User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive4

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 after February 27, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive5.

Re: RfCU

I have already replied and gave my suspicions. But it does not matter - if it indeed was someone from an admin channel, they know the system too well to use the same IP, so any further efforts on checkuser would be pointless.--Konst.able^Talk 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AC/C

Brad, if you're interested, consider yourself upgraded from helper to the next official clerk trainee; you can close Midnight Syndicate if you want. Thatcher131 13:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much; glad to accept, and I'll close that case after the 24 hours are up. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:James Randi

I was sincere and serious regarding my interpretation though not about the indefinite ban. Though it will be clear that I think that the indefinite ban of me that is proposed, among others for a similar issue at Robert Priddy is out of proportion. Andries 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not intimately familiar with your dispute, but hope that the discussion underway in the second case currently underway will resolve the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

May be it better not to be very familiar because it is a hornets' nest. I consider it unfair and completely against the conventions of the arbcom to support an indefinite ban for an editor whose edits are described by the same arbcom as responsible. Where are the diff of my repeated violations of Wikpedia policies? I have some understanding of course, if arbcom members want to get rid of an endless dispute that is burdening RFC, Mediation, and the Arbcom without any end in sight. But such (an acceptable) reason should be stated and not disguised by saying that editors are activists without supporting diffs. See User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin#Sathya_Sai_Baba_arbcom_case_2:your_support_for_rather_contradictory_motionsAndries 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it's a big world, and a big encyclopedia. I'm not sure about an indefinite ban from anything, but I think it might give you some peace and time for reflection if you chose to edit on wholly unrelated topics for awhile. I know that's easy for me to write from this distance, but give it some thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

But is such reasoning by the arbcom a break with the past? From what I have seen, it looks like it to me. An indefinite ban from an article without supporting diffs of dispruption or violation of policies, but instead a description of edits as responsible by the arbcom strikes me as break with conventions of the arbcom. Again, I have some understanding for this because there are so many cases now, but this should be stated, I think. Andries 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I haven't studied the case much, but I understand your point. Let us see what response the arbitrators make. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, I think that the scope of the rules of the ruling should be unambigious. Otherwise a request for clarification will probably be filed within two weeks, just like after the previous arbcom case. The request for clarification was ignored and it was archived by then clerk Flonight. As a direct result of Flonight's action an edit erupted war at Robert Priddy which triggered this arbitration case. Andries 20:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock lists

Thank you for your comments and clarifications on the RfC. You can sign up for the unblock list at this location. The complete list is available at Wikipedia:Mailing lists. --Yamla 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, CAT:UNBLOCK. --Yamla 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Descendall and User:Bdean1963

I'm currently writing to you because I am having troubles once again with User:Bdean1963, one of the parties involved in the previous Alberto Fujimori dispute. I voluntarily retired from Wikipedia for a couple of months due to College activities, and as soon as I get back this user is once again making my Wikipedia experience something not pleasant at all. Once again there was a massive RV War between the two of us and I actually have to request Wikipedia to protect the pages. Unfortunately, the fact that Bdean was camping the whole day allowed him to get the article protected while his POV was present in the articles. I can't fight against that, because it was a matter of pure luck, but I don't like his attitude at all. Messhermit 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that it's current behavior towards my person is unacceptable, with derogatory terms against my editions and my person: "[Messhermit] remedial understanding of scholarship"[1], "[Bdean1963] recommend Wikipideians review User:Messhermit’s poor record of editing Wikipedia."[2] (to name a few of his most recent attacks). Every single time that I edit something that he doesn't like, he immediately adds something similar to this: "rv edits by User:Messhermit who has been banned from editing other Wiki essays associated with Peru" [3]. Is this treatment fair? It is more than clear that Bdean has turned this into something personal. Messhermit 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I don't know what to do and what not, since he apparently gets away with whatever he does, keeping this authoritarian approach. I'm asking you to guide me here because I believe that I have not done anything that goes against the main ideas of Wikipedia and because I feel that my rights as a Wikipedian are being disregarded by someone that only knows how to destroy, but not contribute. Bdean1963 got away unpunished that time, and he doesn't miss a single chance to shovel it in my face. Messhermit 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This time, User:Descendall is accusing me and asking Wikipedia to ban me using selected information that support his POV and excludes User:Bdean1963 from the latest dispute in War of the Pacific. My editions speak for myself, and I have not done anything that attacks WIkipedia's integrity. Not only is this whole thing surprising for me taking into consideration that User:Descendall announced his retirement from Wikipedia and curiously returns to attack me, but also because its clearly in support of another left-leaning Wikipedian. Messhermit 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reach the conclussion that this is nothing more than a political persecution against my person created by two left-leaning Anti-Fujimoristas and anti-democratic Wikipedians. Thus, I must define the present accusation against me as being only motivated by political hate that this two user have against me. This has reached a point where it seems that both Wikipedians are obsessed with the idea of forcing me to leave Wikipedia. Messhermit 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I will be waiting for your answer and I would appreciate any suggestion that you may have. Please do it as soon as possible. Thanks. Messhermit 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. As a minor point, I appreciate your signing your post, but you can do so just once at the end and not after each paragraph. It took me a few moments to realize that the entire message was written by one person and was not a dialog.

I will be glad to look into the matter you discuss, but I need a little more background information. What is the reference to your having been banned in the past from editing some Peruvian-related articles? If you have made mistakes in the past as a Wikipedian, they should not be held against you in connection with a current editing dispute, but it would be helpful to have a link to them so that I can understand what they are talking about.

Also, could you describe to me, as a North American with only a limited familiarity with South American history, more specifically what the disputed edits are about? Is this simply a matter that one side in the "edit war" is taking the Peruvian position on the maritime boundary dispute while the other is taking the Chilean side, or is the matter more nuanced? Is the dispute over whether specific statements are factually accurate, or more a matter of weight to be placed on the facts? Or is it a dispute whether acceptable content belongs in one article rather than another? (I recall seeing a disagreement the other day over whether discussion of the current boundary dispute belonged in an article about events in the 1800's, which is why I ask that question.)

Finally, even if (as I am sure) you believe you are on the correct side of this dispute, you will understand it will be helpful if you refrain from any sort of incivility or name-calling, even if the situation is upsetting you. And, have any attempts at mediation been made in this or any related matters?

Hope this helps to get your thoughts in order. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The center of this dispute is not about the Peru and Chile historical rivalry, but rather about Bdean's uncivil attempt to distortion the facts. The last Peruvian-Chilean dispute was already solved before they even became know in their respective countries, and it was more a local dispute (the constitutionality of a Chilean law creating a new region) than an international controversy. At this point, there is no such thing as a border dispute between both countries because each one recognizes the established frontier as demarked in the Treaty of Lima in 1929, a totally different from the Treaty of Ancon (the one that actually ended the war in 1884).

Both Treaties are recognized by International Law and both are totally different documents, legally speaking. Stating that the current dispute can be directly related to (as of 2007) an incident that happened more than 150 years ago is not accurate at all, and at is best is irredentist and alarmist with the sole purpose of undermining friendly relations between both countries. Such a broad argument can be used to include the dispute that both countries have regarding Ceviche, Pisco and Soccer, just to name a few. Should we also include those disputes in the article about the war? Should we trace every single dispute between France and Germany to the War of 1870?

Now, the inclusion of this "supposed territorial dispute" as presented by the other party involved in this controversy is merely based on his POV. Chile doesn't have to ask whether it can create a new province or not in its own territory, and neither Peru can unilaterally declare part of the new Chilean XV Region as part of its territory. The Constitutional Tribunal of Chile already addressed that the law defining the borders of the Chilean XV Region was unconstitutional on the grounds that it didn't follow the proper procedure that are needed for the creation of a Region (just like the US Congress can denied statehood to any territory that does not comply with certain rules), and at any moment ordered or asked the Chilean Government to define its frontier with Peru. It was simply a chilean judicial controversy solved by chileans.

Issues like the mentioned above can happen at any moment and had indeed happened before. It just need a badly written law (in either Peru or Chile) to once again invoke nationalism. Why the maritime dispute between Chile an Peru doesn't belong to this article?

• Neither the Treaty of Ancon or the Treaty of Lima addressed the issue of maritime sovereignty.
• After the United Stated announced its decision to establish certain territorial rights regarding its coastal areas and nearby sea, many Latin American nations followed the same example. Chile proclaimed sovereignty over its adjacent sea in 1947, followed immediately by Peru the same year.
• Then Ecuador, Chile and Peru issued a join declaration ("Declaración de Zona Marítima") in 1952. What does this event had to with the war?

As exposed here, this has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific. Thanks for your time and I hope that you can help me to deal with this issue. Messhermit 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Chupacabra

I've played some RPGs and this thing is in them. Martial Law 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure what you're talking about here. Newyorkbrad 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, how is your career as a Admin comming along ? Need another Admin for assisstance ? Martial Law 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy! Assistance with what? Newyorkbrad 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your ArbCom clerk work

Hi! Thanks for your help. I looked the close over and left some comments here. [4] You did Great!!! for your first one. Again, thanks for your help. FloNight 01:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. More on that page. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

MfD deletion

[5] :) Daniel.Bryant 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Good morning! I've answered the questions and accepted the nom. Do you want to place it at WP:RFA, or do you want me to? Kafziel ^Talk 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I need to go into a real-world meeting for a couple of hours, so you probably should. Good luck! Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's done. Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 13:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats. As for deletions, I have that on my list of "things to do" from time to time, though I don't necessarily anticipate making it a primary speciality area. Thanks for the reminder, though, and I'll try to do my share. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:RJII

I was not aware of the ArbCom decision. When I took a look, it appeared that the account was blocked solely because it was a shared account. Based on this, I unblocked All Male Action. It appears that this was the initial block but that the ArbCom decision later modified this. My apologies, thanks to everyone who spoke up. --Yamla 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I assumed had happened. The ArbCom ban should have been recorded in the block log and it looks like inadvertently that was never done at the time. Newyorkbrad 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Newyorkbrad 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Husnock

Do you want to write out the implementation notes? Check some priors and keep it simple. Thatcher131 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Comments welcome. Newyorkbrad 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Just a quick note to say I'm sorry for the nomination of User:Konstable to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, it was meant to be a good faith proposal but as I am now aware, he is an established user (I was only going off the comment he left on his user page) and after going through Rfa, he shouldn't have been nominated. Once again, sorry if you thought I was being provocative RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I was initially concerned by the nomination only because this user was involved a couple of months ago in a completely unrelated controversy and I checked to make sure that you weren't acting out of feelings arising from that—but obviously that had nothing to do with you. So, I took it as a good-faith raising of concern although I was surprised you seemed to be unfamiliar with the concept of a constable. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I totally understand how it could mean constable, I guess on 1st reading I just presumed it failed WP:U due to the other meaning. oh well, its been kept now (and I agree it should be upon relection) so I guess theres not harm done. By the way well done on you recent promotion, I've seen you around since and think your doing a great job RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for blocking that MichaelSavageConservative guy. Although he was a little refreshing, because I haven't had a good personal attack in a while :-) -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

He clearly crossed the line, but you'll see I wrote him a message urging him to come back and make good edits when the block expires, because there may be potential for that if he's willing to operate in an NPOV mode. We'll see. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your offered help, if it happens again I would like to file a checkuser. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• As I said, I'll be happy to file it for you, or if I'm not online at the time you can do it yourself at WP:RfCU. Of course the Checkusers are the only ones who can decide whether they will run the check. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I think I would like to file for one. I don't want to take any more chances, the problem is I'm not sure who the sockpuppeteer is or how to find out. I have a feeling that User:Woot hoot the owl wasn't the original since the accounts only purpose was to vandalize my page. I have had attacks by User:Solidbob before and his sockpuppet User:Unblockable2, whether or not this is the same user I'm not sure and don't want to speculate.Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing of my RfA

Hi Newyorkbrad, I strongly appreciate your help and advice on my RfA. After much consideration, I have decided to withdrawl my RfA. Could you possibly (as a administrator), officially close the RfA. I have thought this through using yours and other Wikipedians advice and help as stated on the RfA. I will probably re-nominate myself later on in my Wiki-time, if not nominated earlier. Many Thanks! --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone already closed it out while it was the middle of the night in the USA. I'm glad my suggestion was helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions as you develop as an editor, and I look forward to hopefully supporting you for adminship sometime in the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My talkheader

It's funny how sometimes you don't notice things like that for weeks on end... Thanks, NYB. -- Steel 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Understood; I'm the same way with my own typos; proofreading is always best done by someone else. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Winslow Arizona Reports Bizarre UFO

Thought you might want to see this: Winslow Arizona Reports Bizarre UFO. Martial Law 21:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In case your caseload as a Admin get to be too much, go to Wikipedia:Administrators to find a Admin to assist you. Martial Law 21:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

HBC AIV helpbot backup

I have checked, and my bot works alongside itself fine. I was thinking that we can have 2 or 3 instances running at all time, that would allow for a large level of failure. User:Extranet has volunteered to run a copy in Australia, would you be interested in running the third copy?

All three will run all the time, each taking the jobs it gets to first, should any go down the remaining one(s) can take up the slack no problem. What do you think? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so that will know that people will always be covering the bot, are you still in New York, Newyorkbrad? Or are you in a different time zone? --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@ 00:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is in New York, New York ... but knows nothing about bots other than appreciating the people who code and run them, so I'm not a candidate for this assignment (even though I'm the one who suggested it). Sorry. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Endorsed your decision

( I was hoping for an A+. :) where have you been? I haven't seen you on G-talk in forever! looks like some people think you aren't computer-challenged :-P (above posts). Cbrown1023 talk 15:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm running some errands and sneaking an occasional edit on my BlackBerry, and I can't get on Gtalk from here. I'll explain later what you missed that cost you the A-plus, but if you want to figure it out yourself take a look at selective incorporation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My draft proposal

I'm not ready to post this on a general noticeboard yet, but would appreciate your input. User:Durova/Community enforced mediation Durova^Charge! 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read this in detail now. I'm still thinking about the proposal, and will probably post some comments on the talkpage later on. My initial reaction is that it's a great idea in theory, but the types of users mature enough to submit themselves to this sort of mechanism are among those less likely to need it. But it would probably play a useful role in some cases. Will be watching the comments with interest. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this would take a big chunk out of ArbCom's caseload, although the way you guys work every bit probably helps. I think of this as a safety net for disputes like Piotrus-Ghirla and perhaps as a way to reduce expert burnout. Arbitration is so daunting that I suspect some of the more reasonable editors quit the site rather than try it. Durova^Charge! 21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura move/merge

Hi Newyorkbrad, thank you for your help in posting the YO Arb case results. As you may be aware, we have recently (post Arb case) moved and merged the YO entry (which is focused on the man) into BDORT (focused on the procedure). The move/merge was done with SlimVirgin's kind help. As you know, the ArbCom decision regarding Richardmalter and the other YO-affiliated COI editors applies to all BDORT related articles, and would certainly include the newly moved/merge entry. Can you post your Arb case infobox from the YO Talk page into the BDORT Talk page also? (we kept the Talk pages separate to have an easy and logical distinction between the previous man-focused version and the new procedure-focused one). I could do it myself of course, but as a participant in the Arb case I would feel better if it's done by an uninvolved party. Thanks, Crum375 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Newyorkbrad 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated :^) Crum375 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You are appreciated

Hello, Newyorkbrad: I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your efforts to help in the recent unpleasantries surrounding that comment on Werdna's RFA and the subsequent ArbCom case. Your constant efforts at fairness to all participants and seeking reconciliation rather than retribution is commendable. Continue with these efforts and maybe we will see greater collegiality here. Heimstern Läufer 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Filthy Pedro

Since you're buzzing around being helpful, could you correct the following? I nominated Filthy Pedro for deletion and failed to add it to the AfD page the right way (it doesn't have its own header there). I will study the relevant guidelines before doing this again but if you could fix this botch I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Shaundakulbara 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this; it came in while I was asleep last night; I trust this has been taken care of by now? Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for being the first to support my (unsuccesful) RfA, and for the advice. Drmaik 11:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem; good luck to you, and I hope to continue seeing you contributions in the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Alien Races, Human Mutilations

After reading these, do NOT eat and drink anything for a long while, or you'll throw it back up.

Alien Races

Links are Click on "Alien Races", Click on the SEARCH icon, type "Alien Races", Click on Alien Races/ Alien Species

Human Mutilations

Warning: Graphic Matter and pixes ahead!!!!

Links are Humans killed by ET, Warning: Graphic pixes, material, ET kills Humans

Think that these two subject matters would make great articles ? Martial Law 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP has a bad link. Martial Law 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm not going to look at anything you describe in such lovely and appetizing terms, so I'm afraid you're going to have to ask someone else for advice on this one. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy

Quick question as your policy experience is far greater than mine. Can you explain why this RfC is listed in the approved section. No one appears to have certified the basis for this dispute as required? Am I missing something? WJBscribe 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a mistake to me, but I've only commented in a couple of RfCs, actually. I know that someone usually goes through a couple of times a week and moves things to the right section. Best plan might be to check the page history of the user-conduct RfC page and see who's been doing that lately and ask them what they think. Newyorkbrad 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the person who started the RfC moved it themselves. I shall move it back and explain on their talkpage that the request must be certified first. WJBscribe 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible enough to me. Newyorkbrad 23:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I thought two people endorsing it equaled certification. Sorry for the error. Shaundakulbara 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do the people have to "sign" under what I wrote? Shaundakulbara 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I'm not an expert on this process, but according to the instructions here, two users must signify that they tried and failed to resolve the same dispute with the user or admin who is the subject of the RfC. I believe this is conventionally indicated by having at least one person endorse the statement of the person filing the case. Newyorkbrad 23:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've explained my understanding of the process on Shaundakulbara's talkpage. There's a specific "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" heading which another a second user must sign. WJBscribe 00:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My WP:AN post

You have mail. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Received and I will proceed accordingly with a note on WP:AN. Will respond further via e-mail tomorrow. Newyorkbrad 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

::: I hope you see ASAP! Can you delete the archives too? User_talk:Asher Heimermann/Archives/2006/A, User_talk:Asher_Heimermann/Archives/2006/B, User_talk:Asher_Heimermann/Archives/2007/A. Mr. Asher Heimermann 05:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. If you have any further questions or concerns please e-mail me. Good luck, I recommend you take some time off Wikipedia, and if you decide to return someday, please do so using a completely different username and let me or another administrator know what it is. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A little help?

Thought I'd ask you since you commented on it. User:Seneschally recently changed Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland to substantially address my concerns re: heredity, and I went back to the AfD and noted this and suggested a speedy keep instead, but it got zapped anyway. Would you be so kind as to retrieve a copy and drop it into his (or my) userspace for now, so we can sort a few things out? Even if we don't wind up keeping it as a separate article, there's probably information in there that can be merged into Lord High Steward of Ireland. Thanks, Choess 04:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Can you create a page in your userspace where I can put it, and give me a link to the page. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Choess/Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland. Much appreciated. Choess 05:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... it's a bluelink again, seems to have been kept after all. So I guess this request is moot, but let me know if you need anything else ... and what the truth about this office turns out to be. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

Please do not substitute stub templates like you did at Emanuel Driggus.^WP:WSS Also, if possible please consider using a specific stub instead of {{stub}}, although I appreciate that this may not have been possible in this artcle because I can't find a very specific stub myself! :o) To help find the right stub there is a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. Thank you. Ksbrown^talk 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I will make a mental note that stub templates should not be subst'd. I've been leaving a fair number of warnings and welcomes lately, and I guess I just got into the habit. As for being more specific, generally I do use more specific stub categories, but in this case I mostly wanted to get the speedy tag off the article because I didn't think it was appropriate for speedy deletion. I'll take a look at the stub type list. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Three things

Hi Brad. First of all, I've added a questionish comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop#Blocks by Philwelch, the underpinnings of which you might be able to comment on. Second, I asked another question about John Reid's inclusion in the case (he hasn't edited in months) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch#Composition of the list of parties, which might be easily answerable by someone versed in the arbitration process. Third, feel free to call me Picaroon without the numbers - User:Picaroon is a doppelganger account, so there's no one I could be confused with. Cheers, Picaroon 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. In response to your first point, since the whole idea of my proposals is to try to get the case resolved quickly (I could certainly provide more detailed evidence or proposals if it would be useful), I don't think that further discussion as you suggest is needed—it could just become controversial and fan the flames. But the /Workshop is open to anyone, so propose anything you deem appropriate (or put in /Evidence to support your view).

In response to your second point, I don't think it matters much. It's not like anyone is going to propose any findings or remedies adverse to John Reid so his rights will be affected in his absence. If anything, I'm glad he has word of the case through the notices on his talkpage; there's evidence he peeks there once in awhile, at least, and maybe this will induce him to contribute somewhere or other. In any event, it's hardly worth making a formal motion to remove him from the case, which is probably what it would take to change the parties now that the case is open. We'll see if anyone posts a different view where you posted the question. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

Can page titles be edited if they aren't spelled correctly? I filled in the article for a dead link to Bromeloideae and now that I have done a bit of linking with related topics I have realized that it is spelled Bromelioideae (an additional i). Should I assume a new duplicate page would need to be created and then edit all the pages which link to the misspelt one? Thanks. Mmcknight4 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The title can't be edited, but the page can be moved to the correct title as long as there isn't another page there already. Then you need to go back and fix all the links to the wrong title. If there are only a few such links, you can do it manually, but if there are a lot, you can ask someone who has a bot to do it automatically (I think User:MetsBot is one). Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Well, that was a significant improvement over last time. Would have been neat to hit 100 I guess, but it's also cool that there was so much support they closed it a day early and let me get to work. 98/0 ain't bad!

Thanks for your support - the fact that the nomination came from you was certainly a plus. Now I'm off to thank some folks and get to work figuring out this admin stuff, so by this time next year I might have a clue about what the hell I'm doing. Thanks again! Kafziel ^Talk 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A day early? I thought today was when it was supposed to close. Enjoy the buttons and feel free to ask if you need any help—although I've only been an admin for a couple of weeks myself, so you'll probably get more useful help from somebody else. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It was supposed to close at 13:42 on the 8th (tomorrow), but it ended 14:02 today. That's cool, though, because I'm kind of overly cautious so I can use a little extra time to learn the ropes. I'll be sure to bother you if I have noobish questions; the fact that you're a bit of a noob yourself is probably a bonus, since that stuff will be fresh in your mind. :) Kafziel ^Talk 16:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just checked and you're right (I was thinking it started last Wednesday, but that's because I wrote the nomination last Wednesday night—but you accepted and posted it on Thursday morning). You should be very flattered: I've never heard of an admin nomination closing early per WP:SNOW, except once in the case of a former admin who probably didn't really need to go through RfA at all. Frankly, from the wording of his comment on your page, I think Taxman just read the date wrong ... but no harm done, I don't think. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

French

fait accompli? I had to look that one up.  :) Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but if there are things to be looked up, I guess it's convenient we're here inside an encyclopedia. :) Newyorkbrad 03:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thats where I looked it up. I will go to work tomorrow and use the phrase. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 03:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Username question

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I hope I'm sending you this message the right way. If I'm not, please tell me how to do it correctly. Hmmm, my user name is offensive because of "Fascist"? I suppose I understand how the history tied to the term could be offensive. I will change it if you think it's absolutely necessary but it's far from being called "Nazikokomo." It's a dangerous political ideology but it's a general term not specifically tied to any particular event. I would point out that I'm not sure you would say anything if my name had been "Communistkokomo," "Democratickokomo," or "Parliamentarykokomo." I haven't read the name policy but if it says anything about not putting political ideologies into your name, I'm obviously breaking the rules. If not, then I think it's unfair to prohibit "fascist" while allowing other "potentially offensive" political ideologies in screen names.

Replied on user's talkpage; this has been resolved now; adding timestamp for Werdnabot archiving. Newyorkbrad 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Philwelch RFAR

When I workshop a case I usually start with the findings of fact. I find that the principles get added by others, or they become obvious as I write the FoFs. I try to lay out the case as I want the arbitrators to see it, something like a closing argument (with the caveat that my experience of closing arguments is limited to Perry Mason and CourtTV). If you are heading toward showing that some of Phil's blocks were against policy but that the Werdna RFA was not, I would work along the following lines.

1. Locus of dispute: Philwelch is alleged to have made inappropriate blocks in violation of policy.
2. Philwelch blocked User:JohnReid during a dispute. diff diff diff
3. Philwelch blocked User:Margana with whom he was in a content dispute at article Jimmy Wales [diff] [diff] [diff]
4. Philwelch blocked 3 users during a content dispute at article Battlestar Galactica [AN thread] [diff] [diff] [diff]
5. Philwelch unblocked himself after being blocked for a 3RR violation [link to evidence page]
6. David Levy added a question to RFA/Werdna that was based on material at damn attic. [AN thread]
7. Philwelch used admin rollback to revert the questions [diff]. When David Levy persisted in readding the questions [diff] [diff], Philwelch blocked him, characterizing Levy's comments as "trolling" [block log] [diff]
8. David Levy's repeated addition of the questions could fairly be interpreted as trolling, and Philwelch's actions were a reasonable and good faith attempt to implement the principles approved in RFAR/MONGO.
9. Philwelch voluntarily desysopped himself in response to this RFAR.

(Most of the bad blocks except for the Levy incident are in Nick's statement.)

If this is where the evidence takes you, then the remedies are relatively obvious.

1. For blocking editors with whom he was in content disputes, Philwelch's desysopping is affirmed. Philwelch may reapply for adminship through RFA at any time.
2. Philwelch is admonished not to block editors with whom he is involved in content disputes. When in doubt, err on the side of caution. Seek the involvement of other admins through the noticeboards.
3. Philwelch's actions during RFA/Werdna were appropriate.
4. David Levy is admonished for trolling on Werdna's RFA.
5. The prohibition against linking to attack sites (ie sites that attack wikipedia editors) such as damn attic is extended to include prohibiting direct or indirect references, even when unlinked, to material on those sites for the purpose of disparaging wikipedia editors. Such edits may be reverted without limit.

Anyway, that would be my approach. Thatcher131 15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It's always good to share thoughts with a fellow denizen of the arb pages.

I usually start with findings too as I did in Giano and Konstable. But here, at least one or two arbs believe the principle I proposed might resolve most of the case, thereby making more detailed findings moot.

I deliberately haven't gotten into the specifics of the bad blocks. I participated in the noticeboard discussion of several of them (John Reid, ThuranX, Centrx) and could put together evidence and FOF's on each of them. Believe me, the more I dissected it, the worse Philwelch's conduct would look, and no one has even picked up on a personal attack he made on me on ANI. But, I only want to do all this if it's going to in some way assist the arbitrators. Since the desysopping is a fait accompli, I have the sense that the only result of going through these incidents chapter-and-verse would be to make it obvious that Philwelch used bad judgment as an admin and was sometimes uncivil, and since these are more-or-less stipulated facts (see his own statement), I'm not sure there would be value added to my putting all this down on paper (so to speak).

Therefore, I've been looking for some input from the arbs as to whether this would be useful. After all, when PMA voluntarily desysopped after your excellent presentation on his RfC, the RfC closed with your acquiescence and the matter was over—thereby not increasing the chances that we would lose PMA as a contributor as well as as an administrator.

I'm not familiar with the Margana incident or the Battlestar Galactica dispute. Will have to look those up if they become germane.

On the Werdna incident, I take a more nuanced view and see arguments on both sides of the issue. I don't happen to agree that the block was appropriate given that the matter was under active discussion on ANI at the time. David Levy was acting properly according to his reading of the situation and hence even though I don't agree with everything he did I would certainly not use the word "trolling" nor do I believe it should have been used in a block summary. On the one hand, we have verbatim quoting of an IRC log (generally disfavored) from a problematic website (doubly disfavored), making a triply bad combination. On the other hand, some people believed (I disagreed) the contents were highly relevant to whether a pending candidate could be trusted (I thought he could and voted support). I think this particular incident was a one-off and need not be a major subject of the case, but it's certainly a vehicle through which ArbCom can make a broader pronouncement if they care to.

Pardon these thoughts being too long and again, I'm very open to input as to whether there is more workshopping to be done in the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

On re-reading it looks like Kiril wants to delve into damn attic, not you. Other than that issue, I don't really know why there were 6 votes to open if they are only going to confirm the desysopping. On re-sysopping, I would suggest the following as a general principle:

Admins who voluntarily resign adminship may regain their status upon request, unless they resigned under controversial circumstances, in which case they must regain adminship through RFA. Bureaucrats are expected to use their discretion and judgement in determining whether controversial circumstances existed. If, after restoring a former admins's access, the bureaucrats become aware of controversial circumstances that would have affected their decision had they been aware at the time, they are authorized to re-desysop the admin and ask that he/she seek adminship through RFA.

COvers all scenarios. Thatcher131 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can't desysop and weren't intended for that role, and stewards are not supposed to make such judgment calls about non-emergency desysopping on a big project that has its own procedures. Clearly it would be something for ArbCom to decide, and they could do it quickly a la NSLE or Everyking. NoSeptember 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This needn't be over-formalized, I don't think. All the bureaucrat really needs to do is check the ex-admin's contributions around the time of the desysopping for any explanation, or e-mail the ArbCom mailing list along the lines of "any problem with welcoming X back to the ranks?" Newyorkbrad 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Per your message, I have cut and pasted from teh RfA to the RfA/E.ThuranX 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

His attacks continue [6]. ThuranX 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See the talkpage of Rush in popular culture. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw. When it becomes incivil of ME to refer to the vindictive agenda against me that PW has, and it's no big deal to be multiply accused of employing socks, and told to leave 'personal shit' (like being blocked by him for defending the page per FA Review and demonstrable consensus), I can tell what my future on Wikipedia will be. As such, I believe the best solution for my own continued presence on Wikipedia starts by my removing my votes on the AfD, and reremoving my entire participation in the RfAr. I want nothing more to do with PhilWelch, deckiller, or you.ThuranX 00:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about your being uncivil, although I hoped the whole tone of the discussion could improve in general. I am the person who came from outside today to revert this article and get the discussion started again, because I thought your position had some merit. I am the person (I wasn't even an administrator yet) who saw what I thought was an unfair block of you a couple of months ago and took it to the noticeboard and personally lobbied until you were unblocked, when you thought all the admins would stick together and there was no chance of that happening. I am the person who advised you today where to put your statement in the arbitration case so it would be more prominent. If you want nothing more to do with the articles or the people associated with them, then I can't do anything about that, but I certainly don't understand why you are venting at me. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Because you're not stopping an obvious prolonged attack on me. This entire Rush in popular culture thing is against me. I told one of the admins during the initial stage of RfAr that I wanted nothing to do with Philwelch, because I felt he'd come after me. Now he is. He said he'd leave Wikipedia, but now wants back in, and has decided to do so by getting all objectors off the site. I'll be far less active now on Wikipedia, and Phil will move onto the next editor who was a part of this. Because my edit history includes that edit in which I said I want nothing to do with this, I'm easily found and percieved as the 'weak link'; the first he's going after. Your only response was 'I think we can do without that', to a direct personal attack, right after ANOTHER personal attack, the Sock accusation. A simple comparison of the IP and my contrib list shows about ZERO overlap outside of Rush topics, and I don't even think I've touched Vapor Trails, though I might've at some point and forgotten. In other words, I followed Wikiprocedure, even giving a statement against Phil after being forced to be a part, because 'in for a penny, in for a pound'. Now he's coming after me, and all I see is Phil (former Admin) and Deckiller (Current Admin)against me outright, including false statements on the AfD that I mentioned the RfAr, which I did NOT, and I see you, (current Admin), doing nothing to respond to this. You are the only admin in any way present, and you're letting him do this. That's why I want nothing more to do with you.WP:NPA is being violated, and you're not enforcing it. Phil gets his way, I get out of Phil's way, I've already deleting anything to do with PhilWelch's RfAr, all my statements and evidence, and I've deleted my vote and comments on the AfD. If PhilWelch comes after any ofthe other pages I edit, I will leave them too. If this continued behavior forces me off Wikipedia, then so be it. I feel attacked, I've made that clear, and the Admins are NOT intervening. Good bye. ThuranX 01:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank You, Newyorkbrad/Archive4 for your Support! Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.

...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I was feeling impulses to AfD the article myself in a couple days to bring an outside bump on the head, but I guess I'm too much of a softie compared to Phil. Even though he may have made some controversial moves, he's bold, and he's done more good than people think. — Deckiller 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not saying that Rush in popular culture is a great article. I just think there is too much content to just delete or override and forget about. If the personalities can be removed from the discussion, maybe it can get somewhere. We'll see. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Soccerkidjp (talk · contribs)

Hi. I have unblocked Soccerkidjp (talk · contribs). I had already started typing a message referring him to our notability guidelines and asking him to tread lightly. The block was over a year old and his explanation seemed reasonable. If you believe my action was in error, please feel free to reverse it ... but unless there is a checkuser reason not to unblock, I would like to assume good faith and give this individual a second chance. --BigDT 01:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No objection, and I know you've consulted with the blocking admin, but I'll keep his talk watchlisted just in case. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

85.104.183.82

Hope I didn't overstep any bounds by adding 85.104.183.82 to the WP:AIV board. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The board is there for users to post to. The account was already gone by the time I got there so some other admin must have dealt with it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool....just doing what I can to help out and not step on any toes in the process. Rock on...SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 02:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hagermanbot

Not sure if I did everything correctly, I'll drop a note on Hagerman talk also. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone already has or not, but as I understand it, new policy pages (as opposed to talk pages) need to be opted in. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything beyond dropping that note needed for opt in? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I just checked User:HagermanBot and I suppose you can follow the instructions at User:HagermanBot#Turning it On if no one else already has. Newyorkbrad 02:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thanks, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

appropriate user warning

What is an appropriate user page warning template for someone who removes tags such as {{Disputed}} and {{tooshort}} from articles? I see all the options here, but nothing seems exactly appropriate. FYI, this is in reference to this, this and this. --Keesiewonder ^talk 17:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure someone has created a template warning for this somewhere (I'm not certain, but maybe someone else who watches this page would know). In this type of situation, though, I would usually prefer a tailored message outlining the specific concern to a template anyway. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

(re: Wikibreak... sigh.. call it wishful thinking. :)

As for the block, I'm going to unblock; it's already been over 12 hours and the user has gotten the message, and no need to wait for the blocker to respond further. Mangojuice^talk 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah, yeah, I was away from the computer. See, I'm on wikibreak these days.. ;) Mangojuice^talk 03:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but you're not supposed to declare a wikibreak between "I'm going to unblock" and doing it! :) I've watchlisted the user's talkpage to be sure issues don't recur. And see Blnguyen's talkpage for his response to the unblock when he got back online. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. Life comes at you fast sometimes, thanks for covering. Mangojuice^talk 03:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Way ahead of you

Don't worry, I declined the RFA moments after it was created. It's all good! Milto LOL pia 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Hi brad. Just a note to thank you for letting me know. Indeed, it looks misguided at best. I will not validate that with a response, unless the community were to ask me to. Again, thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Redux 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Thank you; much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Email from User:Asher Heimermann

I just received an email from User:Asher Heimermann, it was sent via the wikipedia email interface and reads:

Hello,

My name is Asher Heimermann and I live in Sheboygan, Wisconsin USA. I have provided
my services of web design and email marking.

If you ever need a website done or redesign, please visit
http://www.asherheimermann.com or email asher@asherheimermann.com.

I can make websites as low as $5.00 and a full website as low as $10.00.
I'll do my best to make a great website for you!

<identifying information redacted>

Does anyone have any idea who this person is? He's running for president? Is this a joke or a real person? Who could possibly make a website for 5-10 dollars?

And more importantly is he abusing wikipedia to send spam? Did he choose to email just me, or is this a script?

Ariel. 01:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do know who this person is, and I will e-mail him and advise him to desist immediately. In the meantime, please just delete the message. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Newyorkbrad

One word: ugh. Metros232 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone else receives a similar message, please let me know the date and time of the message. Please do not post the other details of the message here, but e-mail me if necessary. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well now this is interesting - he emailed me this:

I'll answer some of your questions...

Q. He's running for president?
A. No. I am only taking feedback at this time.

Q. Is this a joke or a real person?
A. No, this is for real.

Q. Who could possibly make a website for 5-10 dollars?
A. Myself.

If you have anymore, I'll be more then happy to answer them for you.

But [he] didn't answer the most important question: Are you abusing wikipedia to send spam? Did you choose to email just me, or is this a script? Ariel. 02:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I received a copy of the same note. I've e-mailed him again pointing out that he is misusing Wikipedia facilities and telling him he has to stop it. If this continues we will need to figure out what to do next. Newyorkbrad 02:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stumbled across this randomly, and I third Metros' reaction. Back when we were actively dealing with him on Wikipedia, I was tempted to bring up e-mailing his parents as a last ditch effort (especially since he adamantly continued to edit under his real name). If he continues to spam users, would a short e-mail to his parents be out of line? Gzkn 07:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait a day or two and see if he's gotten the message now. If not, I will probably post on ANI if there is a way to disable his account so he can't access the WP e-mail interface (blocking isn't enough to accomplish that). Hopefully he just stops now, but as I said, we'll see. Newyorkbrad 12:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:141.157.198.75

A user you blocked, 141.157.198.75, continues to use his own talk page as a vehicle for personal attacks. Is there anyway we can add additional blocks so we can stop this from happening? --Jayron32 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When this happens, the user's talkpage can be protected so that he or she can no longer edit it. This usually isn't done in the first instance, as there can be valid reasons for the blocked editor to edit the talkpage (e.g., to request an unblock, or to point out collateral damage from an IP block), but in this case it was warranted and another admin has already done it. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, I was just letting people know because they kept coming to warn him. I have a feeling this IP has no intention of stopping (he even said something to that effect before his page was protected). It wouldn't be unreasonable to extend the block given the severity of their incivility and personal attacks. John Reaves (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I was concerned it might not be a static IP, but pretty much all the edits from this IP have been vandalism or abusive. Newyorkbrad 03:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

GB & I

Please see expanded reasoning for proposed deletion of Great_Britain_and_Ireland.--Triglyph 09:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it again and the case against the article is made more effectively now, but on balance my opinion is still the same. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic/Arbitration

I was keeping an eye on the Free Republic discussion and was wondering where it got moved to. If you could give me a link, I would greatly appericate it. Take care...SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm opening up the case as we speak. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic and its talkpage. All the links should be on the relevant pages within the next 15 minutes or so. Newyorkbrad 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Solejman Talovic

Could you please delete this again, as someone recreated it before I could move Sulejman Talovic there. Thanks, TS3 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else took care of it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Rarelibra

The substantive dispute is that Rarelibra believes that all geographic articles should bear the official name given by the government controlling the area. I've run into him on this on Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol, where even an Italian editor who agrees with him on the naming question disputes the claim that we should prefer official names.

I've also run into him on this on Talk:Tenedos, where the Turkish nationalists are in dispute with the Greek nationalists over the name of the article and other points. As an English speaker who had not seen the Turkish name until I saw the article, I have consistently supported Tenedos as the English name. As a result of this, he and the professional Turks are objecting to including one argument from that discussion on WP:NCGN.

The civility dispute is this edit, which contains an obscene and offensive Polish phrase, slightly minced. I have no idea why he is bothering to lie about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Polish so won't comment on that phrase. I have seen issues concerning methods of naming cities generate an enormous amount of bitterness on various pages of the project. (There is a pending arbitration case right now concerning whether the titles of Project:France pages should use words like "Department" or "Département".) I claim no expertise on the policy issue but hope that everyone can remain civil, and remind all parties that the response to alleged incivility should never be more of the same. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus did comment on the phrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

re: oversight

Thanks --froth^T 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

HELP

Thank you for your intervention. I only want to, as you state, move on and let the past lie. Thanks again. Rarelibra 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do need assistance with User:Piotrus and his insistence on my talk page. Thank you. Rarelibra 15:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post the following: ":No one should be calling anyone else names. That goes for everyone. Although some people believe it is not optimal behavior, users have the right to remove template warnings from their talkpages. The best plan, of course, is for everyone to act in such a way that there is no question of needing a warning template on one's talkpage." But when I went to your page I don't find the thread to post it to. Newyorkbrad 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to bother you. I really appreciate your assistance. The problem I have with User:Pmanderson is that he cannot remain respectful whenever he dislikes someone. If you look at this diff HERE, you'll see that he insinuates that I want to "lie to the reader". There was nowhere at all in my comments on this discussion a proposal to lie. In fact, my whole point was that we need to use the diatrics when using names (and redirect from non-diatric names) - a process that the workplace I am involved with does on a daily basis due to an international scope of work. I was also stating that a direct English translation of the name "Stanisław" is "Stanley" (like "Mark" from "Marek"). Yet user Pmanderson seems to be able to twist my words and attempt to slander me. This is what I wish to have stopped. I do not do the same with him, I expect the same respect in return. That is all. Rarelibra 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability Guidelines

Would it be OK if I opened Notability Guidelines come 9 GMT? I've never opened a case before, but I did a practice at User:David.Mestel/Free Republic. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a "clerk trainee" myself, you'll need to consult with User:Thatcher131 who deals with ArbCom on new clerk selection at the moment. In any event, I think opening the case is on hold for a short time pending the results of the mediation (or the arbitrators saying to go ahead and open the case despite the mediation). Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I left a message on TT's userpage saying I would try to open it, but he hasn't responded. However if, as you say and as seems to be the case, there's this productive mediation going on I will of course hold off. Trouble for me is that as a hail from the land of the fish finger, I'm often not around twenty-four hours after the last accept vote, which was frequently cast during the daytime in the land of the hamburger, which is in the middle of the night for me. </grumble> David Mestel^(Talk) 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant has posted to the talk pages of Flo and Matthew re: the mediation, so I think we should wait for them to respond. Better to be late than wrong. (see also my comment at WP:AC/C/A. You should note there if you want to take a case, that's where we coordinate these things. There's no reason a case has to be opened exactly 24 hours post-acceptance, and I would rather spread the work around, so go ahead and claim it on the noticeboard. Thatcher131 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty's editing my comments on the RfA

Hi Brad,

Could you please ask or direct TBeatty not to refactor my comments on the RfA? He refactored my description of gay prostitute-slash-reporter Jeff Gannon describing him as 'conservative mouthpiece, cum-gay-prostitute' Jeff Gannon. He does this ALL the time, even on talk pages. Recently he even edited my remarks describing homophobic Episcopal bishop Peter Akinola as a 'homophobe' Link Thanks. - FAAFA 21:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated on his talkpage, altering other users' evidence or comments on an arbitration page is not appropriate. Having said that, what value is there to making these types of references to real-world figures on an arbitration page. I am sure you can present your position effectively without doing so. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will formulate an appropriate rant later this evening. In the mean time don't hesitate to lock down the pages temporarily if you need to. Thatcher131 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP policy makes no exception for Arbitration cases. I understand that I may not be the right person to refactor it, but it needs to be refactored. He has restored the defamtory material. I see no point in dragging BLP patrol people to arbcom as I don't think we need any more commentators (it's become a mess as is). He illustrated my point quite nicely though. --Tbeatty 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have this bleed over to your talk page but since his 'homophobe' accusation isn't in the source he provided, he was asked not to repeat it. It's simply unneccesary. Anyone can read the article and form their own conclusion. It was suggested to him previously not to do it [7]. THese are pretty clear cut BLP issues. Tbeatty 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If FAAFA is reading here I would like to ask him to consider removing the language in question, which is by no means going to affect the result of the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's been settled that Jeff Gannon was a gay prostitute. A hireling, a fraud and a prostitute Please read the discussion in Jeff Gannon talk - especially the real-world, grounded reasoning from Admins Guy and Galmeiel vs the tortured attempts by certain other editors to twist BLP in an effort 'protect' a fellow conservative. That's the Latin use of 'cum' too. If an Admin feels that calling Jeff Gannon a gay prostitute is a BLP violation, they can remove it. I would like that someone asks Guy or Galmeiel what they think. - FAAFA 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But what does having that argument have to do with the arbitration case? The arbitrators need to read through the presentations and evidence and decide what to do about the problematic situation on the Free Republic article and related matters. Are the words you are putting on the arbitration pages going to help them do that? That's a question for everyone, by the way. Newyorkbrad 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty decided to fill up the evidence section with claims about me - that he didn't even write, mind you - about my behavior - mostly from months ago - behavior that was already addressed in an Rfc months ago. Of course I am going to address his own WP violating behavior. I have nearly finished with it though. (unless he persists) I believe admins are allowed to edit the RfA. Maybe an Admin should edit out all the info that has nothing to do with Free Republic, which would delete 95% of Tbeatty's laundry-list of irrelevent complaints, and my counter-complaints. Peace Now! - FAAFA

Ilena

Thanks for letting me know. I should have known the situation would be bogged down and complicated. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic Arbcom case

Hi! How much time do I have to get evidence together? There are a lot of differences to go through, and real world events and recent cyber-attacks on my infrastructure here have kept me from doing it. I run two radio networks, stream a third one, and run a major web site, and this weekend we are traveling to visit my wife's family in another state. If I cannot complete this in time, no loss, though, dealing with the Hinnen brothers and their sock puppets has about totally turned me off Wikipedia for good, and I actually posted my retirement, but several editors and admins asked me to stay on. --BenBurch 19:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The written rules indicate that the arbitrators allow at least one week from the opening of the case to compile evidence. In reality, the arbitrators have several cases on their plate that opened before yours, so you probably have even more time than that, unless they decide to vote on some sort of temporary injunction. So I think you still have time to put together whatever you think is appropriate, bearing in mind that the primary purpose of the arbitration pages is to provide the arbs with the information needed to reach a fair result in the case rather than to prevail on the merits of any underlying content issue. Hope that helps. Newyorkbrad 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --BenBurch 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV and User:Fuskamu

Done, I think. Wouldn't hurt to double-check. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks okay to me. Real world does get in the way sometimes. :) Newyorkbrad 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine

Since everyone is ignoring me on ANI, can you take a look at Mexico123? He's being a prat wrt orphaned images. He's been blocked for a week before, and I gave him a final warning in January. I think he may have just about exhausted his stock of AGF. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted a final warning to his page pointing out that I am an admin and about to block his account. Let's give it 48-72 hours to see what happens and if this doesn't help I will probably have to block indef unless/until he complies. I've watchlisted his page, as well, so we'll see if he answers. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you're polite. David Mestel^(Talk) 08:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the user's contribs seem to have involved writing a word of English. Is it possible he doesn't speak it? In which case maybe a Spanish speaking user should explain about the need for copyright licenses for images? WjBscribe 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I was wondering the same thing. Does anyone who happens to be reading here know enough Spanish to follow up? Newyorkbrad 10:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to put up with this?

Should I wait for arbcom or should I just report to ANI for this. --Tbeatty 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've commented and asked him to stay off your talkpage. I certainly hope there will be no more of this sort of thing. Since I'm clerking the case I don't want to do more, but you are certainly free to mention the matter in your evidence and/or to post to ANI if you wish. Newyorkbrad 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it in evidence and it looks like Thatcher dropped a warning too, so no need to do any more. Thanks! --Tbeatty 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brad - I don't think you or Thatcher understand. Tbeatty a) reverted an old deleted pic twice b) created a talk page about the pic. He obviously was interested in the pic. I thought it important to let him know the history. link and link Was it the link to the Jeff Gannon pic ? Was that the problem ? Thanks - FAAFA 15:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just say away from your antagonists, and vice versa, as much as you can? Please? Beyond that, since there's no urgency, I'll leave it for the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Polar coordinate system

Congratulations. I know how hard you worked on this. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —METS501 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Found ....

I've found the "official website" of the Ben 10 cartoon. It is www.ben10.com. Martial Law 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A question

In the evidence, are editors allowed to make up any absurd claim as fact? Read these in sequence [8][9][10]. I think he made an honest error but doesn't want to let go of it and is therefore twisting it into something absurd. Can I presume that the ArbCom committee will see through the absurdity or do I have to rebut it? --Tbeatty 00:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You can presume that the arbitrators are intelligent, experienced, and dedicated editors. You can also assume that they have a lot less familiarity with your case and the editors involved in it than the participants do. I'm not going to tell anyone what to include in evidence and will have to trust that people use their best judgment. If you believe the situation is clear, you could always explain BRIEFLY why you believe the statement to be false and say that you can provide additional evidence if requested. Bear in mind that the arbitrators appreciate (and can most easily process) clear evidence, but in the past (not relating to this specific case), some of them have also expressed concerns about the length of the evidence presentations. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It does. I think the familiarity is the key. I will also try to shorten my evidence a bit and make it more direct. I was hoping the links would would tell the story, but it may be too overwhelming to expect ArbCom to follow each one. thanks! --Tbeatty 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, and I am not singling you out at all, if I were an arbitrator I would find much of the evidence and virtually all of the workshop as presented by the parties in this case to be virtually useless. The only thing that they make clear is such violent hatred felt by some of the parties for one another as to be extreme even for an arbitration case. Incidentally, for the benefit of anyone else who is following this, I note that in my administrator capacity I have just addressed a 3RR report relating these same disputants. The report and underlying user conduct has done nothing to elevate the tone of the overall discussion. Newyorkbrad 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brad - I addressed that on TBeatty's talk page - which he deleted:

Your refactoring is a violation of WP

Behavior that is unacceptable

• • Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details).

• • • An apologetic exception: If you wish to retract a negative comment in the interests of harmony, insert a placeholder in the text such as, "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]", so your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"

"Do not refactor me again. If you believe you (or Jeff Gannon, Peter Akinola, etc) have been libeled or my comments are BLP violations, contact an administrator or the BLP board." Brad, IMO his repeated refactoring of what I write is a violation of WP and intentional harassment - if he believes he is within his rights to do so, he is required to leave a placeholder so that others are aware that comments have been refactored or redacted. He doesn't. You will also note that it has been Tbeatty's stated goal to have me permenently banned since at least August. I have no such goal, I only would like to see him put revert parole, and counsoled regarding political agendas, POV, and BLP. Just read his talk archives where he accuses Wiki of systematic liberal bias, and how his goal is to change that. He even used the reference desk only a few days ago as a platform to blatantly push his POV and political agenda and (IMO) conspiracy theories! (link coming) - FAAFA 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit-war on that image is ridiculous behavior. I'm taking no action, and leaving the entire situation to the tender mercies of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I get a finding on the artistic merit of my endeavor? ;-) WARNING: adult content image - FAAFA

A question to the Ref desk asked about Global Warming in Great Britain. Tbeatty even used this as an opportunity to push his politics, his POV, and his 'conspiracy theories' about the media and 'global cooling' ! "I believe the eastern United States has been cooling steadily [11] but lots of places have been cooling. Not that you would have heard it on the news :). There are lots of suggested outcomes of Global Warming mostly though it creates alarmism instead of representing scientific conclusions." Tbeatty 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) This is unconsionable. Please make him stop ;-) - FAAFA 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

enough is enough

I've been insulted before because of my efforts to improve our project, however, I find this particular insult to be way out of line and I'm expecting some sort of action. It's not the first time, and there was an ArbCom about Mongo's behavior… enough is enough. Lovelight 01:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I concur. - FAAFA 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have phrased the comments differently, but I don't see anything requiring administrator action at this time. Newyorkbrad 14:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Contractual Obligation Album

It isn't all that obscure, but it is pretty easily overlooked as well in my experience. I didn't hear it until a good ten years after I thought I had exhausted all the monty python material out there ;) (also, tbh I was not that big on the song either, but I find it enormously quotable).
Thanks for havin' a sense of humour. One worries, sometimes, in the wake of all this unfunny business around, of all things, comics. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

RfAr

Do you think you could ask DeanHinnen to 'reign it in' a little?

• Also, another reason why you got a 24-hour block was "misrepresentation." This is a polite way to say "lying," sir. Your entire participation in this proceeding, as well as FAAFA's, consists of misrepresenting the evidence. The constant distortions, half-truths and spin-doctoring don't even stop here. Dino 13:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) LINK Thanks - FAAFA 09:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like everyone to rein it in a little on those pages. See my comments to Tbeatty above. Newyorkbrad 14:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think...

Special:Contributions/Tony16. Also see Special:Undelete/Asher_Heimermann. Thoughts? Metros232 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's persistent, at least. Definitely "yes" to the question you are asking. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just monitor for now? I almost blocked him, but then remembered that Asher was never actually blocked indefinitely...so this isn't an avoidance of a block. Metros232 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that he was desperate to have his name taken off wiki a week ago, I'm at a little bit of a loss. I'll be keeping an extremely close eye, and he's close to being blocked or at least soundly scolded for personal attacks anyhow. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: My outburst on ANI

Thank you! I was considering replacing it with the word "prejudiced," seeing as such a statement would prejudge the existence of the article, but I decided two edits to make a comment is enough. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help, I was worried I was being too nit-picky. :) I see that Centrx picked up on the same wording issue and worked it into his reply, which is more elegant than what I did. Newyorkbrad 17:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Conners

Thanks for the info. Really, I won't be too surprised if he resurfaces as an IP or some such thing. I'll keep an eye out. Natalie 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI - This user was also blocked recently using IP 64.38.60.236 and has also used IP 70.188.138.214 (though not blocked on this one that I know of). Morphh ^(talk) 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If you need to report him again, feel free to reference the warning I left on his talkpage. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Weakly Lawyer

Thank you for letting me know....and thank you for not altering your RfA stance :)

I initially tagged it because it has no Alexa presence and Google finds only two hits for the title [12] and three for the web URL [13]. There didn't appear to be much opportunity for notability. I'm not arguing against your removal of the tag, just letting you understand my motivation for adding the tag. IrishGuy ^talk 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a legitimate tag and I daresay 8 admins out of 10 would have deleted it. As I just wrote in a radically different context on WP:AN, I don't wear it on my sleeve but I am probably more "inclusionist" than most. In this case, I didn't see any harm to letting a new good-faith contributor have a chance to make something more out of the article. Or maybe it's just because I contribute to another legal humor and human-interest publication (not this one) and am generous to the breed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I would agree that it is ultimately harmless. It wasn't really blatant advertising akin to "our site rules, go check it out!" (which I have seen) I actually googled it in the hopes that I might be able to assist in fleshing it out...mainly because it didn't strike me as simple advertising. Unfortunately, I couldn't really find anything other than two blogs. Hopefully, the authors can provide something that I overlooked. IrishGuy ^talk 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP<>BIO

(or is BLP=!BIO cooler?)

WP:BLP = Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

WP:BIO = Wikipedia:Notability (people)

WP:NOT = Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

WAS 4.250 05:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I knew that; just a slip of the tongue/fingers. Newyorkbrad 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty's actions (again)

Several Admins determined that User:Chicagostyledog was a probable sock of BryanFromPalatine. Tbeatty (who actually felt that he should be made an Admin when he had under two months on Wiki and less than 600 edits link) took it upon himself to change that finding to being a sock of JoelHazaltine, then accused ME of false accusations, when I was agreeing with the consensus of several Admins. It has been TBeatty's stated goal since at least August to have me permenently banned, and this shows, yet again, that he will do anything to try and accomplish that.

He added the following to the RfAr evidence page.

1) "False accusations. [14] Followed by backtracking [15][16]"

Can't you appoint a conservator for him - or something? A sanction? Thanks - FAAFA 08:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The first of your two points can be discussed with one of the admins who did the sockpuppet review, since I was not involved in it. The second is for the arbitrators. I will add my opinion that linking to a question he asked about adminship standards, 11 months ago, is inappropriate and a real reach. Newyorkbrad 08:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was a rather restrained in response to his actions. In case you didn't know, there's a wee bit of bad blood between us. - FAAFA 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Brian Peppers

Very well said. I support your position 100%. Regards, El_C 13:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request for arbitration

Thanks so much. That's what I'm thinking. Will deal with it when I got more time. :-) — Instantnood 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand

Betacommand has now attempted to answer on his blocking for usernames. Could you close the Rfc for now, until these have been addressed? I think it would be a good idea to keep the page RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do that, but I'd appreciate it if you could (1) post the request to close the RfC on the RfC page (so anyone who sees the page will know it was closed at your suggestion), and (2) give me a link to Betacommand's response and put that on the page as well. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Done (although I didn't use a template to request closure). The links are below to show betacommand has been trying to address this (I've added them into the Rfc);

• [17] on User talk:HighInBC
• [18] on WP:RFCN

NOTE:All other disucusions had been closed meaning betacommand was unable to comment RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Closed and de-listed for now. Good luck in resolving the issue, which is important, and the RfC can be reopened if necessary. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability of student-run law journals?

Got a question a lawyer like you may know the answer to... at Talk:Islam_and_slavery#Arguments_why_Azizah_Y._al-Hibri_is_a_reliable_source there's a dispute over whether an article written by a professor in the Fordham International Law Journal is a reliable source since this publication is student-run. My opinion is that the situation with law journals is unique in that the most prestigious of them are, in fact, student-run, unlike the situation in other fields like physics, history, etc. where all the famous publications are run by senior academics. Would you agree/disagree on this point? - Merzbow 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In the United States, most (though definitely not all) law reviews and law journals are student-run, including the most prestigious ones of all such as the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Fordham Law Review, et al. See generally law review. It has been frequently commented that law is the only field in which the students accept or reject, and edit, the professionals' writing. I am not sure whether this is also true outside the United States. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a minute...

Since you are active on 3RR, could you look at my case? I don't think I actually violated 3RR - I didn't revert any particular piece of information more then three times - but even if I am right this article has been getting rather unpleasant recently (both with reverts and with Holocaust revisionism-type claims in it, not too mention with people whose tempers run so high that they want to use 3RR...) and so I have decided to self-revert as a sign of good will and take a break from editing this article anyway, for a day at least, to let the tempers of all involved parties cool down. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is actually my first night taking a stint on the 3RR board, so I wasn't going to take on anything high-profile, but had you posted this to the report itself, I don't think any administrator would have blocked you, so I will proceed accordingly. Please remember to avoid edit-warring and even coming close to a 3RR violation, even in controversial and emotional contexts. Newyorkbrad 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA & RfCU

Yeah; I was trying to get a checkuser on IRC for a while due to the time-sensitive nature of it, but couldn't find one until now. Ral315 » 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, but I'm not too worried about it, a soft block should be enough to stop them. They aren't like sockpuppet users that keep coming back for the sole purpose of messing with you, I warned this one for vandalism and they wanted nothing more to do than that. It appears our friend that kept calling me a lesbian hasn't come back so I'm assuming they got bored. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, Newyorkbrad, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I was very glad to see a support from you, since I've always seen you as a very strong user and a wise administrator. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 05:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

HELP

Why am I having to now defend on several users talk pages why I want my real name and the real name of my husband not linked to on Wikipedia? I was asked what I do for a living, and why it is important that I not have my real name posted. Just exactly why? I'd also like to know why Ted is allowed to disparage, harass, and stalk me and now insist I be banned permanently because he does not like my edit? And anyone is even seriously considering this? Have I entered the Twilight zone?Jance 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

My sincerest thanks for your work on my RfA, which took a completely unexpected twist (to say the least). I appreciate your efforts in arguing and getting a CheckUser. And thanks for your comments with regard to the ANI thread; while I may disagree with you on the issue, I strongly respect your (and others) views on the matter. Trebor 07:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request

I noticed your post on ANI about needing a checkuser's attention; it might be a good idea to double post either on RFCU or it's talk page (depending on whether it merits an actual case, or just a note to look into something). Some of us don't watch ANI, but would see the note on RFCU and move quickly. Regards, Essjay (Talk) 12:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already posted a formal request at RfCU before then and was just following up with my post there. I don't know where Dmcdevit, who responded soon thereafter, first saw it. (I think people were trying to track down a Checkuser on IRC by then anyway, though of course I'd like to take the credit for having resolved the issue with the formal RfCU submission—even though it didn't qualify for a code letter :) .) Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware it'd been added there at the time the ANI post was made. Still, a "this is urgent" note on the talk page would probably get our attention (our RFCU clerks have a channel with a bot that reports new cases and changes to the pages, so they can poke us quickly if something is urgent). Anywho, just a thought. Essjay (Talk) 12:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll remember the RfCU talkpage option if there's an urgent next time. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad 12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

user:Piotrus3RR case

Sorry, I did not calculated that conversation would disrupt board and yes we can discuss this issue here, if you agree. In short I seek that Piotrus' edits should be examined for the violation of 3RR; and if there such he should be officially warned about it and the sanctions is secondary issue. M.K. 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted before, I'd welcome input from someone else on how I addressed this 3RR report last night, if any other admins are reading here. Newyorkbrad 12:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok lets see that others would say. M.K. 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Another admin, Darwinek, agrees with New on 3RR page, and even your friends suggest you went overboard. I know you consider me an evil incarnate - alas, consider that almost nobody supports your take on this.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek participated in revert campaign with you in the same event, btw how link to your Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Piotrus is credible with your 3RR case, as well as claim your friends suggest you went overboard? I suggest you stop conducting controversies. Newyorkbrad, could you suggest which procedure is necessary to attract neutral admins on Piotrus 3RR case to evaluate it more closely, post request on ANI? M.K. 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it appears you have

Remember, when we had the discussion on when Congress closes/when it begins and who's Speaker and President Pro Tempore on January 3rd if Congress is sworn in on January 4? Remember? I do believe it was you who posted something on my talkpage. See [19]. Wouldn't ForestH2's IP have changed by now? If you'll let me I may be able to do a few good things for you. If you don't want me to (the things involve more info on ForestH2 that you have overlooked), would you kindly protect my userpage as leaving Wikipedia, or right to leave on Meta? Carpet 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I didn't recall that was you. Thanks for the reminder.

I'm not a CheckUser (I just became an administrator a month ago), so I have no access to the data that led to the conclusion that was reached.

To the best of my knowledge, you are still free to edit, and obviously you are doing so, having just posted here. I don't know of any reason you should leave. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:MoeLarryAndJesus#3RR_block

I recently replied here to some comments/questions that MoeLarryAndJesus had made at the 3RR page. Was my reply appropriate? I would just like a second set of eyes to review how I handled that. I'm asking you because you have already been part of the process. Thanks. Sancho McCann 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your comments will be very helpful if MoeLarryAndJesus takes them in the spirit in which you obviously intended them. As I said on the 3RR board and his page, I don't like blocking for 3RR but saw absolutely no other choice in this instance. Hopefully after some time to cool down he can engage with the other editors and a consensus can emerge on the article. Newyorkbrad 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Also I'm just curious, what does "(anon. only, account creation blocked)" mean? Does this mean that the IP address associated with this username is blocked from account creation, but can continue to make anonymous edits? Sancho McCann 23:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Account creation blocked" means that the blocked user can't get around the block by creating a new account from the same computer. As I understand it, the designation "anon only" makes no difference in this context since it's a registered account that was blocked. When an IP address (anonymous or unregistered user) is blocked, the blocking admin can allow preexisting registered editors using that IP to edit but not others. For example, if a school IP is blocked for vandalism, those who are just signing on to vandalize couldn't edit, but a regular contributor with a registered account still could. As I indicated above, I'm relatively new to this blocking business myself so I'm sure a more experienced admin could give you a better explanation. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your discussion on Tomf688's talk page

I don't have administrator powers. All I can do is revert vandalism and give warnings (Note the revert: [20]). I apologize for any misunderstandings. Regards, Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understand. I only became an admin last month myself. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ral315

I want to know if you agree with me on this: [21]. Or maybe there's something I don't know. Carpet9 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppets that are acting disruptively can be blocked without a formal checkuser finding. See the sockpuppet policy and the instructions at the top of requests for checkuser. On the other hand, an alternate account does not need to be blocked if it is editing responsibly and isn't being used for improper purposes like double-voting on RfAs or AfDs. I don't know what was the issue with the accounts Ral315 blocked in December so I will have to leave it to him to answer the specific question about those blocks. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Carpet9

After he posted on my talk page accusing me of admin abuse and essentially denied that he was ForestH2 ("I've been doing a rather large reasearch on ForestH2 sockpuppets"), a pattern that ForestH2 always would do when caught, I indefinitely blocked him. His good-faith editing was never a problem for me, but when it degenerated into his same denials and ranting, I applied the block. Please review my actions and, if necessary, bring them to the administrators' noticeboard (it could be argued that I was an involved admin, though I don't personally believe that a conflict of interest existed in this case). Ral315 » 00:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As you've seen, though, I've been talking to him and trying to explain things to him all day, plus I was heavily involved in last night's situation, so I think it should be someone else who comments. Why don't you post to ANI and explain and I'm sure you'll get some feedback quickly enough. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't seen; I got unexpectedly called in to work, and had to quickly give you a note :) The crux of the current dispute seems to be whether my blocks of two months ago were appropriate. Given that Squirepants101 (the user who notified me of the editors) is not ForestH2/Carpet9, despite his claims to the contrary, it appears that he's screwed up and implicated an innocent user, which is damning on his part. WP:ANI#Carpet9. Ral315 » 07:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers deletion review

Newyorkbrad, read my comments, they should prove interesting to read.... oh, and one more thing.

For being one of the best editors on Wikipedia, and one of my favourites too! --sunstar net^talk 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

re:List of Internet phenomena, talk page comment left for explanation. SchmuckyTheCat 18:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Seen and replied there. Thanks for the heads up. Newyorkbrad 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for blocking him: but he has blanked his talk page (which I reverted). RobJ1981 18:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't bother me in this case. He obviously named himself after his school's debate club, either because he's a disgruntled member or (more likely) he's a non-debater making fun of it. I don't see the need to forever associate the debate team with those edits. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Qwerty599

Would there be any reason that I'm missing why the above username would be blocked for a username violation? Is there some connection with a major sock or vandal case? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea at all. I'd ask the blocking admin (I've checked and I guess I can't say I'm shocked who it is). Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've asked him about it and I'll wait for his response until I bring it up at WP:RFCN. My major concern with all this is all these users that get blocked on sight aren't going to come back. They'll simply think whats the point before even starting editting RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone else had the same question and already listed it on RFC/N. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz

Hi Brad, Just to let you know in follow up to your message on my talk page, I've tried to encourage Qmwnebrvtcyxuz with further edits as I feel he has a lot to give wikipedia. The diff can be found here. I really hope he hasn't been scared off RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

He should be okay with his Dad's encouragement. As wonderful as his math article was, he had to have some assistance, at least with the formatting. I think he was more active during the summer, when he presumably had more time, so I predict we'll see him around. Newyorkbrad 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, being only 8 (I think thats how old he is), he has a lot to give to wikipedia. This must be me sympathetic side coming through! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Third-grader, but I believe his page mentioned a birthday a few days ago ... so much bigger now. :) Newyorkbrad 01:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP BLP and 3RR

I'm forwarding a message to you, after it was left on my talk page, because you are the admin who implemented the 24 hour block on the angry new registrant who posted it after the block expired. I am an inexperienced Wikipedian, registered only since October 2006, trying to avoid being harassed.

"I have certainly learned my lesson and will never violate the 3RR rule again. Ever. Thanks for showing me the light. MoeLarryAndJesus 01:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)"

Please let me know here if forwarding the message was inappropriate. I have watchlisted your talk page in case you reply. — Athænara ✉ 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Forwarding the message was absolutely fine. Let's see how this user's editing evolves from here, and let me know if you have any further thoughts. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!—I will. — Æ. ✉ 03:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That r68 page

Hey, I replied to you at AN/I. I'm trying to get some discussion started on that article's talk. Please monitor a little, it's the first time i've jumped into someone else's mess (and not gotten hip deep in my own). ThuranX 03:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to assist with this. Yes, it is definitely appropriate, and much appreciated, when someone pitches in to try to defuse a situation like this. I'd be glad to keep an eye on things on that page ... but I guess I should ask ... last week, when we were dealing with a completely unrelated issue, I recall your saying you never wanted to talk to or deal with me again. Are we okay now, or would you just as soon someone else monitor the page instead of me? You can be honest, and either way, thanks for helping out with this issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked you because you're aware of the situation, that's it. As for the other thing, I'm not allowed to discuss it, so whatever, nothign will ever happen anyways there. ThuranX 04:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. I've watchlisted the page, and it looks like at least some discussion is starting, so hopefully we get somewhere. Newyorkbrad 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A support from a user such as yourself really means a lot. Keep up the great work! :) – riana_dzasta 08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP internet phenomenon issue

Hi. Firstly thanks for your interest in this, and, as ever, your sane wise statements. Since my block was reversed and I was alleged to have violated WP:BLOCK and been in a simple content dispute, I've filed for wider community comment Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow. Any input will be appreciated.--Doc^g 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this and I will certainly take a close look and contribute some thoughts both on the RfC, as well as with respect to how we should proceed with that whole grouping of articles. As much as I'd like to say things relating to yesterday are just over, I feel some responsibility, since my comments may have been what led you to take a close look at that article in the first place. Newyorkbrad 11:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Asher

I guess he's back. See User:Asher Heimermann and User:Tony16. Do these violate WP:USER? Gzkn 05:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh* just woke up to see the same thing myself. Not sure what to do about it. Metros232 11:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_or_social_networking_site? Gzkn 12:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Yandman got there and ran out of patience before I did and blocked for a month. I hate to see that happen, but we're really out of other good options here. Newyorkbrad 12:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

He avoided the block with Asher2032 (talk · contribs). His shit's getting way too old so, I've blocked him indefinitely. Metros232 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom70 (talk · contribs) seems suspicious. Account created three minutes after block of Asher2032. Editing pattern and edit summaries seems to suggest it's Asher. Gzkn 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you re: the noob

I read your offer over on User_talk:GRBerry, and I wanted to make a special note here to thank you! At this point, I won't be putting User:Timmccloud/The_noob up for inclusion any time soon, until I can provide almost unassailable proof of notability - I don't have it in me for another contested AfD on the same topic, not for a while. Thanks again, your offer has made me feel better already. Timmccloud 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your report on ANI

No problem. Just helping out Wikipedia with the vandal problem. Now I have to get back to RC patrolling. Nol888_(Talk) 03:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Hagermanbot doesn't seem to be patrolling my talk page. strange

Re: your action (no action) on my 3RR reports vs. user(s)/administrator(s)

Please see: Result: No action at this time. Please see the links to the related articles and talk pages. There are some real systemic problems going on v. Wikipedia editing guidelines that some users and administrator(s) are engaged in, in my recent and past experience with some of them. Thank you. --NYScholar 08:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to report that an administrator Slim Virgin (about whose unethical behavior I have already registered strong objections) removed my 3RR report and update w/o my authorization; it was a bonafide report and not so-called "harrasment" as she dishonestly states; if anyone has been "harrassed" it is I. I parked the deleted 3RR report and my update in my talk page archive 3: Isarig reported by User: NYScholar:Result: No Action at this time:29 (unwarranted removal by Slim Virgin]. I was asked to update this report by another administrator (you--Newyorkbrad) right in the reply to me. I tried to do so. She interfered, just as she interfered in trying to get me blocked when she herself was involved in an "editing content dispute" with me and others. Now she has interfered with my attempt to respond to your request for update on these problems in these articles. In my view, she needs to be sanctioned and her administrative privileges withdrawn. --NYScholar 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Need admin follow up

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Somethingoranother

Hi Newyorkbrad, the other day you kindly exhonorated me of a 3RR complaint brought by an IP vandal [22]. That IP address along with several others (and a couple of sleeper accounts) caused considerable disruption at the United Kingdom article. I filed a request for check user and Essjay confirmed that all were sockpuppets of Somethingoranother, who was blocked for a previous 3RR vio at the time. Full details in the RFCU. Not being an admin there's little more I can do. Would you mind reviewing the check user result and taking whatever actions you think are necessary against the sockpuppeteer for block evasion and proxy vandalism. Thanks, WjBscribe 13:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the identified usernames were already blocked indefinitely and the IP's temporarily. I don't know of any ongoing disruption on the articles at the moment, but feel free to let me know if problems continue. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact the article is protected does make disruption unlikely :-). Still I take your point that at the moment action against the sockpuppeteer seems inappropriately punitive. Essjay's confirmed a couple of accounts that edited recently are also socks, could you deal with Sally-is-the-best? Thanks, WjBscribe 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you know why I don't seem to be able to create the category: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Somethingoranother? I now contains three accounts but I don't seem to be able to create the page. WjBscribe 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you are out of my area of expertise. If you ask on the talkpage of "suspected sockpuppets" or maybe "category talk" someone should be able to help. (And when you find out, please tell me.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm dissatisfied by your review

It's not enough to state that the block expired. I did not violate the policy; I deserve vindication. A.J.A. 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a duel? Pistols at dawn.--Doc^g 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

More like a one-second block to record that the reverts were covered by WP:BLP. A.J.A. 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this first with the administrator who blocked you. If you've already done that, please let me have a link to the discussion. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New case needed

Brad, per Jimbo's post [23] I'm afraid that we need a new case opened as soon as possible. I suppose the proper name would be Daniel Brandt wheel war, but Ex accuso lucellum might not be bad choice either. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening now. Newyorkbrad 23:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Opened and parties notified. Newyorkbrad 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no evidence to offer in this case, merely a statement to make. Can you advice where a party should make a statement, as we've (understandably) bypassed the normal procedure--Doc^g 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you place your statement on the /Evidence page, both because the arbitrators will be certain to see it there and because the reasons for each party's actions will be evidence in the case. If the arbitrators wish the statements to appear elsewhere they can advise, but the dividing line between party statements and party evidence is generally not sharply defined. Newyorkbrad 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Doc^g 00:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I would tend to think that the main case page would still be appropriate for "opening statements", in the realm of 500 words or less, especially for the involved admins who do not wish to present evidence. Non-admins who wish to make a statement but not present evidence can post to the main talk page. If you agree, perhaps a note on the main and talk pages would be useful. Thatcher131 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going by the rule of thumb that once the case was accepted, no one touches the main casepage until the final decision comes down. But your way works equally well, so I have modified accordingly. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[Further update: the following was a misperception: I didn't see that the comment had moved up on this talk page, as another ed. points out below. Thanks for noticing that. This paragraph can be ignored or deleted. --NYScholar 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)] Updated: She also removed the previous comment from your talk page here. I am restoring my comment. It is addressed to you. She has again deleted my comments in the 3RR reports page to which I was referring above. She should not be deleting my request for help from you or my comments in the 3RR reports page where I addressed you and requested your assistance. She is engaging in reversions of even the 3RR reports page and is violating both the spirit and the guidelines of that page. This is not a "personal" attack on SlimVirgin; this is a legitimate complaint about her conduct as an editor who is reverting my comments and my improvements to articles throughout a number of articles in Wikipedia. I have filed a report in the conflicts of interest board. (Please see the editing history of your talk page and the editing history of the 3RR reports page for more information.) --NYScholar 01:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen your update. Unfortunately, my Wiki-time for the past couple of hours has mostly been devoted to dealing with the request in the thread just above this one (as a clerk for the Arbitration Committee). You should be aware that SlimVirgin is a long-time and respected administrator here. Your comment that she removed your comment from my talkpage seems to be mistaken as the earlier thread is still on this page and I don't see her name anywhere in the contribution history for the last several days. With regard to her deleting reports from the 3RR noticeboard, that board is usually kept clear for new reports so extensive threaded discussion there is typically discouraged. With regard to your earlier complaint, it's a little too general for me to respond to. I suggest that you consider editing on a different set of articles for a couple of days to ease the tensions a bit. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 01:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what he was talking about. [24]. I don't know that it is a big deal, since it was a no action report. The edit summary isn't great, and perhaps she should have just let another admin roll off a bunch of them (it was already near the top.) But probably no great damage. Jd2718 02:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I meant a diff to where SlimVirgin supposedly removed something from my userpage here. I don't think that happened, just that the earlier thread moved up the page and NYScholar inadvertently didn't spot it when he returned here. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it either. I think you are correct. Jd2718 02:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad: If the latter is the case, then I do not have a complaint about a deletion from your own talk page here; I will check that out in a moment.--NYScholar 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC) [updated: yes: I find it above. --NYScholar 02:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)]

The more major and pressing problem is, however, the deletion of my comments from the 3RR report page 3RR here: SV labeled my report "harrassment" in her deletion and in her later reverting of my attempt to restore it (and before that her and others' deletions of my explanations of my edits from the talk pages of the articles themselves, as well as the reverting of my edits.)

If one scrolls down that page (3RR) to Isarig's clearly retaliatory report against me, which she supported with completely-misleading false claims (I do not have the motives that she attributes to me and I am not "disruptive" etc.; the problems with the articles are the total resistance of Isarig, Slim Virgin and others to any kind of attempt to improve those articles.) There is something very peculiar going on in the editing of Wikipedia articles dealing with these and related subjects. I only see it inadvertently when following Wikified links in articles that I start working on. But every time I try to provide improvements to any of these articles, I encounter resistance to what I perceive as neutral point of view editing and full citations from this what now seems to be a "cabal" of editors. I myself have really no POV at all on these articles; I am only trying to look at them from an editorial perspective. I am not engaged in the subjects otherwise and I have no biases. I can see and distinguish among the various "pro" and the "con" points of views being defined in the sources, and I am just trying to define them accurately. I don't perceive that these other editors are doing that. I perceive that they are engaging in promoting or suppressing other points of view in the sources, and that they are, therefore, not providing Wikipedia readers with articles conforming to Wikipedia standards and guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP, including WP:Cite and W:Reliable sources. That is where I am coming from. Period. --NYScholar 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

another lame edit war

Probably doesn't matter but he just doesn't get what it means to only edit his own section. I tried to move comments to where they belong. Not a biggie unless they keep commenting. You decide what you want as a revert war isprobably worse than the failure to comprehend the instructions. --Tbeatty 06:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• "The parties are advised that it is not appropriate for a party to the case (or anyone else) to remove or tamper with the evidence, workshop proposals, or other submissions of another party. Please do not do so. In the event of a problem with another party's submission, please respond in your own section, or if necessary, ask a Clerk for assistance." What part of this do you NOT undrstand, Tbeaty? Need I remind you again that you're NOT an admin?! FaAfA 06:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I understood it fine. Please look at where you put you comments and reconcile that with your comments in another editors evidence section. (P.S. I am not a party to this case). I simply moved your comments to your section as it explicitly states you need to do. The statements are gratuitous anyway so it's just lame to even keep them. --Tbeatty 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • "If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move." What part of THAT did you NOT understand? Once again your actions show you jumping to the defense of a user who everbody but YOU thinks beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt is a definite sock. Easily fooled TB? FaAfA 07:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I will go through the page later today and make sure everything is where it's supposed to be. The fact that the case has degenerated into continual arguments about this sort of thing is very sad. Newyorkbrad 12:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbetty is tampering with and vandalizing the FR RFAr again

Despite your warning Tbaetty is tampering with the RFAr evidencce page, removing edits, including those from an admin.

This is despite you explicit warning:

• 'The parties are advised that it is not appropriate for a party to the case (or anyone else) to remove or tamper with the evidence, workshop proposals, or other submissions of another party. Please do not do so. In the event of a problem with another party's submission, please respond in your own section, or if necessary, ask a Clerk for assistance.

Diff and he did it again, after I pointed out that he had just violated the rules of this RFAr. I wonder what his motivation is? - FaAfA 06:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Note that I didn't even notice the section above when I first posted this or I would have posted there. I would remove this whole section, but TB might falsely accuse me of 'backtracking' again. - FaAfA 08:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I will go through the page later today and try to make sure nothing has been inappropriately removed. The fact that the case has degenerated into this kind of continual arguments is very sad. Newyorkbrad 12:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty is essentially correct. On the evidence page, we ask that parties only edit their own sections. If one wished to rebut the "evidence" of the IP editor, you could add a rebuttal statement in your own evidence section. However, the comments were not really evidence but disparaging commentary, and so belong either on the talk page or in the dust bin. Frankly, I doubt that the comments of the anon will carry any weight with the committee in any case. Thatcher131 14:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty is undoubtedly correct, but after I deleted Hinnen's comments Brad warned us all in not-uncertain terms not to do what Tbeatty did not once, but twice. Tbeatty is not an Admin or part of Arbcom. - FaAfA 20:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said, but I didn't say it so it would be taken advantage of. Very few of the participants in this case are behaving in a way that is going to impress the arbitrators with their dedication to the goals and policies of Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad 20:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for your incredible consistency in being concerned for the wellbeing of everyone here. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Ben. I appreciate it very much. Newyorkbrad 13:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This barnstar is way too plain, it needs more bells and whistles, maybe some animated fireworks in the background ;). Oh, but it is well deserved in any case. NoSeptember 14:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt ArbCom case

On the page asking for evidence, an apparent single-purpose account has added evidence. He has no other contributions than to the evidence page. How would the Arbitration Committee deal with this??

I found it at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Evidence - it seems a bit odd, this isn't like an AFD, where you'd expect single-purpose accounts. --sunstar net^talk 13:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My assumption is that this is a contributor who ordinarily uses a different username and wanted to post to the RfAr without being recognized. I don't think that's automatically a violation of the sockpuppet policy, and I can imagine times when that might be necessary, although I don't particularly see why this would be one of them, and in any case he or she should have noted the post was from an alternate account. I am less concerned about who posted the evidence than about an unsupported allegation made in it, but I'm sure the arbitrators will disregard that sort of thing. If you want to point out your concern about this evidence, you can do so on the talkpage to the evidence page, which the arbitrators will read. Newyorkbrad 13:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Per AGF, but because it was commentary rather than evidence, I moved it to the talk page. Subsequently Mackensen posted to ANI that the IP behind it was also responsible for other recent SPA trolls, so into the dustbin. Thatcher131 14:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And based on that, I agree with Thatcher. Newyorkbrad 15:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Template

Hey Brad. Even though no one owns anything, do --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't follow just what you mean here; if you could clarify a little I'd appreciate it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. When I removed the Hagerman Bot thing, I removed: "Do you mind if I use your barnstar template? It makes all the barnstars look aligned and stacked good." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, it's not "my" barnstar template, it was originally put there by User:Mets501. (I had written jokingly that I could use help in setting up my userpage, and I was pleasantly surprised when he showed up and did it.) I'm sure it's okay if you use the set-up, but if you want to make sure, he's the one to ask. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan arbitration case

I've noticed that one of the parties listed in this case, Tabib (talk · contribs), currently has his user talk page protected so that only administrators can edit it. This prevents me from notifying him about the case. Can you do that for me? Scobell302 20:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RFAr questions - Tbeatty's BLP

1) When do the Evidence and Workshop pages 'close'?

2) After they are closed, can the parties still comment on the proposals, remedies, etc?

3) When will I know if this RFAr will consider my 'misuse of BLP' charges against Tbeatty, and include this in the proposed remedies, in light of the fact that he is not an 'official party' to this RFAr?

4) Am I better off filing a separate RFAr to address this matter? I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a 'personal dispute' with Tbeatty. It's a real issue, and I just learned last night that Jimbo Wales himself commented on Tbeatty's intentional misuse of BLP telling him personally: link "I see no sense of understanding what the problem is at all, and frankly people who cannot comprehend the need for absolutely meticulous attention to detail when writing about living persons have no business editing wikipedia at all." I honestly believe that this why Tbeatty is pursuing me so vigorously. I told him long ago that I was aware of his actions, and would address them at some point. Thanks - FaAfA 07:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick responses:
1. They don't formally "close" until the case does, although I think the point of diminishing returns was reached a long time ago. You can continue commenting for now if there is anything new to say.
2. The next stage in the case is that an arbitrator will propose principles, findings, and remedies on the proposed decision page. Editors may not edit that page but may comment on the talkpage. It will be to everyone's advantage to keep such comments brief and to-the-point.
3. You'll see if this topic is included in the proposed decision.
4. As the clerk, I can't advise you whether to file another case, and in any event I'm not too familiar with the event you're discussing there. In general, arbitration is to be reserved for the most serious disputes where lesser means of dispute resolution have been tried unsuccessfully. Given your current controversies, you might be best served letting this one go, but I'm not the person to advise you.
Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 16:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from a new admin

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086^Talk 12:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerkship

Hey,

We've decided to officially appoint you as an Arbitration Clerk - my congratulations and commiserations, both (;-)).

For the Committee.

James F. (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, now I can add you to my list :). NoSeptember 18:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! oh and we didn't go today cause of the snow... Cbrown1023 talk 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you, and to the other arbitrators, and to Thatcher131 for nominating me. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the Brandt workshop, it appears we need to add Gaillimh to the parties and inform him as there are remedies proposed against him. Are you online right now? My wife is bugging me to go shopping. Can you look the workshop over carefully and make sure anyone that needs to be notified it? Also note on the page that notification is pending and please wait for comment/evidence. If you can't, I will get it after dinner. Thatcher131 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Uninvited Company had already notified Gaillimh that he was being looked at in the proceeding, but I'll add a word and take care of any other formalities. Enjoy the shopping. Newyorkbrad 20:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Brad - I knew it from the start that you were going to make "it" (wherever "it" may be :D). By the way, there's something regarding an archiving issue per Essjay on the noticeboard, if you haven't seen. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel. As for Essjay's request, TT already got to it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Arbitration Proceedings

Sure thing, thanks anyways! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Brandt

It appears [25] that you were wrong, SqueakBox 21:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly so, witness my edit summary here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I need a smiling icon! Cheers, SqueakBox 22:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean ... but unfortunately, about this particular case, I don't feel much like smiling right now. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Then drink all of these: Image:Dutch beers.jpg. If you still don't feel like smiling (especially stupidly) then empty all of these, preferably into your stomach (if you're still able): Image:Cask Ales.jpg. After that, you just won't care if you're smiling or not :) Seriously, in the grand scheme of things...there's no dispute here that makes a hill of beans of difference. Relax. If Essjay and I can throw double bladed axes at each other and walk away reciting Vogon poetry, so can you :) --Durin 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But I don't even know any Vogon poetry. :( Newyorkbrad 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Proposed arbitration decision

Sorry for my quick reaction. Szhaider 03:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an understandable mistake. As I indicated, there are other locations you can comment on the proposals. Newyorkbrad 03:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Workshop

Hey Brad, just spent a long time reading over this Arbcom. Can anyone add a proposed decision as long as they make it clear who they are? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can comment or add a new proposal on the /Workshop page. When the arbitrators are ready to vote on a final decision, they post that on the /Proposed decision page, and only the arbitrators can edit that page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for deleting articles on marginally notable people

Hi Newyorkbrad. There's a striking dichotomy between the sentiments being expressed at the Daniel Brandt DRV/arbcom case, and the discussion taking place here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29#Proposed_courtesy_deletion_for_persons_of_borderline_notability . The latter is actually looking like a snowball rejection after 20 hours, which perhaps goes to show that WP:SNOW should never be used in February. As you've often offered useful perspectives on BLP issues, 'd be very interested in hearing your opinion there. Kla'quot 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to contact you if it happened again.

Brad, Last week User:Astrotrain breached 3RR but you took no action because just before you came to look at the case he was block for a separate breach of WP:CIVIL. However, you did ask me here to come back to you if he did it again. He has tonight on the Ivor Bell page.

• Previous version reverted to: 14:25, 25 February 2007
• 1st revert: 22:09, 26 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:53, 26 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:42, 26 February 2007
• 4th revert: 23:54, 26 February 2007

--Vintagekits 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm tied up on something else right now, so post to WP:AN3, but you can link to the last incident as proof he's been warned before. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Brad, if and when you have time, could you please copyedit Legal status and local government of Kiev for better English? Thanks! --Irpen 01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to; I will look at it either later tonight or in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify the length limit for the Samuel case

In your message to me today, you said that we are limited to 500 words for our "opening statment" but you didn't say anything about the follow up responses. If you check my posting again, you'll see that the bulk of my posting is not in the opening statment, but rather in responses to two of the Falun Gong practitioners who have made accusations against me. Are we not supposed to respond to these things? --Tomananda 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't a policy about follow-up comments (perhaps there should be), but I think the spirit of the rule is that you should try to complete your entire presentation in a total 500 words or so. Bear in mind that the complete merits of the case do not have to be presented at this stage. What you are trying to persuade the arbitrators is simply whether or not they should hear the case at all. That means discussing whether the dispute is serious or not, what prior steps were taken to try to resolve it, and the like—not a complete discussion of who is right or wrong. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

The editor in question is Scorpion0422. The problem all relates back to the article J. P. Calderon. I created that article and added links to it to Survivor: Cook Islands and the Survivor contestant template. Scorpion redirected the article without comment, then when I restored it attempted to orphan the article by removing the links to it several times. My attempt to keep Calderon listed on the template (asking Scorpion politely to leave the link in place until the AFD closed) got us both suspended for violating WP:3RR (which I still contest, but that's not the point and I don't want to focus on it). After the Calderon article was AFDed to a no consensus Scorpion re-nominated the article 37 minutes after the first AFD closed. He has left semi-abusive messages on my talk page and when I noted his behaviour in the 2nd Calderon AFD his response was "if you don't like it, report me." Most recently, he has been editing Template:Survivor_contestants to remove links, with edit messages like "Removed Survivor: Cook Islands contestant who is non-notable" and "removed NN contestant whose page should be deleted." I have the template on my watchlist because of his continual removal of the Calderon link and after the sixth such edit message I posted to the Template talk page suggesting that removing links to pages based on an editor's belief that the page "should be" deleted should not be done. His response, with the edit message "HA HA HA HA HA," was "Actually, their pages were deleted. I was just bating you and you fell for it." When I responded more harshly than I should have I was reprimanded. When I questioned the admin who reprimanded me as to why he didn't sanction actual disruptive behaviour, Scorpion responded on my talk page by telling me to report him. Which, fine, I'm reporting him. I honestly don't know why he's responding this way toward me. I have tried reasoning with him, I have tried minimizing the impact of his actions regarding the article, I have tried staying out of his way and unfortunately I have responded in anger. I think I have done more than enough to try to deal with him and I feel like this entire situation is a) completely ridiculous but b) escalated to the point where something needs to be done about him. Manipulating the editing process to bait another editor and then taunting the editor about it is disruption. I want something on his record to let him know his conduct needs to change or there will be consequences. Otto4711 02:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for following up. First of all, the editor who left the warning note on your page is a good editor (I've interacted with him before), but he's not an administrator (and never claimed he was). Second, it appears that you acknowledge you are not blameless in this matter. Please try to remember to be civil and avoid anything that can be considered as a personal attack—even when other editors are failing to do the same. Third, could you please give me some more specific diffs of a few edits that you think represent good examples of the problem with Scorpion's editing, so I can evaluate them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but it seems Brad already said it) As I'm now somewhat involved, I gave Otto an npa3 warning for attacking Scorpion on the template talk page. In his message to you, I think he was referring to me as the admin, though I'm not. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

TW, I thought you were an admin. I agree that you never represented yourself as one so I hope that aspect won't distract from the main issue. Otto4711 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz will be an admin at some point, but he's not just yet (and I better not see you writing your next RfA without consulting someone :) ), and no that won't distract us from the main business here. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We've had a couple disputes in the same couple of threads and suddenly I'm a disruptive editor despite my 300 or so non-disruptive edits. I admit that I have made some mean comments, but mostly, I think Otto just needs to grow up. -- Scorpion 02:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone really wants an administrator to read through diffs of past arguments and administer any appropriate scoldings, then I will do it. Right now I am still having a little trouble finding the exact edits that are being complained about, so everyone would have to be more specific. But at this point, I would much rather if we can draw a veil over past quarrel and all resolve to be civil and avoid personal attacks from this point forward. Scorpion0422, it's particularly unhelpful for you to make a personal attack ("Otto just needs to grow up") in the discussion about not making personal attacks. I hope I don't ever see that again. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack, it was an observation. I have been attacked by Otto in the past [26] and I have reported him, so I see no need for "scoldings". I believe that this is unnecessary and merely the users attempt at revenge. I have been other conflicts with other users and they did not feel the need to stoop to such things. -- Scorpion 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• First redirect of the Calderon article
• Second redirect of the Calderon article
• Following that edit I asked him not to redirect again unilaterally and moved the discussion to the talk page.
• First AFD
• Second AFD, opened 37 minutes after the 1st closed
• First removal of Calderon from Survivor contestant template
• First restoration
• Second removal
• Second restoration
• Third removal
• My browser may be about to crash, more in a minute Otto4711 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Third restoration
• Fourth removal
• Fourth restoration
• At this point I reported him for 3RR and we both got suspended.
• Fifth removal, this time under the guise of performing other cosmetic maintenance to the template
• Then, starting February 7, Scorpion began removing links with edit summaries like "removed contestant who doesn't belong" and "removing NN contestant whose article should be deleted," including removing five in the last day or so. It was at that point I expressed my concern about the removal of contestant links based on the belief that they "shouldn't be there" which is when Scorpion sprung his "HA HA HA HA" edit and said that he did it to bait me. Otto4711 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • None of these prove your claim that I'm a "disruptive editor" -- Scorpion 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I need to basically sign off for the night and will look at this further in the morning. From what I have seen so far, neither of you is a finalist for the Civil Editor of the Year Award and I hope that all sniping and uncivil remarks, in any direction, can cease at once. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I accept my responsibility for my part in this situation. All I want out of this is for Scorpion to leave me alone, leave the Calderon article and its attendant links alone and to be advised that his conduct is improper. I'm more than happy to leave him alone if he's willing to do the same. Otto4711 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • It proves that there's some disruption, but it also proves Otto is disrupting by you two reverting each other over and over and not discussing it. I must go now also. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 03:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk's Trainee

Seeing that you got appointed 2 days ago to the position of clerk, I don't think that you've had the time to take a trainee under your wing. On the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks page, there is a sentence in there that specifies that clerks can have trainees as subordinates. Here's where I come in. I can be your trainee and help you out as a subordinate. Please reply on my talk page. Thank you! Diez2 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding on your talk. Newyorkbrad 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Armenian-Azerbaijan case

The case has passed, could you move it on the approved statue a little bit earlier to prevent being added more in it and turn the place to a discussion board? It's approved anyway even if not official, there is no point to permit further disruption, every parties have made their points and the Arbitrators found it relevant to take the case. Fad (ix) 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Absent anything changing, the case will open tomorrow. We need to allow a little more time in case other arbitrators want to have input (plus frankly I have to sign off for the night shortly). Another Clerk has removed all threaded discussion and made a note of it so hopefully there will not be any more unproductive debate before the case opens tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I made my comments quite late. All the same, I would hope and ask that a bit more time (perhaps a few extra hours) be allowed the arbitrators to consider, if they so please, a line of argument quite different from most of what had been previously expressed, before the case is opened. Jd2718 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Absent a last-minute development, from the current vote it's pretty clear the case is going to open. You might want to present your thoughts on the Workshop page of the case, when it opens, or on the RfAr talk page. Newyorkbrad 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess those few hours have passed. There are two new (as of January 1, not February) arbitrators who had not weighed in, but one is not available (note on talkpage) and the other would not work to defeat an acceptance 6-3 anyhow (I can't believe they chose to keep 4 net, oh well.) I will contribute to the Workshop page, thank you. Jd2718 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I haven't forgotten. After further thought I realized I had nothing to contribute. I hope the arbitrators begin to realize that nationalist brawls (as opposed to individual misconduct) need to be policed, mediated, but not arbitrated. But for today the arbitration is going ahead. I will make the point again next time a similar request is made. Jd2718 01:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

my comments at RfC: Doc

Thanks for clearing that up. I kinda wasn't sure if I should do it at all! :) I plan on looking in on more, because it directed me to a policy I wasn't aware of and one of my goals is becoming an admin (I failed once, the RfA was shut down in 30 min for no reasonable chance. Hehehe)Quatreryukami 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If your RfA was shut down that early, it means you applied much too early, which is what you were probably told at the time. Feel free to ask more experienced users for input on when it's time to try again, and in the meantime you should read current RfA's for the types of experience that editors who comment their look for. Newyorkbrad 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I tried with only 97, i think it was, edits. I already have a user who will back me at 500, and I have an admin who has adopted me (User:Deckiller) and he's helpful. I'm on wiki as much as I can, getting my name and my edits up. Eventually I might get the bucket and mop, but I'll be happy even if i don't, because wikipedia is a good place for people to get info (which I need a lot of). Plus, being an admin is good bragging rights with my friends. Thanks again for your input, and I hope I can join the admin ranks sometime. (incoherant babling ends here). Quatreryukami 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even 500 edits is much too few, and "bragging rights with [your] friends" would be a terrible reason to seek adminship. (It's okay to brag after you get it, I know lots of admins do that, but it's not a good reason to become an adminship, nor will it look good in your nominating statement :) ... although actually, I don't talk about Wikipedia much to my real-world friends, who don't quite understand why I enjoy being here so much). Contribute to the things you are interested in, both on the articles themselves and in policy discussion, and if adminship is due to happen, it will happen. It's not a trophy.

You are quite right, that was mostly a joke anyway. And my friends are the same way, but they found it funny that my RfA was shut down so quickly. Its a bit of a running joke...Quatreryukami 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That was mean of them ... maybe you need a better class of friends. :) Newyorkbrad 15:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

hehehe...i dunno. :) at least the people here are friendly. Usually. But maybe thats because of WP:BITE. Quatreryukami 15:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:200 / WP:300

Good idea and thanks, for putting the 200s back into the 200 page. That was silly of me to just carry them over... - Denny 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just wondering

Does the rv. apply to any sort of revert, because I won't be contributing on Armenian-Azerbaijan articles until the case is closed. I intend to work on science related articles, would the injunction apply there too? Fad (ix) 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be best if you asked that question on the talkpage of the arbitration decision, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision, or that of the arbitrator who made the proposal. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I shouldnt even be on that list. I did not participate in any of the Armenian Azerbaijani conflict articles. I only stuck to Iranian related articles. Grandmaster probably put me on the list through bad faith, trying to get back at me or trying to take me "down" with him. I made this clear several times, even to an admin.Azerbaijani 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just giving a notification as a Clerk for the Committee and have no control over the list of parties. If you do not believe you should be subject to this remedy, you can raise the issue on the talkpage of the proposed decision (see just above for link). Newyorkbrad 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)