User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK

In a reply to another editor, I also addressed your objections to a proposed DYK.[1] Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. My opinion is still as I expressed it, though of course that doesn't mean that my opinion can't be outweighed by others (I'm flattered by the person who suggested that since I opposed something, it couldn't be done, but that's not the wikiworld we live in or would want to). I agree with you that there are other DYK hooks that in the past should also have been avoided; in general, BLPs that primarily reflect negatively on their borderline-notable subjects, even assuming they should exist at all, are poor suggestions for the main page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree entirely with your formulation, and hope the DYK folks will do something with it. But now there is no such policy exists, and practice seems to be that (1) negative hooks about non-Wikipedians are allowed; (2) positive hooks about Wikipedians are allowed, as on Feb 21 of this year, but (3) negative hooks about Wikipedians are objectionable. Kablammo (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Could I ask you to add {{subst:DYKno}} next to your review, as is conventional for DYK reviews? Prioryman (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
To be clear Brad, are you opposed to the article appearing on the main page at all or just opposed to specific hooks?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, I just noticed this question. If it's still helpful, the answer is that I'm not a fan of including this sort of introspective article on the mainpage in any event, but I was particularly upset with some of the hooks that had been proposed early in the discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Help from a TPS needed

Why is what I thought I had coded as a hidden comment on Nero Award showing up in the visible test? I've probably made an obvious typo in the coding, but I'm not figuring out what it is. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare. I stared at that page for several minutes and couldn't figure out what the typo was, though of course it's obvious now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh heavens ...

I literally did LOL. I honestly do know how busy life can get, especially with the line of work you're in in real life. Add on top of that all the email and arb stuff? ... good grief, I wouldn't want to deal with all that for all the rice in China. I can't even keep up in my own little corner of wp. OK, I admit I can get a bit down when you or Risker don't respond to an email or a talkpage post ... but seriously .. I do understand. Thanks Brad. That was more appreciated than you can know. — Ched :  ?  21:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm glad I made you smile. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your comments the other day.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good to see you editing again. I saw your comments on Kafziel's page again, so I guess everything is good at the moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

hey can you check this page its important.

please check relations of am not new with child star.

listion the ip of child star is 182.188.190.59 taken from its investigation page and my ip is 119.154.4.48.there is absolute no relation between range.the only relation which is visible is relation between location internet service provider and location.and it is because there is only one ISP in Pakistan that is PTCL.i request another clerks to please check my relation again.Dil e Muslim talk 06:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

please i request you to see "am not new" and child star relation once again.please its importantDil e Muslim talk 14:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about how to interpret South Asian IP information. Perhaps a checkuser with experience in that geographical area could look into this? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Update on Help pick Newyorkbrad's FA project ?

Any updates on this? :) — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Soon. :) Thanks for the prod. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, May 11!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 23:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't make this one, but please keep me on the notification list. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:25, 8 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Received; will respond tonight or tomorrow (I've been away for the weekend). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Received; will respond tonight or tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in before is back for a second round

List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement is nominated for deletion again. I'm contacting all of those who participated in the first AFD discussion. Dream Focus 02:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I've commented at the AfD. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

will you please check"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MezzoMezzo"

will you please check this pageits important.Ghulam Mehar Ali (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I am not following the discussion on that page in the least. I will have to defer on this investigation to those with more background and/or technical knowledge. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, Brad, I thoughtlessly and automatically corrected a little typo in the article just after I'd invited you to go ahead. If you get an edit conflict from that, please just save your changes over mine, because it was nothing. I'll leave it alone now, I promise. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC).

I've poked at it a little bit now, and will try to do a bit more substantive editing during the week. I must say that this is quite a trove of information we are assembling, given how off-base my original query turned out to be. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, thanks for the copyedit. I don't know if you saw that The Duke of Waltham gave me a critical lift with a link to the online version of the modern ODNB?[2] Bishonen | talk 11:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC).

Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

DC WikiSalon on May 24

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of May 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 18:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I can attend that night, but I'll let you know. In any event, I hope that your Wiki Salon is a better time for the project than this Salon today is likely to be. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

typo?

I had thought it was a very cogent remark on your part ("sane") when I read it. Collect (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a good argument that your versions are saner. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Project Qworty

Hi there. You've been in discussions on my talk page regarding Qworty, so might wish to contribute ideas, etc., to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NaymanNoland (section: "Project Qworty"). If you haven't read today's Salon article addressing this disaster, it's here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ NaymanNoland (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Salon article (see a couple of sections up). I've been following this situation for the past several weeks and have addressed a few recent aspects of it, though without knolwedge of the big picture. I don't know that creating "Project Qworty" is the best way of looking at the problem, but it's obvious the situation is a mess. I am certainly glad that I was able to intervene at the time you were blocked for helping to deal with this individual. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Brad, just wondering if there's any discussions taking place within the Arbitration Committee with regards to sorting out the entire Bob Young situation - I'm not sure if you're aware, but there has been a deletion discussion with questionable administrator conduct in the mix, [3], and stemming partially from the AfD, there's already an almighty fall out at User_talk:NaymanNoland#Project_Qworty.3F. People are also questioning what will be done to Bob Young/Qworty's account. Is the Arbitration Committee going to look into the reasons behind the edits Qworty made, to see if they're part of an ongoing feud with others, and to take action accordingly, even if it's just to set some sort of precedent in cases such as these, which will undoubtedly (sadly) occur again in the future. Thanks and sorry to trouble you. Nick (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, Brad. I've pretty much decided that Project Qworty, although a good (in fact necessary) step, is not a step that should be taken by me. I'm already more involved in this than I wish to be, on every level, and somebody objective should take over. I hope the conduct that Nick is referring to is not mine (as I'm questionable, but not an administrator). I do think it's crucial to note that this is not just another ordinary day on the internet, however. I'm sure spats and COIs and stuff are legion here, but this is an entirely different matter: it's huge. And it's very strange to me how few people have even noticed what's involved here: literally YEARS of vandalism and libel, aimed at some of America's most important literary figures. Barry Hannah, for instance, is not a minor writer, and - because of Qworty's revenge plot - the most-read factual source on earth falsely attributes Hannah's death to alcoholism. This isn't an everyday Wikipedia hiccup; it's an international disgrace. And the repercussions are not going to be minor. Perhaps this is good: if anything can finally reform this poisonous culture of anonymity, it will be the Qworty scandal. BLP should be protected from stalkers like Young. NaymanNoland (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixing the mess is something anybody can do, though I can understand why you, NN think that you're inappropriate. Young's problem is that he did not acknowledge that he was too emotionally close to various subjects not to have a COI in editing the articles. What I would expect from Brad and co is use of CU to identify as many socks and likely socks as possible and the restriction of Qworty to one account in the same manner that the likes of User:Fae have been so restricted with no presumed right to vanish or reincarnation as a not very clean start at all. Time will tell as to whether Young has decided that he has had enough of playing at Wikipedia now that he has been outed, or whether he continues to use a sock puppet army to pursue his petty hatreds. Then, of course, there are the systemic problems that have let Young get away with exactly what Johann Hari has done in the past.--88.108.56.146 (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC) (Remaining anon because of Young's history of pursuing his vendettas across multiple media.)

Believe me, I understand the concern about anonymity. I don't BELIEVE in anonymous editing, but this is an exception: when you're dealing with someone like Qworty, you're opening yourself up to years of obsessive revenge. I'd happily do all of this under my own name otherwise. In fact, I've considered outing myself a few times, on principle - I REALLY don't believe in anonymous editing - but I've been advised that that would be very very stupid. NaymanNoland (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous editing is a Good Thing, but it comes with certain responsibilities. Chief among those is the responsibility not to abuse anonymity to settle personal scores or promote one's own interests. Of course, the Wikipedia community is very protective of the rights that stem from anonymous editing, but largely uninterested in the attendant responsibilities. Personally, I think that the rights-without-responsibilities attitude stems from the adolescent libertarianism which defines the Wikipedia community, but that's just me.. MastCell Talk 17:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The status quo - that anybody can write anything, anonymously, about any notable living person on public pages hosted by WMF - is not a Good Thing. It is irresponsible and unethical. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I believe all BLPs should be semi-protected at all times. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a slightly more extreme view than you, but that would be a start at least. I have no idea how much legal responsibility the foundation has for any libel the current reckless policy supports, but in a just society they would be held accountable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily oppose going farther, either. It's a starting point that the community might be willing to accept. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This community's attitude to the rights of its subjects is autistic/psychopathic. If you're waiting for this community, dominated by hysterical basement-dwelling reject's to do the right thing, you'll be waiting forever. Didn't it take top-down action from Jimbo or the foundation to bring in WP:BLP? ( --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
"Because we can publish something, therefore we must publish everything." You're right, it's psychopathic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has not taken any action concerning this editor. Within the past few weeks I imposed various restrictions on him, in my individual capacity as an administrator (see also thread lower on this page). I have advised my colleagues on the Committee of my actions, but the issue is being handled at the community level. As most of you probably know, Ironholds has now indeffed Qworty for BLP violations, and there is a discussion on ANI trending in the direction of a community ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments on a couple of other aspects of the situation:

  • Someone asked me about Qworty's allegation that he had received threats against himself and his family. Several weeks ago, I asked Qworty to provide specifics about any such threats, especially if they were made by Wikipedia editors or involved use of the Wikimedia e-mail feature. He did not respond to that request.
  • When I directed Qworty yesterday to refrain from editing BLPs or making disparaging comments about living people if he were to continue or resume editing, I was aware of some but not yet all of the information that has since come to light. Thus, I have no issue if a consensus emerges in the ANI thread to impose a greater sanction than the one I imposed.
  • The first words of my directive to Qworty on his talkpage yesterday were: "Your thoughts on your userpage and above present some interesting food for thought. However, some of your comments above are extremely troubling...." Some contributors to the Wikipediocracy website have taken the first sentence grossly out of context as meaning that I endorsed everything Qworty had written, including his suggestion that spurious comments about a living person on Wikipedia have little importance because they are "only a text." Obviously I radically disagree with that assertion by Qworty, given everything I have written on this site over the years and given that I went on to direct Qworty never again to edit the biography of a living person. It should be obvious that I do not entertain the views attributed to me in that Wikipediocracy thread and I am a bit disappointed that no one there has pointed this out. (To the inevitable question why I don't post to the Wikipediocracy thread myself given that I'm registered and have posted there before, the response is that my desire to participate in that website pretty much disappeared after their recent thread comparing Wikipedia to the Westboro Baptist Church. But I do acknowledge that several contributors there, like many of the contributors here, were right to raise red flags about Qworty and in drawing attention to yesterdays Salon article, as reflected in the Easter egg higher up on this page that nobody caught.)
  • The Arbitration Committee has unanimously adopted a principle that I proposed to the effect that an editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing the biographical article on that individual. I would like to see this written into the BLP policy and enforced appropriately.
  • Whether Qworty has or recently had other accounts is being reviewed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Present BLP policy states, "Individuals involved in a significant legal – or personal – dispute with the subject of any article covered by this policy are strongly discouraged from editing such articles, and are advised to use the article talk page or an appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard if they wish to raise concerns." I believe it has done so ever since I started a discussion about the topic here a year ago. I would have liked to see this extended to talk pages as well, so that people in that situation would be advised to use a noticeboard rather than the article talk page, but that didn't find consensus. Andreas JN466 00:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. That sentence is a good start, but the language should cover professional, scholarly, literary and similar feuds as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, we could try for "Individuals involved in a significant legal, professional, scholarly, literary or personal dispute with the subject of any article covered by this policy are strongly discouraged from editing such articles, and are advised to use the article talk page or an appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard if they wish to raise concerns." As I argued a year ago, even the presence of a personal enemy on the article talk page would be alarming to any BLP subject. If you'd like to propose that at WT:BLP, I'll happily support. As far as I am concerned, it is long overdue. Andreas JN466 01:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to cogitate on the wording for a couple of days and then will propose something. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Re "an editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing the biographical article on that individual" - it seems odd to limit that to only "off-wiki" controversy or dispute; why is the venue so important, why is editing someone's article unacceptable if I have an off-wiki dispute with them but more acceptable if I have an on-wiki but otherwise identical dispute with them? 87.254.72.244 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The ArbCom cases in which I articulated the principle dealt with off-wiki disputes that editors imported into Wikipedia, which is a serious misuse of the project. I agree that Editors A and B get into an on-wiki dispute, and Editor B happens to be a notable person with a mainspace article, it would also be inappropriate for A to go and start inserting negative information into B's article to retaliate or gain an advantage in the editing dispute. The fine points of wording here can, and should, be sorted out on the BLP policy talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC) See also comments just above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: their recent thread comparing Wikipedia to the Westboro Baptist Church - Please, Brad, less of the "they" and "their", as if Wikipediocracy is some monolithic group where a post by one user is representative of the view of all of them. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate someone there doing the same thing when speaking of people in this project. Thanks. — Scott • talk 14:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that and of the role that Wikipediocracy (and its predecessor, the now-moribund Wikipedia Review) play in providing a forum for discussing this project. As you know, I have participated as a contributor to both sites, to the sometime disdain of my colleagues here; I have written arbitration decisions recognizing the right of Wikipedians to participate on such sites, without facing sanctions here for that participation except in narrow and extreme circumstances; and I have overtly credited those sites on-wiki when I have taken editorial or administrator actions based on problems (including BLP violations) identified on them. And I try not protest, at least not too much, when a handful (not the majority) of Wikipediocracy contributors engage in what could reasonably be described as BLP violations about me. By protesting the tasteless Westboro analogy, in an aside (hence the small type), I didn't mean to suggest that it sums up everything Wikipediocracy has to offer. Perhaps this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia concept of BLP violations doesn't apply to a discussion forum. We are not an encyclopedia. A fairer comparison would be Wikipedia's IRC channels, where Wikipedians shoot their mouths off with gay abandon every day (not to mention the talk pages of Wikipedia itself). Having said that, I did not find that critique of your comments to Qworty on our forum compelling. I read them as your being as courteous as possible under the circumstances. Andreas JN466 07:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

email

It's been a few years, but I sent you another one. Just curious - nothing of any import. — Ched :  ?  05:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Received and responded. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What authority re Qworty?

Hi Brad. I saw the message you left retricting Qworty from BLP edits, but unfortunately you didn't make clear what authority you were acting under. Were you acting as (1) an individual admin taking an action you personally see as necessary, (2) an individual admin expressing the consensus of the community, (3) an individual arb taking an action you see as necessary, (4) an arb expressing the consensus of ArbCom, (5) ??? To clarify, I agree that the action was necessary, but I am troubled that you didn't explain why you have the power to do it, especially considering how careful you are most of the time. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad left the notice at User talk:Qworty#BLP restriction. It seems that Brad might consider logging this at WP:BLPSE, if that is the authority he was relying on. At the moment there is also a thread at WP:ANI#User:Qworty proposing a site ban of Qworty. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I intended the action as a Special BLP enforcement action taken on my individual authority as an administrator (not as an arbitrator). This would have been clear to Qworty, as I had explained BLP special enforcement to Qworty when I told him to step ending Amanda Filipacchi and related articles at the end of April, but I guess the context is not clear to everyone now because Qworty removed the prior threads from his talkpage when he posted his note yesterday. Since you are not the only person who asked this question, I would go back now and clarify the basis for my action and log it, but it doesn't seem necessary to do that at this point since my restriction has been superseded, given that Ironholds has blocked Qworty indefinitely and there seems to be a consensus emerging on ANI for a community ban. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
No, no, no, it doesn't work that way. While you may not be functioning as an arbitrator you always are an arbitrator so you get "extra special scrutiny" above and beyond what rank and file admins get. Best to be really clear as to the context of your actions. I've annotated the editor talk page and editing restrictions. NE Ent 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the "extra scrutiny" is sometimes a bit sporadic, but thank you for helping with the paperwork, so to speak. More comments on this situation a couple of threads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a good move to shut him down, but you fucked up on the authority and should just be candid and admit it. (Kinda reminds me when you messed up in the Cla/Kevin case with a motion that didn't meet the nitpicky legal number rules and didn't admit it.)

BTW, are admins even allowed to make topic bans on their own? That BLPSE board sure seems to talk about rulings coming from the overall committee or an ANI "community" sanction. Can every other admin start making topic bans now all over the place?

In any case, communicate it as such...you should know better. There is a tendency for Arbs to try to act like super admins (taking some individual powers when there has been no actual vote). I think the whole elder statesman of Wiki has gone to your head a bit (too many trips to negotiate with the WMF and nice mentions by Sue). Write an article...I don't trust people who puff themselves up as defender of the Wiki and don't write.TCO (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge NYB has never travelled to the office to 'negotiate with the WMF'. I don't think he's ever defined himself as a 'defender of the Wiki'; while I don't always agree with Brad, he's certainly taken the right action in this case - The ruling on BLP enforcement quite clearly states "Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary. This does not preclude the use of emergency measures where necessary, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures at their own discretion."
That would appear to cover it. If you have issues with the action, make an appeal - but it's quite clear that Brad's actions were acceptable actions from any admin. His status as an arbitrator may mean that his actions fall, informally, under extra scrutiny, but is not a factor in whether he can take the action he took. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
TCO, those entrusted with the keys to Heaven and Hell have duties to perform, e.g. like on my talk page administering the rite of extreme unction. A bit more perspective.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks IH. I guess, fark, you have the details of the Wiki-law on your side. I didn't realize the Arbcom had made a special policy for all of BLPs on all of Wiki within a case on...eh...footnotes. And that BLPSE board didn't explain it. I guess I'm not that good at the Wiki legalities. Brad should still have communicated that he was acting as an admin. He DOES have a tendancy to act like he is some special crown prince.TCO (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
NYB said explicitly above "I intended the action as a Special BLP enforcement action taken on my individual authority as an administrator", and the BLPSE section linked above consists entirely of two links, one of which goes to the special enforcement rules. I totally agree Brad could probably have mentioned it earlier, but at the same time, I think you owe him an apology for jumping the gun here. Let's just agree that both sides could've acted in a more optimal manner and move on. Ironholds (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
TCO has always been a gentleman (not to mention a scholar), so I'm sure that an appropriate apology will be forthcoming. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, in my capacity as ArbCom's liaison to the Office (a position created at the Office's request and certainly not at mine), I have taken a grand total of one trip to San Francisco for a day of meetings, about a year and a half ago. This was mentioned on-wiki at the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC) I've also created about 100 articles, albeit fewer lately (three this year, I believe); I keep vowing to spend more time in mainspace, but then I get diverted to dealing with situations like this one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Brad.TCO (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem. And I really do need to get back to mainspace again. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Freudian?

Perhaps your subconscious was thinking there are only a few sane sentences in Arbitration....[4] KillerChihuahua 02:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably, and I doubt that I've written any of them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Go Phightins! 22:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

is it appropriate to talk about arbcom case?

with you being recused, and apparently enough votes for the motion to pass for suspension/closure now, i wonder if you have the time/ability to talk with me a bit more? I am eager to get input on my behavior, in part because i feel like there is still something of a cloud over my editing. I want to at least have some idea of what to look out for before moving forward. I know I have made some obvious mistakes, and tried to acknowledge them in the statement and evidence sections. What I'm looking for is issues that I'm not so aware of. Any suggestion/comment is welcome. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I haven't evaluated your editing exhaustively, but from what I have seen, the main issue with it is that you have sometimes lost your cool in dealing with Apostle12. That will no longer be an issue if he stays away from Wikipedia, and I suggest that you give him a wide berth if he decides to return. I wouldn't say you dealt with him perfectly by any means, but I understand the background, and given that such a situation is hopefully unlikely to recur, I would say that you shouldn't worry about it overly much. Just keep editing in your areas of interest, in accordance with the usual policies and guidelines, and everything should be fine.
I can't think of anything else I've wanted to suggest to you, but if I come across anything, I'll be sure to let you know.
Oh ... As a very minor and non-substantive point, I have always found your signature, with the bright red and the unusual font, to be a little bit distracting. This is just a point of personal idiosyncrasy, but you might want to simplify it a little bit. (See Wikipedia:Signature for the relevant guidelines if you are intersted.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK comment on Wikipediocracy

I appreciate what you're saying there, but it's not an AfD so a "keep" isn't the appropriate thing to post there. Could you please comment on whether you think the AfD should be reopened/relisted, as that's the issue at hand? Prioryman (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Fair enough, I'll modify the bolded !vote, although I think the intent of what I've written is pretty clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that. I think the intent is clear too, though to be honest it shades too much into WP:CRYSTAL territory for my liking. However, opinions differ and all that. Prioryman (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The sentence you're raising an issue about has a built-in disclaimer in it. Beyond that, I suggest that you post your comments on the DRV and then step away for a few days. You are one of the editors on both sides of the Wikipediocracy situation who, in my personal unsolicited opinion, would be well-advised to focus on something else for a time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Prioryman seems to be focused on bringing articles to GA and FA status... I'm shocked that he also finds time to to challenge COI editing while doing so, but I certainly don't think he should be, shall we say, "discouraged" from that. I think we should give proper respect and consideration to our expert content creators. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    What a novel idea. Certainly worth some consideration. Eric Corbett 23:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your personal unsolicited opinion, and if I may offer a suggestion of my own, as you've got an account over there it might be worthwhile suggesting to them that they lay off me in future. The constant attacks from their members (here as well as there) are somewhat tiresome. I have no particular wish to focus on them but their focus on me gives me little choice. Turning the other cheek doesn't work if someone is punching you in the face. Prioryman (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I haven't participated in Wikipediocracy in several months, though I haven't decided whether I will do so again in the future. I think my opinion is well-known that I find far too much ad hominem on the site for my taste, directed toward me and toward you and toward quite a number of other people. My influence over the tone, editorial policies, and overall approach of Wikipediocracy (or its predecessor, Wikipedia Review) is nonexistent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (after e/c) I don't think NYB would be able to help you much with that. I also don't think there's any likelihood at all of everyone there simultaneously deciding to drop their sticks, so regardless of whether it's fair or not, you'll probably have to make the first move. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And what "first move" would that be? Considering that the trolls over there subscribe to any amount of conspiracy theory bullshit about my editing (Gibraltar being a case in point), it's hard to see any way of dealing amicably with people who aren't exactly anchored in the real world to begin with. It's the same kind of mentality you see in 9/11 truthers, climate change denialists or Obama birth certificate nuts. Good luck trying to persuade any of them. Prioryman (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry about Wikipediocracy. As Newyorkbrad says, it's become far too obsessed with individuals, no better than the late and unlamented Wikipedia Review. Eric Corbett 00:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I find it amusing. This may not be a widely appreciated recommendation, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The easiest way not to get punched in the face is to not have your face within arms reach. Just don't read the site. NE Ent 00:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Webinar / edit-a-thon at the National Library of Medicine (NLM)

Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!

organized by Wiki Project Med

On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Wikipedia meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.

Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.

If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't make these dates, but good luck with the event. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Philadelphia Wiki-Picnic: Saturday, June 22

Philadelphia's Great American Wiknic at Penn Park
You are invited to the Philadelphia edition of the Great American Wiknic taking place in Penn Park, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there!--User:Ocaasi (talk)|}}
Sounds like fun, but I'll be at the Wiknic in New York that day. There's some silly law of physics I heard about once about being in two places at the same time.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

question about TPM case

An editor is requesting close of an RFC/U based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. They're not listed as an involved party and I'm thinking ya'll wouldn't want additional parties added to a two month case? I'm asking you and ST as the drafting arbitrators; would be helpful if you answered at ANI NE Ent 12:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. However, even though my name is still listed on the case, I didn't actually take the lead or do the drafting in the case; my arb time got pulled in a number of other directions. Silktork did the drafting, with some assistance recently from AGK and NuclearWarfare; so I will defer to Silktork to respond to your query, if that is okay. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anthony J. Carpinello (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to East Greenbush and JAMS
Judiciary of New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Court of Claims and Appellate Division

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguated both. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day!


AutomaticStrikeout  ?  is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

My apologies if you aren't from the US, but I assumed you are based on your username. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  16:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. Hope you have a good holiday as well. And yes, I'm in New York. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
He is Newyorkbrad... --Rschen7754 19:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Update on Help pick Newyorkbrad's FA project ?

Any updates on this? :) — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Soon. :) Thanks for the prod. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, good, because one of the articles I'd mentioned there, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate was successfully promoted to WP:FA quality. :) So that might be helpful as a resource for a future quality improvement project for Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Just a friendly FYI, — Cirt (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/May&oldid=1144396990"