence by yourself, it is compacted as much as possible and unlike others I haven't presented content dispute stuff, it is impossible to respect the limits. Fad (ix) 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Post what you have from them, make it as reasonable as possible, and the arbitrators and clerks can take a look at it. Newyorkbrad 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the two members to reconfirm their permission in public. One has answered. [5] Fad (ix) 00:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my userpage. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Signature

I have no objections to changing it, if you require me to do so. However I will not change it at the behest of Astrotrain. Astrotrain is currently engaging in POV pushing against Irish Republican articles and his attempts to get them deleted are not based on Wikipedia guidelines or policies. He is also trolling numerous talk pages ignoring guidelines and policies to push his bias. Thanks. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of "requiring" you to do anything, although a consensus in the noticeboard discussion may. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Baseball

Okay, well first everyone has their own opinions but the reason why is cause they are REALLY good, so if Toronto faces them, they'll probably get slobbered and same goes for hockey too, because I want my favourite teams to go far in the standings and to be better than everyone else in a way, if you know what I mean. I don't really mean it just cause they're in new york, so no offense there. Hasek is the best 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I never followed the Blue Jays since last year, but I thought they were bad though. To me, the Yankees but not the mets always seemed like the top team in the leaguse with guys like Jeter, Rodriguez, and some others I can't think of on the top of my head. Hasek is the best 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Decision Proposals

Can I propose a decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Proposed decision? What is the legal status of these Proposed Decisions? Szhaider 01:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Only the arbitrators themselves may post on the /Proposed decision page. The proposed decision is drafted by one of the arbitrators for the others to consider and vote upon. However, any editor, including the parties, may make proposals on the /Workshop page, or comment on the /Proposed decision on its talkpage. Let me know if you have any further questions. Newyorkbrad 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the legal status of these Proposed Decisions? As I think one year ban is too extreme considering my honest efforts to improve Wikipedia. Just when I decide to stay away from any disputes after months of block, an admin opens ArbCom case in his efforts to ban editors who he doesn't like. I consider this abuse of power. Szhaider 03:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Proposed Decision, as long as it's just a proposal, does not have any binding effect. However, if it's adopted by a majority of the Arbitration Committee, it becomes an official ruling which all editors are required to obey and all administrators are authorized to enforced. (Theoretically, Arbitration Committee decisions can be appealed to Jimbo Wales, but he's never reversed one.) Therefore, if you disagree with the Proposed Decision, you need to present evidence and arguments as to why your conduct was not improper, or how your behavior has changed since the earlier conduct that's being criticized, or why the proposed ban is too harsh. Newyorkbrad 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the end my blocks, I haven't been even once in an edit war or in any dispute with ‎‎any editor whatsoever. It is not justified to seek a permanent ban right after the end of ‎months of ‎block without giving a second chance. Rama's Arrow has presented the ‎accusations ‎against me for which I already have received months of block. Now I was ‎trying to turn ‎other Pakistani editors too away from edit warring to collaborate on ‎WikiProject Pakistan. ‎Such collaboration could make them so busy they might find little ‎to none time for ‎disputes. But I feel like my good faith is being ignored in ArbCom case. ‎Within days ‎after my block ended, ArbCom case was started again. In fact, I never ‎wanted to be a part ‎of it. Most of disputes were with User:Anupam about which neither ‎of us has formally ‎complained until this case's opening. I have always tried to avoid ‎topics where I found ‎myself insufficiently knowledgeable. A user tried to do experiment ‎with WikiProject ‎Pakistan which triggered me to work on this project with his help. Now ‎I am being ‎banned, makes me disappointed of my new efforts of peace and mutual ‎benevolence.‎ Please note that my block ended on February 05, 2007 and the case was ‎opened on February 14, 2007; only 9 days after. Were 09 days enough to judge my ‎editorial behavior? Was it enough of a chance? I don't think so. Please see my recent ‎history of contributions and see for yourself my efforts to improve quality of articles in ‎certain categories. I do not think this work should be stopped. I have quite a lot ‎experience in Wiki-Syntax and I can easily created and modify complex templates which ‎I want to use improve WikiProject Pakistan and its related articles. I was planning to call ‎it quits after the completion of refinement of WikiProject Pakistan because of editorial ‎and personal life reasons, and with such near future intentions what could be more ‎disappointing and frustrating than getting banned. I believe I deserve a chance. Szhaider 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)‎

ultimately there is nothing Brad or the other clerks can do. You can raise this on the proposed decision talk page, or on the arbitrators' talk pages. Thatcher131 06:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Even though you didn't speedy delete this page, can I still contest it to AfD? I believe that the source isn't notable, because it is a personal website. I didn't know if I could contest the deletion if an admin declined the AfD. Thanks. Real96 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You tagged it as non-notable and I decided that a murder case might (barely) meet the requirement for notability. You can definitely put it up for AfD here. In fact in cases where the article isn't a clear speedy, unless there are libel or privacy issues, it's better for the article to go on AfD because that way the whole community decides rather than just one administrator deciding on a speedy. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't updated in the next month or so, AfD it goes. Thanks for your help! Real96 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. You should just drop a note to the creator or on the article talk page to make that clear. By the way, just so you know, I'm a relatively new administrator and I am probably more conservative about deleting things than some of my colleagues. My bias is toward more content rather than less, although of course there are limits. Your speedy nomination was completely reasonable even though I didn't wind up deleting. Newyorkbrad 04:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tigranes article

it looks like I've inadvertedly reverted the page for the second time in 24h here [6]. I did complain though about the disruptive behavior and edit warring some users engaged [7] and admin Husond agreed [8]. I'm involved in this against my wish, but cannot let some of those ideologically moivated editors suppress important, authoritative and verifiable facts from the articles. --AdilBaguirov 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested ban

I saw your question here when JoshuaZ suggested a ban on Sfarti. I dug up some links to the incidents for you and added them to the discussion if you'd like to read up on the past events. -- Gregory9 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI

I asked for oversight of here. I think the jist of the post may be relevant but the amount of information posted is excessive. It's also external and unverifiable. --Tbeatty 17:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask for oversight on-wiki, which just calls greater attention to the material you are objecting to. See WP:OVERSIGHT and send an e-mail as described there. Newyorkbrad 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Just sent it off. Thx. --Tbeatty 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It was just done. thanks for the help. Keep an eye out for a repost. In case you haven't noticed, it's a little vitriolic over there ;) --Tbeatty 04:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Apj-us-nyc

Brad- What do you think of posting something on user talk:Apj-us-nyc about posting inappropriate and irrelevant information to the arbitration evidence and workshop pages? Thanks --rogerd 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at those pages, in between dealing with real-world work. At this point, the best thing for anyone with relevant information would be to e-mail it directly to an arbitrator for forwarding to their mailing list, rather than posting more of that sort of thing on-wiki. Newyorkbrad 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's been some sort of mistake...

I am plainly not a WP:SPA with respect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please review my edit history if you don't believe me. Also please note these testimonies [9][10] where involved editors attest to this fact.

To further prove my innocence in this matter, I asked Guy, an admin here, to give me advice in how to "clear my name". His response was to edit articles unrelated to Smart. I have done this.

I am being punished for being wrongly accused. Where is the presumption of innocence as laid out in WP:AGF? Where is the consideration of evidence and actions I have cited above? This finding is unfair, and I urge you to take proper steps to correct this mistake.

Thank you.

Mael-Num 23:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you received this notice does not mean that you have been determined to be a single-purpose account. The notice is given to all the parties to the case. Administrators who take responsibility for enforcing the decision will determine which editors are single-purpose accounts by analyzing their overall contributions. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. The problem is that I have been named as a "surrogate" of SupremeCmdr, et al., a fact that can be disproved by checkuser, or by an objective look at my words (our writing styles are dissimilar) and actions (I've taken contrary views to SupremeCmdr, and have spent the last few months pursuing topics of interest other than Derek Smart). I am currently barred from editing the article, but this is a trivial point. I am being wrongly accused of something, and if you've never been in a similar situation yourself, please allow me to tell you that from this recent personal experience, it sucks. ArbCom's made a mistake here, so how do I get them to fix it? Mael-Num 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you truly believe it to be necessary, you can write to one or more of the arbitrators (I see you have already posted on User:UninvitedCompany's talkpage), or request a clarification of the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. The decision was posted for comments for several weeks, so you had the opportunity to point out if you believed it wasn't clear as to your status. I am serving as the Clerk of the Arbitration Committee just giving notice of the decision, so I am not in a position to interpret it for you, but from a review of your contributions for the past several weeks, it does not appear to me that you are functioning as a single-purpose account. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Brad. Also, thank you for notifying me of the ArbCom decision in the first place. And I'm sorry if I "shot the messenger" by protesting the decision to you. I'm sure you get tired of that sort of thing. Cheers. Mael-Num 00:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I feel like I should chime in here. At one point, Mael-Num's contributions were almost solely to Derek Smart and its talk page, and he was labelled as a disruptive single-purpose account as a result. However, his contribs show that during the past ~2 months, he has branched out into other areas of the wiki. The RFAr had, unfortunately, stagnated by that point and the relevant finding of fact was never updated to reflect this. Despite this, Mael-Num doesn't actually appear to have been named as a Derek Smart surrogate - just an SPA. The question as I see it is whether we simply move on, since Mael-Num isn't under any ArbCom sanction, or whether we ask the Arbs to update the (now closed) case to reflect Mael-Num's new status as a non-SPA. I'm not sure whether that's possible now though. – Steel 00:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The decision makes no findings as to which users were or are SPAs on the Derek Smart article, but leaves that up to administrators enforcing the decision. Since you and I agree that a scan of Mael-Num's contributions suggest a non-SPA account, I don't think an issue should arise. In any event, though, the limitation affects only the Derek Smart article, and I am going to make a note of it on the talkpage of that article, so you can post there if you think it would be helpful. By the way, with the ArbCom decision having come down, do you think it's time to unprotect the article? Newyorkbrad 00:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking back at the case, Finding of fact #1 names Mael-Num as an SPA, who are forbidden to revert an edit to Derek Smart. Would the fact that Mael-Num is not an SPA would allow him to revert, despite ArbCom naming him as one? And yes, it's time for unprotection (the closure of the case is what we were all waiting for). I'll do it myself now. – Steel 00:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I missed that (and I apologize to both of you for that). I think it's a fair reading, though, that the decision governs editors currently acting as SPA's. But if he's concerned that an admin might deem him an SPA because of the earlier mention, he can seek clarification as noted above ... or he can refrain from reverting edits to the article for awhile. I think ArbCom is hoping that the unusual stress on the need to get the article into better shape, which is closer to a content ruling than they usually make, will bring some new editors to it. Newyorkbrad 00:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem with refraining from editing the article, but I'd prefer that my restraint be a matter of my recusing myself, rather than being forced to as result of a possibly misinformed finding of complicity. A reading of finding 1, where I am named with SupremeCmdr and Warhawk, combined with remedy 7 ("Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are banned from editing Derek Smart.") could mean that I am seen as a surrogate, and am similarly banned. I'm not Cmdr, not Derek Smart, not a SPA, and I'm actually a pretty nice guy, so I would prefer not to be pinned with this. Mael-Num 01:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've posted to User:UninvitedCompany, the arbitrator who drafted the decision. Let's see if he makes any comment. I don't really have any say in the matter. Sorry. Newyorkbrad 03:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and you certainly have nothing to apologize for. I really shouldn't have placed this problem at your door (Or UninvitedCompany's either). I prattled on for a bit here because it seemed like a conversation of the subject just spontaneously started; I apologize as this isn't the proper forum.

I filed a request for clarification, as you suggested, over at ArbCom[11]. My problem was that I am really unfamiliar with ArbCom's procedures, but I was fortunate in being able to ask you for guidance. I think this is the right thing to do, making my request official and allowing the general ArbCom body to review it. Again, my thanks for your patience and your efforts to steer me in the right direction. Cheers. Mael-Num 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Counting to 1

Heh. I saw it just as I hit save, but you beat me to it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You have more important things to worry about. I'm here to count for you. :) Newyorkbrad 01:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

You've got e-mail. :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 03:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Received and answered. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And you have a reply to your reply. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 03:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt case

We agree at this point, so it doesn't matter except for 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 on Geni, but wouldn't there be 12 active arbs? There are 10 who voted in the case, plus Charles Matthews and Blnguyen, neither of whom are recused or inactive. Ral315 » 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I was thinking of a couple of other cases in which I had just finished adjusting the numbers, but Mackensen and Essjay weren't participating in those cases. Newyorkbrad 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:SunStar Net

Yeah. =\ I've put in a fair number of reverts over this. Couldn't recall if there was a reason we hadn't protected the user talk, just yet. Hoping 15 minutes is at least long enough to bore this latest wave into inaction, but we might as well go longer (no objection if you want to make it so, have a hunch it'll end up that way, either way). – Luna Santin (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw the thread SSN started on AN. I've asked him there if he wants the semi on his talk, although if this goes on much longer it may not be optional. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, heh. Figures I'd miss that sort of thing. Cleaned out the history a bit, extended the semi (deleted edits are visible, of course, but now at another page). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I need to figure out how to delete individual edits sometime. Six weeks an admin and I'm still unpacking the buttons. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay

Thanks for contribution on this - like Giano, you've had wise and compassionate words to say. Metamagician3000 01:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest you go ahead and move the Essjay debate somewhere else? If we're going to wikilawyer this thing, it can't be properly certified but it's not even a "dispute" with Essjay. It properly belongs where it began, at the community noticeboard. You seem likely to have the moral authority to simply move it over there as a subpage. Doc is plainly just going to delete the thing when 48 hours rolls by, and all hell is going to break loose. Derex 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask on the talkpage for a calm, civil discussion of what to do with it. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, events seem to be moving rapidly. If you, brad, close the RfC, does that mean it will be archived? I'd like to keep copies of my own comments, so if so, can you give me time to try to grab them?

I hope you appreciate that I have been sincere in calling repeatedly for discussion of the underlying causes of this affair, rather than tallying further statements by users appalled by his deception. Thanks ---CH 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Another user (not me) has closed the RfC. I don't know exactly what happens now, this is hardly a typical situation. I'm sure there will be a record of the discussion somewhere, and if it's deleted, I will be glad to give you a copy of your own comments. Newyorkbrad 03:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My preference, as per Derex, would be moving the discussion of these underlying issues to some suitable place, to emphasize that the discussion is not about adding more critical comments of a particular user, but about how the community should address said underlying issues. ---CH 03:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume there will be discussion on some policy page or at the village pump, although I think the discussion will be more clear-headed if things wait a few days first. Personally at this point I don't believe any major changes are necessary, but I'll be glad to consider and participate in discussing any sensible proposals that might be made. Newyorkbrad 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are issues about future policy and practice, as opposed to rehashing the particular incident, the village pump or some related forum would seem to be the place to do it. I also think it would be wise for anyone who wants to do this to hold off for at least a couple of days and let things cool down. Metamagician3000 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Tofangsazan AfD

Brad, just a suggestion for the next AfD: I think it would have have a better chance of succeeding under WP:NOTNEWS than under BLP/IAR. So we might want to wait until WP:NOTNEWS is accepted. Take care, Kla'quot 08:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but by then we'll be hearing "come on, it's been AfD's three times already." I think there are deeper issues here than policy fine points, and I think I may take this to DRV so that they can be discussed outside the notorious contexts like Brian Peppers, et al. where they have been discussed to this point. Newyorkbrad 08:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Good luck. :) Kla'quot 09:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Essjay

Very true, gossip does spread like wildfire to those who are interested in the subject of it.  ~Steptrip 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WorldTraveler

Mr. Brad, from our dealings before, I hope you've seen that I am a reasonable person. I did apologize to this user, which only caused him to lash out at me. At that point, I decided to keep my distance, as it became clear to me that he wanted blood, the one thing I was unwilling to give him. As I mentioned briefly on my first post about him to AN:I, I have been displeased with his recent activities, revolving mainly around writing and promoting his essay about the failure of the very site he writes it on. I really, honestly, do want to see this resolved in a way that anyone could call 'final', but a plea to return to the site from me would be disingenuous, and, in the likely event he lashed out at me again for any comment I make, I would have no response in this instance. Should he return under a different username and pick up editing where he left off, I most likely would have no idea, and if informed, I would be more than happy to let him continue with his work, as I would have asked him to allow of me. That really seems to me to be all I can do in this situation. --InShaneee 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your position. Thanks for the quick response. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Indo-Pak case

Hi - I appreciate your comment. I personally don't think user:Unre4L will do anything more. I would normally be saddened myself, but guys like these just don't understand the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I'm here only for the knowledge, giving and receiving. The kind of fantasy battles they were waging, with accusations of conspiracy, racism, etc., it was just best for them for ArbCom to ask them to leave the project for a long while. I had asked myself the same question last year - do I want to help build an encyclopedia and learn something? If not, I should prolly stop harassing those who do and leave them to their business. Cheers - if I can be of assistance in anything, lemme know. Rama's arrow 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sleep

Zomg... you should be asleep Mister (3 INITIALS REMOVED)! Cbrown1023 talk 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, Brad. Just scooting around at the moment and thanking everyone for their support at my RfA. It was a great turnout and a supremely humbling result. Thanks for your confidence, no doubt I will be seeing you around! Cheers. Bubba hotep 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Man this is getting really annoying can you just let us go, I see no progress what so ever, people are writing things for no reason when will something be done? Artaxiad 01:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean there is a problem with the evidence presentations, please be more specific. If you mean it takes some time before the arbitrators are reaching your case, this is to allow time for the involved users to post their evidence, plus there are a couple of cases ahead of yours. It will be reached soon enough. If you have a more specific question, please let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No the whole process bothers me, its really annoying and its getting on my nerves, we can only get one revert barely with discussing while I revert alot of vandalism now I'm scared I might revert twice on a article. If you guys haven't started doing anything we will go nowhere meaning reading the evidence presented 60% of the users involved are not going to reply so theres no point to wait for them, sadly I have decided not to present evidence I don't think accusing my fellow contributors is civil so I am not, im only going to protect my self when necessary. Its been over a week, im dying here plus if your not going to block anyone I see no point since theres no other solutions, very confusing case. Artaxiad 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your questions now, but I'm the wrong person to ask them. I don't want to sound like I'm ducking responsibility, but I'm one of the clerks for the committee, and I just am responsible for keeping the pages tidy and giving notices of things. Of course I'm also an editor and I'm now an administrator, but I don't use my admin powers on pages I'm clerking. So I think you might want to pose this question on the talkpage to one of the arbitration pages and see if you can get any of the arbitrators to respond. Good luck with the case. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Artaxiad 01:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks by User:Tajik

I am writing to report persistent personal attacks by User:Tajik at Talk:Safavid Dynasty. Here are the instances with diff links:

• "What the hell are you talking about?!", "What's wrong with you?!", "Your stubborn attitude is the main reason...", etc. at [12]. I warned the user and said that I will ignore his attack for now [13].
• After the first warning, User:Tajik again: "this is the information that Wikipedia needs, not your POV and stubborn tries to defend POV" [14] and for the second time, I warned the user kindly [15]
• Another attack: "do not think that YOU are in ANY respectable position to judge that a world-class scholar like Minorsky was "wrong"" [16]
• In my response to my reference to precise quote from Friedrich Nietzshe unrelated to the user [17], the response and blackmail warnings from User:Tajik were at [18]:

• "I ask you for the last time to stop lying",
• "You also continue your lie",
• "So please stop to continue your lies and I once again remind you to watch WP:CIVIL",
• "So please stop your agenda, and please stop lying",
• "The problem with you is that you are not ballanced at all"
• "you - based on your own anti-Persian ethnocentrism - purposely cut the text"

Please, help to address the issue. I have exhausted all available means to convince him to stop attacking me. Atabek 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I read your comment at User talk:Dmcdevit. I can hear your concern. However, first of all, User:Tajik is not a party to the ArbCom case. The content I present above is clearly a personal attack and clearly a persistent one. As indicated above, I have requested the user numerous times to stop attacking me. I am sorry, but it seems that when I was accused of even something very remote like this before, I was immediately blocked with or without an explanation. Yet, for some reason, when it's an attack against me, I am supposed to be tolerant and try to resolve the issue. Well that's fine, I tried to be tolerant, as shown above, 3-4 times, calling User:Tajik to stop attacking me. But when the attacks persist and there is nothing done about it, clearly the attacker feels free to continue doing so. Atabek 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Post to ANI, mention that Dmcdevit was policing these pages but in his absence you need another admin to look in. Or I can do so but probably not until tomorrow. Newyorkbrad 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

MFD

NP, would have speedied it myself too, enjoy working the backlogs with me! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Without going into much details... What exactly happened to Essjay? I'm -really- confused. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've really missed this entire episode, you probably should just look at the article in Monday's New York Times, available on their website, which although I hate to say it is probably more NPOV than anything here. There are also a mainspace article and an RfC on the subject, but they've been deleted and undeleted and I don't know what their status is at this particular minute. I'm sure there'll also be coverage in the "Signpost" coming out in the next day or so. If you have a more specific question feel free to let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What the Times article fails to disclose is that the "person" who contacted the New Yorker and eventually browbeat them into posting a correction is privacy activist and general pest Daniel Brandt, who decided in October to "out" Essjay's real life identity. While something more than an apology was needed, the online lynching that occured was totally uncalled for, and has resulted in a number of other editors leaving, or at least rethinking their positions. Thatcher131 03:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here was my comment on the RfC, which was posted, as it happens, a few minutes before Essjay's departure announcement:

This situation rapidly escalated from a very controlled tempest on Essjay's talkpage into a raging firestorm across the project within a space of about two days. At this point, several hundred editors, and various outsiders, have reviewed and criticized many aspects of Essjay's statements and actions. No matter how strongly any editor may feel about any one or more of Essjay's actions or statements over the past two years, there is little more that remains to be said. Meanwhile, behind the persona of Essjay, is a real human being, with flaws but who clearly loved Wikipedia and Wikipedians, who has fallen from the top of the world to what he must find a very much lower place in a very short span of time—and as I observed last week in a very different context, an individual's mistakes and embarrassments that are captured in an online forum now follow the person for the rest of his or her life. No useful purpose can be served by piling on further criticism and ... I urge that everyone immediately cease from doing so. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope not posted in detail my reflections on this entire situation, because the best reflecting does not come in the midst of a frenzy. I expect in due course to say more. Newyorkbrad 03:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What am I looking for in NYTimes? Please advise. (So I can look it up in library at my univ tomorrow.) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The more I think of it, the more I realize that if you have managed to keep on editing for the past few days without having endured this saga, you are one of the lucky ones. Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm ignorant, but somehow I managed to miss out on the saga altogether. Blessing in disguise, perhaps? Although I can't help but wonder what happened. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Scratch all that. I got some links from Jimbo's talk page when I was RC patroling using VP earlier today. /shrug is all I'm going to say regarding this. Personally, I know that I will never know everything, so it wouldn't be right for me to pass judgements. But I think I know how you feel. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am still just a bit stunned by the level of what is barely distinguishable from hatred that I have seen expressed on- and off-wiki in the past few days toward Essjay, or the person who was Essjay. Wikipedia is a source of pride and education and enjoyment to me, and I care about it immensely as witness the time I've spent on it for eight months; but it is a web project, and as I've said in the past few weeks in several different contexts, the human beings come first. The sight of a man being pursued by a crowd is always terrible to behold, even and sometimes especially when some of the crowd's grievance is just. Newyorkbrad 12:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Username Disucssion notice

Hi! The template is {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}} or {{subst:und}} for short. I have notified The Ticket Master using that template on his/her talk page per your request. Cheers! :) --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and I'll make a note of it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad

Hi. I would like attract your attention to the actions of User:Artaxiad again. What he does is clearly an attempt to stir up a conflict. He deletes info and reverts the articles under the guise of minor edits. This edit: [19] which he marked as minor removed referenced info from a featured article and deleted a number of pictures. Here he did the same, but was reverted by the admin: [20] Can you please tell him to stop it? Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 12:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats not true please see what I added not what Golbez removed! [21] Artaxiad 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also regarding the other one it was a pure mistake, I usually change the sprotects to sprotect2 to make it smaller I might have clicked on a reversion one and added it, he could have asked me but he always goes and reports people. Artaxiad 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

On Artaxiad's behalf, yes, that revert of mine was NOT reverting an edit made by him. Someone earlier had made a major POV change to the intro with the edit summary "minor edit". It was not a revert, but an undo. --Golbez 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked again, and indeed Golbez reverted an edit one before Artaxiad, which stated that it was "minor". So my apologies for this, however Artaxiad's edit to Azerbaijani people was not a minor one, despite being marked as such. It deleted lots of info and pictures. Grandmaster 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, any brief response? Newyorkbrad 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh yes, sadly I can care less about that article I swear it was a mistake I always change sprotect to sprotect2 I might have clicked on a different version also why would I revert it? if Grandmaster told me I would have apologized but hes trying to get me in trouble by the other article and this, which I did not violate any rules, except the version he showed you with Golbez he could have tricked you if I didn't catch his own saying, he knew I did not do it, so he tried to get me blocked I'm sick and tired man false accusations there you have it. Artaxiad 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Going to travel during ArbCom request

Hello, could not think of a more useful title. Sorry. I am on the Falun Gong ArbCom request. I will not have unrestricted, steady, full access to computers/internet between late March and mid June, maybe up to July. I do not know what kind of access I will have. I think at different times it will vary. I will be travelling in Peru and Ecuador mostly, so I don't know what the situation will be like. I just want to know where I should put this information, since it may be relevant to the ArbCom requst. I would not want everyone to think I just take off in the middle of something important. Can you help me out, please?--Asdfg12345 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The /Evidence page in the arbitration is probably the best place for this to be seen. If the arbitrators want it elsewhere, they can relocate it, but they will have seen it in the process. Have a good trip. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

We have a misunderstanding brad,please check my user talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.199.97 (talk • contribs).

After I figured out who wrote this, I checked your userpage, but can't figure out what your issue with me. If there is something you would like to address please let me know more specifically what it is. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Voice of All for Essjay RFC

[22] Thought you'd like to know. pschemp | talk 07:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be commenting. Newyorkbrad 12:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One to add to your collection...

Hi, just wanted to say how much I respect you for your comments on the various pages where the Essjay controversy has been discussed. Your compassion and focus on the person behind it all was refreshing and your conduct has been one of the few postive elements of the affair. I was stranded with only occasional dial-up internet access while to controversy raged and didn't get to say as much as I would have like to- it was a relief to see someone trying to calm the storm. We need someone that can be relied upon around here to keep their heads while others are loosing theirs. I notice that it is often you. The barnstar below is well earned. WjBscribe 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being the voice of reason and basic human compassion at a difficult time for Wikipedia. WjBscribe 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much, although there were others who said and did far more than I and who would be more deserving. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 14:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign my autograph page

Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, but without setting a precedent. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Jimbo Wales.

Damn, didn't realize I was feeding a troll. I thought I was being helpful by saying that he had been blocked. I should have known better. Foolish me. Acalamari 21:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no. It was useful at the time you posted it in case anyone was tempted to take the comment seriously. Then a few minutes later I got rid of it. Not a problem. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it amazing that some people have the nerve to vandalize Mr. Jimbo's user page and then tell him that they did it. Acalamari 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They probably don't have long-term editing plans here..... Newyorkbrad 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Arb case

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm really kind of at a loss as to how I'm supposed to respond at this point, and I hope the Arbs can see that. --InShaneee 01:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've made your basic point. I wasn't happy with the block at the time, but I wasn't happy with the user's behavior either. NB: Because of my message to you earlier this week, not to mention this one, I'm recusing from any clerk activity in the case. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RE arbitration evidence

I know it is a large junk of text, and I intend to delete it by Friday, it was there in case the Arbcom start reading all the evidences and that I am too late with adding the final part of my evidence. Text require less time than pure objective diff and axiums based on those diff. More text more interpretation and I didn't want to do that. But because of lack of time, I added those text in case I do not have the time to provide the rest of the evidence. By Sat., I hope I'll be able to replace all this junk. Fad (ix) 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I don't the arbitrators will reach the case as soon as that, but please put a note about this at the top of your section so someone else doesn't shorten it for you. Good luck. Newyorkbrad 11:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your arbitration evidence

Thanks for letting me know. But can I keep my evidence and use the space allocated for other parties to arbcom case, representing our side of the dispute? Some of them provided no evidence at all. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be best if they provide their own evidence. I suppose they could adapt a portion of yours if they wished to, but if it were in their sections and signed by them it would avoid anyone raising the length question again later. Good luck. Newyorkbrad 11:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have about 5000 words in my evidence, I’m afraid that if I reduce it five times a lot of evidence will be lost. I will ask other users – parties to arbcom to adopt parts of my evidence, but it will apparently not be more than 1000 words. Do you think that reducing the evidence is the only way? I will go through my evidence tomorrow and remove any repetitive and excessive parts, and move some of my comments to talk, where it hopefully will be read by arbitrators. But I would like to note that other evidence on that page is also way too extensive. For example, Fadix’s evidence is slightly less than 7000 words. Maybe since we are the main providers of evidence we could be allowed to exceed the quota to a certain extent? Also, what is the deadline for submission of evidence? Thanks. Grandmaster 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't a clear precedent on this. Let me ask the more experienced clerks what they think. I've asked Fadix to reduce his evidence length as well and he's indicated he will (see his comments above). As for a deadline, there is no fixed deadline except that there is a rule you have at least one week, but that is expired. I would say you have a few more days before the arbitrators start to review the evidence, but I can't give you any specific guarantees. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Fadix would be able to reduce the length of his evidence 7 times, and it will be very difficult for me to fit it into 1000 words too. I would appreciate if you could check if it is possible to have more space allocated for my evidence. Of course, I will do everything possible to make it as concise as possible, but the thing is that this case concerns so many people at once that it is hard to keep it short. Thanks. Grandmaster 19:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As indicated, I've asked some of the more experienced clerks what they have to suggest. Beyond that, you could pose your question on the evidence talk place where one of the arbitrators might respond, or leave a note on one of their talk pages. In the meantime, please do the best you can to keep things concise. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Grandmaster 05:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I shortened my evidence by more than 1000 words, and as of now I have about 4000 words in my evidence, same as Fadix. I hope arbitrators won't object to such length of my evidence, since the number of people involved in this particular case is really large. Regards, Grandmaster 12:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: my arbitration evidence

Thanks, will trim it down shortly. I wasn't aware of the procedure, and apologize for the additional material; I'll refrain from posting any more responses until the next stages. BabyDweezil 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk listings

Where, if anywhere, are all the clerks listed?

Thanks in advance ^_^ Milto LOL pia 22:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A current list is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. However, not all tasks need to be performed by an official clerk, as reflected in the discussion on the page. Another useful list of current and former ArbCom clerks and many other positions can be found at User:NoSeptember/Functionaries. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Evidence

Need some help at that page; Asdfg is requesting some help regarding what to do. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments seemed appropriate to me. I put a few more thoughts of my own down as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks

hi Newyorkbrad, thanks for reverting my userpage last week :) dvdrw 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal info

In the future, if someone posts another editor's personal info to your talk page, please remove it immediately; the more revisions that contain it, the harder it is to scrub. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, of course I agree ... but did that happen on this page? Not sure exactly what you are referring to. Feel free to reply via e-mail if you prefer. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#User:Artaxiad violating WP:Harassment. Kirill Lokshin 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been trying to keep my role in this situation more to the line of giving the parties procedural guidance for the arbitration case, and had not realized things had gotten quite as out-of-hand as that. Thank you for taking prompt action in the matter. Oh, and by the way, if you read above on this page you will find all kinds of requests by parties to the case for permission to file extra-length evidence, etc. As an arbitrator do you have a view on that? I know that UninvitedCompany and formerly Essjay have advocated strict enforcement of the limits, whereas if it were up to me I would probably be much more flexible (probably a side-effect of my having to deal with real-world page limits on legal briefs). Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problems with a longer evidence presentation if it's truly needed; but I wouldn't encourage it in the general case. People need to be selective; if the intent is to establish a pattern of behavior, ten diffs are usually as effective as a hundred.

(Obviously, other arbitrators may favor a stricter interpretation.) Kirill Lokshin 19:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Newyorkbrad, as your propose being "much more flexible" on issues of violating privacy, I would like to ask you a simple question. If some individual's name (even though wrongly associated with me) is mentioned in Wikipedia obviously to attract attention, will you take the same responsibility for your "flexibility" if that person mentioned comes under a physical harm? My guess is not, you're neither going to be there to defend that person nor you will take responsibility. It's therefore necessary to strictly enforce the rules against someone trying to stalk, identify people and use it for threats.Atabek 01:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. I said that I would be more flexible than some other people about the word limit for evidence on the arbitration pages— not the issue you raise. In fact if you are familiar with my work as an editor and an administrator, you will know that I place the highest importance on protecting people's privacy. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and sorry for my misunderstanding. I just thought the response was in general to Kirill's note. On you opinion about limits, I agree. I realize how hard it is for arbitrators to read lengthy lines of text, exchange between two sides, often being just an argument over very insignificant things. I tried to reduce my statement further. But sometimes, it just hard to be concise without including some details which may overflow limits. Atabek 01:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And my other concern is about your note here [23]. Even if the name revealing evidence is removed, would not this create lack of evidence for violation of privacy of some individual, which did indeed happen? i.e. what's the guarantee that tomorrow there won't be some other administrator who comes in and sees no evidence (since it's removed)? After all, the user who is caught stalking is very unlikely to cease the attempts to reveal identities in a physical world. Atabek 01:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The administrator who removed the evidence and blocked the other user, User:Kirill Lokshin, is also an arbitrator, and he has noted the block on the workshop page of the arbitration case, so I am sure the arbitrators will be aware of it. If you have any further concerns about this matter, you can send an e-mail about the subject to any arbitrator with the request that it be forwarded to all of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

I feel like I'm working in a vacume here sometimes. I'll have a choice of new proposals for the Barnstar in the next few days. I hope you vote for one of them.--Dr who1975 19:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the page watchlisted, but if I miss the discussion, feel free to ping and remind me. Since my RfA in January and now that I am clerking, I find myself not spending enough wiki-time on other things that matter such as the Congress project, and I have to fix that. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I got the new version of the graphic quicker than expected so I decided to submit that on it's own. If it doesn't work out I'll move to the next idea. Should I do stuff to alert the other wikiproject U.S. Congress members?--Dr who1975 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't spent as much time on the Congress project as I would have wanted. Isn't there a central bulletin board where you could post? I'd hate for you to have to send an individual talk-page note to every participant. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

----------------------------------

I don't know about the rest of you but I consider nyb's userpage to be a dangerous place to visit. I count no fewer than nine sharp and pointy object waiting to cut my fingers. I prefer soft and squishy objects on my userpage, such as this one >>>>>
NoSeptember 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Konstable

Can I suggest that Konstable not mistaken humor for WP:NPA? Can I suggest that he not label me as a violator of WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:POINT? Can I try to talk to him, apparently not because I am forever banned from talking to him and editing and any article he ever touches (which honestly how does he expect me to know??) — Moe 22:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no issue if there is something legitimate you need to raise with him, nor if you just happen to come across him because you both happen to be editing the same article. I don't think it was necessary for you to be going around re-tagging his forgotten alternate accounts from four months ago. I see you've agreed not to do that again, so hopefully the situation will not go any further. Thanks for writing. Newyorkbrad 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're only touching the surface of it. — Moe 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I picked up on one issue that I saw, which I thought should be pretty easy to resolve. The concern about what should be included in the "movie" parody can be resolved on that talkpage. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Derek Smart

Since you banned a few people from [http:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Smart that] page following the ArbCom decision,it appears as if the same people who helped in turning that page into a war zone are about to start it again by pushing back in controversial material that never was the focus of the ArbCom nor consensus. On the articles page, they have re-added a link to a personal and derogatory opinion by some guy named Ben. And if you go to the discussions page, you will see that, as a follow up, user Kerr is now once again attempting to add in an external link which, like the link to Ben's comment, fail not only [WP:BLP] but also [WP:RL]. Can you please look into this and put a stop to it before it gets out of control again? 209.214.21.8

I will take a look at it, but I don't know much about Derek Smart or his activities so I don't know how useful I will be. You might want to also post this to WP:AN/AE, the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, for greater attention. Newyorkbrad 13:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mfd

[24] [25] [26] I think he is informed now. :) Garion96 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:ArbCom status

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I did substantially reduce my activity for a few weeks, but I was not aware that I had been marked as inactive. I should be considered active for all cases. - SimonP 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I believe another arbitrator had previously marked you as inactive on the list at WP:AC. I will go through and fix all the majorities for pending cases. Newyorkbrad 16:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Yeah, I got the impression there was some (real or perceived) history there. My proposal was in part a reaction to the precedent it seems to set. --Random832 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

re:RfAr Template

See this. Besides, that has been there for a good 42 hours. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I, Durova, give Newyorkbrad this Working Man's Barnstar for tireless efforts at WP:RFAR. This work is important to the project and deserves appreciation. You deserved this some time ago. Wear it with pride. DurovaCharge! 03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Keeping an eye on that page isn't the most comolex or stressful task in the project by any means, but it is important and I appreciate your noticing. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was particularly impressed today by how quickly you acted. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, coincidence that I was online at the time. But thanks again anyway. :) Newyorkbrad 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Urgent

Atabek is creating false revert injunctions see, [27] Vartan is not involved he is trying to get him blocked, he was never warned also. Look at this he adds it, [28] to get him blocked and he quickly adds it. Artaxiad 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Joshus Christ

Sorry for contacting you Brad, but just wanted to say well done for how you handled the above user, he's obviously very good faithed and I think you've handled the username issue perfectly - I'm definately taking something from this. Well done again and thanks for your responses on this, regards Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Definitely a good-faith name, and I actually have seen the surname "Christ", although it's apparently not this user's reason for using the name. It's important we deal differently with the good-faith, borderline names than the outrageous ones. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:ArbComOpenTasks

You accidentally removed formatting by thatcher (which resulted in some odd things being displayed. I've been bold and fixed it. Please look over in case I did some stupid mistake? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks all right; thanks for your attention. I was trying to get the m-dash to display under "motion to close" since there aren't any right now, but must have messed it up. Newyorkbrad 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher fixed it (d'oh! on my part); I think you had 2 extra dashes when you tried to do it. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chess Biographies RfAr

Darn it. I was in the middle of posting the fact that you posted notification to JzG when you did it. :P - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 15:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was delayed by a phone call. Darn that real world! Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong case

Hi Newyorkbrad, this message is regarding the Falun Gong case. I notice that the evidence provided by Olaf Stephanos and Asdfg12345 are way over the 1,000 word limit. [29] Could you remind them about the rules?

I also notice that Jsw663 has retracted his statement concerning CovenantD. [30] Since this issue has nothing to do with the matter at hand could you remove their arguments? Thanks --Samuel Luo 23:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note for Olaf Stephanos. Asdfg12345's statement does not look overly lengthy to me unless I have missed something. Regarding your second request, it looks like the item has been struck out and that should be sufficient. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I copied and pasted Asdfg12345’s evidence to a word document and its word count is 1,646. It is actually longer than Olafs’ original evidence. Using the same method the word count on Tomanada’s is 1,030 and mine is 1,035. --Samuel Luo 05:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be fair, Tomananda's section also seemed a bit long. I've left a concern post at the noticeboard. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock-puppet alert?

Please can you investigate the possible sock-puppetry of Benyehuda and Thestick. The page created by Benyehuda on 11 March 2007, (now deleted), seems to behave been resurrected on Criticism of Judaism. Should any action be taken against Thestick in this case? Chesdovi 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I created that section on March 10th, before the article that you said was deleted was created by that user. thestick 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: BabyDweezil

I actually think it's a little sad that even before Blnguyen rejected it, it would have made -no- difference in terms of accept/reject as a whole. I recall one thread about the fact that a 4-1 accept/reject would still mean the case not being accepted. I think something needs to be addressed on this. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. There are a couple more arbitrators who haven't weighed in, and I believe one said he would go with the majority in a 3 net vote situation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not see that, if that was the case. If it were said, it's not there at the moment. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of Jpgordon's comment here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooh. That one. I remember reading about that a while ago, but I didn't know that jpgordon said that . - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, at 6/4/1/0, any change of votes by a rejected arbitrator will result in 7-3 in favor of accepting (which will accept the case). Just thought I'd state the obvious. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 07:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

One more: The Starwood case (in which 5 active - 3 majority - 4 needed to pass motion to close) points out one of the weaknesses: there is always going to be times when most people are busy and things get deadlocked. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

Hi again Brad. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Nitpicking. Picaroon 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry for not getting back to you - yes, mark me active everywhere. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reply. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration evidence

Hi Brad, Is someone going to enforce the word limit on the evidence for Falun Gong? Right now Asdfg has 1,657 words as compared to my 1,030. If we aren't going to enforce the limit, I'll write more since he has come up with new attacks against me. Thanks --Tomananda 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Frankly, we're dealing with people in other cases who are at twice that, so I think if you think you should add a brief additional rebuttal you can (though I can't promise an arbitrator won't disagree later on). This doesn't mean sky's the limit, though. I'll take a closer look at the page tomorrow, though. Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Link Error in Article

While reading the article The Phoenix Lights, someone placed a link in the wrong place, just above the "==External Links==" section, so I had replaced the ==External Links== sign, moved it above the errant link and retyped "==External links==" above it. I hope I was NOT in error. The person who placed the errant link was a IP designated as user:87.102.74.95, and he/she placed it on Feb. 9, 2007 at a 16:53. Thought I let you know about the error and what was done to correct it. Martial Law 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Am checking it for reliability. Martial Law 05:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just checked it. Link may be suspect. Need help on this matter. Can you tell me if this link is suspect or not ? Martial Law 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Will check it tomorrow morning. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 05:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the IP on the article's History section. Martial Law 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	I, Sue Rangell, give Newyorkbrad this Working Man's Barnstar (Yet Another Barnstar) for his ongoing and outstanding editing/administrations/Humor. Anyone who takes ten minutes to look at your accomplishments will give you a barnstar too, so be careful! Just toss this one in with the rest! Sue Rangell 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; much appreciated. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Arthur80...

...is requesting unblock; see User talk:Arthur80. Since you blocked him/her, your input would be appreciated. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak excuse for an unblock request, but it has been a full month now ... have left a note on the user's talkpage asking for assurances of much improved behavior. Newyorkbrad 10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

87.81.240.121

Don't you think six months is kind of big for an IP? Isn't there a maximum of one month at most? They do change overtime. The Evil Clown 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I'm aware of the general rule that we don't block IP's for long periods of time, and in fact, I don't think I've ever blocked an IP for longer than a couple of weeks before. However, if you look at this IP's contributions, it appears to be a static IP with nothing but similar vandalism and personal attacks for the entire time. There was a prior one-month block and upon it expiring things have picked up right where they left off. Additionally, there is a Checkuser block in the history as well, which generally indicates something troubling going on. Hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'm interested to be one later on. I've read quite a bit of policy, and looking at the block after two unblock requests, one which I removed and the other might be still visible. (I chased him down, partly anyways). I was just a bit surprised with, and curious about the duration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evilclown93 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

An uninvolved administrator will review, and presumably deny, the unblock request. Good luck with your editing and potential future adminship, and please feel free to ask if you have any other questions. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hasek

Hey I never "hoped". I just said "can't wait" (opinion). Its a matter of time (fact). Love, CJ DUB 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Brad!

Thank you Brad for blocking the vandal who threatened me! Also, Werdabot is dead. :-( Try Misza13's bot instead! Real96 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead, or just resting and pining for the fjords? Newyorkbrad 00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's dead alright. :-( Real96 01:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into this tomorrow, thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Shadowbot3 has taken over for now. :) Thanks to Shadow1 and anyone else concerned. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AC/CN

Please advise on what I recently posted. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded there with my opinion; see also higher on the same page for an invitation. Newyorkbrad 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded. I was thinking that if things don't change, we may need to ask ArbCom to re-vote on accepting the case. Also, I'm actually thinking about throwing my lots into RfA... :P - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that a revote would change anything. Let's see what the arbitrators do. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are also two arbitrators that didn't vote (although it'd be odd asking them to vote to accept/reject something that they've been quiet about) - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(cross-posted from AC/CN) FloNight, one of the arbitrators who hadn't voted, has now removed the case from the RfAr page with the note "Remove as rejected after discussion on mailing list". The fact that there was ongoing discussion about the case confirms my view that in close situations like this, it's better for us to let an arbitrator do the removing. Newyorkbrad 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Your arbitration evidence

My apologies for overlooking the guidelines. I'll revert it to the last version. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. Newyorkbrad 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: FA template protection

Oh, yes, I forgot about that. -- ReyBrujo 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI User:Durova is contemplating an unblcok for FAAFA

So he can participate in the Arbcom case.[31] I referred her to you as the Arbitration clerk and I feel if his unblcok is to participate in the Arbcom case, it should be managed by the arbcom clerks or the arbitration committee. I don't have an objection if you feel it's necessary and manage the unblock but a wheel war and the involvement of yet another admin is not necessary. It should all be over soon anyway. --Tbeatty 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. She has decided not to pursue this. It still seems FAAFA has information he wishes to share with the ArbCom. If you have his email, contacting him may resolve this. --Tbeatty 04:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He can send an e-mail with the information to any active arbitrator (list at WP:AC) with the request to forward it to the arbitrators' mailing list. Newyorkbrad 04:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments newyorkbrad

I am just learning how to format and link on Wikipedia and therefore making several upgrades the last couple days.

I uploaded a passage on Richard D. Wyckoff. Wyckoff was an important speculator and writer of turn of the 20th century Wall Street. He is best known as the founder and publisher of the Magazine of Wall Street although he also wrote several books in the early 1900s that have become Wall Street classics of the "inner sanctum" so to speak.

Much has been lost or forgotten about Wyckoff's teachings and works. He was quite a speculator and investor educator/advocate that should not be lost sight of in the pursuit of investment survival.

J.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jccoppola (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Eisenhower

I was not experimenting with the page. Someone vandalized the page by deleting the entire article and replacing with "elephant". I deleted "elephant" and therefor blanked the page. Ole 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Law articles

Hi Newyorkbrad, On your userpage I see you list law-related articles as one of your interests. I would appreciate it if you could help me clean up the Contract killing article. It's a murky subject, but it needs cleanup, and I'm not sure of the best way to go about it, so any advice is appreciated.

If you help me with this article, I'll help you edit any articles you want.... --sunstar net^talk 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I chose this article is: I'm a member of WikiProject Law Enforcement and I'm intending to edit more legal-related articles, so any help from you, the expert, is much appreciated. --sunstar net^talk 00:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look at the article and make any edits that strike me; however, be aware that criminal law isn't really one of my specialties. Still, will take a look. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Lukas19-LSLM

[32] - I have failed already... David Mestel^(Talk) 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't. I thought you had said you had to go offline for awhile, or I would have left it for you to clean up. Don't worry, Thatcher131 frequently pitches in to deal with issues that arise in "my" cases, and vice versa. It's still your case and you're still at 100% in it. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of Python's dirty fork in the restaurant sketch. Thatcher131 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Which, of course, we have an article on. :) Newyorkbrad 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that after India-Pakistan, this case's evidence page seems positively tranquil... David Mestel^(Talk) 17:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shhhh, don't encourage them.... Actually, the very worst I've ever seen is Armenia-Azerbaijan, which Thatcher took a wiki-break rather than deal with. :) Newyorkbrad 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

GT? David Mestel^(Talk) 17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"GT"? Newyorkbrad 17:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Google Talk? David Mestel^(Talk) 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Duh, my fault. I'll try to get on but I'm at a relative's this afternoon so might have to be tomorrow (or tonight, but you'll be asleep). Newyorkbrad 17:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! That's where you are. :) Cbrown1023 talk 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, here I am ... *gathering everyone around the screen* ... everyone wave to David and Cbrown. :) Newyorkbrad 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

*Waves to NYB's relatives* David Mestel^(Talk) 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

*laughs out loud* Cbrown1023 talk 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Still chez relatives? David Mestel^(Talk) 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that was just that afternoon. Sitting in my office working, I'll be online off-and-on. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

A little help at WP:AC/CN, if you're on and able to. Thanks. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the opening. Your question responded there. (I have the noticeboard watchlisted, so no need to crosspost here as well.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you actually went to sleep. Thanks, by the way. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Got time to read over? :) Also, I'm thinking about going for an RfA, but I'm thinking that my erratic edit pattern may hurt me. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration pages look perfect. Keep an eye on them and I know you will let us know if any issues arise. Regarding a potential RfA, I will be glad to take a look and give you my thoughts, but it may be this weekend before I can get to it. (Darn that pesky real life for interfering with quality wiki-time. :) ) Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Real life? What? (I brought my computer to my school. Damn 8am class + class that ends at 8:30pm) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll live. I'm used to it. (I'm stuck at school until 8:30.... 5:30pm class.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Reading your comment on Bishonen's page - you might be interested in the conversation here and the subsequent draft FAQ here and this by Raul. Regards --Joopercoopers 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look at them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A Week in the Woods

Thanks for your support --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly - an easy call under the circumstances, especially after the DRV discussion reaching the same conclusion. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz

Do you know if anyone has emailed Padawer about the WP:AN discussion? It just seems that the easiest way around the problem would be for Qmwnebrvtcyxuz to make a few positive contributions to the mainspace. That way there's neither any reason to block him, nor any need to make him an exception to the "no social networking only" policy. Which presumably would be the best outcome for all.... WjBscribe 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that a message has been left on Padawer's userpage, which was successful in reaching him when the username issue was under discussion, but I don't know if anyone has e-mailed as well. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He's usually responded to message on his talkpage quite quickly but hasn't this time. But his email address seems to be a dedicated gmail one rather than his personal one. I guess there's no reason to think he's any more likely to check that than his talkpage... Do you think its worth a go anyway- a bit of fatherly advice might sort this out? WjBscribe 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible upside, no downside, will take you one minute to transcribe the talkpage message into an e-mail ... I say go for it. You could also post to User talk:Q... that the user should ask Padawer to check his mail. Newyorkbrad 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll send the email and post a message to Qmwnebrvtcyxuz. WjBscribe 02:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

See this diff. Advise to alert the ArbCom members to look at it again. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bzzz. (There's a chance you didn't see what I wrote.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Feel free to bring this to the attention of the participating arbitrators (there are only four) on their talkpages, although I don't know whether they will elect to consider new evidence at this late stage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll buzz people. (Besides, only 3 people voted so far.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Notified Charles Matthews, SimonP, Jdforrester, and Mackensen. Fred Bauder was notified by the original poster, so I didn't post duplicate alerts. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

why?

i was told via jimbo in email that i can delete user talk page all I want. are you now trying to tell me i cannot? 69.132.199.100 03:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

you want email him yourself? 69.132.199.100 03:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"I have just noted the comment you posted the other day that you it "would not make you sad" if certain people died. Comments of this nature are unacceptable and must never be repeated. Additionally, your functioning as a single-purpose account and posting repetitive edits of a particular nature to a userpage and related article page are troublesome. Please discontinue these activities or this account may be blocked. Newyorkbrad 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"I have just noted the comment you posted the other day that you it "would not make you sad" if certain people died. Comments of this nature are unacceptable and must never be repeated. Additionally, your functioning as a single-purpose account and posting repetitive edits of a particular nature to a userpage and related article page are troublesome. Please discontinue these activities or this account may be blocked. Newyorkbrad 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)"

is not trtue, my ip address change, is just that they list things that not true, 1 admin is big fan and one user is big fan so it make me look bad but even other people agree with me when they have discussion on what to allow on page, you see, actress say she is movie, but not listed anywhere excep[t a fan site. Admin who is fan wants it to stay, and editor who is fan agree, but role not verify so it not stay, i not be pushed away just because of fan. credit is not on imdb.com because they admit, she NOT in film, so why credit her on her page. I am not going to bow down to admin who block me just bnecause i not agree war for edit.

I not say i want person certain dead, i said it does not make me cry, it was a response to another edit someone make, and even other admin read it and read it all and agree, it was tiring statement. look true, you see is many ip edit there is mine, i not bow because of fan. is not right okay? 69.132.199.100 03:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, NYB: I have talked to this IP user. He's now User:CineWorld, from what I can tell. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I suggest that he or she find a different topic to edit on for awhile. Newyorkbrad 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's getting a little touchy. He attacked Leebo when all Leebo did was to agree with me. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Might want to suggest they get a new username as well. Cineworld is a chain of cinemas in the UK. WjBscribe 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At least point, I think the user is treading a thin line around getting warned for personal attacks. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

leebo is attack me all time, i make first edit to remove credit he make comment me and then follow me call me vandal every edit i make anywhere wikipedia, this not fair to warn one but not anything to other. i was right, i not bow down because fans are mad CineWorld 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I see a diff to prove this, CineWorld? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

read leebo comments me after edits i making. you see true just like now you see i was block because admin edit war and block me to quiet me. CineWorld 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

and i not stop edit because anyone want me to, i was right so is not fair tell me to stop edit that article, is just i stand up for what wikipedia is, i not let trash on page. just because a fan is admin and block me to win dispute mean nothing. CineWorld 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be able to understand much easier if you provide the diff that shows Leebo calling you names. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

many word not babelfish so i leave message your talk page Penwhale. CineWorld 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks you

I promised my wife too, to be more careful. --Mt7 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You need a break.

Just kidding. But I think that it'd be nice to have two sections of the talk page, and one of them dedicated to RfAr stuff.

Let me know if I can be of help. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This talkpage definitely seems to be filling up more quickly than usual since I was officially Clerkified, although the Armenia-Azerbaijan issues that contributed the lion's share of the posts seem to either have passed or to have moved to another page. As you know, you are helping with the caseload, as is David Mestel; and Picaroon has been hanging around the RfAr pages long enough to volunteer to take on a case sometime if he wants one, and Daniel Bryant is also available to pitch in where needed as well. And now Thatcher131 is at least semi back from his break, so all-in-all, I think we are actually in pretty good shape. Your efforts are always appreciated. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I sectionized my talk page. I only had to archive it twice before (since they were like over the period of 1 year) but lately it fills faster than anything. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:CineWorld

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CineWorld (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CineWorld 1. -- Real96 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have watchlisted it and will endorse or add comments if I have anything to add. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Account block

I have recently been made aware of someone using my account to create all sorts of problems on this site over the last few weeks. Having not used the account since a picture request for a colleague last spring, this causes me much concern. I have asked our ISP provider to investigate fully as we have good reason to suspect who is behind this. I understand that the Earl of Bradford's entry has also been subject to abuse and links to defamatory sites. Both he and I have been exposing crooked online dealerships that trade fake titles and other nonsense. Those engaged in this practice are fully aware of my involvement in the English Templar movement as they had tried setting up their own groups to attain high membership fees, something which should not be charged at all. Unfortunately such individuals take extreme pleasure in using this subject matter as a catalyst to create controversy and mischief. Please ensure that this account is locked until further notice and I may make a formal request to have logs of the supposed entries forwarded to help us in our enquiries. In the meantime, please forward any other information to my colleague on his account hextokis and he will pass them on to me. In the meantime could you please tell the other editors on the Templar pages that I am not the slightest bit bothered as to whether a link exists or not. Having read some of the entries, it would appear that this has been a major bone of contention. Hopefully they can now continue in peace. Thank you. G Beck, the genuine title holder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.201.10 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Newyorkbrad, FYI, I requested a Checkuser on the related accounts, and it came back confirmed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Lordknowle. So I guess the other accounts should be labeled as sockpuppets, and blocked as well. Thanks for your help, --Elonka 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I just want to make sure that I am understanding this correctly. User:HexTokis was the person who first posted that he was suspicious that Lordknowle's account was compromised. Are we saying that it now turns out that he is the same person who was trolling as Lordknowle? (Geez, this place is complicated sometimes. :) ) Newyorkbrad 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that seems to be the size of it. We've got a user who has pretended to be a British Lord, a hacker who has hacked the Lord's account, and an associate who at first defended the Lord, and then blew the whistle. All the same person. :/ Let's just block 'em all, and then we can get back to editing.  ;) I love these kinds of fraud investigations (I do these in my dayjob), but they're distracting me from my main goal on Wikipedia, of getting Knights Templar to FA in time to be on the mainpage for their 700-year anniversary later this year. :) Let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the two usernamed socks. The IP appears to be dynamic and to have too many unrelated contributions for a block based on edits from a few days ago. I still don't claim to understand everything that went on here, but I appreciate your detailed explanation and hope that resolves the matter. To any administrator who comes here while reviewing an unblock request—any questions go to Elonka, not me! Newyorkbrad 22:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks Brad.  :) --Elonka 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is just to note that I've lifted the autoblock on (one of the) the vandal IP(s) per Elonka's advice; see User_talk:Pstansbu#Autoblock. Sandstein 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:CineWorld

Hi, Brad. Wondering if you could take a look at my recent post on Shelby Young's talk page, detailing some of what I believe are this user's past, I don't know, "disruptions"? If I'm overstepping any Wikiboundaries with that post, let me know.

Ispy1981 15:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with your post and to the idea of getting some other editors to look at this. What most concerns me about the situation is not the trivial content dispute, but the comments on the userpage and talkpage of an editor who, as I am convinced, is the same person as the subject of the article. I don't understand this editor's level of zeal with regard to this particular article and topic. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad, for now, can you please protect the article until all disputes have been resolved regarding the fact, because the wheel war is kind of getting out of hand. Thanks. Real96 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, CineWorld and Shelby Young aren't the same person, if I'm reading you correctly on that. I share your puzzlement at CineWorld's...obsession is really the only word I can think of, regarding Shelby Young. Also, I would wholeheartedly endorse protection of the article and possible opening of an arbitration on the issue of whether or not to include the credit and in what form, so that we can put this to bed. Ispy1981 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been tied up in the real world but will take a look at this this evening. Newyorkbrad 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading your post there, I'm not sure what you mean by "Google the IP" - could you please clarify? Respond by e-mail if you prefer. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

all am see from ip google address is ISpy on wikipedia admin board harrass 4 other user asking them be banned. 2 admins tell him no and then Leebo jump in and start yell. Do you two do this to alot of people? I live in south cazrolina sorry is not me who you look for and i tell you that already but as you name say ISPY, you do try to spy lot. maybe i look bad my english not good and i not good english writer to make words not what they mean? Mean, if ISpy good writer is then easy him confuse and back talk many person to make them lo9ok bad as he do in the admin thread, but other admin not dumb and they ignore him. 69.132.199.100 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking going to file an RfC on this user very soon. If that doesn't work, Arbcom. I am doing a draft on my page. Real96 04:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad, just wrote to jpgordon about what we discussed. I'm not familiar with the RfC process. Do we have to wait for CineWorld to grace us with his prescence? What's proper procedure here? Ispy1981 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on procedure in these situations; user conduct RfC rules aren't as well-defined as some other procedures. Generally, the user in question does show up to explain his or her actions. If there is no response, it would make sense that the community will take the basic allegations of the person filing the RfC as being tacitly acknowledged for purposes of figuring out what to do next. Since Cine isn't contributing at the moment, I don't think there will any harm to waiting a couple of days to see what happens. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Derek Smart

There was an editor editing from 209.214.20.x on the talk page that's going against the consensus of the other current active editors. Suggestions? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any edits or disputes in a week, though. Am I missing something? Newyorkbrad 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just saying that perhaps some people need to monitor pages that limits SPA accounts. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. So far, things seem to be under reasonable control there, and I know there are a couple of admins who have been watching since the page was unprotected, who have a lot more subject-matter knowledge than I do so will be in a better position to tell what are good-faith edits or not. Newyorkbrad 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Going to class, should be back in 3 hours, barring delays. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Um ... noted. Announcements of wikibreaks are not required for three-hour intervals. :) I will be going to lunch shortly.... Newyorkbrad 16:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant that I'd be back later (which, by the way, I'm back at my house) should I be needed. :D - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Posting personal information

I was in the process replying to Deskana. Obviously you didn't allow me enough time to reply before you posting your message. Give people a chance to reply. Cwb61 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I had no way of knowing whether you were at the computer or might be away for several hours. Will watch for your response, and thanks for getting back to me. Newyorkbrad 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Zurbagan

Hi. Could you please investigate possible sock puppetry by this user. Please see this [33] and this [34] for additional info. Zurbagan (talk · contribs) is mainly involved in the article Ziya Bunyadov. This article was created by MarkHessen (talk · contribs) and Վաչագան (talk · contribs), who are proven socks of Robert599 (talk · contribs). Zurbagan appeared shortly after the above 3 accounts were blocked, and instantly started editing the same article. After a while another account, Pulu-Pughi (talk · contribs) appeared and made his very first edit to the same page about Ziya Bunyadov. I have a good reason to suspect that those accounts are socks of Robert599, and I also suspect that Robert599 himself is a sock of permanently banned User:Rovoam. My suspicion is shared even by Wikipedia admins. We need to urgently investigate this matter, as this user continues disruptive editing, edit warring and personal attacks, but for some reason checkuser is being delayed, and my motion is not answered. I would appreciate your assistance with regard to this problem. Regards, Grandmaster 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)`

URGENT Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence

I don't mean to step on anybody's toes by asking for assistance from a clerk not attached to my Arbitration case, but Bakaman has just deleted the Evidence presented by SebastianHelm.[35]
JFD 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Any clerk can assist with any case (unless recused because of other involvement in the case), so don't worry about that. FloNight, an arbitrator, has already caught and reverted the removal of evidence. Let's hope it was inadvertent. Newyorkbrad 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the time I was done sending messages, FloNight had already caught it. Thanks JFD 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User Space

Could you teach me how to move an article to user space? I've tried to look it up, but I seem to be a slow learner. :)

Sue Rangell 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually haven't done it myself. I assume that it would work like any other move, i.e., you would click on the move tab and type in the name of the new page (in this case, User:Sue Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. or whatever you want to call it), give a reason for the move (in this case, something like "moving to more appropriate namespace by request"), and make the move. But if someone who has done this before wants to confirm I have this right, feel free. :) Newyorkbrad 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That'll work. Then a helpful admin should delete any redirect left behind. Where could we find one of those? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A helpful admin? Do we have those? :) Newyorkbrad 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, I'm sure I indefinitely blocked the last one yesterday... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey thank you so much guys! I think I have the hang of it. I learned something new today Yay! Sue Rangell 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

WikiThanks

I just wanted to say thank you for coming to my rescue so many times. You rock! Sue Rangell 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice. ROOB323 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Condensing

Regarding the condensing of my earlier post, I hope that's alright? It's your userpage, so if you'd like the original version to stay, or you'd like it linked to a refactored version, I can do that, but I was trying to head off other problems while I'm playing the offline shell game. Which version would you prefer? --Elonka 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy in inquiring, but either version is fine with me. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, just wanted to check! :) --Elonka 23:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

zurbagan

This issue is hanging around for a while. Look, please, at [36] Unfortunately admin user:The Uninvented did not dwell in details and declined this case. But this user has a number of socks and edits of those socks are out of any scope of civility. I am amazed that user:Zurbagan who used that kind of language [37] is still not banned (and his sock user:Pulu-Pughi. Even they are not sock of Robert599, that kind of activity is absolutely unacceptable. It is not a mistake of newbie. It is purposeful destruction.--Dacy69 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Moot right now; neither has edited for two days; but I am keeping a very, very close eye. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Plea for Assistance/Advice

Hello, I wondered if I could ask you for some help and/or advice? You recently left a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Harrassment by posting my real name and my mother's maiden name, supporting my view that I had been a victim of harrassment by User:Cwb61. In the supporting message, you said that you would expect some undertaking or promise from the user that the harrassment would not be repeated.

The admin who dealt with the issue (User:Deskana) apparently received messages from the user concerned, but I can see no evidence of an apology or any undertaking not to repeat his/her actions. Instead, the user suggested that I was at fault for having too much information on my user page, and that he/she had used that to guess at my name, and then gone off to research the records of births. marriages, and deaths in the UK at another site where he/she obtained my mother's maiden name. He/She later asked for his/her username to be deleted, as wikipedia would no longer be used by him/her. This was done.

However, I note this morning that another admin (User:John Reaves), who knows of this incident (he was the one who suggested that I had too much personal information on my user page) seems to have unblocked this username and a talk page User talk:Cwb61 has been re-created. I have not seen any evidence of an apology, either to me or wikipedia, or any evidence of an undertaking not to repeat the actions I complained about. I have posted a new comment in that subject onWP:AN to that effect, and yet have had absolutely no response, which I find both strange and unsettling, as it seems to suggest that the matter is considered "over" and not worthy of any further comment.

Given that it was harrassment in terms of posting personal details of myself and my mother, it seems strange that this matter is not being treated with the attention that it would seem to warrant. I am so concerned by this, that I have formerly asked to have the history of my user page deleted, so people cannot retrieve the pages which were said to contain too much information, and yet have had no response even to this! (I posted it to the "oversight" external mailing list, in accordance with what we are recommended to do in these circumstances.) I find thgis even more unsettling given that no acton appears to have been taken which would seem to be quite reasonable, given that I was the victim of harrassment.

The latter way in which this appears to have been handled within wikipedia has left a very nasty "taste in the mouth", and I am at a loss how to proceed in a way that reassures myself, wikipedia, and others that this user will not engage in further incidents, and I am saddened that no action appears to have been taken to safeguard myself and my family from further inspppropriate disclosure and harrassment by removing the edit history from my user page. I can do nothing, it seems, nor can I get any further reaction from admins, WP:AN, or the oversight team about this. I would be grateful if you could offer me some advice or action about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the information from the edit history is accomplished by an e-mail to the Oversight mailing list, whose information can be obtained at WP:OVERSIGHT. The matter should not be further discussed on-wiki, which will just draw attention to the information you are trying to have removed. I am also going to post a further warning to the talkpage of the user who posted the information. I had not pursued the matter because I was under the impression he had disappeared, but if he is back I agree you are entitled to reassurance that this situation will not be repeated. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I contacted the OVERSIGHT people earlier today, but have had no response from them.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully soon. If they haven't acted by tomorrow, let me know and I will see if I can help. Please also advise if there is any recurrence of the misconduct. Newyorkbrad 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

many thanks for the help. The user has now apologized and given an undertaking not to do anything like that again, and so as far as that is concerned, the matter is clearly closed and over. The only outstanding issue is that I have as yet had no response from the Oversight group about my request to delete the editing history of my user page. I don't know whether you could assist me in that at all? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

All I could do would be send them an e-mail prodding them to respond to yours. Let's be generous and assume that people may be tied up over the weekend. Otherwise, forward me a copy of the e-mail you sent them and I will do some prodding. Newyorkbrad 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A little gift from me...

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trampton 07:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

More Shelby Young nonsense

It appears there is an identity crisis going on between User:76.173.44.237 and User:Shelbyyoung over who is the real Shelby Young. My vote is with Shelbyyoung. The anon IP has only offered a widely-known photograph, with words photoshopped in to indicate their "identity". I suspect this IP is CineWorld, though I'm starting to have my doubts. CineWorld usually takes down credit. This IP PUT UP a credit. And it's a valid credit per Shelbyyoung, just one that hasn't been adequately sourced.

Ispy1981 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for harassment and impersonation. I will need to be offline for a few hours later today, so I'd appreciate if you could post to ANI so other admins can keep an eye on things. Newyorkbrad 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.

I don't understand why people have problems with humor articles, Jimbo even makes them. Anyway, somebody deleted it. No discussion, no "how about changing this or that", just a straight up delete on the basis that we were slamming a competitor, jeeez. It's always something. What is the proceedure to undelete Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.? Here is my reasoning:

1. If you delete that article, you must also delete this one: Wikipedia:Primogeniture, which was the basis of the B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. article. And also delete half of the other humor pages I know of.

2. B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. is not a wikipedia competitor, it is an evil organization.

3. The encyclopedia Britanica is spelled with only one letter "t", while B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. is not a word at all, but an acronym consisting of several words.

4. The article was clearly marked as humor.

5. There is no Cabal.

Sue Rangell 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, the procedure would be deletion review, but you should take the matter up with the person who deleted the article first. You might have more luck if you agreed to keep it in userspace rather than Wikipedia space, as I suggested yesterday. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

An apology

I have apologised to DDStretch. I apologise to you too. It was a foolish thing and am very sorry for what I did. I have no intention at all of repeating that sort of thing again. Cwb61 14:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This is helpful. Good luck with your future editing. Newyorkbrad 14:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Government of California (copied from here)

FYI, there is a thread mentioning you at Talk:Government of California. I think you will probably want to look at it quickly and respond. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkbrad. I made a few changes to address the posted comments and provided a response on the article talk page. -- Jreferee 15:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA

I read what you posted. I'll keep your comment in mind. Thanks again :) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Staten Island vandal

He is at it again, as ip 172.164.169.112. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. I'm not an expert on range-blocks (blocks of more than one IP address), though, so if this continues you'll have to take it to ANI. Or I can semiprotect your userpage and the article for a few days if you like. Is there a registered user you believe is associated with this situation? Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to the message on Alphachimp's talk page

The account's contribs show vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, and nothing but vandalism. How long would you block the account?  ~Steptrip _{You raise me up} 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid's three-month block seems about right, especially given that the WHOIS lookup reflects a non-portable address. Newyorkbrad 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, could you raise me up?  ~Steptrip _{You raise me up} 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, does that mean comment in your editor review? If so, I'll be glad to. Newyorkbrad 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the link is now the tilde in my sig.  ~Steptrip 22:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look during the week. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Q and Padawer

I was completely unaware of the block until I saw your update at WP:AN just now (my fault for only checking the bottom of the noticeboard). Seems to have been a bit premature given the lack of concensus and fact we hadn't managed to get hold of Padawer... It's not as if Q had never made any encyclopedic contributions. WjBscribe 00:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

barbara b

based on your comment on the DRV, why not put the {{Office}} template on the page? --Tbeatty 03:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm not the Office. Only a Foundation official can use that designation. The mailing list post was important, but not official in the same way. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrator's proposed decisions

Hi NYbrad, I have a question regarding the proposed decisions. Will we even get a chance to explain ourselves before the arbitrators vote? Because frankly, I am utterly shocked about the proposed decisions and have been waiting patiently to explain my case. Thanks dude. - Fedayee 21:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The evidence and workshop pages have been open for awhile now. You can post there, or else to the proposed decision talk page which might be the best place at this point. If you have anything to say it is probably in your best interests to do so immediately. Newyorkbrad 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban the whole Armenian community here because of 3 POV pushers, which all our block logs were fine until they appeared, everyone is going to vote yes, so we might as well give up. Artaxiad 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a clerk who assists with maintaining the arbitration case pages. I am providing procedural advice. I have no more influence over the outcome of the decision than any other editor. Your comments should be kept on-topic and addressed to the arbitrators.

In my individual capacity, I will add that watching this case unfold and reading the evidence page and the workshop every day have been my most miserable experience on Wikipedia. The amount of hatred and bitterness and enmity expressed by editors, from both countries, simultaneously saddens me and scares the hell out of me. If this is the way that the best and the brightest of Azeris and Armenians — the opinion leaders and future leaders who would contribute information to an encyclopedia — see themselves and their neighbors, then I fear for the future, not of your Wikipedia articles, but of your countries. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Response(s)

Sadly I do too, but there goverment hates Armenians 100% the propaganda that surfaces there nation is horrible, I plan on visiting Turkey and Azerbaijan (Before Armenia), for various reasons to study and observe there habitats etc, I may sound harsh but its true there destruction of Armenian history is happening not in present day world but on the internet too, clear evidence, theres various points I can make but whenever I open my mouth and speak the truth I get punished here, no Armenian user should be blocked, since this is not Azeri-Armenian dispute its Armenian and Adil and his accomplices end of story, I've done many comprises here with Turks (probably most hated by Armenians) for the genocide etc, accusations which I don't sweat, see my point? and frustration? the last war ten years ago left massacres, pogroms, genocides, etc permanent damage on both countries, it won't be too soon when we see another war since Armenia occupies basically half there country which is backed by historically demands the Armenian nation has been here since Christs day to the Crusades there identify is clear and crisp its basically nationalism what is hurting both nations and surrounding areas IE Hrant dinks murder by a Ultra nationalist, Trabzon, a area where brainwashing occupies in Turkey, he was directed by another miserable person to bring hate against Armenians, thankfully Turkey today is a great nation, Azerbaijan needs to follow there steps since there a new nation, (Barely 100 years), theres my 25 cents. Artaxiad 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ciao, I told you from the start, theres no point of this, if any ArbCom conflict starts just block all the users, I even read it myself by an admin in the incidents place, I don't think banning members is fair without a reasonable explanation or if users can defend there selves, before they get banned. Artaxiad 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, you are not a saint, and neither are any of the other of your friends. You've been doing the same things you are being accused of BEFORE my appearance in Wikipedia, and AFTER my leave in the Fall of 2006. So blaming anything on me, or anyone else, and trying to make yourself and your possy as angels, is not credible. --adil 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No way we are angels, there was no problems until you came back, too many locked articles you deserve it. Artaxiad 16:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pfffft, you should delete this. Artaxiad 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, maybe you're right. Newyorkbrad 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since your an admin a block on me is justified and 100% appropriate. Artaxiad 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions?

I would like to know with whom the following items are formally filed: 1. Circumvention of 3RR by group of editors and admins 2. Constant text deletions absolutely contrary to WP:Revert (experienced editors and admins) 3. Edit- and revert- warring (and to avoid 3RR violation the parties in question simply wait the extra few hours and continue making the same reverts)

For some of the people they are admins (which I have observed means that little, if anything, will be done until I mail a hard copy of documentation to 'the top'), some of the people have a long history of this behavior and have even been punished before.

Additionally, while I presented items related to the complaint (3RR violation and history of the accussed) the response was personal attacks. That epitomizes the reaction to any disagreement in any of the articles this circle edits. Your comment to me was a suggestion to edit articles instead...but it is exactly the stuff I listed (subsequently deleted) that detailed a fraction of the reasons to NOT edit articles. Any edit that is not approved by the circle of admins & friends subjects the editor to ridicule, demeaning comments and immediate reversions rendering the time and effort one spends on an article wasted.

So, if 3RR was not the place to give the necessary background information related to 3RR and revert-warriors then tell me where I file the grievances and requests for actual action? What I posted is a fraction of what can be provided as these things continue on a daily basis. I am near the end of the frutrating process of watching other users get penalized for "harming Wikipedia" with blocks and bans while their vindictive and malicious actions continue to be protected as it was on 3RR yesterday. I assume the admins would prefer actually taking action and against the edit-warriors (who have over 2 years history of this behavior so any semblance of WP:AGF is unwarranted) rather than having a FedEx sent to the offices of the Founders detailing their history and actions and including the protection of their actions.

So, if you read the post yesterday then you can begin to understand the frustration many are feeling. Please help us find the necessary forum resolving the matters (i.e. revocation of admin, banishment from certain articles, etc.). -- Tony of Race to the Right 06:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you believe there is a serious issue, you may follow our dispute resolution procedures. Bear in mind that these are intended to address major or recurring problems, rather than isolated peeves such as a 3RR block being declined. An alternative would be to post your concerns to the administrators' noticeboard for comments. I cannot guarantee the reception you will receive there, but the forum is available in appropriate circumstances (see the instructions at the top of that page). You can link to this thread if you post there or anywhere.

Frankly, I am not convinced that there is a serious issue here, as opposed to your personal disagreement with the views of other editors that can and should be resolved through the normal editing process. Your affiliation with an external site does not raise confidence that you are seeking to edit with a neutral point of view and I hope you will remember to do so. You will also have to substantially moderate the stridency of your rhetoric if you expect your concerns to receive attention.

Issues of this nature are resolved on-wiki. Threats of "a Fed Ex to the Founders" are not appropriate and will be completely disregarded. Newyorkbrad 11:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have, for the most part, quit editing the articles as the double standards on the articles were just maddening. I also realized that I was easily dragged into the petty personal discussions which ignore the issues originally at hand. In those, when one standard was pointed out it was claimed that they were isolated instances (or simply untrue). It became clear that only collecting instances of, for example, differences in how sources were assessed in determining if it was "too biased" to include in Wikipedia would be the only way to find a consensus on which standard to apply. In copy/pasting those diffs for examples it became clear that there were actual patterns of abuse that existed. I know better than to just throw out such charges of collusion, etc. if it is based on limited anecdotal experience, but in the process I also then observed the types of aggressive actions the edit-warring people were taking. I started to search the policies that were always thrown around ("see this policy" or "you are violating that policy") and the related talk pages. I discovered that the issues I was encountering were not new to the article (no surprise) and that there was a long history of the same behaviors by the same core of admins & editors.

You may be aware how difficult it is to remember where all of the examples of something are located. So, I started collecting these on a subpage of my user page. However, I found (through my reading Wikipedia's policies, essays, guidelines and related talk pages) that subpages of the sort were discouraged. So I moved the content to my own personal server which allows me to also eliminate ad hominem attacks if anyone added them on their own. (As it stands right now people e-mail items to me, I confirm the interpretation or validity of the complaint and upload the info into my database.) Additionally, the size of the content is now larger than should be acceptable for just user page on Wikipedia. Thank you for the alert, I do understand the 'lower of confidence' for that site, which is why the complaints (when filed) will be of a higher standard of objective documentation than would normally be required. Everything there is absolutely above board, does not come close to any violations of any laws (though I have checked in what I have been advised would be applicable jurisdictions only), does not violate other policies and, being that there are not any personal attacks or threats, does not violate any good practices or standards. In all instances any commentary provided I have tried to take in an accurate (though abbreviated) portion of context as well.

Finally, I do not mean to threaten with the FedEx statement. I am simply making it clear that the problems are (1) long standing, (2) center around the same few people, of whom a few are admins, (3) there is not any strides in addressing the obvious constant in the edit-wars, which leads me to weighing exactly what options exist and which have not been taken already regarding these individuals. I believe it is fair to disclose that option is being strongly considered. Most of the online avenues of resolution that are suggested now have been tried before and fail to solve the constant factor in the 2+ years of these issues. Why do I care enough to 'carry the burden'? Because in my conversation with Mr. Wales a few months ago I expressed how much I believe in the concept of Wikipedia. We both agreed that the concept will fail (again) if the 'watchers' begin to apply the philosophies to protect their content. The analogy that came up (because we were also talking about the ambitions for the Campaigns Wikia) is the shift from a democracy that protects the people to an oligarchy that claims they protect the people at the expense of the for the people's own good, while actual beneficiaries of 'protection' are the oligarchs.

Thank you for the suggestions. I will research the history and past cases to determine if the suggested avenues have already been presented with the same issues about the same people. -- Tony of Race to the Right 19:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFAR questions

Hi, expert clerk!

1. Are people allowed to do back-and-forth style followups on RFAR requests, like El_C's 2 sections on WP:RFAR#Betacommand? Not an objection, just a clarification - if it's OK, I'll write a short one.
2. Am I in danger of crossing 500 words in my statement there? If so, give me a count of how many I need to cut down.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re #1, RFAR is not a noticeboard. Those statements should probably be refactored to remove references to the block which everyone seems to have acknowledged was a mistake, and to focus on the reason for the request.

Re #2, you are at 700 words, which is not too bad. A statement that makes its points in a reasonably concise and direct way is a good statement even if it is technically a little long. What the arbitrators don't want is a conversation, or a statement that grows by 300 words every time the filer feels the need to add another rebuttal. Thatcher131 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, thanks for covering for me during a short sojurn into the real world. AnonEMouse, I agree with Thatcher on all these points. Newyorkbrad 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And after all that I go and add stuff to my statement! :-) But I did think it was necessary, because chrisO does have a point - each incident, taken individually, has been rolled back, and is very forgivable. It is only the fact that there is a long pattern, and that the last 3 all came within 6 days that made me bring this case at all. I did shorten the earlier part of my statement a bit to make up for it, and won't expand it further. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What parties usually don't understand is that they do not need to prove their case at RFAR, but just to show the arbitrators that the case should be opened. Thatcher131 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I understood that; at the time, I saw one accept and Mack "on the fence" as to whether to accept at all, based on ChrisO's comment. I'll stop now. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Padawer

Hi Brad, sorry to bother you, but isthe Pardawer, quwer........ issue sorted now? Was thinking of dropping him an email to explain things but there's not much point if someone else has already, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WjBscribe has been taking the lead on this situation. He had some ideas for moving forward, so you might want to check in with him. Thanks for your interest. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Chiles Law Society

Done and done. I'll wait a few days. The main reason why I nom'ed the article was because it's just a school group and the only references ever written about the group are from school newspapers, which, as I know it, fails WP:ATT. Rockstar915 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Heather Wilson

Brad, you said that you wanted to wait and see what the comments would be at WP:BLPN. There has been one comment and that comment says, "Delete the section." [38] It is a good argument: the prejudicial effect to Wilson's husband would outweigh any benefit the article might gain by including this section. You should also read this version written on the article's talk page by Uncle G: [39] There's no good reason to include this section in the article, and there are several good reasons to remove it. Even Wilson's Democratic opponent in 1998 agreed to pull this ad, and all other negative advertising. A statement made on a radio station that Wilson had "abused her power" was later described by the Democratic opponent's campaign as "a mistake." Please remove this section from the article. Kzq9599 01:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at this tomorrow and see where this stands. Thanks for the reminder. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I see you contacted User talk:BryanFromPalatine about RforArb.[40] A check user confirmed Kzq9599 is Bryan, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzq9599. Arbustoo 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I see that Kzq9599 has been blocked. This does not, however, lessen the importance of adhering to WP:BLP on Heather Wilson. Newyorkbrad 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Arbustoo 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Good Luck!

Thank you very much. I hope for a smooth and speedy recovery. =) Nishkid64 23:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

excellent suggestion

Hi Newyourbrad. Your recommendation I wholeheartedly agree with, and which is also why I am no longer responding to Miss Mondegreen anywhere other than my talk page, and keeping my responses as polite and as concise as possible, with the primary aim to only correct factual errors. Regards, --Rebroad 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for [41], See also [42]. I'm getting tired ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what you pay me the big bucks for. I'm glad to see someone going line-by-line through the proposed decision, which is not to suggest in any way that the others haven't also done so. Newyorkbrad 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Thanks for your input at this checkuser case. I can understand why it was declined, as it falls outside the usual criteria (although an explanation of the reasons behind declining would have been helpful). But I do think it's important to go through, given the utterly nasty atmosphere at that article and AfD. I'm glad it will get a second look. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It was probably declined as obvious. Is there some doubt about blocking the SPAs? Thatcher131 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a long and unhappy history to the Klingenschmitt BLP that I am not fully familiar with. On the face of things, Klingenschmitt has at least one major real-world enemy who has infested his article and its talkpage with attacks. But there are some, who may or may not be socks of said enemy, who allege that Klingenschmitt has orchestrated some of the attacks himself. I guess this can sit dormant until someone attempts to restart the article. Newyorkbrad 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - response to Thatcher131) I think that would be appropriate, but I don't have that power. I suggested as much to User:Netsnipe, who also commented at the checkuser request. The article has been deleted and the accounts have not been active since, but given what transpired my 2 cents are that it's better to sort this out and perhaps even block now, given the risk of re-creation and further defamatory edits. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

THANK YOU for finally giving me some feedback. In particular, I am kinda looking for feedback on my photos and my big contributions (Like those to Saturn Aura, Mercury Sable, and less likely, Ford Festiva, which was mostly a cleanup and restructuring.) Karrmann 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I may not be the best person to do the review, as these aren't my areas of speciality, but I'll do what I can. The reason I asked is that many editors who seek a review do so in preparation to an RfA, and I was wondering if that was your purpose, or just more generalized feedback. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

John M. Duhe, Jr. AFD

Done. Mwelch 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Closed as withdrawn by nominator. Newyorkbrad 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

LegoAxiom1007 again

He's been violating your order not to issue user warnings. He seems kind of on point, but look at this edit [43]. Not only did he change another user's talk page comment, his change was wrong. Ghettoboy9111's edit in February was to another article. The edit to Wikipedia was later. Nardman1 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here he reverts [44] and warns [45] an editor for a supposed factual mistake, when in fact the editor was reverting a previous vandalism. [46] Reverting without checking the actual source of a vandalism is a common editorial mistake, but King Kirk doesn't even pass the smell test, any editor with some common sense would know that. Nardman1 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Although to be fair, both wordings were vandalism. I had to look back 3 days for an unvandalized version of the article. Nardman1 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Used automated tools again, in spite of his warning, although he made positive edits. Here [47] and [48] here. Nardman1 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Invalid AIV report using automated tools, [49] with reply from an admin (and a note by me) [50] Nardman1 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these updates. I've been busy closing an arbitration case tonight, plus some real-world family stuff, but I'll look at this first thing in the morning and take appropriate action, unless another admin has put us out of our misery first. Newyorkbrad 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That RfAr

I hope I wasn't acting above my station in doing this (being neither admin nor clerk), but I added your block of FAAFA to the case log. Chris cheese whine 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I should have done it myself. Thanks. Oh, and feel free to add the block of DeanHinnen at the same time. Newyorkbrad 05:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Pfft. Always having to clean up after other people ... ;-) Chris cheese whine 05:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

About the WP: redirects

I saw you and Picaroon were discussing this. The meta article at WP:NAMESPACE (see this section) establishes that "WP:" is a "fictional" namespace, which supports what Picaroon said. The applicability of this to CSD R2 has not been clearly stated; my opinion is that such redirects should be deleted. YechielMan 07:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think he had his 'facto' and 'iure' backwards :) Anyway, as a search on Special:Prefixindex shows, pages that start with WP: are technically in the main namespace, since WP isn't a namespace and they don't start with the prefix for another namespace. But for most processes, in particular RFD, they tend to be considered part of the Wikipdeia namespace. HTH! >Radiant< 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Sorry to bother you Brad for such a small issue with your busy workload, but I was wondering how I could be considered for mentorship if arbcom decide a user should be mentored? It's one of my little wiki passions! Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a specific procedure for that one, and if there is I don't know it because I don't think there's been a case with a mentorship remedy during the months I've been paying close attention. I suspect that typically they would look for someone who's been working with the user already with regard to the problematic situation, but I don't believe there's a "list of mentor volunteers" or anything like that. I suppose you could let an arbitrator know of your interest, or keep your eyes trained on the case pages for an appropriate situation. Newyorkbrad 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've just been having a read up on it and it doesn't seam to have happened for a while, I guess the best thing to do is keep my eyes open and if I see mentorship is being considered, offer my services to an arbitrator. Cheers for the response. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It gets less publicity, but you could also try helping someone out before they wind up in an arbitration case. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken :-) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that I should talk.... You don't see me clerking the Mediation Committee page. :) Newyorkbrad 21:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

zurbagan - puli-pughi

Zurbagan is banned but other sock Puli-Pughi aggressively engaged in reverts [51] All this accounts are belong to one person - vandal Robert599. PuliPughi made similar edit as user Zurbagan - I wrote you diffs [52] It is the same person--Dacy69 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is his racist comments - Turkic stuff. [53] --Dacy69 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....

I'm just dead curious, what's the current situation w/ Richard Walter RfAr? It was removed off page because it has been 10 days, but... is it going to be deliberated? o.O - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. If I had to guess, someone is working behind-the-scenes to deal with it as a WP:LIVING issue rather than arbitration case, but that's only a guess (perhaps because it's how I would handle it if I were doing it). Of course, if the arbitrators want the clerks to do anything with the case, I'm sure they will tell us. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

TH removed it here with the comment Richard Walter - removed, this is either stale or being discussed privately, which is why I'm just wondering. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bah! I was asleep and you opened BC's case. Oh well. :P - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You snooze, you lose! :) It was at 6/0/0/1 and 24 hours after the 4th accept vote (for the second time), so I thought we'd better get it opened. You're welcome to keep an eye on the pages, of course. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sad thing is, I -was- snoozing. -.- - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gah

Thanks, you're always correcting my typos. I was doing three things at once, and that's what happens. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 02:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Always? I don't remember another time. But glad to help. (I actually changed three things in that post, but two I wouldn't have bothered with if it weren't for the third.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Zio Systems

I see you have taken an interest in this article, so I thought I'd let you know I've nominated it for deletion. Rklawton 03:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. I don't have any particular insight into the size or notability of the company, I was just concerned about getting some blatantly inappropriate content removed. Thanks for the heads up, though. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I respect your level as an administrator but I fail to see why it is blatantly inappropriate. Many other pages contain criticism and I don't think I was embellishing the truth or biased in any way with my comments. Please consider reverting to include the previously posted article or delete the entire Zio Systems article as suggested. - Psychodeathman 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The content I removed was sourced only to attack posts on a website. This is unacceptable as support for disparaging posts about an ongoing enterprise. With regard to deletion, you can make your opinion and reasons known in the pending discussion on the articles for deletion page. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

==MONGO==

Re the post you left on my page. He has deleted two or three of my posts, after taking an immediate dislike to me, without notifying me of deletion of posts or even justifying it to me, he could have at least explained his actions. He has already pissed off other users and seems, on the whole, to be an arrogant cunt, hence the use of the language. Would you please shut down my user name, I feel ashamed to be associated with this community of ignorance. Spite & Malice 08:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And if you wanna get technical; I find him in breach of WP:CIV. Now close me down. Spite & Malice 08:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for the revert :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I considered the possibility had the user who made the changes had inside information that you really had moved to New Mexico and become a Republican. But then I read his username backwards. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RFAR/Betacommand q

You're now the official clerk, so I'm back to asking you. A sizeable fraction of my opening statement is evidence. Should I

1. Move the actual evidence part to the evidence subpage, and shrink the opening?
2. Restate the evidence part on the evidence subpage, and leave the opening redundant?
3. Put a short "see opening statement" link from the evidence subpage?
4. Something else?

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A perennial question. I think any of these would be fine. Newyorkbrad 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

How do you decided how long to block a person. For example, [54] was blocked indefinately for a few bad edits, however at the same time you only blocked [55] for a month when the user has commited more vandalism. Also, Master Of Tha Spear was only warned twice before his block, while the I.P. 90.0.0.80 received four warnings. Just wondering how you decide as an admin. Thanks! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please reply on my talk page? Thanks! --Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Replying on your talk. Newyorkbrad 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the information. In a few months I wanna apply to be an admin, so everything helps. Thanks again! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 18:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response on my AN/I issue. I consider it resolved if you want to tag it that way, as long as he leaves me alone. Frise 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice to be back

Hi! Nice to hear from you again. I'm not sure exactly how much editing I'll be doing for the next few months -- I have somewhat important exams in a couple of months time, but it's nice to be around again, and it's nice to hear from old friends. Best wishes, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at AN/I

Hi. Would you please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me. I am really sorry to be back over there but I do not think that I should leave that unaddressed. Thanks. --Justanother 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the ER page. Newyorkbrad 14:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully he will heed your advice. --Justanother 14:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the matter dropped. Of course, this also requires your making an effort to keep your paths separate, which I am sure you are doing. (Note: I'll be travelling for a couple of days with limited online time, so I won't be able to follow up on this again for awhile.) Newyorkbrad 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vampire comics

I think what you had to say during the recent deletion does open the door to an interesting and informative entry. I have been following it on the Comics Project talk page and requested feedback there. [56] I think it'd be well owrth pursuing and if you drop your thoughts in over there and other people can throw in ideas, then we should be able to get some kind of consensus before going ahead with things. (Emperor 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

I would be glad to see such an article, but I don't know much more of the background than I mentioned in the AfD. I was gratified when, after writing that comment from memory, I checked the Tomb of Dracula entry and found I had the facts right. Thanks for your note and the link, which I'll check out. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Rex Stout image help, please

Working on that Nero Wolfe project... I've uploaded an image (Rex_Stout_1975.jpg) but I was uncertain of the copyright status that should be designated -- and said as much when asked. This is a publicity photograph of Stout, pure and simple -- it was issued by Viking Press to promote "A Family Affair." Can you help me out? I see that the image will be axed, otherwise, and I need to figure out how to properly upload book jackets and such for use on the NW pages. What a daunting and convoluted process this image upload business is! Thanks... WFinch 01:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a "fair use guidelines" expert by any means. However, I believe we have a fair use principle that allows the use of a book cover, album cover, etc. to illustrate an article about that specific book or album (though I am not sure whether they can be used in an article about the series as a whole). Publicity photos is a category I am less familiar with, but perhaps one of the helpful people who seem to watch my page might be able to pitch in with an idea.

If this does not work out, I have another suggestion for obtaining images which may be equally or more productive in the long run. Please contact me (whoops, Mr. Wolfe would disown me if I were seen using "contact" as a verb) communicate with me via e-mail to follow up. Thank you, Newyorkbrad 01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Boy you're fast. Well, I thought I was starting with an easy one with the Stout photo, which I was going to add to illustrate the Rex Stout article (where there's a suggestion that a photo be added). I own the glossy, and I used the Fair Use "Promophoto" tag since that seemed to be so perfect and beyond challenge, but then there was that copyright question... I should have just bluffed, maybe. Well, if the Stout photo goes away it goes away. As for the book covers, I see first editions are preferred so those are our quarry. So, communicate via e-mail? Absolutely. But my next question is, where do I find such information? I am new here. Thanks again, WFinch 02:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a feature allowing one to make first contract with another editor via e-mail, without having to display one's e-mail address on-screen. Simply click the "E-mail this user" link on the left side of the screen. You will have to enable your own Wikipedia e-mail account first, though, which I believe can be done by clicking Settings at the top of the page. (Some people prefer to set up a different e-mail account from your regular real-world one.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, and thank you; the ball's in your court and please take your time. By way of postscript, I think I resolved the problem with the Rex Stout promotional photo and entered no end of fair use rationale, but there are two categories attached to the page -- "Publicity Photographs with no terms," "Publicity Photographs with missing fair-use rationale" -- that refuse to go away. Perhaps "one of the helpful people who watch [this] page" might still pitch in, as you say. The whole story is on the image talk page, and the photo itself can be seen in the Rex Stout article. Where I hope it can remain. WFinch 00:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pitched in, per request. -- Helpful mouse who watches this page. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

One note, though - the "terms" seem to require notification of review of the book - this isn't really a review of the book as such, but I would still feel better if you could honestly say you sent an email to Viking saying you're using this photo in this article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Abundant thanks for stepping in, tidying up my mess and adjusting those categories. I'll do better next time. Also, thank you for your suggestion that Viking be informed of the image being used here -- I'll either e-mail them or, more likely, "kindly" send them a note as they request. After sending out that photo in 1975 they should get quite a charge out of it, actually. It brings to mind the kick our local campus' dining staff got out of having a food service tray returned to them 30 years after it was misappropriated from the cafeteria. Thank you again. WFinch 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been a very nice and helpful mousie, and it's appreciated :) I'm out-of-town with limited access until Weds. or Thurs., but I'll take a look at his handiwork when I return so I'll know for next time. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I strenuously object to NYB having any say concerning images involving the Red Sox! As he is obviously biased. Paul August ☎ 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism by Navychaps and UCMCPadre

Dear Newyorkbrad and MastCell, request your follow up to discipline or block two vandals NavyChaps and USMC Padre who repeatedly violated the Bio of Living Persons rules by disparaging and posting private information about Gordon James Klingenschmitt, leading to deletion of his entire article. The Checkuser report (which you requested) suggests they also routinely violated Sockpuppet rules. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/USMC_Padre Suggest using your "admin powers" to block these two users, and also Commanderstephanus and MiddleLinebacker who routinely used foul language. I'm not informed of proper procedures after Checkuser confirms the identity of abusers. ChaplainReferee 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Thank you for your note alerting me to the centralised discussion of my interaction with another user. I appreciate it. --Guinnog 07:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

REPLY2

Hi, not attempting to sound aggressive but what gives you the right to decide who and who not to allow checkuser requests on. I am relatively new here - which I think is in a way a benefit, as the behaviour of other editors in the past, both good and bad, does not affect my judgement. I therefore decided to request checkuser on Chacor and MONGO for the reason that they edit similar content areas (nature) and frequently vote together. I had suspicion and followed protocol. You cannot criticise me for that. The amount of time an editor has been here should not and does not change how policies apply to them. I suggest that you do not continue attacking other editors for following policy, simply because they question older editors. There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy or guideline that you can cite to challenge what I have just explained. However, I do hope that we may have a constructive working relationship in the future. Thanks --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 16:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right that only the Checkusers make the decisions on what requests to check, and you will have seen what they did with this one. I thought that under the circumstances, the situation was a clear one. By the way, the question has come up, are you an alternate account of another past or present user? Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He's definitely not a newbie...just another disruptive "editor"...soon as his block for trolling expired, he resumed trolling again. Definitely here to be a pest only...must be a very bored human being.--MONGO 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolling? where? I haven't actually vandalised anything MONGO nor breached policy. The troll block was contested by some - Although the decision was made by email to let things lie until the block expired. No I am not an alternate account, I have used wikinews before so I'm familiar with the wiki code. I spent a lot of time on my first day reading through instructions and policy pages after I was warned by a friend that newbies are often caught up in policy misunderstanding. I don't know how my competence in using the site can establish that I'm a sockpuppet. By the way MONGO I'd rather leave it now - as I've already said, is that ok? --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy!

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trampton 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your question

Hi :-) We are discussing it on the list now. I think that we are going to have the case opened as usual. Then an arb will make a "Motion to suspend pending mediation". You or another clerk can go ahead and open the case. We will take it from there. Take care, FloNight 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone will open it tomorrow. In the unlikely event anything changes between now and then, please let us know on WP:AC/CN. Newyorkbrad 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Impertitent research

Serious, man? I was aware there may have been a couple of younger users, but I wasn't aware we had a 13 yr old admin O.o though that doesn't worry me in the slightest; I was more worried people would think I wasn't "mature" enough to contribute. It's good to see a welcoming community - something often quite rare on the 'net. Have a good one. SMC 04:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. Newyorkbrad 04:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not commited suicide - please comment on my editor review.

Regarding the vandalism to my user page and your reply on the vandal's talk page: don't worry, I have not commited suicide. I notice you have removed the "arbitration case" I have filed - could you spare some time to comment at my editor review (and ask others to do so)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me

Oops :) Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand and Danny

First, thanks for the Betacommand proposal. But as for Danny, please look again. Really read what he is writing in those clarifications to the questions.

These two cases are surprisingly linked - for the most obvious example, see B's statement on D's RFA. Together, they're basically an RfC on whether or not it is appropriate to block someone for a month for adding one self-promotional external link. Frankly, what fraction of perfectly good long time contributors came here in order to promote something they were involved with? I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like half. How many would still be here, if, instead of being politely reverted, they had been blocked for a month. Note Danny's statement, that, unlike your hopes that "I trust the candidate to recognize that... certain peremptory actions that might have been appropriate in his former role would no longer be in order today.", is, instead that he will continue to behave just that way. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The real world is calling me offline for awhile now, but I'll look at this again later on. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Isn't it time to take that RFA thanks down? --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When I think of something to replace it with! Ideas? Newyorkbrad 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A free-use Yankees logo and their record :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If I do that then the fans of the 29 other teams will want their !votes back. :) Newyorkbrad 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You username says New York, from the upstate or the city? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In the City now, grew up on Long Island. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Where on LI? I think you told me once but I can't remember. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a hint, we talked about a carousel once. (If you're going to guess do it in an e-mail.) Newyorkbrad 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

for reverting vandalism to my talk page. They're so cute, aren't they? Natalie 02:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to the block. I was disappointed, as I've never blocked a judge before. Newyorkbrad 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The "new messages" banner alerted me. He may have a friend, though Judge Ollie M (talk · contribs) made a very similar page about another judge. Natalie 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF

I just learned a tough lesson about WP:AGF. Up until now I erred on the side of the user, but now after the result of this RFCN. I'm not so sure anymore. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The rule is that we assume good faith until there's a reason not to. Here, there was a reason not to. It doesn't invalidate the overall concept, which I for one find one of the more likeable things about this place. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's RfB

Hi Newyorkbrad, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. I'm humbled to have the trust of an editor I respect as much as you, and as has been said, one day you should take the bureaucrat path as well - you'll have my full support. See you around! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm sorry that such a dedicated editor and RfA aficionado as yourself became the latest illustration of my theory that no one can pass RfB any more. Look for an e-mail from me tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AP procedural question

Hi. This is a procedural question pertaining to the ongoing case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. I would like to draw the ArbCom's attention to the conduct of the admin who unblocked Billy Ego during the events leading up to the dispute. That admin has up until now not been involved in the arbitration case or the discussions leading up to it. Would it be procedurally proper for me to do this at this stage, and if yes, how? May I simply introduce the appropriate evidence and notify him of his involvement in the case? Thanks, Sandstein 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You can present evidence concerning the administrator in question and, as a courtesy, of course you would advise him or her that you were doing so. Generally, adding a new party to the case would require action by an arbitrator, but you can present a motion to do so on the /Workshop page. Newyorkbrad 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Sandstein 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. No comment (either way) on the merits of the motion. Newyorkbrad 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Permablock on ANI

Well, thanks. It almost seems a pity that you ruined the harmony of the consensus though: "The block was quite wrong and it was really rude of Bishonen to point it out." Unfortunately the user has backed himself into a corner where it's going to be difficult for him to return. We may have lost him. :-( (But first things first, our main concern is to stop Bishonen from being sarcastic.) Bishonen | talk 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I think that no one short of Bishzilla will stop Bishonen from being sarcastic, so you needn't expect me to try to win that battle. Incidentally, I haven't encountered Carnildo myself (though I've read plenty about him, of course), but despite disagreeing with him in this instance, I have been impressed by the work done by Yamla, who takes the lead on reviewing many unblock requests and looks at them with a genuinely independent eye. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:

What in the world are you talking about??? Artaxiad 01:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Look in the history of your page to the edit just before mine, read it, and you will find the message from someone I presume is a real-world acquaintance of yours. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to reply, first of all I have no idea what he is talking about, can you semi my page? he has trolled my profile before. See my old log, [57] I really have no businesses with him, he makes up stuff he posts his info on personal websites and he blames me pretty childish. Artaxiad 01:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Newyorkbrad 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Artaxiad 01:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: User boxes

No longer a thing to do with user boxes. But you said you were curious to see who wrote on Jimbo Wales talk page. Why curious? Mattbash 04:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I followed the Lisa Daniels discussion soon after it happened, and had commented on the issue on Alphachimp's page. It was a few weeks ago, and the controversy had pretty much died down, so when I noticed that a contributor I hadn't seen before had posted now regarding this matter on both Jimbo Wales' page and on Alphachimp's as well, I was curious to get a little more background. It was good to see an interest in this type of issue from a relatively new user (which I was myself just a few months ago). Hope that explains, and happy editing; let me know if I can ever be helpful with anything else. Newyorkbrad 16:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Double?

Am I seeing double? :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know ... is the bot a Yankee fan too? Newyorkbrad 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: User page.

Yes. I'm moving a page over it. Will 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take care of it. Newyorkbrad 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For deleting about a quarter of my userspace - even if you don't do the rest, it's a massive job! Will 22:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Since seeing it, I have deleted a few more of the pages, but I've now started to run into the pages' already having been deleted by someone else, so it looks like you have more than one person helping out now. I must add that this is certainly the saddest barnstar I have ever accepted: gratitude not for contributing or helping build the encyclopedia or the community, but for helping to obliterate, although in some cases I hope only temporarily, some of the diligent work that you yourself contributed. I can understand why you would want to remove some of the traces of your prior Wikilife, but perhaps not all of them, and hope that at some future time, perhaps you will petition for some of these scripts or icons to be returned to you, which I will do gladly—but only when the time is right. Your barnstar will remain on my page (for I do save these things, silly though it may seem) as a reminder that not all Wikipedians find themselves lucky enough to find the enjoyment that I, at least for the nonce, am deriving from my work here. Most important, I hope that you are well; exuberance and emotion and occasional mistakes of judgment, youthful or otherwise, are parts of life, and I hope the travails and publicity given to your situation is something from which you, and the others affected, can find peace. With best regards. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason I U1ed them all is simpler than that: I just needed to clean up my userspace, but I'll go with your reasoning as well :D Will 22:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean I thought I was helping you attain a high point of emotional catharsis, and in reality I was just doing the dusting? Perhaps adminship really is just about the mop and bucket after all. :) Newyorkbrad 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's a thankless job most of the time. Will 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...

Is my User Page allowed to have the things I put at the top? --Kevin mills 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The boxes at the top are going to cause some problems, because they will cause your page to show up in category listings it doesn't belong in. Also, your account is a regular user account, not a bot account, so the "bot" box is misleading. The disclaimer ("No...") will help those who visit your page but it still won't cure the problem with the categories.

More than the boxes, I am concerned by some of the other things you have written. First of all, if you are using your real name as I think you are, it is generally considered undesirable for younger editors to disclose too much personally identifying information about themselves (see generally, WP:CHILD). Also bear in mind that Google searches all Wikipedia pages, meaning that if someone types your name into a search engine, this page will pop up, including all of your personal feelings and comments about yourself, your life, your friends, your school, and so forth. I am not convinced that that would be a good thing for you or your family if it were to happen. In particular, I am going to delete the comment about wishing that certain people at your school would die. That is not appropriate to say anywhere and certainly cannot be posted on Wikipedia.

I am not criticizing most of your emotions themselves. Minus the "hick" part, they reflect a lot of how I felt at times when I was a kid/teen. Bear in mind that there is a time and place for everything, including self-expression. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaillimh RfC

I'd just like to clarify I didn't really have anything to do with this, and have no objections if it gets nuked. I was contacted by the author and gave him some advice regarding presentation and things he needed to include and said I'd be happy to certify it as an accurate version of events, but it's certainly not one I'd have created. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The certification is, in substance, that it's a fair presentation of the events and that the signers attempted to resolve the dispute with the subject. In any event, since it's there, let's see what anyone else has to say. Newyorkbrad 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fair, I just wanted to make sure that I certainly had no intention of starting a witch-hunt based on that one (slightly prolonged) incident. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But you shouldn't sign unless you actually want the RfC to go ahead! This seems to be a misunderstanding and basically a null RfC. I've copied this to the RfC talk page. Tyrenius 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost/T.R.O.L.L.

He is away; if you'd be willing to do that, that would let me get to other stories faster. Feel free, if you're still online; thanks for offering. Ral315 » 21:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a current draft for me to look at? I'll be glad to edit and augment, but I don't think a Clerk should write it from scratch. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh; I'd forgotten you were a clerk. I'll write it up and let you know when it's done. Ral315 » 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ral315/Arbitration report. Ral315 » 23:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I did some updating and copyediting. On saving, I hit an edit conflict with Thatcher's update on the Armenia-Azerbaijan case (the last one), so I tried to combine my work on the other cases with his input there, but please make sure I didn't botch it. Newyorkbrad 23:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:Overarchiver

Thanks for blocking him (please reply on my talkpage though). - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit to the ArmAzer RFAr

		The Original Barnstar
		I know you said no responses, but what you said about your disappointment was brilliant and heartwrenching, and absolutely accurate. I looked for an appropriate specific barnstar but could not find one, so I give you the good ol' five and pointy. Golbez 02:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar and for your sentiments. Newyorkbrad 02:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

—Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RfB

You say, at Majorly's RfB, "...another example for my thesis that right now, there are very, very few people in the entire project who could pass an RfB."

I think your thesis is absolutely correct, and I see this as a positive good. The position of B'crat, while very important to Wikipedia, is also practically incidental to nearly every task involved in running the project. RfAs, Renames, and Bots: we don't need more than 10 dedicated folks (or 20-odd occasional workers, which is the norm) for that, and they must all be very experienced, and widely viewed as impartial. It's better to have very few of them than to have any bad seed, as WP could function without them for at least a week or two before anyone even noticed! ;)

The more serious point of this message is to suggest to you that you will make an ideal b'crat candidate with a bit more time under your belt -- you are one of those few, and I look forward to seeing your RfB in the future. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think an arbitrator is another position Brad would be well suited for :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very, very much for the kind words. Actually, what my comment on Majorly's RfB was a toned-down version of my original thesis, which is that there may be literally no one at all who could attain 90% RfB support and thereby pass an RfB given not only the demanding standards the community has set for promoting 'crats but the contradictory expectations we have for the position. I've also commented on RfA talk about the odd configuration of responsibilities assigned to the bureaucrats at this point.

Right now, after a few days this week when I will be less active (I'm on a trip with limited 'net access), I really should try to do some more article-writing more than anything else. But I will bear both of your comments in mind. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should all do some article-writing; that's what we're here for, right? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I created an article today ... one I've been meaning to get to for months. :) It felt good after spending too much time administering. Now tomorrow I just have to add some more content and de-stubbify it. Newyorkbrad 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! I also noticed your comment about a thesis on Majorly's RfB, and am rather interested in how it turns out. Be sure to keep me posted on its date of publication! Also, I must concur with both Majorly and Xoloz in their estimation of you as a great potential bureaucrat candidate. Be sure to keep me posted on that as well! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Parole

Hi. I’ve got a question with regard to Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case. The decision says: After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

However many parties to this case have already been blocked during the arbcom case. Do those blocks count as a parole violation or the count starts from 0, as this new section implies: [58] ? Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster 06:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

On the /Proposed decision page, one of the arbitrators said in voting for the paroles that she believed blocks during the case should count, but the matter is not addressed in the final decision itself. That would pretty much leave it up to the administrators who enforce the decision to interpret, if there are any violations. If you wish, I suppose you could post a request for clarification at WP:RfAr if you believe the matter is of sufficient importance. Newyorkbrad 13:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally up to admins' discretion. Also note that the one year is a maximum, not a requirement. (i.e. 2 weeks, 1 month, etc would also be available to the admin) I think I'll leave a note. Thatcher131 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think people have a right to know whether they count or not, so that it would not come as a surprise to them. I believe this should definitely be clarified. Where exactly should I post my question, on the talk page of our arbcom or elsewhere? Grandmaster 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 has posted his understanding, which is consistent with that of the arbitrator who commented on this issue, as a header to the "log of blocks and bans" on the casepage. This interpretation seems reasonable to me and I believe it would to the arbitrators as well. Unless you strongly disagree with it, perhaps this resolves the matter. Newyorkbrad 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want a definitive answer you should ask at the Request for clarification subsection of the main WP:RFAR page. Thatcher131 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree with it, I just think that different admins may have different understanding of this aspect. So I think there should be one interpretation, clear for everyone, and the fate of editors on parole should not depend on how the admins interpret this decision. So with all due respect, I will seek clarification for this. Thanks for taking time to help. Grandmaster 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Another question that occurs to me is whether the parole applies to all articles that any of the subject editors might edit, or only to articles relating in some way to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. Perhaps that should be clarified as well. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All, unless otherwise specified. Thatcher131 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, agreed; and I see that Grandmaster has posted his question to RfAr. Newyorkbrad 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is also a good question. I posted my question here: [59]. Could you please add your question as well? Thanks. Grandmaster 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher's answer is probably right, but I will add the question just in case. Newyorkbrad 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Grandmaster 18:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding [60] Arbitration

Hello NewYorkbrad,

Could we do a check user on Weldingveersamy (talk · contribs)? I think he might be a sockpuppet of Venki123 (talk · contribs). I think he is playing both sides in the arbitration.

Thanks,Mudaliar 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, not an arbitrator or checkuser. You can request a checkuser by a motion on the /Workshop page of the case, or by requests to an individual arbitrator as you have been doing. Newyorkbrad 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi Brad! Thank you very much for your responses on both my talk page and the since-deleted RfC. I appreciate you spending some of your valuable time to comment. Cheers mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Get lost?

At 19:33, on 4 April 2007 (UTC), Thatcher131 wrote: "As a matter of procedure, this seems to combine findings of fact and a remedy", to which you responded: " ... get lost." [61]. Perhaps I have taken this quote somewhat out of context, but is this any way to respond to a fellow clerk? Paul August ☎ 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your computer is playing tricks on you, Paul. Read it again. It's a whole paragraph, which seems perfectly polite, and ends with the words "so it doesn't get lost". ElinorD (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess I needed to end my comment above with a little smiley face, see also User_talk:Paul_August#Your_comment_to_Newyorkbrad this, but judging by below Brad seems to havve got it. Paul August ☎ 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah yeah chill it out, I'm a fool! Brad should be pleased he's got people looking out for him :) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel a fool now! ElinorD (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it fooled me too for a few moments, and I wrote the comment. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Know what, Paul? ... I have to admit that I had forgotten the full text of that diff until I looked it up, so you can take credit for having succeeded in getting me worried that I must have lost my temper there for a few moments. But I sincerely thank the arbitrators, particularly including yourself for their attention to my comments on the workshop!!! Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hung by an ellipsis... -- ALoan (Talk) 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfA thingy

It's become a multi-person thread so I've only replied on my talk. --bainer (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw. There's some discusson on Kingboyk's talk also. I will have to get onto IRC sometime to participate in discussing these great affairs of state. Newyorkbrad 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rfa evidence

The problem with your latest AS talk suggestion is I was using the SP attacks as evidence in my rfa case, and indeed were I ever to appeal against that I might want to do so again. But wikipeida is riddled with these attacks is my point. SqueakBox 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I understood your point, but I didn't agree with your analogy. With regard to an arbitration case, if there is evidence in any case that is not suitable for presentation on-wiki, there are other means of making it available to the arbitrators. (One of them, as it happens, is e-mailing it to me, as I'm a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, or for that matter e-mail to any active arbitrator, with a request that it be forwarded to the arbitrators' mailing list.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you are the clerk, hence my comment. Right now I would rather sit out my arbcom restrictions till June (mostly a personal attack prohibition which I dont of itself object to) but thanks for the advice, SqueakBox 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. It had slipped my mind that you were involved in a prior RfAr case. I thought you were referring to evidence you wanted to present in the current disputes about the attack pages ruling and page themselves. Newyorkbrad 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

Thanks for the help with the whole blocking issue. Anyway, when I was blocked the admin who blocked me said I could ask about the block on his talk page. This was impossible, however, as I was blocked. Is there something I'm missing or was this just a slip up on the admin's part. Yaksar 21:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume he meant on YOUR talk page, which as you saw you were able to edit. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:88.111.204.41

I don't think I actually blocked the person; I'm not seeing anything in my logs or the IP's block log. I may have tagged the page inadvertently or who knows....maybe I did and there's a serious lag. You are welcome to unblock if there is a block in place. - auburnpilot talk 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. You're right that I don't see a block either. I've told the user to try editing and see what happens. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

hey man thanks for the help. i owe you one. i want to give you a barnstar but i dont know how. lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.204.41 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

If you really want the page on how to do that I'm sure someone can help you find it. :) But more important, please resume editing and stay away from the sort of thing that got you warned and blocked. If you ever register an account, let me know so I can welcome you officially. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Was one step ahead of you. Thanks for the help with everything.Micky 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duality344 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

#5

You're now number 5 :) --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still #1 for a first-time RfA, not that I'm keeping track or anything. :) Newyorkbrad 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, never :) Although it could be argued that, because Phaedriel declined her first RfA before it even began, that it doesn't count. But that would be a silly waste of time, would it not... Daniel Bryant 12:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, hardly ever! As for Phaedriel, I hadn't realized that, but I will gladly cede #1 back to Phaedriel if she resumes editing. She became less active right around the time I was really getting involved in Wikipedia.

Alternatively, we can go by percentage support within the WP:200. Crunch the numbers and get back to me, willya? :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Yoshi47

I recommended a block of this user earlier today, and you executed it indefinitely. He is requesting on the talk page to be released because he was a new user and didn't mean to do harm. I say let him sit for a few days and then give him a second chance. YechielMan 03:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on his page. Thanks for the heads up. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(request for block)

Hi. If you are blocking the above, why not the alter ego, User:Editorinchimp? It goes like this: UserEd posts horrible personal attack on Regan123 talk page, I post gentle request not to do it on UserEd talk page. Before you can say "switch accounts", I get a post on my talk page from UserNig repeating almost verbatim the reminder I posted on UserEd talk page. If you track the above chain of events, also look at identical reverts of Regan's vandalfighting on Elm Park, you will notice the similarities. And the 'nice' welcome message on Editorinchimp's user page. Keep at it, and thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're way too quick for me! Well done. Best wishes. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 01:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a coincidence that I was online when you wrote. If you'd written half an hour later, I wouldn't have seen it until morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Miss Mondegreen

Hi Newyorkbrad. I am troubled by Miss Mondegreen's continued difficulties with assuming good faith. She appears to have a long history of assuming bad faith, and issuing level 3 warnings as first warnings. What would you have me do? Turn a blind eye to this just because she baselessly accuses me of harassment? If there are any grounds for claims of harassment, then please do point them out to me. But, as Miss Mondegreen herself has previous contended, it is perfectly acceptable to keep an eye on editors with a troublesome track record. --Rebroad 19:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Receiving warnings from the one person she has specifically asked to leave her alone is not going to help matters. Newyorkbrad 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat

Already saw the note you left, unblocked him while that's sorted out. Thanks for letting me know though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For quickly and politely correcting my error, I award Newyorkbrad the Barnstar of Diligence. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Actually, it was mostly a coincidence of seeing the 3RR report about 30 seconds after seeing Schmucky's ANI report that made an alarm bell go off. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Faith

You have more of it than I do. He operates just under the radar and just under what is acceptable and what isn't. I don't see anything significant in his efforts, honestly...and the "contributions" he made off wiki were at times, simply outrageous...though I do try my best to always examine what happens here and try to overlook what happens elsewhere, if possible...but that really is asking a lot.--MONGO 04:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly in no way defending what happened last year. It's probably time to mention that the "anonymous proposals" that became part of the decision in the MONGO/ED case were actually submitted by me (I was new then and didn't want to raise too high a profile yet). I do believe in second chances, but I'll also continue to keep a close eye on things. Then again, sometimes I'm a little naïve about human nature. We'll see. Newyorkbrad 12:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a particular precedent

Could you point me to the case that established the precedent for indef blocking in response to "outing" a pseudonymous editor's real world identity? I was looking for that last week and didn't find it although I recall seeing it somewhere in ArbCom space a few months ago. Nothing turned up at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions - here's hoping your recollection is better than mine. An editor is asking me where it's written. Durova^Charge! 06:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The decision last fall in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO is what's usually cited in this regard. There may also be something earlier, but that would be before my time. See also Wikipedia:Harassment. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I knew I'd seen that somewhere. Durova^Charge! 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

word limit

Thank you for your note. I reduced to about 580 words which is less than DCmdevit 650 words. I would appriciate it if all parties involved can reduce their statments. Mine was not the longest. Best, Zeq 08:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. 580-650 words is very reasonable. I'll take a look now and see if others are too long. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Diem Arbitration

Thanks for the guidance. Hopefully, I got it right this time.

--VnTruth 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Very late response

In response to the comment that I have just now seen, I did know before that, and still do know, that I can check the block log. however, most of the time I am too lazy to do so :-) Btw, is your weather in real-life acting like a reincarnation of The Day After Tomorrow (mine is)?  ~Steptrip 16:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand about being lazy, but if you don't look it up, them someone else has to, right?

Weather here is pretty bad, yes. Where are you located (just very generally, please)? Newyorkbrad 16:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but now I regularly check the block log (although sometimes I do admittedly slack up). I live in South Carolina, and that is as specific as I will get.  ~Steptrip 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Truncated edit

Not sure what technical gremlin crept in here, but I reverted it :) --kingboyk 17:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for catching that. I have limited access today and am editing from a hand-held gadget, which must have a memory capacity issue within the edit field. Newyorkbrad 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just got your comment

Good timing! I'd just been about to reply to Rebroad on his talk page (which I somehow misssed until now), but I won't if he's willing to give avoidance another try. Course I replied to him and others at ANI right before I saw your message so... Anyway, we'll see how things go. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another username for Bryan... Might be well to delete it as it looks like somebody tampered with it today.

[[62]] --BenBurch 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the page as being unnecessary and potentially confusing, although I have to say I didn't follow the db rationale that was placed on the page. Newyorkbrad 02:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The page was created but not fom a new user. If you look, there is no "user contribution" link since it was just a page created by "BryanFromPalatine" not a user "Bryanfrompalatine." As an example, go to User:NewYorkBrad and you will see that I just created it, but I did not create a "NewYorkBrad" account. (please delete it). It is not a user page, rather it is just a page created in user space with a name similar to the user name. This was the reason I gave for the speedy. The giveaway is the toolbox navigator lacks the user specific items (i.e. "E-mail this user" and "User contributions".) --Tbeatty 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I did understand that it wasn't a separate user account, hence the wording of my deletion summary, but technically the page still was in userspace, not mainspace. Newyorkbrad 10:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, guys! --BenBurch 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

I had a link to the Workshop page, so by-passed any archive notices and since I didn't read the Signpost yet was unaware it had closed. Apologies, I will go about this another way. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It just closed over the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Danny

I thought that you would want to know that the thread you removed has again been restored by the same individual. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I believe this is being discussed on ANI now where hopefully consensus can be reached that this is unnecessary. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, as TfD (unlike AfD or MfD) is not a regular haunt of mine. I'll take a look in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz

He may help out with some things, but that doesn't necessarily equate to being seriously interested in building an encyclopedia. A person who was would do at least some significant content work, and wouldn't dismiss the importance of an article because it's about "some guy from the 1800s". Everyking 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll reply after his RfA is over. Newyorkbrad 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose I'll let it drop, along with my similar concerns about a couple of the other opposes. But in general, opposing candidates based on their perceived qualifications or lack of qualifications is part of the process. Stating or implying that good-faith contributors, who are volunteers just like the rest of us, don't really care about the project is not. Not aimed at Everyking's remark in particular, but a couple of the opposes toward the end had an air of "this candidate ought to go away from Wikipedia and never come back again" rather than "this is what the candidate can do to become a better contributor." This makes me sad, and not just because this particular candidate was my nominee. Newyorkbrad 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I absolutely don't think he should go away and never come back again. I do think he should do some content work if he wants to be an admin, though (preferably about something historical, to allay concerns about his views in that respect). Everyking 14:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of interest

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 07:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but since I was just in a ninor dispute with him, I think I'll stay out of this one. Please be careful you don't inadvertently violate the spirit of WP:CANVASS with too many notices. Regards, Newyorkbrad 07:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A Question

Did you ever see the post that WkiBeta left for you yesterday before his banning? It was deleted by some clown named Naconkantari. If you did not read it how do you feel about other people editing YOUR talk page? Kinda like Stillborn Scott felt when a 15 year old child deleted yours and his discussion? NOW do you see why these people must be exposed? Wikikayeyay 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the post yesterday, but in general, posts making personal attacks on other contributors and calling people names are subject to deletion. For example, a post with the title you have placed on this one <note, title was refactored later> would frequently be deleted, although I will ask that this not be done in this instance so that you can see this response. Such deletion is done as a matter of routine, to maintain the tone of discourse, and is not necessarily related to whether the person posting may have a legitimate grievance or not. On the other hand, I think I have also demonstrated that posts raising significant issues in a serious way receive my concerned and detailed attention. Newyorkbrad 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The title of the post is in relation to what YOU will do now that you know a post intended for YOU on YOUR talk page was deleted by someone else without your knowledge or permission. I'd be screaming bloody murder- who is Narcowhatever to edit YOUR messages?

That being said.... shall we discuss the future or do I get banned and have to sign up for my 178th account tomorrow? Wikikayeyay 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The editors who have deleted posts or protected pages have done so in accordance with our standard policy for dealing with users who engage in the type of conduct that you have engaged in. I am going to repeat that we do not personally insult other editors on Wikipedia. My purpose is not to critique your writing style. It is certainly direct and in many instances, I presume, has been effective for you. But it is not the way we interact with one another here.

Nor do we allow people to edit on Wikipedia after having been repeatedly banned from the site under other usernames, and especially not while they are simultaneously calling for contributors to be identified and harassed in their everyday lives. I renew in the strongest terms my call for you to stop the off-wiki harassment at once and to remove your calls for your fans to harass our editors immediately and permanently from your website.

I particularly deplore your publishing real-life identifying information involving one of our editors who is a minor. Such conduct is unacceptable, probably unlawful, and I find it difficult to believe that you would engage in it. I hope you can understand why we cannot allow continued posting here from someone who would engage in such behavior.

As I have said before, including in my previous responses to you which you can find in the page history of User talk:StillbornScott, your conduct including an off-wiki call that I be identified and harassed in real life now prevents me from taking any action to address the concerns you may still have with your article, because anything I do will be viewed by other editors as yielding to off-wiki harassment. Thus, your conduct is not only harmful, but counterproductive.

The appropriate step for a person such as yourself who is concerned about the contents of the article on himself is to contact Wikipedia via e-mail ("OTRS") as you have been told to do before. Raising the concerns on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard (WP:BLP) is another viable alternative. In addition, I have posted to our Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:ANI) asking that experienced Wikipedia administrators watchlist your article. Other editors reading this page are also urged to do so just as I would urge that careful attention be given to any article that was the subject of a BLP complaint.

Please note that I will be on vacation for a few days beginning tomorrow and my Internet access may be limited for part of the time. This is a long-planned trip unrelated to Wikipedia or our dispute. Newyorkbrad 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way and apropos of nothing, you are right that the Barnaby reprint paperback no. 6 issued by Ballantine is extremely difficult to track down. A relative wanted a copy awhile back and it took me a year to locate one. Newyorkbrad 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

I know your away at present, but how long do motions take in ArbCom matters? It's just that Parker007 seams to be disrupting somewhat and there is this motion to dismiss him from the case. Cheers (enjoy your break by the way!) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't be more helpful than to respond that it varies. Bear in mind that the arbitrators are not bound to vote on any motion presented by a party. If one of the arbitrators wants the motion voted on, he or she will move it to the /Proposed decision page for consideration and a vote. Otherwise, the arbitrators might choose simply not to adopt any proposals relating to the editor you mention, if that is their decision, without adopting a formal "motion to dismiss." Newyorkbrad 15:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Brad

Dear Brad, I wholeheartedly apologize for taking so long to reply to your kind and warm message. I must tell you, I've seen so much of you around, that I was very surprised and delighted to see you approach me! I've been planning to write you for the last few days, but for one reason or another, I find myself lacking the time to actually sit down and talk to you like you deserve. I've slept like four hours in the last day and a half, so the moment to message you like I want to may never arrive! :( Anyway, dear, I didn't want you to think I didn't notice your beautiful words. I promise that I'll find the moment to drop you a mail as soon as my maternity duties permit - deal? ;) Have a great day, Brad! - Phaedriel - 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I look forward to that, but there is certainly no urgency. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk request

Hi, Brad (Bradley? Bradshaw? Bradorama?). Or any other clerk watching this page. If you're clerking the Ideogram-Certified.Gangsta RFAr, I request that you factor out Ideogram's references to me as "Bish." I really dislike it that he does that. What's next, "Bishie"? My Wikipedia name is Bishonen. I allow the short/intimate/jocular/pet name/whatever form to friends, and to anybody on IRC, where brevity is at a premium, but I don't see any legitimate call for a self-professed enemy to use it (while attacking me, yet) in a formal forum such as arbitration. It's not like I call him "Id." Bishonen | talk 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

I only found two instances in one workshop proposal. Are there more? Thatcher131 13:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One on the evidence page. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for handling, Thatch. :) Newyorkbrad 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Back on the Crackberry, Brad? What did you do with yourself yesterday? Thatcher131 15:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See the first business page of today's New York Times. :) But, off to the pool now. Newyorkbrad 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What's your job... o.O? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Adams FAC

Just wanted to let you know, I put up Samuel Adams for FAC now. Nishkid64 20:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look and do some more copyediting when I get home. Incidentally and unrelatedly, I just rejected an AN3 complaint against you. Newyorkbrad 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. :D Nishkid64 21:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: AC/CN

Checking with him. I'll write up a summary if he passes on it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps}

Adding signature for bot. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ngo Dinh Diem

My report of Nishkid64's violation was late because I was locked out of the system, primarily for reverting his reverts. It's good to see, as the previous entry shows, that you and Nishkid are such good buddies. --VnTruth 00:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for 48 hours, so that doesn't explain why the report was 5 days late. In any event, there was no violation and no admin would have blocked on this record. Newyorkbrad 01:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

portal talk

In an ongoing RfA you oppose a candidate for lack of portal/portal talk edits, and I'm a little puzzled why you think it is critically important? I am undoubtedly misunderstanding something, of course. 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)DGG

I don't know precisely what you are referring to and would appreciate a link, but this type of remark is a joke. "Insufficient portal talk edits" is sort of a code for unrealistically finicky expectations that some users believe that other users have for RfA candidates—sometimes referred to as "editcountitis" or, in Carnildo's memorable phrase, arbitrary demands for shrubberies. See also the last quatrain here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am much enlightened about the meaning. I was dumb enough to not get it, Makes very good sense nowDGG 03:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

WP:BLP violation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Andries.27_editing_privileges_restricted

Hi NewYorkBrad, can you please remove comments made about me at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Andries.27_editing_privileges_restricted. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#WP:BLP_violation Making false accusations about "activism" without any supporting diffs even after months and in spite of my repeated requests to several arbcom members to produce diffs is a violation of WP:BLP. I hoped that arbcom members would at least try to be objective and back up their accusations. If the arbcom just wanted to get rid of a seemingly never-ending conflict by giving me a topic ban then the arbcom should have said so. I would have had some understanding for it. But the arbcom should not motivate or rationalize a topic ban by making unsupported accusations against me or anyone else. Andries 08:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You may also be interested in the comments by user:Bishonen Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editing Andries 08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I cannot edit the pages relating to a closed case. However, if you are concerned that the workshop may show up in searches and reflect negatively on you, I can consider archiving the page. Newyorkbrad 13:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if you could do that. I will also remove the libellous statement myself. The arbcom or anyone else had ample time and opportunity to back up their statement. I still continue it outrageous that not a single instance of a diff by me was produced by anyone on Sathya Sai Baba that showed that I engaged in disruptive edits, or activist edits, but that I was topic banned anyway. Taking this lack of evidence into account, I fail to see how this topic ban could help the encyclopedia or how this could even be remotely fair. I will continue editing at citizendium where my edits with the help of the many mainstream scholarly books that I possess about the subject will hopefully be more appreciated. Andries 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can archive an entire page to history there's no reason we can't archive a discussion, as long as it is properly annotated. Thatcher131 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think it's safer to do the whole page rather than have some other editor accuse us of cherry-picking. At least that's true for me, since I haven't followed that case well and don't know the record. If you (TT) have a more specific archiving in mind, please feel more than free. :) Newyorkbrad 01:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin and shrubberies

Bullseye - see WT:RFA#Candidate in an impossible position. (I was about to ask Kelly which plants she wanted in her {{shrubbery}}) Sam Blacketer 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates

What do you think about the templates? I think that the user links need to be restored, but I want to get opinions. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this about the SSB case? If so, David asked me the same thing. Honestly, I have not been following this case or issue and would need for someone to explain in some detail what is going on before I could offer any sort of informed opinion. Otherwise I will defer to Thatcher on this issue. Newyorkbrad 15:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone has now explained the issue to me. I am refining a statement of my views and will post to the noticeboard when I have completed my analysis. :) (Meaning, I'm thinking about it.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock?

I've responded there. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your response. My understanding is that autoblock is presumptively engaged unless "no autoblock" is indicated. However, my admin prowess does not extend to the technicalities of autoblocking, and someone will kindly inform me if I'm mistaken. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at my own blocking log, I see a few blocks listed with "no autoblock," which leads me to conclude that "no autoblock" is designated in the summary meaning that any other blocks are autoblock-engaged. However, I realize I may be missing something. Newyorkbrad 21:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever you thought, it's clearly wrong, since he's editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I see ... I'm still confused, but I see. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[Non admin talking :)]-Autoblock is always enabled unless noautoblock is stated. Noautoblock is usually for username violations and and AOL IP's. The other options (account creation blocked and anonymous only) only apply to IPs. When those options are used on accounts and not IPs, the options are applied to the IPs autoblocked because of that block. When noautoblock is listed on a registered account, even if the other options are listed, they have no a(e?)ffect. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 23:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I'll have to study them. ("Non-admin": we'll have to work on that again sometime. And it's "effect.") Newyorkbrad 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...affect is "to have an influence on". So whats effect? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Affect" meaning "to have influence on" is a verb. "Effect" meaning "a result or impact" is a noun. (Confusingly, sometimes "effect" can be a verb and "affect" a noun, but one lesson per day. If you want I'll send you a link to a site with a more complete explanation.) Newyorkbrad 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So in "How did it ?ffect him?," it's affect because it's being used as a past tense verb? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You R right again. :) Newyorkbrad 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And "The hurricane ?ffected him" is also affected? By the way, I like the puns. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Right still again ... and I'm glad you like the puns ... but it's going to be hRd to come up with any more. Newyorkbrad 01:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"His broken leg had a negative ?ffect in the game" would be effect? (Last one. I'm promise :). Sorry, but you're doing a much better job than my english teacher did. :) ) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone else's turn ... /looks around/ ... let's not always see the same hands.... Newyorkbrad 01:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate when my teachers say that. Instead of calling on the few people that have their hand up, they call on the kid sitting there staring at the wall and my hand gets tired and I get annoyed :). --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

/me thinks back a few years, nods, empathizes.../ Newyorkbrad 01:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And on the first pun edit summary, the only part I didn't understand after re-reading it about 10 times was "Rticule". Was this meant to mean articule, as in articulate, as in to elaborate? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Typo - should have been "Rticulate" - sorry. Newyorkbrad 02:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is "effect" here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That Discussion.

I should have done what you did. I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Thanks. Acalamari 21:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You'll reciprocate sometime when I'm making the same mistake. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I was starting to get tired of the Orange Bar of Doom. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Our tastes must differ: I generally look forward to getting messages. Newyorkbrad 23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, sometimes, but when it goes off every few minutes you get a bit tired of it. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I know im kinda butting in but wtf is orange bar of doom?Quatreryukami

I believe Kelly is referring to the "you have new messages" banner. Newyorkbrad 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Essjay used his monobook to turn the orange bar of doom into a cute penguin. Thatcher131 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just lead to living in dread of the "Cute Penguin of Doom"? WjBscribe 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Arbitration statement length

Hello, I reduced length of statement, if it needs more let me know. Another note, I have little skills in this area but is this some sort of copy/paste comment? M.K. 08:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you re length. As for the comment, I have to admit I don't know what's going on there. Newyorkbrad 13:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Another editor sopped this as well, and indeed this comment is almost the same as comment of recently desysopped admin's one. Do you think is it worth to address this issue to ArbCom members? M.K. 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TingMing

TingMing (talk · contribs) is engaging in threaded dialog on the arbitration requests page in response to a request filed against him, and it seems to be going a bit out of control now. Can you please remind him and/or refactor his statements? TML 13:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Refactored, and left a clerk note to all participants. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 13:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Fred Bauder

Although I realize that you weren't responding explicitly to me, I must nevertheless thank you for having clarified the genesis of Fred's being named as a party; in my haste to come to the support of a user who apparently felt, rightly or wrongly, that legitimate concerns of his related, in his mind, to the improvement of the project were being vitiated by a party who ought not to have been involved in the handling of the RfAr, I, you know, neglected actually to read the diffs about which I was commenting. I am inclined to disagree with Thatcher and (ostensibly) the committee with respect to the propriety of the case's being taken off-wiki, but I surely appreciate that I wrote whereof I did not know (in my defense, I was watching Cheaters whilst I wrote, and that is some damn compelling television), and I thank you for elucidating that for me. Joe 19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I happen to know about these issues from some real-world experience. See generally the mainspace article on recusal, which I am one of the contributors to. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerking

Given your present stated interest in Wikipedia's coverage of clerks, you may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Court of Appeal Law Clerks. WjBscribe 23:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that on a scan of AfD's the other day and took a close look, but one mustn't confuse law clerks with court clerks, plus it's about the clerks to a Canadian court, so I don't have a strong view on it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. We tend to refer to law clerks in the UK as "judicial assistants" or JAs so I admit I wasn't fully seeing the distinction :-). WjBscribe 00:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lawyers Cause Pain

You should go to talk:William Rainborowe and read the legal bit we have there. Neither of us is exactly sure what it's saying, despite both of us arguably speaking the same language as the authors. Geogre 19:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Limited time this weekend (I'm nominally on a Wikibreak until Monday, but I am doing a poor job of it), but I will try to contribute to the deciphering when I get home. Newyorkbrad 20:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Having now stared at it for awhile, I can't improve on your explication of the meaning. Believe it or not, legal drafting has improved since the 1600's. In fact, I have three texts on legislative drafting in my office, all of which say not to write like that. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion nomination

I think you misunderstood my nomination. I'm in no way said that something should redirect something. All I said is that University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) is a redundance of University of Wisconsin System. Please reopen this case and let others to discuss. Miaers 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you might want to clarify your explanation as to what is the problem with the page, as I understood it the way I described it. If you really want the discussion reopened, I will cancel the speedy close rather than force you to drag this to deletion review, but I really don't understand what is the problem with this page that makes you oppose it so strongly. It looks like a routine dab page to me. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I stated my rationale in the nomination. It is a nonimation for deletion not redirect. Please reopen it. Miaers 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've reverted the close and reopened the discussion, although I've posted my own comment for Keep. I still don't understand what the problem is with this page, but the discussion can play out. Newyorkbrad 03:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've rephrased my nomination. Hopefully, you can see it is a nomination for deletion of a redundant article. Miaers 04:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the reasons for the nomination. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I unfortunately cannot comply.

The admin has threatened my civil rights and read a private email addressed to me without my consent off wikipedia. However, I shall not be removing the statement. I have added under that statement that I will not take legal action. if this is unsatifactory for you, I apologize. You can go ahead block me for it if you want but I protest against such as action and I will not willingly remove the said statement. I will be probably be blocked anyway from this rfa. rule with fairness and may god bless you. --D-Boy 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. Please note that I am not an arbitrator, just a Clerk assisting with maintaining the case pages, and will not be involved in ruling on the case, if accepted. As I indicated, your statement that a First Amendment violation took place is not correct as the U.S. Constitution constrains only governmental action, not action by a private entity such as Wikipedia or one of its editors. Newyorkbrad 00:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The said action would focused on Rama's Arrow not on wikipedia. he read someone else's email without consent and then posted the email of all places on wikipedia.--D-Boy 00:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

An individual editor is not part of the federal or state government either. I am not either endorsing or criticizing the actions described but they cannot, as a matter of constitutional law, represent a First Amendment violation. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

hm. you raise a good point. I shall remove part of the statement.--D-Boy 00:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Block/unblock of Dangerous-boy

As the clerk looking after this case, could you remind D-Boy that he has been unblocked only for the ArbCom case. He has continued edit-warring here. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked. Thatcher131 18:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't as clear to me that he was unblocked only for the case, as I don't see any on-wiki discussion of that limitation (though it is implied in the block log). I also don't see that D-boy was advised of any restriction on his editing at the time of his original unblock. If the intention was or is that he edit only the case pages then he should have been clearly notified of this. He knows now, however. Newyorkbrad 18:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's true. There's nothing from RA on conditions for the unblock except in the block log. And the block is based on facts that are disputed in the case. Let me look at the ANI thread. Thatcher131 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the people on ANI who did not agree with the blocks wanted Rama to unblock the users to listen to their defense (Humun sapiens, Jayjg, Dineshkannambadi, Proabivouac). I think Rama unblocked Baka for that. Later, arbitrator Kirill Lokshin left a message on Rama's talk asking him to unblock only to allow the blocked parties to make their statement. User_talk:Rama's_Arrow#Blocked_parties. I think Rama just forgot to mention the conditional unblock to DBoy. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Deferred to Thatcher for follow-up, since he touched it before I did. :) Newyorkbrad 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have unblocked as I am not prepared to own the block myself, and I do not think sufficient notice was given of any restrictions. (Kirill did not use the word only that I can see, either.) I would have no objection to other admins reblocking (after an appropriate warning to all three unblockees) but it should obviously not be any admin involved in the pending case. Thatcher131 18:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia's user page

While I hate Miltopia's page, and while I'm unamused by his "I have AIDS LOL" edits, I'm sure it must be rather galling to have someone coming along putting a blocked user template on your page as his fourth edit. So I think it was nice of you to revert. I was actually looking at it wondering would I revert it, but you beat me to it. Promise if I'm ever blocked for a week you'll do the same for me! :) ElinorD (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Your thought process on this was pretty much the same as mine. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Notification

I have left a rather pointed reply for you here, and am notifying you of it here just to be sure you are aware of it. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather pointed, indeed. Responded to in detail, perhaps in too much detail. And thanks again for the notification. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The "liar" speaks.

I just want to point out one thing. I made my statement in ignorance, not out of malice. Within twenty minutes, I'd corrected it per this diff. I felt the need to mention that, since Kelly's opinion here seems to be that I'm spreading this "lie" as gospel and not recanting a single step. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's an apology, you are on the wrong talk page.--Doc^g 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention his stated reason for retracting it makes it seem as he retracted his statement not because it was false or inappropriate, but merely to humor me. That is an excellent way to try to shift blame to the victim. I will not idly stand by while such offensive activities are carried on at my expense. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By species

I remember you told me once, but where's the list of admins by species? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..Chrislk said something about 4 previous RFC's. Am I missing one not in the numbered list of ones titled Kelly Martin #? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 04:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, he made a mistake. If this is the fourth, then there were three previous ones. Newyorkbrad 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

She could've had another name though, just like my RFA will be /R, not /R 4. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was just a mistake. Newyorkbrad 04:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RfAr/Hkelkar 2

Hi NYB - can hold off on starting the proceedings till mid-May? Apparently 3 of the involved parties have examinations. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That request must be made to the arbitrators. I will hold off on opening the case for 24 hours to allow you to present the request. Otherwise, the case will open and it can simply be requested that the arbitrators allow some extra time for the evidence phase before the case moves to voting.

By the way, seeing "just a sexy boy" in large orange letters over and over on the arbitration page is a little bit weird. Newyorkbrad 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not meant for the likes of you - its meant for women. You'd feel differently if you had more estrogen in you! Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, where exactly do I present the request? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I think we shall pass rapidly over the concept of using a Wikipedia signature as pick-up line (Rocky to Bullwinkle: "That trick never works!") and move on to your question. You can place your request in a separate, clearly labelled subsection in your case's portion of the RfAr page. I have left a Clerk Note to let the arbitrators know they might expect such a request. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I caballistically spoke to Nick via email, and he said (as he has elsewhere) that he is in the midst of exams until the middle of May and won't be able to participate any sooner than that. Guettarda 04:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Newyorkbrad. Sorry to appear here from no where :) I also request that the editors having examinations should be afforded an opportunity to present their side after the examinations are over. This looks humane too. We should allow them to do their examinations without stress. If it is possible, please try to do something to delay the matter. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See the comment by arbitrator Morven on the arbitration page. We will open the case up but the arbitrators won't vote until everyone's had a chance to present their evidence after exams are over. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While this is sound in theory, it's often the people who get onto the workshop page first who set the tone for the entire discussion. I agree that there's no harm in letting the evidence page go up, I think it would only be fair if the workshop page didn't progress too far before exams were done...something that I think could best be achieved through "soft power" - gentle prodding on your part - rather than any hard restrictions. Obviously, it's up to you - this is just a suggestion on my part. Guettarda 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but beyond an introductory suggestion, the pacing is really up to the arbitrators. Thanks for your note.Newyorkbrad 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you mean we aren't supposed to admit out in the open that the Clerks are the real power behind the throne ;) Ok, I won't tell anyone :) Guettarda 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda is right. I know they are really powerful - and, I am talking from my real life experience. Newyorkbrad, it is a compliment :) Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Y'know, you're going to end up blacklisted from running for ArbCom yourself if you keep making yourself so damned useful to us. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ask FloNight which job she likes better. :) Newyorkbrad 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Judges

BTW, when I was categorizing the Federal judges I noticed most of the judges did not have infoboxes. There is a newer one out there that looks pretty good that I have been using for Oregon judges, here is the code:

{{Infobox Judge
| name          = 
| image         = 
| imagesize     = 
| caption       = 
| office        = 
| termstart     = 
| termend       = 
| nominator     = 
| appointer     = 
| predecessor   = 
| successor     = 
| office2       = 
| termstart2    = 
| termend2      = 
| nominator2    = 
| appointer2    = 
| predecessor2  = 
| successor2    = 
| office3       = 
| termstart3    = 
| termend3      = 
| nominator3    = 
| appointer3    = 
| predecessor3  = 
| successor3    = 
| birthdate     = 
| birthplace    = 
| deathdate     = 
| deathplace    = 
| spouse        = 
}}

Anything left blank then doesn't show up, and if you leave the termend date blank after filling in the termstart date it then displays "incumbent." You don't have to add an infobox, but it makes it look more official. For some examples in use see William C. Perry and Alfred Goodwin. Aboutmovies 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I've never used many boxes on anything I've written, and I know some editors believe that we are festooning articles generally with too many boxes, but I will take a closer look at this when I have some time. (Real life shows signs of being intrusive on my wiki-career for the next few days.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As an individual

I thank you.--Thomas Basboll 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Modification of remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

Although the case is none of my business, (I do not know anything about the arbitration case), I was wondering if there could be some clarification on what is being discussed there. I am merely curious. ;) -- Cat ^chi? 03:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look a bit higher on the Requests for arbitration page, specifically here, you will see a section in which Crotalus horridus requests that his probation from the Tony Sidaway case be lifted or reduced. The section you found is where the arbitrators are voting on the motion. Newyorkbrad 03:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Moby Dick

Yes, to summarise my view I think it's time to seriously consider banning this editor. He made a nuisance of himself on the political articles and got banned from those, then he harassed Cool Cat and was told that "If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed." So he turns up a while later as Moby Dick, harasses Cool Cat again, gets identified as Davenbelle and is banned from Turkey and Kurdish issues and banned from harassing Cool Cat, Megaman Zero, and other users in general. Now at this stage it's obvious that he's determined to circumvent any sanction, so the ultimate, an arbitration committee one year ban followed permanent general probation, would be merited. --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a reasonable case. You might want to present your position to the arbitrators in more detail than you have so far, bearing in mind that a majority of the arbitrators weren't on the committee when the original case was decided. Not that I need to explain any of that to you, of course. Newyorkbrad 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Newyorkbrad, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Donald P. Lay

Thanks for the note-- I always start one if I look someone up and don't find an entry. It could use some expansion, for sure, especially from someone in the field! Jokestress 22:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have concentrated more on judges from my part of the country, but was going to write up Judge Lay after seeing his Times obituary today, since I have a copy of a book he wrote. If you want to add some more detail, I don't know if you've looked at his write up in the Federal Judicial Directory which may have some additional information. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman

Hi - this user was unblocked for the case, but has begun editing other articles. Please take care of it, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If I recall we took a look at this regarding another of the blocked/unblocked editors (thread in archive now), and determined that there was no express limitation on these users' editing rights at this time. I also believe we determined that the editors had not been advised of any restrictions when they were unblocked? Please link me if I am missing anything.

In the meantime, is the user's current editing disruptive or improper? If so, you can post to ANI or move for a temporary injunction in the case on the Workshop page. (As the clerk for the case I would prefer not to block any of the participants myself absent an emergency.) If not, then there may not be a reason to restrict editing at this time. Please let me know what you think. Newyorkbrad 06:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a god among men.--D-Boy 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, according to me, it went like this - (1) I blocked these editors on finding their links to Kelkar. (2) On ANI, there was a dispute over the validity, with a number of editors/admins supporting/criticizing the blocks, (3) so we went to ArbCom. Now while ArbCom considers the case, where is the justification for these guys to keep editing anything except the case pages? They are suspected of being meatpuppets of Kelkar, and are editing the same Hinduism, India-related pages they usually do, arguing over references and validity of content claims, etc. They are on their normal routine. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply b'coz as an admin, I was perfectly justified in taking action. Now the reasons and validity of those actions/blocks is under examination - this case wasn't opened entirely regarding the activities of these editors (which would give them the right to edit unrestricted). I unblocked them on Kirill Lokshin's request so they could make their statements and participate in this case, but that's all - Lokshin didn't say they could edit until ArbCom upheld the blocks. There was nothing about letting them do their routine, which is likely meatpuppetry. I know its a slightly complex issue, but I certainly object to their continued editing of anything except the ArbCom pages - (1) it insinuates that the blocks were wrong and (2) it gives them a chance to perpetrate their activities which are under scrutiny at ArbCom. Lemme know what you think/suggest, Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to refer this issue to the arbitrators. I will post a short summary of the situation on the /Workshop page and each of you can then post your position there as to whether Dangerous-Boy and Bakasuprman should be allowed to edit (other than on arbitration pages) during the duration of the case. Newyorkbrad 14:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately when the accounts were unblocked, neither you nor Kirill notified the editors of such a restriction. If Brad or some other admin not involved in the case wants to review their edits and impose such a limitation going forward, that would be acceptable use of admin discretion. Thatcher131 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to the workshop. In the meantime, Dangerous-Boy and Bakasuprman should understand that any edits they do make will be under scrutiny. Edit-warring or provocative edits will not help your position at all either with regard to this issue or regarding the ultimate decision in the case. Verbum sap. Newyorkbrad 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Selecting my account

Thanks for the reply; I select the account by the id of Freedom skies. There is a lot of baggage attached to this account that I'd like to jettison but I've been with it for over an year and a half and would like to stay with it. Best Wishes,
_{Freedom skies| talk}  04:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So noted and I will make a note on the case page. Good luck. Newyorkbrad 06:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Proposed decision

I have a feeling that the recent evidence are being ignored by the Arbitrators. Some more people have put their evidence forward after the arbitration case moved into "voting phase", but it doesn't seem like Arbitrators have seen all of the evidence. Also, User:N1u seems like a likely sock of User:Certified.Gangsta, but has not gone through checkuser. What must be done so that the evidence are reflected in the Arbitration case before it closes? LionheartX 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As you are aware, the case is near closing. Not commenting on the merits of this specific case, but in general, major changes in the decision are generally not made at this stage. However, if you believe it is important for the arbitrators to review the additional material you have presented, you have the option of posting on the Proposed decision talk page, which may be more likely to be seen than the Evidence or Workshop pages at this time. Otherwise, it would be best to wait for the proposed decision takes effect and see whether it is helpful in resolving the issues you perceive. If it is not, you could seek arbitration enforcement or a clarification/modification at that time. As for the checkuser matter, I am sorry but I have no way of knowing whether any of the arbitrator/checkusers ran a checkuser or not. Newyorkbrad 15:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is important for the arbitrators to review the additional evidence other editors have recently presented, I'll try posting on the Proposed decision talk page. However, none of the messages are being replied to there. The current proposed decision seems inconsistent given the evidence at /Evidence and the discussion at /Workshop. Regards, LionheartX 15:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You have made your position clear, but as you know, I am a Clerk who assists the Arbitration Committee with maintaining the pages. I am not one of the arbitrators and have no control over the content of the decisions or how they are reached. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The alternative is to contact one or more arbitrators and ask them to postpone to closing to consider your concerns. Thatcher131 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its best to contact the arbitrators and ask them to postpone closing the case. How does one go about doing that? LionheartX 15:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You can send an e-mail to any active arbitrator (see WP:AC for list) or to a clerk for forwarding to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Newyorkbrad 15:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this thread started, I see that the arbitrators have voted to close the case. (Four net votes to close are sufficient to order closure, and there are now five.) You can still send the e-mail if you like, but otherwise as I indicated above, we can wait for the decision to take effect and see whether it successfully resolves whatever problems may exist. Newyorkbrad 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

When the the ArbCom case closes after it gets four net votes? Is it still possible to contact them on their talk page? LionheartX 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You can always contact any user on his or her talk page. This includes arbitrators like anyone else. Of course, how they choose to respond is up to them. Newyorkbrad 15:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John F. Davis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

2004 Madrid train bombings

Hi, Newyorkbrad. I contact you per [63].

No RfC input, and problem edits galore (just see last week history).

Edit for the final RfC presentation [64].

The Kalaji issue is only a problem in an ocean of disagreements between me (Randroide) and editors Southofwatford and Igor21. The crux of the issue: Two entirely different (and equally sourced) ways of see the Madrid attacks collide in this article.

• I want both sides to be present, I deleted no sourced fact.
• They want just one side to be present, because the other side is (their words) a "Conspiracy theory".

Dou you want to see problematic edits?. Well, from newer to older here you have some links:

• Article history, just last week
• User talk:Igor21, just pick your fauvorite kind of problematic edit.
• My report about Southofwatford and Igor21 for the ArbCom (we were rejected): User talk:Randroide/IgSo.

The issue is complex.

IMHO Igor 21 is untractable as editor (see his open rejection of NPOV at User_talk:Randroide/IgSo#Igor21).

I asked and I ask for an "admin with a shotgun" "watching" the Madrid attack related articles, if that´s possible. My idea: If an editor (and that means me too) wants to make a substantial edit, he/she must talk first with the admin.

Sorry but I see no other way out.

Thank you for your attention. Randroide 07:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember this being presented a couple of months ago as an arbitration request, which was declined, so I have a general recollection of the problem. I will take a look and offer some thoughts on the talkpage when I have a chance. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy & CWC

Via Google, I only just noticed this now deleted discussion [65]. I had followed your advice [66] regarding some sockpuppet stuff I came up with while my Killian case was up for vote: [67]. I contacted a non-voting Arbitrator, "Mackensen," on April 30 and sent all the pertinent info on Alabamaboy, who had used at least 2 sockpuppets and had barefaced lied about not being this Alabamaboy [68], and I had done a follow-up on CWC, who denied being an LGF meat puppet at arbitration, but happens to use a sockpuppet named "Dragula" for an awful lot of edits at the LGF wiki: [69] & [70]. The hard evidence I included in a couple of emails to this Mackensen dude, whom I thought would circulate it among the other arbitrators as he was suppose to, but he too evidently had a case of "unresponseitis" that seems to afflict a lot of wiki people -- he was apparently gone during my arbitration claim, although his profile said active, and he only just a few minutes ago responded after my leaving reminders on his talk page this past week and sending him a followup email. And even then his response was not very responsive or at all helpful. Gawd, glaciers are more responsive and quick-acting.

I can't tell you how fed up I am with how time-consuming fruitless and all this has been when all was needed was for people to take their supposed responsibilities a bit more seriously, and seeing these inner workings of Wikipedia has not exactly been inspiring. But I have no intention at all of letting Alabamaboy and CWC off the hook. FYI, and I've just done the same on Tony Sidaway's page:

(removed personal info)

As far as CWC and Dragula go, in addition to both sounding alike and being frequent editors of the LGF Wiki, [71] & [72] they apparently also take long vacations at the same time (check the gap between November and January: [73] and [74].

I know this is technically not the appropriate place to post this stuff, but doing the appropriate stuff hasn't been all too helpful so far, has it? Isn't it about time someone at Wikipedia get butt in gear and do something useful in regards to these characters? -BC aka Callmebc 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE stop posting personal info about me (as you also did at User talk:Tony Sidaway). I have removed the personal info about me from this page. As I said on that first page, Callmebc protested at length about another editor threatening him with revealing personal info then did the same thing to me. Please consider blocking Callmebc for revealing this info. As was explained on my talk page at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Cyber_stalking_and_harassment, not long ago I was cyberstalked by an upset editor who also contacted my workplace and tried to get me fired. As a result, I asked members of the arbitration comittee to investigate and one of them determined massive sock puppet usage involving this stalking editor. As I said at the time, those allegation of me using sock puppets are not true and I provided evidence to support this. Yes, I know Dan Schneider, but I'm a writer and editor and I know a ton of writers. I explained the situation to a member of the arbitration committee and was told there was no conflict of interest.

When Callmebc first pointed out that Digg.com person using the same user name as me, I suspected it was tied in with the previous cyberstalking case (I avoided mentioning this for the obvious reason of not wanting to stir up this whole can of beans yet again). The fact that User:Qworty (who was suspected of being another sock of this stalking editor) has one of his few edits being two recent edits to the Killian Documents article (at [[75]]) and that Callmebc is now repeating almost verbatim what the stalker accused me of, makes me suspicious about what is going on here. Anyway, please consider blocking Callmebc for posting personal info about me. Ironically, now that Callmebc has deduced personal info about me, that should have provided proof that I'm in no way tied in with the Little Green Footballs site.--Alabamaboy 13:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal identifying information regarding contributors must never be posted on-wiki. I am blocking CallmeBC at least until he promises never to do this again, and I refer Alabamaboy to WP:OVERSIGHT if he wishes.

Regarding the substance of the matter, I will call this thread to the full Arbitration Committee mailing list since it sounds like they, or at least one of them, are already familiar with the matter. Newyorkbrad 13:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll e-mail you info on the member involved.--Alabamaboy 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you need to reach me, please e-mail. This has been the final straw with Wikipedia. I'm tied of being harassed in my personal life and will be taking an extended Wikibreak. If you or the arb comm need to reach me, use the e-mail function. Thanks again for your help. --Alabamaboy 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that I'm calmed down, I can admit its not the final straw. Just irritating. Still, e-mail me if you need more info b/c I will be off the site b/c of personal life.--Alabamaboy 14:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All communications have been forwarded to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have nothing to hide and have tried my best to follow WP guidelines and policies. As such, I'm happy to answer any questions they may have. Sorry you got involved in all this. --Alabamaboy 22:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

You were involved in this article's Deletion Review. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 18:34Z

Thanks for the heads up. I don't know that I have a strong opinion on the merits of this article one way or the other, but will take another look and weigh in if I formulate a view. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Seek unblock of User:DavidYork71

A block/ban has been in place since 5 April. The original justification arose from political correctness concerns about a graph image maintained on the talk page as a self-reminder. As such, there was no grounding in [WP:BLOCK} - the blocking policy, for such an action. The policy relates:

Blocks are used in order to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.

There was no issue of preventing damage or disruption by the imposer. Referring to all the possible justifications raised in [WP:BLOCK]:

• persistently making personal attacks. Never alleged.
• making personal, professional or legal threats. Never an issue.
• performing actions that place users in danger. As above.
• disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). Ditto.
• persistently violating copyrights. Not an issue.
• persistent vandalism. No case.
• persistent gross incivility. See 'personal attacks' above.
• persistent harassment. No issue.
• persistently posting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons; No involvement with BLPs.
• persistent spamming. No.
• edit warring or revert warring. Not in issue since completing one 24hr block for 3RR.
• breaching the sock puppetry policy. Not a justification for the original block. Concurrent accounts have been operated in terms and for reasons permitted by policy.
• Furthermore, some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked:
• public accounts. Not an issue.
• accounts with inappropriate usernames. Again see above.
• bots operating without approval or outside their approval. No.

Per the policy, if an admin weighs in on content disputes or wishes to censor talk page contents for political correctness purposes it is inappropriate for them to utter 'warnings' and to make punitive blocks to achieve their aims unless there is an element of protection ('to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public'), or severe disruption ('conduct severely disrupting the project; that is, when .. conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia').

Therefore please uphold/unblock.PrayerfulMasturbation 05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the above user for a username violation, I'm also assuming they are a sock of this DavidYork71 since the only edits they have made are to your talk page. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, Brad, David York was community banned on April 23 archive of discussion. On April 23, I advised him on his talk page here that if he wished to appeal he should follow the appeal process explained at WP:BAN and that creating yet more sockpuppets would only damage his case further. Sarah 05:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed Sarah's post and advice to DavidYork71 and agree with it. Newyorkbrad 16:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your job is to bring matters, such as the highlighted abuse of blocking prerogative, to the attention of ArbCom. If you had an email address to be contacted on it would be notified on your userpage and it isn't. So do your job or quit your job.What Holocaust2 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can be contacted by e-mail by using the "E-mail this user" link at the left of this page. Any e-mails received will be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Please be civil to me and all other editors. Please do not engage in sockpuppetry and in particular do not post again using this username, which is offensive. Newyorkbrad 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Found this while on vandal/new user patrol ... should we file a CheckUser on these two? This is clearly harassment. Blueboy96 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the noticeboard discussion linked above, there was already a checkuser run on some earlier socks of this user (see, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidYork71). You can put in for an IP check on the additional sockpuppets if the situation gets severe enough. Thanks for your concern. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd update that a checkuser confirmed a few hours ago that both the above nicks, plus another couple, were indeed DavidYork71. Orderinchaos 01:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Puppet Tags for Superburgh, Truth in Comedy & 24.3.194.217

The discussion on ANI was regarding the main 'puppet master' of the account, not the puppets. It was deemed that tagging ChrisGriswold's main account as a 'puppet master' was excessive and should not be done. But the other accounts are suspended and were used primarilly as tools by ChrisGriswold to deceive and abuse other Wikipedians. Those tags on those accounts should stay in place and not be removed. —SpyMagician 21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor and administrator. I do not approve of what ChrisGriswold did. However, by this point what happened is common knowledge among the editors of the affected articles, and I don't see any useful purpose to leaving the tags in place except to embarrass him, especially since Chris Griswold is the user's real name. If there is a specific useful purpose that having this set of tags on the page is serving at this point, I'm curious what it is. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's less than a week since the discovery of his behavior. And since he is an editor with 20,000+ edits the people he affected are vast and many. I do not believe that is enough time for those who were affected by his behavior to fully know/understand what happened. Admins and editors who are knowledgable do indeed know, but others do not. And no discussion has ever raised the issue of disagreement about those tags being placed on the 'sock puppet' pages. The discussion was—and has always been—the placement of tags on his main page. It's as simple as that. And generally, while I understand his login is his real name, ultimatelty it should not be an editor's job to compensate for another's lack of judgement. He knew what he was doing and he did what he did willfully and consciously as an admin. While having his main account not bear the puppet tag is fair (to an extent) I believe not having them in place on the puppet pages does a disservice to damage done. If you'd like to bring the issue up for arbitration or discussion, please do. But if the tags were invalid to begin with, then the numerous editors and admins who are aware of this would have removed the tags previously. —SpyMagician 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your arguments on the other side of the issue. I never claimed the tags were "invalid to begin with," just that they are no longer serving a useful purpose now. I still am not convinced that they are, but frankly, further discussion would probably be counter-productive in reducing the overall distraction created by this whole incident. So, while I still disagree with you, I will let the matter drop unless someone else brings it up independently. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand your position and respect it. And I have also respected your way of critcizing me without destroying me in the ANI discussions. Your tone—compared to others—makes a tremendous difference towards my attitudes and understanding about this, and I'm quite grateful you lended your voice. Best, SpyMagician 07:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Certified.Gangsta's Arbitration case has closed and the Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is now placed on revert parole. Certified.Gangsta is now forbidden to revert-war by arbitration case. See Certified.Gangsta's contributions, Certified.Gangsta's only contributions since his ArbCom case ended was mass reverts and and personal attacks. Certified.Gangsta has now blatantly violated the ArbCom's final decision on many articles which, according to his ArbCom case "shall be enforced by blocks". Could you help enforce his violation of the Arbitration Committee's Final decision? Thanks LionheartX 09:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta has violated his ArbCom restriction on over four articles. See here, here, here, and here. His latest ArbCom violation here]. Thanks, LionheartX 09:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Because of my interactions with some of the parties and witnesses before and during the case, I am going to recuse myself from enforcing this decision, at least for awhile. However, it appears that another administrator has already addressed this incident. Newyorkbrad 12:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you very much for giving me my first barnstar. :-) Jacek Kendysz 17:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And only the second one I've ever given, but in this instance long overdue. Happy editing. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Safwwefe

You guys were too fast.[76] I have never had my user page or user talk page vandalized for real in retaliation for warning a vandal and this looked like my first good opportunity. I resent this; if you had waited another half hour for mr.-unbelievably-slow-on-the-keyboard-and-unoriginal-to-boot, this may have been my golden opportunity to learn I am doing something right. KP Botany 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's any consolation, (1) it's happened to me, and it's not as much fun as you think, and (2) a fair amount of the time, these people come back, so you may have your chance after all. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:What happened?

I'm curious as to why you asked the question, of what incident I was referring to, on that RFA post?. I just noticed a post in ANI about another admin incident.... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wondered whether you were referring to Robdurbar or whether there was another problem I missed. That was before last night, but I hope these things don't keep happening! Regards, Newyorkbrad 10:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote on my page

I removed the quote by Cyde from my talk page. I posted it after I was joking with another editor about the ridiculous requests some admins make of editors to prove themselves. For example, did I deserve to have my workplace identity disclosed and asked to have a co-worker send an e-mail to the e-mail list to prove myself. Did Miltopia have to fax a letter from his doctor to prove he could keep the category he put on his page? Did he deserve a week block for it? Did I deserve a week block for minor sockpuppetry on three trivial article AfDs? All of this reminded me of Cyde's comments and posted them on my page for nostalgic reasons. However, I wasn't misrepresenting him; he did post those comments.

Administrative wonkery is what is bringing this site down and discouraging most longtime contributors. When I see an admin indef block a user for Colbert vandalism but not revert the vandalism, or when I see an admin's contributions are primarily in the WP space and their log shows mostly blocks, I wonder what their true purpose here is. Are the anti-vandal tools just a game? Are they just here for the MMORPG? I think it might be time for a review of what an admin's responsibilities really are and what their place truly is. —M (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You raise some interesting and valid points. In particular, I happen to believe that blocking established contributors should generally be a last resort. You may recall that I called for you to be unblocked after Sir Nicholas blocked you regarding the age-related question on RfA, even though I did not approve of asking the question. I also did not call for Miltopia to be blocked for bringing the edit-war on his userpage to ANI and did not think the block was necessary, although I did not unblock him as that would clearly have been against consensus. (I see that Miltopia now pretty much thinks I'm a useless do-gooder, even though I've done my best to help him. Being criticized is part of this job, so I can't complain about that.)

I am not familiar with some of the other issues you have raised, such as having your workplace identity disclosed. Not being fully familiar with the situation, I can't comment on the specifics, but I can say that generally such a disclosure would be highly inappropriate. I don't, however, think that the Publicgirluk debacle is representative of anything, and if you wish to start a serious conversation on the role of admins in Wikipedia, that reference will be nothing but a distraction.

I know what my responsibilities as an administrator are. It bears remembering that I did not come to Wikipedia to be an administrator; I came to write and edit content, and still try to do some of that whenever I can. I won't say I was dragged kicking and screaming to adminship, but there are those who will remember that it took me a lot longer to go ahead and run than some other editors had suggested. But since I was urged to seek, and handed, a mop, I do the best I can with it. That includes making mistakes sometimes, and dealing with the fact that some users (I name no names) prefer to jump on the person who made the mistake rather than try to address whatever led to it.

I think most other admins are also doing a hard job, or set of jobs, as best they can. People who think that all admins band together, and that we don't deal with those who mess up, must not follow the constant discussions of one another's actions on AN and ANI, not to mention the admin-conduct issues that reach the arbitration pages. Nor is it true that most admins spend their time addressing vandalism and blocking vandals; many do, of course, but others choose to focus on XfD or image copyrights or page protection or mainpage edits or CSD or whatever one of the administrators' tools is of interest to them that day.

Your statement that "administrative wonkery is what is bringing this site down and discouraging most longterm contributors" is not one that I happen to agree with. But I urge you to continue raising specific concerns about "administrative workery" that you find to be harmful. I also urge you to resume your work in mainspace if you haven't already. Admins aren't the only one who need to take time out from WP space and write an article sometimes. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Galic

Any news on the possible Galic revision? 129.2.130.169 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to, and I don't recognize it as anything I'm involved with. Newyorkbrad 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Brad. Sorry for "overruling" your opening of the "Henrygb" case. Paul August ☎ 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem ... I tried to ascertain the will of the committee, in line with the arbitration policy that case openings are delayed for 24 hours unless the arbitrators' votes indicate otherwise. If there is disagreement, it's for the arbs to determine how to proceed. Now, though, I am just waiting for Charles and Jp and Kirill and Flo to come here wanting an explanation why I am not fast-tracking the case as instructed! Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I will insert myself between you and them, and take full responsibility. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

a question

I've been editing on Western painting and history of painting for quite some time now and - User:Minderbinder reverts the images seemingly at his whim, 5 or 6 times already. I've had considerable help from several editors in finding and using images with proper fair-use tags. It feels as though this editor is harassing these articles. If you might look at this situation I'd be appreciative. There is a long discussion on this here: talk:Western painting the articles talk page. I'm Sorry to trouble you, I noticed today that User:Minderbinder reported Western painting and History painting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Cleaned_up_lists I'm not familiar with all this, I'm not sure what will happen, do you know this process? Thanks, Modernist 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that neither image-tagging nor list-clean-up are particular areas of my expertise. I suggest that you post to the noticeboard at WP:ANI with a request for assistance. You can mention that I sent you. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring threads in the ARB case

I think someone else has to do the refactoring of TingMing's threads. Per this edit [77], he does not seem to get your or my note about this on his talk page. Vic₂₂₆^說 04:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you, Newyorkbrad, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO Talk