User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Aug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Appealing my block

I want to lodge an arbitration request to be unblocked. I sent an email to the arbitration committee and 3 to committee members but have not received any response so have come to the conclusion that we are merely told to do it for show and that this is the only transparent means to do it. Also since the blocking admin User:Mackensen has not been forthcoming and civil since I was blocked over the last two months and is abusing his admin privileges my request also includes to have these removed. Your assistance in filing this request for me will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. -Biophase 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I will follow up to ascertain the status of your appeal or whether there are any further steps that you need to follow. I am sorry but as a clerk I don't have the authority to overturn a checkuser block myself. Newyorkbrad 01:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
My request is not that you unblock me. Only to launch an arbitration request for me since no one will even respond to my emails which is unreasonable and this needs to be dealt with transparently so the rest of the community can see what is going on. If wikipedia does not think the subjects I edit in is appropriate they should have a policy not to include them and not selectively ban users for doing so. A prejudice response like "No need to bother; the short answer is that we have absolutely no intention of unbanning him" does not put them in a good light. -Biophase 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to bother; the short answer is that we have absolutely no intention of unbanning him. Kirill 02:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Community's criminal negligence at revelation of personal information

While the Wikipedia community is discussing at length attack sites that make outing on members, a criminal troll inside Wikipedia is revealing personal information about an established user and an Arbcom member is giving a pat to the troll by blocking the victimised user. User:Bakasuprman has effected an outing on an established user, who hasn't been active over two weeks. A permanent block of this troll is long overdue. An Arbcom member Blnguyen, who btw, is the patron of Bakasuprman has blocked User:Hornplease and has thus given the go ahead to this criminal act. Blnguyen might oversight the page to save his protégé. Community should be vigilant against such moves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hornplease 59.91.253.206 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the alleged "outing" situation you are describing. If there is a concern here, it might best be brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee on their private mailing list. I strongly request that words such as "criminal" be avoided in posts to this or any other page. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, NYB, note that this post was simultaneously posted at WP:AN/I. Cheers, Iamunknown 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Response

On my talk page. Mangojuicetalk 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk Deletions

I noticed you deleted Merkey's talkpage per his request. Didn't know if you wanted to/needed to zap the archives as well [1]. All the best, ^demon[omg plz] 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This was based on a request he made on one of the arbitration case talkpages. If he requests that anything further be deleted or blanked, we'll address the request when it's made. Thanks for your attention and concern. Regards, Newyorkbrad 06:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Advice

On my talk page someone has recommended my recent request for clarification be filed as a new case. What do you think? --Ideogram 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that there's already as much discussion as there is there, I don't know that it makes sense to start over in another section now. You've already stated once that you're prepared to refile as a new case if desired. Maybe repeat that a little more prominently, state that you'll do it that way if any of the arbitrators request it, and if any of them do. Regards, Newyorkbrad 06:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone advised you to go ahead in the meantime. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators

On the talk page of ACBest, you mentioned that you people have elected at least two self-identified 12-year-old administrators who have been doing excellent jobs. Is this a joke? How can anybody elect little kids as administrators? I was shocked that even ACBest tried to become the administrator!

He makes so many errors. Let me give you an example. I created the biography of Conyers Herring on 09:42, 30 July 2007. And, ACBest nominated the article for deletion on 09:43, 30 July 2007. He just waited for one minute! After creating the article, I was looking for the information on Herring. Now, the article is fine. If ACBest were an administrator, he would have deleted the article. Conyers Herring won the Wolf Prize in Chemistry in 1984/85. I don't think he understand anything about Wolf Prize. I didn't say anything nasty to ACBest because he is a good kid.

Newyorkbrad, you an attorney in real life and a responsible person. But, we cannot expect kids to be that responsible. Wikipedia is not for little kids. Here, we discuss serious stuff such as quantum field theory, international relations, global warming and other World problems. This is not a place for small kids. Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. RS2007 12:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded on RS2007's talk, probably at excessive length, as requested. Newyorkbrad 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of victims

Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could recall a comment that I think I remember you making once about the notability of crime victims and how people aren't necessarily notable because they're the victims of crimes. I might be making this up and you might never have said it but I seem to think you did. I'm asking because I was wondering about Jean Charles de Menezes which is essentially an article about his shooting, not him, and I was thinking of proposing a move. I just wanted to refresh my mind on a few issues and seemed to remember finding your comments helpful and interesting. No worries if you have no idea what I'm talking about! Thanks, Farosdaughter 15:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My concerns were generally more addressed to protecting the privacy of living victims of crimes, particularly certain types of crimes. You may be thinking, in particular, of comments I made during the DRV on my Ownby/Hornbeck deletions. More broadly There has been extensive discussion of whether there should be articles located under the names of people whose only notability is as the victim of a crime or incident (we probably should not be referring to de Menezes as a "crime victim" because, although his death was a tragedy, no one has been charged), as this raises notability and "coatrack" issues, but this hasn't been my primary focus. I wish I could refer you to one centralized location in which these issues have been addressed, but the discussion has been kind of spread around all over the place. Still, hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 15:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for your prompt response; those were indeed the comments I was thinking of although you are right to remind me of the distinction between living and deceased people in regards to policy etc.. I've given the matter some brief thought and it just seems such a big can of worms to open and I've never been particularly fond of doing that! Thanks again, Farosdaughter 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal ArbCom Question

Hi Newyorkbrad,

I've got a few questions regarding specific holdings of the Paranormal arbitration, but I'm not sure where to ask. Since you're a clerk with intimate knowledge of the ins-and-outs of the ArbCom, do you think you could point me to the right place?

Thanks, Antelan talk 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the specific nature of your questions. A particular discussion might belong on the talkpage of an article, or the arbitration talk page (if anyone is still watching it), or on "requests for clarifications" from the arbitrators. If you post more specific questions or topics here, I might be better able to steer you to the right place. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. A request for clarifications is what I'm looking for. If you want the specifics here, I can certainly write them up, but I don't want to unnecessarily clutter your talk page. (As I was writing this, thanks to your hint, I found the request for clarification page.) Thanks. Antelan talk 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, if a clarification from the arbitrators is needed, that's where it gets posted. But you should read through the workshop and proposed decision pages for the case first, if you haven't already, to see if your question might already have been answered. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Making people sad

Hi, I read something a while back that you had written. I can't remember what or where it was. It could have been an outside view in an RfC, or it could have been a comment on an RfAr page. (I do recall that it was extremely well written!) But it was about sensitivity and BLP issues, and you quoted Jimbo in it: you said that he had said that Wikipedia does not exist to make people sad (or something like that). I'd love to track down the source of Jimbo's remark. Can you help? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Antandrus has posted on my talk page. It seems to be this quotation. ElinorD (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's the source of the Jimbo quotation as far as I'm aware. I think I've quoted it twice, once in my outside view on Doc glasgow's RfC, and once in the DRV on the Ownby/Hornbeck deletions. (And thanks for the kind words about whichever of those comments you remember, but looking back, both were probably far too long.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One more question

Thank you for your reply. After reading your reply, I understood the job of administrators. I am in my early 20s. I became a part of the Wikipedia community on July 15, 2007. I have created more than ten articles and made several contributions. Can I become an administrator? What should I do to become an administrator? Thank you. RS2007 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered on RS2007's talk. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I think you are a really helpful administrator. Now I understand why even a 12-year-old can become an administrator. Once again, thank you. RS2007 05:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am desperate here (harassment)

I was referred here by an experienced user, because I am losing my mind here!!

First, I'd like to acknowledge and admit that I myself have not been innocent and have violated a few policies here, namely 3rr.. But it is apparent to me that if anybody on here deserves to blocked or even bnned for something, due to obvious racial bias and POV driven edits, wikistalking, etc, it should be these people here..

Lanternix (talk · contribs) User talk:Egyegy

MoritzB (talk · contribs) I'd like to refer you to my initial case against this user User talk:Egyegy...

Wikistalking - Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

^The user indeed pointed out correctly that I have been suckered into violating policy on a few occasions, and while I will not justify my previous blocks, I so emphatically state here that I was driven to my most recent disputes. On the user talk pages I've provided, they are blatantly conspiring to revert every edit I make on whatever article, articles they've never been too.. For examples, Lanternix (talk · contribs) has popped up out of nowhere and for no valid reason to revert me on Appearance of the ancient Egyptians

^^After conspiring with User talk:Egyegy.. Same thing on this page.. History

^Again, for no reason other than to make it difficult for me on here and undermine whatever I do.. POV driven and racially motivated..

Same with the article on Saint Maurice, [2], where these three have saw to revert everyone, and especially me, whenever they get the chance, in exchange for a copywritten image that pushes their POV, as can be seen on that talk page, where they personally attack by accusing editors of being "Afrocentrics".. On one of the talk pages, MoritzB (talk · contribs) states:

These Afrocentric people are delusional

^^Referring to an entire group of editors..

Shalom (talk · contribs) agrees in his summary of the situation on my talk page, in saying:

I acknowledge the seriousness of the dispute. Even though the other users do not wish to cooperate, you still have options. I suggest you ask User talk:Newyorkbrad or another of the clerks for the arbitration committee if mediation or arbitration is possible in your case. I will have no further comment. [3]

MoritzB (talk · contribs) is also trying to undermine whatever I edit on this page as well, showing up out of nowhere soon after I began making edits..

[4]

He's been reverted by others that have nothing to do with this case, that disagrees with what he's doing, seemingly out of spite. In addition to following me to this page just to criticize and make personal attacks. [5]

This is my last resort and I'm through.. As I said to user Shalom, I genuinely hope that wikipedia is not a haven for racial bias and stalking/harassment, in this case it is obvious! Please take action.. Others editors btw are aware of this, and if I need to I can retreive them, but this is pretty obvious in my humble opinion.Taharqa 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be referred to the Mediation Committee. Arbitration might be needed if mediation fails, but mediation comes first. You can see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation for the procedures that you should use (I'm a clerk of ArbCom, not MedCom, so I don't have any direct input there). Alternatively, I think a few active mediators watch this page, so if anyone can help out here, please let the parties know. (Unfortunately, I am going away for the weekend and can't roll up my sleeves on this one right at the moment.) I wish you the best of luck in resolving this dispute. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

K, thanx for the reply.. Though that page suggests that it is only for one article dispute, I seriously see this as harassment, so I'll try that, as well as contacting another admin.. Thanx again..Taharqa 22:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome another admin taking a look here. As indicated, I am flying out-of-town for the weekend and will have limited Internet access. If the problem hasn't been solved by Monday, let me know and I'll take a deeper look. Newyorkbrad 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

This user has caught three blocks very recently. I was going to log them on the arbitration page, but I did not see the usual section for "blocks and bans". Then I got to thinking that maybe these would not go there anyway, since they involve articles outside of the one dealt with in arbitration. But then again, maybe they are relevant, being similar disruptive and point-making behavior?. - Crockspot 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The log section is generally used for blocks made pursuant to the decision, which doesn't seem applicable here. Therefore, I don't think you need to worry about logging the blocks, but they will still be relevant if issues come up again in the future. Hopefully the blocks themselves will send the message. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Okeliedokelie. Thanks. - Crockspot 17:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a very unfortunate and uncivil attempt to draw attention to these blocks; the blocks themselves are protested, and some administrators have questioned their appropriateness. The last block was for removing material from my own talk page, which is exempt from WP:3RR. I really don't like this attempt to cause further trouble for me. These were all (in my view and the view of some others, including administrators) highly-questionable blocks. The one on July 20 was a block done to match a block being done to a user who I truly believed was vandalizing Wikipedia due to persistent insertions of biased material in Joseph C. Wilson (which I also reported later to the WP:BLP/N as requested in the tagged notice at the top of the talk page: Talk:Joseph C. Wilson). The history is at User talk:NYScholar/Archive 12 and User talk:NYScholar/Archive 13.
In my view, this is a matter that was complicated by the fact that the user in question was claiming that he had documented his statements with sources that do not actually document his statements. He was trying to claim (over and over again in a variety of edits) that Valerie E. Wilson and Joseph C. Wilson had both "lied", when that is not what reliable and verifiable sources state. That is his own biased point of view, which he takes material out of context from misidentified sources to try to "prove"; the violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the "core policy" of Wikepedia and particularly crucial to WP:BLP, including WP:BLP#Public figures and WP:POV, were pointed out to him, he was warned of the problems, and yet he persisted after a week-long block, to return to try to insert some of the same biased material. [Note: In the course of his edits, he intentionally deleted all of Wilson's awards and all of the external links (permissible acc. to WP:BLP) from the article, replacing positive content with negative content: clear violations of WP:Neutral point of view in a biography of a living person; inserting potential Wikipedia:Libel; see WP:3RR#Exceptions; User talk:NYScholar/Archive 13 for updated concerns. --NYScholar 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)]
The administrator looking at the content did not check his sources carefully and is unaware apparently of the fact that they are not what he states and do not document his statements. The tendency to try to give only a negative perspective on the Wilsons violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The user in question, new to Wikipedia, was also apparently not consulting the previous discussions on the talk page or posting prior discussions of his massive changes (deleting the whole page and replacing it with his own content), even after the warnings and the week-long block.
I do not feel, given these circumstances, that blocking my account for attempting to alert administrators of Wikipedia and other users of Wikipedia to these problems was warranted. I feel that way about all of those blocks of my account relating to that user's edits. I have protested all of them, and my explanations are fully developed on my now-archived talk pages. I think that Crockspot is entirely out of line for bring this matter here. It has nothing to do with the matter under arbitration, which, by the way, found basically in my favor and against Crockspot's and others' arguments. He was an "interested party" in the matter, and I do not think it appropriate for him to try to bring those (in my view inappropriate blocks on another matter) up in this manner. In my view, it is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL for him to do so, especially given his own involvement in the other matter and his dissatisfaction in the way it turned out.
I am surprised that he did this, however, given recent discussion that we had on my own talk page--see User talk:NYScholar/Archive 14. (I just noticed his comment here; I had not seen it until today.)
Again, I edit only in good faith and it violates Wikipedia policy for anyone to assume or suggest otherwise. I work very hard to maintain both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the integrity of WP:Attribution throughout my edits in Wikipedia, and, in my view and that of others, do Wikipedia a service. If this kind of harassment continues, I will not want to continue to do any work in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 16:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Appeal of those blocks

On the basis of my previous discussion of this matter, I would like those blocks from July 20 and July 31 reviewed and I appeal them. They have expired, but I would like them struck from my block history. I do not think any of them were warranted, given that I was editing in good faith (as I always do). --NYScholar 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't any established mechanism for appealing from an already-expired block. Sometimes this can be unfair, but I can't think of anything I can do at this point, beyond saying that I had reservations about the last block (I didn't see the earlier ones at the time). (I also apologize for the delay in responding to this post, but I didn't see it added here in the middle of the page.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad

As noted at the top of the page, I'll be away for the weekend and expect to have limited or no Internet access. I'll be back on Monday. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is talking to himself! R checks him into the mental hospital. :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Cbrown visits everyday... well... yeah right... not everyday...... maybe once a week... Cbrown1023 talk 23:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Cbrown, you can't visit anymore. He's gone so insane they don't let anyone within 100 yards of him :). --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
<IRC> /me gets the straitjacket and mental sedatives. </IRC>. :-) —« ANIMUM » 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration non sequitur

Hi there! Remember when we discussed the arbcom passing remedies with the middle part left out? There's another one shaping up: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson/Proposed_decision. At the moment, the motion to demote him is passing, whereas all findings of fact that give a reason for demoting him are failing. That sounds like a bad idea to me. Perhaps the case needs some more findings, or some alternative remedies? >Radiant< 13:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, UninvitedCompany has withdrawn one of his initially proposed findings of fact, as other arbitrators disagreed with the wording, but has proposed some new findings that seek to address the other arbitrators' concerns. The new proposals have only two votes so far, but you will see that they are newer proposals than the sanctions, and so it's very possible they will pass before the end of the case along with whatever sanction (desysopping, suspension, or admonition as I proposed on the workshop) is adopted. Thus, I think this may actually be a case where the arbitrators saw the same type of problem that you and I were discussing and are trying to fix it. We'll see.
Of course, you should also post to the proposed decision talkpage if you have concerns. Unlike some other cases, the pages for this arbitration are still of reasonable length, so I think the arbitrators would actually be likely to see whatever you had to say. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeat of previous episode, yesterday on As the Wikipedia Turns

Do you remember this episode from several months ago? [6]. I'm being dumped on for taking the previously given advice of SeraphimBlade, MichaelLinnear and yourself when dealing with the same banned user on my talk and AN/I. Can you give me a review of how this should have been different? SchmuckyTheCat

I suggest that you identify a couple of administrators who will recognize Instantnood when he reappears, and give them a heads up when these situations arise. In fairness, you can't really expect that all of the several hundred active admins will be able to recognize the behavior of one particular banned user, nor can they just take people's word for it that new User:X is "obviously" a sock of banned User:Y. Hence, taking the matter directly to an admin who will recognize User:Y would seem to me the best course. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Vo(something)stra(something)e

Thank you for stepping in and helping us rectify the issue without any further appearences of impropriety. I appreciate it. -- Avi 01:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor Newyorkbrad :)

Newyorkbrad, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:R/EFD#Newyorkbrad and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the editors for deletion template from the top of your userpage; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey brad, thanks

Thanks for putting all that info on my Talk Page. I'll be sure to look at all of it over time. And what's with that humorous deletion recommendation about you? Is it really for fun, or what? I'm very confused. Bronislav84 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's friendly teasing ... I think. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for your thoughtful comments. You know which ones. All of them!  :-) I regularly go into a discussion with an idea of what I will say, and totally change it (read: temper it) after I read your comments. Again, thank you, Iamunknown 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal Redux

Hi NYB, I'm letting you and the world know that I posted a lengthy new request for clarification regarding the usage of qualifiers in light of the Paranormal arbitration outcome. I'm posting this here because I consider you to be a super-neutral party, and I wanted to just make a note that I'm going to go through and unwatch paranormal-related pages, with the exception of the RfA page, for now. I'm doing this in this order because think that a clarification would be supremely helpful, but I need to take a wikibreak from that aspect of the encyclopedia and focus on the parts of this thing that are still enjoyable. Thanks for letting me eminent domain your talk page, even though I supported the EfD "against" you! Antelan talk 08:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Monkey theorem DRV

Newyorkbrad, I just wanted to make sure that you're aware that the AFD and subsequent DRV is not for Infinite monkey theorem which is the main article, but for Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture, the pop culture references spinoff of that article. I've heard from a couple of people who were confused and thought the main article was for deletion. Your DRV comments appeared to me that you might have thought that as well. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that they are different articles, and I certainly acknowledge that Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture is less significant than Infinite monkey theorem itself. However, my comments on the DRV stand. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I wasn't seeking to influence your decision, just checking that you were clear on what article it was. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Confused advice

The advice I gave you on ANI was faulty, I was thinking of another DRV on the same page. I have altered my comments to basically say "You are correct". Until(1 == 2) 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but your advice was probably correct anyway. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template the regulars

I ask you to reconsider your comments at the deletion review of this essay, in light of my later comments. i had made an edit (this one) I considered quite significant to the essay, after it was previously deleted and restored, and the recent deletion also deletes that edit. DES (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that this edit is more substantive than I'd led to believe were the changes that other editors had made, and will make a follow-up comment on the DRV. However, I think it would be far better practice to put your own thoughts into an essay of your own, rather than to refuse deletion of an essay whose primary intellectual author is no longer expressing agreement with the contents. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, and now I see why I missed it ... because your edit was made after the original deletion request was granted. That confirms my believe that the best way forward is for you to write your own essay if you wish. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If the deletion is endorsed, that is what I will do. But since I think there is significant merit in the forner essay, it will probably be a sufficiently derivitive work to require history undeletion under the GFDL. DES (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Won't happen. You can put a note about the source in an edit summary if you want. Newyorkbrad 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
We'll see. Since the basic points will be the same, and the title will be the same, there would seem very little reson to prevent the proper history from existing. DES (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that this scenario may be seen (not necessarily by me) as harassing of the editor who first wrote the essay, who has now come to disagree with part of it (and who has seen it as being in part responsible for his recent unsuccessful RfA). Newyorkbrad 21:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. My concern is for the concept, with the attribution beign merely a matter of GFDL. If he really feels that he no longer wants to be associated with this essay, and feels that an edit summary is enough to acknowledge his GFDL contributions, then it can be done that way. The link can even be indirect, referring people to the deleted versions, not his user name. Mind you, once a user posts soemthing, s/he doesn't have an absolute right to retract it -- GFDL release is forever. But I see to reason to be a WP:DICK about the matter if that is his desire. I have posted on his talk page to this effect. DES (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Incidentally, you might want to read through that RfA, to see the reasons that so many people offered for disagreeing with what the essay had to say. Newyorkbrad 23:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Just as a follow up - an edit summary pointing to the deleted essay would be fine, if we must stay within the realms of GFDL. If it must contain my name, so be it, but I'd prefer if it didn't. Thanks, Giggy Talk | Review 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

EfD

Sorry to see you leave...no, seriously, you're not leaving, right :) Sr13 is almost Singularity 19:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you were the closing admin, take responsibility for your decisions! :) Of course, someone could take it to DRV. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting my Talk page. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 06:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI/N

Sorry to trouble you, but a content dispute has turned into COI allegations again. I'd been working on fixing the Sicko page. Since I'm the only anti-Moore person on a page heavily edited by Moore supporters, consensus was slow going; people were mad at me, but the four times I escalated to dispute resolution through RFC, the RFC agreed with me, and the page was improved; I avoided edit-warring, was assiduously neutral in my edits, and mainly stuck to the talk page. A month into the course of this work, I learned information that led me to research, write, and sell for publication an article on the movie to an independent magazine affiliated with my employer. Per WP:COI compliance, I mentioned this on the talk page, suggested its inclusion as a proposed edit, and stopped editing the article. One editor who doesn't understand the COI policy went completely nuts, accused me of violating COI by participating on the talk page, and has been WP:CANVASSing other people who have lost content disputes with me (including Wikidea from competition law) to pile on with a number of false personal attacks at the WP:COI/N page. As always, I wish to comply with WP:COI and WP:NPOV, and continue to be a productive member of Wikipedia, but perhaps an administrator can step in and mediate, and help COOL tempers. My attempt to cool things down appears to have been rebuffed. THF 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this personal attack, for example, completely unacceptable. THF 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Responded on the COI noticeboard. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Wikidea still disagrees. He raises one point you should indeed look at (my clarifying edits to WP:COI, which I fully discuss on that guideline's talk page); and one personal attack that I ask be deleted. THF 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This has got to stop. THF 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree Ted; why don't you stop continuing to argue ceaselessly and I won't feel the need to respond? WP:KETTLE. The problem is, you are doing everything you complain other people of doing. And frankly, people either disagree with you (whether you have a COI issue is debateable, and the lack of consensus is what fell to your favor) or are apathetic. --David Shankbone 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • PS - See you at the MeetUp this weekend, Brad. --David Shankbone 14:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've posted again to the COI noticeboard thread and, unless something further comes to light soon, will go ahead and archive the thread and hope that further disputes of this nature will not take place. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lohan twin hoax page

Thanks for deleting the article! It's quite frustrating to run across those self-evident hoax pages. I find WP:HOAX somewhat confusing for how to deal with them. Is a nomination for a speedy appropriate, and if so under what criteria? I'm only talking about blatant hoaxes, just so I know what to do in the future. Thanks so much! Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The general rule, as you know, is that "hoax" is not a speedy deletion criterion. The reason for this is that what might look to one person like a hoax, sometimes is not a hoax at all (I remember that I once saw an AfD on something that was asserted as a hoax and determined that it was at least partially true). Therefore, the proper procedure is generally to nominate them on AfD rather than speedy. However, rules have exceptions, and if I come across an article that I am 100% sure is, as I put it in my deletion summary, a "blatant and self-evident hoax," I sometimes will skip ahead and use my discretion to delete it. In this case, the name of the article's creator and the fact that this article was her first and only contribution were among the factors I considered, along with the obvious implausibility of the content and the lack of any sources or support for the claims made. Still, when I saw the new messages bar come up, I was sure someone had come here to scold me because "hoaxes aren't a speedy criterion." I was very glad to see your note instead. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ha! The new message bar both thrills and freaks me out, depending on my mood :)
So your discretion makes perfect sense in this case. But reading lengthy discussions here and here aren't consoling me much. I think what you did is perfectly appropriate, so why isn't there a policy on this? If all the types of criteria you're discussing are met, could it be a G3? Or since it referenced the real Ms Lohan, a G10? Or is this just going to be a commonly arising case of the 'use common sense' and IAR stuff? Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this debated some time ago. I didn't know that it was a topic of renewed discussion, and will look again later on. I can understand the concern that making "hoax" a speedy category would lead to the designation being used all too often and far outside the category of articles we are discussing. But I will take a look at the recent debates that you've linked and see if I have anything to add that hasn't been said 100 times before. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your random question

Thanks for the reply! I guess that that was kind of an unfair question. The way I had expected for people to figure it out was by looking at the times of my posts, but now that I think about it, that wouldn't really help (I mean, sometimes Singularity is on at the same time as me, but I live in EST and he lives in HST). The way that Singularity figured it out was through my interest in SCUBA diving. Cheers!!! Ninetywazup?Review meMy ToDosign here! 23:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point!! Ninetywazup?Review meMy ToDosign here! 23:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Thankyou!

For you Vigilance!
For you Vigilance!

For reverting that vandalism on my user-page. Have this cake as a token of my appreciation. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 23:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) ... but how come all your cakes say "Happy Birthday Susan"? Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms

Hello,

If it's all the same to you I would prefer to keep the Commonwealth realms arbitration case open until the administrator who placed the page under permanent protection lifts it and the opponents of small "r" accept the edits. G2bambino has hinted that he may contest them even in light of further evidence I have presented. (We will also need an administrator to move the page since "Commonwealth realm" redirects to "Commonwealth Realm" [sic].)

On the other hand, if leaving the case open for another week presents a burden to anyone I grant you my permission to close it since it seems unlikely that the opponents of small "r" will persist. I leave the matter to your judgement, but I ask that you inform me if you do close it.

Regards,

Jonathan David Makepeace 14:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Since you haven't withdrawn the case, it will stay on the requests for arbitration page for a couple more days, which I don't have a problem with. However, as you will see from the arbitrators' comments, under the circumstances the case is unlikely to be accepted at this stage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Extra extra!

Extra extra! Read all about it! Newyorkbrad has finally taken down his RFA thank you notice after half a year! It's amazing! Comment on this extraordinary feat below! --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I never knew I was on your userpage! Well, now I do. Your humble archiver, --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You weren't until today. When I took off the RfA thanks I updated that and a couple of other things. Maybe more changes to come next week. As for your claim of being "humble" ... no comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Square root of 5

I find that Square root of 4 is being written to prove a point and not in good faith. The bulk of the work has been done by the user who proposed the deletion of Square root of 5. I have suggested a merge into the number 2. In addition, the beginning of the article is interesting, but it has evolved into a mock of the article on the root of five. For example, much of what is written in the root 4 is trivial whereas the analogous sections in the root 5 are not trivial. In addition, the article on the root 4 was nominated by deletion (by an anon.) I find that very peculiar. Please look into this. Brusegadi 06:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Please ignore this. I have no experience with deletion arbitration and with WP:POINT. Given that most other users are taking the situation lightly, I should do the same. Ciao, Brusegadi 08:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Please see my comments both in the square root of 4 AfD and on Dicklyon's talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

R.O.L.L.

I'm going to be away next week (again). Could you cover the ROLL for me? David Mestel(Talk) 07:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Not too much to update this week anyhow. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding youthful admins

Hey Newyorkbrad, I recently came across your the very thoughtful essay that you left on RS2007's talkpage. Have you considered making it "official" by posting at WP:ESSAY. It certainly sums thing up very well, and it can then be pointed to when this topic inevitably reemerges. Cheers --Cronholm144 09:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I tend to lapse into long monologs when questions like this come up, and I've been meaning to write up some of my "wikiphilosophy" for awhile now. Thanks for the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

RfArb

Thanks for the notice, I was mostly trying to get the arbcom to take the case. I may have little else to add, but I'll think about it. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The clerks just notify everyone who commented on the case. It's up to you whether or how to participate. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability tags on numbers

I mentioned your concern in my pump comments here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability isn't working. Dicklyon 01:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I saw your thread and will await with interest the comments of others before adding my thoughts. Newyorkbrad 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ainmay Agepay

Feel free to change it! It's OK with me!  Jonjonbt 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note. It doesn't matter where you put it – my user page is a pretty low-tech and anything-goes sort of place. :)--G-Dett 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you put a block on Sarah Natochenny

As this article been vandlised so many time's and i think it's about time for a block for the article Richardson j 23:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough basis yet for protecting the page, with only one bad edit today. However, I just blocked the IP that vandalized the article with an edit summary that included a threat, and I hope this will help. Let me know if the problems continue or requests to protect a page can be brought to WP:RFPP. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 ?

Dont you use {{uw-ublock}} on usernames that are inappropriate to Wikipedia according to Wikipedia guidelines? I didn't pretend to block the user, I thought I had to use the template to raise attention to admins. If not please advise me on a better alternative for arousing attention usernames that are inapt from the new userlist. Thanks. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. Onnaghar tl | co | @ 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly offensive usernames should be reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (abbreviation: WP:UAA). Debatable usernames that you think should be discussed should be reported to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Usernames (abbreviation: WP:RFCN). A template for notifying users about concerns over usernames is linked from the latter page. However, only an administrator can actually block an account, and the template you used should only be applied after the account is actually blocked. I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry if I was disruptive in anyway. I guess novice isn't always best. Thanks once again. Onnaghar tl | co | @ 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and I'll modify a bit the comment I left on the other user's page. Newyorkbrad 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegation ArbComm

Can you give me a hint on how far back the ArbComm is likely to find more evidence helpful. I've got a huge list of pages to work through, and it could easily take me a few weeks (or more) to work through the list. GRBerry 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I really can't speak for the arbitrators on this issue. I suggest you might post this question to the evidence or workshop talkpages, and perhaps one of the arbs might comment. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop#Users engaging in canvassing are strongly censured (and the diffs!!!) and take appropriate action. I've suggested that for now you can handle this better than a preliminary injunction. GRBerry 04:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this and I have read the items you cite. I'm sorry to be less than helpful for the second time in two days, but it's not at all clear to me that it would be helpful or ease tensions for me to refactor the material as you suggest. The arbitration committee clerks have no assigned responsibilities or special role outside giving notices and tending the arbitration pages themselves, and the last thing we need is for a clerk qua clerk to get into a dispute or edit-war with a user who, per the proposed decision page, is now himself the subject of a remedy proposal. Also, per the proposed decision page, at least two arbitrators appear to disagree on how serious a problem these posts represent.
I believe some of the other clerks have this page watchlisted and would welcome their input here. Newyorkbrad 10:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As the bulldog with the most seniority among active clerks, I suggest that rather than removing the canvassing, a note could be added at each location pointing out that editors who involve themselves in Arbitration cases may find their own behavior subject to scrutiny, and that at least one arbitrator has already found Sm8900's actions highly inappropriate. Sm8900 has also been a bit of a dick on the workshop page [7] [8] but unless he gets worse, I'd put this in the "give him enough rope..." category of comments. Thatcher131 11:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Competition law

Hello, you left a comment before on the Competition law page and I wondered if you would help with a GA review? All the best. Wikidea 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive Box

R wonders if Newyorkbrad has seen how the huge ugly archive at the top of his page is now gone and replaced with a smaller, better one. :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad noticed several days ago that his painstakingly crafted and self-contained listing of archives had been kidnapped and was replaced with a harder-to-find small box, but has now adjusted and learned to live with the situation. (Seriously, thanks.) Newyorkbrad 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the little piece of admonition you gave me at User:R/EFD. I like it when I find my work is appreciated, and even considered 'impressive' by a select few :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't have said it if it weren't deserved. You're a remarkable contributor all over the project, and I just hope you pace yourself so you don't peak and burn out too soon. Read my comments that someone referred to above about younger admin candidates also. You were one of the people I was thinking of. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have done such. You provide an interesting case - and a contention whose fundamental bases I concur with strongly. Best wishes, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It's more of a statement-of-fact than a contention. –Animum 01:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Haha - good pun. In case you were wondering, Anthony was referring to a coincidence that occurred in that I CSD-ed (per U1) half of the sub-pages in my user space only a few hours after being "nominated for deletion", and Anthony mistakenly thought I was actually considering leaving. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Understood. Now ... go and look up "admonition." :) Newyorkbrad 15:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Looked up...oops. I think I meant to say something more along the lines of 'approval' - you weren't exactly telling me off, were you? :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN Wheel War

The BJAODN case can now be called a confirmed wheel war, as a deletion of a BJAODN page has occurred again. 15:11, 17 August 2007 User:Jreferee (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense ON WHEELS!!!!!" (CSD G11 Advertisement for vandal services; CSD G4 See Non-main namespace pages for deletion) — Rickyrab | Talk 15:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. We'll let the arbitrators decide. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible arbcom violation

It looks like Fred Bauder is inactive at the moment. Can you look at this message I left him, and get back to me? Thanks. - Crockspot 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Fred is on vacation at the moment. This matter can be reported to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, and/or ANI, depending on how clear a case you think it is. Hopefully one of these forums can establish whether this is indeed a banned user editing. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 18:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Appended to current NuclearUmph issue on Arb Enforcement, as it is related. Thanks. - Crockspot 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case

Brad, you just caused me a heart attack after I saw this on my watchlist:
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:Melsaran‎; 16:12 . . (+535) . . Newyorkbrad (Talk | contribs) (notice of arbitration case)
I thought I was getting sued for something :) phew Melsaran 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry ... I had about 30 notifications to give, so I was just using a standard edit summary. The causing of heart attacks or panic reactions was not intended. Newyorkbrad 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:-P :-P Grammar Glad to see you can still correct my while you are away! :-D But thanks! :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, correct your what? Newyorkbrad 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FBJAODN%2FWorkshop&diff=152165115&oldid=152164816
Um, yes, but reread your comment from above one more time. Correct your what? :P Newyorkbrad 02:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
.... can I pretend that's my attempt at a bad pun? :-P Cbrown1023 talk 02:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you can pretend that ... and I will pretend to believe you. :) Newyorkbrad 02:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
.... and I can pretend that *you* didn't just have a typo! :) [9] Cbrown1023 talk 03:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
/me thinks hard for a brilliant rebuttal and comes up empty. Good catch. Newyorkbrad 03:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
hehehe. :) Since I won this round, you get to finish explaining to xaosflux on the Workshop talk page (or whichever it is :) ). Cbrown1023 talk 03:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I object to that comment as assuming facts not in evidence and move to strike it, but I've already responded to Xaoxflux. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Back

I'll participate in all open cases. Fred Bauder 10:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; updating accordingly. Newyorkbrad 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The revert

Thanks again! :) Acalamari 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

T.R.O.L.L.

Sorry for the belatedness of my reply: yes, I should be able to do my trolling this week ;) David Mestel(Talk) 20:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Civilty

Please remain civil toward other editors, especially in edit summaries, which remain a permanent part of the page history. This is important even if you believe another user is being difficult or provocative. Thank you for your cooperation. Newyorkbrad 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • What matter are you referring to? CJ DUB 05:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty

Hello, I think Tbeatty might be having a grudge against me still. Calbaer made some false charges against me on Tbeatty's page, that I called him Gay, and when I answered them, Tbeatty erased them. This is not right! Tbeatty made trouble for me last night, and lost, and now he's doing it again. It is in no way fair or correct for him to erase my answer to Calbaers false charges! Please talk to him and ask him to just leave me be! Here is the 'diff'. Link Is that what you left me a message about? Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the false charges and NPA on Tbeattys page since he won't let me answer them. Please 'mediate' Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you stay away from him, and vice versa. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It was Crockspots who erased my words the second time! I will not let false charges against me stand! It was Crockspots who wrote that anybody with 'Bear' in their name 'takes it up the ass' not me! Now he erases my proofs to Calbaer who claims that I said that about him? I will not let that stand! Here is the link to Crockspots words on Conservatives Underground. Link Thank you. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]
Now Tbeatty put up the false charges one more time, with shading. I removed them one more time. He and Crocspots are making 'tag teamed' edits to keep false charges about me on his page. Please 'mediate' as an administrator. Thank you! ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed a personal attack against me from his talk page. - Crockspot 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. I don't see this ending well. Basically, the first one to walk away "wins," no matter how injured you feel at the moment. Thatcher131 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm walking away, but I removed the attack, because it was full of untruth. He claimed that the link to CU was still on my user page, but the edit history shows that I removed it a full hour before he made that edit. Also, the other links do not go to anything that I contributed. Please keep an eye on him, so that I do not have to remove libelous statements about me myself. - Crockspot 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Civilty

Please remain civil toward other editors, especially in edit summaries, which remain a permanent part of the page history. This is important even if you believe another user is being difficult or provocative. Thank you for your cooperation. Newyorkbrad 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • What matter are you referring to? If you mean the one with "Hasek is the Best" he's distrubing shit from 2 months ago, and wants to have the last word on my page like a petulant child, about my username, the content of my user page itself, etc etc etc. I can manage ok without his "fine. be that way" comments. thx. CJ DUB 05:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If you check his talkpage, you'll see that I left a note for him also. I recommend that both of you leave each other alone. Newyorkbrad 05:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

possible legal threat issue posted at AN/I

Hi - I read somewhere that you're an attorney, so I thought it would be good to inform you of this. I posted it at WP:ANI but no-one has responded yet. I'm not sure if it's a legal threat regarding Wikipedia, or just a complicated legal comment, but I'm concerned about it because it's been repeated many times, in conjunction with edit warring and AfD issues.

Here is the AN/I post: Legal threats from a pair of SPA SSP accounts.

By way of disclosure, I have not edited the articles, but I did participate in the AfD discussions, and that's how I found out about this. I came to the AfD's from a post at WP:WQA where I help out often with dispute resolution. I was not functioning as a mediator this time though, because I chose to enter my personal !votes on the AfD's. The AfD's were very contentious; one of them is in deletion review, and a related article has been protected.

During the AfD's (there were five or six related ones all filed at once), I noticed the SPA possible sockpuppts and felt concerned about their legalistic rants, long comments about trademark lawsuits regarding the titles of the articles. They appear to be sockpuppets though that has not been proven, and they are certainly recent single-purpose accounts.

The details are in the AN/I post, including diffs and links, if you'd like to take a look. Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 23:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

After I posted the above on your page, the WP:ANI report was archived (24 hours with no response), so now it's located here.
It's probably just bluster and not important, but I'm not qualified to know for sure... Have a good day. --Parsifal Hello 07:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I was out last night but I'll try to take a look at this today. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 11:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I've now had a chance to look at this, although I haven't read any of the court papers or steeped myself in the background of the underlying dispute. I don't see any overt legal threats, but clearly there is a raging real-world dispute which is spilling over into the Wikipedia discussions with lots of legal overtones. Unfortunately, it is virtually difficult for anyone, even with legal training, to unravel the entire situation, between the references to off-wiki legal actions and the confusingly similar of the nomenclature of the groups involved. If there is a concern that anyone's rights are being violated, an interested party should probably e-mail OTRS so that the matter can be reviewed. Newyorkbrad 02:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that. I don't know any of the people involved. I have passing familiarity of the stories of the underlying theological groups, just out of historical curiousity. I don't have any direct knowledge of the current trademark claims.

My impression is that the off-wiki disagreements are about who gets to use the names of long-defunct organizations, to make new modern versions that can sell books and memberships. It appears the sockpuppets were created to try and manipulate the Wikipedia articles into favoring one of those organizations over the other.

My main concern in bringing it to your attention was this part:

enlisted the assistance of Wikipedia editorial staff in freezing the H.O.G.D./A+O article; and unlawfully depriving the H.O.G.D./A+O of its legal name and mark by arbitrarily renaming the article describing the order to “Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega.”

...and only because it mentioned Wikipedia editorial staff (whatever that means).

If you don't see it as a concern, that's good enough for me. Thanks again for checking it out. --Parsifal Hello 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's concerning enough that I will try to keep an eye out on it, and please let me know if you see any further occurrences. Thanks! Newyorkbrad 03:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, will do.
By the way, I mentioned above, and also at the AfD, that I haven't edited the articles related to these topics. That was correct at the time. But I am interested in historical topics of fraternal orders like Freemasonry, etc, and now the AfD got me interested in these articles, so I think I'll do some editing on them. They really need better references and NPOV, that's for sure. I wouldn't have mentioned this if I hadn't previously told you I wasn't editing them; but since I did, I thought I should close the loop for transparency. --Parsifal Hello 10:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

disruptions active again

Hello. Well, sorry to say, Rondus (talk · contribs), one of the users who posted the legal complaints, is continuing his pattern of personal attacks with legal implications (he is a one-month editor with 69 edits). He hasn't made any outright legal threats, but today he has been repeatedly accusing another user of being a corporate activist with hidden motivations. The user he's accusing is a long-time user with 6000 edits.

He has some help from Kephera975 (talk · contribs), a seemingly COI user with 650 edits. They and others are the subject of two SSP reports.

The links to the SSP reports are in the archived AN/I report you already saw - for your convenience, here is the link to that report

These actions are part of a content dispute, but it's clear the motivation is those trademark cases you saw. It's obvious with Rondus, and quite suspicious with Kephra975. The objective seems to be to change Wikipedia articles to prove the claim of the real-life organization that it is the one entitled to use the name and has the clear lineage to the historical group.

I've made a few edits but mostly just tried to calm the repeated personal attacks. Because I've supported not changing the name of the article, and I've warned them to stop the personal attacks, now Rondus has included me on his list of corporate activists also (I have 3000 edits on wide ranging topics, mostly music and helping with dispute resolution).

Rondus has even created a section heading on the article talk page, based entirely on personal attacks: Talk:Alpha et Omega#Corporate Activism Vs. Historical Accuracy

Here are some diffs:

If you prefer, I can post this to a noticeboard, but you are already familiar with the situation, and you asked to be informed if it flared up again, so here it is.

User:Rondus has been warned many times, and repeatedly asked to comment on the topics and not the editors. For example here: [16].

Between him and User:Kephera975 that section that was set up for an RFC was so distorted that I had to restart the RFC in a new section. Immediately, Rondus started the personal attacks again in the new section.

Then, in a new development while I was writing this, the probable Rondus sockpuppet C00483033 (talk · contribs), who also issued the legal threats previously, has now appeared on that page to support the RFC vote of Rondus. User:C00483033 also has only around 50 edits and appeared a few weeks ago.

I don't know what the correct response is, but for users with only 50 to 70 edits, and probably more than half of them being personal attacks with legal overtones; these users or sockpuppets have created a lot of disruption and wasted a lot of time.

I'd appreciate your help with this. If you would rather I post to WP:ANI, please let me know.

Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC) (signing later - oops - originally posted at 21:20, 21 August 2007)

PS. after I left the above message for you, someone else posted this related report at AN/I. I don't know if that will get attention or not, but I thought you'd want to know about it. Thanks again. --Parsifal Hello 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppets blocked

Hi - looks like this has been resolved for now. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd) case has been closed, with the result that Rondus and C00483033 have been indef blocked as sockpuppets of indef blocked User:Frater FiatLux.

After that, two new sockpuppets appeared with the same behavior, those have been blocked now too.

So nothing further needed on this for now. Thanks for reviewing those legal issues earlier. Happy editing... --Parsifal Hello 02:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me posted. I've been short of time for a couple of days because I'm getting ready to go on vacation for a week, so it's nice to know this hopefully won't still be going on when I get back. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent one to you. Acalamari 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Received and responded. Newyorkbrad 02:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have B (talk · contribs)'s tp marked on my want list. Don't want to get into it too much, but i did want to let you know - I do not believe that the recent events have put the problem to rest. Already, as is currently available on my talk page - you can see evidence of the other user recanting (or possibly recanting). This has in fact happened before and considering that this has been going on for several weeks, i believe it is premature to close down the Arb. - especially with all the evidence listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson. Take care and hopefully we can get through this peacefully. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then I guess the case goes on. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad

I will be travelling for the next week or so with limited Internet access. I expect to be able to check in, but not as often as usual. Regards to everyone, Newyorkbrad 19:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hope it's pleasure and not business. Have fun. - Crockspot 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess we need to try a better mental hospital. It seems the last one didn't help. Newyorkbrad is still talking to himself! R googles for a better hospital and checks Newyorkbrad in for 6 months. (P.S. LOL @ the HTML comment...the minute I saw your note, I was going to add a comment. Then I read the HTML comment, but still did anyway :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... "with limited Internet access" --> yeah right, you're probably going to be on more than me! Cbrown1023 talk 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello again, stranger. :) Have fun wherever you're going to be. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ooo I am so über-sly. Newyorkbrad is not crazy: he just prefers the 3rd person to the 1st. –Animum 01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Arb Com case status

Hi. I know you're away, but just wanted to ask your help on something. Could you please let me know the current status of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Proposed decision? It appears there is little current or recent action. Not sure if the case would have be formally closed at some point, or if it is still open, or if it could simply be closed without any formal notice of closing. Appreciate your help with this. By the way, also, could you please reply at my talk page, if you have a chance?Thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk, as requested. Newyorkbrad 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: RfA Oppose

Whoopsie! I meant to say "treading on thin ice for the same reasons as Newyorkbrad has previously stated", but if you think I need the internet equivalent of the brush, you may very well be treading on thin ice. :-) –Animum 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I knew what you meant, but was concerned that hasty readers unfamiliar with the background might not. No worries, as Anonymous Dissident might say in Aussie-speak. Newyorkbrad 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaced!

Image:1975rsox.jpg
This page has been hijacked by the Red Sox.

LOL...you've been replaced! :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Another reason to delete me, I guess. :) Yankees looked good tonight. Newyorkbrad 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
And just a bit worse this evening... :) Joe 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I was at that game in Detroit. Bleah. Newyorkbrad 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad is a sports fan... The mind boggles. :p David Mestel(Talk) 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
And why, pray tell, does the mind boggle at this less-than-earth-shattering revelation? Newyorkbrad 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Call me an ageist if you like, but middle-aged attorneys and rowdy sports crowds are not concepts I associate together. David Mestel(Talk) 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I will concede that I am perhaps not the rowdiest in the crowd (though plenty of other lawyers may be). Newyorkbrad 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yankees suck! Picaroon (t) 04:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Baseball sucks! David Mestel(Talk) 07:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
LMAO ROTFL at that whole convo! (I second most of David's comments of course, :-P :-P). Cbrown1023 talk 01:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Such a remark—from an American, no less—is definitely not cricket. Newyorkbrad 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say I agreed with the cricket part. :-) Though I concede it is a pretty interesting sport. Cbrown1023 talk 01:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll watch an innings sometime when I have an extra nine hours to spare. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah!

[17]... can't say I didn't call that one. Cbrown1023 talk 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you know me too well. Of course, I knew I would be teased when I wrote that.... Anyway, you still keep the COFS case. But hey ... aren't you supposed to be on a trip too? Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am supposed to be, I was in Lake Placid, NY all week (and went bobsledding today, which was fun :-). I'll be going to my grandparent's tomorrow and then home. :-) It was just my luck that we stayed in a hotel with internet access (the Hilton). ...and about the COFS case, I did a little update with those notes on PD... can you check it? :-) Cbrown1023 talk 03:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, but at this point it might be easier to merge all the different ones that have passed into one updated list. Newyorkbrad 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Y Done :-) Cbrown1023 talk 03:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you commented, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 12:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi Brad! Go to the editing mode on your userpage. I left a nice surprise! :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, the question is: revenge in kind or no revenge in kind? David Mestel(Talk) 07:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Was it Charlie Brown who used to say "sometimes I feel like I have no idea what's going on"? Newyorkbrad 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this. David Mestel(Talk) 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I saw it. I just don't know how it was done, or why. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
A magician never reveals his secrets...but I'm not a magician. It's called the "right to left character". MediaWiki has to support it because of languages like Hebrew which go from the right to the left. The character cannot be seen in a lot of browsers. When inserted, it turns all the text on each line backwards. The information on the character is available here. In Internet Explorer (yes in IE, because in FF it doesn't highlight) go to the line that says "string.toUpperCase()". In that row, highlight the empty space below the "J" in Java. It should work, because there is really a character there. Copy it, and paste it on a wiki page, and that's what I call sneaky vandalism :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, it does still copy in FF, even though it doesn't highlight. Alternatively, if you have the requisite cool add-ons, you can open an IE tab within FF... David Mestel(Talk) 16:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind. Newyorkbrad 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
/me wonders if Newyorkbrad understood what I said and figured out how to use it or if he bothered to type that whole edit summary out backwards :]. (BTW...I didn't get the link) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad just typed it backwards! If you really used the character in the edit summary, when you go to the history, the word undo would be backwards also like where my revision is! --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
....sdrageR !gnihtemos ro elcitra na etirw oG ?won od og ot esle gnihtemos evah uoy t'noD Newyorkbrad 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
/me tells Newyorkbrad it should only look backwards in editing mode, and that Newyorkbrad is still not really using the character, based on his backwards edit summaries that don't have the undo button backwards on the history page. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Try clicking anywhere on your userpage... :) Mwahhh!!!, --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing much seems to happen ... do I even want to know? Newyorkbrad 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It's been reverted... heres the revision: O_O
Yeah, what's supposed to happen? Nothing worked with me. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandals use this code to redirect people to other sites by clicking anywhere in an article...I have done that but it goes to a safe onwiki page. :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, but that's enough fun with my userpage for now, I think. :) Newyorkbrad 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(w00t for lots of indents! no one unindent!) But did the click thing work for you, Newyorkbrad? --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
We gotta get this boy a hobby. Can't someone take him to have a catch or something? Yankees game, maybe? Actually, it's probably better we keep him and his somewhat devious (said with all admiration) mind here so that he's working for good and not for darkness. - Philippe | Talk 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
He's actually an outstanding user; I've nominated him for adminship twice, and he should have passed and be pushing buttons by now. But it's time someone besides me reminded him that mainspace is thataway. :) Newyorkbrad 19:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Mainspace is thataway, but there is no path to article writing. (and thanks for the nice comments :) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You have e-mail. David Mestel(Talk) 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Received and responded. Newyorkbrad 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew's RfC

Hello Brad. You may have noticed that Majorly deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Matthew. Indeed, the RfC had not been certified: I started it at 15:34 on August 29th and Majorly deleted it at 15:36 on August 31st, a whopping 48 hours + 2 minutes after its creation and in fact the RfC itself was not listed before 17:59. As Majorly indicated in no uncertain terms that he thought the RfC was frivolous, it just doesn't seem right for him to remove the RfC. Although the RfC was not certified, there were clearly a large group of people who felt his actions needed to be addressed in some way. What should I do? Thanks Pascal.Tesson 18:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this shows that other users must address Matthews behaviour directly with him. I can understand your concern with Majorly deleting it, but at the end of the day, he was correct - if it isn't certified in 48 hours, it gets deleted. At the end of the day, maybe users don't feel Matthew is behaving disruptively enough to go and discuss his conduct with him. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You know, Matthew is not exactly too welcoming to his critics [18] [19] [20] [21]. But undeniably, many people have asked him repeatedly to tone it down. I notified Matthew of the RfC and I have no doubt that had I also notified other admins who tried to reason with him, this RfC would have been duly certified. He chose not to participate in the RfC or in the two ANI threads about his recent behavior. He has made it clear that he did not recognize his latest block as legitimate and the deletion of the RfC is again sending the message that nothing's wrong. Pascal.Tesson 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I am very disappointed with Matthew's recent behavior and have told him so. However, as reflected on Jay Henry's RfC involving a related issue, I may feel more strongly than other members of the community with regard to how serious a problem frivolous oppose !votes and comments on RfA are, so I don't know if I'm the right person to judge this. Newyorkbrad 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I spoke to Matthew in private. I asked him if he was taking the RfC seriously. I asked him to maybe make a public apology, or at least a promise not to continue the general rudeness around the wiki. He has said he won't promise, or apologise. I'd not diagree to overturning the deletion of the RfC. Majorly (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy deletion

I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not, but could you delete my user page for me? I removed the CU link a while back, but I have a user (Goethean) who has pulled a diff of that link out of the history, and posted it to take a jab at me. I would like to clear the history from the view of non-admins to prevent this in the future. There is really nothing else to "hide" there, so it doesn't seem like an improper request. I would really like to disassociate my wiki self from my past off-wiki self, but it is difficult to do when some users won't allow it. If you think it is ok, please zap it for me, and I will recreate it with the current content, which I have already archived into the edit history of my sandbox. Thanks. - Crockspot 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to make this deletion if you want me to, but frankly the diff is already in circulation between Goethean's posts and now your diffs of it, so I'm not sure it will do any good. Let me know. Newyorkbrad 19:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Won't the diff just point to a version that no longer "exists" in normal user viewing? For admins, it may still work, never having the admin tools, I'm not sure. But yes, give it a try. - Crockspot 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, you're right. Okay, going ahead. Newyorkbrad 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It works. Thank you! - Crockspot 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)