User talk:Newyorkbrad

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive4. Archives prior to October 27, 2006 are at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive1; from October 27 to December 19, 2006 at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2; and from December 19, 2006 to January 29, 2007 at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive3. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

To keep conversations together, I will generally reply on this page to messages left here. If you would prefer that I reply on your talkpage or elsewhere, please feel free to let me know.

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

Username question

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

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

Philwelch RFAR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His attacks continue [1]. ThuranX 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

My RFA

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

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

AfD

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

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

Soccerkidjp (talk · contribs)

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

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

85.104.183.82

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

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

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

Hagermanbot

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

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

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

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

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

appropriate user warning

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

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

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

Way ahead of you

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

Thanks for the note

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

Unblock

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

Email from User:Asher Heimermann

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

Hello,

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

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

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

<identifying information redacted>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well now this is interesting - he emailed me this:

I'll answer some of your questions...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:141.157.198.75

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

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

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

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

GB & I

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

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

Free Republic/Arbitration

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

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

Solejman Talovic

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

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

User:Rarelibra

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

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

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

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

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

re: oversight

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

HELP

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

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

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

Notability Guidelines

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

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

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

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

TBeatty's editing my comments on the RfA

Hi Brad,

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