User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2010/Jun

regarding links

Hi Newyorkbrad, regarding your comment on User Toddst1 talkpage here, I would like to have a look at those Arbcom decisions, no worries-if and when you have time, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to try help. Relevant discussions on this issue include:

•Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

•Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV (especially principle 12)

•Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (especially principles 9-11)

I hope that's helpful. Although arbitration decisions are not meant to establish "precedents" in the judicial sense, I do hope sometimes that when we work to craft the principles with which we start out each decision, they can sometimes be applied to assist in resolving comparable types of disputes without reinventing the wheel. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Brad. I will have a good read of them tomorrow so I get a feel for the community acceptable/unacceptable levels from previous situations, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Source information for the census and the New York Times

Do you think the current source information is adequate or "bullcrap [I] just made up on the spot?" as the nominator believes, each has a page number stamped on the census page, the county and state and township. There are no urls to the images. The New York Times likewise may have permalinks, but when it was hosted by Proquest they did not. Do you think a deletion tag is needed? Does deleting them serve Wikipedia since they are clearly in the public domain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

None of the census, newspaper, etc. images look to me like something you made up on the spot. On the other hand, please bear in mind that our administrators who take responsibility for image patrol sometimes deal with hundreds of bogus image claims, so it is understandable that they ask for proof of things sometimes. As for public domain, that is clearly true in the case of the US census; for newspapers, it could depend on the year.

For a more general discussion of the balance between the rights and responsibilities of uploaders and those of image patrollers, everyone might want to take a look at the Principles set forth in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

They aren't being deleted for the license, just that the source has been found to not satisfy one editor. Do you find them sufficient that the delete tag can be removed? Can you peak at a few, I do not have the NARA microfilm roll numbers. The census year and the town and the census page number all appear in the images themselves. It is like asking for me to prove that an image of myself is really me, I can't. Just like the NYT images they are self evident. We can assume good faith and not assume someone is photoshopping old NYT articles. He found an expired link to ebay to be satisfactory, so why are these sources not adequate as they stand?--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if Fastily has any thoughts in response to the comments I posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The tag "This file has no source information" is 100% incorrect and should be removed. I have been told I will be blocked for removing them. If anything he should be blocked for providing a false tag that he has been told is false and keeps re-adding. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

I have begun thread you may be interested in, here.  Giacomo  18:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser Needed, Please

A checkuser is needed on this ANI thread. Something seems to be up with User:Louiefontanez. Not sure if there is socks afoot, a comprimised account or what. But the user is apparently sending out emails via Wikipedia laced with personal attacks, but has made no edits in 2010, only one in April 2009, before that nothing til 2007. Something isn't right here. Could you take a look? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Might be related to this IP account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The thread now reflects that another checkuser is looking at this. In the meantime, the user has been reblocked with e-mail disabled. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. Sorry, been involved with other threads, forget to come back and let you know. My apologizes on that. I will update the thread with this new information. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"... less than 123 years old"

I've replied on my talk page.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 15:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 13:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 13:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted and responded there. FYI, I don't object per se to talkback notes, but if I recently posted to a page I am watching the page, so they aren't really necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 13:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 13:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 13:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 13:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you!

Newyorkbrad - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent block of User:Barney the overweight dinosaur

He is abusing the unblock request- you may want to revoke talk page access. Thanks,  – Tommy^2010!_message 02:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts with defending Barney and his rights when it comes to defamatory material describing him on Wikipedia, but because Barney is imaginary, I believe that it would be rather difficult to attack the result of several children's creative minds put to work while they play in the schoolyard. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To Tommy2010: thanks; it looks like another administrator already addressed this. To SuperHamster: thanks; I guess I hadn't thought of that! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait. You blocked Barney???  ;-) I've blocked the other socks now. Risker (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

lol  – Tommy^2010!_message 02:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's great :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about my topic ban

Again when does it expire? Justin talk 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Three months from the date the case closed, which was May 11th, so that would be August 11, 2010. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

plz email me

making this request as per your comment here (but unable to find an email link for you)<br. />—NBahn (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The "e-mail this user" feature on the left side of the page should work fine, or you can find my e-mail on the list of ArbCom members at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Newyorkbrad,
I have a Child Protection issue to bring to your attention. I have already taken steps, but perhaps more is required? A talkback on my page or you may act immediately witout discussion as you see fit. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to leave link but wanted to be sure you were online. HJ_Mitchell isnt here either at the moment.^\Contribs 13:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I will deal with this today. For future reference, it's best to follow the instructions at WP:OVERSIGHT in these situations, as that will draw the attention of a number of qualified people. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I will take a look at the relevent page. Many thanks! Regards, --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 14:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Norton-RichardArthur 1958 1966b.jpg closure

Thank you so much, Brad, for your calm, considered reasoning and your sensitivity to the effect all of this must be having on the uploader. As always, your efforts to ensure Wikipedia remains a collegial environment are much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope that others following the discussion have the same reaction. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my thanks as well, which I have also formally noted in the ANI discussion. Your closing rationale addressed any reasonable concern that could be raised over the copyright status of the image, ending the debate in a way that I believe no one could fault. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brad. I agree with RexxS and EdChem that the closing rationale you provided was excellent and I see it as an example of legal professionalism. Your efforts will assist in converting unregulated inquisitorial tactics to more predictable and editor-friendly audit events. As RexxS already mentioned collegiality can only benefit from your reasoned actions. Thank you very much. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You have email

Hi, you have an email about rather a difficult subject. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And you have an email from me about what's probably also a rather difficult subject. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to both of these very different "difficult" e-mails. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How to improve Wikipedia?

I saw your comments where you wrote

I would actually not object if every FA were move-protected, as the chances that any of them would need to be moved without a discussion and a requested move are very slight. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, there are only three kinds of editors (with a few exceptions, like Jimbo Wales, arbitrators, etc.) and those are administrators, editors, and socks. Often, the sock battle starts when the edits are bad and they try to link two usernames with the same type of bad edits. Sometimes, the link is clear cut but sometimes it is a figment of their imagination.

Too bad, there isn't a competition to be a special kind of good editor. So the fight would be whether one is a good editor or an ordinary editor.

This move protected issue, to me, is what a bad editor would do. Since there is nothing that can be done to bad editors, the only thing left is to use the sock or vandalism excuse. I am not saying that sockpuppetry and vandalism don't exist (they do) but often the issue is bad editing, to which there is no regulatory control. Barnstars don't work because I've seen jokesters with many barnstars and great editors with few or none.

If someone were to suggest a category of senior editor, there would be much protest, especially from the people who would not qualify, to the point that it would never pass. Yet in real life, good writers excel over bad writers (think Tom Clancy/Michael Crichton/Chaim Potok/Pablo Nerado). To me a senior editor edits well and has the highest civility and best level of judgment. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

See also

my talk page - here. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for pointing out the change that I hadn't noticed. I think Anthony's restoration is good (although the wikilink wasn't awful), though it may be a problem having it in to places now. Verbal chat 15:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gawd Verbal. Will you ever give up? Of course the wikilink was hopeless. It was what caused this whole waste of time. I was using the term innocently, but the full guideline rules out even innocent usage. Your template wikilinked to a section that simply said "don't make LTs or stuff that could reasonably be construed as such. That didn't apply to me because no reasonable person (and many have looked at it) would construe what I said as a threat. So of course you and Sarek looked, like a couple of idiots. Jeez.

Clearly, neither of you had looked at NLT for six months, so you were thinking I had read that I shouldn't even use the word innocently, but was deliberately flouting the guideline. Next time, type a few words. It's friendlier and you'll know what you're doing. Do I have to follow you around, mopping up this kind of stuff?

Sorry NYB. Thanks again. Anthony (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your comments. I am glad the note I left was helpful in addressing and maybe resolving an issue.

By way of background, the wording in question came from a principle I drafted in an arbitration case, precisely because this situation (disagreement over whether calling an edit "defamatory" or "libellous" is an implied legal threat or just a description) has come up several times before. The arbitrators spend a fair amount of time drafting and polishing the wording of the "principles" section in each decision, even though many of the parties to a case probably skip over it and are most interested in who got sanctioned and how. When I draft principles, I do hope that they will help editors in approaching other situations beyond the one at issue in the existing case. Thus, even though the Arbitration Committee has no authority to write policy or guidelines, nor to establish "precedents" binding on editors outside the case or topic area in question, I think it is helpful when editors who focus on policy pages review our decisions and consider whether any of the principles in them should be worked into the relevant policies, when they are not already embedded in them. I am glad that in this instance, wording we wrote in a case was useful in a wider context. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a clarification, although the wikilink wasn't "awful" the text did need clarification, and I think Anthony's edit does this and was one possible solution. Verbal chat 09:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

for pointing out the difference between WP:NLT#Perceived_legal_threats and WP:HARRASS#Perceived_legal_threats. That explained everything. Sarek was thinking "He's read the guideline about not using "libel" even innocently, why does he keep doing it?" and I was thinking "That guideline doesn't apply to me because I'm clearly not implying a threat." We each looked like a belligerent moron to the other. I've restored the November version for now. Anthony (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. See reply two threads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme

Can you take a look at the talk page of this editor. The ArbCom request for amendment concerning him has been sitting around for a while, and he appears to be doing the same thing you warned him about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of this matter and keeping an eye on it, as are a couple of the other arbitrators. Please feel free to post a comment in the discussion on the arbitration page so that all the arbs will be aware of your concern. I was hoping that this situation would resolve itself without formal action, but unfortunately, perhaps it will not work out that way. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Judges

NYB: Are you aware of any sources for PD images of Judges John Woolsey or Augustus N. Hand? Kablammo (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can think of, but I will check through some of my books and see if there is anything there. You might also see if you can find any pre-1923 newspaper photographs of them, which would be out of copyright by now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

General comment

There is an interesting series of posts by David Thompson this week on The Volokh Conspiracy, dealing with issues such as how the Internet can affects people's privacy and reputations, the effects of Google and other search engines, and whether the Section 230 immunity statute should be modified. A link to all these posts (from newest to oldest, so start at the bottom) can be found here. Thompson is credited in the posts as the author of the new book Wild West 2.0, which I have not yet seen, and as the General Counsel of ReputationDefender.

These posts do not focus directly on Wikipedia, but they raise some issues that are also of great relevance to this project, and which I have discussed myself both on-wiki and elsewhere (see links on my talkpage). I do not agree with everything that Mr. Thompson has to say, particularly as to remedies, but his is a thoughtful voice, and both Wikipedians and Wikipedia critics should consider what he has to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SQL

Can you take a look at User talk:SQL? Another case of admin retirement + deleted talk page + lingering admin bit. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please undelete it while you're at it - or otherwise rewrite the policies to reflect the new "admins can have their talk pages speedied when they feel like it" reality? DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In the prior situation to which DuncanHill is alluding, there were unusual and sensitive circumstances brought to my attention as an arbitrator, which led me to request that the talkpage stay deleted, and also led me to follow up by requesting that the user resign adminship. In this case, by contrast, I am not familiar with User:SQL at all, but I will ask around and look into the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just making sure this does not get archived before it is resolved. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Having looked into this situation briefly, I do not see any urgent issue requiring attention. Having an inactive administrator with a deleted talkpage is not a particularly desirable situation, and is against the general guideline that we don't usually delete talkpages. However, given that SQL he has not edited substantively in over a year, my personal view is that no major harm is being caused and that there is no need to do anything. Of course, anyone is free to e-mail the user and request that he resign his adminship if he is not expecting to return to the project, but there are no problems as there were in the other situation making this imperative or time-sensitive, or suggesting that we face a threatened misuse of tools.

In any event, I don't see any issue requiring action at the ArbCom level or in which I personally intend to intervene. If you disagree and don't see the merits of dropping the matter, you are free to take any action you consider appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So how do I request undeletion? I would ask you but you don't seem to mind an admin's talk page remaining deleted contrary to policy. Do you know any admins who do like to follow policy? DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't put it that way, but if you want to pursue this matter, you could post to SQL's talkpage requesting him to undelete, and if he says no or (more likely) doesn't respond, then post to ANI. Formally, I suppose the next move would be a DRV request if you want to take things that for. This still strikes me as unnecessary given that he hasn't edited for more than a year—is there any reason the status of this talkpage actually matters from a substantive point of view?—but I recognize that the letter of the guideline probably supports your view of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't post to his talk page because he applied full-protection. I have managed to decipher the instructions at DRV and put it on there, and have emailed him to tell him this.

Because I am forbidden from seeing the deleted content it is impossible for me to say whether or not there is anything there that specifically needs to be kept - it is possible I suppose that SQL never got involved in any disputes or disagreements about anything at all, but unlikely. I don't have the faintest idea whether he was a good, bad, or indifferent admin, beyond the fact that his last actions were contrary to policy. More broadly, we do need the history - you and I are both equally incapable of knowing for sure that it will not be needed in the future. DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop for YEARS. Blanking and protection is acceptable by me, I honestly did not check if just deleting and protecting would be kosher or not, and I should have. I've restored the page myself. Apologies for the drama bomb. SQL^{Query me!} 04:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SQL. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is an unexpectedly friendly resolution, SQL. Um, any chance you'd be interested in doing some editing and administrating, since you're here now? :) Hope all is well with you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some time in the future, I'm way too busy with work at this time. Additionally, the lack AGF from Duncan above, and in the DRV, kind of reminds me why I left in the first place. Honestly, I don't like working in the kind of atmosphere that sort of attitude creates. Much less volunteering.

I do appreciate the thought however, and will look you up if/when I come back. SQL^{Query me!} 04:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A nice reward for you

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for your lolful block message here. When i saw that, you made my day, and it made it on my wall of funny things (In my bedroom) Pilif12p :  Yo  19:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I like to produce a smile at least once in awhile. May I ask how you happened to notice that message, which was on a fairly obscure page—maybe it was from seeing the thread a little higher on this page, I'm just curious. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It was in an IRC channel, someone posted it, and i found it quite funny. Pilif12p :  Yo  00:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agency photo copyrights

Thanks for your insightful comments at AN/I. Your comments are spot on, particularly what you said about our unauthorised use of commercial photography being considered competitive. I've been discussing this off-wiki with Mike Godwin, who agrees that "there may well be good policy reasons for developing a special speedy-delete category of the sort you describe" (at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Additional category F12: news agency photographs). FYI, it's an issue that I'm particularly aware of because I've worked as a photo buyer, so I'm very conscious of the sensitivities (and penalties!) of using unlicensed commercial photography. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented on the CSD talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment

I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, but I just felt like mentioning something that's crossed my mind recently. If I'm not mistaken, I believe you have six months remaining on the Arbitration Committee. It's hard for me to think that the ArbCom has changed so much since when I first learned about it, but as far as I can remember, you're the only Arb who's been steadily active the whole time I've been aware of the committee. I think you've done a really great job (if you don't mind me saying) — I'm always pleased to see somebody who considers the feelings and perspectives of all sides before making a decision (not that the same can't be said for the other arbitrators or that having an opposing opinion is necessarily a bad thing). If you've ever mulled over the idea of running for re-election in the upcoming December Elections (which of course, I will not pressure you into doing because I feel it is entirely your choice as to whether you think you've served your time), then I can almost assure that you would very likely have my support. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your note and the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Brad,

have you taken offense[1] to Radek's off-wiki comment from January? I've observed Arbcom cases long enough to know that the Arbitration Committee generally cuts some slack and ignores adverse comments by sanctioned people on the conclusion of cases, as it's understood to be a normal human reaction and allowance is made for that. It is not like Radek made the comment last week, but almost six months ago when the case was concluded. Radek has done a lot of good work since then. Given that Giano routinely expresses his opinion of the Committee, I'm surprised that this one-off comment made several months ago on an external site is even an issue at all. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have mentioned it except that it was quoted in one of the statements on the request for amendment, a couple of inches above my comment. I wasn't really offended—if I got offended every time someone said something negative about the Arbitration Committee in general, or me in particular, I wouldn't be very much use in this job—and more generally, I've written in a number of the formal ArbCom decisions that comments on external sites do not affect one's rights on Wikipedia, except in certain unusual or extreme circumstances not present here. I think it was clear from the context that I was simply being a little bit sardonic, even as I observed that on the merits of the request, I expected to support a lifting of or modification to the sanction. And I've now finished reviewing the statements and have voted on the pending motion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change RfAr

Brad, I have a question about the above. A couple of key names are missing from the list of parties, but I don't know what the correct procedure is for adding them. I'm thinking of KimDabelsteinPetersen and Guettarda, who along with William Connolley and Stephan Schulz are the four key climate change editors. I asked Ryan to add them as parties on May 26, [2] and Lar requested it on June 2, [3] but so far as I can tell it hasn't been done. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw your note about it not mattering whether someone is named as a party. One of the ways it can matter is that non-parties post as uninvolved editors on the Workshop page, and given that the issue of who is and isn't allowed to comment qua uninvolved has mattered so much on the probation pages, it could become an issue there too. If Kim and Guettarda were minor figures this would be a trivial concern, but they are two of the four key editors, so for them to comment anywhere as non-parties will add an odd flavour to the proceedings. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough ... one question as a starting point is whether they considered themselves as interested parties. Do you know if anyone's asked them? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

NYB, I'd like to suggest you make a small change to the guidelines for the Climate Change case, to head off an area of potential debate. The sentence I suggest should be changed is: Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. The phrases "uninvolved administrator" and "any participant in this case" are dangerous, in my opinion. As you will be aware from the discussion around Lar, the concept of "uninvolved" is going to be raised as an issue in the case. In your guideline, is uninvolved meant to mean uninvolved in cllimate change disputes, uninvolved as a climate change editor, uninvolved by dint of not having commented or been mentioned on the case pages, uninvolved in the sense of WP:UNINVOLVED, uninvolved in the sense of the general climate change sanctions regime, or uninvolved within the opinion of the administrator issuing the sanction? Frankly, I suggest that handing discretion for sanctions relating to on-case-page behaviour beyond ArbCom members and Clerks is asking for trouble. I recognise that your intent is to help mantain decorum in a case that could easily degenerate into a free-for-all; if you are going to go down this path, I hope you will modify the statement to tie down the meaning of "uninvolved" in this context. Also, the way the guidelines are written, "participants" could be taken to mean those who list sub-isues, provide evidence, and offer workshop proposals - but then editors offering other comments / observations would arguably not be subject to the jurisdiction of "uninvolved administrators". As SV's comments above also indicate, these kinds of issues have been problematic in the on-wiki climate change debates. EdChem (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The case is scheduled to open shortly before the beginning of the pending changes trial (June 14-15), it is an unfortunate coincidence because the trial will need massive community participation and still requires considerable preparation, while this case will involve many editors and some time constraints have been given in the procedural guidelines. Could not the opening of the case be postponed from a week or so, so that it's a few days after the beginning of the trial ? Cenarium (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just been notified that I'm a named party in the Arbitration. Since my editing in the area amounts to a dozen or so edits this year (rarely – if at all? – to articles), and my administrative actions involve one block of an obvious disruptive sockpuppet, I don't believe that I have any reason to participate in what will, unfortunately, be a massive waste of time.

You'll understand my frustration given the singular timidity with which ArbCom handled the obviously unconstructive behavior of GoRight and Abd during the Abd/WMC arbitration. While I have a great deal of respect for you personally, Newyorkbrad, my last experience with the ArbCom highlighted the Committee's remarkable incompetence, ineptitude, and sloppiness in handling what should have been a very straightforward matter. It's not worth my effort or my limited time to participate in a new exercise in futility involving many of the same players and their friends.

Please remove me from the list of 'involved' parties. If someone (vexatiously) suggests that I need to be sanctioned, I will submit evidence or rebuttal as necessary; I will expect explicit notification because I will not be watching the Arbitration's subpages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be named as a party either, I have just made a few comments on three enforcement requests as uninvolved admin, and I have other things to do than being dragged in a RFAR. But Newyorkbrad instructed not to list any party, so it is probably a clerk mistake.

The case has been opened so my request is moot, I do hope it's not going to adversely affect the PC trial. Cenarium (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Small comment: It's a bit late for all the distributed copies, but would you mind updating the permanent ones on the case pages? My first name is spelled with an 'a' and my last name has no 't'. USians in general seem to be genetically or culturally incapable of spelling both right at the same time. I don't mind to much, but in this case the name refers to the Stephan Schulz & Lar request, where the name was (for a change ;-) spelled right. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been travelling and mostly offline for a couple of days, so my apologies for my delay in responding to all of the above. Some belated thoughts:

• To EdChem: We may use our decision in this case to clarify the definition of "uninvolved administrator" for enforcement purposes, so I fear it would be premature for us to address a changed definition in the context of the opening instructions for the case itself. My hope is that during the period the case is pending, good judgment will be used by all concerned, and this will not be a ground of contention, at least on an interim basis.
• To Cenarium: I don't think it would have been a good idea to delay opening the case, but if editors active in the case are also active on issues relating to the pending-changes trial and need a short amount of additional time to present evidence as a result, I would be prepared to consider that.
• To TenOfAllTrades: Thanks for your note, but no comment, I think.
• To Stephan Schulz: My apologies for the spelling mistakes.
  • Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My purpose in asking to be removed from the list of 'involved' parties is that I do not wish to be (and see no reason to be) required to closely monitor the progression of what promises to be a long and miserable arbitration process. I wish to receive notification (from a clerk or other individual, as would be received by any other uninvolved party who gets dragged into this mess after the fact) if a matter is raised which directly touches on me and requires my input. I don't want to be forced to sift through hundreds of pages of evidence, testimony, bickering, and slander to check for attacks on me.

If you cannot consider this request on your own, then feel free to raise it with your fellow arbitrators. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The "no comment" was more in response to your observations about a prior case. I'll be glad to make sure that you're notified if your name becomes embroiled in this one. (I would have welcomes your participation on the evidence or workshop pages of this case, but that's up to you.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on a cursory examination of what's taken place so far, I doubt that I could stomach participation. Count Iblis wants to bring back GoRight to help disrupt the proceedings. TheGoodLocust has offered a silly theory that Hipocrite is William Connolley's sockpuppet. ZuluPapa's claims are generally...poorly grounded. I have strong concerns that the ArbCom will go for the 'low-hanging fruit' here, and attempt to punish perceived incivility (the symptom) as an obvious and easily-identified target, rather than dealing with the messy underlying problem: vexatious mock-civil POV pushing to overrrepresent a minority, non-scientific viewpoint and suppress scientific consensus. (I predict that at least some portion of the Committee is likely to declare that they cannot address such issues, as so-called 'content' disputes are beyond their remit, making meaningful remedies impossible to pass.) The outcome will be remedies which disproportionately punish the more-experienced, better-qualified, but also more frustrated subject-matter-expert editors who have been subject to constant abuse and seige for, quite literally, years — and who are understandably a bit short with the constant influx of inexperienced, unscientific (and anti-scientist), blog-driven pseudoskeptics. I appreciate your invitation, and I have a great deal of respect for you, personally. I wish you the best of luck in the coming months. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• You didn't answer why I am listed an an involved editor while there is no basis whatsoever ? Cenarium (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't evaluated who is or isn't involved yet because we don't have the evidence in, although I do understand the reason for your question. This is why I wrote procedures that tried to eliminate the whole concept of prejudging who is or is not "involved" or "a party" before we see any evidence, which in a complex case I have learned from experience can be a huge diversion from the merits of the case. If your involvement in the underlying dispute is limited to ordinary administrator work, you will not be part of the decision, and it is unlikely that you will come up much in the evidence or workshop proposals. Beyond that, you might want to ask the person who initially listed you why he did so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm surprised at how little evidence has been presented so far. Can someone explain why? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Gathering evidence is hard work. Arguing is easier. Actually, in a way, that's sort of meta-evidence of the underlying problem: people argue their own pre-existing beliefs, and the arguments rapidly drift away from any anchorage in actual source material. And the 5% of the time that people stoop to looking at sources, you get enlightened discussions liked "Retired-gate", showing that no dispute is too picayune to get emotionally invested in. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting to present evidence until we have the list of questions ruled on... Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mastcell-must be a different approach, when I'm building a case I collect evidence as it happens, not after I need it. @Hipo-what list of questions? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the intelligent way to do it, but it requires much more emotional distance as it's happening, I think. If something is happening where I think I should be collecting evidence, I'm usually to upset to have the patience to do it. Of course, it is the perfect time to do it, while the events are fresh in your mind and the connections are clear. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The moment you give a deadline, you create an occasion to procrastinate. At the very least, I'm guessing, a quarter of the evidence will come in during the last 48 hours. If you had announced no deadline, editors would be scrambling to get their evidence in earlier. Of course, I can see better reasons to have a deadline, but you might get the benefit of both situations if you announce that you'll be announcing a deadline, then a little later announce the same deadline you were planning on all along. I dunno, might not work. It might not be fair to announce a deadline anything less than 10 days in advance or so. Just a thought. This may also be a relatively quiet time around Wikipedia (I wonder if statistics would back that up), with people perhaps occupied with the transition into summer (at least in the U.S.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Whenever I organize a conference session, >>90% of the abstracts are submitted within 24 hours of the deadline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

....unless I give a deadline extension ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Prince von ...

Hi for that redirect, if the article mentions it then the redirect may as well exist, but if the article has that "information" removed then I am happy for the redirect to be deleted. It is something that can be resolved on the talk page without a RFD. I would vote to delete, just not a speedy delete if it is in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Swamilive Socks

Per this indef blocked and banned User:Swamilive has come back with a sock, User:Scottish Coke. There have been others, not sure on the names, just know it was mentioned. Could you do a rangeblock and shut Swamilive down? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_10#People_probably_attending_a_2:30_Air-Space_Museum_pre-dinner_tour

Check out the new things that the Smithsonian is offering us! Sadads (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You are famous

Hi, I just read Shun-Ling Chen, Self-Governing Online Communities, 20.2 Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology 421, 426-427 (2010), available widely. Very interesting story about you. By the way, I was one of the founding editors 20 years ago. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. You have piqued my interest, but I have not yet been able to read the article: that issue isn't posted yet on the journal's website, nor is it yet on Westlaw, nor does the hard-copy seemed to have arrived at the libraries here yet. I'll keep my open, or if you can e-mail me a scan, that would be great, too. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Waldorf-Astoria Hotel

Brad, would you mind popping into the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel this afternoon and taking a photograph of the Basildon Room for me. It was stolen (well sort of) from a house that's the subject of my new page and I need a photo. A person such as yourself will not be noticed there, just buy a drink, and when no one is looking, snap it with your phone. If you are not brave enough to do that (I do it all the time) take Jimbo for lunch or something and while he diverts attention (use you imagination), you just snap it fast. Thank you.  Giacomo  11:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

PS:For identification purposes: Here it is ghastly chandalier, but I expect you Americans added that.  Giacomo  11:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I take and upload photographs about as often as I have my appendix out, and in any event I am busy with something else this afternoon. Perhaps one of my New York area TPWs can assist? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Impressive efficiency, but ... ?

[4] You're actually rejecting an arbitration request without even knowing what it is? And someone else is supporting you in that? Wow. I can see the reasoning, but it's a slippery slope. For even greater efficiency, how about rejecting the next request before it's been filed? We can program a bot to automatically trigger when someone tries to fill out the form. "Sorry, statistics show that most arbitration requests are not worthy of acceptance, so to lighten the load on the arbcom, who are, after all, unpaid volunteers, we are rejecting the next five requests. Yours was number three, there will be two more before any are considered. Thank you, and have a good day." :-) --GRuban (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To respond to the serious part of your post, I did not "reject" the request but simply steered the filing party to what I thought would be a much more productive path of potential dispute resolution. You are right that I would normally wait for the entire request to be posted before commenting on it. However, based on my experiences on the Requests for arbitration page for the past four years, I can tell that when an almost-brand-new editor (username still a redlink) posts an empty arbitration template on the requests page, it is usually a kindness for someone to advise him that arbitration is the last, not the first, step in dispute resolution. It often takes a couple of hours for a new user (or even an experienced user) to write up a request for an arbitration case, and it struck me as a shame for a new user to spend his time in that fashion, and await an inevitable decline, rather than potentially pursue a dispute-resolution path that could lead to a better resolution. Moreover, in reviewing the user's contribution history, it was obvious that there was no prior dispute-resolution attempted here, on the only pair of articles on which the user had edited and on which he could have had any dispute. In these unusual circumstances, I thought the approach I took was a proper one. Thanks for sharing your concern about the appearance of the matter, however, which I will bear in mind for the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that. Arbitrator properly applies WP:IAR. Carry on. --GRuban (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry

What would you think of deleting the page, and restoring only your edit and those afterwards? That way, until he returns, his affiliations won't even be in this history? Courcelles (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems under the circumstances extremely reasonable, oversight the private data. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No objection to Courcelles' suggestion. I don't believe oversight is necessary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Need help with another policy violator

Hi. I'm having some difficulty with an editor exhibiting behavior similar to Asgardian. Although his behavior doesn't extend to nearly the level/depth of Asgardian's, the individual behaviors (article ownership, refusal to talk on the talk page, fabricating false accusations and then refusing to provide evidence when asked, distortion and dismissal of others' words and statements, and outright contempt for basic polices) are the same. I don't believe a ban is necessary, but rather, having someone politely inform him that his behavior is unacceptable, would suffice. I just wasn't sure where to make the case. I'm loathe to start a formal ArbCom case on it, but I don't want to go to the Admin Noticeboard either, since I've repeatedly observed in the past that the people there are ineffectual. If I outline the case on the talk page of the disputed article in question, and then invite members of the ArbCom to participate, would that be okay? Please let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally, arbitrators as a group do not get involved in dealing with these types of disputes, because then we wouldn't be impartial and couldn't hear the case if it got to arbitration. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences at ANI (which is where I started helping to resolve issues long before I was even an administrator), but in general that is the best place to take this sort of concern. An alternative is to speak with an administrator who is active in the subject-matter area in question, whether that is Wikiproject Comics or something else. If no one else can help, I will see what I can do, but hopefully you will be able to resolve this early. Good luck and best regards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a Hudson County, New Jersey-related thing. The Union City, New Jersey article, to be specific. Nightscream (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Fhfbjkjkfv

Could you change the block to account creation prohibited, since they're already socking before even having been blocked? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is a block with account creation prohibited. That's the default unless we uncheck it, which I didn't. I blocked the other account also. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. The block log notice used to specifically say account creation prohibited. I guess it doesn't do that any more. Thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I just sent you an email

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Received and replied (earlier; just noting here for posterity). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ken Keltner

That would be quite nice to have; let me know if you know which work it is. I have the abstract and the book which he discusses the keltner list in; I don't think either of them are what you're referring to though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is definitely significant discussion in Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame (originally published as The Politics of Glory); I think that may be the main place it's discussed, though it might have originated in one of the volumes of his annual Abstracts (1983-88) or The Baseball Book (1990-92). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)