User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2010/Dec

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Newyorkbrad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Apologies

Apologies for any previous vandalism this IP has committed. It is a shared IP, and that's probably expected from them. But this site's editing privilege is now whitelisted to only selected users [from here], blacklisted to all, so &action=edit is no longer permitted to many users, same for all Wikimedia projects. Hope this helps. [posted from public terminal] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the Yellowmonkey RFAR

I can't post at RFAR, but I figure you are the most reasonable of the bunch so I'll put this here.

Regardless of what he was accused of (and I don't pretend to know the full scope/validity of the accusations) I think it is profoundly unfair that a case is being brought against him now.

He was subjected to an RFC, he apologized for his actions, claimed to take the criticism seriously and pledged to be better in the future. He should, at least, be given the opportunity to make good on that pledge before being dragged to pseudo-court.

About the only reason I can think of why he should not be given that opportunity is if you believe he has abused it in the past and can't even be trusted to try and improve his behavior. Has he? Is what he has done SO bad that he doesn't even get a real chance to change?

Note that I am not sticking up for Yellowmonkey personally, I'm sticking up for the process. If the person named in the RFC acts the way he did (maturely, apologetically) but gets sent to RFAR before it even closes then why have the RFC? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'll post it to the arbitration page so everyone will have an opportunity to review it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II/Workshop.
Message added 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help needed

Hello. Can you please, as member of arbitration comity, read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split and post your opinion? Threat is based on WP:ARBMAC, and we are trying the last step in normal dispute resolution, before requesting full arbitration. Please, read the post, at least to the line, and post your opinion. As this is lasting for years now, we need your help to end it nicely, and without sanctions and arbitration's. Once again, Please, we need your help. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this and try to respond later today. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you, that will be very much appreciated. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We are still eagerly waiting for your input. :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now taken a look at this. I don't really have much useful subject-matter expertise that would help me help you. However, the general Wikipedia convention for this type of situation is that the main article should refer to the entity that is most commonly referred to in English by that particular name. Thus, if the dispute concerns which political or geographical entity or area should appear at Kosovo, then the answer would be the one that the greatest number of English speakers would expect to appear at that name. To my uninformed lay opinion, that would be the country, or I should probably say the political entity that is widely, but not universally recognized to be a country. However, I claim no special expertise in the matter beyond that of a reasonably educated English-speaking American with, as it happens, a slight avocation as a geography buff.

The content of the dispute is probably a little more nuanced than I've gleaned, but it is difficult to tell because the discussion to which you pointed me sort of picks up in the middle of the dispute and assumes some preknowledge that I don't have and other readers may not either. If you want, it might be helpful to provide links to different versions of the article reflecting the different states preferred by the various parties.

I hope this is helpful, and apologize for the delay in posting it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

Since you suggested the wording of my topic ban, and per Coren's past advice to me ("if you end up being in the middle of an enforcement request, seek help from an arb to help clarify this"), could you take a look here? I'd appreciate your advice. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Question at ANI

I hope you understood the answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciated your input and everyone else's. Opinion on the question I asked was pretty well divided, just as it always seems to be whenever I raise the issue. It's somewhat surprising that this remains an unresolved question at this late date. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WW2 arbcom case

There is no case section for questions to arbitrators, so I'm doing it this way. Hope I'm not breaking any rules of procedure.

Unsigned but apparently experienced senior editor has asserted at evidence talk that "this arb case is not going to deal with the NPOV dispute at all".

Can you please confirm or deny that this is indeed so? Thanks. Communicat (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We can never say with 100% certainty what issues we will address in a case until the evidence is in. However, I can say that the Arbitration Committee's decisions generally deal with user conduct issues, as opposed to article content issues.

Whether a given sentence or paragraph or article is slanted toward a particular point of view, as opposed to appropriately neutral, is generally a matter that is to be resolved by discussion among the editors and local consensus; it generally will not be resolved by the Arbitration Committee, whose members are not selected for this purpose and may or may not have any expertise in the subject matter of the particular dispute. (Sometimes a decision will recognize that extraordinary dispute resolution mechanisms need to be invoked when an editing dispute has become truly intractible, but so far I've seen nothing in the World War II area meeting this description.)

However, if a given editor or group of editors habitually violates site policies such as by pushing a point of view or edit-warring against consensus, at some point that can rise to the level of misconduct that could rise to the level of an arbitration finding. To result in a finding or sanction, such violations would usually have to be serious and longstanding, rather than minor or isolated. If you believe this has occurred here, you may seek to demonstrate it in your evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Noted. Communicat (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

And here you were probably expecting a dignified farewell and a long, quiet retirement! ;-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My condolences. You've been sentenced to another two years on ArbCom. ;-) Jehochman ^Talk 05:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You may recall that I had posted here several months prior assuring you of my support in the event of an re-election candidacy. And indeed, I have not waivered my support for your continued services to Wikipedia's most essential evil, of which you remain perhaps the most prominent mitigating factor. I can barely even imagine the committee without you. Congratulations! Master&Expert (Talk) 07:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! I've always been a silent fan. Awickert (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Glad to see you ran and are back on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

And congrats from me too. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 10:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

And I as well, for all of us depending on cooler heads to prevail. Jusdafax 23:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Brad, congratulations on your re-election, and on your continuing high level of support amongst ArbCom voters. Re what you said in answering my questions, maybe you can remember the trust and support you have from the community and hold your ground when others on the Committee are wandering in directions that you think will be controversial. Yours is a voice that ArbCom needs. EdChem (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Brad,, you were #1 with a bullet, and with a good reason :) SirFozzie (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding my voice to the chorus -- congratulations.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

TFM

Look, I don't want to wheel war with you here. Based on my most recent conversation with TFM, at his talk page, I honestly believe that he has no desire to work positively at Wikipedia for any reason. I have been trying very hard to get him unblocked, and instead of helping me help him, he has refused to agree, in principle, to being allowed to edit Wikipedia article content. Since the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to build articles, and he has shown no interest in building articles, why are we allowing him talkpage access anymore? Its just becoming a way for him to, as he stated on his talk page to "have a laff with me mates". He isn't requesting an unblock, and when I offered him conditions for an unblock, he refused to even acknowledge that I did so. He's seriously just fucking around, and shows no indication that he has any plans to better the encyclopedia. If you have any evidence, to the contrary, that moving forward he intends to be a positive contributor, I would love to see it. However, given the sort of rediculousness he is perpetrating on his talk page now, I can't find any justification for not just closing the door. I really am trying to find a way to get him back, and even after all my attempts, it seems clear that the best solution is to just revoke his talk page access and bid him adieu. Please please please, convince me I am wrong on this. I am begging you, give me some concrete reason to not do this. --Jayron32 04:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My log entry when I unblocked The Fat Man... from editing his talkpage was "reinstate blocked user's ability to edit talkpage, with reluctant consent of blocking admin; ability may be revoked again if abused." I see that your instinct is, as mine was, to give him a last, last chance to act appropriately, but unfortunately, I agree that the experiment has not gone well to this point. If you or other admins think it's time to give up, please proceed as you think best. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So it shall be written. So it shall be

Done. --Jayron32 05:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what Jayron32 said, TFM had indeed requested an unblock. Other editors besides Jayron32 were discussing it with TFM. Jayron32 has so far not responded to an inquiry on his talk page about his admin action removing TFM's talk access, as expected by Wikipedia:ADMINACCT, and even added some incivility [1]. Finally, Jayron32 closed [2] the ANI discussion about this incident, which I find inappropriate under the circumstances. The way the discussion started, and the actions performed by various editors during the discussion, seem to me to have been prejudicial to a fair outcome. What can we do from here, NYB? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake, missing your question at my talk page. It must have gotten lost among the several other threads that started after it. I have since respononded. Regarding the thread at ANI, the thread had become too long to be managable, and that thread seemed unlikely to generate significant, additional useful comments regarding his block. It just was impossible to do anything further with a thread that long. The best thing to do would be to start a new thread at WP:ANI discussing the removal of his talk page access. A gigantic thread at the top of the ANI page is unlikely to generate significant additional viewpoints, a fresh thread at the bottom asking for a review of my actions would likely be more useful to resolving the situation. --Jayron32 17:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually (sorry to intrude) I and another editor were engaged in quite intense discussion of this case when the ANI thread was closed, and had just brought a summary of commentators' positions to the board, with the intention of addressing the question of consensus. Anthony (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It was not my attempt to short circuit any legitimate discussion there. Based on what was actually being discussed at ANI, it seemed clear that productive discussion had ceased. Since your discussion was happening on user talk pages, I was not aware of it. If you feel that the discussion would produce useful results by being reopened, by all means do so. I did not undertake the decision to close the discussion lightly, but given your new evidence that you wish to present something useful, feel free to reopen it. Consider, however, my rationale behind closing it before you do so; especially the part about its length, location on the page, and likelihood of producing reasonable results. If you feel it should be reopened, please do so. I would not object. Indeed, if any action I ever do is objectionable, please let me know and we'll work it out. --Jayron32 18:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I realise it would have looked to you like it was all over, and understand the purity of your motives, Jayron. I'm not sure if there would be anything to gain from continuing the discussion at that venue.

Kingpin13 and I had come to an impasse on the nature of consensus. We both agree there are senior and respected commentators on both sides of the TFM block debate (though there are twice as many !votes for block.) S/he says the !votes and weight of argument mean consensus lies with block; I say the fact that a number of clueful commentators disagree means there is no consensus (and weight of argument is in the eye of the beholder). Is this too meta to take to an ANI thread about TFM? (Bearing in mind NYB brought a meta question to the discussion, which will need to be addressed if my position on consensus is upheld: In the absence of consensus, do we default to unblock?) Anthony (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the talk page at WP:BLOCK or WP:CONSENSUS would be an appropriate place to carry on the meta-discussion regarding how to judge consensus when blocks occur in the millieu of an ANI discussion, and on whether the default should be to block or unblock. I would very much like to participate in such a discussion, especially if it could help clarify policy. You'll note that I myself was heavily invested in that metadiscussion. I clearly believe that it should be something that needs working out. However, my participation in that metadiscussion doesn't mean that it should necessarily continue in what was ultimately an inappropriate venue; stuffed in the middle of a discussion regarding a single user. If you have comments regarding the specific situation in question, specifically TFMs block and removal of talk page access, there is a fresh thread, unmuddied by side discussions (so far) at ANI. --Jayron32 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll watch that for a while. Anthony (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No I won't. It closed after 31 minutes and 2 comments. Do you think your action got sufficient review in that 31 minutes? Anthony (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wup! It's open again. Anthony (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was silly. I did not think it had received sufficient comment, which is why I asked Gwen Gale to undo her actions. She has done so. --Jayron32 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I've just been reading your request on her talk page that you made before I posted the above comment. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My brain hurts. My sense is that the best thing might be to let this situation settle for a few days and then see if The Fat Man... wants to try to return and consider editing properly. My attempt to open the door for him last night left me looking, in some people's eyes, a little bit naive and a little bit of a schmendrick, but there's nothing much I can do about that. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I saw it. Anthony (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Last night I was posting to the talkpages of everyone who wrote an election guide, thanking them for their observations about me and the election as a whole. I remember one or two additional guides that contained observations I wanted to quickly respond to and thank the writers for making. If there is a list anywhere of election guides that aren't included on the guide-list template, could someone please let me know? Thanks very much, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There's Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2010 voter guides but I'm guessing those were on the template. Maybe try looking through whatlinkshere DC T•C 15:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

[3], [4]. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you. I'll follow up on those. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Denioz

Any idea whose sock that was? Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd blocked two new accounts for bad usernames a few minutes earlier, but that could have just been a coincidence. If you had any interaction with either Jordanisgay1 or Sexytits69, that would be a confirmation. Other than that possibility, no idea, and I don't think this rises to the level of calling for a checkuser at this point. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS address

Hi,

you recently provided me with OTRS address OTRS@permissions-enwikimedia.org which I passed on to copyright holder Stan Winer with suggestion that he offer unrestricted release into public domain of his online book that is currently at issue in arbcom case.

But, according to copy of mailer-daemon note which Winer forwarded to me in return, the OTRS domain name was not found by delivery system.

Your further assistance if possible would be appreciated. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm the one who gave you that address (if I did I was borrowing the idea from someone else), though it's a good suggestion. Perhaps someone reading here can correct the address or figure out what the problem is? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The email address is permissions at wikimedia dot org. harej 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry NYbrad, I confused you with someone else. Information overload. Many thanks harej for correct address. Communicat (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112

Could you please revisit Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112. I believe that your opinion their was based on an incorrect impression you may have gotten from an earlier post by another editor, and is not actually reflecting anything Geo Swan said or indicated. I would appreciate it if you looked at the full discussion and arguments again, and check whether your opinion actaully reflects the facts in this case. Fram (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. You may be right. Let's wait a day or two to see if Geo Swan makes his intention more clear, and then take matters from there. (In any event, if we are to delete such a significant number of pages, I would still urge that we give Geo Swan a couple of weeks notice so that he can copy them elsewhere (if not to another wiki); otherwise, some administrator will wind up spending a lot of time e-mailing him the page contents later on.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. Fram (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Semiprotection of astronaut articles

Socks of GayleNuffer resumed his/her axe-grinding three days after my previous protection (which was six months in duration) expired. Since Gayle seems to be just as persistent as before (judging by 132.3.45.68, which reverted multiple editors who attempted to restore the articles to the consensus version), I skipped straight to the chase and re-protected the same group of articles again. If you are aware of a better way of dealing with Gayle's disruption, I am all ears. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that reversion on a case-by-case basis wouldn't be amply sufficient here. The altered state of the articles, while not reflecting consensus, isn't exactly devastating. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the opportunity, Gayle can be extremely persistent. A good example is the Ken Mattingly article, where Gayle used 10 IP addresses or newly created accounts to enforce his/her will between December 2009 and March 2010 (when I semi-protected it). In fact, all but two of the 32 edits to the article during those 3.5 months are either Gayle's axe-grinding or other editors reverting to the consensus version. Perhaps I have erred on the overly cautious side, but protecting all of the Apollo articles Gayle has targeted seemed like an easier solution than continuing to play the cat-and-mouse revert game, especially since Gayle's response to the attempt to achieve consensus at WP:SPACE was to tell us to "prepare for total war." [5] — Kralizec! (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread concerning your deletion

Hello. At WP:ANI#User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork, I have expressed my opinion that your deletion of User:Malcolm Schosha violates the wheel-warring policy and that a request for arbitration may consequently be required. Because I can scarcely imagine that an administrator of your standing would engage in a wheel-war, I woud greatly appreciate your view on this matter. Sandstein 17:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

e/c In the case of Malcolm Schosha, you've ignored the MFD, the consensus at AN/I, standing practice and site policy. You appear to be in violatoin of the wheel warring rules as well. Just leaving this note because my assumption that you were reading comments on this elsewhere may have been a poor one. You simply don't have the authority to do what you just did, and there are strong objections to this (mostly because it serves to enable a banned user who has abused the right to vanish twice, and engaged in vicious attacks on other editors here in good standing). In september, when he was caught socking through an IP he claimed that his socking was known to and approved of by two members of arbcom that he didn't name. I assumed he was lying. But perhaps he meant you? If you don't reverse your action I'll pursue it further in other venues.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Brad, you have just arbitrarily over turned not just a consensus, but a unanimous consensus at a Deletion review [[6]]. This is also contraindicated by the consensus so far at ANI. You have also wheel-warred to do it. Do we need to review the review? Have another discussion? Go to arbitration. At this point I have zero confidence in our community processes. And to think you were only 1 of about 5 arbitrators I voted for due to my now ongoing disillusionment with so called "wiki" processes. Please re-consider. Stopping now in disappointment, R. Baley (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Would those complaining above please relax and wait for an explanation before jumping to conclusions. Jehochman ^Talk 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts; this was written as a response to Sandstein)

In my four years on Wikipedia, it has become clear to me that our method of handling the userpages of banned users is deeply flawed. The difficulties created by our current procedures are multiplied where, as here, a now-banned user has made the extremely ill-advised choice to edit problematically under what he states is his real name.

The frequent result of keeping these pages tagged (whether directly or, here, indirectly) is to increase the banned user's frustration with Wikipedia and to decrease the likelihood that, in due course if not immediately, he or she will eventually accept the need to disengage from the site and move on. While it is quite true that some banned users do not reciprocate when we make an especial effort to treat them in a moderately respectful fashion on their way out the door, others do, and there is rarely a downside to making the effort. Making this accommodation to a banned user, even one whose conduct on the site was seriously troublesome, does not reflect disagreement with the decision to ban the user, nor underestimation of the banned user's misconduct.

I do not, however, plan to fight World War III over this issue, nor would it be seemly for me to become embroiled in an arbitration case during the week in which I am in the process of being reappointed to the Arbitration Committee. If the consensus on ANI, after considering my view, is that my action was a misguided one, then so be it. I remain of the definite and firm conviction that deleting these two userpages was, and if allowed to stand is likely to be, in the long-term best interests of everyone concerned and of the project. But if you or anyone else insists on reversing it, I lack and disclaim any ability to stand in the way.

I need now to step away from my computer for a couple of hours. Anyone may please feel free to link this thread to the ANI discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Moral support from me for your actions, Brad, for what it's worth. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's always another alternative: we can ask a 'crat to rename the account. Please, folks, let's use some creative thinking, okay? The objective isn't to name and shame the user, it is to have him no longer feel the need to associate himself with this project. As long as his name is here, he's associated with the project. Risker (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, do any small courtesy so the banned user can walk away. Jehochman ^Talk 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

His page was courtesy blanked prior to the last round of socking and attacks. You can noindex the page (as was done) so it doesn't show up in searches, and enable people like me to protect ourselves from that asshole. His serial lying and abuse gives me no confidence that he won't return - in fact, last time he said he's carry on as and when he felt like it and said he was being protected by arbitrators. And here we are. You don't get to overturn community decisions because you don't like them Brad. By the way, he continues ot be active on commons as Malcolm Schosha and on a number of websites devoted to attacking wikipedia editors under that name. You think the way we handle banned users is a problem? Find. Start an RFC etc... You're not the judge and jury you appear to think you are.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that calling someone else names, even if they are a banned editor, isn't helpful to this discussion. Shell ^babelfish 18:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Calling others names is never helpful, period. Bali ultimate, if you continue in this vein, you may be blocked. Sandstein 19:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the account was already renamed to Kwork2. These problems came up after the courtesy rename because old ANI and other reports still pointed at the real name. Shell ^babelfish 18:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, thank you for your reply. I don't have a very strong opinion about whether or not it is in the best interests of the project to delete the userpage. I tend to think not, but am ready to be convinced otherwise. I won't restore it. But I have a very strong opinion that the best way to reach an acceptable decision about this matter, about which reasonable people can disagree, is by strict adherence to the consensus, deletion and wheel-warring policies, especially by the most respected members of our community. I suggest that the best way to prevent a further escalation of this issue, and to avoid a request for arbitration, would be for you to reverse your deletion and to submit the user page to WP:MFD so that we may finally have a proper community discussion about this matter in the proper venue. Your statement above, "I lack and disclaim any ability to stand in the way" of the page's recreation, is not sufficiently clear to prevent any restoring admin from allegations of continuing the wheel-war. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether a discussion is held at MfD or DRV doesn't really matter. Go start a discussion without suggesting any further sysop actions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, why don't you start a discussion? I am not particularly interested in the undeletion of the page, although so far I find the arguments for its deletion rather unconvincing. (The user himself chose to return to disruptive editing and socking under his alleged real name; he gets no sympathy from me.) What I am interested in is confirming that arbitrators, including our most popular ones, including those I voted for in the recent election, are not exempt from the policy prohibiting wheel-warring which they themselves are charged with enforcing against others. And the only way I currently see to resolve that matter is either a self-reversal (before somebody else restores the page) or an arbitration case. Sandstein 21:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am too cold to start a discussion. If you assume good faith, perhaps NYB misunderstood the situation. There is room for an occasional lapse or error, especially when an editor has generally done a very good job. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who discerns a consensus to take further action in this matter, and finds himself or herself in agreement with that consensus, may take such action as he or she thinks best without fear of any further reaction from me. The ANI thread is as good a place as any for further discussion (and I am surprised that no one has noted there what I wrote here); this matter does not need to be further publicized in yet another deletion venue. I do not feel comfortable, however, reversing the deletions on my own.

I am very disappointed that I seem to be so fundamentally out of synch with other editors with regard to how this and comparable situations should be handled. I expect to offer further thoughts, not about this particular instance but about the general case, at a later time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly why wouldn't you engage in the ANI thread yourself in an attempt to persuade? It seems odd that someone else would be expected to go to that thread and say "NYB says this."--Cube lurker (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Earlier, it was just that I needed to run out to a meeting and was going to be away from the keyboard for a couple of hours. Then I got back here and was surprised to find that the discussion hadn't really advanced at all without me. I'll weigh in now or shortly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(ecx2)In response to your surprise that no-one at ANI has mentioned your comments here, I have linked to this thread from there, in this diff. If you feel that my wording or edit summary were not accurate in any way, please let me know so that I can rectify the interpretation I gave. DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine and I appreciate it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I must admit I had rather assumed that someone else would do it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Still in-flight ;) Mostly I'm supportive of Bali's view (just don't get blocked expressing it). MS/Kwork is unrepentant and likely socking now. There's a precedent that relevant: User:Pleasedeletethepage (although that real name is buried, these days.) Admins are too used to being able to see the deleted stuff and lose sight of the fact that the community has a role here, too, and lack of transparency re all the sigs leading nowhere hampers that. My user page was never deleted while banned and I latter asked for my original account's page to be restored. I was straight about stuff and new I'd be back, which is not the case with MS. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC) turbulence sucks

It's true, MS could be socking now. Either way, I'd say it's unlikely en.WP has seen the last of him. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd all but guarantee it. You know my history? We should have a talk about BANTOWN and the road back. It's hard, and that's appropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, AFAIK there is no current provision for cases of banned user accounts which are (or apparently are) users' real names. I think it would make a great deal of sense to ensure that appropriate templates include some kind of declaration that account names are not normally verified in any way. "John Smith" may not belong to someone called "John Smith", and in any case there may be more than one person by that name. This would go some way to address the issue of "labelling", which is passersby thinking they know who is being labelled, when there's no guarantee that their assumption is correct. PS The principle extends to other usernames too; MadeupHandle on WP may or may not be the same person as MadeupHandle elsewhere on the internet. Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your observations. I think we actually do make an effort to verify the identity of users in a few cases—when the account name is that of a prominent person with a relatively uncommon name. This is done on very much a hit-or-miss basis, so I can't say it's policy or anything close to it, but it does happen, and appropriately so.

I am, however, not inclined to pursue the whole issue of how we handled banned users' pages, at least not at this time, because this week's episode suggests that my views on the subject are radically out of line with almost everyone else's. I continue to believe that the way we are handling these issue is extremely unfortunate for everyone concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, this has been handled account-by-account ever since I've been here. Most often, the outcome seems more or less ok, but when a back and forth gets going, the lack of any policy (that I'm aware of) can lead to lots of unhappiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this? Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

More than one John Smith? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: your vote

See my comment at AE. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, and thank you for calling it to my attention, but I still believe the motion is an appropriate one. Incidentally, because of the way the arbitration pages are laid out, your comment on AE is not in a location that any arbitrators are likely to notice when considering the motion to amend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate on the basis of what exactly? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci has indicated that he is not going to edit these articles anyway, but the existence of the topic-ban creates questions about where its boundaries fall, such as whether he can bring concerns to AE. My view is that his input there has generally been useful, but has been sidetracked by collateral discussion about whether and to what extent he is allowed to participate. Terminating the topic-ban, while expecting him to live up to his promise not to make race and intelligence a focus of his editing, will eliminate this controversy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being naiive; controversy is not eliminated by merely 'not editing an article'; it does not make him uninvolved from the article, the topic, or the participants. I absolutely agree that living up to his promise to not make the topic/article a focus of his editing will help (that's part of the reason his conduct deteriorated to begin with), but there is obviously some bad blood - if there wasn't, the opinions at Occam's appeal would be somewhat more uniform in the circumstances, and there's obviously a concern that editors are being treated differently on the basis of hushed up emails. As always, I'm keen to address the actual problem editors, but I don't see how things are going to move forward without an additional expectation on him to avoid user conduct disputes about that topic as well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Just to clarify, I don't think Mathsci to be one of those problem editors I refer to. What I am saying is I just don't think that his continued presence in the user conduct disputes is going to help move things forward as it will create unnecessary (and unhelpful) distractions even without the actual topic ban in place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Mathsci has been, or is, the crux of the problematic behavior in this area, which is by no means to endorse everything he ever said or did. There is no science to these judgments, but my current view remains that the step we are taking will be helpful; if that turns out to be wrong, we can revisit the issue.

With regard your comment about my being naive, I've been accused of such things before (it parallels a comment made about me in a couple of voters guides during the election); this is one reason that I did not make this motion myself, but waited for another arbitrator to do it, just to make sure I didn't have an idiosyncratic or isolated view of the situation. I also observe that some of the other arbitrators voting for this action have reputations for being rather "stricter" than I am with regard to both imposing and terminating sanctions, which confirms I'm not alone in my view. Thanks again for your input, though, and if it turns out my judgment here was mistaken, I will remember it was you who told me so at the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your helpful comments. Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi, I'm glad to see you were again voted to say on the committee. I usually agree with what you have to say. If I had any kind of complaint it would be that you seem to cave in on what you believe when the other members don't agree with you. I saw this at the Climate change case and I hope this is something you will try not to have happen again. I hope you take what I am telling you the way I mean it, as a suggestion that some would like to see change. Anyways, I'm glad you are still on the committee and I did vote for you to stay there. :) Good luck, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CrohnieGal, thanks very much for your congratulations and kind words.

With regard to your substantive comment, I appreciate your bringing your concern to my attention. It's not the first time this has come up. In my answers to some of the candidate questions I discussed my role in the Climate change case. More broadly, I also acknowledged there a couple of times during my three-year term when in an attempt to reach consensus (within the committee or within the wider community) on the approach to an issue, I retreated from my initial proposal in a case and it soon turned out I should have stuck to my guns; the Mantanmoreland and Mattisse cases are the obvious examples. As against that, survey of /proposed decision pages in the last three years' cases would demonstrate that I have cast more opposing votes than any other arbitrator; there are plenty of times I have found myself a very lonely dissenter. It's a matter of balancing, and delicate judgment, and I will continue to do the best I can, taking your input here and the comments from other editors during the election into mind. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are one of the main arbitrators who will oppose when the other arbitrators support something or vise versa, this I have noticed and respect. I want you to know that you, as an arbitrator, do a lot during a case that I respect. I haven't been involved or even watched a lot of cases but I have watched three or four of them and commented in I believe three. When I got into my first case that I wanted to comment in, and I did comment, I said something like 'if this is even gets read' type comment. You were polite enough to let me know that what I wrote was indeed read which made me feel good. Another thing, and I think this is really important for all arbitrators to do, is that you respond to editors on the talk pages of cases you are involved in. That is one thing I noticed at the Climate change article is that there were a couple of arbitrators who said absolutely nothing on the talk page and only voted. Personally I don't like that kind of behavior. Arbitrators should comment and assist editors on the talk pages of a case. When a case gets to arbitration it means someone(s) editing status may or may not change drastically so responding to editors seem really important. I know there is a lot of times comments shouldn't be made because what is being said is well not going well, to put it politely. ;) I'm talking about the serious questions, not the nonsense or rants or things of this nature. Anyways, I think, or hope you understand what I'm trying to say which I'm not saying too well, sorry. I hope this coming year the arbitration committeee has a slow year for cases (wouldn't that be nice.) Have a Happy, Healthy Holiday season, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Drawing teeth!

Trying to get an answer out of you, make root canal work seem a pleasure. The email address is not clear [7] on that page. Just publish the address, everywhere it is referred to. is that so difficult? Giacomo 20:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The address appears on that very page, about one inch on the screen above where you posted, directly under the heading "Contacting the Committee," which strikes me as a perfectly logical place for it. If you think it needs to be repeated twice within three paragraphs, we can consider that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WW2 arbitration, request latitude

I know that evidence phase has closed in WW2 arbitration case. I'm asking you, none the less, for some latitude by possibly taking into consideration my recent and very relevant post-evidence posting at workshop section General Discussion. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

Ϣere SpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

LouisPhilippeCharles's talk page

See User talk:Baseball Bugs#LouisPhilippeCharles (I do not watch that page so if you have any comments please put them on my talk page) -- PBS (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ABCXYZ333333

Good morning, Brad (I'm on west coast atm). I was just looking for an active admin to report the above troll to. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked on what grounds? And shouldn't you be out celebrating Christmas rather than harrassing me? The Neadle (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can't figure that out (the first question), you shouldn't be editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

77.96.96.174's log page

Hi sorry to be a pain, but I accidentally left myself logged out when making all the edits on this page. Is it possible that the user page for this IP could be deleted as I really would not like my IP address to be displayed. Thank you for your time and sorry again for any inconvenience. 77.96.96.174 (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that sort of automatically generated contributions page can be deleted. If there is any other action you would like me to try to take, please send me an e-mail. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what is your email address? 77.96.96.174 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignore that, I found it 77.96.96.174 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I emailed you but I never received a reply. Basically I wanted to know if the page could just be cleared (all log entries removed) rather than just deleted? Thanks 77.96.96.174 (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of clarification?

Brad, I know you meant well but your comment here[8] leaves the situation more ambiguous than ever. At the risk of being abrupt, it would be helpful if someone could give a clear and direct answer (preferably one word, "yes" or "no") to the question "Was the remedy on sourcing intended to apply only to BLP-related material?" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't really see the ambiguity. I think the remedy clearly states that (1) such sources are to be used with caution in any circumstances, and (2) they should not be used at all in living-person contexts, except where one of the exceptions applies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Holiday travel note

I'll be traveling with limited online time and access until Monday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Back a little earlier than expected (headed out early trying to beat the snow). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)