User talk:Newyorkbrad

Guidance for younger editors

Newyorkbrad, I just happened to come across your essay Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors. It might be an idea to add a link to it on the "Create account" screen, perhaps highlighted by a colourful image, and recommend to kids that they should read it before registering. --JN466 06:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi, Newyorkbrad. I am asking you as an arbitrator who knows all recent EE-related cases. Could you look at my conversation with Shell [1] and advise me? I do not know what exactly can I do to have this topic ban reviewed in a positive way, ever. I suggested this alternative. Or maybe there are some other possibilities? Otherwise, this looks indeed as an indefinite topic ban. Please keep in mind that I mostly edited in Biology, Chemistry and Soviet/Russian history areas. To be honest, I do not want editing anything at all right now (after the outings and the arbitration), but I still might wish to return to editing in a few months. I also asked Carcharoth ‎about this. Sorry for the trouble.Biophys (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues here. First, I am asking at least to provide any clear criteria for reviewing my topic ban after a year. If I edit in other areas and have no trouble, would that be enough? Shell tells "no". If I edit in the conflict area, under a close watch, to prove that I can resolve or avoid the conflicts, would that be OK? Shell tells "no". Another pressing issue for me is editing from the compromised account after the outing and off-wiki posts. I have no problem reporting my new account to Arbcom and any responsible administrators. But editing from my current account, especially in the fields related to my real expertise, is something I am not going to do.Biophys (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that I am back from my trip, I will be looking at the case in the next day or so. I will consider your comments in doing so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

At this time

How long is the history of this page to remain deleted? DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And he's still an admin? Having a deleted talk page and being an admin seem directly incompatible. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me as a peanut from the gallery that his bit should be removed post haste. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it is pretty obvious to anyone this person is in no state to continue being an admin. Aiken ♫ 16:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's worth noting also that he is still watching his talk page and removing postings from it. For him to still be logging in and editing his talk page while having the very rare privilege of the history being hidden from sight is really not on. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please pardon my delay in responding to these posts. I was out of the country on a business trip with very limited Internet time.

My request that the talkpage history remain deleted was based on reasons that I considered legitimate. I see no problem with this situation continuing as long as the user is not editing. Sporadic appearances for purposes such as unsubscribing from mailing lists is not really editing.

I will follow up on the other matters mentioned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Will you at least commit to immediate undeletion the moment he 1)edits anything other than his talk page, or 2)uses admin tools, and place an instruction to that effect on his talk page? I see no reason for the special treatment he is receiving, and given his behaviour since the last return from "retirement" (a retirement that also started when he was blocked for disruption) I feel that there is a high likelihood of future disruption from him. DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The other side of the coin is that in many situations like this there are reasons to handle matters sensitively (most people probably realised that when they saw the notice Brad left on the talk page). That is not the same as special treatment, and all that is needed here is to alert us (that means one person alerting us, not the four people that turned up above). You may only be seeing part of the picture here, so rather than make demands that might make things worse, can you please let Brad and the rest of ArbCom handle this? i.e. commit to leaving us some discretion to exercise judgment rather than micromanaging our response? Carcharoth (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, you don't want community input, just say so. You've prevented anyone bringing an Arbcom case about him by deleting half the evidence. Arbcom don't give any indication whatsoever that they're doing anything without repeated requests. Brad decides to impose a contrary to policy deletion when he knows he's not going to be available to respond to enquiries about it. "Management" seems not to be something that Arbcom is much cop at. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want ArbCom action, putting a note on a single arbitrator's talk page isn't the way to do it. I notice you completely failed to pick up on the "sensitive" part of my post, and instead decided to object vigorously to the rest of what I said. Which is one way to completely miss the point, I guess. See here for more. One of the things to remember is that ArbCom has a lot of different things on its plate at the same time. A bit of patience is needed, and time to wait for responses as well. As you have been told the matter is being dealt with, there isn't much more that needs to be said, is there? Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll be blunt - I don't believe there is anything sensitive about this at all (except a bruised ego). He's lied before (even after having block logs and page histories pointed out to him) and I'm sure he's spinning you all a pretty yarn as to why he shouldn't be desysopped with extreme prejudice and why his talk page should get wiped clean. I've put up with a lot of crap on Wikipedia (see the oversighted vandalism on my talk user page for starters) but special treatment (and that is what it is) for an admin who abuses the email function when someone has the temerity to ask that policy be followed is too bloody much. There was sod all on his talk page last time I looked before the deletion to justify it being deleted. If there was anything "sensitive" on it it could easily have been oversighted a week ago. That didn't happen - and with so many arbs and admins looking at it I'm sure anything that should have been oversighted would have been by now. I come here to ask a perfectly reasonable question - how long - and get the bloody runaround from someone who obviously thinks it's OK to treat editors like idiots. What a shower. DuncanHill (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the misunderstanding here. The sensitive matter isn't about his user talk page. That is the error of presumption you made here. And quite why you are speculating about his talk page history in relation to what this sensitive matter is (rather than trusting our judgment) demonstrates that you are losing perspective here and need to drop this. Carcharoth (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So there is no reason for his talk page to be deleted. I don't want to "scour his talk page history to find out what this sensitive matter is" - I never said that, I never suggested that, and I don't know why you made that up. His talk page history is relevant to whether or not he should be allowed to remain an admin - or even an editor. Policy and precedent are clear on the issue of deletion of user talk pages - it's done by MfD, and then rarely. You have confirmed that there is nothing sensitive about the talk page, so it should be undeleted forthwith. DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Can I just interject here and say, as one with more experience of this particular Admin than most, I think it wise and preferable to just leave things as they are. Doubtless, the matter will have to be dealt with sooner or later, but at this precise moment in time, it is probably best dealt with later. I suggest everyone just read between the lines and wait and see what happens. I think it best that this thread closes and all other threads pertaining to that editor also - at the moment he is no problem, petulant little posts on his talk can be ignored - forget him, deal with problems when they become problems.  Giacomo  21:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

By way of update, Tbsdy lives has agreed to relinquish his adminship, and I've posted the appropriate request on Meta. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but he does not appear to have given up making pointless attacks on three long standing editors (which I have removed [2]) I suggest the page is blanked and given full protection.  Giacomo  13:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Has he relinquished under a cloud? Or is he free to get it back whenever he changes his mind? DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, automatic restoration of adminship on request would not apply in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever he decides to do, I will support. However, his rubbish and attacks I will not [3]; if he wishes to be clever, then he needs to find another forum. I am more than hapy to be banned over this myself and break 3R if need be, he implies he was driven off by 3 editors. In his dreams, this may be so, in reality it was not, so I do not see why those three editors have to pay the price to protect one "Admin" who should have been desysopped months ago! Giacomo  17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike‎ could use a Checkuser

MuZemike‎ is having ALOT of problems in the past 15 minutes with socks of User:Mcjakeqcool, who is indef blocked. Mcjakeqcool has used User:Kevin Rutherford, User:MuZejacob, User:Sniffmyfeet, and User:Crimsonblazer (all blocked). If you could do a checkuser and sniff out any more socks, block those of course, and possibly check the range these are coming off of and do a range block, it would help MuZemike ALOT. Thanks Dude. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I really don't have the technical expertise to deal with rangeblocks, but I'll post this to the Arbcom mailing list and try to draw attention from someone who does. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...all that would need to be done is the checkuser then. That should get rid of any remaining sleeper socks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

E-Mail

Oversight request in your email. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Another email, another request, same person, different IP. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll deal with it when I can, but I'm tied up right now voting in two arbitration cases, so if you can ping someone else this time that would be great. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had. Someone did and it is all taken care of :) So no worries :) Take Care and Sorry to Bother Ya. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I got the first set, someone else the second. No problem. It was good to use the new version of the tool for the first time, actually; oversightation has hardly been a specialty of mine. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee

If you don't mind my asking, how else may this situation be addressed? I'm interested. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If the problem is as bad as you say it is, it can probably be addressed through a discussion on AN or ANI. The arbitration process usually takes several weeks, and is intended for situations where no other means of dispute resolution is available (or in some situations where problems cannot be addressed on-wiki because of sensitive issues or confidentiality concerns). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I considered WP:AN, WP:AN/I, or WP:RfC, but I chose ArbCom because ArbCom was responsible for Keegscee's email block, due to confidentiality. Given this, I decided to skip the other three, but if you and your fellow arbitrators feel it best that this go through AN, then it shall. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what some of the other arbitrators have to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Procedural question

Hi. In this edit, you wrote that "the request for an amendment may be renewed, with a link to this discussion." Where might I find the correct procedure for renewing an amendment, as I am having trouble locating it? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd just post it as a new request for amendment, with a link to the prior discussion and an update on how the situation had not improved since then. In any event, hopefully this won't turn out to be necessary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again!   — Jeff G. ツ 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about guideline for content

Hi,

I thought that your comment in the Gibraltar articles ArbCom about not mixing opinion and facts was very relevant. On the other hand, I have a doubt and would like to ask you for some guidance (if possible). One of the main problems we are having there (all of the parties, regardless of the "side") is to reach consensus about what facts (meaning undisputed things that we all agree are true) should be included in the article. Each side tends to include facts that it thinks are important while the other "side" thinks they are irrelevant. E.g.: all sources (regardless of their POV) mention episode "X", but part of the editors say that episode "X" is irrelevant and only mentioned in those sources because they are longer than an enciclopedic article; on the other hand, other editors say that if episode "X" is mentioned by all sources it should be at least briefly summarised.

Is there a guideline that can help us decide whether an accepted issue would better be included in an article? I mean, the way WP:NOTABILITY helps us decide whether we should keep an article or not. The problem is that this guideline explicitly does "not directly limit the content of articles" and WP:NPOV deals with balancing viewpoints such as "POV A says that X is white and POV B says that it is black" (not with whether some undisputed fact should be in the article). If we could use some guideline or some "rule-of-thumb" probably many unhealthy discussions could be avoided...

I have not been able to find any guideline, but this could just be because I have missed something (a very probable hypothesis, no irony implied...) Thank you very much for your time!! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about my Topic Ban

HMS Tireless (S88) to which my addition of a {{fact}} tag has been removed and a fairly naked threat about reporting to admins left behind by Cremallera [4] for taking an issue to the talk page. Is this article included in my topic ban obliquely by the phrase broadly construed, ie if either Cremallera or Ecemaml can manufacture a vague link to Gibraltar then I can be intimidated into not editing any article? As an aside I am getting very irritated by both editors following my contributions into other areas of the project (where they've never edited). I have been trying to avoid controversy but it seems strange that whatever I edit IP editors want to edit war or those two follow me around. Please help. Justin talk 11:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)