User talk:Newyorkbrad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot or Shadowbot3. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive5. Archives prior to October 27, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive1; from October 27 to December 19, 2006 at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2; from December 19, 2006 to January 29, 2007 at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive3; and from January 29 to February 27, 2006 at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
To keep conversations together, I will generally reply on this page to messages left here. If you would prefer that I reply on your talkpage or elsewhere, please feel free to let me know.


Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Account block

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

Newyorkbrad, FYI, I requested a Checkuser on the related accounts, and it came back confirmed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Lordknowle. So I guess the other accounts should be labeled as sockpuppets, and blocked as well. Thanks for your help, --Elonka 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I just want to make sure that I am understanding this correctly. User:HexTokis was the person who first posted that he was suspicious that Lordknowle's account was compromised. Are we saying that it now turns out that he is the same person who was trolling as Lordknowle? (Geez, this place is complicated sometimes. :) ) Newyorkbrad 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that seems to be the size of it. We've got a user who has pretended to be a British Lord, a hacker who has hacked the Lord's account, and an associate who at first defended the Lord, and then blew the whistle. All the same person. :/ Let's just block 'em all, and then we can get back to editing.  ;) I love these kinds of fraud investigations (I do these in my dayjob), but they're distracting me from my main goal on Wikipedia, of getting Knights Templar to FA in time to be on the mainpage for their 700-year anniversary later this year. :) Let me know if you have any questions, Elonka 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the two usernamed socks. The IP appears to be dynamic and to have too many unrelated contributions for a block based on edits from a few days ago. I still don't claim to understand everything that went on here, but I appreciate your detailed explanation and hope that resolves the matter. To any administrator who comes here while reviewing an unblock request—any questions go to Elonka, not me! Newyorkbrad 22:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good! Thanks Brad.  :) --Elonka 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Re:CineWorld

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

Ispy1981 15:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with your post and to the idea of getting some other editors to look at this. What most concerns me about the situation is not the trivial content dispute, but the comments on the userpage and talkpage of an editor who, as I am convinced, is the same person as the subject of the article. I don't understand this editor's level of zeal with regard to this particular article and topic. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Brad, for now, can you please protect the article until all disputes have been resolved regarding the fact, because the wheel war is kind of getting out of hand. Thanks. Real96 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, CineWorld and Shelby Young aren't the same person, if I'm reading you correctly on that. I share your puzzlement at CineWorld's...obsession is really the only word I can think of, regarding Shelby Young. Also, I would wholeheartedly endorse protection of the article and possible opening of an arbitration on the issue of whether or not to include the credit and in what form, so that we can put this to bed. Ispy1981 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

I am thinking going to file an RfC on this user very soon. If that doesn't work, Arbcom. I am doing a draft on my page. Real96 04:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Brad, just wrote to jpgordon about what we discussed. I'm not familiar with the RfC process. Do we have to wait for CineWorld to grace us with his prescence? What's proper procedure here? Ispy1981 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on procedure in these situations; user conduct RfC rules aren't as well-defined as some other procedures. Generally, the user in question does show up to explain his or her actions. If there is no response, it would make sense that the community will take the basic allegations of the person filing the RfC as being tacitly acknowledged for purposes of figuring out what to do next. Since Cine isn't contributing at the moment, I don't think there will any harm to waiting a couple of days to see what happens. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Derek Smart

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

I don't see any edits or disputes in a week, though. Am I missing something? Newyorkbrad 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just saying that perhaps some people need to monitor pages that limits SPA accounts. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. So far, things seem to be under reasonable control there, and I know there are a couple of admins who have been watching since the page was unprotected, who have a lot more subject-matter knowledge than I do so will be in a better position to tell what are good-faith edits or not. Newyorkbrad 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Going to class, should be back in 3 hours, barring delays. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Um ... noted. Announcements of wikibreaks are not required for three-hour intervals. :) I will be going to lunch shortly.... Newyorkbrad 16:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant that I'd be back later (which, by the way, I'm back at my house) should I be needed. :D - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Posting personal information

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

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

[edit] Hey

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

You are so nice.

[edit] Zurbagan

Hi. Could you please investigate possible sock puppetry by this user. Please see this [1] and this [2] for additional info. Zurbagan (talk • contribs) is mainly involved in the article Ziya Bunyadov. This article was created by MarkHessen (talk • contribs) and Վաչագան (talk • contribs), who are proven socks of Robert599 (talk • contribs). Zurbagan appeared shortly after the above 3 accounts were blocked, and instantly started editing the same article. After a while another account, Pulu-Pughi (talk • contribs) appeared and made his very first edit to the same page about Ziya Bunyadov. I have a good reason to suspect that those accounts are socks of Robert599, and I also suspect that Robert599 himself is a sock of permanently banned User:Rovoam. My suspicion is shared even by Wikipedia admins. We need to urgently investigate this matter, as this user continues disruptive editing, edit warring and personal attacks, but for some reason checkuser is being delayed, and my motion is not answered. I would appreciate your assistance with regard to this problem. Regards, Grandmaster 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)`


[edit] URGENT Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence

I don't mean to step on anybody's toes by asking for assistance from a clerk not attached to my Arbitration case, but Bakaman has just deleted the Evidence presented by SebastianHelm.[3]
JFD 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Any clerk can assist with any case (unless recused because of other involvement in the case), so don't worry about that. FloNight, an arbitrator, has already caught and reverted the removal of evidence. Let's hope it was inadvertent. Newyorkbrad 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
By the time I was done sending messages, FloNight had already caught it. Thanks JFD 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Space

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

Sue Rangell[citation needed] 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually haven't done it myself. I assume that it would work like any other move, i.e., you would click on the move tab and type in the name of the new page (in this case, User:Sue Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. or whatever you want to call it), give a reason for the move (in this case, something like "moving to more appropriate namespace by request"), and make the move. But if someone who has done this before wants to confirm I have this right, feel free. :) Newyorkbrad 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That'll work. Then a helpful admin should delete any redirect left behind. Where could we find one of those? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A helpful admin? Do we have those? :) Newyorkbrad 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably not, I'm sure I indefinitely blocked the last one yesterday... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey thank you so much guys! I think I have the hang of it. I learned something new today Yay! Sue Rangell[citation needed] 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

WikiThanks

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

[edit] Thanks

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

[edit] Arbitrator's proposed decisions

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

The evidence and workshop pages have been open for awhile now. You can post there, or else to the proposed decision talk page which might be the best place at this point. If you have anything to say it is probably in your best interests to do so immediately. Newyorkbrad 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ban the whole Armenian community here because of 3 POV pushers, which all our block logs were fine until they appeared, everyone is going to vote yes, so we might as well give up. Artaxiad 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a clerk who assists with maintaining the arbitration case pages. I am providing procedural advice. I have no more influence over the outcome of the decision than any other editor. Your comments should be kept on-topic and addressed to the arbitrators.
In my individual capacity, I will add that watching this case unfold and reading the evidence page and the workshop every day have been my most miserable experience on Wikipedia. The amount of hatred and bitterness and enmity expressed by editors, from both countries, simultaneously saddens me and scares the hell out of me. If this is the way that the best and the brightest of Azeris and Armenians — the opinion leaders and future leaders who would contribute information to an encyclopedia — see themselves and their neighbors, then I fear for the future, not of your Wikipedia articles, but of your countries. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response(s)

Sadly I do too, but there goverment hates Armenians 100% the propaganda that surfaces there nation is horrible, I plan on visiting Turkey and Azerbaijan (Before Armenia), for various reasons to study and observe there habitats etc, I may sound harsh but its true there destruction of Armenian history is happening not in present day world but on the internet too, clear evidence, theres various points I can make but whenever I open my mouth and speak the truth I get punished here, no Armenian user should be blocked, since this is not Azeri-Armenian dispute its Armenian and Adil and his accomplices end of story, I've done many comprises here with Turks (probably most hated by Armenians) for the genocide etc, accusations which I don't sweat, see my point? and frustration? the last war ten years ago left massacres, pogroms, genocides, etc permanent damage on both countries, it won't be too soon when we see another war since Armenia occupies basically half there country which is backed by historically demands the Armenian nation has been here since Christs day to the Crusades there identify is clear and crisp its basically nationalism what is hurting both nations and surrounding areas IE Hrant dinks murder by a Ultra nationalist, Trabzon, a area where brainwashing occupies in Turkey, he was directed by another miserable person to bring hate against Armenians, thankfully Turkey today is a great nation, Azerbaijan needs to follow there steps since there a new nation, (Barely 100 years), theres my 25 cents. Artaxiad 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ciao, I told you from the start, theres no point of this, if any ArbCom conflict starts just block all the users, I even read it myself by an admin in the incidents place, I don't think banning members is fair without a reasonable explanation or if users can defend there selves, before they get banned. Artaxiad 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Artaxiad, you are not a saint, and neither are any of the other of your friends. You've been doing the same things you are being accused of BEFORE my appearance in Wikipedia, and AFTER my leave in the Fall of 2006. So blaming anything on me, or anyone else, and trying to make yourself and your possy as angels, is not credible. --adil 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No way we are angels, there was no problems until you came back, too many locked articles you deserve it. Artaxiad 16:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Pfffft, you should delete this. Artaxiad 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Condensing

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

Thanks for your courtesy in inquiring, but either version is fine with me. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Good, just wanted to check! :) --Elonka 23:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] zurbagan

This issue is hanging around for a while. Look, please, at [4] Unfortunately admin user:The Uninvented did not dwell in details and declined this case. But this user has a number of socks and edits of those socks are out of any scope of civility. I am amazed that user:Zurbagan who used that kind of language [5] is still not banned (and his sock user:Pulu-Pughi. Even they are not sock of Robert599, that kind of activity is absolutely unacceptable. It is not a mistake of newbie. It is purposeful destruction.--Dacy69 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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


[edit] Plea for Assistance/Advice

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of the information from the edit history is accomplished by an e-mail to the Oversight mailing list, whose information can be obtained at WP:OVERSIGHT. The matter should not be further discussed on-wiki, which will just draw attention to the information you are trying to have removed. I am also going to post a further warning to the talkpage of the user who posted the information. I had not pursued the matter because I was under the impression he had disappeared, but if he is back I agree you are entitled to reassurance that this situation will not be repeated. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I contacted the OVERSIGHT people earlier today, but have had no response from them.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully soon. If they haven't acted by tomorrow, let me know and I will see if I can help. Please also advise if there is any recurrence of the misconduct. Newyorkbrad 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
many thanks for the help. The user has now apologized and given an undertaking not to do anything like that again, and so as far as that is concerned, the matter is clearly closed and over. The only outstanding issue is that I have as yet had no response from the Oversight group about my request to delete the editing history of my user page. I don't know whether you could assist me in that at all? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
All I could do would be send them an e-mail prodding them to respond to yours. Let's be generous and assume that people may be tied up over the weekend. Otherwise, forward me a copy of the e-mail you sent them and I will do some prodding. Newyorkbrad 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little gift from me...

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

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

[edit] More Shelby Young nonsense

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

Ispy1981 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.

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

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

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

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

4. The article was clearly marked as humor.

5. There is no Cabal.

Sue Rangell[citation needed] 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Suggestions?

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

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

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

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

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

If you believe there is a serious issue, you may follow our dispute resolution procedures. Bear in mind that these are intended to address major or recurring problems, rather than isolated peeves such as a 3RR block being declined. An alternative would be to post your concerns to the administrators' noticeboard for comments. I cannot guarantee the reception you will receive there, but the forum is available in appropriate circumstances (see the instructions at the top of that page). You can link to this thread if you post there or anywhere.
Frankly, I am not convinced that there is a serious issue here, as opposed to your personal disagreement with the views of other editors that can and should be resolved through the normal editing process. Your affiliation with an external site does not raise confidence that you are seeking to edit with a neutral point of view and I hope you will remember to do so. You will also have to substantially moderate the stridency of your rhetoric if you expect your concerns to receive attention.
Issues of this nature are resolved on-wiki. Threats of "a Fed Ex to the Founders" are not appropriate and will be completely disregarded. Newyorkbrad 11:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have, for the most part, quit editing the articles as the double standards on the articles were just maddening. I also realized that I was easily dragged into the petty personal discussions which ignore the issues originally at hand. In those, when one standard was pointed out it was claimed that they were isolated instances (or simply untrue). It became clear that only collecting instances of, for example, differences in how sources were assessed in determining if it was "too biased" to include in Wikipedia would be the only way to find a consensus on which standard to apply. In copy/pasting those diffs for examples it became clear that there were actual patterns of abuse that existed. I know better than to just throw out such charges of collusion, etc. if it is based on limited anecdotal experience, but in the process I also then observed the types of aggressive actions the edit-warring people were taking. I started to search the policies that were always thrown around ("see this policy" or "you are violating that policy") and the related talk pages. I discovered that the issues I was encountering were not new to the article (no surprise) and that there was a long history of the same behaviors by the same core of admins & editors.
You may be aware how difficult it is to remember where all of the examples of something are located. So, I started collecting these on a subpage of my user page. However, I found (through my reading Wikipedia's policies, essays, guidelines and related talk pages) that subpages of the sort were discouraged. So I moved the content to my own personal server which allows me to also eliminate ad hominem attacks if anyone added them on their own. (As it stands right now people e-mail items to me, I confirm the interpretation or validity of the complaint and upload the info into my database.) Additionally, the size of the content is now larger than should be acceptable for just user page on Wikipedia. Thank you for the alert, I do understand the 'lower of confidence' for that site, which is why the complaints (when filed) will be of a higher standard of objective documentation than would normally be required. Everything there is absolutely above board, does not come close to any violations of any laws (though I have checked in what I have been advised would be applicable jurisdictions only), does not violate other policies and, being that there are not any personal attacks or threats, does not violate any good practices or standards. In all instances any commentary provided I have tried to take in an accurate (though abbreviated) portion of context as well.
Finally, I do not mean to threaten with the FedEx statement. I am simply making it clear that the problems are (1) long standing, (2) center around the same few people, of whom a few are admins, (3) there is not any strides in addressing the obvious constant in the edit-wars, which leads me to weighing exactly what options exist and which have not been taken already regarding these individuals. I believe it is fair to disclose that option is being strongly considered. Most of the online avenues of resolution that are suggested now have been tried before and fail to solve the constant factor in the 2+ years of these issues. Why do I care enough to 'carry the burden'? Because in my conversation with Mr. Wales a few months ago I expressed how much I believe in the concept of Wikipedia. We both agreed that the concept will fail (again) if the 'watchers' begin to apply the philosophies to protect their content. The analogy that came up (because we were also talking about the ambitions for the Campaigns Wikia) is the shift from a democracy that protects the people to an oligarchy that claims they protect the people at the expense of the for the people's own good, while actual beneficiaries of 'protection' are the oligarchs.
Thank you for the suggestions. I will research the history and past cases to determine if the suggested avenues have already been presented with the same issues about the same people. -- Tony of Race to the Right 19:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

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

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

[edit] Government of California (copied from here)

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

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

[edit] Re: RfA

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

[edit] Staten Island vandal

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

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

[edit] In response to the message on Alphachimp's talk page

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

Nishkid's three-month block seems about right, especially given that the WHOIS lookup reflects a non-portable address. Newyorkbrad 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, by the way, could you raise me up?  ~Steptrip You raise me up 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, does that mean comment in your editor review? If so, I'll be glad to. Newyorkbrad 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the link is now the tilde in my sig.  ~Steptrip 22:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look during the week. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

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

[edit] Q and Padawer

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


[edit] barbara b

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

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

[edit] RFAR questions

Hi, expert clerk!

  1. Are people allowed to do back-and-forth style followups on RFAR requests, like El_C's 2 sections on WP:RFAR#Betacommand? Not an objection, just a clarification - if it's OK, I'll write a short one.
  2. Am I in danger of crossing 500 words in my statement there? If so, give me a count of how many I need to cut down.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Re #1, RFAR is not a noticeboard. Those statements should probably be refactored to remove references to the block which everyone seems to have acknowledged was a mistake, and to focus on the reason for the request.
Re #2, you are at 700 words, which is not too bad. A statement that makes its points in a reasonably concise and direct way is a good statement even if it is technically a little long. What the arbitrators don't want is a conversation, or a statement that grows by 300 words every time the filer feels the need to add another rebuttal. Thatcher131 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher131, thanks for covering for me during a short sojurn into the real world. AnonEMouse, I agree with Thatcher on all these points. Newyorkbrad 20:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. And after all that I go and add stuff to my statement! :-) But I did think it was necessary, because chrisO does have a point - each incident, taken individually, has been rolled back, and is very forgivable. It is only the fact that there is a long pattern, and that the last 3 all came within 6 days that made me bring this case at all. I did shorten the earlier part of my statement a bit to make up for it, and won't expand it further. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
What parties usually don't understand is that they do not need to prove their case at RFAR, but just to show the arbitrators that the case should be opened. Thatcher131 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I understood that; at the time, I saw one accept and Mack "on the fence" as to whether to accept at all, based on ChrisO's comment. I'll stop now. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Padawer

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

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

[edit] Jackie Chiles Law Society

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

[edit] Heather Wilson

Brad, you said that you wanted to wait and see what the comments would be at WP:BLPN. There has been one comment and that comment says, "Delete the section." [6] It is a good argument: the prejudicial effect to Wilson's husband would outweigh any benefit the article might gain by including this section. You should also read this version written on the article's talk page by Uncle G: [7] There's no good reason to include this section in the article, and there are several good reasons to remove it. Even Wilson's Democratic opponent in 1998 agreed to pull this ad, and all other negative advertising. A statement made on a radio station that Wilson had "abused her power" was later described by the Democratic opponent's campaign as "a mistake." Please remove this section from the article. Kzq9599 01:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at this tomorrow and see where this stands. Thanks for the reminder. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, I see you contacted User talk:BryanFromPalatine about RforArb.[8] A check user confirmed Kzq9599 is Bryan, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzq9599. Arbustoo 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I see that Kzq9599 has been blocked. This does not, however, lessen the importance of adhering to WP:BLP on Heather Wilson. Newyorkbrad 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Arbustoo 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Good Luck!

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

[edit] excellent suggestion

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

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for [9], See also [10]. I'm getting tired ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Checkuser request

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

It was probably declined as obvious. Is there some doubt about blocking the SPAs? Thatcher131 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a long and unhappy history to the Klingenschmitt BLP that I am not fully familiar with. On the face of things, Klingenschmitt has at least one major real-world enemy who has infested his article and its talkpage with attacks. But there are some, who may or may not be socks of said enemy, who allege that Klingenschmitt has orchestrated some of the attacks himself. I guess this can sit dormant until someone attempts to restart the article. Newyorkbrad 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict - response to Thatcher131) I think that would be appropriate, but I don't have that power. I suggested as much to User:Netsnipe, who also commented at the checkuser request. The article has been deleted and the accounts have not been active since, but given what transpired my 2 cents are that it's better to sort this out and perhaps even block now, given the risk of re-creation and further defamatory edits. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John M. Duhe, Jr. AFD

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

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

[edit] Reply

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

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

[edit] LegoAxiom1007 again

He's been violating your order not to issue user warnings. He seems kind of on point, but look at this edit [11]. Not only did he change another user's talk page comment, his change was wrong. Ghettoboy9111's edit in February was to another article. The edit to Wikipedia was later. Nardman1 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Here he reverts [12] and warns [13] an editor for a supposed factual mistake, when in fact the editor was reverting a previous vandalism. [14] Reverting without checking the actual source of a vandalism is a common editorial mistake, but King Kirk doesn't even pass the smell test, any editor with some common sense would know that. Nardman1 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Although to be fair, both wordings were vandalism. I had to look back 3 days for an unvandalized version of the article. Nardman1 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Used automated tools again, in spite of his warning, although he made positive edits. Here [15] and [16] here. Nardman1 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Invalid AIV report using automated tools, [17] with reply from an admin (and a note by me) [18] Nardman1 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] That RfAr

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

No problem, I should have done it myself. Thanks. Oh, and feel free to add the block of DeanHinnen at the same time. Newyorkbrad 05:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Pfft. Always having to clean up after other people ... ;-) Chris cheese whine 05:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the WP: redirects

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

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

[edit] zurbagan - puli-pughi

Zurbagan is banned but other sock Puli-Pughi aggressively engaged in reverts [19] All this accounts are belong to one person - vandal Robert599. PuliPughi made similar edit as user Zurbagan - I wrote you diffs [20] It is the same person--Dacy69 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/User_talk%7ENewyorkbrad_ab20.html"