User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Nov

Request for a decision - Socionics arbitration between rmcnew and tcaudillig

Can you guys please hurry up and make a decision? This is just getting more and more rediculous the more it drags on and tcaullidig keeps talking loads of crap about me concerning things that happened outside of wikipedia and is now even claiming to have in his posession some supposed database of a website I owned and never gave him permission to have. I think he is just bullshitting about it or in the event he does have it may have obtained it illegally through some slight of hand methods and is now trying to blackmail me with it.

And also, I would be perfectly alright with receiveing a 3 month ban from wikipedia per my own request, as editing here gets sort of addictive and I think I should have a break from this place. Feel free to give tcaullldig a ban too for other reasons. He seems to have given wikipedia a couple already. Ad hominem attacks, insulting other editors, being uncooperative with other editors, and claiming to have illegially stolen an internet database, personal, and other information from specific editors with blackmail threats being legitimate reaons for that ban. This information against tcaulldig is all recorded and accessable from a talk page in the arbitration area. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One of my colleagues is drafting the proposed decision in this case. I am sure he will post it as soon as he is ready; I'm sorry that I can't be more specific than that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A brief update further to what Newyorkbrad said. I've posted here, and on the talk pages of the two parties. Rmcnew, can you please in future post to the case talk pages, or to my talk page if urgent, rather than to multiple arbitrators? I should have proposals up on the workshop soon, but need to review the new evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

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

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Question to the arbs: Clarification of the authority of clerks

I'd put it on the noticeboard talk page if it were safe, but as it isn't I'll just ask here. This is to all the arbs. A clerk banned me from "all ArbCom pages" for three posts on a page of the EEML. He believes he has the authority to issue bans outside his assigned case. I don't know if he does (whatever that would mean). It seems rather irregular and he is a new clerk. Now in grim reality, he like myself has the power to issue blocks, and if I posted on an ArbCom page, he or an associate might block me. Could this get cleared up for me and others then? I know the "beauty" of wikipedia is that there is no real way of determining any of these issues concretely, that such authorities are inherently malleable, but I would like to know if the Arbs share this clerk's view of the powers of the position. Thanks in advance, and I hope NYB will forgive me for selecting his talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't he have the authority to ban you? You were causing disruption, he would have been very negligent if he'd only ban you from his case, because there is always the risk you disrupt another case. It's a bit similar to when editors get a topic area ban instead of just a single page ban. A good ban I'd say. Loosmark (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the duties of the clerks is to control user conduct on the arb pages, all of them. Loosmakr makes a good point. You of course have a right to appeal to arbcom and yes I just read your email to us. I do not see a reason to overturn this temp topic ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not really what I was asking about, Rlevse. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the most difficult tasks the clerks have is to maintain decorum on talk pages while not hindering the resolution of cases; bans from the Arbitration pages (any set of them) is within their discretion and one of the least intrusive ways of doing so. So in general yes, they do have that authority. — Coren ^(talk) 12:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there precedents for this, Coren? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Deacon please stop wikilawyering, a clerk has authority on all areas of Arbcom space. If you feel the ban was unjust you can appeal it per standard procedures. Either that or please move on. Loosmark (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else know if there precedents? Both Manning and Coren have avoided answering the question, but if the answer was known I'm pretty sure it would have been made. It's ok to tell me people have such authority, but if there are no precedents then in wiki terms its an extension of authority. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if there is precedent... so lets assume no. There, nothing changed. A clerk did what he did and two arbs backed him up. Feel free to keep walking down this road, but from where I stand the only thing to be found at the end of the road is more arbs agreeing with Manning. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it matters if there is no precedent. Sure, the arbs can get away with ignoring it now (Rlevse was probably behind it, so the "agreement" is expected anyway), but later when it has more consequence, I will be able to point out that I asked the right questions and got ignored. The show doesn't end this week. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this OK for Admins?

Hi Newyorkbrad. Is this level of rudeness and aggression really OK for admins? NBeale (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What rudeness are you referring to, NBeale? Calling your editing inappropriate? That is criticism, not a personal attack, and I am far from the first one who's told you your COI editing is inappropriate. Telling you not to make unfounded accusations about vote-stacking? Your unfounded accusations are what's rude. Telling you that self-promotion is not welcome in the project? It isn't. Telling you to try DRV or RFPP? That's a constructive suggestion that you have been ignoring for weeks.

How about your own actions. Showing up at a user's talk page demanding that they apologized to you because the apologized to someone else for an entirely unrelated interaction smacks of taking advantage of an irrelevant situation to further your own ends (which, by the way, is never going to happen; your COI article has been deleted by 5 administrators, four times through community consensus, and rather than ever making a constructive attempt to appeal the deletion through formal means you have insisted on pursuing a petty vendetta and opportunistically jumping on the one admin who you think is vulnerable--I don't see you issuing any complaints about the other admins who deleted your article). And running to the other parent by showing up at the talkpage of an uninvolved editor asking him to chide me, simply because he left an Arb statement that makes you think he will be more receptive to your complaints than other editors, is even more inappropriate. I continue to be shocked at your behavior. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes at RFC/U

NYB, I hope you're following this, and the discussions at WT:AN. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Slade

Hello. I know from the article's discussion page, that you have made comments about trying to improve the Wiki article. After months of bleating myself about the lack of references etc., I am finally getting round to trying to upgrade it. Would you be interested in helping me ? No offence if it is no longer a priority in your life. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I've been pretty busy, I will keep an eye on the improvements you will hopefully be making, and try to pitch in if I can. I have a copy here of Noddy Holder's biography, so maybe I can post a few facts and references from that in appropriate articles. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

EMML votes

Hello, sorry to bother you about this, but since the evidence situation is so difficult to take in, I just felt I wanted to make sure all necessary facts are being taken into account. I saw your oppose vote to the ban of User:Tymek in connection with his password sharing. Just to make sure, are you aware he explicitly offered his account also for others to use in revert-warring and evading 3RR, and that User:Jacurek expressed a willingness to take up this offer? I don't see the related time stamps cited anywhere and the posts may well have been overlooked; I myself only found them by chance a day or two ago.

• [07/08/2009 4.45]: Tymek discloses his password, invites list members to log in through his account and "do whatever you feel necessary"
• [07/08/2009 5.28]: Jacurek thanks Tymek, says that this should be used only "in case of emergency"
• [07/25/2009 22.29]: Jacurek calls for help to Radek, Piotrus and Tymek because he's run out of 3RR in a conflict with Skapperod
• [07/28/2009 13.45]: Tymek renews his offer, saying explicitly Jacurek and others should use it "in such situations", i.e. in order to continue revert wars and evade 3RR.
• [07/29/2009 19.11]: Jacurek again thanks Tymek for his offer, and says he will use it "in extreme situations"

If these items were seen and evaluated off-wiki, that's fine; just wanted to make sure. Although, I must say, in the light of them I would personally find a mere "admonishment" for Tymek to be too mild. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Few days ago Future Perfect issued a very controversial one month block to Jacurek. He claimed he is "uninvolved" even if he's a party in the ArbCom case and added a lot of evidence against mailing list members already. It's also not clear to me why instead of posting the above evidence on the proper case pages as everybody does, he chose to post in a relatively less noticeable talk page. Loosmark (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently nothing in this had risen to the level of an "emergency" since no one ever actually used Tymek's account (except the hacker/leaker of course) and later people told Tymek not to do this again. Anyway - I'm sure Tymek learned his lesson.radek (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have had my lesson, and I want to thank you, Newyorkbrad, for your vote. Tymek (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Fut.Perf.'s original post, I think all the arbitrators have been clear that it is unacceptable for any user to allow another person to use his or her account, for any reason, much less the improper ones at issue here. This type of conduct could well warrant a severe sanction. However, in this instance, the offer of account-sharing apparently occurred in or about July, so I don't know that it's necessary to impose a ban beginning in November, especially in the presence of a promise that nothing like this will occur again, and absence of any more recent misconduct. Other opinions might differ, of course; we'll see how the remaining arbitrators vote. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I never understood the Wikipedia mindset of "There's no point in punishing someone for something that happened a few months ago". Would this offer have happened on-wiki, an immediate indef-ban would be the result, and I doubt if any kind of apology would have been accepted by the community. Three months seems pretty generous in comparison. --Conti|✉ 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I'm concerned about here is not so much the offer of account sharing in and of itself, but the mindset it reveals: an attitude towards revert-warring that accepts tag-team warring as normal, and a willingness to subordinate one's own editing under the interests of the "team", to the point of suspeding one's own judgment altogether and making support for the team automatic. There may be a promise not to share the account again, but I see no sign that the underlying team mentality has changed. It really makes not much of a difference whether tag-team warring is implemented by account sharing or by "manually" reverting in somebody's favour. To stop this, the least I'd expect is a very strict and permanent revert limitation – for both of the parties involved in the intended "deal". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, somehow the fact that nobody actually took up Tymek on his offer doesn't symmetrically reveal the mindset of an attitude *against* revert-warring and non-acceptance of tag-teaming. And what do you mean by "both of the parties"? Jacurek? Did Jacurek actually use Tymek's account? No. He just said - in a private email, that you, Future Perfect, had no business reading - that he would use it "in an emergency". And apparently no emergency ever arose. Why are you still after Jacurek?radek (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - As a reminder to all concerned, the civility rules and restrictions on inflammatory comments that exist within ArbCom space also extend to Arbitrator talk pages. Manning (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

A report has been prepared as requested and is here: User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report. SilkTork *^YES! 17:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it and have read through it once. Will review it again in more detail before voting on what should happen next. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Useful tactic

In 20090614-1419, Digwuren says that disappearing before an ArbCom case has been shown to be an "effective strategy" in avoiding sanctions. In your vote you say that banning Digwuren is unnecessary, given that Digwuren has not edited since June.[1] Your vote appears to confirm that this is indeed an useful tactic. Would you recommend the use of this tactic to others as well? Offliner (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand the nature of your concern here. However, given that Digwuren stopped editing a couple of months before the events that led to the arbitration case, I don't think we can say that this is an example of someone walking away from an account just to avoid an ArbCom decision. Beyond that, I had already asked on-wiki if there is any evidence that Digwuren had been editing under another name, and was in the process of looking at some information, but at this point the issue may be moot as to him for other reasons.

By the way, I'm not particularly sensitive to how I'm addressed, but I'd appreciate if you could avoid the unnecessarily sarcastic tone of your last sentence. It really does not help. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

All right. Sorry about the tone of my message, I should have used another wording. Offliner (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice please....

Hey Brad, I wondered if you would take a look at the block I put on User talk:69.171.160.58. I read all of the "contribs" but what put me over the top was a certain comment on his talk page regarding the employees at his ISP. I am worried that I might not have the right to block someone over such a comment. I am asking, because I noticed you were working on WP today (by reading through the block logs). Hope this isn't an inconvenience for you. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Don't worry, I decided WP:BOLD applied in this instance. Additionally, I asked for some advice from another respected editor and he concurred, fully.

I don't want to take up any of your time needlessly, so, problem solved. Thanks! (If you want to answer another question for me, here's one: How much time, on average, would an editor expect to devote to ArbCom on a weekly basis. I might take a run, sooner or later.) Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say it varies widely, anywhere from 5 to 15 hours a week, depending on how busy things are at a given moment and whether you are on one of the subcommittees or writing up a case. Take a look at the page Risker wrote up on her experiences in her first year as an arbitrator, if you want to pursue this. If you decide to run, good luck! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A project you might be interested in

Hi, I've recently created a project which, broadly speaking, will help to develop and support the enwiki community. At this stage, we're currently calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. If you're interested, sign up and add your ideas here! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)

Thanks for the note. I've been following the page since you first posted it, and will certainly continue to do so, although I don't know if I'll have time to become active in it at the moment. Best of luck. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RfAr

Two questions: 1. what would be the scope of the case and 2. may I find a group of people that I feel are neutral, objective, and use them as advisers to determine the appropriateness of evidence to help with such proceedings? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

1. I can't speak unilaterally regarding the scope of the case, but my vote was to accept to review both the issues relating to how sanctions are imposed, as well as Ottava Rima's underlying conduct, and I believe that's consistent with what the other arbitrators want to look at as well.

2. I can't see any objection to that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior appeal

I've filed a statement, if that was what you were waiting for. Please let me know if you would like to hear more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the statement. I'll review it carefully along with everything else before voting on accepting the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

I hope to catch up on responses to the messages on this page within the next 24 hours or so. Sorry for any delays. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Got through several threads now; the rest tonight or in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Received and responded. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:!vote

I'm sorry if anyone got offended by this. I was just using humor to try to demonstrate that my support was so strong that I was confident that I would be the only person to not technically support, without giving him an Oppose which could actually damage his shot. My apologies go out to everyone. :( Jonathan321 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't offended; I was amused by what you were doing, but I just didn't want it to affect the actual count at the end of the RfA. Please don't be upset or demoralized. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Random musical recommendation from Newyorkbrad

http://www.thedickies.com/radio/radio.htm

Wow, that's pretty old school. I hope Stukas Over Disneyland wouldn't be considered as part of Eastern European topics area.radek (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! The Incredible Shrinking Dickies. Brad, I have you in a whole new light. Tell me you remeber the FabPoo's too... Pogoingly, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Digression

"I'm sure there is a more offensive and demoralizing section header that could have been used to insult the volunteers who serve on the Arbitration Committee, but I can't quickly think of what it might be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)"

Something involving Orwell references or rampant corruption?--Tznkai (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, that comment was not intended as a challenge or to start a competition. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Celebrate the way I do, with a userbox. Here are some suggestions,

This user is a a proudly unethical Arbitrator.

May you gain the Arbitration committee that you deserve.

--Thatcher 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but after last night (check my contribs if you like), I've had enough of userboxen for awhile as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you really deny that changing the rules post election is unethical? Majorly talk 17:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It might or might not have been the correct or best decision—I'll leave that for discussion on the other page (apart from noting that Jimbo did much the same thing after last year's ArbCom election and was generally praised for it)—but it was not "unethical," a word I consider an extremely offensive and unwarranted attack on my personal integrity and that of my colleagues on the committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" means at least that when someone does something you disagree with or think wrong-headed or bad-practice, you don't accuse them of acting immorally or unscrupulously, which is what "unethical" implies. Further, you ask for reasons before making assessments. A reason has been given here, a decision was made but not announced - a perfectly understandable oversight by busy people who don't get paid. Brad, frankly, you perhaps need to take less offence from disgruntled persons who are simply looking for a reason to lash out, regardless of the facts.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I probably take offense about things said here less often than most people. Being told that my votes are incorrect, my decisions are misguided, my approach to arbitrating is ineffectual, even that I'm the worst and most useless arbitrator in the history of the project (I forget just where I heard that one)—all that is, for better or worse, part of having sought out the role of an arbitrator, a position whose job description I understood perfectly. But I think I am entitled to draw the line at being accused of lacking ethics, and to be offended not only on my own behalf, but for my colleagues on the committee who took a more active role in running this election and making this decision. YMMV. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've criticised your impact, but never your faith, hard-work, or integrity. I also believe my criticism is constructive. YMMV.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I've taken into account going forward, albeit perhaps not sufficiently for your taste. I'm sure you've also noted that this year's group of arbitrators, taken collectively (and oversimplifying a bit) appear more in tune with the views you expressed in that essay. (You might also be interested in my question #2 in the general questions for this year's elections.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, noted. Thanks. It's not neccessarily "insufficient for my taste". The essay was overstated for effect. Also I've not been active much since writing it, and really have not paid too much attention to arbcom cases.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, arbitrators are not forced to work for Wikipedia, so the volunteer remark doesn't mean much here. A decision was made, in secret, which is unacceptable considering all the complaints there have been about that sort of thing. As I mentioned elsewhere, a fourth person is not required. A vote, especially by securepoll, is a strict vote so MBisanz lost out. I voted for him, I'm upset he was not appointed, but that's life, you don't always win. What if the other two remaining candidates were the same as MBisanz? Maybe they should be on standby too? The idea is ridiculous, in my opinion. Majorly talk 17:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion of the merits of the decision on the main arbitration/AUSC announcement page. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Merits aside, Majorly, "unacceptable" is inappropriate language. It may be "unsatisfactory" to you, and you are entitle to criticise (indeed I have), but if you can't accept arbcom's work, then I suggest you stand for election.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

An amusing idea, standing for election - no thanks. I already have enough people who despise me, and I wouldn't be able to pass an RFA, let alone become an arbitrator. Also, far too interested in working on the encyclopedia, and real life stuff. Majorly talk 19:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears being despised is a qualification for arbcom. You seem to find plenty time to question arbcom's integrity, so I assumed you had some to spare.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's really possible to dispute that it's unethical to change the rules of an election mid-process. What was most disappointing about this whole affair is that it was so close to being hitch-free. There was a proper voting system in place (SecurePoll), there were election monitors, the election was well-advertised, etc. And just as it was about to wrap up, the ball got dropped. It may not have been intentional (few people actively try to fuck up, after all), but regardless, it was a screw-up through-and-through. (And, more disappointing is that this year's Committee has made a lot of excellent steps forward and re-gained some of the lost credibility in itself, only to throw it away again.)

The ethical thing to do in a situation like this is to appoint the three elected people and iff there is a vacancy, fill it. But what the Arbitration Committee decided to do is simply unacceptable, whether you like the phrasing of the header or not. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see that events of earlier this year seem not to have tempered your predeliction toward excessive rhetoric. I consider this regrettable. My substantive response, posted a moment ago, is on the noticeboard page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was about to offer some insights on the definition of ethical, but it really isn't worth is, is it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's more surprising to me to see the Arbitration Committee make the same type of mistakes over and over again and expecting a different result. I think AA defines that as "insanity." Say what you will about the rhetoric, perhaps it's over the top or bitchy or whatever, but the underlying point is what's key. You don't see me coming over to your talk page over every minor date delinking / Israel-Palestinian / Scientology / whatever nonsense dispute. I try to save myself for the things that are (relatively) more important. *shrugs* --MZMcBride (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether we are allowed to take the liberty of disagreeing with your underlying point without being called various names. And again, my substantive responses are on the other page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the rhetoric is definitely over the top, and a little hard to square with past history. I didn't have you pegged as the sort to get indignant over procedural problems (which is what not announcing the alternate slot, and filling it with someone who met the required level of support amounts to). Nathan ^T 00:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mainspace to-do list

(Notes to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

• Expand and update Charles P. Sifton
• Expand Frederick Bernays Wiener
• Keep working on the cabinet-members papers list and get it closer to ready for mainspace
• Work some quotations from Noddy Holder's bio into Slade or related articles
• Nero Wolfe --> WP:GAN sometime. Give oneself a real challenge.
• Remember that I came here once to work on an encyclopedia, and promised in my RfA that I wouldn't be distracted from doing it.

Proposal re Mattisse

I don't know whether it will be helpful to bring this to your talk page, but I thought it might be easier to discuss your proposal here: the case is likely to generate yet more talk (heat), and here you can always revert or archive if (at any point) you believe discussion here is unhelpful.

Your help re Mattisse (and all you work in general) is much appreciated. I think your proposal is good in principle, but getting the details right is difficult. I see two issues. One is that Mattisse has no control over who posts to her talk page and asks her to comment or copyedit an article, and care is needed in deciding which requests to respond to. Some of the examples of her "targeting" certain editors originated in posts to her talk page asking for help. One of the examples I mentioned resulted in an AfD, but it turned out well in the end. It won't turn out well every time, and the bad times will be remembered. I think what is needed here is not an entry strategy, but a fast exit strategy when things go wrong.

The second issue is content review. It is difficult to separate copyediting and content review. I think the community values the work Mattisse does here. In particular, I and many others consider Mattisse to be an excellent GA reviewer. Problems arise because of ownership of credit. It is an accepted principle that there is no ownership of articles, but ownership of credit can conflict with this. Crediting other Wikipedians for their work is a great motivating force, and one of the great benefits of FA to the encyclopedia is that it encourages editors to contribute and see "their" article on the main page. However, this also causes problems when there are subsequent disagreements about article quality.

In the two years that I have been contributing to GA, I have tried to stabilize the criteria, but also encourage the attitude that no one owns the GA status of an article. GA status is a very mutable thing, which can change at any time.My experience so far is that this has reduced conflict, and most GARs focus on the content not the editor. I think Mattisse has felt more comfortable in such an environement.

In other environments, she provides valuable contributions, but may need an emergency eject button. What this eject button is, and how she finds it is a difficult question and considered advice from arbitrators would be very welcome.Geometry guy 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

I expect to catch up on threads on this page sometime tonight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Sorry; mostly tomorrow, not tonight. Circumstances beyond my control. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

G&S in New York

Hi, Brad. Good to see you at the post-meetup. There are lots of opportunities to see G&S in New York coming up:

1. . The G&S Society of NY has monthly meetings at which there is always a concert. E-mail kalyba@yahoo.com and dankravetz@juno.com for a schedule of upcoming meetings. Attendance is free.
2. . The Blue Hill Troupe does a G&S show each spring and some concerts in December. See: www.bht.org
3. . The New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players (NYGASP), NY's professional G&S company, does its big season each January at City Center. See http://nygasp.org/home Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fribbulus Xax's RfA

Thanks, Newyorkbrad, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know! Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Martintg

Hello, you stated that it is not necessary for Martintg to be banned if he abides by his topic ban. However, I believe his recent trolling here shows why a full ban is warranted, an inflammatory and loaded question obviously designed to attack his "enemy". I just don't see how a topic ban from EE is going to prevent this battlefield mentality from spreading to every corner of Wikipedia. Triplestop x3 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Triplestop, accusing someone of "trolling" is very serious and you shouldn't be making those kind of accusations lightly.radek (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Triplestop: The rules of civility and inflammatory conduct also extend to Arbitrator talk pages. Accusing marting of "battlefield mentality", "trolling" etc is clearly inflammatory. You are welcome to bring issues to an arb's attention, but to start pronouncing your verdict is unwise - it's up to the arbs to assess the nature of conduct. As you are already under a behaviour warning, and as your comment makes reference to the EEML case, you are now upgraded to an EEML case ban for one week. Manning (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* More bickering among this group of editors is not going to help anyone, either in avoiding sanctions or in improving Wikipedia. I will take another look at all the proposed remedies before the case closes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstentions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Martintg_topic_banned is the kind of situation I've mentioned to arbs before; that they should not preliminarily abstain if they intend to vote, since it will change the majority required to pass. In this case, your abstention seems to indicate you would oppose the remedy, but the effect of the abstention is to lower the majority required to the point it passes. Better to not make the abstention in the first place then constantly have to run back and see its unintended consequences. MBisanz ^talk 07:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I often use preliminary abstentions as a means of communicating with other arbitrators. For example, it can be used (accompanied by an explanatory comment) to mean "I agree with the thrust of this proposal, but it is not fully acceptable as written; I would support it if a specific change were made." It can also mean that I am not quite happy with the wording on the table, and would urge that a better one be found, but I would not oppose the proposal if the alternative might be nothing at all. If I am able to vote on a proposed decision near the beginning of a case, I do try to return to the proposed decision page from time to time as voting proceeds, to update my votes as warranted. In particular, I have done so and will continue to do so in the EEML case, and as you've seen have offered alternative proposals or suggestions in several instances. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day Brad

Hope you're good :-) - Your name was mentioned in a Wikipedia Review thread talking (semi-chaotically) about child protection measures - I thought you might be interested in helping out at Wikipedia:Child Protection with any ideas, comments and suggestions? Hope so! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope to post some thoughts here about some aspects of this issue within the next few days. (I am reluctant to participate further in the Wikipedia Review discussion of the issue because of insinuations that if I don't agree with specific views expressed there I must be indifferent to issues of child protection, not to mention deplorable developments in the WR thread within the past couple of days.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

CU request

Gillette Castle State Park, possible CT meetup location next year?

NYB, I'm not clear on difference between a CU request and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeraeph. Considering the number of red-linked accounts and IPs frequently editing autism, Asperger syndrome and some of the other targetted articles, is a full CU in order here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It won't help, because of staleness. You need somebody who is good at identifying sock puppets without recourse to Checkuser. Do you have behavioral evidence? What are the fingerprints that point out this editor? Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But if I'm considering current IPs and new accounts, they wouldn't be stale, right? And a CU could pick them up? Autism and Asperger syndrome are constantly hit; the behavioral evidence, though, could point to other wrongplanet posters. I know Z's fingerprint, but I also know she is clever enough to disguise it, and I was once told she is well versed in proxy use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case you should generate a list of the disruptive IPs and account, and file at WP:SPI. You'll need a sample diff for each account. Ask the CU to investigate linkages between the accounts and specifically to look for open proxy usage and other unlisted accounts that may be related. Jehochman ^Talk 17:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Je. Ugh ... maybe next week ... houseguests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You could borrow a tactic from William Gillette. He installed a secret door in his castle so he could vanish when guests became tedious. He'd sneak through and edit Wikipedia... Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a persistent nuisance who learns by being caught, you could consider contacting a checkuser via e-mail. On occasion cases that could go through SPI don't, if it seems like it might be counterproductive. Nathan ^T 04:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I've raised your concern on the Functionaries-l mailing list, in the hope that someone there will have some institutional memory concerning the user you mention and be able to follow up appropriately. I'll prod the list in a day or two to see if there's been any progress. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Eastern europe not well defined

Hi Brad, I was reading over the proposals in the Eastern Europe mailing list case because I was short on drama or something? Anyway, for whatever reason came up in the twisted borrows of my mind, I was reading trough it, and while reading it, it hit me that Eastern Europe is not very well defined, and the use of this term in remedies may open the door to terrible Wikilawyering: For the countries of former Yugoslavia, Albania, Hungry, Czech and the Baltic states, and probably others, one could well argue that they are not eastern European countries, and do not fall under the topic bans/editing restrictions. It might be something to think about (if you haven't allready). Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Most people understand "Eastern Europe" to mean the part of Europe that was under direct Soviet influence up to the late 1980s; certainly the area of dispute covers most the the area that has been, historically, under direct Russian influence. This is the intended meaning. — Coren ^(talk) 16:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The precise boundaries of "Eastern Europe" are certainly debatable, and adding the words "broadly interpreted" after "Eastern Europe", as we have done in some prior cases, adds little. However, the core disputes in the specific case before us involves places such as Poland, Russia, and Estonia, so I don't anticipate major issues involving application of the Eastern Europe-related remedies to this case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That takes care of most countries, but still not of former Yugoslavia, to which, in my opinion, the proposed solution should also apply, but which hasn't been under the direct influence of Soviet Russia, and is by most standards seen as southern europe. It's nitpicking, but better to nitpick before a proposed solution is accepted, then than to have people interpret the solution in an undesirable manner. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this would matter as I don't think any body on the list has much interest in the countries of former Yugoslavia.radek (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using Eastern bloc instead Eastern Europe, as this covers all required areas. --Sander Säde 11:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, in all the prior Eastern Europe related disputes that came to arbitration, I don't recall any instance in which the precise definition of "Eastern Europe" came into question. It would only matter here if, for example, someone who was topic-banned from writing about Eastern Europe and therefore could not edit his or her customary articles on say Russia or Poland, therefore decided to write about a borderline region like (fill in the blank) instead. I'm not sure whether that's likely among any of the participants in this case. ¶ To Sander Säde, your suggestion might have been a good one a few years ago, but at this point I think it would cause more confusion than the current wording; I'm not sure that the "Eastern bloc" is a even a readily understood term these days. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk)

I have complained about the term in the past several times. All these "eastern Europe" arb pages are actually only about the north-eastern part, the Baltic, Poland, the three "eastern Slav" states and Germany. They encompass two blocks of conflict, Poland versus neighbouring countries (the Piotrus cases) and Russia versus Baltic (the Digwuren case), held together loosely through the "anti-Russian" alliance revealed by EEML. These conflicts have nothing to do with Hungary-Slovakia, Greece-neighbours, Croatia-Serbia, and like conflicts, but some of the remedies "threaten" these areas because of this careless terminology. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting

The end of some other line. (Maxwell Perkins would get off here with manuscripts from Thomas Wolfe, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemmingway. And if you continue to delay, I hereby threaten to pound you with more trivia.)

How long does it take to ask one simple question? [2].  Giano  08:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• To the end of the line, please. I've been waiting since Nov. 12. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • To Giano, I hope our subsequent discussion (in which I urged you to wait for the subcommittee report) has addressed any concerns. To JohnWBarber, see my comments above. Regards to both of you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No sorry, it did not. Coren's post on my apge rather changed all of that, so I'm posting my "evidence" for the stupidity of this fiasco on my page as we speak.  Giano  23:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me what is going on with this AUSC thing

Over here some arbs are referring to WP:AUSC, and I see you're a member. I understand that not only has a request to look into the subject of my complaint been made, but AUSC is already looking into it. I've got these concerns:

• 1. There's some kind of clock ticking when an AUSC case starts. How far along is the case?
  2. Did the clock stop when I filed my complaint about the same subject at WP:RFAR?
  3. The WP:AUSC page says that body is meant to consider complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. Thatcher said on Lar's talk page, during my discussion with Lar, that he didn't think AUSC was set up to consider the concerns I was discussing with Lar. Versageek also told me she asked for an AUSC review. Is the AUSC reviewing both Lar's and Versageek's conduct?
  4. Is the review limited to what was said in the communication between Lar and Versageek, or does it also extend to Versageek's stated reason for the block -- calling me disruptive and deceptive in her post at ANI?
  5. Will AUSC consider concerns and questions I have and would like to bring up about this matter?
  6. Will AUSC tell me what the results of its inquiry are?
  7. If I'm the one who's complaining, why wasn't I informed AUSC had started looking into it?
  8. One of the things I'm requesting ArbCom do is rule on whether or not I was disruptive at the Shankbone DRV. I've said more about that concern over at RFAR. I doubt that's the kind of thing AUSC can do. Am I wrong? If AUSC can't do it, can it recommend to ArbCom that ArbCom do it?
  9. Is MBisanz sitting on this case?

Since I'd prefer an ArbCom case, I'm reluctant to bring concerns up before AUSC before the full committee decides whether or not to accept the case. But if the clock is ticking, I should send an email anyway. Please note I'm only bringing up process concerns here, not arguing the substance. I'd appreciate answers from you or anybody else on the AUSC, however you want to communicate them (here, on my talk page or through email). JohnWBarber (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod here. I'll post on this in the next day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I've now voted on your request for arbitration, and suggested the procedure for what you should do next. In answer to some of your other questions: there is no rigid "clock" for the review, but the subcommittee will move as quickly as possible; yes, you may submit any additional evidence or information you like to the subcommittee; yes, the subcommittee will advise you of its findings and conclusions; yes, the subcommittee can recommend an arbitration case or other dispute resolution, if it determines that this is warranted. If you have any other questions, or you need further information, you can raise them your inquiries or concerns in your e-mail to the subcommittee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Email sent. Please forward it to the other AUSC members and feel free to archive this section if you'd like. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Shameful

[3] How dare you try to insert humor into a srs process. :P I wonder if people will actually click on the link. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And I just made it worse! Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You might as well ban me now if I have to be subjected to such tom foolery at my ArbCom hearing. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Huldra's allegations

Hello, could you tell me what, if anything is happening about User:Huldra's allegations [4]? I would feel happier if there was some kind of resolution preferably allaying Huldra's suspicions. Thank for your time. Grim²³★ 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Meet in Connecticut

Hi, lets plan a meet in Connecticut Wikiuser7777 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You may want to take a look

At the issues and alt proposals discussed here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Note

This is based on what you've said at ArbCom, but doesn't really deal with the case. I'm sure people have problems with me. Be they something I've done, or something they think I've done, chances are it still involves me. My level of culpability doesn't really matter, as I am still the focus of the problems. As I stated, I haven't a clue how to address the problem or solve the problem. I put up an ArbCom case because I have no answers. I've never had a DR (even ANI) attempt to actually work without someone closing it or claiming it was inappropriate. I haven't had anything really go through smoothly. From day one, I was being attacked. I'm not a Wiki expert, nor am I a psychologist. Who am I? What am I? I haven't really a clue. Perhaps that is why I am religious - I don't have the answers and probably never will. I feel various things, and I have impulses, but that is all I can really say is me, for good or for bad. I empathize with Mattisse, Peter Damian, and others, because I see them feel pain or suffer. I don't know the answers were in their case, nor would I ever know. I don't know why anyone would even begin to think I would have such answers. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And yeah, Peter Damian definitely fucked up time after time with the socking and personal attacks. I begged him quite a bit when I still had IM access at WR to stop with the attacks and he never listened. Nothing I did or said ever did anything to help, nor did anyone listen to any of my thoughts back then. But really, no one ever really listens to my thoughts that often. People proposed bans at RfA because of my various opinions there. Even when I do tend to be on the majority side, things like FlyingToaster tend to happen and she is basically tarnished and forced out. I once talked to Cary Bass about Peter Damian and Dougstech being pressed against by the RfA crowd and how I would probably be banned too over some of my opposes - he said the difference between me and them was that I was nice. Unfortunately, Cary Bass is too nice (and wrong) or of the minority opinion. Obviously, I had to do something to be labeled as the Wiki Satan for a good 9 months (I haven't heard the term used in a few months) and to receive quite a bit of harassment. I don't know. I won't ever know. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

Limited online time for me for the next couple of days. (Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day in the U.S.). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dreadful provincial American holiday, really.--Santa (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser needed

Hi Brad! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby has been sitting around endorsed for checkuser attention since the 11/24, accumulating more and more suspects as time goes by. I know we had the Thanksgiving weekend in the US, and I know that the case is fairly complex (with 3 potential sock masters, one of which has access to a large number of IP addresses). However, the socks are running amok and essentially make good faith communication on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and all related pages impossible. Can you nudge one of your colleagues to take care of this? Also see the two ANI sections. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)