Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:21, 1 March 2007

Welcome!

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

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

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

Armenian-Azerbaijan case

The case has passed, could you move it on the approved statue a little bit earlier to prevent being added more in it and turn the place to a discussion board? It's approved anyway even if not official, there is no point to permit further disruption, every parties have made their points and the Arbitrators found it relevant to take the case. Fad (ix) 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Absent anything changing, the case will open tomorrow. We need to allow a little more time in case other arbitrators want to have input (plus frankly I have to sign off for the night shortly). Another Clerk has removed all threaded discussion and made a note of it so hopefully there will not be any more unproductive debate before the case opens tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I made my comments quite late. All the same, I would hope and ask that a bit more time (perhaps a few extra hours) be allowed the arbitrators to consider, if they so please, a line of argument quite different from most of what had been previously expressed, before the case is opened. Jd2718 13:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Absent a last-minute development, from the current vote it's pretty clear the case is going to open. You might want to present your thoughts on the Workshop page of the case, when it opens, or on the RfAr talk page. Newyorkbrad 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess those few hours have passed. There are two new (as of January 1, not February) arbitrators who had not weighed in, but one is not available (note on talkpage) and the other would not work to defeat an acceptance 6-3 anyhow (I can't believe they chose to keep 4 net, oh well.) I will contribute to the Workshop page, thank you. Jd2718 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I haven't forgotten. After further thought I realized I had nothing to contribute. I hope the arbitrators begin to realize that nationalist brawls (as opposed to individual misconduct) need to be policed, mediated, but not arbitrated. But for today the arbitration is going ahead. I will make the point again next time a similar request is made. Jd2718 01:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart

I read that message on her talk page about her leaving, but I didn't really understand it. What happened to her? I find it a big shame that she seems to have left Misplaced Pages. I found Sarah Ewart to be a kind user, and she did give me both advice and constructive criticism. Acalamari 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read the dialog on her talkpage (maybe archived now), she says that she's on a break and she will be back—I hope soon! Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did read it. I too, hope she comes back soon. We actually first met each other on Ryulong's recent request for adminship when a user had tons of sockpuppets givng Ryulong support votes. In fact, I believe I encountered you there too. Acalamari 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to contact you if it happened again.

Brad, Last week User:Astrotrain breached 3RR but you took no action because just before you came to look at the case he was block for a separate breach of WP:CIVIL. However, you did ask me here to come back to you if he did it again. He has tonight on the Ivor Bell page.

• Previous version reverted to: 14:25, 25 February 2007
• 1st revert: 22:09, 26 February 2007
• 2nd revert: 22:53, 26 February 2007
• 3rd revert: 23:42, 26 February 2007
• 4th revert: 23:54, 26 February 2007

--Vintagekits 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm tied up on something else right now, so post to WP:AN3, but you can link to the last incident as proof he's been warned before. Newyorkbrad 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Brad, if and when you have time, could you please copyedit Legal status and local government of Kiev for better English? Thanks! --Irpen 01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to; I will look at it either later tonight or in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify the length limit for the Samuel case

In your message to me today, you said that we are limited to 500 words for our "opening statment" but you didn't say anything about the follow up responses. If you check my posting again, you'll see that the bulk of my posting is not in the opening statment, but rather in responses to two of the Falun Gong practitioners who have made accusations against me. Are we not supposed to respond to these things? --Tomananda 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't a policy about follow-up comments (perhaps there should be), but I think the spirit of the rule is that you should try to complete your entire presentation in a total 500 words or so. Bear in mind that the complete merits of the case do not have to be presented at this stage. What you are trying to persuade the arbitrators is simply whether or not they should hear the case at all. That means discussing whether the dispute is serious or not, what prior steps were taken to try to resolve it, and the like—not a complete discussion of who is right or wrong. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

The editor in question is Scorpion0422. The problem all relates back to the article J. P. Calderon. I created that article and added links to it to Survivor: Cook Islands and the Survivor contestant template. Scorpion redirected the article without comment, then when I restored it attempted to orphan the article by removing the links to it several times. My attempt to keep Calderon listed on the template (asking Scorpion politely to leave the link in place until the AFD closed) got us both suspended for violating WP:3RR (which I still contest, but that's not the point and I don't want to focus on it). After the Calderon article was AFDed to a no consensus Scorpion re-nominated the article 37 minutes after the first AFD closed. He has left semi-abusive messages on my talk page and when I noted his behaviour in the 2nd Calderon AFD his response was "if you don't like it, report me." Most recently, he has been editing Template:Survivor_contestants to remove links, with edit messages like "Removed Survivor: Cook Islands contestant who is non-notable" and "removed NN contestant whose page should be deleted." I have the template on my watchlist because of his continual removal of the Calderon link and after the sixth such edit message I posted to the Template talk page suggesting that removing links to pages based on an editor's belief that the page "should be" deleted should not be done. His response, with the edit message "HA HA HA HA HA," was "Actually, their pages were deleted. I was just bating you and you fell for it." When I responded more harshly than I should have I was reprimanded. When I questioned the admin who reprimanded me as to why he didn't sanction actual disruptive behaviour, Scorpion responded on my talk page by telling me to report him. Which, fine, I'm reporting him. I honestly don't know why he's responding this way toward me. I have tried reasoning with him, I have tried minimizing the impact of his actions regarding the article, I have tried staying out of his way and unfortunately I have responded in anger. I think I have done more than enough to try to deal with him and I feel like this entire situation is a) completely ridiculous but b) escalated to the point where something needs to be done about him. Manipulating the editing process to bait another editor and then taunting the editor about it is disruption. I want something on his record to let him know his conduct needs to change or there will be consequences. Otto4711 02:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for following up. First of all, the editor who left the warning note on your page is a good editor (I've interacted with him before), but he's not an administrator (and never claimed he was). Second, it appears that you acknowledge you are not blameless in this matter. Please try to remember to be civil and avoid anything that can be considered as a personal attack—even when other editors are failing to do the same. Third, could you please give me some more specific diffs of a few edits that you think represent good examples of the problem with Scorpion's editing, so I can evaluate them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but it seems Brad already said it) As I'm now somewhat involved, I gave Otto an npa3 warning for attacking Scorpion on the template talk page. In his message to you, I think he was referring to me as the admin, though I'm not. --TeckWiz Contribs_@ 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

TW, I thought you were an admin. I agree that you never represented yourself as one so I hope that aspect won't distract from the main issue. Otto4711 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz will be an admin at some point, but he's not just yet (and I better not see you writing your next RfA without consulting someone :) ), and no that won't distract us from the main business here. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We've had a couple disputes in the same couple of threads and suddenly I'm a disruptive editor despite my 300 or so non-disruptive edits. I admit that I have made some mean comments, but mostly, I think Otto just needs to grow up. -- Scorpion 02:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone really wants an administrator to read through diffs of past arguments and administer any appropriate scoldings, then I will do it. Right now I am still having a little trouble finding the exact edits that are being complained about, so everyone would have to be more specific. But at this point, I would much rather if we can draw a veil over past quarrel and all resolve to be civil and avoid personal attacks from this point forward. Scorpion0422, it's particularly unhelpful for you to make a personal attack ("Otto just needs to grow up") in the discussion about not making personal attacks. I hope I don't ever see that again. Newyorkbrad 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack, it was an observation. I have been attacked by Otto in the past and I have reported him, so I see no need for "scoldings". I believe that this is unnecessary and merely the users attempt at revenge. I have been other conflicts with other users and they did not feel the need to stoop to such things. -- Scorpion 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• First redirect of the Calderon article
• Second redirect of the Calderon article
• Following that edit I asked him not to redirect again unilaterally and moved the discussion to the talk page.
• First AFD
• Second AFD, opened 37 minutes after the 1st closed
• First removal of Calderon from Survivor contestant template
• First restoration
• Second removal
• Second restoration
• Third removal
• My browser may be about to crash, more in a minute Otto4711 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Third restoration
• Fourth removal
• Fourth restoration
• At this point I reported him for 3RR and we both got suspended.
• Fifth removal, this time under the guise of performing other cosmetic maintenance to the template
• Then, starting February 7, Scorpion began removing links with edit summaries like "removed contestant who doesn't belong" and "removing NN contestant whose article should be deleted," including removing five in the last day or so. It was at that point I expressed my concern about the removal of contestant links based on the belief that they "shouldn't be there" which is when Scorpion sprung his "HA HA HA HA" edit and said that he did it to bait me. Otto4711 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • None of these prove your claim that I'm a "disruptive editor" -- Scorpion 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I need to basically sign off for the night and will look at this further in the morning. From what I have seen so far, neither of you is a finalist for the Civil Editor of the Year Award and I hope that all sniping and uncivil remarks, in any direction, can cease at once. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I accept my responsibility for my part in this situation. All I want out of this is for Scorpion to leave me alone, leave the Calderon article and its attendant links alone and to be advised that his conduct is improper. I'm more than happy to leave him alone if he's willing to do the same. Otto4711 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • It proves that there's some disruption, but it also proves Otto is disrupting by you two reverting each other over and over and not discussing it. I must go now also. --TeckWiz Contribs_@ 03:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk's Trainee

Seeing that you got appointed 2 days ago to the position of clerk, I don't think that you've had the time to take a trainee under your wing. On the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks page, there is a sentence in there that specifies that clerks can have trainees as subordinates. Here's where I come in. I can be your trainee and help you out as a subordinate. Please reply on my talk page. Thank you! Diez2 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding on your talk. Newyorkbrad 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

my comments at RfC: Doc

Thanks for clearing that up. I kinda wasn't sure if I should do it at all! :) I plan on looking in on more, because it directed me to a policy I wasn't aware of and one of my goals is becoming an admin (I failed once, the RfA was shut down in 30 min for no reasonable chance. Hehehe)Quatreryukami 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If your RfA was shut down that early, it means you applied much too early, which is what you were probably told at the time. Feel free to ask more experienced users for input on when it's time to try again, and in the meantime you should read current RfA's for the types of experience that editors who comment their look for. Newyorkbrad 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I tried with only 97, i think it was, edits. I already have a user who will back me at 500, and I have an admin who has adopted me (User:Deckiller) and he's helpful. I'm on wiki as much as I can, getting my name and my edits up. Eventually I might get the bucket and mop, but I'll be happy even if i don't, because wikipedia is a good place for people to get info (which I need a lot of). Plus, being an admin is good bragging rights with my friends. Thanks again for your input, and I hope I can join the admin ranks sometime. (incoherant babling ends here). Quatreryukami 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even 500 edits is much too few, and "bragging rights with friends" would be a terrible reason to seek adminship. (It's okay to brag after you get it, I know lots of admins do that, but it's not a good reason to become an adminship, nor will it look good in your nominating statement :) ... although actually, I don't talk about Misplaced Pages much to my real-world friends, who don't quite understand why I enjoy being here so much). Contribute to the things you are interested in, both on the articles themselves and in policy discussion, and if adminship is due to happen, it will happen. It's not a trophy.

You are quite right, that was mostly a joke anyway. And my friends are the same way, but they found it funny that my RfA was shut down so quickly. Its a bit of a running joke...Quatreryukami 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That was mean of them ... maybe you need a better class of friends. :) Newyorkbrad 15:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

hehehe...i dunno. :) at least the people here are friendly. Usually. But maybe thats because of WP:BITE. Quatreryukami 15:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:200 / WP:300

Good idea and thanks, for putting the 200s back into the 200 page. That was silly of me to just carry them over... - Denny 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just wondering

Does the rv. apply to any sort of revert, because I won't be contributing on Armenian-Azerbaijan articles until the case is closed. I intend to work on science related articles, would the injunction apply there too? Fad (ix) 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be best if you asked that question on the talkpage of the arbitration decision, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Proposed decision, or that of the arbitrator who made the proposal. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I shouldnt even be on that list. I did not participate in any of the Armenian Azerbaijani conflict articles. I only stuck to Iranian related articles. Grandmaster probably put me on the list through bad faith, trying to get back at me or trying to take me "down" with him. I made this clear several times, even to an admin.Azerbaijani 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just giving a notification as a Clerk for the Committee and have no control over the list of parties. If you do not believe you should be subject to this remedy, you can raise the issue on the talkpage of the proposed decision (see just above for link). Newyorkbrad 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Further thoughts

The first time I posted to your talk page was over a week ago; it's now in the WP BLP and 3RR section in your talk Archive 4. I'm back because user MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently deleted content from another user's talk page:  first deletion • second deletion • third deletion.

I'm reluctant to restore the content myself, as any act of mine may invite further deletions, so I'm turning again to you as per your reply last week, "Let's see how this user's editing evolves from here, and let me know if you have any further thoughts."   I'll watch your page for a reply—thanks! — Athænara ✉ 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a note not to do this again. Removal of personal attacks is sometimes appropriate, but except in extreme circumstances this is better done by an uninvolved person. Newyorkbrad 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, thank you. — Æ. ✉ 07:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a question...

Hi, Newyorkbrad.

I am one of the Users to make a statement at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#2004_Madrid_train_bombings.

I want to make a "diff intensive" statement, so I have to check hundreds of diffs to support my case.

How much time is reasonable to present your statement after being notified that you are cited at the ArbCom?. I was thinking in a week...

Thank you. Randroide 07:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration guidelines suggest that you should have at least seven days, and the committee has several cases ahead of yours, so if you get finished in one week I think you will be fine. I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to a case already accepted, not one still on the RfAr page. You should get a preliminary statement written within the next day or two. Please bear in mind that at this stage, the purpose of your statement is simply to present your position on whether the Arbitration Committee should decide the case presented. The relevant evidence is whether there is a serious dispute, whether prior dispute resolution has been attempted, etc. Your statement should not exceed approximately 500 words. Please bear in mind that if the case is accepted, you will have a complete opportunity to present evidence and proposals at that time. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, Newyorkbrad. I hurried up and I presented a cropped version of my statement, only with the essentials of the case. Randroide 20:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Someone already violated it, I added this, than he removed it, when I moved the page he moved it back, any saying on this? thats 3 reverts on his part Artaxiad 10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am issuing him a warning note. All parties are admonished in the strongest terms to avoid any conduct that could be perceived as violating the temporary injunction. Any violations can be cause for blocking now and will also not favorably impress the arbitrators when they make their final decision. Proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Armenia-Azerbaijan evidence page needs refactoring

The evidence page for the Armenia-Azerbaijan case has become a 100-kilobyte mess, with several editors (AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad, and Atabek) freely editing the evidence sections of others in response to charges against them. Can you please refactor the page and/or remind the above editors about editing the sections of others? Scobell302 11:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I will follow up. Thanks for the reminder. Newyorkbrad 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

T.R.O.L.L.

To be honest, I'm having some trouble understanding exactly what you mean. Which case are you referring to? David Mestel 18:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal Free Republic - If you look at the page history of the workshop and read the section I deleted, you will see what I am referring to. If you have any questions after that please drop me an e-mail. Newyorkbrad 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail! David Mestel 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Seen and responded to - and see correction above. Newyorkbrad 18:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration

No, you got it all wrong, it's user:Atabek and user:AdilBaguirov that placed comments on my evidence to which i replied to them. I even told them this is not a forum and we're not suppost to discuss on the evidence! - Fedayee 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you appear to be quite right. I will withdraw the notice I left on your page. Newyorkbrad 18:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration

I removed a part, please be more descriptive about this I do not know what to do, or when you guys are going to reply or you're opinions, most of us are good contributors and this is killing us, what if I miss a spot are you going to block me? you can remove my comments, because I might miss a few, Adil is bringing on false statements on how I use Ips I replied he changed the subject there making false statements, thats very frustrating. Artaxiad 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to block anyone.

Thank you for your help on the evidence page. I will take a look tomorrow and clean up anything else that shouldn't be there. Remember that the purpose of the evidence page is simply to help the arbitrators decide what is the fairest way to resolve this case. The best thing for you to do is to present your evidence, respond to any questions the arbitrators have, and stay away from anything that could be taken as edit-warring in any form. I hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow

For the record, I am disheartened by Doc's departure. I didn't want to run him off, even though he appears to have wanted to run me off. All I wanted - and all I want - is that WP:BLP be enforced as written, not as he (or any other individual admin) wanted to see it - and if the way it should be enforced is different from what's written, to have the written policy changed to match the practice.

I'm not going to post this to Doc's talk page, since I almost certainly am at least part of the reason he left. He wrote me off as a troll a few days ago. Any suggestions as to where I might say something along these lines? -- Jay Maynard 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RFARMENIA

Like my title? Anyways, I've got a question: is this the correct way to present evidence? Or should I be more wordy and less list-based? Also, I'm not sure where you want that clerk note you snuck in - at the bottom, or where you put it. Picaroon 00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The format of your evidence is fine. Basically, any format of evidence is acceptable as long as it communicates the information in a reasonably clear and succinct way. Just ask yourself, if I had to understand a problem in a part of Misplaced Pages that I didn't know anything about, would this information be useful to me?

The location of the clerk note doesn't really matter because tomorrow I will clean up the presentations of anyone who hasn't done it for him or herself, and at that point I will delete all those notes anyway. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan evidence page comments

I've removed all my supplementary comments from the Evidence page. Thanks for letting me know. In my defense though, I've started leaving my responses only after User:Artaxiad has left his comments in my statement. --AdilBaguirov 09:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

About the case, two users have no time to provide their evidences, two who are implicated in this case, so some of the materials I have presented. I have asked them if they want I present evidences in their name. They will provide all they had the time to present and I will be working on them expend them and present them. Also, since the evidences I will be providing are extensive, I will be way over the 100 diff. I am already well over. Could there be anything on this? I haven't placed much text in my evidence about article content, or interpretation but sticked to things which could not much be interpreted, but as compressed as it could, presenting also two others provided evidence plus those I have gathered, it is very difficult for me to respect the limit. See my evidence by yourself, it is compacted as much as possible and unlike others I haven't presented content dispute stuff, it is impossible to respect the limits. Fad (ix) 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Post what you have from them, make it as reasonable as possible, and the arbitrators and clerks can take a look at it. Newyorkbrad 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my userpage. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Signature

I have no objections to changing it, if you require me to do so. However I will not change it at the behest of Astrotrain. Astrotrain is currently engaging in POV pushing against Irish Republican articles and his attempts to get them deleted are not based on Misplaced Pages guidelines or policies. He is also trolling numerous talk pages ignoring guidelines and policies to push his bias. Thanks. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)