User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Aug

Mentioned you

Hi. Just letting you know I mentioned you in User_talk:MistyMorn#Not_another_one.... --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm sorry that you found my comments unhelpful and especially that you found them "shameful." My goal in commenting there was to separate two users (MistyMorn and Br'er Rabbit) whose interaction was becoming highly toxic and was even, as per MistyMorn's comments, affecting his well-being. It struck me as essential to try to put an end to any further bickering between them, at least for a few days, and this was my (obviously ineffectual) attempt at doing that. I also sought in the same post to address one of the most obvious aspects of Br'er Rabbit's recent obnoxious behavior, which I anticipate someone is going to wind up escalating to a dispute-resolution process sooner or later if he doesn't tone it down. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) According to this version of the user page, MistyMorn is of the male persuasion. Favonian (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed so. My apologies for this error. Fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm just furious. It is shameful that that is the best response this project has to the situation. I want scholars to feel comfortable and thrive here. The Jacks and Andys and their ilk make that impossible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Without calling for any specific action against anyone here ... let's just say that I'm not arguing with you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment on amendment request

The comment "editors who are proxying for [banned editors] or carrying on on their behalf need to stop" appears to be an incendiary accusation against me and other editors so I ask that you rescind it unless you can give some really powerful evidence to back it up. It is not at anyone's behest or on anyone's behalf that I made this request. Trev sent me exactly one e-mail and it has not influenced my request one iota. I am hardly the only one who raised concerns about this restriction and Math's conduct relating to it. Try to remember that every editor, behind all the text, is still a living person (yes even banned editors) and some people take an honest interest in a case because they feel sympathy for one of the parties based on nothing more than simple sympathy. To me it seems that all this talk of proxy-editing and banned editors is creating a McCarthyian mentality on the issue where anyone who gets involved is quickly accused of some wikicrime based on essentially nothing and assumed to be part of some nefarious group. Math gets harassed by some banned editor and that's sad, but nothing entitles him to provoke other editors or distract from the central issue, which is that the ban against Trev and Sight is punitively broad (any editor who "worked in the topic") and enables disruption rather than discouraging it. I ask that you evaluate the request based solely on its merits and leave the accusations and insinuations to those who aren't expected to act impartially.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

These are good thoughts, but I would recommend that a different consideration be given a higher priority: act to achieve a good outcome on the underlying issue. Our primary purpose should be to build good encyclopedic content, and actions should aim to assist that. Fairness is important, but it is not our job to ensure that all views are heard (when those views come from topic banned editors or abusive socks). The private motivations of an editor are not important—what counts is what they do. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Taking those considerations into account, what specifically are you suggesting be done beyond what is already being done? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you rescind the comment I quoted above that you made on the request for amendment? I do not think such serious accusations against other editors without compelling evidence are the kind of comments an Arb should be making at such a request, unless that Arb is recusing from the decision.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You weren't necessarily the person I was referring to there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As it could be easily taken as a reference to me would you rescind it anyway? When the involved editors are throwing out such accusations against specific people, I do not think it is a good idea for an Arb to join in with vaguer remarks unless there is some compelling evidence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look at this. What I really want is for the banned and topic-banned users no longer to have any form of involvement in these areas, as the level of disruption they have created is severe. Even accepting that you've acted in good faith throughout this matter, you should please do nothing further to enable these people from this point on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider what I have done to be "enabling", except maybe in the more positive sense of trying to get the parties concerned to develop a more respectful and reasonable demeanor. That is what the request for amendment is about and why it does not call for any new sanctions. As long as the parties concerned stick to whatever restrictions or warnings are in place at the end and let each other edit in peace I see no reason to get involved any further.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

@NYB: I'm not going to interrupt with my opinions much more, but in case your above "15:20, 27 July 2012" comment was offering an opportunity for an additional note here, my view is that a ruling on how to handle the banned user is required. I have no additional thoughts on the clarification request—normal procedures will cater for that. However, the community cannot handle the banned user who is able to pick places to leave permanent provocations to their victim. It is outrageous that an excellent content creator has been harassed for over three years, yet editors "take responsibility for the content of this edit by a banned user" and restore their comments, thereby subverting WP:DENY. The community cannot handle that as attempting to apply DENY on a user page is seen as an infringement of personal freedom. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, is this suggestion referring solely to Echigo mole and similar site-banned sockmasters?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Is there someone else you are concerned it could reasonably be understood as referring to, in the context of the R&I situation? (That's not meant as argumentative, but genuinely informational.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be stuck. Could you please enact that motion about not using excuses to restore edits from banned users, so arbs can vote on it and close the matter? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I anticipate that either I or another arbitrator will be posting a motion within the next couple of days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your well-versed !vote at this MfD! Electric Catfish 01:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

New York

Hey Brad. I've been thinking of you and Mr Shankbone as I'm in New York for a few days. Came for a wedding and I'm wishing I had more time as I would have loved to have met up with you. Maybe next time. Cant believe how nice the weather here is as we were stuck in KY for a day because they grounded flights coming to NYC. Anyway, I hope all is well with you. Cheers Sarah 15:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you as well, and I'm glad you got to enjoy New York for a little while. Hope to see you around more often here on-wiki also! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, NYB, a favor

Hey, Newyorkbrad, you seem like a reasonable guy and an arbitrator. We have a question at the Teahouse regarding the submission of an Arbitration case about determining the notability of the subject of a now-deleted article. I've told the author that it's out of scope for ArbCom (I may have slipped into some hyperbole while doing so :P), but it might carry more weight if an actual arbitrator comments; if you've got a moment, would you mind dropping in and leaving a brief note? The thread is Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Arbitration Request Assistance. (You'd of course be doubly-welcome if I'm wrong!) Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not comment on a specific dispute that might be headed to arbitration, just in case it comes to before the Arbitration Committee and we have to vote on it. However, I've reviewed the discussion you linked to, and in general terms the advice you've given there is quite correct, and you are free to tell everyone that I said so.

And, thanks for the kind words (we'll see how many of my talkpage-stalkers disagree with your first sentence), as well as for your work at the Teahouse.

(For more general discussion of the relationship between Newyorkbrad, tea, and arbitration, you can check out an archived version of User:Scott MacDonald/When to shoot an admiral.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, NYB. The user insists, so I relented and agreed to show him how to do it. While I feel that this is gonna be a waste of time for all involved (hopefully not much time), I also don't think that people should be held back from doing what they think they need to do because of purely technical issues. I apologize in advance. :/ That's a pretty interesting essay, though; I don't know about you, but if it were directed at me, I think I'd take it as a compliment. Anyway, see ya around (I have a feeling it might be in circumstances other than I'd wish pretty soon...) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Aug. We are pleased to invite you to join WikiProject Baseball's Umpires task force, a group dedicated to improving articles related to baseball umpires. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members on the task force page.

 Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'm wondering from a policy point-of-view why AnthonyCole's subpage was tagged for MfD and deleted but this page is allowed to stand? Is there a difference between the two? Truthkeeper (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't comment on why someone nominated one page and not another. The simplest and most AGF-worthy explanation would be that the nominator saw the one page but not the other, but if you have any question about it, you can ask him directly. As for the broader picture ... as I mentioned in the MfD and on Anthonyjcole's talkpage, while practice isn't 100% clear, the general rule is that these pages are allowed when they are intended for a legitimate purpose related to dispute resolution, as opposed to just the perpetuation of generalized grievances. Given that this page is relevant to a pending request for arbitration and is headed "/evidence," one presumes that Wehwalt is using it to collect relevant evidence, and as such it's a legitimate page in the short term, although one expects that it needn't stay around forever. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for removing this edit from a blocked sockpuppeteer at my RfA. I appreciate it. =) Kurtis (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help, and best wishes for your future editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How to counter bullying tactics on Wikipedia?

Hello Brad,

I know you are a highly experienced wikipedian who has served on Arbcom. I feel it my duty to let you I have real problems continuing to see attacks like this [1], accompanied by intimations to leave. You suggested I refrain from posting on ANI and User talk:Br'er Rabbit (even though I believe it is Wikipedia policy to use talk pages in this way [2] to try to resolve personal differences). When I requested admin assistance personally [3], I had my request rebuffed by an admin who claims [4] impartiality, and then turned down with a more considered rationale. However, as a contributor, I'm left with an uncomfortable feeling of powerlessness and lack of representation.

I share the broader concerns Anthony has raised at WT:MED [5]. I have expressed some of my own concerns on the WP:WER talk page [6] and elsewhere. I've already blanked my user page in solidarity with User:Tim riley. My recent experiences suggest that Wikipedia as a whole may currently be failing to represent good editors. I find this disheartening, especially given the immense value of this wonderful project.

Regards,—MistyMorn (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Br'er rabbit didn't contribute to Tim Riley's leaving.[7] Anthonyhole has apologized for saying so.[8] Please drop this avenue against another user. Please drop this general line of posting to this editor and others. You've made your position clear in multiple places. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

@MathewTownsend: I've already answered your your duplicate post on my talk page. Kindly also note that the concerns I've outlined above do not just concern BR. I would be glad if you'd strike, in a spirit of good faith, the unfounded accusation that I am pursuing some sort of vendetta—which I am most certainly not! —MistyMorn (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ok. Struck. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm glad of that. (I've also removed the entire thread on my talk page [9].) Please understand that I have nothing personally against any individual editor. My main concern is with the environment, and I'm afraid to say I've become pretty disillusioned of late - something I really didn't want to happen. —MistyMorn (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly understand that, MistyMorn, but I think the FAC faction has contributed greatly to the bad atmosphere. Never good when one group holds themselves above the rest, and apparently other editors opinions are not welcomed there. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither is it good when idiots believe their opinions are as valuable as those of geniuses. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about the questions surrounding the specific ArbCom case (or any particular "FAC faction"). Actually, I was reluctant to respond to an invitation to provide input there and perhaps would have done better to stay away (adding: I've now struck my comment). On the other hand, I feel it's right to communicate the sort of unease that can be encountered by a relatively inexperienced editor who likes to contribute to FA nominations editorially and as a reviewer but is completely unprepared for (and unwilling to engage in) the social conflict aspects. —MistyMorn (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

_{On a tangential note, I don't believe that Neutralhomer is an admin, though he's certainly an experienced contributor. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)}

Yup, my misunderstanding/misreading. Thank you for pointing that out. That clears that one up, I'm glad to say. —MistyMorn (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also somewhat wikidepressed by this situation. Wikipedia does not deal well with users who don't overtly cross behavioral lines, but consistently step up to the edge of them, while in the meantime making enough substantive or technical contributions that their conduct has defenders. In the case of Br'er Rabbit, I have completely lost my patience with him after seven years of this sort of thing, to the point that it's probably best if I don't write something here that I will regret. I should know better, at this stage in my wikilife, than to allow such an editor to push my buttons, but frankly at this point it is up to other people to deal with him.
I have developed a reputation, in my time here, as being one of the more lenient administrators and arbitrators, in terms of favoring second and third chances for editors who have caused problems in one fashion or another. But there are limits, and we don't do ourselves any good if we keep one problematic editor around at the same time as that person drives other good editors away. (Please note that this is a general comment, not directed at any specific editor involved in the recent situations.) All that being said, there are plenty of areas in which content contributors can participate with little or no risk of becoming embroiled in these sorts of conduct and personality issues, and I hope that you and your colleagues can continue to engage in those venues. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for this thoughtful reply which connects with my underlying concerns. I feel the need to take some time off now, but I'm thinking of possible strategies to contribute in a more restricted way. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Whats more worrying that Br'er Rabbit himself, is that he was cultivated in a December / January incarnation, encouraged and told he was wonderful, that hounding people across articles is somehow noble, and is now being used by these same people to push an agenda. That's a real shame, and about as cynical as I've seen on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Query

I am so sorry about all of this trouble, and I have no intention of continuing this. But. A couple of my edit summaries and one of my comments were rev del'ed from my talk page. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything in that conversation worthy of that treatment. Was it you who deleted them? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this comment, Wehwalt did the two deletions under the "personal information" criteria. On a related note, it's best to just use usernames when referring to other contributors. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I get it. And that explains another unanswered question. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How is this a legitimate use of RevDel? If User:Anthonyhcole chose User:Anthonyhcole as a username, it doesn't appear to me to be "personal" (or "private") information to refer to that user as Anthony. Especially if the user has been referred to as "Anthony" on WP previously. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To Anthonyhcole: as indicated, it wasn't I who rev-deleted the edit summaries, but another administrator (Wehwalt), who was concerned that you might be referencing the real-world name of an editor who does not use that name on-wiki. It's always best to refer to editors by their usernames, although I recognize that in the case of the editor in question, that's a big trickier than usual given the frequent username changes.

To Mark Arsten: Thanks for replying while I was away from the keyboard. Your understanding of the situation matches mine.

To Gimmetoo: This has nothing to do with Anthonyhcole's username, but that of another user. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's parallel to the example I gave. How is this a legitimate use of RevDel? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What was rev-del'd was apparently the real-world (first) name of another editor, who does not use that first name in his username(s). If you have any further questions, please ask Wehwelt directly, as I wasn't involved in the rev-deletion in any way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You appears to have approved its use in this instance. But fine, I'll ask the admin you named. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad: I see now, and completely agree. Though (1) I would have appreciated a quiet word from the rev del'ing admin and (2) we should really put much more distance between this project and that user name. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you, MistyMorn (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bagumba

Thanks for addressing your concerns on my talk page. I appreciate that you let me know. I have apologized on the RFA page. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Commented on your talkpage. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FA Arb case

Is it really appropriate to recuse from part of a request and decline the rest? From what I can tell the case intimately involves Rabbit and your interactions with him were the basis of your partial recusal. My thinking is that it should be a general recusal to avoid any appearance of impropriety.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but there's ample precedent to proceed as I have. My intention would be to reevaluate this as things progress, and especially if the case were accepted. The request for arbitration as filed was sufficiently sprawling that it was impossible to tell whether Br'er Rabbit's role would be at the crux of the dispute or peripheral to it, and while I thought that I shouldn't (e.g.) vote on findings or remedies relating to Br'er Rabbit, it would be a bit much for me to find myself recused from voting on a proposed decision that didn't even mention him. I'm sensitive to the proprieties, and I think that in four and one-half years of arbitrating I can't be accused of having voted on any case or proposal where my participation created an issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

I wonder if you might consider board membership here, at least while we've got our trainer wheels on, or if you have any thoughts about the project? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer of board membership, but I don't anticipate that I'd have enough wikitime for this role at least as long as I'm serving as an arbitrator. I will keep an interested eye on your project and work, however, and let you know if and when I have any suggestions. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not in a position to confer board memberships, but I'm pretty sure you'd be very warmly embraced. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

emigrate-immigrate

Despite reading Grammarist on Emigrate as. immigrate, I think MF has a good point. As an American, we are more used to the term "immigrant" than "emigrant", but I think of my grandparents as immigrants FROM Italy. I would expect them to say they emigrated to the USA, and are now immigrants from Italy. But I confess I'm still not fully settled in the prescriptivist versus descriptivist wars, (Except tor thinking that Fowler was a bit too much.) I tend toward being a descriptivist, and I'm sure that immigrant to is common, even if it shouldn't be. My prescriptivist side refuses to accept the stupid American custom of punctuation inside quotes, I prefer "eat my cake and have it to " over the more common "have my cake and eat it to", but I've largely given up correcting people when they think forte has two syllables.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think "immigrants to" is probably OK, and covers the situation where you're talking about a population the members of which may have come from various different places, as in "the residents of XYZ are all immigrants to the United States" My issue is when immigrate is used as a verb, as in "my parents immigrated to the United States". Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, verb versus noun. I confess I deliberately tried to think aboutit without looking at the article in question, and should now do so.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for butting in but isn't it have my cake and eat it too...Modernist (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article, so it's now "correct" as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps another way to think about this is if someone said to you "I'm an immigrant", would your question to him be "Where from", or "Where to"? Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that that actually does help conceptualize the question, because if (as is most likely) one would be talking to the person at his or her current place of residence rather than his or her previously one, the answer to the "Where to?" would be obvious. In other words, if I were talking to the person in New York and it was obvious he or she lived here now, "where from?" would be a useful question, whereas "where to?" would be pretty obvious. But if I were attending the International Convention of People Who Have Recently Changed Their Country of Residence, "where did you immigrate to?" would be as reasonable a question as "where did you emigrate from?"

Based on the feedback I've seen on the RfA and your (Malleus's) talkpage and here, I hope you can now accept that "Jones immigrated to the United States in 1950" is standard English, at least in the United States. Nor is this a matter of "tense"; "one million people will immigrate to the United States in 2013" is just as standard. In fact, it's the only way I can think of to express this specific concept. I can't quarrel with your statement that you find the locution jarring, and I accept that, and the comments support my conjecture last night that this may be a usage variation between British English and American English. In any event, I hope you will now reconsider the wording of the introduction to Jeremy Lin as a basis for your RfA oppose, even if you still believe there are other reasons to oppose.

Incidentally: "Not grammar. Diction." as Nero Wolfe and Rex Stout reminded us.

On a different aspect, though coincidentally on the same RfA, do you (Malleus again) seriously contend that I was "bullying" an editor by asking him to withdraw an obvious joke !vote? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that it's correct usage anywhere in the English speaking world, although I concede that it seems to be relatively common in the US, just as the ridiculous "I could care less" is common. What, in your opinion, is wrong with "one million people will emigrate to the United States in 2013"? The issue as I see it is one of specificity, and the presumed location of where we're speaking from; using "emigrate" in that context is slightly unsatisfactory, because these people will be coming from many different countries, therefore we can't say where they're going to emigrate from. So a reasonable case can be made for "immigrate to" in such non-specific cases, if we're assumed to be writing in the United States. In the particular case that sparked this discussion that's not the case though; we know that Jim's parent's emigrated from Taiwan to the United States. They didn't immigrate to the United States from Taiwan, that's simply an abortion. So no, I won't be doing any rewording of my oppose.

I do contend that your approach to that editor was bullying, as I think his reaction suggests. Why is it so important to you that a candidate should pass unanimously anyway? Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I get what you are saying Malleus, but in all fairness, I don't think Brad did anything intentionally to bully anyone. However, the authority that comes from being an Arb is a mighty large stick in the eyes of many people and can be a little intimidating. Even the admin bit has some undue weight in the eyes of some editors. I'm not that impressed with it but I've learned (sometimes the hard way) that others will take it too seriously, often drastically so, so I try to parse my words carefully. He did seem to take the comments stronger than I think Brad actually said them or meant them, and I just can't see Brad's actions as intentionally trying to intimidate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether intentional or not it was bullying. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Bullying", by its very nature, implies intent. Brad influenced him, obviously since that was Brad's intention. Whether that was wise or necessary is a whole other discussion. It does appear that Bzweebl took Brad's comments entirely too seriously, but perhaps you should ask Bzweebl if he felt intimidated, as we may be reading too much into his comment at the RfA. More importantly, to use the term "bully" implies intimidation or threat of harm. which requires intent, and I'm sorry, but I don't see that here. The term might be convenient and colorful, but not accurate, which I feel is below your usual precision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree, although I don't understand why you feel enabled to speak on behalf of Newyorkbrad's motivations. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, you have the strength of Samson, but today you are jabbing as though you had a Fredrik Reinfeldt haircut---and are as ornery as my grandmother was after I fed her my bran-enhanced oatmeal without knowing about diverticulitis.

Let us all resolve that "I must work harder". Our final destination, the glue factory, nears ever closer. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak of his motivations and can't see inside of his heart, but I can look at his words and I just don't see phrasing that looks to be intimidating or threatening in some way. I concede that admins and Arbs have to be extraordinarily careful in making requests like this and it might have led to a misunderstanding, and that he might have felt intimidated, but I just don't see it as the fault of Brad. And of course, it is fine if we disagree. If you and I agreed on everything, it would likely scare us both :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

ICE is the US federal agency that deals with those that are attempting to immigrate into the US. If a person is asked what country they have left then it would be "where did you emigrate from".MONGO 15:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "immigrate" and "emigrate," I still say that when I looked at Jeremy Lin the other night, the usage there was correct standard English, or at least correct standard American English. I would have written the disputed sentences the same way, which suggests that they reflect at least an acceptable usage, because unfamiliarity with the grammar and diction of standard English is on the short list of faults I don't have. In fact, when I read the sentences, I honestly couldn't figure out what Malleus was objecting to. Because I understood that he is as familiar with standard English diction and usage as I am, I surmised that this might be an ENGVAR situation, which turned out to be true.

More troublesome to me is the fact that Malleus still considers the usage of "immigrated" in Jeremy Lin to be a good reason, albeit not an independently sufficient reason, for opposing Bagumba's RfA. It is now clear that "immigrated to" as used there is consistent at least with standard American usage, is supported by leading stylebooks and sites, is how many other highly literate Wikipedians would have said it—and it also turns out that Bagumba didn't even write these sentences in the first place. Given Malleus's striving for both accuracy and fairness all over the site, I find it odd that he has stuck with this as a basis for his oppose !vote. Of course, as he correctly points out on the RfA, it is a moot point in the grander scheme of things.

As for the other matter that Malleus has raised, I reject the allegation of bullying. I know bullying and threats and harassment when I see them, and have had to address such situations in arbitration decisions, so an accusation that I've been guilty of that type of behavior is upsetting to me. "Bullying," by definition, requires an intention to coerce someone into doing something. I of course had no such intention, and I will be offended if anyone insists that I did.

More within the realm of reasonable criticism, although I would still disagree with it, would be a concern that my comment could have been taken as bullying, though anyone who knows me would know that that was not meant so. I don't believe that my politely worded request could reasonably have been understood by anyone as bullying or threatening or harassing. I was not even asking an editor to change his or her actual opinion of a candidate or to withdraw his or her seriously intended !vote. I don't know if it is necessary to explain something this obvious, but for those who may not have looked up the context: Bzweebl's initial "neutral" !vote was based on Bagumba's answer to a playful question asking him to name his favorite Dallas Cowboys quarterback. No one could believe that Bzweebl or anyone else thinks that this issue bears on suitability for adminship, so obviously Bzweebl's !vote was a joke.

Within reason, jokes in an RfA are fine, and I have no problem with bringing some lightheartedness to the RfA pages. After all, I'm the one who went through a phase a couple of years ago of casting all my support !votes in rhymed couplets, deliberately leading the tone of the RfA pages from bad to verse. But I think that actually opposing a candidate, and to a lesser extent even casting a neutral !vote on a candidate, should have some sort of serious rationale. That is all that I was saying to Bzweebl, and even as I said it, I added that my concern should be disregarded if there was some serious (i.e. non-joke) issue that I had overlooked. I am sorry if Bzweebl was overly upset by my concern, and I have told him that, but I don't think "bullying" or any approximation of that term is a fair description of what I did or why I did it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall ever having seen you employ analogous logic to a charge of incivility, for instance, and I might find your position a little more convincing if I had. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation/Asking your contribution

Heated discussion on the renaming of this article. Maybe the article is not very interesting in itself but there is quite an example of a debate on the principle of naming conventions on its talk page. Everybody most welcome. --E4024 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this discussion, but don't really have anything to add to the points already made. I do think that there may be a need for a principle that once a given article is moved, or there is a decision not to move it, that there be some sort of time restriction before the same title issue may be raised again. Otherwise, we face the prospect of a given article being under continuous title dispute and RM discussion, which is not conducive to anything else useful getting done. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Question from KC

Is this[10] harassment, in your opinion? I don't want to be forced to explain my actions on every page I edit on WP, or else leave such insinuations open, either. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "harassment" implies an intent to cause distress to the target. I'm not convinced at this stage that Noetica is deliberately seeking to cause you distress. I am concerned, however, that he has lost his sense of perspective with regard to the importance of this issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there is no intent, then Noetica is tone-deaf to how his posts appear to others, IMO. I've seen similar rudeness elsewhere aimed at othrs, cloaked as "concern" but coming across as an implied insult.[11] as well as phrasing such as "we know very well where the fault lies." [12] However, I'm willing to ignore it if you are. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't say more at this point, in case some part of this situation somehow winds up back before ArbCom (although I certainly hope it will not). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bat signal

Shhhh. Now everyone knows. [13]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. When you recently edited Lou DiMuro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Domi arigato, Mister Roboto. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Mediation case

Hi Newyorkbrad —

There's currently a case over at MedCom regarding the capitalization of band names. The participants have agreed to put the matter to a poll of the wider community, which will be closed by an impartial editor. Provided the participants agree, would you be willing to do this? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help out if needed. However, as you say, the poll grows out of a mediation case—has it been decided that the mediators themselves aren't the right people to do the closing? Also, what timetable are you on? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We (the mediators - myself and Mr. Stradivarius) decided to recuse ourselves from judging the poll. When it was first agreed on, there were three options, one of which we had argued against. We proposed that a third party judge the poll, since we'd already expressed an opinion on it. Although the third option was since dropped by consensus, a third party judge would probably still be the best way to ensure impartiality. As far as the timetable, I would say that the poll will probably go public within a week, and run for a set period of least two weeks. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I'll be happy to help with this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Availability note

Because of family plans, I may have limited Internet time and access over this weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Newyorkbrad. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members.

Please don't allow this to interfere with your family plans. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

One Day in Hackney

I didn't want to say this on the Requests page, but you might want to edit this post in the "One Night in Hackney" section. Pepole might think it was intended humorously. Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess you couldn't be bothered trying to figure out what I was telling you. Sorry for not being more specific. You referred to One Night in Hackney as "One Day in Hackney" throughout. Scolaire (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read through my post there about five times after I saw your note, and I completely missed your point, so thanks for coming back and clarifying. I figured you were probably teasing me about my writing style and the convoluted nature of my thought process there (A, except B, except C, except D ...). I'll fix it now. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your initial and especially the continued support during my RfA. I hope to maintain your trust in me.—Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly fake IRC logs

Hi, an editor has received purported IRC logs that are alleged to show gaming of wikipedia. The logs appear to come from a block editor. I was suggesting they be forwarded on to arbcom rather than people speculating on them. Can you comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_attempted_outing about whether that is a good idea or not? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't have a chance to look at this in any detail until tonight, but in general, the Arbitration Committee would only be interested in reviewing IRC logs, or any other form of off-wiki communication, if they reflect a very serious issue concerning manipulation of project decision-making, harassment of editors, threats, and so forth. (The Committee discussed some of the relevant considerations in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European mailing list#Principles.) If and only if the level of seriousness in the current situation rises to that level, it might be appropriate to forward the logs to the Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkbrad (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As per the ANI thread, someone forwarded the alleged log to ArbCom, and it's been reliably determined that it is not genuine. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan James Pantone

Hi, Brad. You recently edited this article. Also, someone oversighted a couple of IP edits and I'm guessing it may have been you.

FYI, take a look at:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dan James Pantone

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

EncycloPetey

In response to this comment from you on the RFAR...

It is hardly surprising that EncycloPetey (EP) should be considering leaving the project. ArbCom is treating him horribly. He's already guilty even before he had a chance to respond. Nothing ArbCom can do in waiting 24-36 hours is going to change the direction of this freight train. He's been here 7 years, an administrator for 5, never blocked, contributed over 30,000 edits...and BOOM he's being stripped of his admin bit. Whatever happened to admins not being expected to be perfect?

I don't think ArbCom should allow itself to be held hostage to the idea they shouldn't act because the admin might leave the project. Neither should they be so quick to hang an admin who has made a few mistakes. It is precisely ArbCom's rush to judgment, even before EP had a chance to respond, that has been the catalyst to his actions.

At User_talk:EncycloPetey#Arbitration_request there are comments from myself and others suggesting he should turn in his administrator bit. In five years, he's used his administrator privileges less than 400 times. He doesn't really need the bit, and getting rid of it is an easy way to end the dispute. I'm hoping he accepts, as it is I think the only way he'll come away from this and still be an editor.

More abstractly; I think in non-emergency situations such as this, ArbCom should not be voting to accept/reject a case until all named parties have had an opportunity to respond, up to a (arbitrary) limit of N days. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As you will have seen, my initial comment on the case was that we should wait for a statement from EncycloPetey before voting, and my comment after he posted his statement was that we should hold off on opening the case to give him some more time to think about things. I hope that this unfortunate situation will have as positive and productive an outcome as is possible under the circumstances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Warner

It's (almost) always nice to be noticed 'round here. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)