![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Will this be the page that voting will be for the arbitration committee? Can't wait to see you running, by the way! Looks like AnonEMouse has already began campaigning-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at
Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the
Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite.
BrownBot
01:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I award "The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar" to Newyorkbrad for guiding me. Masterpiece2000 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi Newyorkbrad. Today I have completed one month on Wikipedia. Thank you for helping me. Your suggestions were really helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 03:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you forgotten about this article? Ruslik 12:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, I saw that the ArbCom elections were coming up and thought of you. I don't think we've spoken before, but I see your contributions in many places and am frequently struck by your eloquence and level-headedness. I was going to ask you if you'd consider running, and I'm really glad to see that you already are! I wish you the very best of luck! Glass Cobra 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Brad,
As the author of a Wikipedia article on Ostad Elahi (1895-1974), a contemporary Persian philosopher, jurist, and musician, I’d like to seek your advice on an ongoing situation involving a user who is only identified by an IP address. Since early 2007, this user has made three reversions to the article and the discussion page, without any supporting references, on the sole basis that the article should be identified under Ostad Elahi’s birth name of “Nur Ali Elahi” and not “Ostad Elahi” (incidentally, the birth name is listed in the first sentence of the article).
Each time such a reversion has occurred, I have sought to set forth the reasons why the article should be identified under the name “Ostad Elahi,” including the fact that he was referred to as Ostad Elahi both during his lifetime and posthumously, and have corroborated these reasons with numerous sources and references.
In response to the most recent reversion on October 12, 2007, I have just added a comprehensive response with references as to why the article is, and should remain, under the name of Ostad Elahi, and I have re-posted my deleted postings on the discussions page that address this same issue.
Assuming that this user decides to once again delete all of my comments on the discussion page and redirect/rename the article “Nur Ali Elahi”—which would delete all of the incorporated references in the process—what would you advise that I do?
Any guidance would be much appreciated.
Thank you, Global.wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global.wiki ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.
The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.
I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.
If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Ante lan talk 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Brad. Any chance you could refactor this comment from an logged out editor? My nationality and identity is not publicly known, for the exact reason that it tends to draw those sort of ridiculous comments. In this case its not even a correct assumption. I would remove it myself, but can't be bothered with the inevitable fall out. Thanks. Rockpocke t 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! -- Hdt83 Chat 05:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's no excuse. Before the format change, I always voted on RfAs by pressing the edit button on the Discussion header, and subsequently made a second edit to update the tally. Failure to do so is simple laziness. :-) Walton One 09:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
-- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 02:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You are hereby awarded the Blondin Trophy, otherwise the Tightrope Award, created by Bishonen for Wikipedia's Masters of Balance. The image represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
I am requesting help to fill out a formal arbitrition request in reference to 3rd US Infantry. The Request for mediation for this topic has been closed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry. - TabooTikiGod 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to get popup's set up in my monobook.js but no luck nothing showedup & i couldn't figure out where in the village pump to ask so i thought the next best thing is to ask you to help Richardson j 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Now i'm of to thank ryan himself Richardson j 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your email. Feel free to phone me when convenient to discuss things in more detail. -- Gene_poole 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"Your activities are presently under forensic review by multiple external parties, and will be dealt with via the appropriate channels in due course."
COED forensic "adjective 1 relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods to the investigation of crime. 2 of or relating to courts of law."
"Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding."
Further to the above interpolation, please note my public record comment here. AFAIC the matter is now at the point where an indefinite block should be applied to the offending account. -- Gene_poole 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you please open the case? It was supposed to be opened Friday, and the current arbitrator count is 5 accept votes, 0 recuse/reject/other. Thanks! Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Wow, you're fast! | |
I can't belive you found my hidden userpage #2! You can look back now, I've made it. MindstormsKid 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
Well, you did do both | |
Was that the Muppet show you were quoting? I might make a Hidden userpage #3! MindstormsKid 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi. I was going through RFAR rejections and found this. Isn't it a bit odd for a non-initiating named party to be removing RFARs? Granted, it was about to be rejected anyway - and now I see the user has since been indefinitely blocked - but still... — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This image is being used as a way of canvassing, on more than 20 pages. I dislike that, and am requesting that you request it be removed. You don't have to, it just might get you opposed for the ArbCom position. Dreamy § 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There have been users put on probation/blocked after the Troubles ArbCom ended, you may want to check the log of blocks/bans/probations :) SirFozzie 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you comment on justification of Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days..., please? Sincerely, - 70.18.5.219 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Brad! Bit of an esoteric request on my part, but I'm wondering if you've any experience in Irish law. I'm trying to get started on a new project writing articles about recent important court decisions, but my knowledge of the finer points of law are wanting for a bit. I'd be more than happy to do the actual article writing, but I'm a bit hesitant to actually throw something up on Wikipedia before its reviewed first by someone with more experience than I. If you do, in fact, have some experience, would you mind terribly to review the content for factual accuracy? (I could send you e-mails or put it in userspace somewhere, if it's easier that way). Thanks a lot, mate and I hope all's well with you. gaillimh Conas tá tú? 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Newyorkbrad. Today I found out that before I became a part of the Wikipedia community, there was another remarkable Wikipedian - Rama's Arrow. He wrote 11 Featured articles. That's amazing. I also noticed that he lost his adminship and left Wikipedia. Can you tell me something about him? Why did he lost adminship? Please reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
On this article Users GiovanniGiove and Ghepeu are vandalizing the article
They simply delete the entire paragraph . I remind that Giovanni_Giove has a limit afor editing per week and I believe he broke it with this. [24] [25]
Regards! -- Anto 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I am involved in another debate with David Shankbone. See this (and the following section). This was a stub article with no pro or con material. After NLC merged into AEI, David added an isolated quote from a 1990 Times article which implies that this organization has supported the activities of Dow Chemical, Amway, and Shell Oil. This is an isolated (and unelaborated) quote in a single article from 17 years ago - an article that appears to be an opinion piece (though not certain that it is). David's claims effectively doubled the length of this stub article, and I believe it is undue weight to include an isolated 17 year old claim as controversial as this, even if it is sourced to the Times. (That's not the only issue I have, but it's the main one).
I toned down the claim, but David reverted me, and we've reached an impasse on the talk page. He is now claiming I am unqualified to comment because I am not a lawyer, so I'm asking you (as a lawyer whose judgement I respect) to comment on this. I realize you are busy with your arbcom candidacy, so feel free to say no. :-) ATren 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Newyorkbrad. I'm wondering if you, as a clerk, have in mind a good example of an arbitration case with content findings aside from the Paranormal case? In that case, there were several findings of fact related to the status of different groups, objects, ideas, etc. I was looking over a handful of other arbitration cases to try to find a pattern that would help me better understand when and why the Arbitration Committee makes content decisions, and what impact those decisions are intended to have with regards to editing Wikipedia. Because I couldn't find any other cases after my cursory search, I decided I'd ask you since you'd probably seen some. Sorry to bug, and thanks for your help. Ante lan talk 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You are out of line. I want to support this user, but first, you tell me why there is a problem with my asking my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases ( talk • contribs)
Can you look at John Peter Zenger, a biography primarily about a colonial era law case in New York. We've been playing rvv with IP edits all fall. I've seen this happen because old vandalism made it into the article, so I'd like it reviewed - or it could be driven by this Conservapedia page, item #66. I'd also like you to decide as an admin whether the article should be semi-protected; I'm too close to it to do so myself. In fact, I've looked at it too many times to tell what work the article needs GRBerry ( talk) 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/ C 05:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
Now that User:Tezza1 has been banned, can I remove the vexatious (and now discredited) sock allegations from his talk page or are you or another admin able to remove it permanently? Can Tempblockeduser be used in this case? Thin Arthur ( talk) 11:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)\
Hate to bother you, but I remembered your name as one of the admins who was very helpful before in a similar matter. A user named User: The Parsnip! keeps slapping incorrect "fair use" tags on the image [Image:Varg_capbyal.JPG]. For some back story: basically this image is nonreplaceable; it's the one depiction of this time and moment in which this musician ( Varg Vikernes) was convicted for murder and arson in the early 1990s, and was so bold as to smirk during his verdict. It's a pretty notorious image, and the only available of that time, referrenced heavily on the black metal page but also his personal page as well.
The Parsnip! keeps slapping incorrect "fair use" tags on the image, claiming there's no rationale for having the picture, or otherwise usefulness in the article; completely disregarding my clearly stated explanation of why it's a worthy image, especially for new comers unfamiliar with the content. Interestingly, in one of his user page edit summaries, he's a self-proclaimed "Anglo-Christian", which is fine, I would just appreciate that this obvious bias would not infiltrate Wikipedia's quality. Please examine the situation and hopefully help to resolve this manner; he simply labels me a "fanboy" (untrue, I'm a music enthusiast in general) and disregards my discussion. Logical Defense ( talk) 17:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a contact. hkhenson@rogers.com is probably best. Keith Henson ( talk) 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I made this edit to United States Senate, now under Featured Article review here. As you can see, I sourced it to ANB, but linked to our articles, since ANB is subscription only, and thus a less useful link. First of all, is this a reasonable idea?
Sandy Georgia has now twice [26] [27] described this as "citing Wikipedia articles" on the FAR, despite my effort to explain which went so far as to spell out ANB in a later edit. I'm really tempted to say what I think of Sandy, which would not be civil.
Do you think you could have a word with her instead? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm back, although a bit tired - I see you were entirely accurate that the abscence was nothing to worry about.
I've popped several questions on the various talk pages of the arb case, and have had some useful responses, so I'm beginning to feel a bit more confident in the process, and how it works (I'd still appreciate a guiding hand if you ever feel I'm doing something wrong).
I had one quick question - I'd like to reiterate that my goal in this process is simply to be unblocked, and to be allowed to continue editing, and I'm nervous by murmurs such as at AN, directing people to discuss Guy's behaviour at my Arb case, rather than there.
Obviously if that were to be the case, then the matter may take rather a while to plow through, and I remain unable to edit in the ways I actually quite enjoy in the mean time.
I wonder if it might be possible to ask the Arb.s if I can resume editing immediately with any or all of the following caveats;
My feeling is that this is a request for 'bail' - I hope the evidence submitted so far warrants such an application.
(i'm getting embarrassed to keep reiterating how much I appreciate your help, but there you go - I do.) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 00:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks on all fronts, Brad - and per the above - please also see my talk page for specific approval from the blocking admin. - thanks, Privatemusings ( talk) 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this may need your attention: [28]. This sort of thing has no place on Wikipedia. - Jehochman Talk 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if I am right here. I expect to get blocked for arbitrary reasons very soon so I take a chance to write to you before. It's about the "Scientology case". You were the clerk there and I don't know how to go about it. Here is what happens: COFS/Shutterbug is accused of "edit warring" (which is a bogus claim, in my eyes) and gets banned from all Scn pages for another 30 days. That happened yesterday or so. I was not involved and had to find out about on my talk page. Means I was not "edit warring" or anything but spent my time on talk pages and minor edits. Below is a copy. Seems to me the ArbCom decision is taken in a way which is totally contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I disagree and that will not stop. So what can I do?
Copy of my talk page entry:
Good afternoon. I'm advising you that due to continued edit warring at Free Zone (Scientology), you are being banned from editing any Scientology-related articles for another 30 days. This ban will expire on December 13, 2007, at 0:00 UTC. Note that if you violate this ban by editing these articles, you will be blocked. Thanks, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Misou 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What's happening with this now. ST47? Newyorkbrad? Shutterbug? Mako? I'm done with turkey for today, how about you? Misou ( talk) 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Brad, you can always be relied on for a neutral and even-handed opinion - would you please offer your point of view on some of Ryulong's recent blocks? The thread is here. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to your question elsewhere - yes others responded (positively through enthusiastically). [29] Uncle uncle uncle ( talk) 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you be interested to add your balanced and well regarded point of view to the heated debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Auschwitz (& in general) lengthily protection violates policy, please? Sincerely, - 70.18.5.219 ( talk) 20:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Brad,
earlier tonight I posted a few messages to the Arb Com mailing list - I really just wanted to ask you to confirm that I did this correctly, being a bit of a mailing list fool. If you could confirm receipt it would be appreciated.
Many thanks, Privatemusings ( talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please offer a third opinion at User talk:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.#RfA. (What do you think the minimal experiance one should have for an RfA?)-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Newyorkbrad:
I understand that if a case is send to ArbCom, there is a process to decide whether to consider the case.
If a case is "allegedly" sent to ArbCom, but does not appear in the ArbCom list, is there a way to find out the status?
I have in mind the case of Whig, who on his talk page notes that he has sent you an e-mail which you "may forward to the ArbCom".
I am interested in this matter, because I have followed Whig's problems in Homeopathy. Thank you, Wanderer57 ( talk) 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Not knowing the ArbCom process but having worked in a bureaucracy, I realize that there may be a situation where you can answer my question, but cannot answer it "now".
It looks like this IP you blocked is now disrupting their talk page.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. ( talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
...and don't know quite how to react. Is this serious? Can I possibly A enough GF to deny that I'm being maliciously misrepresented as a bigot, and with no notice to my talkpage, in a forum I cannot be assumed to have read? I know it's funny, but it's also serious. Appreciate your perspective, and thank you for what insanely appears to have been a necessary clarification. sNkrSnee | t.p. 02:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've notified him. Sorry about that. It seems I was doing things backwards today for some reason. :) Mercury 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I will!
L337p4wn ( talk) 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan. :) -- Cat chi? 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I thank you kindly good sir. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your question on WP:AN/I. Thank you, Tiptoety ( talk) 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have just posted to
and given that you are an ArbCom clerk - but not on this case - I would appreciate any procedural advice you can offer. I am not sure how free the active clerk, Picaroon, is to do this. I'll drop him a note, too. Thanks, Jack Merridew 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
p.s. This took hours to put together! This alone is a great deterrent to getting anywhere near an Arbitration case. -- Jack Merridew 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, did you forward that email [from Durova concerning User:!!] to the Arbcom? I have a great deal of respect for you; if you elected not to forward it to Arbcom, I would very much like to know what your reasoning was. Risker ( talk) 04:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Check out near the top of my talk page to see what I mean : ) - jc37 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask if you could step into a little situation I have here. It's been some months since I was last on Wikipedia and some things have changed around, so I don't know where and how to report this. I have a problem with a disruptive and uncivil editor who is harassing me with links to defamatory sites. After I removed a partisan and original research external link from the links section of
Sathya Sai Baba,
Kkrystian promptly began a mini-edit war which continued even after I explained to him on his
talk page why said link was inadmissible. He continued to re-add this link but has stopped now as another editor has stepped in to seek consensus. If you ask me, there is no consensus to be sought since this issue was discussed at ArbCom and all editors agreed to leave it out do to its violation of
WP:OR,
WP:EL, and possibly more.
However, on a related article (
Sai Baba of Shirdi, Kkrystian has been removing reliably sourced information because he does not agree with it, stating that the words "violent" and "uncouth" is the author's POV and thus inadmissible. You can familiarise yourself with that discussion
here and
here. As Kkrystian has declared on his userpage that he is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba (and by extension, Shirdi Sai Baba) in his real life, there may be conflict-of-interest issues here. Either way, it seems that editors generally agree that reliably-sourced references should not be removed. Kkrystian had been engaging in an edit war over that issue and was blocked for 24-hours over 3RR by yourself
here. He refused to discuss the issue on his talk-page or on the article talk-page until after his block, preferring to explain his actions in edit summaries. But it appears that he hasn't learnt much from his 3RR block because he has begun indulging in
personal attacks on me over at
Talk:Sathya Sai Baba by way of posting URLS that happen to be defamatory against me and which include my surname in the URL title, as well as insinuating that I have ulterior motives for removing a link that is violating
WP:EL and contributes nothing to the article.
After I informed Kkrystian on his talk page that he shouldn't be indulging in personal attacks
here and that he shouldn't be revealing other people's personal information (even indirectly)
here, he simply told me to
"get lost". I even tried to refactor the discussion as per
WP:RPA#External_links and
WP:LINKLOVE
here, but I noticed just now that he has restored this link
here that is defamatory against me and which includes my surname in the URL title. He is clearly uncivil, personally attacking me in a hostile way, revealing my personal information, and
harassing me without any provocation. Do you think that this issue could be treated with a block that I think, by all accounts, is well-deserved?
I left Wikipedia for several months because of all these harassment issues and, after feeling ready to return in the last few days or so, did not think I would have to face these types of unprovoked attacks so soon. Please help out, thanks. - Ekantik talk 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Will this be the page that voting will be for the arbitration committee? Can't wait to see you running, by the way! Looks like AnonEMouse has already began campaigning-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at
Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the
Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite.
BrownBot
01:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I award "The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar" to Newyorkbrad for guiding me. Masterpiece2000 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi Newyorkbrad. Today I have completed one month on Wikipedia. Thank you for helping me. Your suggestions were really helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 03:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you forgotten about this article? Ruslik 12:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, I saw that the ArbCom elections were coming up and thought of you. I don't think we've spoken before, but I see your contributions in many places and am frequently struck by your eloquence and level-headedness. I was going to ask you if you'd consider running, and I'm really glad to see that you already are! I wish you the very best of luck! Glass Cobra 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Brad,
As the author of a Wikipedia article on Ostad Elahi (1895-1974), a contemporary Persian philosopher, jurist, and musician, I’d like to seek your advice on an ongoing situation involving a user who is only identified by an IP address. Since early 2007, this user has made three reversions to the article and the discussion page, without any supporting references, on the sole basis that the article should be identified under Ostad Elahi’s birth name of “Nur Ali Elahi” and not “Ostad Elahi” (incidentally, the birth name is listed in the first sentence of the article).
Each time such a reversion has occurred, I have sought to set forth the reasons why the article should be identified under the name “Ostad Elahi,” including the fact that he was referred to as Ostad Elahi both during his lifetime and posthumously, and have corroborated these reasons with numerous sources and references.
In response to the most recent reversion on October 12, 2007, I have just added a comprehensive response with references as to why the article is, and should remain, under the name of Ostad Elahi, and I have re-posted my deleted postings on the discussions page that address this same issue.
Assuming that this user decides to once again delete all of my comments on the discussion page and redirect/rename the article “Nur Ali Elahi”—which would delete all of the incorporated references in the process—what would you advise that I do?
Any guidance would be much appreciated.
Thank you, Global.wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global.wiki ( talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.
The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.
I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.
If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Ante lan talk 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Brad. Any chance you could refactor this comment from an logged out editor? My nationality and identity is not publicly known, for the exact reason that it tends to draw those sort of ridiculous comments. In this case its not even a correct assumption. I would remove it myself, but can't be bothered with the inevitable fall out. Thanks. Rockpocke t 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! -- Hdt83 Chat 05:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's no excuse. Before the format change, I always voted on RfAs by pressing the edit button on the Discussion header, and subsequently made a second edit to update the tally. Failure to do so is simple laziness. :-) Walton One 09:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
-- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 02:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You are hereby awarded the Blondin Trophy, otherwise the Tightrope Award, created by Bishonen for Wikipedia's Masters of Balance. The image represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
I am requesting help to fill out a formal arbitrition request in reference to 3rd US Infantry. The Request for mediation for this topic has been closed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry. - TabooTikiGod 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to get popup's set up in my monobook.js but no luck nothing showedup & i couldn't figure out where in the village pump to ask so i thought the next best thing is to ask you to help Richardson j 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Now i'm of to thank ryan himself Richardson j 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your email. Feel free to phone me when convenient to discuss things in more detail. -- Gene_poole 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"Your activities are presently under forensic review by multiple external parties, and will be dealt with via the appropriate channels in due course."
COED forensic "adjective 1 relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods to the investigation of crime. 2 of or relating to courts of law."
"Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding."
Further to the above interpolation, please note my public record comment here. AFAIC the matter is now at the point where an indefinite block should be applied to the offending account. -- Gene_poole 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you please open the case? It was supposed to be opened Friday, and the current arbitrator count is 5 accept votes, 0 recuse/reject/other. Thanks! Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Wow, you're fast! | |
I can't belive you found my hidden userpage #2! You can look back now, I've made it. MindstormsKid 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
Well, you did do both | |
Was that the Muppet show you were quoting? I might make a Hidden userpage #3! MindstormsKid 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi. I was going through RFAR rejections and found this. Isn't it a bit odd for a non-initiating named party to be removing RFARs? Granted, it was about to be rejected anyway - and now I see the user has since been indefinitely blocked - but still... — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This image is being used as a way of canvassing, on more than 20 pages. I dislike that, and am requesting that you request it be removed. You don't have to, it just might get you opposed for the ArbCom position. Dreamy § 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There have been users put on probation/blocked after the Troubles ArbCom ended, you may want to check the log of blocks/bans/probations :) SirFozzie 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you comment on justification of Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days..., please? Sincerely, - 70.18.5.219 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Brad! Bit of an esoteric request on my part, but I'm wondering if you've any experience in Irish law. I'm trying to get started on a new project writing articles about recent important court decisions, but my knowledge of the finer points of law are wanting for a bit. I'd be more than happy to do the actual article writing, but I'm a bit hesitant to actually throw something up on Wikipedia before its reviewed first by someone with more experience than I. If you do, in fact, have some experience, would you mind terribly to review the content for factual accuracy? (I could send you e-mails or put it in userspace somewhere, if it's easier that way). Thanks a lot, mate and I hope all's well with you. gaillimh Conas tá tú? 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Newyorkbrad. Today I found out that before I became a part of the Wikipedia community, there was another remarkable Wikipedian - Rama's Arrow. He wrote 11 Featured articles. That's amazing. I also noticed that he lost his adminship and left Wikipedia. Can you tell me something about him? Why did he lost adminship? Please reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
On this article Users GiovanniGiove and Ghepeu are vandalizing the article
They simply delete the entire paragraph . I remind that Giovanni_Giove has a limit afor editing per week and I believe he broke it with this. [24] [25]
Regards! -- Anto 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I am involved in another debate with David Shankbone. See this (and the following section). This was a stub article with no pro or con material. After NLC merged into AEI, David added an isolated quote from a 1990 Times article which implies that this organization has supported the activities of Dow Chemical, Amway, and Shell Oil. This is an isolated (and unelaborated) quote in a single article from 17 years ago - an article that appears to be an opinion piece (though not certain that it is). David's claims effectively doubled the length of this stub article, and I believe it is undue weight to include an isolated 17 year old claim as controversial as this, even if it is sourced to the Times. (That's not the only issue I have, but it's the main one).
I toned down the claim, but David reverted me, and we've reached an impasse on the talk page. He is now claiming I am unqualified to comment because I am not a lawyer, so I'm asking you (as a lawyer whose judgement I respect) to comment on this. I realize you are busy with your arbcom candidacy, so feel free to say no. :-) ATren 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Newyorkbrad. I'm wondering if you, as a clerk, have in mind a good example of an arbitration case with content findings aside from the Paranormal case? In that case, there were several findings of fact related to the status of different groups, objects, ideas, etc. I was looking over a handful of other arbitration cases to try to find a pattern that would help me better understand when and why the Arbitration Committee makes content decisions, and what impact those decisions are intended to have with regards to editing Wikipedia. Because I couldn't find any other cases after my cursory search, I decided I'd ask you since you'd probably seen some. Sorry to bug, and thanks for your help. Ante lan talk 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You are out of line. I want to support this user, but first, you tell me why there is a problem with my asking my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases ( talk • contribs)
Can you look at John Peter Zenger, a biography primarily about a colonial era law case in New York. We've been playing rvv with IP edits all fall. I've seen this happen because old vandalism made it into the article, so I'd like it reviewed - or it could be driven by this Conservapedia page, item #66. I'd also like you to decide as an admin whether the article should be semi-protected; I'm too close to it to do so myself. In fact, I've looked at it too many times to tell what work the article needs GRBerry ( talk) 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/ C 05:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
Now that User:Tezza1 has been banned, can I remove the vexatious (and now discredited) sock allegations from his talk page or are you or another admin able to remove it permanently? Can Tempblockeduser be used in this case? Thin Arthur ( talk) 11:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)\
Hate to bother you, but I remembered your name as one of the admins who was very helpful before in a similar matter. A user named User: The Parsnip! keeps slapping incorrect "fair use" tags on the image [Image:Varg_capbyal.JPG]. For some back story: basically this image is nonreplaceable; it's the one depiction of this time and moment in which this musician ( Varg Vikernes) was convicted for murder and arson in the early 1990s, and was so bold as to smirk during his verdict. It's a pretty notorious image, and the only available of that time, referrenced heavily on the black metal page but also his personal page as well.
The Parsnip! keeps slapping incorrect "fair use" tags on the image, claiming there's no rationale for having the picture, or otherwise usefulness in the article; completely disregarding my clearly stated explanation of why it's a worthy image, especially for new comers unfamiliar with the content. Interestingly, in one of his user page edit summaries, he's a self-proclaimed "Anglo-Christian", which is fine, I would just appreciate that this obvious bias would not infiltrate Wikipedia's quality. Please examine the situation and hopefully help to resolve this manner; he simply labels me a "fanboy" (untrue, I'm a music enthusiast in general) and disregards my discussion. Logical Defense ( talk) 17:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a contact. hkhenson@rogers.com is probably best. Keith Henson ( talk) 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I made this edit to United States Senate, now under Featured Article review here. As you can see, I sourced it to ANB, but linked to our articles, since ANB is subscription only, and thus a less useful link. First of all, is this a reasonable idea?
Sandy Georgia has now twice [26] [27] described this as "citing Wikipedia articles" on the FAR, despite my effort to explain which went so far as to spell out ANB in a later edit. I'm really tempted to say what I think of Sandy, which would not be civil.
Do you think you could have a word with her instead? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm back, although a bit tired - I see you were entirely accurate that the abscence was nothing to worry about.
I've popped several questions on the various talk pages of the arb case, and have had some useful responses, so I'm beginning to feel a bit more confident in the process, and how it works (I'd still appreciate a guiding hand if you ever feel I'm doing something wrong).
I had one quick question - I'd like to reiterate that my goal in this process is simply to be unblocked, and to be allowed to continue editing, and I'm nervous by murmurs such as at AN, directing people to discuss Guy's behaviour at my Arb case, rather than there.
Obviously if that were to be the case, then the matter may take rather a while to plow through, and I remain unable to edit in the ways I actually quite enjoy in the mean time.
I wonder if it might be possible to ask the Arb.s if I can resume editing immediately with any or all of the following caveats;
My feeling is that this is a request for 'bail' - I hope the evidence submitted so far warrants such an application.
(i'm getting embarrassed to keep reiterating how much I appreciate your help, but there you go - I do.) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 00:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks on all fronts, Brad - and per the above - please also see my talk page for specific approval from the blocking admin. - thanks, Privatemusings ( talk) 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this may need your attention: [28]. This sort of thing has no place on Wikipedia. - Jehochman Talk 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if I am right here. I expect to get blocked for arbitrary reasons very soon so I take a chance to write to you before. It's about the "Scientology case". You were the clerk there and I don't know how to go about it. Here is what happens: COFS/Shutterbug is accused of "edit warring" (which is a bogus claim, in my eyes) and gets banned from all Scn pages for another 30 days. That happened yesterday or so. I was not involved and had to find out about on my talk page. Means I was not "edit warring" or anything but spent my time on talk pages and minor edits. Below is a copy. Seems to me the ArbCom decision is taken in a way which is totally contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I disagree and that will not stop. So what can I do?
Copy of my talk page entry:
Good afternoon. I'm advising you that due to continued edit warring at Free Zone (Scientology), you are being banned from editing any Scientology-related articles for another 30 days. This ban will expire on December 13, 2007, at 0:00 UTC. Note that if you violate this ban by editing these articles, you will be blocked. Thanks, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Misou 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What's happening with this now. ST47? Newyorkbrad? Shutterbug? Mako? I'm done with turkey for today, how about you? Misou ( talk) 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Brad, you can always be relied on for a neutral and even-handed opinion - would you please offer your point of view on some of Ryulong's recent blocks? The thread is here. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to your question elsewhere - yes others responded (positively through enthusiastically). [29] Uncle uncle uncle ( talk) 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you be interested to add your balanced and well regarded point of view to the heated debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Auschwitz (& in general) lengthily protection violates policy, please? Sincerely, - 70.18.5.219 ( talk) 20:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Brad,
earlier tonight I posted a few messages to the Arb Com mailing list - I really just wanted to ask you to confirm that I did this correctly, being a bit of a mailing list fool. If you could confirm receipt it would be appreciated.
Many thanks, Privatemusings ( talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please offer a third opinion at User talk:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.#RfA. (What do you think the minimal experiance one should have for an RfA?)-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Newyorkbrad:
I understand that if a case is send to ArbCom, there is a process to decide whether to consider the case.
If a case is "allegedly" sent to ArbCom, but does not appear in the ArbCom list, is there a way to find out the status?
I have in mind the case of Whig, who on his talk page notes that he has sent you an e-mail which you "may forward to the ArbCom".
I am interested in this matter, because I have followed Whig's problems in Homeopathy. Thank you, Wanderer57 ( talk) 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Not knowing the ArbCom process but having worked in a bureaucracy, I realize that there may be a situation where you can answer my question, but cannot answer it "now".
It looks like this IP you blocked is now disrupting their talk page.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. ( talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
...and don't know quite how to react. Is this serious? Can I possibly A enough GF to deny that I'm being maliciously misrepresented as a bigot, and with no notice to my talkpage, in a forum I cannot be assumed to have read? I know it's funny, but it's also serious. Appreciate your perspective, and thank you for what insanely appears to have been a necessary clarification. sNkrSnee | t.p. 02:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've notified him. Sorry about that. It seems I was doing things backwards today for some reason. :) Mercury 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I will!
L337p4wn ( talk) 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan. :) -- Cat chi? 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I thank you kindly good sir. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your question on WP:AN/I. Thank you, Tiptoety ( talk) 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have just posted to
and given that you are an ArbCom clerk - but not on this case - I would appreciate any procedural advice you can offer. I am not sure how free the active clerk, Picaroon, is to do this. I'll drop him a note, too. Thanks, Jack Merridew 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
p.s. This took hours to put together! This alone is a great deterrent to getting anywhere near an Arbitration case. -- Jack Merridew 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, did you forward that email [from Durova concerning User:!!] to the Arbcom? I have a great deal of respect for you; if you elected not to forward it to Arbcom, I would very much like to know what your reasoning was. Risker ( talk) 04:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Check out near the top of my talk page to see what I mean : ) - jc37 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask if you could step into a little situation I have here. It's been some months since I was last on Wikipedia and some things have changed around, so I don't know where and how to report this. I have a problem with a disruptive and uncivil editor who is harassing me with links to defamatory sites. After I removed a partisan and original research external link from the links section of
Sathya Sai Baba,
Kkrystian promptly began a mini-edit war which continued even after I explained to him on his
talk page why said link was inadmissible. He continued to re-add this link but has stopped now as another editor has stepped in to seek consensus. If you ask me, there is no consensus to be sought since this issue was discussed at ArbCom and all editors agreed to leave it out do to its violation of
WP:OR,
WP:EL, and possibly more.
However, on a related article (
Sai Baba of Shirdi, Kkrystian has been removing reliably sourced information because he does not agree with it, stating that the words "violent" and "uncouth" is the author's POV and thus inadmissible. You can familiarise yourself with that discussion
here and
here. As Kkrystian has declared on his userpage that he is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba (and by extension, Shirdi Sai Baba) in his real life, there may be conflict-of-interest issues here. Either way, it seems that editors generally agree that reliably-sourced references should not be removed. Kkrystian had been engaging in an edit war over that issue and was blocked for 24-hours over 3RR by yourself
here. He refused to discuss the issue on his talk-page or on the article talk-page until after his block, preferring to explain his actions in edit summaries. But it appears that he hasn't learnt much from his 3RR block because he has begun indulging in
personal attacks on me over at
Talk:Sathya Sai Baba by way of posting URLS that happen to be defamatory against me and which include my surname in the URL title, as well as insinuating that I have ulterior motives for removing a link that is violating
WP:EL and contributes nothing to the article.
After I informed Kkrystian on his talk page that he shouldn't be indulging in personal attacks
here and that he shouldn't be revealing other people's personal information (even indirectly)
here, he simply told me to
"get lost". I even tried to refactor the discussion as per
WP:RPA#External_links and
WP:LINKLOVE
here, but I noticed just now that he has restored this link
here that is defamatory against me and which includes my surname in the URL title. He is clearly uncivil, personally attacking me in a hostile way, revealing my personal information, and
harassing me without any provocation. Do you think that this issue could be treated with a block that I think, by all accounts, is well-deserved?
I left Wikipedia for several months because of all these harassment issues and, after feeling ready to return in the last few days or so, did not think I would have to face these types of unprovoked attacks so soon. Please help out, thanks. - Ekantik talk 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)